Off Topic Question

[BENKOE]

Like it happened with the mighty dual-controlable Bf108 and the Anson as advanced trainer. Announced in 2016.

Edited August 7, 2023 by BENKOE

[Enceladus828]

29 minutes ago, BENKOE said:

Like it happened with the mighty dual-controlable Bf108 and the Anson as advanced trainer. Announced in 2016.

The Bf-108 was decided to be made flyable as it was Team Fusion's first attempt to add cockpits into the game so it made sense for them to make it flyable. Rommel's own personal transport aircraft was the Bf-108 so there could be a mission of escorting his plane. The Avro Anson was added by 1C in the original game; TFS have no plans to make it flyable.

[BENKOE]

Unofficially, without approval of 1c, I guess...

And a little bit Off Topic, I guess...

 

 

Edited August 7, 2023 by BENKOE

[Enceladus828]

3 hours ago, BladeMeister said:

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 totally agree with you Blade. I'm starting to feel that they should just release the Visual Update Package regardless of what version of Speedtree they have. After it's released, add Speedtree 9.0. 

I'm also frustrated with the fact that Fulqrum cannot allow them to say how many planes — in terms of few, several and many — are in Beta and how many are still in the pipeline. If it was stated that some planes are in Beta, while the rest are in the pipeline then that wouldn’t say what planes exactly nor their types and it would give us a rough idea where aircraft development of TF 6.0 is at. Probably if we asked if they are halfway done or more than halfway done with TF 6.0 development Fulqrum wouldn't allow them to say that either.

At this point I am quite disillusioned with the fact that it's been almost a year since BoN was released and we still don't know what the next GBs installment will be.

 

3 hours ago, BladeMeister said:

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.

Exactly! Tbh, more people play MSFS, X-Plane, and War Thunder than any IL-2 game. What are the Steam Charts for IL-2 1946 right now and what were they from 2014-16 when BoS (later known as IL-2 GBs) was coming out vs CloD? People making all the comments above just further makes the delay of the Visual Update Package frustrating and is what really drives the new potential customer base away. None of these can speed TF's work. Honestly, they are just as disappointed as we are. They have been greatly affected in their work by COVID.

If anyone has the Coding skills then you may be able to speed things up by deciding to join TF. I guess I could join TF and become a Mission Builder as I made a lot of missions in IL-2 1946 as a kid (as well as some missions in CloD) and the Mission Editor in CloD is very similar to 1946 so it's not that hard for me.

 

The best solution with the lack of PR is to just appoint a new PR person as Pattle obviously doesn't have the time anymore.

Edited August 7, 2023 by LukeFF
no discussions about the UKR/RUS war and associated comments about former developers is permitted

[kestrel79]

If you are adding a water plane, please go for it! But add it to this sim, NOT a brand new fire fighting sim. MSFS 2024 will outgun you every time if you try to step foot into this market.

[Dagwoodyt]

15 minutes ago, Enceladus said:

 People making all the comments above just further makes the delay of the Visual Update Package frustrating and is what really drives the new potential customer base away. None of these can speed TF's work. Honestly, they are just as disappointed as we are. They have been greatly affected in their work by COVID and now the appalling conflict in Ukraine that made Jason, their liaison, leave.

If anyone has the Coding skills then you may be able to speed things up by deciding to join TF. I guess I could join TF and become a Mission Builder as I made a lot of missions in IL-2 1946 as a kid (as well as some missions in CloD) and the Mission Editor in CloD is very similar to 1946 so it's not that hard for me.

 

The best solution with the lack of PR is to just appoint a new PR person as Pattle obviously doesn't have the time anymore.

Whether TFS is an eternal "victim" of an unkind fate or of its' own hubris is in the eye of the beholder ?

[Trooper117]

 

[Snowdon]

Current state of the forum 

[5th_Barone]

Just a question for @BladeMeister and @Enceladus. How long have you been playing clod and following the community?

Just for curiosity.

