Off Topic Question

[Buzzsaw]

A bit off topic, but a question for the community...

 

Not sure if players have seen this video:

 

Quite relevant to our times.

 

The question is... how many people would be interested in a non-combat Water Bomber module with the CLIFFS engine.

 

Content likely the Canadair CL-215, CL-415 (as seen above) and the Air Tractor AT-802F... along with a smaller map.

 

Our own internal tests with aircraft like the Walrus shows we have fully amphibian modeling already available in the sim.... allowing landing on the water or on land.... or taxiing from the water to the shore.

 

Not that this would be a higher priority than what we are working on now... just something potentially in the future.

[BladeMeister]

You should include 0$ or maybe, I would not spend money on a water bomber for those not interested at all. I had to pick 19.99$ to complete the poll, when I would not pay any money for this product as I have zero interest.

 

S!Blade<><

[Veteran66]

Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 will have  Water Bomber, would be a strong competition.

 

 

[Enceladus828]

Yeah this just seems like a joke.

 

Unless... we're getting something big soon.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

I cannot vote Buzzsaw, the 0$ choice is not included in the list.

[Mysticpuma]

0$ (please include the option) 

 

This shouldn't even be a post. If you are going to make a flyable water aircraft go with a Sunderland with depth charges for Submarines. 

 

We haven't even got v5 finished. 

 

If this is a product you are considering, I would have waited until VR, TGU and Speedtree had been released. 

 

I honestly thought it was April 1st

 

[354thFG_Leifr]

0$, I wouldn't bother buying it.

Is this a joke?

[FTC_Karaya]

Tobruk has its 3rd birthday anniversary today.

Could we please FINALLY get the graphics update and the 6.0 announcement!?

[Mysticpuma]

1 hour ago, Karaya said:

Tobruk has its 3rd birthday anniversary today.

Could we please FINALLY get the graphics update and the 6.0 announcement!?

I wish it was possible to have this post glowing like a beacon!

 

HANG ON....MAYBE THIS WAS THE V6 ANNOUNCEMENT!!!!! ?

Edited August 6, 2023 by Mysticpuma

[Snowdon]

8 hours ago, Buzzsaw said:

A bit off topic, but a question for the community...

 

Not sure if players have seen this video:

 

Quite relevant to our times.

 

The question is... how many people would be interested in a non-combat Water Bomber module with the CLIFFS engine.

 

Content likely the Canadair CL-215, CL-415 (as seen above) and the Air Tractor AT-802F... along with a smaller map.

 

Our own internal tests with aircraft like the Walrus shows we have fully amphibian modeling already available in the sim.... allowing landing on the water or on land.... or taxiing from the water to the shore.

 

Not that this would be a higher priority than what we are working on now... just something potentially in the future.

 

[DD_Arthur]

7 hours ago, Veteran66 said:

Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 will have  Water Bomber, would be a strong competition.

 

Buzz; you’d essentially be competing for the civilian flight sim market.

See the above video.

MSFS2020 already absolutely dominates that market - and for good reasons.

Next year’s release of MSFS 2024 is going to simply wipe out all competitors.

 

If you’re going to do this then you may as well go for broke and bring back the Sukhoi with the photon torpedoes too.

 

[Mysticpuma]

I also assume:

"Not that this would be a higher priority than what we are working on now... just something potentially in the future."

 

Is a typo, and it "wouldn't"?

[BENKOE]

I'd be up for it and would answer "no" for questions 1) and 2). However, it is necessary to answer question 3). I believe that it doesn't make sense if the purchase of any variant is answered with "no".

[Dagwoodyt]

1 hour ago, Mysticpuma said:

I also assume:

"Not that this would be a higher priority than what we are working on now... just something potentially in the future."

 

Is a typo, and it "wouldn't"?

I don't see any logic to starting this thread given the innumerable times users have been cautioned that the Team only works when and as "real life" permits. Could this be prelude to a bail out? ?

[354thFG_Leifr]

9 minutes ago, Dagwoodyt said:

I don't see any logic to starting this thread given the innumerable times users have been cautioned that the Team only works when and as "real life" permits. Could this be prelude to a bail out? ?

 

If only the thirty four people out there who still play Cliffs had pre-purchased a waterbomber game, the franchise would have survived in to 2025! ?

Coming back to this thread the next day, I'm shook that Buzzsaw had the audacity to ask when so much is still waiting in the pipeline.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

If nothing else would be down the pipeline I could possibly consider it as a low cost DLC. Otherwise combat SIM related stuff always go ahead. 

