Wait -- why did I preorder the premium?

[Mac_Messer]

It'd be quite amusing (and I suspect depressing) to do a comparison between the release candidates for CloD and BoS.  I quite like the CloD mod now and just hope that TF can keep going.

Well given what RoF was at its release, you should probably reconsider.

[VeryOldMan]

Incorrect. In the case of RoF/BoS are made by the same producer, which clearly is not the case for Ue based games.

 

 

How many games have you develop in your life?  How much you know about  physics and  graphical engine engineering? What is your expertise to  support that view of yours? BEcause  peopel that know about this stuff, would   just laugh at this statement of yours. 

 

Having the same engine is no where   near being a MOD.

 

Fallout 3 and oblivion  share the same  engine.  Not same game, Europe  universalis IV and   Victoria 2 have same engine... not same game.  The list goes on.. almost infinitely.

[Matt]

Incorrect. In the case of RoF/BoS are made by the same producer, which clearly is not the case for Ue based games.

Hmm, Gears of War? Is that a mod now or not?

 

Also is every mod that's not made by the producer of the game, automatically not a mod, but a new game?

 

Kind of confused by your statements to be honest.

[Mac_Messer]

Hmm, Gears of War? Is that a mod now or not?

 

Also is every mod that's not made by the producer of the game, automatically not a mod, but a new game?

 

Kind of confused by your statements to be honest.

The only thing I did was poining out that your Ue analogy is wrong. Why you go further into it I don`t know. You confused yourself.

How many games have you develop in your life?  How much you know about  physics and  graphical engine engineering? What is your expertise to  support that view of yours? BEcause  peopel that know about this stuff, would   just laugh at this statement of yours. 

 

Your take on it is rather interesting seeing that pretty much anything of BoS not seen/done that is asked about, is given the same answer - RoF.

[VeryOldMan]

Maybe because that is their  standard, they have the same game designers that  consider the same things to be crutial and important.   You coudl redo the game on a new engine, but with the same game designers  and main engineers you could keep giving the same answer.

[FlatSpinMan]

Mac Messer - can you ease up a bit? You post as if you are the source of all absolute knowledge. It is not conducive to healthy, good natured discussion, which is what we aim for on these boards.

[Matt]

The only thing I did was poining out that your Ue analogy is wrong. Why you go further into it I don`t know. You confused yourself.

Both the Unreal Engine and Gears of War have the same developer. So i don't think my Ue analogy was wrong after all.

 

(And just to avoid further evasion from your side: I was assuming that you meant developer with "producer", incase you meant publisher with "producer", BoS has a different publisher than RoF)

[Mac_Messer]

Mac Messer - can you ease up a bit? You post as if you are the source of all absolute knowledge. It is not conducive to healthy, good natured discussion, which is what we aim for on these boards.

I speak of things based of information given out by the developpers. It is not my intent to misinform or lie. Everything I write here I think is true. It is not my responsibility that other people post just out of their need to oppose me, without actually challenging the gist of it.

[VeryOldMan]

Calling it a Mod is wrong by all the definitiosn used in game industry, that is why you are goign to get Flak upon a statement like that. Want to express an opinion? Well, try doing it within the boundaries of the concepts universally accepted, somethign essential for proper communication without  conflict.

[Mac_Messer]

Both the Unreal Engine and Gears of War have the same developer. So i don't think my Ue analogy was wrong after all.

 

(And just to avoid further evasion from your side: I was assuming that you meant developer with "producer", incase you meant publisher with "producer", BoS has a different publisher than RoF)

I don`t think that when GoW devs were asked about different aspects of the game, the dominant answer was "lookup Unreal so you get the idea". A mod is what it`s called - a modification of the standard. From what devs said, BoS shares with RoF more than less.

[VeryOldMan]

That usually happens when you are makign a  SIM, instead of a fantasy shootter, because seems  try to mimic the same thing.. reality.  So if you use same tools to mimic the same  thing, the resultsa will not be  much   different.   That woudl happen even if you start the development  from the ground, using same engine (tools).

[Mac_Messer]

That usually happens when you are makign a  SIM, instead of a fantasy shootter, because seems  try to mimic the same thing.. reality.  So if you use same tools to mimic the same  thing, the resultsa will not be  much   different.   That woudl happen even if you start the development  from the ground, using same engine (tools).