[DD_Arthur]

3 hours ago, Enceladus said:

I'm also frustrated with the fact that Fulqrum cannot allow them to say how many planes — in terms of few, several and many — are in Beta and how many are still in the pipeline. If it was stated that some planes are in Beta, while the rest are in the pipeline then that wouldn’t say what planes exactly nor their types and it would give us a rough idea where aircraft development of TF 6.0 is at. Probably if we asked if they are halfway done or more than halfway done with TF 6.0 development Fulqrum wouldn't allow them to say that either.

The “we’re not allowed to tell you A, B or C because entity X, Y and Z won’t let us” has been a recurring theme that TF ‘leadership’ has hidden behind for years.

It coincides nicely with that other recurring theme running through Cliffs development since day one; poor project management.

[Mysticpuma]

My main confusion about the "announcement" is that 1C refused to let them announce anything..... then Fulqrum take that same stipulation? 

How many companies do you know that want to make money, refuse to let any details of the next financial income stream be released? 

 

Also though, how sad is it that this is the most activity the forum has seen in months

[Dagwoodyt]

1 hour ago, Mysticpuma said:

My main confusion about the "announcement" is that 1C refused to let them announce anything..... then Fulqrum take that same stipulation? 

How many companies do you know that want to make money, refuse to let any details of the next financial income stream be released?

FAIK TF 6.0 might have been shelved by both publishers. Look at the aircraft mentioned in the OP. Could aircraft manufacturers and/or resellers fund development of such a module? Where is TFS now based?

[BladeMeister]

2 hours ago, 5th_Barone said:

Just a question for @BladeMeister and @Enceladus. How long have you been playing clod and following the community?

Just for curiosity.

Since TF patch 2.13 way before they received the source code. Was not there for the original release debacle or the banana forums. Right on time DD_arthur. Same BS line you post every time and then red up votes. Quite the team you two are.

 

S!Blade<><

 

[No.54_Reddog]

13 minutes ago, BladeMeister said:

Since TF patch 2.13 way before they received the source code. Was not there for the original release debacle or the banana forums. Right on time DD_arthur. Same BS line you post every time and then red up votes. Quite the team you two are.

 

S!Blade<><

 

I wasn't aware that upvoting a comment I believed to be accurate was an issue or needed independent verification and moderation???

 

Which part of Arthur's post do you disagree with, the bit where TF have repeatedly told us that they can't tell us anything because their hands are tied by their publisher/code owner, or the bit where he suggests there's a history of poor project management?

 

I'm pretty sure that the evidence to support both those statements is both plentiful and blindingly obvious is it not???

 

[ACG_Dickie]

On 8/7/2023 at 1:47 AM, 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<><

 

 

This for me too.  The thread is depressing.  Thing is, when it is released, if it is, then I can't help but feel that many of the other tortuous bugs will still be there.  The rendering distances are a big one, try the Tobruk map and get up high, and watch the tiles and objects render and pop into view,  it's really bad.  Is this fixed?  No idea, I keep my fingers crossed because I'd like nothing more than a brilliant Cliffs.

Who will be first?  Jason with his Pacific release or TF6?  It is that bad.

[Dagwoodyt]

17 minutes ago, ACG_Dickie said:

 

 

This for me too.  The thread is depressing.  Thing is, when it is released, if it is, then I can't help but feel that many of the other tortuous bugs will still be there.  The rendering distances are a big one, try the Tobruk map and get up high, and watch the tiles and objects render and pop into view,  it's really bad.  Is this fixed?  No idea, I keep my fingers crossed because I'd like nothing more than a brilliant Cliffs.

Who will be first?  Jason with his Pacific release or TF6?  It is that bad.

My understanding is that the scenery pop-up effect will be addressed in the Visual Update. Beta testers will know if that has already been fixed. Of course any "fix" might potentially be impacted by subsequent beta updates. UI, controller setup and AI behavior will continue as is as far as I am aware.

[ACG_Dickie]

If there is one positive I can tell you that ACG will be considering Cliffs once there is a VR release, but we'll try it just like we tried Tobruk, only this time we'll do our own acceptance testing for campaign viability.  There are many guys who didn't do the whole FoF and BoB mega-campaign and so it's worth a look.  There are major concerns around the player base because any squad or group going into Cliffs is taking a big risk on (a) players not wanting to jump and (b) entering a tiny player pool to sustain numbers over time.