[Padre*]

I'm going to stick my neck out here and suggest that the vast majority of people only voted for the $19.99 USD option on the 3rd question so they could say NO and NO to the first two questions. I also believe they wouldn't part with that much if there was a combat simulator alternative.

From what I can gather, people want to see progress on CLOD Blitz, and that whilst it may be the case it takes time, there is a real risk of people losing interest with the current speed of development.

I understand that some are working on TF 6.0, but why can't the team all work on getting VR and the visual update finished first?

Edited August 6, 2023 by Padre*

[No.54_Reddog]

1 hour ago, Padre* said:

I understand that some are working on TF 6.0, but why can't the team all work on getting VR and the visual update finished first?

 

I think those that can are in fact working on the visual update. I suspect that the issue is as ever, that there's only a small number of people capable of doing what's required, and that their time is limited, and they are essentially reverse engineering the game to "Heath Robinson" in the required VR, Speedtree and TrueSky code. Despite the fairly extensive number of TF members according to the ATAG members list, I'd be amazed if the active contributors to the visual update at this point number in double digits, and I suspect they're very much less than a single hand's worth of digits. 

 

Those who can work on 3d models and textures, the mapping and so forth, they can work on TF6 content at this point as there seems little left to do unless the implementation of one of the above 3 core technologies suddenly requires further work in these areas to make things compatible.

 

As for the original post in the thread, I'm not sure I have the words or the will to even respond. I thought I'd seen the pinnacle of TF ridiculousness but clearly I have not.

[Canvas25]

I've been hanging in there for CLOD for years now, but this is a truly depressing post.

 

It seems as though this project is going the exact same way as did the original Oleg project. A small team of very skilled developers who in their spare time have taken on a project far too ambitious to realize in any reasonable timeframe.

 

It may be time to do the same thing as what happened to Oleg - release what you have so we can all enjoy that, and we can all move on.

[Trooper117]

No one needs to 'hang on' for CloD for god's sake... if or when it get's done you just turn up and play the bloody thing.

People turn up in this forum and act like a junkie needing, must be having, can't live without that CloD fix... it's laughable, grown ups acting as if they can't survive without this flight sim 'game'... yes, it's just a flippin game.

Play other flight sims, there are so many out there, or play other types of games, so many to choose from... go out into the real world and have fun, because your life doesn't have to revolve around CloD... 

I'm enjoying DCS, plus the scripted campaigns for FC and also playing WoFF at the moment, loads to be going on with in the flight sim genre... have I lost interest in CloD?, no, I haven't, but I'll get back into it when it eventually turns up... you chaps, really...

[SpellswordSPITP51]

16 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

People turn up in this forum and act like a junkie needing, must be having, can't live without that CloD fix... it's laughable, grown ups acting as if they can't survive without this flight sim 'game'... yes, it's just a flippin game.

This is the funniest thing I've read all day. We are talking about a product that most of us has paid 60$ for, and the above mentioned fixes are not just cosmetic. I myself have been complaining about the AI disengage problem for the last year or so, and because of this issue I promised myself not to touch Clod until it's fixed. And now, a year later, my 60$, which in my country is a significant percent of a months pay is still gone. Plus, there aren't many options for flight simmers interested in the BOB. I can think of modded Il-2 1946 and some CFS3-based products (keeping in mind that CFS3 is like 20 yo). If it was a free game, I could accept the "Play other games" advice. But not in this case.

[Trooper117]

I've bought and played all the IL2 products since they came out many years ago... and along with all the other flight sim games I have owned, guess what?... they all have problems and things that need improving and fixing... many of those problems never get fixed, yet I still play and enjoy those games knowing they have faults. You will never buy any game that is 100 percent perfect... 

[Missionbug]

Is this serious?

 

As much as I admire those guys who fly the CL-215 and the amazing work they do it is not something I would buy, at least not for our current sim, I would rather you guys got all the existing seaplanes we have already flyable, those I would buy, even if it meant buying them as separate updates like the collector planes in our other sim.

 

Now that said, if I was a MSF player it would be a great addition and the natural place for it and other similar types.

 

Take care and be safe.

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.

Edited August 6, 2023 by Missionbug

[SpellswordSPITP51]

But it doesn't have to be that way, Trooper. Look into the bug tracker tab on ATAG, and count the pages. Having a game in this state and asking about making another project, which will slow down the Clod development even more seems completely absurd. It's like purposefully choosing to sell a flawed game.

Edited August 6, 2023 by SpellswordSPITP51

[TBD79_OD_]

If the original ambition for Cliffs had been fulfilled and the developers were at a loose end…sure go ahead. Make a water bomber. I don’t think I’d buy it, but someone would.
 

