Discussion of TF 6.5 Aircraft Preview

[BladeMeister]

2 hours ago, FTC_Rostic said:

 

Screenshots of maps for those DLCs were shown. So, my guess guy making maps at some point had nothing to do, and team quickly planned future DLCs for next XXX years. Map making guy now got something to do.

 

Just a guess...

 

Can you please list those bugs. Preferebly with links to TFS bug tracker. If no links, please provide instructions how to replicate those "GAME BREAKING" bugs. Additionally record video showcasing them.

I do know there is a lot of bugs and issues. But can't name that many "GAME BREAKING" bugs that make CloD unplayable.

Go look at the bug tracker yourself. While your at it , get a job.

 

S!Blademeister<><

[FTC_Rostic]

2 hours ago, BladeMeister said:

Go look at the bug tracker yourself. While your at it , get a job.

 

S!Blademeister<><

 

The are no GAME BREAKING bugs 😀

[BladeMeister]

3 hours ago, FTC_Rostic said:

 

The are no GAME BREAKING bugs 😀

Nobody said there was, especially not me, but there are definitely bugs that basically ruin the SP experience. Some of them have been listed literally for years. I get the feeling that the controlling people in TFS don't care about SP. SP seems to be a necessary evil to most all of the Combat Flight Sim Devs, TFS included, just to get people to buy their sims in the hopes that the new customer will fly online mostly and won't notice the problems that hold the SP experience back. VR will be no different when people buy CLOD and see that the longstanding bugs which drag CLOD down to a tiring  sim that at best one can squeeze some fun out of for short periods of time before becoming tired of the same old BS that never gets fixed. What stands out to me the most is that TFS is not getting paid to do what they are doing, they are doing it out of their love for CLOD, and have stated as much themselves, and this is admirable for their continued efforts, but if that is truly the case, wouldn't it be in the best interest and love for CLOD to, at the very least, fix some of the longstanding bugs that drive your customers away from using it for SP? If you love something you don't let it continue to have the same OLD problems and just create new stuff. At worst, you fix and create at the same time. At best you correct the, in this case, few glaring problems first, keep your longstanding customer base happy and then create all the new DLC that you realistically can. I hate to say it but after watching, reading, playing CLOD, since back before the code was given to TF(version 4.13? 2.13? and earlier), and keeping up with TF back in the day and now TFS, I cannot come up with any other reason that CLOD still persists with some of the same old bugs, and new ones(the last couple of years, vs way back) other than that the people in charge don't want those problems fixed? For the life of me, I cannot understand that for one minute. After I don't know how many years supporting and encouraging TFS, and ENCOURAGING TFS, AND ENCOURAGING TFS, even when Mysticpuma was in PR, being a participatory member of ATAG, donating here and there to ATAG, creating after action mission reports and posting endless screen shots on ATAG Forums and just loving and always believing that CLOD had the most potential out of any Combat Flight Sim in current development, I am just about out of hope and enthusiasm towards TFS's development strategy.  TFS doesn't owe me anything and I wish the members doing all the heavy lifting and the grunt work within TFS nothing but the best. I hope all of your hard work will be realized someday and maybe CLOD will shine again, but I am not holding my breath that it will anymore. To the management team, I cannot understand your development strategy for one second. I wish the management team clear vision and revelation to actually see your strategy through or turn it about face and do what makes sense, but as far as I can see for the last 4 years, as my friends across the big pond would say, "you are "Bollocksing" this up quite willfully!" If anyone takes offense to this, you have my heartfelt apology in advance, but this is how the situation appears from my seat. The sad part is, and to my embarrassment, that some of the members here & on ATAG that I used to think were just totally negative or troublemakers, and even called out a few for it, now think that it is funny that I have sunk to this low level of being disheartened with TFS management, but

C'est la Vie

 

S!Blade<><

Edited January 29 by BladeMeister

[Mysticpuma]

19 hours ago, BladeMeister said:

Nobody said there was, especially not me, but there are definitely bugs that basically ruin the SP experience. Some of them have been listed literally for years. I get the feeling that the controlling people in TFS don't care about SP. SP seems to be a necessary evil to most all of the Combat Flight Sim Devs, TFS included, just to get people to buy their sims in the hopes that the new customer will fly online mostly and won't notice the problems that hold the SP experience back. VR will be no different when people buy CLOD and see that the longstanding bugs which drag CLOD down to a tiring  sim that at best one can squeeze some fun out of for short periods of time before becoming tired of the same old BS that never gets fixed. What stands out to me the most is that TFS is not getting paid to do what they are doing, they are doing it out of their love for CLOD, and have stated as much themselves, and this is admirable for their continued efforts, but if that is truly the case, wouldn't it be in the best interest and love for CLOD to, at the very least, fix some of the longstanding bugs that drive your customers away from using it for SP? If you love something you don't let it continue to have the same OLD problems and just create new stuff. At worst, you fix and create at the same time. At best you correct the, in this case, few glaring problems first, keep your longstanding customer base happy and then create all the new DLC that you realistically can. I hate to say it but after watching, reading, playing CLOD, since back before the code was given to TF(version 4.13? 2.13? and earlier), and keeping up with TF back in the day and now TFS, I cannot come up with any other reason that CLOD still persists with some of the same old bugs, and new ones(the last couple of years, vs way back) other than that the people in charge don't want those problems fixed? For the life of me, I cannot understand that for one minute. After I don't know how many years supporting and encouraging TFS, and ENCOURAGING TFS, AND ENCOURAGING TFS, even when Mysticpuma was in PR, being a participatory member of ATAG, donating here and there to ATAG, creating after action mission reports and posting endless screen shots on ATAG Forums and just loving and always believing that CLOD had the most potential out of any Combat Flight Sim in current development, I am just about out of hope and enthusiasm towards TFS's development strategy.  TFS doesn't owe me anything and I wish the members doing all the heavy lifting and the grunt work within TFS nothing but the best. I hope all of your hard work will be realized someday and maybe CLOD will shine again, but I am not holding my breath that it will anymore. To the management team, I cannot understand your development strategy for one second. I wish the management team clear vision and revelation to actually see your strategy through or turn it about face and do what makes sense, but as far as I can see for the last 4 years, as my friends across the big pond would say, "you are "Bollocksing" this up quite willfully!" If anyone takes offense to this, you have my heartfelt apology in advance, but this is how the situation appears from my seat. The sad part is, and to my embarrassment, that some of the members here & on ATAG that I used to think were just totally negative or troublemakers, and even called out a few for it, now think that it is funny that I have sunk to this low level of being disheartened with TFS management, but

C'est la Vie

 

S!Blade<><

It's not a low level Blade, it's finally seeing through "The Emperor's New Clothes". 

That's a great summary of how stagnant it has felt and especially the focus on Multiplayer fixes.

I'll restate it again, it's a percentage fact that 4x more players choose Single Player than Multiplayer and looking at the Discord Server membership, with around 400 members....well an ATAG multiplayer event can usually gather 60-100 players, so that's 300 'spare' Discord members who likely never turn up to a Multiplayer event?

