Concerns from an IL-2 Veteran

[LtWolf]

Firstly, I have played IL-2 from the beginning and a supporter. I adore Rise of Flight and whole heatedly support the move. Please keep this topic civil, it needs to be discussed. The changes proposed will either make or break the series. 

 

CloD was an evolution that everyone needed, higher detailed graphics, quality and feel. It has failed greatly but had so much potential. You are now abandoning that and reverting to pre 1946. People play IL-2 because the genre appeals to them in different ways. Complex engine management, realism, arcade and campaign. Not to mention the huge popularity of co-op user missions. You will rob people of choice, offering them a mediocre experience. 

 

I have ran a popular website and server and having read what tens of thousands of people have to say, I can say from experience on how diverse the tastes are. 

 

I can only see this attracting arcade users who will lose interest quickly. I can live without clickable cockpits and large maps. I am disappointed about the Directx9 and understand your reasoning but I think you are removing too much meat from the bone.

 

Many of the long supporting members play for these features and at the drop of a hat purchased CloD for that reason. I feel that this is a rash post and considering the feedback I hope you reconsider. 

 

You cannot convert IL-2 players to RoF without offering them the same basic experience. I completely agree with Zorin. 

 

Take a look at what has been achieved since the mods were started with IL-2 and where it is now. I had high hopes for CloD. 

 

The idea of posting what you intend to do with the game is supposed to inspire and trigger the imagination. From a business point of view, have people ready to part with their cash right now. Longevity in a game is where the money is, not a quick buck. I purchased CloD seconds after launch.

 

I trust 777 and I am sure a unique experience will be created, just not sure of the cost. 

 

Lt.Wolf

 

[[DRAW]Spartan]

Let me start by saying I play Rise of Flight very frequently and own most of the paid aircraft as well as several addons. I really enjoy playing ROF, its a very different experience compared to Cliffs of Dover, which I also own and even preordered as soon as it was available.

 

For months myself, Hunin, and Lt. Wolf have been saying how amazing it would be if 777 were somehow able to take over production of the Il-2 series. Now, that has happened, and I was very excited at the potential future.

 

After reading about the direction which 777 has decided to take their new entry into the Il-2 series, however, I am sadly unexcited and very, very disappointed. All of the things introduced in Cliffs of Dover which were new and unique to the series have been cast aside, something I never once thought 777 would decide to do.

 

Cliffs of Dover sought to increase the complexity and fidelity of the game, concurrent with the genre of the product itself, that being a simulator. By nature a simulator is meant to be complex. It is supposed to be difficult. As such, regressing the complexity and capability of the product is entirely against the point of building a simulator.

 

Along the same line of thinking, it is in my opinion foolhardy to continue to build a game around an API such as DirectX 9. Not only are you eliminating the numerous advantages to utilizing new advances in the capabilities of DirectX 10 and 11, you are also limiting yourself in support from graphics card manufacturers. AMD and nVidia are not going to allocate time to improving the performance of a DirectX 9 title in 2014. I strongly caution that anyone who decides to ignore new advances in performance, features, and capabilities will be left behind by the PC gaming market, which values these things, at times above all else. Take Crysis for example, a game that was only successful initially because of how far ahead of the feature and visual fidelity curve it was. I am not asking 777 to make a game which stresses hardware to the limits, however they should strive to make use of features which are now readily available and have come to be expected in a high caliber title.

 

I have many concerns, but I also have seen what the 777 studio is capable of. I sincerely wish you all the best and hope this game can be successful. My comments are only meant to raise concerns which may prevent this title from being as successful as it deserves to be.

 

Please, I ask that you keep this thread to civil discussion so that we may provide our honest, constructive feedback. We all love this genre and we all love Il-2 and Rise of Flight. It is because we are so passionate that we make these topics and write these posts.

 

Thank you.

[Hunin]

I can only second the two.

I hoped for this merger and have wished for a 777 WW2 sim since years.

I now fear that instead of a reasonable path into the future we will recieve just the opposite of Oleg's megalomanical perfectionism: Something unable to compete in a rapidly changing technical enviourment.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Hunin

[SlipBall]

I agree, we don't need to go backwards

[[KWN]T-oddball]

 Wolf and spartan you have summed it up perfectly.

