Re-Clod in 10 years?

[JG27_Chivas]

Ten years from now few people will be flying any flight sim on a monitor.  Of course some will, but the vast majority will be flying with Virtual Reality headsets.  DCS, FSX, WT are the only sims currently supporting VR or working on VR support.   The sims that don't support VR will be left with a very small community, that can't support further developer involvement. 

[JG4_Continuo]

Exactly. Is the CloD code really so 'advanced' that picking it up again many years later would be a rational choice in an environment where technological change is so rapid? I find that hard to believe.Can anyone point to other examples in software development where this has occurred?

 

Using game engines for a long time does happen... look at the call of duty engine... nothing basically new since the beginning and still it gets sold... so 10 years is realistic, altough after that 10 years, one should probably move on... (call of duty wont, I am sure...)

 

About the cliffs code being advanced... some things might get old with time, graphics for example, maybe FMs... but if you have a look at the mission builder for example, I would say: yes, very advanced....

 

also there are so many good ideas in that game, that are worth taking over into a new game, once the day should come... example? the way squadron-markings can be selected as a decal so you dont have to make a skin for every tactical number...

[SharpeXB]

Cliffs of Dovers failure has to do with aspects other than programming or coding. If that had worked better the game still had enormous faults.

First was that it's apparent the team could not control the scope of the project. They seem to have given in to every wishlist demand without regard for the consequence. The worst example was instead of working to fix the game they produced a flyable modern Su-26 stunt plane armed with laser guns. Drivable ground vehicles, a menu for selecting the pilots clothes and clickable cockpits. It was seven years in development which is just an eternity in computer years. Just imagine how much hardware evolved during that time and it's no wonder it wouldn't work.

Then the price strategy was all wrong. Every sim in this era sells all the aircraft individually with the click pit planes going for $30-60 apiece. CoD tried to sell a game with 18 of these for $49. It doesn't take a genius to do the math.

All of this certainly had the effect of making the programming work well impossible.

Today it just serves as an example of what not to do making a flight sim. The fact that it has been successfully "fixed" now doesn't mean it should ever serve as a benchmark or example for future products except as a warning.

[No601_Prangster]

Ten years from now few people will be flying any flight sim on a monitor.  Of course some will, but the vast majority will be flying with Virtual Reality headsets.  DCS, FSX, WT are the only sims currently supporting VR or working on VR support.   The sims that don't support VR will be left with a very small community, that can't support further developer involvement. 

 

We had all this twenty years ago. 

 

[Bearcat]

Cliffs of Dovers failure has to do with aspects other than programming or coding. If that had worked better the game still had enormous faults.

First was that it's apparent the team could not control the scope of the project. They seem to have given in to every wishlist demand without regard for the consequence. The worst example was instead of working to fix the game they produced a flyable modern Su-26 stunt plane armed with laser guns. Drivable ground vehicles, a menu for selecting the pilots clothes and clickable cockpits. It was seven years in development which is just an eternity in computer years. Just imagine how much hardware evolved during that time and it's no wonder it wouldn't work.

Then the price strategy was all wrong. Every sim in this era sells all the aircraft individually with the click pit planes going for $30-60 apiece. CoD tried to sell a game with 18 of these for $49. It doesn't take a genius to do the math.

All of this certainly had the effect of making the programming work well impossible.

Today it just serves as an example of what not to do making a flight sim. The fact that it has been successfully "fixed" now doesn't mean it should ever serve as a benchmark or example for future products except as a warning.

 

This is true... I never looked at it quite like that... It makes me consider that one of the pitfalls of CoD was that in may ways it was a nextgen sim marketed under the previous generation's business model because every sim after CoD had a different business model and even RoF which was released two years prior to the release of CoD had a different business model from it's predecessors which tells me that that team was on to something.

 

I have no doubt that the team wants to present us with the best flight sim they can.. I just cannot help but think that somewhere along the way some of the people in charge of making decisions lost their way in the sense that they did not look realistically and wisely at the playing field they were embarking upon. From the start the idea should not have been to compete with WT.. but to augment it and to grab that starving mass of simmers who had been waiting since around 2007 give or take a year for that next generation WWII sim.. Even moving forward.. in order to fix this they should still look toward IL2 where applicable as far as a template for how it needs to be goes because for the most part IL2 got it right.