However, there’s so much outstanding that I’m good without a water bomber. I bought Tobruk purely to try Cliffs in VR. It’s still not here and I wasn’t allowed to take part in the beta. I can’t see me picking up Cliffs again until VR has finally been opened up to everyone. My Track IR is away in a drawer probably to never see the light of day again. 
 

Once VR has been delivered do what you want with Cliffs. My sole hope for Cliffs is that we manage to get a Storm of War server up again and I can take out the waves of bombers in VR with my trusty Hurricane. 

[Trooper117]

13 minutes ago, TBD79_OD_ said:

I’m good without a water bomber.

 

Me too... Unless of course it's a Sunderland?  

[5th_Barone]

This is hilarious.

Let me tell you, honestly, Buzz you really have great PR skills.

In just one post (and I understand it was an innocent one) you opened another Pandora's box. LoL.

If you want to do waterbombing probably you'd better start developing for xplane or msfs as a mod. You'll never be able to compete as a game in that market as other said. Especially with TF speed and communication.

 

Back to serious talking. After all these years maybe would be wise to give news on the update or TF6 than asking if people would like a waterbombing game.

Just saying

 

Edited August 6, 2023 by 5th_Barone

[Buzzsaw]

Hey Guys

 

Just to let you know:

 

I spent 8 hours yesterday working on Flight Models for TF 6.0.

 

Then I took a break, watched that 5 minute video and a couple others while eating dinner... which I referenced after previously seeing in the news the story about the CL-215 crashing in Greece, and then after dinner and before getting back to the FM modeling, spent 20 minutes writing a post.  So not exactly a lot of effort spent from TF's precious work time.

 

Obviously the concensus from the Community is 'no'... so I'll write this off our list of future potential modules.  ? ? ? ? ? ?

 

(although by the way, if we did a Water Bomber module, it would be a lot more comprehensive than Microsoft's... in that we would actually simulate the drop capability, the effects of water on fire, the ability to 'Scoop', land on water/land, taxi from the water to the land, not to mention things like fires spreading, destruction of civilian infrastructure by fires... etc. etc.  And Map creation would be relatively simple... as any map would likely be a small type... with low population/heavy forested areas... so not a lot of time required)

 

By the way... I would love to list other options for future Combat modules... but the problem is, I would be giving away our future plans if I did list potential options... by the omissions which are not in the list.  ?

 

Hopefully everything will become clear in the near future.  ? ?

[Enceladus828]

34 minutes ago, Buzzsaw said:

Obviously the concensus from the Community is 'no'... so I'll write this off our list of future potential modules.  ? ? ? ? ? ?

 

The answer would be pretty much no from the start as the CL-215 was built in the 60s, if it were to be a PBY then at best maybe because the RAF used it, most notably for finding the Bismarck.

 

36 minutes ago, Buzzsaw said:

By the way... I would love to list other options for future Combat modules... but the problem is, I would be giving away our future plans if I did list potential options... by the omissions which are not in the list.  ?

Hopefully we can still be able to control ships, and maybe be able to fire the main guns and torpedoes.

[TBD79_OD_]

I’d be content with VR making it out there as a general release…future plans we’ve been hearing about for about ten years now. 

[Dagwoodyt]

1 hour ago, Buzzsaw said:

Hey Guys

 

Just to let you know:

 

I spent 8 hours yesterday working on Flight Models for TF 6.0.

 

 

 

Hopefully everything will become clear in the near future.  ? ?

Time to ready for announcement that, due to unforeseen difficulties, the VU will not see release in 2023? ?

[Feldgrun]

1 hour ago, Buzzsaw said:

By the way... I would love to list other options for future Combat modules...

 

Even a nugget of information can go a long way to get some interest in the future of this sim. The FW 190 model was helpful, but adding something not seen in GB would get us excited. B-17/24? I'd love to simulate what Fishyyy has excelled at in 1946 (see the pass at 28:40).

 

[BladeMeister]

Honestly, I would be good if TF didn't make another post about anything involving the graphics/VR update, version 6.0 or any other future plans until the graphics/VR update is released. I haven't lost interest in CLOD, but at the same rate I can honestly say that I am tired of seeing DD reports that seem to suggest that the next update is close or within a few months only to watch another year go by and the big update still hasn't been released. When it is released I will happily jump back in and I am sure I will enjoy it, but for now I would just rather hear or read nothing about it pre-release. I still support TF, go team, but dam it has been a long time coming. This from an ardent supporter.

 

S!Blade<><

[Veteran66]

@Buzzsaw

maybe it's a bad time to ask for another game, many are impatiently waiting for news and the update of CloD.