[startrekmike]

I still choose to be optimistic, I refuse to believe that it will just be ROF repackaged as a WWII sim, you don't spend more than a year doing that.

 

  Lets wait and see what they have to say about it first.

[J2_Trupobaw]

Try not to shoot the devil's advocate .

I own both games and my hopes for the next CloD based game were rather high - truth be told, I would prefer to have two companies competing for my buck by outdoing themselves in quality of their games. I suspect people at 1C would like to compete with 777 and develop their work on CloD further as well. It won't happen, at least with this instance. I feel bringing 777 in means there are no resources (as in, money or investor patience) for 1C to develop the game as it intended to; it looks really like salvage operation. There is 2014 deadline to be met,  there is tried and tested salvage tool in form of DX9 RoF engine and, as in more serious crisis behind the window, there is no way to get out of it while keeping everybody in comfort they are used to. DX11may be as out of reach to us as certain employment and reliable credit service for everybody . Perhaps if that game makes enough money the engine upgrade will come, or the sequel will use a superior engine. As of now, a formarly third party was needed to make a game at all.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Trupobaw

[Krupi]

Whole heartedly agree with this thread, when I reads Lofts post I was lost for words I was annoyed at CODs death but I had high hopes for Il2:BOS but some of the information there took the wind right out of my sails I was flabbergasted (unfortunately in a bad way) by some of the things I read.

 

What I don't understand is where this is going to fit in the market if this is going back to il2:1946 roots then your too late War Thunder has that covered...

 

Not to be all negative its nice to hear that the maps are going to be quite large. 

Edited December 15, 2012 by JG52Krupi

[=BKHZ=Furbs]

I think most people here have concerns, i do too. However, im going to wait until i start seeing something from the actual sim before i make judgements on what 777 and 1C can or can not do.

[Krupi]

I think most people here have concerns, i do too. However, im going to wait until i start seeing something from the actual sim before i make judgements on what 777 and 1C can or can not do.

 

 

We are not complaining Furb merely raising some of our concerns, as long as it is constructive then I do not see a problem!

[[DRAW]Spartan]

We are not complaining Furb merely raising some of our concerns, as long as it is constructive then I do not see a problem!

 

Exactly, I want to reiterate that this thread should stay constructive. Everyone has an opinion, let's hear it out and not make any rash or unfriendly remarks. I like this discussion so far, very civil guys, keep it up.

[MineFewer]

harsh economic reality -- BpS has to be done cheaply or not at all.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Do we know for sure that we're loosing all of the more advanced abilities within Cliffs of Dover? If so... how much are all of those new features worth?

 

Cliffs was supposed to have much more advanced weather but it doesn't seem to have been fully expressed or utilized has it?

Edited December 15, 2012 by IceFire

[[DRAW]Spartan]

All we know at this time is what was said in the Developer Diary. As this is an official posting, we are viewing this as the current plan for the development of the new simulator. While there's no reason things can't change between now and release, and they most assuredly will, this is at the very least a solid indication of the direction which the developers intend to move the franchise.

 

Better to raise concerns now while discussion and feedback can be taken into account.

[Catseye]

I wholeheartedly support Lt. Wolf's and Spartan's comments.

Both sum up the situation very nicely.

 

I was really taken aback by some of the official goals listed and feel that, notwithstanding the economics decision, the uncompleted level that Cliff's took us to has raised the bar significantly for SIM enthusiasts.

 

This reminds me a lot of the Beta/VHS wars of the 1980's where the technically superior product failed due to market penetration by the other.

 

I can only request that 777 and LOFT take a hard look at developing as much of the higher level features as possible.

 

Excellent posts!

