No.54_Reddog

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.

Ceasar, Thanks for the reply. I applaud your efforts to sort the BT out even if I disagree on the methodology being implemented. I hope you are supported by the rest of the team and that your actions result in better outcomes. You can close the thread if you want. Reddog

Thanks. That was kind of my point. Updating the target version to something still yet to come rather than a version 2 or 3 steps back would seem to be more useful for all parties.

There are plenty of fields available to accurately reflect the current status of the item, that's why it's called a tracker. They simply refuse to use it properly and something I've banged on about before. I know it won't change. Nothing does.

So on checking my email this morning I see that 12 of the bugs I have posted on the Tracker have been updated. Now don't get me wrong, I have long found the TFBT to be a source of frustration and anger so it's good to see it finally being put to use. Also was good to see a number of later duplicates closed/merged with earlier raised or related issues a week or so back. I'm just not entirely sure what benefit there is in updating bugs raised two if not three years ago with a target version of 4.312...?? You do realise that was released some time ago right - why not put a version number that makes sense, somewhere from 4.53 onwards. Even if it's 7.89, it gives the user a level of expectation and feedback on the priority or merits or difficulty of the issue...