 

That said, there is likely a lot of work going on behind the scenes we will never know about, but no one is demanding updates, it's just that when @Soto_Cinematics and @batmacumba pop up and say hello, it brings a level of happiness not seen on these forums for months.

The choice now really is, what do you believe?

 

[BOO]

Perhaps a well contructed poll on the discord ("but i dont use discord, hoops, jumping, whine, boo hoo") or even a a small series of em would perhaps allow for some meaningful pulse taking and perhaps highlight specifically what is most important to most people. 

 

The huge caveat on this is that MP is always more likely to be better represented in active on line participation than SP. 

 

And, of course this also assumes that there is abilty,capacity, will within TFS to accomodate. 

[Dagwoodyt]

The question I would pose is whether the TFS' prime directive is to grow its' customer base or to simply perpetuate its' existence as a fraternity.🤔

[AWC]

20 hours ago, BladeMeister said:

Nobody said there was, especially not me, but there are definitely bugs that basically ruin the SP experience. Some of them have been listed literally for years. I get the feeling that the controlling people in TFS don't care about SP. SP seems to be a necessary evil to most all of the Combat Flight Sim Devs, TFS included, just to get people to buy their sims in the hopes that the new customer will fly online mostly and won't notice the problems that hold the SP experience back. VR will be no different when people buy CLOD and see that the longstanding bugs which drag CLOD down to a tiring  sim that at best one can squeeze some fun out of for short periods of time before becoming tired of the same old BS that never gets fixed. What stands out to me the most is that TFS is not getting paid to do what they are doing, they are doing it out of their love for CLOD, and have stated as much themselves, and this is admirable for their continued efforts, but if that is truly the case, wouldn't it be in the best interest and love for CLOD to, at the very least, fix some of the longstanding bugs that drive your customers away from using it for SP? If you love something you don't let it continue to have the same OLD problems and just create new stuff. At worst, you fix and create at the same time. At best you correct the, in this case, few glaring problems first, keep your longstanding customer base happy and then create all the new DLC that you realistically can. I hate to say it but after watching, reading, playing CLOD, since back before the code was given to TF(version 4.13? 2.13? and earlier), and keeping up with TF back in the day and now TFS, I cannot come up with any other reason that CLOD still persists with some of the same old bugs, and new ones(the last couple of years, vs way back) other than that the people in charge don't want those problems fixed? For the life of me, I cannot understand that for one minute. After I don't know how many years supporting and encouraging TFS, and ENCOURAGING TFS, AND ENCOURAGING TFS, even when Mysticpuma was in PR, being a participatory member of ATAG, donating here and there to ATAG, creating after action mission reports and posting endless screen shots on ATAG Forums and just loving and always believing that CLOD had the most potential out of any Combat Flight Sim in current development, I am just about out of hope and enthusiasm towards TFS's development strategy.  TFS doesn't owe me anything and I wish the members doing all the heavy lifting and the grunt work within TFS nothing but the best. I hope all of your hard work will be realized someday and maybe CLOD will shine again, but I am not holding my breath that it will anymore. To the management team, I cannot understand your development strategy for one second. I wish the management team clear vision and revelation to actually see your strategy through or turn it about face and do what makes sense, but as far as I can see for the last 4 years, as my friends across the big pond would say, "you are "Bollocksing" this up quite willfully!" If anyone takes offense to this, you have my heartfelt apology in advance, but this is how the situation appears from my seat. The sad part is, and to my embarrassment, that some of the members here & on ATAG that I used to think were just totally negative or troublemakers, and even called out a few for it, now think that it is funny that I have sunk to this low level of being disheartened with TFS management, but

C'est la Vie

 

S!Blade<><

 

Hi Blade, sorry if you feel that way. To answer your concerns, basically as Buzzsaw has often said, all desired changes are down the list of priorities that depend on manpower, etc. As things are right now, the team is in a better position than it has been in the past.

[BladeMeister]

2 hours ago, Soto_Cinematics said:

 

Hi Blade, sorry if you feel that way. To answer your concerns, basically as Buzzsaw has often said, all desired changes are down the list of priorities that depend on manpower, etc. As things are right now, the team is in a better position than it has been in the past.

No need to be sorry, it is what is. If the team is in a better position now than it has been in the past, that speaks well for the coders, 3d modelers and texture artists that are doing the actual work, and I congratulate and appreciate them.  However it does not speak well for the leadership team that delegates the volunteers job focus and time. The cart is being put before the proverbial horse, as new creation is prioritized over current core game execution. That is poor resource management and a middle finger to existing customers who have already purchased one or both of the CLOD products. It also does the same to potentially new customers who might want to purchase CLOD now. Just wait until we have finished the VR & Visual updates, 4 years in the making, it is going to be awesome, then management will direct the TFS team to look at the major bugs from the bug list and try to fix them. The same old song and dance. Might as well kick the can on down the road while your at it. Again I wish the core level workers all the best and that the TFS management has an  epiphany moment and realizes they have suffered the current execution of CLOD for four years, if not longer, in the hopes that someday it will be all that it can be instead of realizing some improvements along the way to the grandiose ending, if that ending ever comes. Thankfully, I have plenty of other Combat Flights Sims to get into and help forget about the situation over here. It's a shame though because CLOD always held a place in the back of my mind as the one to watch out for and someday be pleasatly surprised if its long lived potential came to reality. Maybe someday way way on down the road. Back into the shadows for me, much to some people's relief.

 

S!Blade<><

 

[PO_Baldrick]

5 hours ago, BladeMeister said:

The cart is being put before the proverbial horse, as new creation is prioritized over current core game execution. That is poor resource management and a middle finger to existing customers who have already purchased one or both of the CLOD products.

For me that reflects on the race & flight simulation industry in general and somewhat to my dismay over the last couple of decades is partly driven by the insatiable community demand for content. No sooner is a new car, aircraft, track or map announced then we get the flood of "take my money" and "now what we really need..." posts. It is especially true for the more active members who have probably spent many hours with the existing content and want something fresh.

 

We also have relatively small but very enthusiast multiplayer communities striving for balanced gameplay which always needs balance of power adjustments be it with new aircraft, weapons, cars, bhp etc.

 

If we look at race sims ever since the growth of console games the car and track list have been a measure of how great a game is. Unfortunately (IMHO) this trend has continued with the more hardcore race sims. I say unfortunately but the community seems to lap it up plus of course commercially it seems the way to make money and there is a strong argument to suggest the products wouldn't be viable with so many DLCs and EA releases.

 

TFS as a predominately volunteer group would seem in a better position to do what they want but they still have a relationship with a publisher and need some kind of business plan, so fall into the content makes money rule to some degree. Plus again there seems strong demand for new stuff from the existing members.

 

Also as a predominately volunteer group I would imagine the leadership take on volunteers who offer their services. If someone offers specific model making capabilities who would turn that down because they also want programmers who can decipher someone else's code from more than a decade ago. My guess is the latter is harder to find.

 

My personal desires for a flight combat sim is for a realistic but accessible Battle of Britain era in VR which looks and sounds great. So what I want from TFS is to spruce it up, make the AI class leading, simulate comms from the era, continually progress the realism aspects and so on. That said if they have other resource who are eager to make maps and aircraft then why not, they probably aren't going to be coerced into making or updating other stuff, so might as well let them add what they want. This isn't a company having to decide which roles to employ with a limited budget.