 

The 'problems' with delivery I have little sympathy for.  There was a 'leadership of squads' meeting with Buzzsaw years back and all the issues around project management and delivery was discussed, and dismissed.  We wanted a '1941 pack' to provide income to TF and breath in life prior to Tobruk but were told that it was 1C blocking it, turns out that was never the case.  And the lack of VR was our fault tbf because we were asked if we should get Tobruk first and VR later or wait for the lot.  At the time VR was uncommon so the squads all voted for Tobruk first.  What we didn't know is that Tobruk would take so so long, the player base had already left by then, and we've now got a similar yet worse situation with VR.

 

This is only a catalogue of events from a squad/group leader perspective btw,  whilst I do make sarcastic quips online there's nothing I'd like more than success for Cliffs,  I'm just disappointed.

Edited August 8, 2023 by ACG_Dickie

[Dagwoodyt]

Perhaps the reality has always been that there cannot be a meaningful development schedule for Blitz without paid staffing. Even if paid staffing were possible there is uncertainty that the game engine can accomodate all the promised Visual Update features and be "bulletproof" stable in a wide variety of user installations. That does not even touch on the apparent inability to enhance the UI so that it is "friendly" to new users. How can TFS keep up with technical advances by other flight sim makers and peripherals marketers without real staffing? Can the team forever "turf" off new peripherals support to the next TF X.0 release?

 

Edited August 8, 2023 by Dagwoodyt

[Mysticpuma]

3 hours ago, ACG_Dickie said:

 

 

This for me too.  The thread is depressing.  Thing is, when it is released, if it is, then I can't help but feel that many of the other tortuous bugs will still be there.  The rendering distances are a big one, try the Tobruk map and get up high, and watch the tiles and objects render and pop into view,  it's really bad.  Is this fixed?  No idea, I keep my fingers crossed because I'd like nothing more than a brilliant Cliffs.

Who will be first?  Jason with his Pacific release or TF6?  It is that bad.

Hi Dickie. Regarding the draw distance, this has long been a bug bear of mine. 

I am in the beta and work certainly has been done to improve it. 

This isn't "secret" as this video was given the okay to be released a couple of months back, but if you check the video at the 1m 36s mark you'll see the current version and the harbour walls pop out of view. Then the video transitions to the current beta (updated since) and the harbour walls are still sold and don't pop out of view. 

 

The landscape tiles don't pop out of view either (need to check the Tobruk map) but the trees do still get drawn in line by line. 

 

I did raise this as an issue however I been assured that when the latest Speedtree version is introduced, the pop up will be erased and the shimmering shadows completely fixed. 

 

 

Please note, colours aren't accurate yet as the shaders are going to be one of the last features completed, so lighting, haze look slightly off at the moment ?

Edited August 8, 2023 by Mysticpuma

[Dagwoodyt]

1 hour ago, Mysticpuma said:

Hi Dickie. Regarding the draw distance, this has long been a bug bear of mine. 

I am in the beta and work certainly has been done to improve it. 

This isn't "secret" as this video was given the okay to be released a couple of months back, but if you check the video at the 1m 36s mark you'll see the current version and the harbour walls pop out of view. Then the video transitions to the current beta (updated since) and the harbour walls are still sold and don't pop out of view. 

 

The landscape tiles don't pop out of view either (need to check the Tobruk map) but the trees do still get drawn in line by line. 

 

I did raise this as an issue however I been assured that when the latest Speedtree version is introduced, the pop up will be erased and the shimmering shadows completely fixed. 

 

 

Please note, colours aren't accurate yet as the shaders are going to be one of the last features completed, so lighting, haze look slightly off at the moment ?

Great vid! I can't help wondering what system specs this flight was run on and what FPS you were getting. I am using VR exclusively for flight sims and would love to know how the same scene would run in VR. Eventually the Team will need to be able to demo VR clips with an fpsVR overlay.