[361fundahl]

I'm pretty sure crimson skies has the secret code.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Cliffs of Dovers failure has to do with aspects other than programming or coding. If that had worked better the game still had enormous faults.

First was that it's apparent the team could not control the scope of the project. They seem to have given in to every wishlist demand without regard for the consequence. The worst example was instead of working to fix the game they produced a flyable modern Su-26 stunt plane armed with laser guns. Drivable ground vehicles, a menu for selecting the pilots clothes and clickable cockpits. It was seven years in development which is just an eternity in computer years. Just imagine how much hardware evolved during that time and it's no wonder it wouldn't work.

Then the price strategy was all wrong. Every sim in this era sells all the aircraft individually with the click pit planes going for $30-60 apiece. CoD tried to sell a game with 18 of these for $49. It doesn't take a genius to do the math.

All of this certainly had the effect of making the programming work well impossible.

Today it just serves as an example of what not to do making a flight sim. The fact that it has been successfully "fixed" now doesn't mean it should ever serve as a benchmark or example for future products except as a warning.

 

Exactly. It was a shame and all the good faith they'd built up was trashed on forums a bit like we're seeing now.

 

After the Beta patch I was actually quite happy but the official patch broke the sim for many of us again with the memory leak which took a long time to fix. They did what the community asked (and are asking for now) and tried to fix the game before moving on to the next expansion and no doubt ran out of money and went belly up.

[JG27_Chivas]

Cliffs of Dovers failure has to do with aspects other than programming or coding. If that had worked better the game still had enormous faults.

First was that it's apparent the team could not control the scope of the project. They seem to have given in to every wishlist demand without regard for the consequence. The worst example was instead of working to fix the game they produced a flyable modern Su-26 stunt plane armed with laser guns. Drivable ground vehicles, a menu for selecting the pilots clothes and clickable cockpits. It was seven years in development which is just an eternity in computer years. Just imagine how much hardware evolved during that time and it's no wonder it wouldn't work.

Then the price strategy was all wrong. Every sim in this era sells all the aircraft individually with the click pit planes going for $30-60 apiece. CoD tried to sell a game with 18 of these for $49. It doesn't take a genius to do the math.

All of this certainly had the effect of making the programming work well impossible.

Today it just serves as an example of what not to do making a flight sim. The fact that it has been successfully "fixed" now doesn't mean it should ever serve as a benchmark or example for future products except as a warning.

 

I agree to some extent.  Oleg was building a new game engine that would be capable for many years, but overestimated how well he could optimize the sim by the time it was released , and the power of peoples average computer systems.   I personally had no problems running COD from the beginning as I was running a highend highly optimized system built exclusively for COD.  There were obvious issues, but it was easy to see the potential of the sim, something that those with average systems had a hard time seeing.   Team Fusion has been able to optimize COD so even those with average systems can now run the sim.   There are still features in the game engine that haven't been enabled, for performance issues, but those issues will disappear as the sim is further optimized, and peoples average systems improve.   There is still a lot of upside to CODs dx10 game engine.  

[Sokol1]

I doubt IL2 in any form will be here in 2025.

 

 

Most probable. 

 

Easy solution for this "Other 1C Game Studios Games"  there, make this like the similar section in DCS forum, where are allowed post news/info about other games, but not discuss them.

[SharpeXB]

Been giving CoD another spin, since now my system has solved the crucial problem that CoD lacks any antialiasing. It's not needed in UHD. Cliffs unfortunately doesn't handle this resolution as well as BoS or DCS. Even the free flight missions get pretty low FPS. It doesn't support SLI either. Maybe that's something else for TF to fix.

[361fundahl]

Yeah sli support would definitely be smart

[JG4_Continuo]

Some people are running Cliffs on SLI.

 

How many fps are you getting SharpXB and on what resolution are you running the game?

[SharpeXB]

Some people are running Cliffs on SLI.

 

How many fps are you getting SharpXB and on what resolution are you running the game?

I'm running it on all High settings at 3840x2160

I didn't see that both GPUs were being used. I think my fps varies on the London Sightseeing from 30-60. I'd have to run an actual test to be sure.