 

Finally, in the scheme of things the money paid for CloD is almost negligible compared with other flight combat sims and their array of DLCs, so expecting it to be continually updated for years without some form of additional DLC is maybe a bit too much to expect. People don't like paying again for something they have - "it is how it should have been in the first place" kind of argument!

 

Just my observations.

 

[AtomicP]

3 hours ago, PO_Baldrick said:

For me that reflects on the race & flight simulation industry in general and somewhat to my dismay over the last couple of decades is partly driven by the insatiable community demand for content. No sooner is a new car, aircraft, track or map announced then we get the flood of "take my money" and "now what we really need..." posts. It is especially true for the more active members who have probably spent many hours with the existing content and want something fresh.

 

We also have relatively small but very enthusiast multiplayer communities striving for balanced gameplay which always needs balance of power adjustments be it with new aircraft, weapons, cars, bhp etc.

 

If we look at race sims ever since the growth of console games the car and track list have been a measure of how great a game is. Unfortunately (IMHO) this trend has continued with the more hardcore race sims. I say unfortunately but the community seems to lap it up plus of course commercially it seems the way to make money and there is a strong argument to suggest the products wouldn't be viable with so many DLCs and EA releases.

 

TFS as a predominately volunteer group would seem in a better position to do what they want but they still have a relationship with a publisher and need some kind of business plan, so fall into the content makes money rule to some degree. Plus again there seems strong demand for new stuff from the existing members.

 

Also as a predominately volunteer group I would imagine the leadership take on volunteers who offer their services. If someone offers specific model making capabilities who would turn that down because they also want programmers who can decipher someone else's code from more than a decade ago. My guess is the latter is harder to find.

 

My personal desires for a flight combat sim is for a realistic but accessible Battle of Britain era in VR which looks and sounds great. So what I want from TFS is to spruce it up, make the AI class leading, simulate comms from the era, continually progress the realism aspects and so on. That said if they have other resource who are eager to make maps and aircraft then why not, they probably aren't going to be coerced into making or updating other stuff, so might as well let them add what they want. This isn't a company having to decide which roles to employ with a limited budget.

 

Finally, in the scheme of things the money paid for CloD is almost negligible compared with other flight combat sims and their array of DLCs, so expecting it to be continually updated for years without some form of additional DLC is maybe a bit too much to expect. People don't like paying again for something they have - "it is how it should have been in the first place" kind of argument!

 

Just my observations.

 

I've seen this pop up in general PC gaming where once a game releases, people increasingly seem to expect continual free updates. Even for single player games, Steam is full of comments if the game is 'dead'. Take Sons of the Forest for example, which was in early access for a year, was arguably a bit thin, but the devs fleshed it out and released the 1.0 version after that year, and I played the full release and had fun. The game generally costs at most £25 and was under £20 in early access, but even now, a good year beyond the 1.0 release, the Steam discussions are full of folk saying the game has been abandoned. Must be hellish being a game developer these days.

[Aapje]

@AtomicP

 

I took a look at the Sons of the Forest reviews and discussions, and I don't see what you base your claims on. The game has a 91% approval rating for recent reviews and a 87% for all reviews, so the ratings are actually higher since the game got finished. People who ask for more content in the reviews point to specific weaknesses in the game, like a repetitive end-game when you approach day 50, for which there is an achievement, so apparently you are supposed to try to keep playing until then. They are not asking for more content just because they are done with the content that was initially added.

 

Anyway, I think that a big issue is that there is a direct return on investment when adding new planes, maps, etc, while improvements to things like the career affect more generally how likely people are to buy into the game, and even more so, how much hours they spend on the game. But the latter doesn't earn the devs any money.

 

But I do think that the more recent flight sims have not focused enough on SP content, even when I think that fairly big gains could be made with relatively little effort (just look at how PWCG adds a lot to single player Great Battles and Flying Circus, despite him not being to make any changes to the core engine, even though it would probably help him a lot to have a few little modifications made).

 

However, I think that some of the challenges are underestimated, and requests like 'just perfect the AI' and 'just fix all major bugs' can in reality be enormous undertakings.

[Dagwoodyt]

We are here because the BoB went to NA.

[Mysticpuma]

No-one is complaining about paying for additional modules. Bring them on. I still think CloD is the best flight SIM available (IMHO).

TFS have offered the Visual Update, VR and Truesky for free. Many have assisted with beta testing to bring this to the wider community. 

Bugs and longstanding issues have predominantly been ignored unless seen (speculation ) as a personal priority to support Multiplayer Servers.

 

No-one has 'demanded' updates, however, recently some members of the team have taken it on themselves to break free of the shackles of silence and speak with those who are still hanging on for this to get over the line....and the community has been incredibly positive at the change in attitude. Sadly it was brief and the excitement was quelled with the lid being closed shut again... although occasionally they peep out.

 

The mention of 'just fix x/y/z' although said bluntly is probably in relation to the Bugtracker which came in to great fanfare and yet sadly has many reports still festering over half a decade later. That said, when issue is taken about the longstanding bugs, the current mantra is to ignore the question and attack the poster 🫤

 

There are many hard working members of TFS, some break rank and allow us to appreciate what they are doing and yes, @Soto_Cinematics and @batmacumba have enthused the community again, especially when Batmacumba sees a report he previously knew nothing about, takes it by the collar, shakes it and sorts it out quickly (probably not easily though). I have no need of FFB but it's been an issue for over a decade and lost in the mists of time. A few days after being made aware of it....sorted! It's like someone is listening to the community, getting involved and knowing they'll appreciate the work done. Knowledge is power and his knowledge certainly did amazing things there.

The longstanding shadow stripes, explained away as Nvidia settings being wrong 🙄 No. He sees the issues, recognises, tries an interim fix, doesn't work but knows how to fix it....from experience and enthusiasm. This is what is is impressive! It feels like he has joined an adventure and wants to learn and impress us....and fix issues!

 

I guess that takes away from the long term members of TFS, but if they were here, engaging, impressing....imagine how much the forum would be alive? Think if the Buzz rather than being sore 🤔😁

[AWC]

16 hours ago, BladeMeister said:

No need to be sorry, it is what is. If the team is in a better position now than it has been in the past, that speaks well for the coders, 3d modelers and texture artists that are doing the actual work, and I congratulate and appreciate them.  However it does not speak well for the leadership team that delegates the volunteers job focus and time. The cart is being put before the proverbial horse, as new creation is prioritized over current core game execution. That is poor resource management and a middle finger to existing customers who have already purchased one or both of the CLOD products. It also does the same to potentially new customers who might want to purchase CLOD now. Just wait until we have finished the VR & Visual updates, 4 years in the making, it is going to be awesome, then management will direct the TFS team to look at the major bugs from the bug list and try to fix them. The same old song and dance. Might as well kick the can on down the road while your at it. Again I wish the core level workers all the best and that the TFS management has an  epiphany moment and realizes they have suffered the current execution of CLOD for four years, if not longer, in the hopes that someday it will be all that it can be instead of realizing some improvements along the way to the grandiose ending, if that ending ever comes. Thankfully, I have plenty of other Combat Flights Sims to get into and help forget about the situation over here. It's a shame though because CLOD always held a place in the back of my mind as the one to watch out for and someday be pleasatly surprised if its long lived potential came to reality. Maybe someday way way on down the road. Back into the shadows for me, much to some people's relief.