[JQB]

I disagree with you guys. It appears to me that 777 are simply taking steps to avoid the mistakes of their predecessors. One of the biggest mistakes, methinks, that the ClOD team made was excessive ambition and promises of flight sim utopia. They took on a task far too great for their means. Now 777 wants to make sure they never bite more than they can chew AT ONE TIME. So they are not promising the world neither to us nor, presumably, to themselves. By setting realistic targets they squash overly inflated expectations and then their final product emerges better than anyone dared to imagine. Do not underestimate their ability to improve their product GRADUALLY. ROF grew slowly and is now, in my opinion, the best flight sim on the market (although I acknowledge it is a very personal and subjective opinion).

The point is that they are taking a sensible approach and if it works, if sales are good, they will put more and more features in, I'm sure. There is just no point in promising too much too early.

[LG1.Farber]

Forwards!  Not backwards!  - I agree!

[SYN_Bandy]

We are not complaining Furb merely raising some of our concerns, as long as it is constructive then I do not see a problem!

 

I am not debating the validity of your opinions, you are welcome to them.  However, the definition of a "constructive critique" means you are providing solutions to problems you identify in the criticism. So from what I've read, you are just complaining.  There is nothing wrong with that, I am not being judgemental, but call a spade a spade. 

 

I agree that stepping back from some features is not the best idea, I really like some aspects of CloD, but where the line to stop is very much up for debate.

 

Surely the thought must have crossed your minds that many of the features that you value so highly (mentioned above) as being 'progressive' are likely the reason CloD was hamstrung in the first place.  Right? Something has to go to make a viable product, now where to cut the cancer out is the question.  Can these companies afford to truly rewrite a new engine?  No, don't be foolish.  Can RoF's engine be improved?  Yes, it has shown to be entirely capable of that.  Don't believe the negative hype you hear from some.  The program, whatever feature set it will have MUST be multicore optimized to a very high level.   RoF does very well in this area, and hopefully will get even better to push the visuals and amount of ground objects up required for big battles.  I would love infantry, but doubt that will happen in a quality way for quite some time in any SIM.

 

What in Dx 10/11 are you really so upset about loosing?  Someone mentioned Crisis and it's GFX quality, but that is a FPS, not a flight simulator.  Dx10 and 11 have additional features that have no bearing on sitting in a cockpit with the ground whizzing past at hundreds of miles per hour.  These unnecessary features (for a flight sim) may cause GFX bloat --don't beleive all the M$ hype.    If you want to get out of the cockpit and stroll around in the virtual grass etc, then ask yourself if you aren't in it for flying. 

 

The analogy trotted out, beta verses VHS, is simply rhetoric for effect and has absolutely no bearing in this discussion. How is CloD "technically superior" like betamax was to VHS?  I have to turn a blind eye a little too often for my taste when in CloD.  Sims are about immersion, and fractured GFX just ain't where its at.

 

BTW: If not obvious, I do own both sims, and still do occassionaly fly CloD as mentioned, so I also speak from the heart.

Edited December 15, 2012 by SYN_Bandy

[Skoshi_Tiger]

Forwards!  Not backwards!  - I agree!

Per ardua ad Astra!

 

As a worker in the field of education, I think I would get the sack if I told one of my students to lower their expectations, moderate their ambitions, set less demading goals and not to strive to achieve innovative solutions to solving problems!

 

I'll try it on Monday and see what reaction I get!

 

 

That said, the amount of concern expressed by the IL2-Sturmovik community just shows you how much we want this project to succeed! Quite heartening really!

Edited December 15, 2012 by Skoshi Tiger

[SYN_Bandy]

I sincerely am not trying to inflammatory.  This merger, and what it entails for WWII simming, is going to be a hard road for this community to walk down during development.  There are shit disturbers in both camps.

 

Perhaps I should apologize in advance, so I do.  But Skoshi, after reading your post I had images of that black and white  compilation film where different men are trying out bizzare flying machines that fall apart rapidly, or the fellow with the wing-shaped boards strapped to his arms jumping off the barn roof.  He had an ambition to fly, albiet misguided ambition limited by the required technology (and maybe missing not a few brain cells).  Draw the analogy. 

 

Wouldn't you stop one of your students from jumping off the barn roof, and instead have them make a scale model to test the theory and learn?  A series of small steps (think Mercury, Gemini, Apollo series...) usually are more successful than a giant leap to the same place, and with less potential harm along the way.  We all just have to be patient. 