[wellenbrecher]

Been giving CoD another spin, since now my system has solved the crucial problem that CoD lacks any antialiasing. It's not needed in UHD. Cliffs unfortunately doesn't handle this resolution as well as BoS or DCS. Even the free flight missions get pretty low FPS. It doesn't support SLI either. Maybe that's something else for TF to fix.

You can force AA via the control panel, or even better NVidiaInspector. Seeing as the PC in your sig trumps mine in every single aspect and I run CloD at 32x AA on a 970 at a lovely, steady 60 FPS with all settings put to max, your Titan should pretty much be able to run it twice without breaking a sweat.

 

Unless that 4k resolution is a must for you, obviously.

By the by, try DSR at some point. Fantastic results for comparably little performance impact.

[BlackDevil]

BoS feel of flight (planes feel like moving through air, instead on rails) is at least a generation ahead of the predecessor. I doubt TF could provide a fast fix for that, even if someone would sell them the code.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

BoS feel of flight (planes feel like moving through air, instead on rails) is at least a generation ahead of the predecessor.

 

I agree and I have 'real flight time'

 

What TF did to CLOD was amazing but I agree with the flying on rails statement, that's how it felt to me and really stands out after flying BOS so much.

[Dakpilot]

I and many others (including people with real flight time...) disagree.

 

 

Which is fine, if that is how you feel, if CLoD gives you a better feeling of flight, carry on, but no amount of complaining is going to convince people that BoS/BoM should be the same.

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[6./ZG26_Custard]

_{I too think what TF has done is outstanding, but after several hundred hours of flight time in BoS it's impossible for me to ever go back to Clod. It feels sub standard in it's FM's and as others have said it really does "run on rails." Added to that is also the complete ease of the take off and the landing procedure.}

  

[Urra]

We had all this twenty years ago.

 

Wow. This cost 65k usd. Per unit wit a 486 pc running it. And the company went bankrupt after just a few years. Ahead of their time.

[SharpeXB]

You can force AA via the control panel, or even better NVidiaInspector. Seeing as the PC in your sig trumps mine in every single aspect and I run CloD at 32x AA on a 970 at a lovely, steady 60 FPS with all settings put to max, your Titan should pretty much be able to run it twice without breaking a sweat.

 

Unless that 4k resolution is a must for you, obviously.

By the by, try DSR at some point. Fantastic results for comparably little performance impact.

I usually never use AA at 4K because it's a huge hit and the effect is almost not needed. I set it at 2x in BoS and it runs fine. I do use Nvidia CP to force AA off in some games that don't have a setting for it. Edited June 1, 2015 by SharpeXB

[Felix58]

In ten years time CLoD (hopefully) will be a small part of the WW2 aviation crowd.  Team Fusion have done a great job to date but the CLoD code is far more complex than the original il2, so I would not expect Team Daidalos longevity.  Don't know if there are enough enthusiastic and skilled part time coders to keep the project moving.  I imagine if a couple of key Team Fusion players called it a day that would be the end of the project.

 

Loved the big picture CLoD ambition, but in reality it fell short for many reasons (technical and business).

 

I tend to agree with other posters re the CLoD FM - not quite as good as BOS.  But the best IMHO is DCS propeller for hardcore players.  Although I would steer players new to the genre to BOS for obvious reasons.  

 

Sure, BOS has issues but the professional dev team are still on the job and I have been impressed with their work to date.

 

I know many have a particular enthusiasm for the "Battle of Britain" so CLoD is their best bet at the moment.

[II./JG27_Rich]

I'll never leave IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover!

shot_20140611_223034.bmp

Edited June 4, 2015 by II./JG27_Rich

[6./ZG26_Custard]

I'll never leave IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover!

You'll never leave and I can never go back

[FuriousMeow]

CloD's DM can't do this:

 

 

Among many other inadequacies, and the FM truly is not up to scope some swear it is, after all it is just barely more advanced than Il-2:1946 that still had issues at it's end. CloD is not advanced, it certainly is not what many swear it is. A far cry from it.

Edited June 5, 2015 by FuriousMeow

[II./JG27_Rich]

But that's about all they do lololol

Edited June 5, 2015 by II./JG27_Rich

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Among many other inadequacies, and the FM truly is not up to scope some swear it is, after all it is just barely more advanced than Il-2:1946 that still had issues at it's end. CloD is not advanced

Pretty much spot on. I have flown many hours in Clod but unfortunately it just doesn't cut the mustard any more for me. 

