Patience and realistic expectations are what BoS and the hi-fi flight sim genre need

December 31, 2012

I dunno... I think there will always be some folks who will be overly zealous on any given side of an issue when it comes to stuff like this.. Remember back in the day when the term "Oleg Worshipper" was so condescendingly tossed around by some folks at anyone who thought that IL2 was the shiznit and that Oleg & MG did a fantastic job of taking WWII combat sims to the next level? The term "Oleg Fanboi" was another one.. There will always be people who act like that.. who see the half empty glass as opposed to the half full one.. I have a wait and see attitude with BoS ... I never expected CoD to be anything but a top flight product out of the gate and certainly well on it's way by 2008-2009 but we didn't even get it till 2011 ... I don't unders6and all the stuff that goes into making a decent sim but I do know that if it was easy.. more folks would be doing it.. 1c777 has a stated plan that seems to be very well thought out and I look at the development of RoF .. so I expect good things.. but if that is not what I get I won't start demanding my money back.. I am pretty confident that what we will get will have a lot of the better features of the top few sims that have been released over the past 5 years.. maybe with the exception of DCS..

December 31, 2012

...It is precisely because it *is* so difficult to make a good flight-sim (and not just a good renderer/rasterizer...though that is difficult enough)...that it would be a good idea to have some info out there. Of course, it wont stop the rabid stuff (rabid dogs can't read) but it will help stop some of the misconceptions...

Edited December 31, 2012 by falstaff

January 3, 2013

S!

For sure holding high hopes for BoS to succeed. CoD has it's moments but it was far from being perfect, even after all the patches. Looking good in screenshots is not everything In case of BoS both 1C team and 777 Studios team have a ready engine to work on, no need to build from scratch. Visuals are good enough for a flight sim, FM/DM/physics seem to be there as can be seen in RoF. So quite a lot is already covered regarding development. Not saying most, sure a lot to do still..but you get the idea.

What I would like to see devs finally ditch 32-bit and go 64-bit. Really..why drag along this relic anymore? I think it would make the life of devs easier, today's computers have more than 4Gb memory. If you realistically expect a modern game to run on higher side of settings with a computer more than 4-5 years old then dream on. Bluntly put, and what Oleg sqaid ages ago, if you want more stuff and better graphics be ready to get a good rig. Simple. So I wish BoS and it's sequels one day would be 64-bit, had enough of problems with 32-bit (Arma2, CyEngine 3.4 etc.)

January 3, 2013

I think less than the forum posts are the online store site reviews .. Just go to Amazon for one example.. and read the reviews on CoD. That did more to hurt the sim than any forum troll could ever do becase more people will see tha review and act accordingly based on it than will see the troll.

I believe WS is due in the soon to be (hopefully) 4.12 patch from TD.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=35103

Look at this post made by me (my name there is Anders_And).

Look at the replies when i suggested that we CLOD owners should go to Amazon and write some good reviews after the last patch in order to increase the sales and help the team. Almost noone agreed with me!!

So apparently people wanted to have bad revies on amazon. Some names there are even on this forum complaining about the bad reviews that CLod got and how how hurting that was for the game. Go figure

Edited January 3, 2013 by Kling

January 3, 2013

I'm sorry Kling but I'll have to disagree. The huge number of bad reviews doesn't come out of the blue or by people intending to see a game fail, it simply comes from people that are not happy about the state a piece of software sold to them that was advertised as working as intended. Bottom line is a lot of people would still have to flat out lie when posting a positive review.

Where I live, if I promise x product has z features and I release it with only y features, chances are that I will be out of my job or business faster than I can perform any sort of damage control.

We have to understand that developers are providing us with means to satisfy our hobby, on the same account developers have to understand that if they do not deliver what they promise, even if it's just a minor things they will be in financial trouble sooner or later.

The same time developers have to understand what is in the scope of a project (at least initially) and customers have to do the same - that is only achieved by communication that is not driven by keeping sale numbers up with astronomical promises.

Finally, the same principle can be applied to our consumer behaviour. The majority of customers simply don't buy software and DLC out of courtesy, they buy what they can be sure to have fun with. "Cut them some slack" simply does not apply for business, no matter how much we love a genre.