 

S!Blade<><

 

 

Video games make money from new things. Unfortunately, no matter how much the community or the team wants older features improved, it's not new in the same way a new aircraft or map is. This is essentially what things boil down to I believe there is still room to make those desired improvements over time.

[Mysticpuma]

7 minutes ago, Soto_Cinematics said:

 

Video games make money from new things. Unfortunately, no matter how much the community or the team wants older features improved, it's not new in the same way a new aircraft or map is. This is essentially what things boil down to I believe there is still room to make those desired improvements over time.

Yep, sadly it's just that if a person puts cardboard in the foundations of a house and builds on top of it, the likelihood that adding more on top will make it increasingly unstable and subject to collapse. Similar to software. Those longstanding legacy bugs still hurt the additional content.

[Dagwoodyt]

1 hour ago, Mysticpuma said:

Yep, sadly it's just that if a person puts cardboard in the foundations of a house and builds on top of it, the likelihood that adding more on top will make it increasingly unstable and subject to collapse. Similar to software. Those longstanding legacy bugs still hurt the additional content.

I remember being disappointed when I read (perhaps ten years ago?) that TF was going to take Cliffs to North Africa rather than fix what was lacking in Cliffs. To my best recollection I was told that the group/community had become bored with the BoB and wanted to move on. To me that pointed to multiplayer as the prime concern of TF. That decision was pivotal. We are simply reaping its' rewards.

[No.54_Reddog]

12 hours ago, Soto_Cinematics said:

 

Video games make money from new things. Unfortunately, no matter how much the community or the team wants older features improved, it's not new in the same way a new aircraft or map is. This is essentially what things boil down to I believe there is still room to make those desired improvements over time.

That runs very counter to the "TFS members are volunteers and do it for the love of the game" idea and suggests that they're in it for the money. I doubt that.

TF appointed themselves as custodians of the game and by extension the community. Which is why I find it odd when the community aren't asked what they want, or worse, ARE asked and then ignored.

 

"still room to make those desired improvements over time." Can you define what is an acceptable length of time vs just kicking the can down the road and playing lip service. Remember some of us have been here for quite some time already...

 

[BOO]

15 hours ago, Soto_Cinematics said:

 

Video games make money from new things. Unfortunately, no matter how much the community or the team wants older features improved, it's not new in the same way a new aircraft or map is. This is essentially what things boil down to I believe there is still room to make those desired improvements over time.

 

I think Clod is a quite unique propostion though. Id doesnt have mouths to feed on a monthly basis nor does it appear to have the burden of expectation placed upon by its publisher. New things enabling the work put in by TFS members to be rewarded Im all for but what Im against is that the "volunteer" aspect of it all is used not only as a shield by leadership against critism of, well, the leadership but also as a bat with which to clout the community into accepting that only the leadership's view of what is important to this title counts. There comes a point, after 5 years, when it really isnt that unreasonable to ask if the model of thinking is benefiting anyone any longer and how much its now just bloody mindedness. 

 

The discord has proven popular and has brought forward access to those TFS members comfortable enough to engage. At least initially. Its proof in itself that it can moviate passion and awareness even if it cannot bring fixes to everything everyone wants all at once. There has been more engagement with TFS and between the community itself in a week that the total, accross all the platforms in 5 years (discounting the endless back and forth between a dozen long in the tooth diehards such as myself). Soto, bat and Funk, who I assume are driving forces behind this, are to be congratulated as are all the other TFS members who are chipping in with guidance, encouragement and support. 

 

What is painfully apparent is that this is working, if only at a PR level, far more in TFS and Cliffs favour, that anything that came before it. As platform to engage, listen, educate and reassure a community as well something to allow easier and more current access to understand what people like, dont like and are what issues pepole are encountering, its peerless and a massive step change from "we are not prepared to even listen to you unless you use the bugtraker (which coincidentally you may find impossible to log into) or post here, an answer may turn up if anyone can be bothered to check.  

 

It seems we now have members within TFS who do not need "protecting" from us. Members to whom a gatekeeper, even with the best intent, could almost become a prison warden. In short, if we are to stop seeing anything but what is impartant in one persons world view being kicked down the road, this new open approach is to be nutured as something that potentially provides a remedy. 

 

And to all those who say "I can wait", "it'll come" "just be patient", bear this in mind - itll come ONLY if there is the talent there to make it happen. As such, its perhaps not about what we want, or what some think the talent wants, or even what some think the talent needs regardless of what it wants. Its downt to the talent. And only the talent. And its so because there are no chequebooks to buy or hold to contract the talent required. And its so because the offer isnt so great that its irrestistable and talent is queing up. And its so because talent rarely tolerates BS or having its wings clipped for long. 

 

No bird can be truly happy in a cage, even a gilded one. 

Edited January 31 by BOO

[Dagwoodyt]

17 hours ago, Soto_Cinematics said:

 

Video games make money from new things. Unfortunately, no matter how much the community or the team wants older features improved, it's not new in the same way a new aircraft or map is. This is essentially what things boil down to I believe there is still room to make those desired improvements over time.

The decision to go to North Africa came long before CloD was commercialized. When the North Africa DLC was finally released, management almost immediately blamed lack of feature upgrades on the community's urging TFS to release DWT. Within weeks of the release, TFS management presented a laundry list of enhancements (~August 20, 2020) that they claimed would follow ASAP. VR was subsequently confirmed for the 'to do' list (2021?).

    So now it seems that the cycle of kicking the feature list 'can' down the road must repeat, this time blaming commercialization as the driving force. I doubt that TFS cares that much about "making money". The TFS Prime Directive is likely that of preserving its' organizational structure and TFS' status as a game developer. 🤔

[BladeMeister]

18 hours ago, Soto_Cinematics said:

 

Video games make money from new things. Unfortunately, no matter how much the community or the team wants older features improved, it's not new in the same way a new aircraft or map is. This is essentially what things boil down to I believe there is still room to make those desired improvements over time.

To clarify: I am not speaking of feature improvements. This is the same old mentality of flight sim Devs forever, and it is the oldest and most untrue excuse flight sim Devs have thrown out to customers. I am speaking of long-standing bugs that detract from gameplay. Bugs that can be replicated and were a result of patches that were supposed to better execute the SIM. Two examples, the AI roll rate, unarguably way to fast. The twitchy unrealistic AI fighter behavior once the player comes within gun range. Both were introduced in a patch  as an improvement to the old AI programming. Both should have been looked at soon after their introduction as neither is realistic and neither betters the SIM experience, in fact both detract from the SP experience significantly. These are not new features or new content, but they are core elements to the realistic execution and to the enjoyability/fun factor concerning CLOD AI. Again, and add nauseam, both issues have been untouched for 4 years or more. This never should have happened and should not be the case today and TFS management is solely responsible for these two issues, among many others still existing. These two issues as well as many other issues are not being addressed so that all TFS members can work on new CLOD content is IMHO a most pitiful excuse. How and why can the Devs and the PR reps can read these customers requests/ complaints and say what you just said is beyond me? The only conclusion I can come up with is that the Devs, TFS in this case, don't care and don't actually love CLOD or, they think that their customers are idiots and don't matter. 