Maybe, although it is obvious that because of lack of time to develop a full standalone, a lot of what BoS uses is taken straight from RoF with subtle changes, if any.

[VeryOldMan]

That is  called not wasting money. ITs not an industry that  can  afford to throw away the money already used  to develop things previously. Simple economics,   not even bethesda can afford to   throw away everythignt hey develop from one title to the other.

[Laser]

... and of course the Spitfire is just an armoured car mod.

[Matt]

I don`t think that when GoW devs were asked about different aspects of the game, the dominant answer was "lookup Unreal so you get the idea". A mod is what it`s called - a modification of the standard. From what devs said, BoS shares with RoF more than less.

So i guess you're saying that GoW is not a mod, because it's not similar enough to Unreal.

 

So you're basically saying that a game is only a mod if

 

The producer is the same, and

The engine is the same, and

They share the same overall theme (fictional enviroments like Unreal and GoW are not enough, WW1 flightsim and WW2 flightsim is enough)

 

I guess that also rules out all those free "mods" right (producers rarely produce anything for free).

 

In that case, most people who ever used the term mod (inluding those guys developing those mods) have been incorrect in using the term and BoS might one of the few examples where this is actually true (probably the only example, if you want to make it fit your anology again).

 

Thanks alot for your explanation. BoS is clearly a mod, because the same devs are working on it and because they are not making a complete new engine from scratch and because a WW2 flightsim is practically the same as a WW1 flightsim. You convinced me now.

[VeryOldMan]

So i guess you're saying that GoW is not a mod, because it's not similar enough to Unreal.

 

So you're basically saying that a game is only a mod if

 

The producer is the same, and

The engine is the same, and

They share the same overall theme (fictional enviroments like Unreal and GoW are not enough, WW1 flightsim and WW2 flightsim is enough)

 

I guess that also rules out all those free "mods" right (producers rarely produce anything for free).

 

In that case, most people who ever used the term mod (inluding those guys developing those mods) have been incorrect in using the term and BoS might one of the few examples where this is actually true (probably the only example, if you want to make it fit your anology again).

 

Thanks alot for your explanation. BoS is clearly a mod, because the same devs are working on it and because they are not making a complete new engine from scratch and because a WW2 flightsim is practically the same as a WW1 flightsim. You convinced me now.

 

 

Since its so easy..   can I convince you to send me all your money?

[Recon]

 

Good post Avatar13. There is plenty of info about BoS on this site for anyone who cares to do some research. I can't speak for anyone else but I usually try to find out what I need to do before a big purchase. $90 isn't going to break me but I wouldn't just throw it away needlessly either. I'm confident we will all end up with a quality product in the near future. If I wasn't confident in that I would wait until its official release. Some people here are either over thinking this entire process or just stirring the pot.

 

 

 

yes, agree, I think Avatar summed it up nicely.

So i guess you're saying that GoW is not a mod, because it's not similar enough to Unreal.

 

So you're basically saying that a game is only a mod if

 

The producer is the same, and

The engine is the same, and

They share the same overall theme (fictional enviroments like Unreal and GoW are not enough, WW1 flightsim and WW2 flightsim is enough)

 

I guess that also rules out all those free "mods" right (producers rarely produce anything for free).

 

In that case, most people who ever used the term mod (inluding those guys developing those mods) have been incorrect in using the term and BoS might one of the few examples where this is actually true (probably the only example, if you want to make it fit your anology again).

 

Thanks alot for your explanation. BoS is clearly a mod, because the same devs are working on it and because they are not making a complete new engine from scratch and because a WW2 flightsim is practically the same as a WW1 flightsim. You convinced me now.

 

personally, glad to see it - doing a complete rewrite everytime we want a new ww2 flight sim takes too long and cost too much money.

 

I see DCS WW2 is also taking this approach.

 

Quite honestly, the only reason I even trusted this sim was that I'm a ROF owner and I trust that BoS will be good and also will provide more future content.

[Mac_Messer]

So i guess you're saying that GoW is not a mod, because it's not similar enough to Unreal.