That said, I agree with the OP, wait and see is the way to go here. The past is gone and done, time to look forward. If looking/going forward means less content on the intial release but a solid, working product that is sustainable for a long time (and thus bring a lot of unique content in eventually) then that's the way to go.

January 3, 2013

Yes but each of those you mentioned have their own issues that have rendered them for all intents and purposes moot and hopefully BoS will not fall into that category.. I'd rather have a sim that runs well on rigs that are current to 4-5 years old decently with the potential to run on more powerful next gen systems than have one that is cutting edge but only runs on top of the line systems.. because that means that the number of people who can support it - because let's face it, if people have to upgrade to run a product you have lost a large segment of your market right off the bat- will be much smaller and without adequate support, no matter how great a sim is.. it's developers will be forced to either compromise or abandon it..

Yes, that is true. By the time I had a system that could run Clod it was already in the bargain bin. I think the goal for BoS should be that it runs adequately on a high-end laptop, otherwise too many will be cut out of participation.

January 3, 2013

Well as the old saying goes"The impossible is done right away, miracles take a little longer"

January 3, 2013

I'm sorry Kling but I'll have to disagree. The huge number of bad reviews doesn't come out of the blue or by people intending to see a game fail, it simply comes from people that are not happy about the state a piece of software sold to them that was advertised as working as intended. Bottom line is a lot of people would still have to flat out lie when posting a positive review.

Where I live, if I promise x product has z features and I release it with only y features, chances are that I will be out of my job or business faster than I can perform any sort of damage control.

We have to understand that developers are providing us with means to satisfy our hobby, on the same account developers have to understand that if they do not deliver what they promise, even if it's just a minor things they will be in financial trouble sooner or later.

The same time developers have to understand what is in the scope of a project (at least initially) and customers have to do the same - that is only achieved by communication that is not driven by keeping sale numbers up with astronomical promises.

Finally, the same principle can be applied to our consumer behaviour. The majority of customers simply don't buy software and DLC out of courtesy, they buy what they can be sure to have fun with. "Cut them some slack" simply does not apply for business, no matter how much we love a genre.

That said, I agree with the OP, wait and see is the way to go here. The past is gone and done, time to look forward. If looking/going forward means less content on the intial release but a solid, working product that is sustainable for a long time (and thus bring a lot of unique content in eventually) then that's the way to go.

With that thread over at the banana forum i just tried to make all pro CLODers to make it know on Amazon. If some people enjoy it then why not help to get game sold. Amazon didnt show a fair grade and only people that were really pissed off wrote it there and those reviews were a year old.All the happy ones never wrote it there. So the result was a bit unfair!

To get some perspective, Jason also wrote to his ROF community and asked them to write some good reviews of ROF as he was not happy with the average on Amazon. This people did and with good results!

January 3, 2013

Finally, the same principle can be applied to our consumer behaviour. The majority of customers simply don't buy software and DLC out of courtesy, they buy what they can be sure to have fun with. "Cut them some slack" simply does not apply for business, no matter how much we love a genre.

I totally disagree. When somebody makes a superb but flawed product the flight sim community should indeed "cut the developers some slack." This cold-hearted attitude has no place when it comes to our attitude towards hi-fi flight sim developers, who to a large extent are creating a labour of love (they could earn much more on stupid fantasy "flight" sims with dragons and broomsticks). Also, what's the fun with squeaky-clean ????ber-professional programs where everything has been through ten reviews by target audience groups. Flawless is boring and excellence is just not a reflection of a lack of bugs. As in most things in life, if something performs flawlessly it probably wasn't too ambitious to begin with...

January 3, 2013

I can see there are good intentions in this thread but we don't want to rehash old battles about why games succeed or not, and what the relationship between flight simmers and developers is. That leaves open the path to all kinds of antagonism.

January 3, 2013

I totally disagree. When somebody makes a superb but flawed product the flight sim community should indeed "cut the developers some slack." This cold-hearted attitude has no place when it comes to our attitude towards hi-fi flight sim developers, who to a large extent are creating a labour of love (they could earn much more on stupid fantasy "flight" sims with dragons and broomsticks). Also, what's the fun with squeaky-clean ????ber-professional programs where everything has been through ten reviews by target audience groups. Flawless is boring and excellence is just not a reflection of a lack of bugs. As in most things in life, if something performs flawlessly it probably wasn't too ambitious to begin with...