So in conclusion, Buzzsaw, you being at the top of TFS, I would say IMHO that this falls directly on your shoulders and has been your decision to ignore the most critical bugs souring CLOD gameplay. So my question to you and or whoever else is in a decision making position. Which is it? do you not love CLOD or do you think your customers, and yes you are selling and have sold CLOD as a consumer product, are idiots and don't matter? Or, maybe I have missed something and am completely wrong? I am all ears.

Once again, I will qualify that this post is not a personal attack and no attitude has been attached. This is a simple factual conversation in which I propose a few questions to TFS leadership and Buzzsaw. It is nothing more.

 

S!Blade <><

[batmacumba]

2 hours ago, BladeMeister said:

To clarify: I am not speaking of feature improvements. This is the same old mentality of flight sim Devs forever, and it is the oldest and most untrue excuse flight sim Devs have thrown out to customers. I am speaking of long-standing bugs that detract from gameplay. Bugs that can be replicated and were a result of patches that were supposed to better execute the SIM. Two examples, the AI roll rate, unarguably way to fast. The twitchy unrealistic AI fighter behavior once the player comes within gun range. Both were introduced in a patch  as an improvement to the old AI programming. Both should have been looked at soon after their introduction as neither is realistic and neither betters the SIM experience, in fact both detract from the SP experience significantly. These are not new features or new content, but they are core elements to the realistic execution and to the enjoyability/fun factor concerning CLOD AI. Again, and add nauseam, both issues have been untouched for 4 years or more. This never should have happened and should not be the case today and TFS management is solely responsible for these two issues, among many others still existing. These two issues as well as many other issues are not being addressed so that all TFS members can work on new CLOD content is IMHO a most pitiful excuse. How and why can the Devs and the PR reps can read these customers requests/ complaints and say what you just said is beyond me? The only conclusion I can come up with is that the Devs, TFS in this case, don't care and don't actually love CLOD or, they think that their customers are idiots and don't matter. 

So in conclusion, Buzzsaw, you being at the top of TFS, I would say IMHO that this falls directly on your shoulders and has been your decision to ignore the most critical bugs souring CLOD gameplay. So my question to you and or whoever else is in a decision making position. Which is it? do you not love CLOD or do you think your customers, and yes you are selling and have sold CLOD as a consumer product, are idiots and don't matter? Or, maybe I have missed something and am completely wrong? I am all ears.

Once again, I will qualify that this post is not a personal attack and no attitude has been attached. This is a simple factual conversation in which I propose a few questions to TFS leadership and Buzzsaw. It is nothing more.

 

S!Blade <><

 

I'm a strong believer in improving the core of the game, and of any application, actually. You have to get the basics right. Can you point to that patch which was supposed to fix AI and introduced these problems? Or do you know when it was merged? Thanks

[Guest Dario73]

Can someone tell how to access the bombing sight?

[BOO]

37 minutes ago, Dario73 said:

Can someone tell how to access the bombing sight?

Go to the bomb aimers position and press whatever key you have bound to "lean to sight" 

 

[Mysticpuma]

14 hours ago, batmacumba said:

 

I'm a strong believer in improving the core of the game, and of any application, actually. You have to get the basics right. Can you point to that patch which was supposed to fix AI and introduced these problems? Or do you know when it was merged? Thanks

I think it's worth chatting with @paul_leonard who is working on the Single Player missions at this moment.

I don't think it is an easy fix because he is currently looking at every Single Player missions currently available and look at each Waypoint and the Aircraft behaviour.

It appears that changing the Ai on the sliders does have a beneficial effect, but that is not practical when it comes to a player using the QMB, as the sliders aren't available. I loosely say QMB because what we currently have is a makeshift version, where only parts of the Quick Mission or Single Mission can be changed, i.e., if I want to add extra flights to some of the missions, that's not possible, I can only change aircraft and slider amounts, not add new waves of aircraft to the prebuilt missions, nor is it possible to change the maps from the allocated version to a Winter or Autumn map in the current very basic 'QMB'.

 

What has become obvious in the Quick/Single Missions is that (for example), if you change an aircraft from a CR.42 to a 109, the 109 tries to follow the previous waypoints, altitude and speed set for the CR.42, so to slow down it will barrel roll to manage its speed. Likewise, if you switch out faster aircraft for slower aircraft they will do the same. It's more complicated than that and Lenny can explain it much better, but the Ai fails most of the time due to poor missions design, incorrect Ai levels, switching aircraft in and out which then takes on the previous attributes of the aircraft set, but there is so much more.

 

@BladeMeister also identifies one of the most irritating features of the Ai, which is the psychic ability it has just as the gun sights lines up with it. Visually, you can see this happen. Just as your gun sights line up on an Ai, it's almost like you see the avoidance routine kick in. The elevator levels, the rudder kicks slightly and the aircraft rolls/banks and then begins its erratic manoeuvres until it starts to climb again. You get in close, line up....rinse and repeat. Usually best seen with a Spitfire on 109 attack (in my experience).

 

Ai is always challenging, Lenny is doing well but has a huge task to change every Aircraft in every mission so far available, but if there is a QMB coming, and if it ever gets to this level:

 

then it needs to be robustly looked at so that any missions created have Ai and waypoints/speeds/values appropriately created for the aircraft chosen and Ai levels, no matter if Amateur to Ace, so that the perpetual rolling defensive tactics can only be performed once or twice in any 30-second period.

There is also 'drone' mode which sees an aircraft once it completes its mission or runs out of ammo, head back home and even when under attack it's sole objective is heading in a straight line to its waypoint. Stuka's are good to see this occur with. Pick them off, one after another, they don't care, just fly straight and true and wait to die.

I have given feedback to Lenny on some missions currently available, and with reworks, the aircraft feels much more believable, but there are still some issues that are down to the maps.

On RTB some of the maps actually have bases lower than the surrounding landscape. Depending on wind direction, this can lead to the Ai cratering into the landscape because they don't see the landscape, they see the waypoint. Small features like this can kill immersion stone dead.

Fixes like this to the above will make a huge difference to the Single Player experience, so I would fully recommend discussion with @paul_leonard to see what is needed.

 

I know he has already made the team aware of the still ongoing issues with vehicles crossing bridges...broken still, even with some careful planning, it's not guaranteed you'll get a vehicle or column of trucks/tanks across 100% of the time....and that means ground battles with moving fronts for Single Player missions and Campaigns, as well as Multiplayer, cannot be guaranteed to work...until it's possible to get a column of trucks across bridges 100% of the time.

 

All 'small' but integral issues that frustrate the Single Player experience.

 

I have no doubt I will be taken to task for mentioning bridges yet again....but it's still broken after over a decade, if it was fixed by now, it wouldn't get mentioned, would it?