No. All I am saying is that RoF was modified into BoS. Seems we get confirmations of it every week. Same FMB, same business model, graphics engine, sound engine, no apparent new features that would make BoS something closer to a standalone. Everything else is your own deliberation.

[dburne]

No. All I am saying is that RoF was modified into BoS. Seems we get confirmations of it every week. Same FMB, same business model, graphics engine, sound engine, no apparent new features that would make BoS something closer to a standalone. Everything else is your own deliberation.

 

So are you seeing that as a problem? It was stated from the very beginning, BOS would be using the same engine as ROF, with some improvements made to the engine for BOS that may eventually feed back into ROF. In fact they just did one with the latest update to ROF, much quicker load time when launching the sim. That came from a tweak they made to the engine for BOS.

 

777 was very upfront about this from the very start - which is why they are able to get a WWII sim to the market in just over a year. Which is why one of the most common asked questions regarding system requirements, or how it might run on one's current system, the most common answer is to just download the F2P version of ROF and see how it runs.

 

It was also stated as well, while it will have many similarities, it will also have content unique to it , and not use quite the same business model as ROF - details of which we still have not been told yet, as I am sure they are still working on that as well.

 

I have been flying ROF off and on for the last 8 months, namely because of the announcement of BOS - and knowing now what I know about ROF, am very excited with the possibilities for BOS utilizing some of the same code. But I certainly do not view BOS as an update to, or mod of, ROF. I view it as a new WWII sim for us, continuing the IL2 name - good times.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

No. All I am saying is that RoF was modified into BoS. Seems we get confirmations of it every week. Same FMB, same business model, graphics engine, sound engine, no apparent new features that would make BoS something closer to a standalone. Everything else is your own deliberation.

 

Eh?

 

It's not the same business model, it's an upgraded engine (don't tell me clos was entirely new either lol), DM will have to be new, who know's about the sound at this stage, the Terane graphics are different and include bump mapping. So basically everything is different...maybe not different enough for you but it's different. Also why on earth would they try to make a new engine from scratch when they can simple continue to improve what they already have? Oleg tried that and it was a complete shambles.

 

And by the way I am a fan of CLOD and fly it quite a bit but when the sim came out there were obvious place holders from IL2 in it and it's curious how the aircraft couldn't fly higher than 7000m eh :D

 

No one is forcing anyone to buy the bloody sim I just don't get why the same old "Why should I buy it" stuff keeps getting churned out. If you even remotely feel that way don't buy it.

[Matt]

Since its so easy..   can I convince you to send me all your money?

Already done!  

 

 

same business model

Let's wait and see...

Unlocking mods is quite far from RoF's business model. Overall RoF's business model has changed quite a bit over the past few years in the first place.

 

 

no apparent new features that would make BoS something closer to a standalone

What new features would you have considered enough to give it "standalone" status. I'm really curious now. A complete shift to a different era and theatre, improved graphics and the implementation of new features (necessary for WW2 planes) don't seem to count, so what's left if we talk about flightsims?

 

That's basically punishing developers for making a complete product or adding additional features to that first project of theirs (for free, if i might add), instead of only putting every new feature in a completely new standalone product. And the reward for that is that a new game is called a "mod".

[Jason_Williams]

No. All I am saying is that RoF was modified into BoS. Seems we get confirmations of it every week. Same FMB, same business model, graphics engine, sound engine, no apparent new features that would make BoS something closer to a standalone. Everything else is your own deliberation.

 

You are wrong on every count. If you continue to lie about what our product is you will be banned. I get enough complaints about you as it is.

 

Jason

[Mac_Messer]

Feel free to verify that if you want. Other than that, not nice to talk to potential customers like that. One day it will comeback and bite you in your behind.

[Rjel]

I'm all for customer service. But there comes a point where the potential loss of a customer is outweighed by the negative impact on the business by that same customer. 

[Sethos]

Feel free to verify that if you want. Other than that, not nice to talk to potential customers like that. One day it will comeback and bite you in your behind.

 

You are just here to be an ass and get some attention. 

Edited September 2, 2013 by Sethos

[thx1138]

Feel free to verify that if you want. Other than that, not nice to talk to potential customers like that. One day it will comeback and bite you in your behind.

 

 

Wow really ? Do you actually think before you type ?