...if the flaws are outweight by the majority of superb features. But that is not exactly what we experienced as of late or did we all miss a magic button to unlock features?

The original XK 120 had a lousy roof and was rather drafty in the cabine, but as a roadster one easily ignored those flaws because it was one hell of a car, bettering all else that could be had for all the money int he world. Yet I bet you any money that if it steered straight into the next tree when it went through a curve, while looking gorgeuos, mind you, people would have given it bad reviews. Loads of them.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Zorin

January 3, 2013

I can see there are good intentions in this thread but we don't want to rehash old battles about why games succeed or not, and what the relationship between flight simmers and developers is. That leaves open the path to all kinds of antagonism.

I think it is obvious that nobody has made a flight sim that is as fun as arguing about flight sims yet. We should put that one in the suggestions box.

January 4, 2013

I think it is obvious that nobody has made a flight sim that is as fun as arguing about flight sims yet. We should put that one in the suggestions box.

+1 . I thought that was what flight sims were made for.

January 4, 2013

Reminds me of raaaids post over in the banana-forums, claiming we're all guilty of the failure of CloD.

Though this debate is a bit more argumenative, I still have to disagree.

Realistic expectations is not, what we bring, but what the developers rise.

If the developers claims the upcoming title will have brilliant X, unparallel Y and never done before Z in a photorealistic and dynamical physics environment, then this is something, that has either to be met or it will be a failure. Even if MG had communicated "Hey, we know it won't be good on initial release, but we will be working on getting things working in a matter of months", that would have been ok with 90% of us.

But deleting threads about bugs, denying there was any problem or claiming it would be all client-based-errors, that's what killed CloD in the end.

And that's exactly why I like 777s approach a LOT more: Start with a WORKING basis and focus everything on this job and communicate it exactly this way. And THEN conquer the market.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Feuerfalke

January 4, 2013

Reminds me of raaaids post over in the banana-forums, claiming we're all guilty of the failure of CloD.

Though this debate is a bit more argumenative, I still have to disagree.

Realistic expectations is not, what we bring, but what the developers rise.

If the developers claims the upcoming title will have brilliant X, unparallel Y and never done before Z in a photorealistic and dynamical physics environment, then this is something, that has either to be met or it will be a failure. Even if MG had communicated "Hey, we know it won't be good on initial release, but we will be working on getting things working in a matter of months", that would have been ok with 90% of us.

But deleting threads about bugs, denying there was any problem or claiming it would be all client-based-errors, that's what killed CloD in the end.

And that's exactly why I like 777s approach a LOT more: Start with a WORKING basis and focus everything on this job and communicate it exactly this way. And THEN conquer the market.

+1 a good plan and a means to carry it out..

January 4, 2013

BoS will just be WWII on a RoF map

why is that a bad thing ay way RoF is a grate simand i am shour that IL2 will be grate too

Edited January 4, 2013 by Doogerie

January 4, 2013

Freycinet, the guys "creating a labour of love" still have to pay bills and show some results to their investors. Your argument applies only to mod makers who do their magic for free. But when a professional team decides to create and sell a sim product, they have to make sure it's not too flawed because a limited number of faithful and optimistic enthusiasts with neverending patience is not enough to finance the development process (and with all games, especially sims, getting more and more sophisticated, these costs always rise significantly). In the end either programmers make a product profitable enough to extend their small, existing consumer base, or they loose and drop out of market.

Big publishing companies like EA can afford releasing faulty product once in a while (damn, more often than not they can even afford not giving a flying $hit about post-release user feedback), but for small companies working within niche market like ours, a margin for error is much narrower.

January 4, 2013

I totally disagree. When somebody makes a superb but flawed product the flight sim community should indeed "cut the developers some slack." This cold-hearted attitude has no place when it comes to our attitude towards hi-fi flight sim developers, who to a large extent are creating a labour of love (they could earn much more on stupid fantasy "flight" sims with dragons and broomsticks).