[Snowdon]

5 hours ago, ACG_Dickie said:

  And the lack of VR was our fault tbf because we were asked if we should get Tobruk first and VR later or wait for the lot. 

 

 

[9./JG52_J-HAT]

1 hour ago, Dagwoodyt said:

Great vid! I can't help wondering what system specs this flight was run on and what FPS you were getting. I am using VR exclusively for flight sims and would love to know how the same scene would run in VR. Eventually the Team will need to be able to demo VR clips with an fpsVR overlay.

The videos I made last year all have fps showing when I look up. They are on YT on TFS Channel.

 

3080 and 4090 gave good fps, almost always above 45 even with multiple aircraft in the air and bombs going off. But even when they dipped it wasn‘t too noticeable. Performance was smooth throughout.

But better watch the videos for the exact numbers in different situations.

 

Here are some of them in case you want to watch them.

 

 

 

 

Oh, and they were recorded live, no tracks if that matters.

Edited August 8, 2023 by 9./JG52_J-HAT
Typos

[Mysticpuma]

1 hour ago, Dagwoodyt said:

Great vid! I can't help wondering what system specs this flight was run on and what FPS you were getting. I am using VR exclusively for flight sims and would love to know how the same scene would run in VR. Eventually the Team will need to be able to demo VR clips with an fpsVR overlay.

I am still on an old computer and had great FPS.

I have a 6700K CPU, Asus Deluxe Mobo, 1070GTX, 16GB of Ram and a Samsung Evo 2tb SSD. 

All filmed in 4K, all settings maxed out, using Shadowplay to record. I did an FPS test prior to recording and my minimum was 45fps, maximum 190 (obviously with very little landscape the maximum). 

 

I don't have VR so can't advise on that but I read from other users that FPS on better systems in VR are very favourable and I think in Beta a Speedtree bug has been fixed which effectively gives all the new assets and detail with no impact on FPS. 

 

I get it's frustrating that it isn't released yet but I would guess that the team know they will only have one chance to make a first impression and that tempers their will to release it at the moment. 

 

[Buzzsaw]

4 hours ago, Mysticpuma said:

Hi Dickie. Regarding the draw distance, this has long been a bug bear of mine. 

I am in the beta and work certainly has been done to improve it. 

This isn't "secret" as this video was given the okay to be released a couple of months back, but if you check the video at the 1m 36s mark you'll see the current version and the harbour walls pop out of view. Then the video transitions to the current beta (updated since) and the harbour walls are still sold and don't pop out of view. 

 

The landscape tiles don't pop out of view either (need to check the Tobruk map) but the trees do still get drawn in line by line. 

 

I did raise this as an issue however I been assured that when the latest Speedtree version is introduced, the pop up will be erased and the shimmering shadows completely fixed. 

 

 

Please note, colours aren't accurate yet as the shaders are going to be one of the last features completed, so lighting, haze look slightly off at the moment ?

The shimmering and tree issues you see on MP's video are a function of the new terrain, trueSKY, etc. interacting with old Speedtree 5.2.

 

There is no point in us fixing Speedtree 5.2 issues, when we are migrating to Speedtree 8.42.... when all that effort to fix these issues are just going to be discarded.  Speedtree 8.42 had an enormous number of changes to its software from 5.2... these are very different programs.

 

We hope to add Speedtree 8.42 to the VR Beta in the near future and then we will start work on fixing any issues such as shimmering/shaders, etc.

 

---

 

Yes, we want to make the maximum impression when we release the Visual Update.  This will be a comprehensive improvement of the visual quality of the game... basically almost the same level of graphics improvement which was seen between IL-2 1946 and the original CLIFFS.

 

So we don't want to dilute that effect...  we want the community to see we have made a very large step forward.

7 hours ago, ACG_Dickie said:

The rendering distances are a big one, try the Tobruk map and get up high, and watch the tiles and objects render and pop into view,  it's really bad.  Is this fixed? 