 

Tell ya what. You don't buy the game, I'll just buy an extra copy and give it to someone else, that way the dev's will not miss your money at all. The loss of you will be a gain for someone else.

[Jason_Williams]

This is the usual response from professional troublemakers. They bitch and moan about a title while clearly showing they have an agenda for such complaining. Then when I call them on it, they threaten me with lost business and become self-righteous and claim to be a victim. Get's old and I'm over it. Every one of my customer's get's treated fairly by me and our team if they are being honest with us. We have a long track record of giving our customers what they want and treating them nicely, but we are not punching bags and enough is enough with some users who have an agenda.

 

Jason

[71st_AH_Hooves]

I'm all for some discussion MAC, but I think you crawled up the wrong tree on this one lol. I think the base problem is you see all of rof as a failure and terrible game. So really anything to you using its engine is also a failure.

 

The facts are that rof is a success, its fun, its in depth, and it functions amazingly well. Like the game or not. These are kind of Indisputable facts. So I'm not sorry to say that you are on the wrong end of the stick on this one. If your bias had not shown before this, then your just laid your cards on the table, and in that case I'm not sure what you are doing here other than to bash 777 and their team.

 

I hope that if you do stick around we can talk more about WWII and less about the virtual nuts and bolts of the engine running it. As that argument has kind of been proven to be not only incorrect on your part. But heavily inflammatory in the community.

 

 

Btw I hope you pre order, I heard you were a decent stick. And the reds are gonna need some good pilots.

Cheers

[Bearcat]

What you feel is irrelevant. Face the facts. CloD was all new, BoS is just a RoF mod.

 

Like FB was an IL2 mod huh...? Or was it an entirely different product based on the same engine...

 

Well given what RoF was at its release, you should probably reconsider.

 

RoF had issues .. but at it's core it was solid.. that is why it is still around and still gaining new pilots ... and also why the modified engine was used for BoS..

 

I speak of things based of information given out by the developpers. It is not my intent to misinform or lie. Everything I write here I think is true. It is not my responsibility that other people post just out of their need to oppose me, without actually challenging the gist of it.

 

Oh but we do and often... You just state your opinion as fact and regardless to what is brought before you to counter what you post you still stick to your guns..

 

No. All I am saying is that RoF was modified into BoS. Seems we get confirmations of it every week. Same FMB, same business model, graphics engine, sound engine, no apparent new features that would make BoS something closer to a standalone. Everything else is your own deliberation.

 

No RoF is still RoF .. BoS is BoS ..

 

Feel free to verify that if you want. Other than that, not nice to talk to potential customers like that. One day it will comeback and bite you in your behind.

 

Yes but are you a potential customer? You don't act like one... most of your posts are negative, derogatory, often insulting and inflammatory.. you go on and on in this glass half empty line of reasoning and yet you have as your Avatar the poster child for a mismanaged product .. and this is the farthest from a mismanaged project I have seen in 14 years... In fact I think it is probably one of the best run, most informative, and most consistent development processes for a flight sim ever... Yet at every turn you keep coming back with how it isn't insert your beef here .. Those are your opinions which you are entitled to and one reason why you are allowed to post in spite of your constant negative rhetoric, but it does get old... it HAS gotten old.. because it just doesn't hold water.. at all.. so you look irrational going on and on about how bad things are in the face of regular on time updates updates .. BoS was announced 9 months ago and look where it is at now.. and we have had good information every week for the past 9 months with the exception of one or two... Yet ... you can still come to this thread on the pre order.. and call BoS nothing but an RoF mod... and you do not see the    in that at all..? C'mon man... You are no noob.. You have been around .... just see how it goes .. you know good and well that if the product is not up to speed the community will let the team know.. but you have to admit that this team has set goals and reached them time and time again .. so all that negativity is just .. ...

[Mac_Messer]

I'm all for some discussion MAC, but I think you crawled up the wrong tree on this one lol. I think the base problem is you see all of rof as a failure and terrible game. So really anything to you using its engine is also a failure.

 

The facts are that rof is a success, its fun, its in depth, and it functions amazingly well. Like the game or not. These are kind of Indisputable facts. So I'm not sorry to say that you are on the wrong end of the stick on this one. If your bias had not shown before this, then your just laid your cards on the table, and in that case I'm not sure what you are doing here other than to bash 777 and their team.