Agreed 100%

January 4, 2013

Freycinet said:

totally disagree. When somebody makes a superb but flawed product the flight sim community should indeed "cut the developers some slack." This cold-hearted attitude has no place when it comes to our attitude towards hi-fi flight sim developers, who to a large extent are creating a labour of love (they could earn much more on stupid fantasy "flight" sims with dragons and broomsticks). Also, what's the fun with squeaky-clean ????ber-professional programs where everything has been through ten reviews by target audience groups. Flawless is boring and excellence is just not a reflection of a lack of bugs. As in most things in life, if something performs flawlessly it probably wasn't too ambitious to begin with...

It seems no-one is going to let this subject die, so here goes...I dont agree with a single word of this.

This assumes the product is superb as well as flawed. Many would disagree with this. Some saw both, some saw just superb, some saw just flawed. A variety of views.

Because something is a 'labour of love' doesn't mean it is somehow exempt from normal opinion. Also, by this reasoning, any program coiuld be construed by its devs as a labour of love. Who decides? This sounds like ring-fencing to me, or 'special pleading'.

Besides, it was a full-priced retail game available through the standard channels. How is this a 'abour of love' more than the next game from a similarly sized company? I'm sure the dungeon n' dragons fans would say the same of their games.

The 'special pleading' argument doesn;t work for me, on any count.

It isn't either-or. Something doesn't have to be 'squeaky clean' just because it works. It's a straw target. SIimilarly, aren't alpha and beta-testers similar to focus-groups, insofar as determining what 'works'? Diminishing an imaginary and rival set of dev practices does nothing to build-up or knownk-down an existing product, to my mind.

To me, this all sounds like familiar arguments, given a new coat of paint and a slightly different angle. I can respect the viewpoint, but I cannot agree with it.

IMO It boils down to apportioning blame - whether it's the 'me-me-no-patience' argument, the 'technical proficiency' argument, or whatever else.

I think the reposnse has been warm-hearted, not cold-hearted, fairly passionate rather than calmly rational - not that this is a bad thing.

EDIT: great picture below

Edited January 4, 2013 by falstaff

January 4, 2013

January 4, 2013

Reminds me of raaaids post over in the banana-forums, claiming we're all guilty of the failure of CloD.

Though this debate is a bit more argumenative, I still have to disagree.

Realistic expectations is not, what we bring, but what the developers rise.

If the developers claims the upcoming title will have brilliant X, unparallel Y and never done before Z in a photorealistic and dynamical physics environment, then this is something, that has either to be met or it will be a failure. Even if MG had communicated "Hey, we know it won't be good on initial release, but we will be working on getting things working in a matter of months", that would have been ok with 90% of us.

But deleting threads about bugs, denying there was any problem or claiming it would be all client-based-errors, that's what killed CloD in the end.

And that's exactly why I like 777s approach a LOT more: Start with a WORKING basis and focus everything on this job and communicate it exactly this way. And THEN conquer the market.

100% agree with this statement buddy, spot on.

January 4, 2013

I have played original IL-2 for best part of a decade. I have always found CloD playable on my mid range PC and with the last release thought it excellent even with the issues it still has. I finally installed RoF and was pleasantly suprised at how good the detail of the planes and even the basic texture, look and colour of the landscape. They all have bits that are brilliant and bits that are not so. A lot comes down to personal preference.

In my view there are three things that a good WWII combat flight sim needs if it is not to be just an arcade game no matter how good that may be. Good sized maps, as many objects in the air and on the ground as possible or relevent and the ability for users to design and generate good satisfying missions and campaigns for off and online use.

These are why IL-2, especially with all the work done by the modders, has been and still is so successful. CloD had these requirements or the ability to achieve them built in as Atag and Disastersoft have shown. The very nature of air combat in WWI compared to WWII has meant that these are not such a big issue with RoF but they most certainly will be with BoS if IC777 are to realise their stated ambition to be the best in the genre there is.

Only time will tell on this and we will have no idea until some concrete stuff starts to emerge as work progresses.

January 7, 2013

Good post flyingblind.

January 9, 2013

Realistic expectations is not, what we bring, but what the developers rise.