Edited December 15, 2012 by SYN_Bandy

[Freycinet]

With the reception CoD got it surely can surprise no-one that flight sim developers say to themselves "never again". The vitriol and perfidity unleashed by some in the flight sim community still astounds me to this day. One of the weirdest phenomena I've ever seen on the internet. I mean, if you are so unhappy with a product surely you just walk away (after perhaps one broadside in disgust). But no, the haters stuck with it till they got their much-vaunted result, the cancellation of BoM, oh happy day!

CoD was amazingly ambitious, a shining diamond in many areas, but also bug-ridden as could be expected when developers just strike out and decide to go for the boldest sim engine possible. Obviously a sizeable part of the community would have no such thing, and now, as things were, we will get a sensible product, not overly ambitious but doable, and hopefully capable of putting some bread and butter on the developers' table. Let's call it the end of "mad geniuses being carried away" and the beginning of "feet on the ground, not risking the bacon". If I have a family to feed, I know which developer I'd prefer to work for.

I have great hopes for BoS because of the wonderful work Neoqb/777 Studios have done for Knights of the Sky/Rise of Flight. With the flight sim community being what it is - more than happy to stab a knife in the back of ambitious dreamers that bite off more than they can chew - I think that the way indicated by Loft is really the best. I hoped to live in a world where projects like CoD and BoM could be left alone by haters and find support by those who love to see technology taken as far as possible, but that clearly is not the world we live in.

(Bandy, relativize "the harm done": dealing with bugs in a flight sim you are free to walk away from is surely of less import than trusting your life to flappy wings when going over the ledge of the Eiffel Tower, or into space in a rocket. Could the world not afford a bold experiment in flight simming?)

Edited December 15, 2012 by Freycinet

[Skoshi_Tiger]

Wouldn't you stop one of your students from jumping off the barn roof, and instead have them make a scale model to test the theory and learn?  A series of small steps (think Mercury, Gemini, Apollo series...) usually are more successful than a giant leap to the same place, and with less potential harm along the way.  We all just have to be patient. 

 

Failure is a very effective learning tool, in fact it is the right of every student to try and fail. If we do not give them that opportunity we are doing them a great injustice. Hence the saying "It is better to have tried and failed than never tried at all!"

Also there is the saying "We stand on the shoulders of giants" If it was not for those guys with the cardboard wings we would not have global air transport today, simple as that.

 

Hopefully the developers involved in the Il2-CoD have learned a lot of valuable lessons in the process.

 

But let???

Edited December 15, 2012 by Skoshi Tiger

[4./JG53_Wotan]

The team that put together CloD had more initial funding to start and could not make CloD profitible - what makes you think a few IC and 777 guys can remake "CloD" and make it successful?

 

CloD, despite what you all want it to be, was a failure. It doesn't matter how great the graphics are after years of beta patching it was a failure. Why would any company, especially a small one with lmited funding, follow that buisness model?

 

The problem is you all have unrealistic expectations - these expectations were toyed with in CloD and as a result CloD has no official future. They could not pull it off. The guys working on BoS have to make money and they have earn enough to make their efforts worth while and they have to set realistic expectations from the start..

 

if you don't like what these guys plan to do with BoS - then don't buy. That is the same thing a lot folks did when it came to CloD.

Edited December 15, 2012 by 4./JG53_Wotan

[=69.GIAP=YSTREB]

Let me start by saying I play Rise of Flight very frequently and own most of the paid aircraft as well as several addons. I really enjoy playing ROF, its a very different experience compared to Cliffs of Dover, which I also own and even preordered as soon as it was available.

 

For months myself, Hunin, and Lt. Wolf have been saying how amazing it would be if 777 were somehow able to take over production of the Il-2 series. Now, that has happened, and I was very excited at the potential future.

 

After reading about the direction which 777 has decided to take their new entry into the Il-2 series, however, I am sadly unexcited and very, very disappointed. All of the things introduced in Cliffs of Dover which were new and unique to the series have been cast aside, something I never once thought 777 would decide to do.