 

I hope that if you do stick around we can talk more about WWII and less about the virtual nuts and bolts of the engine running it. As that argument has kind of been proven to be not only incorrect on your part. But heavily inflammatory in the community.

 

 

Btw I hope you pre order, I heard you were a decent stick. And the reds are gonna need some good pilots.

Cheers

I`m surprised that you think this way. It would be irrational to question RoF`s success. I also do not criticize the ROF business model as imo it`s merely a necessity. The things I talk about of RoF in context of BoS is features which urgently need reworking in order to fit into a WWII virtual environment. Even if those features must be implemented now for economic reasons, they need to be extended in the future. Needless to say, my most concern is the online play. Will the engine provide good, easy tools to create an mp scene we have yet to see. The thing in which I find others disagreeing most with me is that RoF feature don`t have to be a success here. It is not said it will work for sure. WWII operations differ vastly over WWI and if I didn`t miss anything, 777 has yet to prove a good WWII combatflightsim.

 

The general mindset I see in this forum is It will work as a charm, for sure, no worries whereas my mindset is it`s a different thing and it doesn`t have to work because so and so + some questions. That is my only "agenda" as some of you choose to call it. And I find people`s attitude here extremely hostile towards such mindset. I`ve been asked before what I don`t like and what I`d like different, and I answered such questions in a constructive way. I pointed out what could pose a serious problem. The main argument I come across that RoF has a small mp base is that it is a niche in a niche. That is surely partly correct but it is not nearly the whole story. The FMB alone shows that.

 

And I didn`t take any side regardless of why some people feel a burning need to put me in a certain cathegory. You call my posts "bashing" because I`m one of few people to have a different point of view than the rest. If you frequent different internet forums you should know that what you call "bashing" on my part is merely a whisper compared to real bashin people are able to show and organise, taking posting a vid of cracking a gamedvd on the forum into account. It is just a matter of time when the wider public comes across this sim and into this forum, you will have such an amount of work cleaning, you`ll hardly notice me.

[Mac_Messer]

Like FB was an IL2 mod huh...? Or was it an entirely different product based on the same engine...

 

 

RoF had issues .. but at it's core it was solid.. that is why it is still around and still gaining new pilots ... and also why the modified engine was used for BoS..

 

 

Oh but we do and often... You just state your opinion as fact and regardless to what is brought before you to counter what you post you still stick to your guns..

 

No RoF is still RoF .. BoS is BoS ..

 

 

Yes but are you a potential customer? You don't act like one... most of your posts are negative, derogatory, often insulting and inflammatory.. you go on and on in this glass half empty line of reasoning and yet you have as your Avatar the poster child for a mismanaged product .. and this is the farthest from a mismanaged project I have seen in 14 years... In fact I think it is probably one of the best run, most informative, and most consistent development processes for a flight sim ever... Yet at every turn you keep coming back with how it isn't insert your beef here .. Those are your opinions which you are entitled to and one reason why you are allowed to post in spite of your constant negative rhetoric, but it does get old... it HAS gotten old.. because it just doesn't hold water.. at all.. so you look irrational going on and on about how bad things are in the face of regular on time updates updates .. BoS was announced 9 months ago and look where it is at now.. and we have had good information every week for the past 9 months with the exception of one or two... Yet ... you can still come to this thread on the pre order.. and call BoS nothing but an RoF mod... and you do not see the    in that at all..? C'mon man... You are no noob.. You have been around .... just see how it goes .. you know good and well that if the product is not up to speed the community will let the team know.. but you have to admit that this team has set goals and reached them time and time again .. so all that negativity is just .. ...

Based on what I said earlier, I would qualify FB as a mod too.

 

I`m not denying any of that.

 

It is perfectly understandable, but you seem not reading my posts. Maybe as a mod you only read the reported ones. The only reason that I state it as a fact is that I authentically think it is true. For example this guy there, he jumped me because I said that none of you even saw the FW190 yet, putting in my mouth whatever he imagined. Why do I have to bare responsibility for that?

 

So far that is only theory. We`ll see when the beta gets released.

 

Again, you`re showing a deeply defensive stance on something you feel the need to defend. You associate those feelings with my posts for whatever reason. Yet you ignore those who insult me directly. You are awfully mistaking.