[[KWN]T-oddball]

You'll never leave and I can never go back

 

 

nice pic, was that you against the other guy on the server?

Wow. This cost 65k usd. Per unit wit a 486 pc running it. And the company went bankrupt after just a few years. Ahead of their time.

 

 

I remember playing that at navy pier in Chicago.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

nice pic, was that you against the other guy on the server?

Yes it was great, because I went on Clod MP and found less people on there than flying BoS

[II./JG27_Rich]

Bearcat asking about the P-51 over in ATAG...You can see where things are going

====================================================

Hi BC, thanks for stopping by.
This aircraft will undoubtedly appear at some point hut not in v5.00

Currently we are looking to progress chronologically through the WW2 and as such the P-51 doesn't fit in with v5.00 plans.

We have been lucky to have some very enthusiastic modellers join TF (and we are always on the lookout for more ) and these are the ones who will have to invest their time creating these aircraft. At the same time as you'll have seen with the P-40 the detail allowed in the models is vastly superior to previous versions and this takes time to create.

V5.00 is pretty much the foundation for all future versions of TF updates as all the tools required for our modders are being finalised. Once done this will allow free reign on the map-making, texturing, modelling, etc, etc. This will therefore provide everything TF need to expand the timeline and so most likely the earlier version of the P-51 (A and/or B) would be considered for v6.00 which could cover (but not guaranteed) the 42-43 era of WW2.
The thing about this is that v5.00 being the foundation for all future patches means that future updates after could appear faster than v5.00 is as most of the v5.00 work is setting up the tools for everything else that will follow. Well that's the plan

Currently our focus is on completing v5.00 and the aircraft externals and internals which is time consuming but well underway.

To finish, we do expect the P-51 to make an appearance but definitely not for v5.00......but surely if we make a P-51.....we'd have to have a 190?

Finally, this is where modelling gets interesting for the community as to be honest, while we do have projects for our modellers that need finishing and working on, of-course they wish to build models, aircraft, cockpits that they wish to fly. Let's not forget, TF is made up of hobbyists from the community, so they are in it as part of their hobby as well.as working with TF. We have seen some models behind closed doors that have not been requested by TF but the modellers have been creating them as a sideline to the work they are doing as part of TF (and that they also want in the Sim). The thing is, as mentioned, we have a chronology that we are trying to work to so these side projects don't fit yet, but they are there ready (and being worked on) for when we hit the timeline for them.to.appear. There isn't any point in having a P-51B created and just because we have it (which we don't but this is an example to illustrate the point), adding an Me-262. It just wouldn't make sense.

So hopefully that explains the situation but to clarify, yes we do intend to add a P-51.....but only when the time is right

Cheers, MP

 

Edited June 5, 2015 by II./JG27_Rich

[II./JG27_Rich]

Yes it was great, because I went on Clod MP and found less people on there than flying BoS

Flying across a chanel for four years can get a little monotonous. Just wait when the Mediterranean comes. Old 1946 movie but this is what it will be like

 

 

Edited June 7, 2015 by II./JG27_Rich

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

Flying across a chanel for four years can get a little monotonous

 

It's not flying across the channel that has become monotonous, the problem appears to be the inherent limitations within the code, something which TF will probably never get their hands on. I have had numerous hours in Clod and while I take nothing away from what TF have done (they have done amazing things) the aircraft feel like they are on tracks, the take off and landing procedure is very rudimentary at best and nearly all the aircraft handle in the same way. I too look forward to 5.0 but I fear that the P-40 the 109-F the Spit Mk V , Hurri Mk IV and all the other flyables will probably suffer from the "run on rails" characteristics that all the other aircraft display. After flying in BoS and then going back to fly Clod there really is no comparison, the FM's in BoS are just way ahead  from a personal viewpoint.  