 

Cliffs of Dover sought to increase the complexity and fidelity of the game, concurrent with the genre of the product itself, that being a simulator. By nature a simulator is meant to be complex. It is supposed to be difficult. As such, regressing the complexity and capability of the product is entirely against the point of building a simulator.

 

Along the same line of thinking, it is in my opinion foolhardy to continue to build a game around an API such as DirectX 9. Not only are you eliminating the numerous advantages to utilizing new advances in the capabilities of DirectX 10 and 11, you are also limiting yourself in support from graphics card manufacturers. AMD and nVidia are not going to allocate time to improving the performance of a DirectX 9 title in 2014. I strongly caution that anyone who decides to ignore new advances in performance, features, and capabilities will be left behind by the PC gaming market, which values these things, at times above all else. Take Crysis for example, a game that was only successful initially because of how far ahead of the feature and visual fidelity curve it was. I am not asking 777 to make a game which stresses hardware to the limits, however they should strive to make use of features which are now readily available and have come to be expected in a high caliber title.

 

I have many concerns, but I also have seen what the 777 studio is capable of. I sincerely wish you all the best and hope this game can be successful. My comments are only meant to raise concerns which may prevent this title from being as successful as it deserves to be.

 

Please, I ask that you keep this thread to civil discussion so that we may provide our honest, constructive feedback. We all love this genre and we all love Il-2 and Rise of Flight. It is because we are so passionate that we make these topics and write these posts.

 

Thank you.

+ totally agreed

[migmadmarine]

Also, it must be remembered that the 777 guys are very good at amending what has been done. For ages we didn't have the Aldis type sights, and it was said that they were impossible with the engine, but lo and behold, they were later able to be made. We have wanted trim for British aircraft, and we've gotten an announcement that the next patch will include elevator trim. A similar situation was believed with sea planes. These are good people, and they have been able to add in much of what has been asked for. I for one have faith. 

[Skoshi_Tiger]

Also, it must be remembered that the 777 guys are very good at amending what has been done. For ages we didn't have the Aldis type sights, and it was said that they were impossible with the engine, but lo and behold, they were later able to be made. We have wanted trim for British aircraft, and we've gotten an announcement that the next patch will include elevator trim. A similar situation was believed with sea planes. These are good people, and they have been able to add in much of what has been asked for. I for one have faith. 

Positive comments like these will go a long way to alleviate some of the concerns of the community.

 

Keep it up and we will all be fanboi's by the end of next year!

[Bearcat]

With the reception CoD got it surely can surprise no-one that flight sim developers say to themselves "never again". The vitriol and perfidity unleashed by some in the flight sim community still astounds me to this day. One of the weirdest phenomena I've ever seen on the internet. I mean, if you are as unhappy with a product surely you just walk away (after perhaps one broadside in disgust). But no, the haters stuck with it till they got their much-vaunted result, the cancellation of BoM, oh happy day!

 

CoD was amazingly ambitious, a shining diamond in many areas, but also bug-ridden as could be expected when developers just strike out and decide to go for the boldest sim engine possible. Obviously a sizeable part of the community would have no such thing, and now, as things were, we will get a sensible product, not overly ambitious but doable, and hopefully capable of putting some bread and butter on the developers' table. Let's call it the end of "mad geniuses being carried away" and the beginning of "feet on the ground, not risking the bacon". If I have a family to feed, I know which developer I'd prefer to work for.

 

I have great hopes for BoS because of the wonderful work Neoqb/777 Studios have done for Knights of the Sky/Rise of Flight. With the flight sim community being what it is - more than happy to stab a knife in the back of ambitious dreamers that bite off more than they can chew - I think that the way indicated by Loft is really the best. I hoped to live in a world where projects like CoD and BoM could be left alone by haters and find support by those who love to see technology taken as far as possible, but that clearly is not the world we live in.

 

(Bandy, relativize "the harm done": dealing with bugs in a flight sim you are free to walk away from is surely of less import than trusting your life to flappy wings when going over the ledge of the Eiffel Tower, or into space in a rocket. Could the world not afford a bold experiment in flight simming?)