 

I couldn`t care less what you think of my avatar although it answers the question why some of you attack me just because of it. It is not my responsibility what you associate with this avatar and I shouldn`t be the one to answer for simply having it.  Yes it was mismanaged, and you did your part to whine it into oblivion. But you should move on. Again, don`t blame *me* for it.

 

Yes, I come back with my beefs because I want this project to succeed. Yes, it is an opinion. If it is negative, it is deserved. For example the graphics just look outdated. And I`m not forcing anyone to like it or change his opinion.

 

Yes, BoS was announced 9 months ago and look what…video stream so far shown two flyables with (from what it is said in it by Jason Williams no less) no collision model of its own, no dm so far. No ground battles shown, no df shown. Just two flyables start and go and land. Maybe great for you, not so great for me.   Well it seems a mod to me. I mean Jason just stated I`m wrong on all accounts but I`m pretty sure that he himself said that FMB we will get straight from RoF. So maybe not on all accounts. Anyway, when your posts are so vague as he is few pots upward then there is bound to be speculation.

 

Yes, I`m no new to this. I was here and there during the years. So I can say what could possibly blow up in devs` face if not changed. I intend to stay here, ask some more questions and see if this piece of software is finally up to my standards so I can preorder. That is if I will be able to, because after October it seems I will not be able. You on the other hand could keep a closer eye on those who bait and insult me just because they think it is ok because you scolded me.  

 

[Zmaj76]

@Mac - Im perfectly fine with BOS using "advanced" ROF engine...its not bad at all...its a great looking engine (even though is DX9), good performing on non nuclear rigs,  which has somewhat limited NO of units it can use in one MP mission (the biggest flaw)....I hope this will improve for the sake of future online wars (SEOW etc)....Thers a much bigger issue....Jason was right when he said they are listening to their customers (last example is unlocking planes in SP idea)....but they "failed" in the most important "demand" of ROFs MP community - to fix existing FMs in ROF (now, 2 yrs no fixes)....which consequently lead to very wrong relative performances between planes...which is a no go for historic MP missions some of us (they say we are few hehe) want...

I hope they would not make such decisions with BOS (good things is that ww2 documents/tests are available in larger numbers than those from ww1). I just hope they will not use tests (perf results) from battle worn planes on one plane and tests from factory fresh planes on another. And that we wil have FMs updated and fixed on the go as it was done in IL2 46....

 

Also, it seams that market in 2014 will offer interesting solutions for hardcore prop sim lovers.....the best will survive...simple as that...

 

and BTW as I said numerous times before...the best marketing approach was done by Bohemia...lets say, standard edition alpha for 20 bucks (try and report bugs), then, later beta for 35 (try and report bugs) and once full game is released - for 50 bucks (happy new customer who has feedbacks)...

Edited September 3, 2013 by Tvrdi

[Skoshi_Tiger]

From what I understand, both RoF and BoS are designed to use the Digital Nature engine which provides the underling physics and graphics modeling for the sim.

 

I assume (please correct me if I am wrong) while BoS is being developed it would use a separate development version of the Digital Nature engine to ensure that it does not have any detrimental effect on ROF during the development process.

 

To me ( as an owner of RoF from the beginning ) I'd hope that at some point in the future some sort of synchronization would occur to allow any improvements to the DN engine to flow on to RoF.

[VeryOldMan]

By  some news recently they do are using what they learn and  improve in BOS  into ROF. That is natural, and  in fact the  chaper and most efficient way to develop software. But probably now they are focused in their  tight timeline ..

[=BKHZ=Furbs]

Jason has already said improvements should filter down to ROF, in fact they have already, the decrease in ROF loading up is a direct result of BOS's development.

[Trooper117]

Yep, very impressed with that result already!

[Bearcat]

Based on what I said earlier, I would qualify FB as a mod too. I`m not denying any of that.

It is perfectly understandable, but you seem not reading my posts. Maybe as a mod you only read the reported ones. The only reason that I state it as a fact is that I authentically think it is true. For example this guy there, he jumped me because I said that none of you even saw the FW190 yet, putting in my mouth whatever he imagined. Why do I have to bare responsibility for that? So far that is only theory. We`ll see when the beta gets released. Again, you`re showing a deeply defensive stance on something you feel the need to defend.