Edited February 1 by Mysticpuma

[Buzzsaw]

Lots of misinformation being posted here.

 

Everything that Team Fusion does in the way of additions, improvements, or upgrades to CLIFFS is a function of our resources... manpower and skills.

 

From the period late 2012 to 2017, the team had only one programmer/coder who was capable of working with the raw game files... remember, at that time, we did not have access to the Source Code.  No one else, no matter how loudly they made their points, were capable of actually getting into the game and making changes.  And our single programmer was working completely in the dark... searching through a mass of encrypted material and trying to guess how what he might be looking at actually affected the game.  Progress was incredibly slow.

 

In March of 2017, after a six month negotiation, we were given access to the Source Code.  (an older version, the most recent had been lost, and we were lucky someone found it on a PC in a back room)  And this SC we were given had none of the normal supplementary information or tools for developers... all had been lost.  We had no guides or tools as to how to import aircraft, no guides or tools as how to create maps, no standards for 3D modeling, etc. etc.

 

With this access,, our original programmer was able to compile all his changes 2012-2017, add some critical additional improvements like re-writing the entire physics engine for aircraft power systems, (original was completely broken) as well as start the process of writing a map creation tool.  (new maps being impossible without one)  A new second programmer deciphered a means to adapt the IL-2 1946 aircraft import tool to CLIFFS, and our Sound engineer/coder updated the game to the latest Firelight FMOD sound version.  With these improvements, first steps were taken with the new flyabe Beaufighter, new BF-110C-6, and new versions of the Tiger Moth.  But we didn't have anywhere near the number of programmers we required to make all the changes we knew we had to implement, as for example, new AI combat routines, new SPEEDTREE version, VR, trueSKY, PBR visuals, fixing the issues with bridges, road, etc. etc. etc.

 

Meanwhile, we we in the planning stages for TF 5.0.... with a dilemma...  we had only a partially complete map tool... one which would not allow rivers or lakes... which meant we could not improve or modify the existing Channel map.  Our only choice was to go to N Africa...  where the Western Desert Campaign in the Tobruk area offered a map alternative which didn't need flowing rivers... there were only dry wadis.  So there is where we went.

 

Meanwhile our original programmer had burnt out... and bowed out... (common theme for TF members when seemingly there is nothing but criticism no matter how hard you work to improve the game)  He had just started on an original Dynamic Campaign Generator for Single Player, but that was not to be.  His partially completed work on the map tool was taken up by two new programmers... we now had three in total.  Meanwhile 3D work on the new aircraft needed for the N Africa map was progressing... although most of our modelers were having to learn on the job... with the help of our longtime supervisor who had lots of experience outside the CLIFFS game engine, and had found a way to understand how our game's systems work.  But progress was slow.  With the manpower shortage, we decided to make flyable as many of the original aircraft as possible... meaning only a cockpit had to be created, instead of both external and cockpit... a savings of 60% in modeling time.

 

We originally had the goal of implementing for TF 5.0 everything we currently have planned for the Visual Update/VR.... but soon realized that was an impossibility, even with all three programmers working 60 hour weeks. (day jobs and TF work)  We had to settle for creating a new Map, (which once the map tool was finished required the recruitment of an entirely new Map Team) and a set of new aircraft and ships.  These new aircraft would all be done to standards needed to allow implementation of VR and 4k later... but we didn't have the time to go back and re-do all the old CLIFFS aircraft cockpits... many of which were a mix of 3D and 2D... therefore not suitable for VR.  The new ships required a complete re-write of the systems required for large types... (we were moving from Minesweeper Class to Battleships) as well as all the research, programming and files needed to model entirely new cannon, shells, etc. etc.  Same applied to our new set of vehicles.  Our programmers also found the time to re-write the combat routines for the aircraft... (a common complaint from SP players) these are much improved from the original game to TF 5.0.  (the routines for in-cockpit player control of the AI aircraft remain to be completed and are a goal of TF 6.0)  We also comprehensively rewrote all the landing routines of the AI aircraft, eliminating most of the glitches which caused them to over-run the runways or crash.  And did a complete re-write of the overheat systems... to more accurately reflect the effects heat had on engines... no more inaccurate single effect of overheat... burst radiators... now the damages run the gamut from failed oil pumps to valve systems, with radiator valves set to vent, etc.

 

With all this work, and much more not mentioned, we were able to complete TOBRUK in 2020.  It was not what we originally hoped for, but it did get positive reviews from magazines and bloggers, as well as the majority of the community.  But then in 2021 we were hit with another whammy... Covid...  Many of our members backed away from their TF work or quit entirely.  We lost one of our programmers, and three 3D artists.  The rest of the TF group's production fell.  Recruitment of new members dropped to near zero.

 

Still we kept working... set our goals and focused on accomplishing what we could.  Improvements in the map tool meant we could now work with water... address the issues in the existing Channel map... we set that as a goal... and decided the most efficient way forward was to kill three birds with one stone, fix the CLIFFS map, and at the same time, create a new version of the map, for a 1942 DIEPPE dlc... which could in turn work for a Nightbombing dlc based on the Lancaster.

 

Recently as the community is aware, we have had positive steps forward, and also setbacks.  We have recruited three new programmers, which will allow us to address many of the longstanding issues... as well as implement the VR/VU update sooner, but on the other hand, we have lost multiple 3D artists to the competion.  (no, I will not say who that is... please do not speculate) and the time required for the VR/VU update has been quite a bit more than expected... due to bugs within the software of the 3rd party programs we are adapting.  We have also been required to update some of core Microsoft visual software as a corollary to the other work.

 

We continue to progress... we have not lost faith.  As a team we are still convinced the original Maddox Games software was a brilliant but flawed piece of code... which almost unlimited scope for improvement and expansion.... once you got the bugs fixed... still an ongoing process... some of the stability issues with VR were traced back to the original Maddox code.

 

While people in the community are entitled to their opinion, the fact is, everything TF has done has been based on logic and consensus... we do not have an axe to grind when it comes to the improvements we focus on, and we are not deliberately neglecting parts of the game as part of a bias or agenda.  We want to create as good a game as possible... for both Single Players and Multi Players.... why else are we creating a Nightbombing dlc... which by its very subject, will be played almost entirely by the SP community ?  We continue to be optimistic... and hope the community will understand our unique and very different development model.

[Hiuuz]

People not thinking about how time consuming could be even getting good reference for modeling a ww2 aircraft, cockpit and systems. If your work based on geusswork it goes fast of course, but I'm a bit of a "rivetcounter" so as I'm looking around the market and looking into the He 111, every other sim (Clod too) has minor and major mistakes about her. You can find those mistakes if you spend enough time to research it, and that means not only searching on the web, but also means buying books, and manual collections from your own money. Writing to different places for information and hoping for answers.

Oh, and I bet coding/software developing is much more deeper black hole than modeling.

[Buzzsaw]

24 minutes ago, Hiuuz said:

People not thinking about how time consuming could be even getting good reference for modeling a ww2 aircraft, cockpit and systems. If your work based on geusswork it goes fast of course, but I'm a bit of a "rivetcounter" so as I'm looking around the market and looking into the He 111, every other sim (Clod too) has minor and major mistakes about her. You can find those mistakes if you spend enough time to research it, and that means not only searching on the web, but also means buying books, and manual collections from your own money. Writing to different places for information and hoping for answers.