 

I think many were so upset with CoD because we waited so long for this sim. Think about it. There was talk of this since what.. 04 I think.. and I cant speak for everyone but I was thinking .. this is Oleg and they got IL2 so right compared to what was out there .. so BoB will be great!@ .. and it wasn't. Then we had all the confusion  and poor communication. Like you said Frey.. I had forgotten all about Knights.. that became RoF.. BoS may not have everything thatCoD does.. but I think it will be a good product.I can't see 1C Games repeating the same mistakes that 1C and Gaijin made.. When you look at it regardless to how any individuals may feel about CoD it did not do well.. RoF is doing better than nay of the newer sims out there...

[=IRFC=Huetz]

Complaning and bringing up concerncs is as important as are the encouraging posts but all we really see is mostly the same people whining and complaining over and over about decisions that are not really in the dev's scope either.

 

The DN engine is a DX9 engine, that's the only thing they have right now. Contrary to popular belief CloD still has performance problems on the average computer and honestly as much as I like some of the new things introduced in CloD, the tradeoff between the few really unique features and things crucial to a flight simulation like fluid performance close to the ground, fluid effects, solid AI that sticks to the limitations of physics to name a few, are just not justifiying the work and effort necessary to make the CloD engine a viable option.

 

Aside from the fact that it's been stated multiple times in interviews on SimHQ and on the RoF boards that the DN engine at some point is up for a DX10/11 upgrade.

 

Time and time again a very vocal minority on the forums have requested tons of features that are simply out of scope to be included all at once for any but the biggest AAA projects.  CloD (the supposed AAA title with a lot of money and a big publisher) couldn't pull it off in 5 years development and 2 years patching time. What makes you think that 777 can pull it off in just over a year and a half? Ultimately it's actually the utopian demands of that minority that lead to CloD's demise. There's a difference in clamoring for revision of core features of a flight sim that need fixing and features that would rarely even get attention in a study sim.  

 

I fully understand your concerns and I'm not happy with a lot of things in the flight sim industry and the way things are handled at times. However it is time to understand that this is the last and only chance we will get for seeing a complete and playable WWII flight sim in a long time. It's not like someone will step up out of the blue and start a new project if they see first MG/1c then 777 failing.

 

Also, what makes you think that BoS will be another War Thunder? Nobody ever said that and I'm clearly not seeing how not having the option to turn on/off the sight illumination or switching the magnetos individually would let anyone come to that conclusion. It's not like there's going to be pay to win, leveling up and other "arcady things".

 

One last notes, all the suggestions are not in vain with 777. They do have a history of taking notes and listening to what we want no matter the odds and they have prooven time and time again to deliver stuff that was labeled impossible at the start. They also have a history of being very clear about what they can do at any given time.

 

Now's just not the time to be our usual whiny, nagging selves. There will be plenty of time when the product is coming close to release stage and we can see what we'll have to work with.

 

Seriously, it's step by step or nothing at all and it's time to grow up and accept the market as it is. Adapt or die being the common response on other less civilized forums.  You guys (and you know who you are) are of course entitled to your opinion but unless you can come up with a serious solution other than "whaaa, someone stole x candy from me" it's going to be in time wasted, no matter how vocal you are.

 

If it's not within the scope of the project and budget it's just not going to be included in the initial release. As discouraging as it is, but you guys are fighting windmills here.

 

This is what feels the twentieth thread like this over the last 24 hours and that is only in the english part of the forum. It's not gonna be any different after the fiftieh or hundreth.

[=BKHZ=Furbs]

Well said.

[slm]

JQB: agree 100%.

[AdlerAngriff]

Just yesterday I was lookig at the pictures of the BOM project that Freycinet posted. I thought to my self as I saw a cockfpit of a russian plane, can't remember which one. Man it would be GREAT if BOS will look something like this.

 

However I think that the community is in a way jumping the gun prematurely. I think that the developer diary is just sort of a set of guidelines. Hey, maybe they posted this just so they can see public reactions.