 

Regards

 

Custard

[II./JG27_Rich]

It's not flying across the channel that has become monotonous, the problem appears to be the inherent limitations within the code, something which TF will probably never get their hands on. I have had numerous hours in Clod and while I take nothing away from what TF have done (they have done amazing things) the aircraft feel like they are on tracks, the take off and landing procedure is very rudimentary at best and nearly all the aircraft handle in the same way. I too look forward to 5.0 but I fear that the P-40 the 109-F the Spit Mk V , Hurri Mk IV and all the other flyables will probably suffer from the "run on rails" characteristics that all the other aircraft display. After flying in BoS and then going back to fly Clod there really is no comparison, the FM's in BoS are just way ahead  from a personal viewpoint.  

 

Regards

 

Custard

That's all your view point. Others think flying the aeroplanes in BOS feels like being on a kite. So we will agree to disagree.

 

Flight Model discussion over in ATAG a while ago

 

myfabi94, on 17 Feb 2015 - 11:36, said:

 

I think CloD displays them as the Brits saw them, basically flying trucks and I disagree. I should be able to follow the Spitfire into manouvers and come out alive the other end. There are enough german Pilots reports of them outturning enemy Spitifires and even Hurries (most likely later, heavy models)

==========================================================================================================================================================

==============

Catseye's reply

==============

You make a lot of assumptions based upon hearsay and draw conclusions with your term "I think", when in fact you know nothing of the TF development process in establishing the parameters of both the Spit & BF109, nor do you have the specifics of each aircaft in your portfolio on which to base a cojent argument.

 

Without getting too far into details: The TF modelling is established through speciifics from original documents on the aircraft. There is no "guessing" or assumptions made. Extensive performance testing by model type which includes flight dynamics dependant on air density (altitude), engine performance, wing loading, weight and much much more. The testing was done through months and months to get the aircraft to perform according to the extensive factual details made available and plugged into the code available. This was not easy!!

 

It is as accurate as the CLOD model will permit at this time.

 

But . . . . much more tweaking is taking place for TF 5.0 and anomalies that have been proved by documentation are being adjusted including changes being made through more understanding of the coding.

 

If you want to understand more about how this all took place, incuding reading many posts such as yours and the explanations and detailed discussion on them - go to the ATAG forums and look up Team Fusion. This should help you a great deal with your assumptions.

Edited June 7, 2015 by II./JG27_Rich

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

That's all your view point. Others think flying the aeroplanes in BOS feels like being on a kite.

  I'm not going to disagree with what is your viewpoint that is your own, but many other others flying in Clod also think that all the aircraft run on rails and not moving through air or wind effects or turbulence.

 

It's very usual on certain forums that when anyone challenges any aspect of Clod they stir up the proverbial hornets nest, but it needs challenging because like BoS, its far from perfect. The code is appears to be a large part of the key.

 

 

 

It is as accurate as the CLOD model will permit at this time.

 

 

 

But . . . . much more tweaking is taking place for TF 5.0 and anomalies that have been proved by documentation are being adjusted including changes being made through more understanding of the coding.

 

 

 

extensive factual details made available and plugged into the code available. This was not easy!!

 

TF don't own the code or have proper access to it and probably never will so to a large degree are limited to what is available.

 

I really am not knocking to what TF have done, it has been excellent. Saying that though, throughout the patching process you have had people complaining in one breath  that the 109's are outmatched by the spits in many areas, then in another patch that the spits are completely outmatched by the 109's. You have people complaining about spits looping the loop at 8k and others complaining that they should be able to out turn the allied aircraft under certain conditions. 

 

It will be interesting to see what happens with 5.0 and if TF have been able to adjust the anomalies that they refer to and if any of these changes can convince the folks that think the "run on rails" handling may have been finally been sorted out.

 

Regards

 

Custard

[II./JG27_Rich]

Go to 27 minutes of Apes video. People should stop whining and just learn how to fly their aeroplanes

 

[SharpeXB]

The question isn't; Where is Cliffs of Dover going to be in 10 years?

It's where is 1CGS or Eagle Dynamics or anyone else going to be then? It's great to see such effort being put into making CoD viable but in the long run its a losing battle. The commercial products in this genre will have surpassed what a modding team can do by that time.

Edited June 7, 2015 by SharpeXB

[Chuck_Owl]

The question isn't; Where is Cliffs of Dover going to be in 10 years?