Oh, and I bet coding/software developing is much more deeper black hole than modeling.

Nothing in the CLIFFS aircraft modeling is based on guesswork...  we focus on tracking down the sources and getting the real data.

 

So, exact measurements, exact weights, exact aerodynamic qualities, etc. etc.

 

This expands past the aircraft to all the weapons, vehicles, ships, etc.

 

The game physics engine is one of the great legacies of Oleg Maddox... with its fidelity to detail.  So as one small example, for a single aircraft cannon cartridge and shell... the exact weight of the projectile and cartridge without projectile... (separate values)... the weight of the explosive in the projectile, weight of the explosive in the cartridge... the type of explosive, (multiple types have different blast power) the initial velocity, the drag coefficient of the projectile, (affecting the rate at which the projectile bleeds its initial muzzle velocity) the point at which the projectile self detonates, (not all types) Plus of of course, what type of projectile... AP, AP with incendiary tip, HE, Incendiary/HE...  What type of incendiary explosive material... (different incendiary material has different levels of efficiencies) weight of the incendiary material, etc, etc.  All of this has to be researched accurately from original sources.

 

And that cartridges values cascade beyond the simple ballistics weapons model... so for example, when you load your aircraft with a particular cartridge... the number of those cartridges times that type of cartridge's exact weight will be added to your aircraft's weight... and when you fire that cartridge, the weight of the cartridge will be deducted from the aircraft weight.  (unless the shell casing is retained... as in the case of some German types)

 

I could go on ad infinitum... 🤪

[Hoots]

@Buzzsaw thank you for the lengthy update, I'm sure we all appreciate the effort involved. One thing, it seems you couldn't stop yourself from having a pop at people..."(...when seemingly there is nothing but criticism no matter how hard you work to improve the game)" this is a nonsense statement. I've seen criticism of the TF leadership but none aimed at the guys doing the coding and development work. I hope you're not seeing this criticism of the leadership as that of the people at the code face. Or, even worse, telling them that it is them to blame. I have seen plenty of supportive statements of those guys.

Development burnout is a thing and doesn't need to be attributed to anything other than the difficulty of the job in hand or, simply, modern life.

 

Soto and Batmacumba have brought a refreshing and welcome change to the TF conversation, it would help if you could try to continue their approach to communication. As has been said may times. we ALL want Cliffs to continue.

 

Again, the update is much appreciated.

[Buzzsaw]

1 hour ago, Hoots said:

 I've seen criticism of the TF leadership but none aimed at the guys doing the coding and development work.

You seem to be suggesting I do nothing but lead the group.  (which is by the way based on consensus and all major decisions are voted on) 

 

Do you know what I do ?

 

Besides the admin work I do, I do all the Flight Modeling... all the damage modeling, all the ship damage and weapons modeling, all the vehicle damage and weapons modeling...  using the files in the game... I am not using a programming language to do this, but it is programming.  All of it had to be learned by trial and error... there was no guide to what the text file data functions were.   I am by far the most expert in programming aircraft performance and behaviour.  I do most of the research of the aircraft data, collect the drawings, etc. for those, plus for the weapons, ships, etc... collect the weapons data, vehicle data, ship data.  I test the aircraft, ships, vehicles, etc.

 

I am completely involved in the development work... I work directly with programmers, identifying the areas which need improvement... so for example, I identified the errors in the original engine code with my extensive testing and the testing of our other team members... what needed to be changed for accuracy, and then worked with a programmer so those changes were implemented.

 

And Soto and Batacumba were brought into TF because I identified our need for additional programmers and PR and because I have been actively recruiting... and recruited them.

[Hoots]

4 minutes ago, Buzzsaw said:

You seem to be suggesting I do nothing but lead the group.  (which is by the way based on consensus and all major decisions are voted on) 

 

Do you know what I do ?

 

Besides the admin work I do, I do all the Flight Modeling... all the damage modeling, all the ship damage and weapons modeling, all the vehicle damage and weapons modeling...  using the files in the game... I am not using a programming language to do this, but it is programming.  All of it had to be learned by trial and error... there was no guide to what the text file data functions were.   I am by far the most expert in programming aircraft performance and behaviour.  I do most of the research of the aircraft data, collect the drawings, etc. for those, plus for the weapons, ships, etc... collect the weapons data, vehicle data, ship data.  I test the aircraft, ships, vehicles, etc.

 

I am completely involved in the development work.

 

Then you are also on the receiving end of many compliments aren't you? And rightly so. It does rather undo the sentence I quoted above though. There is a difference between criticising leadership style and criticising development work. Accept the plaudits for one, maybe reflect on the messages in the other.

[Lorena_Scout]

3 hours ago, Buzzsaw said:

Lots of misinformation being posted here.

 

Everything that Team Fusion does in the way of additions, improvements, or upgrades to CLIFFS is a function of our resources... manpower and skills.

 

From the period late 2012 to 2017, the team had only one programmer/coder who was capable of working with the raw game files... remember, at that time, we did not have access to the Source Code.  No one else, no matter how loudly they made their points, were capable of actually getting into the game and making changes.  And our single programmer was working completely in the dark... searching through a mass of encrypted material and trying to guess how what he might be looking at actually affected the game.  Progress was incredibly slow.

 

In March of 2017, after a six month negotiation, we were given access to the Source Code.  (an older version, the most recent had been lost, and we were lucky someone found it on a PC in a back room)  And this SC we were given had none of the normal supplementary information or tools for developers... all had been lost.  We had no guides or tools as to how to import aircraft, no guides or tools as how to create maps, no standards for 3D modeling, etc. etc.

 

With this access,, our original programmer was able to compile all his changes 2012-2017, add some critical additional improvements like re-writing the entire physics engine for aircraft power systems, (original was completely broken) as well as start the process of writing a map creation tool.  (new maps being impossible without one)  A new second programmer deciphered a means to adapt the IL-2 1946 aircraft import tool to CLIFFS, and our Sound engineer/coder updated the game to the latest Firelight FMOD sound version.  With these improvements, first steps were taken with the new flyabe Beaufighter, new BF-110C-6, and new versions of the Tiger Moth.  But we didn't have anywhere near the number of programmers we required to make all the changes we knew we had to implement, as for example, new AI combat routines, new SPEEDTREE version, VR, trueSKY, PBR visuals, fixing the issues with bridges, road, etc. etc. etc.

 

Meanwhile, we we in the planning stages for TF 5.0.... with a dilemma...  we had only a partially complete map tool... one which would not allow rivers or lakes... which meant we could not improve or modify the existing Channel map.  Our only choice was to go to N Africa...  where the Western Desert Campaign in the Tobruk area offered a map alternative which didn't need flowing rivers... there were only dry wadis.  So there is where we went.