 

You associate those feelings with my posts for whatever reason. Yet you ignore those who insult me directly. You are awfully mistaking.

I couldn`t care less what you think of my avatar although it answers the question why some of you attack me just because of it. It is not my responsibility what you associate with this avatar and I shouldn`t be the one to answer for simply having it.  Yes it was mismanaged, and you did your part to whine it into oblivion. But you should move on. Again, don`t blame *me* for it.

Yes, I come back with my beefs because I want this project to succeed. Yes, it is an opinion. If it is negative, it is deserved. For example the graphics just look outdated. And I`m not forcing anyone to like it or change his opinion. Yes, BoS was announced 9 months ago and look what…video stream so far shown two flyables with (from what it is said in it by Jason Williams no less) no collision model of its own, no dm so far. No ground battles shown, no df shown. Just two flyables start and go and land. Maybe great for you, not so great for me.   Well it seems a mod to me. I mean Jason just stated I`m wrong on all accounts but I`m pretty sure that he himself said that FMB we will get straight from RoF. So maybe not on all accounts. Anyway, when your posts are so vague as he is few pots upward then there is bound to be speculation.

Yes, I`m no new to this. I was here and there during the years. So I can say what could possibly blow up in devs` face if not changed. I intend to stay here, ask some more questions and see if this piece of software is finally up to my standards so I can preorder. That is if I will be able to, because after October it seems I will not be able. You on the other hand could keep a closer eye on those who bait and insult me just because they think it is ok because you scolded me. 

 

 

Where do I begin... I am not scolding you Mac.. I am trying to help you see why your posts are perceived and received they way they are.. Which seems to be a very daunting task indeed. I have actually been told off by more than one person .. some in this very thread and quite... bluntly I might add ,for defending you so please don't go there... as for my whining contributing to CoD's demise.. You got the wrong guy.. I never commented on CoD because I couldn't even fly it till a year ago when I upgraded my rig.. and it was already abandoned by it's developer by then..

 

Look the bottom line is.. Your posts are an almost constant stream of negativity.. regardless to what the devs show us or say to us  and that is where most of your problems lie.. and you can't just keep saying the earth is flat as you look off in the distance at the curved horizon and not expect people to go ..  ... I don't have to defend this project.. the developers do a great job of that with a steady consistent stream of cogent updates.. So if you still are not convinced to pre order then fine... don't .. but this glass is more than half full at the moment.. and I am looking forward to that first sip .. and the second glass after that first round of sips is done.

[LLv44_Mprhead]

@Mac, it seems obvious to me now, that you simply don't understand how your posts look like to majority of people. Ma ybe you have good intentions, but it certainly doesn't come out that way. Just a friendly piece of advice, read your posts couple of times before posting and try to think how they might sound like to someone who can't read your mind.

[von_Tom]

Well given what RoF was at its release, you should probably reconsider.

 

 

You mean when Neoqb was the developer before 777 took over development (or whatever happened)?  Anyways, RoF is WWI and CloD/BoS WW2 so they don't really stack up to one another other than having flying stuff with whirly things on the front.

 

Hood

[Laser]

 

 

(Sorry if a little off topicsh, this is not necessarily much related to this thread, and when it is, it is only with an exaggeration, but i think it goes well with virtual pilots, and after some years on such forums, i had to throw my "pebble" here.)

 

Suppose there are 2 Sisyphus. The first knows his opinions are a little too strong, that others think he's stubborn, but he feels sorry, after an argument, and later acknowledges that the other was also right ...  if he manages to throw the rock over the top, he will breath easily, and chat with the others with a smile. We are different, maybe 'truth' builds up from the dialog itself, in-between, and maybe that's not too bad. He fights with the others, but he knows he's the first problem to work on.

 

The second, he's so "strong", that he's convinced he's always right, once he gets an opinion, that's it, that must be it, it's objective, and all other opinions are false, unimportant and subjective. Everybody's against him. He's perhaps a victim, or the hero going to the death laughing. He ignores arguments, with a superior smile, because he feels the truth. If he manages to throw the rock over the top, he'll remain locked down, all alone with himself, the others were anyway the burden. Why are not all people like him?