It's where is 1CGS or Eagle Dynamics or anyone else going to be then? It's great to see such effort being put into making CoD viable but in the long run its a losing battle. The commercial products in this genre will have surpassed what a modding team can do by that time.

 

That is a fairly good question.

 

There is really no limit as to what a modding community can do: they are not restricted by a budget and a timeline. Some people are incredibly talented and their abilities surpass even those of professionals.

 

You can look at what one motivated individual can do. I counted the number of pages I wrote for online guides in one year... it's over 1500 overall. If a lazy bum like me can do that in his spare time, anybody can. 

[[KWN]T-oddball]

That is a fairly good question.

 

There is really no limit as to what a modding community can do: they are not restricted by a budget and a timeline. Some people are incredibly talented and their abilities surpass even those of professionals.

 

You can look at what one motivated individual can do. I counted the number of pages I wrote for online guides in one year... it's over 1500 overall. If a lazy bum like me can do that in his spare time, anybody can. 

 

The question isn't; Where is Cliffs of Dover going to be in 10 years?

It's where is 1CGS or Eagle Dynamics or anyone else going to be then? It's great to see such effort being put into making CoD viable but in the long run its a losing battle. The commercial products in this genre will have surpassed what a modding team can do by that time.

 

 

there are 3 things that limit a "modder" 1. there skill level 2. available tools  3. (which is the most important ) the power of the game engine.

 

10 years from now we will be looking at game engines that are 3X+ more powerful that what we have now, these new engine will be able to harness the power of multi-core proc's  better than a lot of the older game engine we are dealing with now (CLOD,ARAM3,BOS...etc)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_computing

 

Sony and MS have both chosen low clock cheap AMD cpu's for there new consoles which will necessitate the need for future games/engine to be able to use multi-core effectively, so what ever clock speeds are reached in 10 years it will still be necessary for programs to be in a strong form of parallelism.

[Chuck_Owl]

there are 3 things that limit a "modder" 1. there skill level 2. available tools  3. (which is the most important ) the power of the game engine.

 

10 years from now we will be looking at game engines that are 3X+ more powerful that what we have now, these new engine will be able to harness the power of multi-core proc's  better than a lot of the older game engine we are dealing with now (CLOD,ARAM3,BOS...etc)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_computing

 

Sony and MS have both chosen low clock cheap AMD cpu's for there new consoles which will necessitate the need for future games/engine to be able to use multi-core effectively, so what ever clock speeds are reached in 10 years it will still be necessary for programs to be in a strong form of parallelism.

 

I am not sure we will ever see a new flight sim engine... not for the next 10 years. The market for this is just too small in comparison to AAA game engines Unreal, Crytek, IW and Crytek. 

 

CloD showed the cost of developing a new engine and the financial risks associated with it. BoS also showed the limitations of using an older (obsolete?) engine for a new sim release.

 

What the flight sim industry needs is a new, fresh vision with a new engine, and a marketing department WORTH A DARN (something that CloD, DCS and BoS all fail spectacularly at).

[[KWN]T-oddball]

I am not sure we will ever see a new flight sim engine... not for the next 10 years. The market for this is just too small in comparison to AAA game engines Unreal, Crytek, IW and Crytek. 

 

CloD showed the cost of developing a new engine and the financial risks associated with it. BoS also showed the limitations of using an older (obsolete?) engine for a new sim release.

 

What the flight sim industry needs is a new, fresh vision with a new engine, and a marketing department WORTH A DARN (something that CloD, DCS and BoS all fail spectacularly at).

 

 

there will be development in parallel programing which will lead to stronger engines, I don't think there will  a flight sim specific engine in development just a scalable and robust engine that can be used for a flight sim. many games already share a common engine and the future ill be no different.

[SharpeXB]

I am not sure we will ever see a new flight sim engine... not for the next 10 years.

What about EDGE? It's not a complete rewrite of a sim engine. It's a new graphics engine. But if I understand it, by moving to DX11 it frees up a lot of processing from the CPU which is the current bottleneck for these things.

 

If the best option we have 10 years from now is the hack of broken software from 2009. That's sad. What this genre needs is good supported products that appeal to mainstream players not difficult pieced together bits and mods. Only the diehard enthusiast will put up with that. That shouldn't be the future.

Edited June 7, 2015 by SharpeXB