We plan on adding a 'dissolve in' effect in the Visual Update for buildings, etc. to smooth the moment when they appear.   Combined with the greatly increased viewing distance and the very small objects at that distance and we hope the player will get an almost imperceptible visual transition.

[Mysticpuma]

4 minutes ago, Buzzsaw said:

We plan on adding a 'dissolve in' effect in the Visual Update for buildings, etc. to smooth the moment when they appear.   Combined with the greatly increased viewing distance and the very small objects at that distance and we hope the player will get an almost imperceptible visual transition.

This would be brilliant to see. 

No more popcorn effects. 

This is worth reading the thread for as a key point. 

 

Finally, a fix for the popup. 

Great news! 

[Dagwoodyt]

45 minutes ago, Mysticpuma said:

This would be brilliant to see. 

No more popcorn effects. 

This is worth reading the thread for as a key point. 

 

Finally, a fix for the popup. 

Great news! 

Yes, that certainly would be a brilliant effect to see. Question is whether it would represent a "mission  creep" requisite for the Visual Update release.

[Lorena_Scout]

58 minutes ago, Buzzsaw said:

Yes, we want to make the maximum impression when we release the Visual Update.  This will be a comprehensive improvement of the visual quality of the game... basically almost the same level of graphics improvement which was seen between IL-2 1946 and the original CLIFFS.

 

 

wow, that is something that I wasn't expecting!

 

Bring those graphics up please! thanks guys

[ACG_Dickie]

Well there's certainly promising news on the thread in the end. Thank you for this info MP and Buzzsaw,  we are certainly keeping our fingers crossed that the release will be a strong one ?

[Mysticpuma]

Thinking a little bit more about the OP.... how about just creating an A6M2, changing the small multiplayer maps so they have palm trees and you have a modern day  Pacific arena the Wildcat, P40 and A6M2 to fly in. 

 

You'd raise much more revenue with that one aircraft than an entire fire fighting scenario! 

[Buzzsaw]

I am going to comment on what some people have pointed out as being the core problem with TF's development pace... that we are essentially a volunteer group... working on spec.

 

That is true.  TF remains a group of developers who are working in their spare time... in the hopes our modules, when published, will reward their efforts with sales.  (which have not been what we hoped for... maybe in the future we can talk about why TOBRUK was selected as our first module and why we didn't have a lot of choice in that matter)

 

The Volunteer developer model has not changed... TF would like to be able to be better funded, we would like to be able to work full time, but to this point an updated business model is not something we have been able to come to an agreement to implement with either 1C or Fulqrum.

 

So the only way our team can progress is by its members putting in an investment of their time.... but of course, everyone has to put food on the table and raise their kids... so they do their TF work in their spare time... which means the pace of development is slow.  Plus a lot of our members get burned out working two jobs... and leave.

 

Yes, we are constantly recruiting new people... we just added a great new 3D artist... the 2nd in less than a year, but it is very difficult to find people of the caliber needed... especially in the area of programming and code work.

 

The one area where we could use a lot of help, and where the level of skill required is not that high, is in the development of new Maps.  A lot of the work required to create a new map is relatively simple... placing roads, bridges, buildings, forests, etc.  All of these elements are already in the game... the only thing required is to set out the coordinates for where they are positioned on a given map.  Someone who understands the Full Mission Builder well would be more than capable of doing this work.

 

If members of the community want to accelerate the work on our projects, and have some input on what maps get built, then they should contact me.

 

And of course, others who have 3D skills, with a good working knowledge of either BLENDER, (free program) or 3dsMax/Autodesk, or anyone who has programming skills, in either C#, C++, etc. would also be welcome to join us.

 

 

1 hour ago, Mysticpuma said:

Thinking a little bit more about the OP.... how about just creating an A6M2, changing the small multiplayer maps so they have palm trees and you have a modern day  Pacific arena the Wildcat, P40 and A6M2 to fly in. 

 

You'd raise much more revenue with that one aircraft than an entire fire fighting scenario! 

We are looking at potentially doing smaller modules which might include just a few aircraft.... but we need to get permission from Fulqrum before that can happen.