No one known what the Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 will bring.

 

I spend a lot of holidays in Greece and see the Greek heroes with their "Water Bomber" and the impact of my beloved island of Rhodes.

 

a water bomber sim would be great, but not at this point in time when we're all waiting for CloD 6.0

[Mysticpuma]

14 hours ago, Buzzsaw said:

Obviously the concensus from the Community is 'no'... so I'll write this off our list of future potential modules.  ? ? ? ? ? ?

 

(although by the way, if we did a Water Bomber module, it would be a lot more comprehensive than Microsoft's... in that we would actually simulate the drop capability, the effects of water on fire, the ability to 'Scoop', land on water/land, taxi from the water to the land, not to mention things like fires spreading, destruction of civilian infrastructure by fires... etc. etc.  And Map creation would be relatively simple... as any map would likely be a small type... with low population/heavy forested areas... so not a lot of time required)

 

By the way... I would love to list other options for future Combat modules... but the problem is, I would be giving away our future plans if I did list potential options... by the omissions which are not in the list.  ?

 

Hopefully everything will become clear in the near future.  ? ?

 

I think a majority (not all) have pretty much given up on there being any other modules, Buzzsaw, based on the current WiP timeline:

 

5-years-ago, VR trials began but were decided to be delayed until v5.0 was released, two-years later.

2-years ago, VR finally gets confirmed to be a WiP - still no VR

4-years-ago the first image of Truesky was released - still no Truesky

3-years after v5.0 was released we are still in limbo as to when VR, TGU and Speedtree will finally be released - Still no Speedtree (latest version), or TGU

3-years after the release of Tobruk we are still no nearer hearing where v6 is planned to cover, yet we can read about a 'Water Bomber' module?

 

What update threads used to look like:

 

 

I think what disappoints me the most is it feels like TFS are treating us like fish. Dangling bait, pulling it away, dangling bait, pulling it away.

What surprises me the most in this thread? You have even managed to frustrate Blademeister. We have had run-ins, we have PM'd each other, we have what I would call an antagonistic respect for each other, I understand his viewpoint, he gets mine, but we are likely never to completely agree, but damn! I couldn't believe it when I read you had even managed to disillusion him!

 

9 hours ago, BladeMeister said:

Honestly, I would be good if TF didn't make another post about anything involving the graphics/VR update, version 6.0 or any other future plans until the graphics/VR update is released. I haven't lost interest in CLOD, but at the same rate I can honestly say that I am tired of seeing DD reports that seem to suggest that the next update is close or within a few months only to watch another year go by and the big update still hasn't been released. When it is released I will happily jump back in and I am sure I will enjoy it, but for now I would just rather hear or read nothing about it pre-release. I still support TF, go team, but dam it has been a long time coming. This from an ardent supporter.

 

S!Blade<><

 

Simply put, everything he said absolutely hits the nail on the head.

The update has been too long coming and the lack of announcing where many of us already know v6.0 is going is getting to be an embarrassment!

 

I posted elsewhere my expectation for the release of VR/Speedtree and TGU* as follows:

 

Currently closed beta.

New Speedtree gets added

Bug test in closed beta.

Fixes.

Further bug testing.

Stable version.

Now add VR.

Closed beta testing.

Bug fixes

Closed beta testing.

Full update VR, graphics, final shader versions.

Beta test closed beta.

Fix bugs.

Closed beta test.

Release candidate 1

Bug fixes

Release candidate 2

Bug fixes

Final release candidate.

Gold version released.

We are August 2023 now.

I reckon around December 2024

 

Now previously when I made a prediction I was called "Wildly Pessimistic" and yet I was out by a year. Tobruk released in 2020 and I had predicted August 2019 in a thread from 2018.

 

Now look at the above and tell me anyone should have an expectation of seeing a working version by Christmas 2023?

 

The saddest thing is, the current Steam charts for this game pretty much give the state of play. I do think if VR came out, there would be a slight resurgence, and maybe it would sustain until v6 was announced, but the lack of notable progress, years of empty promises and now this question about a water bomber?

 

Why not focus the effort on the water in CloD? Truesky has water simulation, why not add it to clod so Submarines become viable, a flyable Sunderland (even if it was a paid for add on) would have much more traction dropping depth charges than a 'water bomber'.

 

I honestly have no idea why you would even post this when the last stragglers of anyone interested in CloD wait for even a crumb of news on progress?

 

Finally, you mention other modules "By the way... I would love to list other options for future combat modules... but the problem is, I would be giving away our future plans if I did list potential options... by the omissions which are not in the list".