 

I too was not excited very much when I read the diary. All I can say I that the constructive part of the criticism is that the devs should listen to the community. As they go along with developing and making the game one step at a time. Such Co-Op product making, with the user community is a very modern marketing concept AND with such a specific segment as a sim community could actually be fruitful.

 

All I can say is that there was soooo much gripe on the Clod forum, and it hasn't been a week since this forum is active and anyone can CLEARLY see in which the wind is blowing. If the devs ignore this fact.....if they don't take these posts seriously into consideration while making the product. Then I have to say they have NO business sense at all. Beause big companies have to spend like so much money to survey their target audences to know what kind of product they want. And 777 and 1C get TONS of this info for free. If they play their cards right they could have a real winner.

 

Also look at Microsoft Flight Sim 2012. That game was a complete BUST. Old blood lost, new blood not impressed. Because they neglected some key brand features. How come Flight sim X was SOOO succesful?? Like Il2 it's still played today. Because it was true to the brand image. It delivered what the brand has been promising since the begining. The old blood was happy and new blood fell in love.

[LoneRanger]

If one path turns out to be a dead end, a few steps back are the only way to move forward.

[Freycinet]

AdlerAngriff, there is more to business sense than listening to [insert favourite adjective] simmers who crave feature after feature, and, oh by the way, want it all practically for free and without DRM. This community has showed a singular disregard for any common-sense considerations over the years, demanding the impossible for a product in this niche genre, with slim financial support. At least, with BoS, they are getting clear indications, in Lofts posting, of what is economically feasible (not that that would interest anybody...).

[kendo]

I agree with Freycinet and others above. It seems that 777's over-riding concern is to not over-reach themselves (at least initially). This really was the reason for COD's downfall. The lesson of the last year and a half has been well and truly learned by them.

 

COD was beautiful in concept and ambition. Unfortunately that ambition just could not be realised practically with the resources available. COD initially tried developing everything in parallel - the ambition really was off the scale - from dynamic weather, a dynamic campaign, boundary-pushing cockpits with clickable controls, a full set of early war vehicles and plans to make them controllable - even the ability to dress your pilot in exactly the way you wished.

 

They ran up against commercial reality with a dictated release schedule that meant many of the features could not be realised in time and had to be postponed - so the sim had to ship with no weather, no AA, trees that you could fly through, bad AI, bad comms, flawed FMs, no Royal Navy ships.

 

By trying to do EVERYTHING that anyone wanted they almost ensured the project's failure. (another example that puzzles me even now - why (??!!) did they spend time developing a non-flyable Me-108? An aircraft of absolutely no use whatsoever when AI controlled. It's only purpose possibly could have been as a German trade-off for the Tiger Moth - ie something to take a joyride in, even then the effort required would in no way be justified in the overall scheme)

 

Better now to learn the lesson. Start with a limited but secure foundation and add features over time. 777 have already used this strategy with ROF, which has developed considerably from its state on release.

Edited December 15, 2012 by kendo

[fly_zo]

Greetings to all ....

 

As an exclusive offline player my concerns lies solely on compatibility of user made mission/campaigns/skins ( if there would be any, that is ) regarding additional DLC .

 

Also, i'm sad to say neither the CLOD nor ROF did  meet my expectations regarding GUI ( briefing/debriefing screens ,awards and graphic in general ) for offline playing experience ... European Air War has way better  gui and that thing is ancient history now .

 

I do  hope that new ,21st century sim,  will offer something more advanced  like guncam clips (debriefing) , recco clips (briefing) maybe default animated awards getting ceremony or war/campaigns diary .

 

regards

Z

 

p.s. @Lt.Wolf .... long time no see "Boss" ;-)

Edited December 15, 2012 by flyzo

[DD_bongodriver]

No, what ultimately sealed COD's fate was the snivelling community that never realised quite what they were being 'given', MG had incurred the cost of developing all of these wonderfull features and got nothing in return but blatant slander and a complete lack of patience, admittedly in order to see what COD was really offering us you would have had to have the gift of being able to see beyond your nose, flight simming is a dying genre and COD was going to be the swansong, instead of something really impressive we are going to be seen out with something safe, dependable, unambitious and slighly beyond it's sell by date but repackaged to say otherwise.