If the developers claims the upcoming title will have brilliant X, unparallel Y and never done before Z in a photorealistic and dynamical physics environment, then this is something, that has either to be met or it will be a failure. Even if MG had communicated "Hey, we know it won't be good on initial release, but we will be working on getting things working in a matter of months", that would have been ok with 90% of us.

Well maybe it is true, but I am reluctant to pay for a game that is said to be (maybe) years behind the times. That way I pay later, maybe much later for the game whent it gets there. That is developper`s choice.

But deleting threads about bugs, denying there was any problem or claiming it would be all client-based-errors, that's what killed CloD in the end.

You seem to have forgotten how it looked or you`re just making that up. The bug threads were fine, they were even stickied. Go back and see. Eve separate threads were moved to stickes. The problem was the usual whiner pack who dragged every such a thread into deleting through single messages like "MG are liars" or "this game is sh__". There was even a separate site for reporting bugs of CloD.

And that's exactly why I like 777s approach a LOT more: Start with a WORKING basis and focus everything on this job and communicate it exactly this way. And THEN conquer the market.

A working basis is a very good idea in theory. Nevertheless it has to be a good basis, or people will not buy a game that is well...dissapointing.

Flawless is boring and excellence is just not a reflection of a lack of bugs. As in most things in life, if something performs flawlessly it probably wasn't too ambitious to begin with...

You pointed out a thing that gets you when you look at the dev threads/answers. Lack of ambition.

Yes, that is true. By the time I had a system that could run Clod it was already in the bargain bin. I think the goal for BoS should be that it runs adequately on a high-end laptop, otherwise too many will be cut out of participation.

Then again, if the game released ends up looking cartoonish, it might lose people who hoped for something else than War Thunder.

January 9, 2013

This call for lowered expectations means that I will not be preordering the sim until we hear and see more, I preordered COD in 2006 IIRC.

I really hope that the game is closer to COD than il2.

January 9, 2013

have never had much interest outside of the history in these games. Why? They just don't compare on any meaningful level with piloting a real aircraft. Procedure sims like FSX are useful and fun because the cognitive mirrors reality. CloD was the first combat flight sim that really put it all together. You have to think about managing the aircraft within its limitations in the fight.

That is a quantum leap for these games.

IMHO, the executives that made the decision to stop development really quit just as the product crossed the finish line as something that could have dominated the genre for the next decade just as the original IL2 did. It is not the customers fault or the developers. It is the lack of vision at the top.

January 9, 2013

I think it is obvious that nobody has made a flight sim that is as fun as arguing about flight sims yet. We should put that one in the suggestions box.

+1 because that was funny.

Reminds me of raaaids post over in the banana-forums, claiming we're all guilty of the failure of CloD.

Though this debate is a bit more argumenative, I still have to disagree.

Realistic expectations is not, what we bring, but what the developers rise.

If the developers claims the upcoming title will have brilliant X, unparallel Y and never done before Z in a photorealistic and dynamical physics environment, then this is something, that has either to be met or it will be a failure. Even if MG had communicated "Hey, we know it won't be good on initial release, but we will be working on getting things working in a matter of months", that would have been ok with 90% of us.

But deleting threads about bugs, denying there was any problem or claiming it would be all client-based-errors, that's what killed CloD in the end.

And that's exactly why I like 777s approach a LOT more: Start with a WORKING basis and focus everything on this job and communicate it exactly this way. And THEN conquer the market.

+1 because basics of a flightsim comes first then you add the "fluff".

Freycinet, the guys "creating a labour of love" still have to pay bills and show some results to their investors. Your argument applies only to mod makers who do their magic for free. But when a professional team decides to create and sell a sim product, they have to make sure it's not too flawed because a limited number of faithful and optimistic enthusiasts with neverending patience is not enough to finance the development process (and with all games, especially sims, getting more and more sophisticated, these costs always rise significantly). In the end either programmers make a product profitable enough to extend their small, existing consumer base, or they loose and drop out of market.

Big publishing companies like EA can afford releasing faulty product once in a while (damn, more often than not they can even afford not giving a flying $hit about post-release user feedback), but for small companies working within niche market like ours, a margin for error is much narrower.

+1 to this one because it's true and a lot of "core" simmers are having difficulties grasping it, maybe they don't have to work for a living I don't know.