 

Buzzsaw you can't even mention one (v6) let alone another future modules. Currently, most (not all) have very little faith in this current addition of VR/Speedtree and TGU, so even mentioning possible future modules sounds so far out of touch with the community expectations, I really don't understand why you would allude to them.

 

 

Just concentrate on VR/Speedtree and TGU and if you do what some water action, like I said, get the water working in Truesky, get submarines and get a flyable Sunderland with depth charges. That would be far more interesting!

 

-------

 

*TGU - The Graphics Update

 

 

 

Edited August 7, 2023 by Mysticpuma

[No.54_Reddog]

I do wonder if those expecting some sort of wondrous resurgence in player numbers are familiar with the concept of a "dead cat bounce". We saw precisely that effect with the release of the last module.

 

 

[5th_Barone]

24 minutes ago, No.54_Reddog said:

I do wonder if those expecting some sort of wondrous resurgence in player numbers are familiar with the concept of a "dead cat bounce". We saw precisely that effect with the release of the last module.

 

 

 

I agree with you on the release of Tobruk (released btw in August, a month when mostly nobody plays as they are enjoying the summer, good timing).

 

The only difference here may be the VR.

Because may bring the interest of lots of new players that may try the product.

 

Of course the interest then have to be kept by a good product.

Example is 4.5 release. Lots of new people tried the game and went away for the issues we all know.

 

You need PR, you need promotion, you need a schedule. Something you see in the above Dev update from Bonkin.

And then you need results.

You can't keep saying "hey we have the update coming" and then people wait for years.

Because people will play other games and won't care anymore.

 

Timing is essential, communication is essential for a software house.

You never get another first impression.

 

We are here just because we're aficionado of the game. We last 30-40 ppl.

 

We play a lot of other flight sims, we know other communities.

Do you know what they reply if you mention clod?

"What's clod?"

[Art-J]

15 hours ago, Buzzsaw said:

(although by the way, if we did a Water Bomber module, it would be a lot more comprehensive than Microsoft's... in that we would actually simulate the drop capability, the effects of water on fire, the ability to 'Scoop', land on water/land, taxi from the water to the land, not to mention things like fires spreading, destruction of civilian infrastructure by fires... etc. etc.  And Map creation would be relatively simple... as any map would likely be a small type... with low population/heavy forested areas... so not a lot of time required)

 

We've seen a water drop in MSFS2024 trailer though, haven't we? No matter what one thinks about Asobo's current work, I doubt the water and fire mechanics will be "cosmetic" only, if mission-oriented features are apparently supposed to be the main selling point of the new product.

 

I'd hazard a guess all the features you mentioned will eventually get there into the next MSFS (OK, maybe not from the get go, but still) and thus any other product on the market trying to cover this very niche-of-a-niche mission type would be destined to fail. CloD engine might have a greater FM potential to simulate floatplanes better, but I think it would be the only tech advantage available and insufficient one to make people choose CloD 215/415 over MSFS one.

[BladeMeister]

MP, I am not dissollusioed with TF and their efforts, I am at this point simply very tired of reading the vaguely worded posts from Buzzsaw which neither confirm nor set about any kind of timeline for the graphics/VR release, and any mention of 6.0 or any project which would slow the current work on the graphics/VR update exacerbates this for me. After 2 years + I would think that they would be close and could make some educated guess as to a release date, but what do I know. I am however even more tired of reading the 'CLOD is doomed', the 'if you look at the Steam user info' and especially the, 'is this the end for CLOD', the lack of PR is driving the new potential customer base away', comments. Like any of these comments will help or are going to force TF to speed things up. That is where my frustrations lie concerning CLOD. Nothing more nothing less. I am still highly interested in the graphics/VR update and am excited for its arrival one of these years.

 

S!Blade<><

 

Edited August 7, 2023 by BladeMeister

[Dagwoodyt]

Given existing unfulfilled commitments, introducing a water bomber thread is clearly not equivalent to doodling on a napkin at the dinner table. Something is up and as in the Ghostbusters song, "It don't look good". Use of numerous uncharacteristic emojis in attempt to calm the waters just serves to increase a sense of unease. I get a vibe that someone is searching desperately for an off ramp where none is readily available.

17 hours ago, Buzzsaw said:

And Map creation would be relatively simple... as any map would likely be a small type... with low population/heavy forested areas... so not a lot of time required)

To me the quote above is counterproductive. It seems like diversion to a seemingly more comfortable byway. I am prepared for the next "hard luck" acknowledgement that the Visual Update (aka TGU) must go aglimmering into a 2024 "forest" of uncertainties.

Edited August 7, 2023 by Dagwoodyt