 

This is my oppinion, I am entitled to share it, don't like it then just ignore it and walk away.

[J2_Steve]

 

Aside from the fact that it's been stated multiple times in interviews on SimHQ and on the RoF boards that the DN engine at some point is up for a DX10/11 upgrade.

 

I've never read that anywhere and according to the Q&A Blacksix put out it won't be updated for BOS.

 

I sincerely hope the DN engine does get a make over though, because in it's present state it is adequate for RoF and the small missions that WWI offers. Having played with mission builder and run a dedi server, I know there are very restrictive limits to what it can cope with.

 

RoF would suffer very badly in a 100+ aircraft mission. Add multiple ground units of differing types and add a wide variety in the aircraft type too and you'll soon start seeing CTD's and windows type error messages. 

 

I want BOS to do well, but I am greatly saddened at the demise of CloD. As understandable as it's demise is, it had great promise as a hi fidelity flight sim and some of the features I really enjoyed, like extremely detail cockpits and switches that actually did something. I don't want to return to IL2 level of basic flight systems. I've left that behind. Like I left EAW and RB3D. I loved those games, but IL2 came along and raised the bar in terms of features and graphics. CloD and RoF have raised the bar again. BOS should also push the bar higher, not settle it down to a level the devs think we "should" be happy to accept.

 

An example of that mentality in RoF is the dynamic campaign. Here we have a wonderful tool with massive scope to improve. But the missions are all dumbed down so that the "avarage simmer" can run the missions on a sub standard PC. Which is fine for those in situations where they can't afford all  bells and whistles PC's. But for those that have mid to high end kit, there is no provision from the DEVs to increase the complexity of the missions.

 

It looks like that mentality is carrying forward into BOS. It's still early days right now and I sincerely hope my intial concerns come to nothing and that the new title and it's development path yield something I will enjoy as much as I have RoF (albeit with the aid of third party apps) and CloD.

[Skoshi_Tiger]

No, what ultimately sealed COD's fate was the snivelling community that never realised quite what they were being 'given', MG had incurred the cost of developing all of these wonderfull features and got nothing in return but blatant slander and a complete lack of patience, admittedly in order to see what COD was really offering us you would have had to have the gift of being able to see beyond your nose, flight simming is a dying genre and COD was going to be the swansong, instead of something really impressive we are going to be seen out with something safe, dependable, unambitious and slighly beyond it's sell by date but repackaged to say otherwise.

 

This is my oppinion, I am entitled to share it, don't like it then just ignore it and walk away.

 

Unfortunately I think you are spot on with this one!

[Krupi]

No, what ultimately sealed COD's fate was the snivelling community that never realised quite what they were being 'given', MG had incurred the cost of developing all of these wonderfull features and got nothing in return but blatant slander and a complete lack of patience, admittedly in order to see what COD was really offering us you would have had to have the gift of being able to see beyond your nose, flight simming is a dying genre and COD was going to be the swansong, instead of something really impressive we are going to be seen out with something safe, dependable, unambitious and slighly beyond it's sell by date but repackaged to say otherwise.

 

This is my oppinion, I am entitled to share it, don't like it then just ignore it and walk away.

 

I don't want to believe it but I know there is truth behind this 

[=BKHZ=Furbs]

COD was killed by either 8 years of bad-management, at least 2 restarts, a almost complete turn over of staff including Oleg, a abysmal launch(with Oleg signing copies and then vanishing), bad reviews across the board, a problem with full screen, people with epilepsy,  bad PR, broken or missing features, no COOP's, lies, broken SLI, a awful GUI, half arsed patches, patches that broke sound, patches that caused CTD's, alpha, beta and more beta patches, floating ships, non starting hurricanes and last but not least banjo vids...

 

...or paying customers complaining about the above. 

 

When the people who pay the wages came to make the decision if to continue with the COD series, did they conduct a review on the work done on the sequel since release, did they make a assessment of the sequel meeting the standard needed...

 

or did they read some forum posts by Tree?

Edited December 15, 2012 by Furbs