No.54_Reddog

@InProgress I'm sure there was a point in that post, but i failed to find it. First you said that SP isn't developed because of money and because people don't want AI that kill them, then you say that simulators are perfect for SP. Next you say that online games need micro transactions and loot boxes to make money...? We are talking about flight simulators here right? I can't think of any flight Sims that have either. I'm confused but never mind. They're just resting.

I'm not sure that logic holds to be honest. I own many games of all genres but I can only play one at a time and my tastes and interests wane. By your logic, despite me not currently flying CLOD or BOS or DCS online (or indeed any of the other games like Asseto Corsa or Rome total War) I am a single player. That's simply not true. I'm not disputing that SP may hold a greater share of any given player base. However we have no way of knowing truly. How many people buy a game, play it once and move on? How many people play a game, play it a few times and decide to wait till the next patch or release? If SP was truly the dominant share and developers could quantifiably demonstrate that, wouldn't you think that they'd spend far more resources on AI, SP campaigns and bug fixing of critical SP content and support? Actually Spiritus, I'd argue that small changes are exactly what updates we need to see. We are ultimately a visual species and seeing images or videos, even if they're not radically different would make a difference to the static currently. Someone made a comment above about being surprised that TF haven't done a "sod it all" and walked away. Several have over the years. My fear has always been that the steam graphs don't lie. There are not thousands and thousands of silent enthusiasts waiting in the wings to buy this new game/patch. I mean, if that were true then chances are someone in your workplace or your family and friends (not including your squadron mates) is among them. Go ahead, ask around. My money is most don't even know CLOD exists, let alone TF5. All this work. All this angst. All this effort and all this time. And I'd bet my mortgage ** on there being no where near the 50, 000 copies required to get to TF6 being sold. My entire squadron has turned it's back on CLOD and will never come back. I know other groups who are the same. So yes. Updates. Updates. Updates. And when you're done with that, more updates. Show us what the last 4 years amounts to. Even if it's a before and after of a rivet or a piece of grass that's been moved. **in the interests of transparency I should point out I don't have a mortgage so it's a pretty safe bet.

Chaps, some of you are forgetting that all is on track. Buzzsaw has repeatedly since 2016 told us that there is a plan, they are working to that plan and everything on the plan is planned. The fact that they've never shared the plan and no one I have ever spoken to knows what that plan is is irrelevant. I'm sure that like death and taxes, TF5 being released is inevitable. None of us may be around to see it, but it will happen. I'm certain. OK. Maybe 95%. Ish. Let's call it 50:50?

I think a "breather" crewed b17 raid of 10's of aircraft would be something to behold. But I doubt any multiplayer code could handle it for probably the next 50 years even given CLODs preeminence in this field. I mean, b17 crew of 10 or 11 per plane, you could eat up all the slots and not even get a full box and that's not counting the guys flying escort or trying to intercept them. But my vote is for B17.

Their loss I guess.

Quite possibly inferring from what appeared to be reference to a patcher of some description. "This is because the team is also introducing a new release and patch procedure - which will be used to roll out further patches between now and the release of TF 5.0." Only if it is still installed. If it's not then they won't get any notification at all. Having said that I believe most of those I know who have uninstalled the game wouldn't reinstall regardless of this patch, the next patch or release of TF5.

Congrats on your achievements. Any particular reason the other reported long grass issues from 2015 didn't get fixed? (769 and 768 amongst others) I note that the target version of each is still 4.312 which if memory serves is now 3 patches ago? Also, 774 is still marked as "In Progress". Normal process in development would have been to have moved that to some sort of release candidate stage and then closed once UAT and release had occurred. Meant to add... what's the rationale for the patcher? Isn't that what Steam is for? Are you planning on ditching Steam?

Well in fairness we have had 3 years of "Jam tomorrow"... until you publish a schedule and plan, people are going to speculate based on their experience to date, it's human nature.

And thats to be expected but it flies in the face of your previous comment I've already paid for 4.5 which technically I didn't need to do. Normal companies are usually grateful for paying customers. And since you keep threatening me with legal action, maybe I should keep my money in hand for that eventuality. Having said that, the history of this thread shows that something said in the past doesn't dictate future outcomes. Maybe my goals will change when TF5 is released and I see how great it is? Until then I have made my point and will leave it there.

Um no. No you haven't. Not even close. TF5 release in 2016 anyone? Having said that it's very easy to claim you hit your goals when you don't publish them and they move behind the scenes. By all means be proud of what you have achieved and the impact you've had which is remarkable but stay away from the hyperbole. Especially when there is plenty of evidence laying about.

One thing I've not been clear on in my own mind is the situation regarding ongoing updates and fixes to the Channel Map and original CLOD aircraft in a post TF5 world. Forgive me if I have missed a previous announcement or comment on this. I can see a number of possible routes here and it would be nice to understand how TF plan to address this issue. Will I as a paying customer of TF having bought TF4.5 Blitz have to pay for TF5 and onwards to receive further fixes to the Channel Map and original CLOD aircraft or will I continue to receive those as oncoming support for a product I've paid for? To be clear here, I do not expect to be given new content be it; new maps, new aircraft, new ground objects as part of this support, that is very clearly in the realm of DLC. But, I do not think it's unreasonable to expect that bugs and issues present for many years and reported by the community or that are newly seen within the latest release might be covered by ongoing support and seen as separate to the DLC development. Indeed that would appear to be the IL2 Great Battles approach. Of course it might be that all bugs are squashed and all issues resolved in an interim patch prior to TF5 release in which case the point is moot. It would be good to know what the situation is/will be.

Lol. It's not splitting the playerbase at all. Based on the evidence, there's a VERY small number of players playing CLOD these days.

How so Buzzsaw? I see a couple of facts including one you acknowledge yourself (regarding sales of aircraft pre TF5) and I'd summarise the rest of the post as personal opinion and suggestions. I'm genuinely interested to know what you think is "misinformation" in that post - and while his theories as to community engagement may be supposition and personal opinion I'm not sure that anyone least of all you is in a position to label them "misunderstandings". You can disagree with him all you like but I don't think you can say someone's opinion is flat out wrong... it is their opinion! Personally i do disagree with him regarding the availability of US aircraft increasing CLOD's popularity - I think that boat has long since sailed but I'm sure your imminent release will prove me wrong. (There's always a first time😉)

The irony of which being that TFS gain zero income from anything pre TF5.0. So all you did was put money in 1C's pocket.

The issue is of course Flare, that runs contrary to any professional or serious implementation of such a feature and negates the point of the roadmap on that tracking software which shows users an expected release map. https://tfbt.nuvturais.de/projects/il2clodtf/roadmap Don't get me wrong, a version affected field wouldn't be out of place but to repurpose like this is just daft IMO. But it's clear they know exactly what they're doing, oh yes.