I would also like to add, if the developers focus on making a good game that they want to make then it will turn out great, if they start focusing on what every single forum member wants then it will turn out like CloD, excellent in some parts, broken and/or unfinished in many others. As I've stated before, the only reason I don't fly RoF is because I don't fancy sowing machines with wings attached to them.

Edited January 9, 2013 by addman

January 9, 2013

All reasonable posts .. but gents just remember.. this thread should not be about the demise/stasis of CoD.. So lets try to keep things away from the whys and wherefors of what happened there..

One thing I have learned over the past decade in all this is to wait and see.. When I was flying in CFS I thought it was the best thing since sliced bread.. I heard about IL2.. but how good can it be.. it doesn't even have any American planes in it.. Little did I know. I was waiting for CFS 3 and I just knew that it was going to be the next best thing since .. buttered sliced bread.. so I upgraded my rig in expectation.. and af6ter the upgrade I bought IL2.. By the time CFS3 came out .. and more imprtantly considering the stet it was in.. I was hooked lock stock and joystick on IL2.. and CFS 3 never did live up to any of my expectations.. to this day I cannot get it ti run right on my PC (FFB issues..)that is why I have yet to do anything but look at OFF...

I am hoping and I think my hopes are reasonably well founded, tha BoS takes off and be what I want in a next gen sim.. something that so far for me nothing else has been.. Since CoD is suspended for me it is over.. unless it gets picked up again.. I will fly it for sure.. based in the screenies alone and the fact that I do own it.. but my expectations have been curtailed by it's discontinued support and the prospect of flying around in Spits and 109s forever.. even if they are modeled great.. ennhh ..... Which again is to take nothing away form CoD or slag it..

Perhaps the fact that I never got into it because I couldn't run it makes it easier for me to be willing to accept something with a little less detail.. but for me.. as long as BoS is more tnan IL2 even if it is somewhat less than CoD and runs decently on my PC I will be happy. This may not be enough for some.. but it will be for me because when I look at how the IL2 engine has been stretched over the years.. given some of the posts in ORR back in the day about what could not be done with it.. and what we have now.. it gives me a lot of hope that whatever BoS may be lacking upon release.. if it runs well enough.. it can be worked on and improved.

Some of the pre release things that I like about BoS are that:

1-The devs have a viable plan to sustain the resources needed for continued development. Some may not like the RoF business model but it is structured in such a way as to keep a steady stream of income for the developers, who like us have bills to pay and have to eat. I think this is a better idea than cranking out a new add on every year or so hoping people will buy it.

2-The devs are working with an proven familiar engine. I have no idea of what coding a flight sim is like .. but again based on what I have seen with IL2.. things can be stretched considerably and from what I have read on other boards about the code used for CoD as good as the end results were in so many ways the fact that the devs chose the DN engine.. regardless to what we as end user may think of it leads me to believe that being devs they chose the tool that they felt would best help them to execute their plan and since I am no position to second guess them I just have to look forward.. and wait and see.

3-Based on what I have seen from the teams .. both the 1C teams and the 777 teams.. I cannot do anything but be more confident that a decent product will be forthcoming. Considering that these folks are familiar with "us" and how particular we are.. ( B) ) , what we as a community want and need in a sim, and the fact that we are not the arcade crowd.. we may have some who like arcade but we are the crowd that wants a sim.. and we are also the final destination for the current crop of arcade flyers in other sims once they get used to what they now have and want better.. Given what we have already seen from these teams with the best of IL2, RoF, and CoD ... I just have to be positive.

If my hopes are misplaced.. as they have been in the past .. then I will deal with that at the time but from where I sit there is nowehre to go but up.

Sign In

Patience and realistic expectations are what BoS and the hi-fi flight sim genre need

Recommended Posts

Bearcat

falstaff

LLv34_Flanker

Kling

=IRFC=Huetz

gavagai

VaeTibi

Kling

Freycinet

FlatSpinMan

Zorin

wiseblood

RoboticPope

Feuerfalke

Bearcat

Doogerie

Art-J

GOAT-ACEOFACES

falstaff

wiseblood

=BKHZ=Tree_UK

flyingblind

Bearcat

Mac_Messer

Krupi

Crump

addman

Bearcat

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Browse All

Activity