 

But I believe, and most developers believe, what players really want are complete scenarios... as in the model of what GREAT BATTLES offered.  That is what Jason is working towards developing with his new Sim.

 

In any case before TF offers any new module, large or small, we need to visually update our game so that it is comparable with the best products on the market.  That is what our coders are working on... in parallel with the rest of the team continuing to work on TF 6.0 aircraft/objects/maps.

 

By the way, don't hold your breath for Jason to deliver...  he has a long road to travel.  I wish him and his development team the best, Jason is a talented developer, but he and his team have a lot of work to do.

 

And by the way.... one of the reasons TF has not looked to the Pacific... (or the East Front) was that when Jason was running GB... TF was not allowed to consider the Pacific as a possible expansion module.  Jason clearly does see that CLIFFS does have a lot of potential though... when he left GB as development head... the first thing he did was to offer to work with TF to develop CLIFFS.  ?

[Dagwoodyt]

44 minutes ago, Mysticpuma said:

You'd raise much more revenue with that one aircraft than an entire fire fighting scenario! 

If a consortium of aviation businesses were to believe it could bring commercial fire fighting aircraft a higher profile in attention of the public and were able to fund required staffing such a project might be doable. Fulqrum would receive licence fees for Blitz' code use. TFS is the only group that is capable of developing a sim for the Blitz game engine and would be compensated throughout the development cycle. Whether such a sim would have sim market viability IDK, but the climate crisis is not going away. Certainly researching relevant aircraft should be feasible.

Edited August 8, 2023 by Dagwoodyt

[Buzzsaw]

39 minutes ago, Dagwoodyt said:

If a consortium of aviation businesses were to believe it could bring commercial fire fighting aircraft a higher profile in attention of the public and were able to fund required staffing such a project might be doable. Fulqrum would receive licence fees for Blitz' code use. TFS is the only group that is capable of developing a sim for the Blitz game engine and would be compensated throughout the development cycle. Whether such a sim would have sim market viability IDK, but the climate crisis is not going away. Certainly researching relevant aircraft should be feasible.

That model of funding is not an option available to TF.

[BENKOE]

I'd like to learn more about the use of those Water Bomber aircraft in WWII. May be it is possible to provide some open sources where I could learn something about their use in WWII. Thanks in advance.

[Snowdon]

1 hour ago, BENKOE said:

I'd like to learn more about the use of those Water Bomber aircraft in WWII. May be it is possible to provide some open sources where I could learn something about their use in WWII. Thanks in advance.

 

its called Google, wonderful thing its like a encyclopaedia but electronic. 

 

 

Yes I'm an arse, I know ? 

[BENKOE]

Cheers for the tips.
I haven't stumbled upon anything yet about WWII water bombers. But for 'Yes, I'm an arse, I know,' there seems to be a thing or two, like...
'Was kuemmert es die stolze Eiche, wenn sich ein Borstenvieh dran wetzt.'

 

1 hour ago, Snowdon said:

 

its called Google, wonderful thing its like a encyclopaedia but electronic. 

 

 

Yes I'm an arse, I know ? 

[BOO]

 

14 hours ago, Buzzsaw said:

 

 Jason clearly does see that CLIFFS does have a lot of potential though... when he left GB as development head... the first thing he did was to offer to work with TF to develop CLIFFS.  

 

….and what was the outcome of that? 

[Mysticpuma]

3 hours ago, BOO said:

 

 

….and what was the outcome of that? 

He's creating his own Sim ?

[Dagwoodyt]

7 minutes ago, Mysticpuma said:

He's creating his own Sim ?

As more awesome features get announced as part of the "plan", maybe the Visual Update and Jason's "own Sim" will roll out the same year ?

[354thFG_Leifr]

I'm fair convinced that we'll see a technical test of Jason's new endeavour before TF can complete any of their promised goals.

[Buzzsaw]

56 minutes ago, 86th_Leifr said:

I'm fair convinced that we'll see a technical test of Jason's new endeavour before TF can complete any of their promised goals.

A Technical test is not a game.

 

I guess you'll have to wait to see when TF completes our next module.  ?