 

Meanwhile our original programmer had burnt out... and bowed out... (common theme for TF members when seemingly there is nothing but criticism no matter how hard you work to improve the game)  He had just started on an original Dynamic Campaign Generator for Single Player, but that was not to be.  His partially completed work on the map tool was taken up by two new programmers... we now had three in total.  Meanwhile 3D work on the new aircraft needed for the N Africa map was progressing... although most of our modelers were having to learn on the job... with the help of our longtime supervisor who had lots of experience outside the CLIFFS game engine, and had found a way to understand how our game's systems work.  But progress was slow.  With the manpower shortage, we decided to make flyable as many of the original aircraft as possible... meaning only a cockpit had to be created, instead of both external and cockpit... a savings of 60% in modeling time.

 

We originally had the goal of implementing for TF 5.0 everything we currently have planned for the Visual Update/VR.... but soon realized that was an impossibility, even with all three programmers working 60 hour weeks. (day jobs and TF work)  We had to settle for creating a new Map, (which once the map tool was finished required the recruitment of an entirely new Map Team) and a set of new aircraft and ships.  These new aircraft would all be done to standards needed to allow implementation of VR and 4k later... but we didn't have the time to go back and re-do all the old CLIFFS aircraft cockpits... many of which were a mix of 3D and 2D... therefore not suitable for VR.  The new ships required a complete re-write of the systems required for large types... (we were moving from Minesweeper Class to Battleships) as well as all the research, programming and files needed to model entirely new cannon, shells, etc. etc.  Same applied to our new set of vehicles.  Our programmers also found the time to re-write the combat routines for the aircraft... (a common complaint from SP players) these are much improved from the original game to TF 5.0.  (the routines for in-cockpit player control of the AI aircraft remain to be completed and are a goal of TF 6.0)  We also comprehensively rewrote all the landing routines of the AI aircraft, eliminating most of the glitches which caused them to over-run the runways or crash.  And did a complete re-write of the overheat systems... to more accurately reflect the effects heat had on engines... no more inaccurate single effect of overheat... burst radiators... now the damages run the gamut from failed oil pumps to valve systems, with radiator valves set to vent, etc.

 

With all this work, and much more not mentioned, we were able to complete TOBRUK in 2020.  It was not what we originally hoped for, but it did get positive reviews from magazines and bloggers, as well as the majority of the community.  But then in 2021 we were hit with another whammy... Covid...  Many of our members backed away from their TF work or quit entirely.  We lost one of our programmers, and three 3D artists.  The rest of the TF group's production fell.  Recruitment of new members dropped to near zero.

 

Still we kept working... set our goals and focused on accomplishing what we could.  Improvements in the map tool meant we could now work with water... address the issues in the existing Channel map... we set that as a goal... and decided the most efficient way forward was to kill three birds with one stone, fix the CLIFFS map, and at the same time, create a new version of the map, for a 1942 DIEPPE dlc... which could in turn work for a Nightbombing dlc based on the Lancaster.

 

Recently as the community is aware, we have had positive steps forward, and also setbacks.  We have recruited three new programmers, which will allow us to address many of the longstanding issues... as well as implement the VR/VU update sooner, but on the other hand, we have lost multiple 3D artists to the competion.  (no, I will not say who that is... please do not speculate) and the time required for the VR/VU update has been quite a bit more than expected... due to bugs within the software of the 3rd party programs we are adapting.  We have also been required to update some of core Microsoft visual software as a corollary to the other work.

 

We continue to progress... we have not lost faith.  As a team we are still convinced the original Maddox Games software was a brilliant but flawed piece of code... which almost unlimited scope for improvement and expansion.... once you got the bugs fixed... still an ongoing process... some of the stability issues with VR were traced back to the original Maddox code.

 

While people in the community are entitled to their opinion, the fact is, everything TF has done has been based on logic and consensus... we do not have an axe to grind when it comes to the improvements we focus on, and we are not deliberately neglecting parts of the game as part of a bias or agenda.  We want to create as good a game as possible... for both Single Players and Multi Players.... why else are we creating a Nightbombing dlc... which by its very subject, will be played almost entirely by the SP community ?  We continue to be optimistic... and hope the community will understand our unique and very different development model.

You should pin those answers!

[Blitzen]

I really appreciate the last few posts, and all the information they contain. I do look forward to the net version whenever it comes, but please please in the meantime can you post more screenshots of what has been done and will be done on the new aircraft still in developement and post them here as well as FaceBook. Most of us would be happy ( for the time being,) to look forward to the ew and improved CloD “V:X.”

[Hiuuz]

As I'm thinking about this more and more, I imagine it's a very hard decision what to share with the community when negative things happen. Eg when somebody quits from TFS you can share that with the community to expect delays, but there is always such a people there who cry out "end of the world" immediately and that is much worse to the community. Not everybody can handle news as an adult 😅

[major_setback]

7 hours ago, Hoots said:

@Buzzsaw thank you for the lengthy update, I'm sure we all appreciate the effort involved. One thing, it seems you couldn't stop yourself from having a pop at people..."(...when seemingly there is nothing but criticism no matter how hard you work to improve the game)" this is a nonsense statement. I've seen criticism of the TF leadership but none aimed at the guys doing the coding and development work. I hope you're not seeing this criticism of the leadership as that of the people at the code face. Or, even worse, telling them that it is them to blame. I have seen plenty of supportive statements of those guys.

Development burnout is a thing and doesn't need to be attributed to anything other than the difficulty of the job in hand or, simply, modern life.

 

Soto and Batmacumba have brought a refreshing and welcome change to the TF conversation, it would help if you could try to continue their approach to communication. As has been said may times. we ALL want Cliffs to continue.

 

Again, the update is much appreciated.

 

There was a lot of criticism of this coder, with people demanding that they also be allowed to see his work, or be included in what he was doing. Most of this criticism may have been internal, from within the team by newer team members .. but also by older team members and also from outsiders. Continual badgering to allow insight into his work or be allowed to partake in it, is the reason this coder tired of this work.

 

Criticism and critique are important for promoting improvements to the game ... but everyone ... please realise the damage that excessive criticism causes. It can deplete the enthusiasm of the most dedicated workers within the development team.

Edited February 11 by major_setback

[Dogbert1953]

@Buzzsaw

 

Three very informative and well presented posts. I just hope i am still around for the Lanc, i am 72  🤣🤣

[343KKT_Kintaro]

5 hours ago, Dogbert1953 said:

I just hope i am still around for the Lanc, i am 72  🤣🤣

 

 

In such a case start learning game-coding and join TFS. The development process will go faster. If not, then order 400g of beluga caviar and have a good meal... but forget these demanding attitudes towards TFS. If we die of our old age and subsequently miss the Lancaster, then so be it, but for god's sake, please let's stop acting demanding. What do you owe to TFS? And what TFS does owe you?

 

 

 

 

[zzzxxxxzzz]

2 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

In such a case start learning game-coding and join TFS. The development process will go faster. If not, then order 400g of beluga caviar and have a good meal... but forget these demanding attitudes towards TFS. If we die of our old age and subsequently miss the Lancaster, then so be it, but for god's sake, please let's stop acting demanding. What do you owe to TFS? And what TFS does owe you?

 

 

 

 

Relax. I would say he was just joking

[343KKT_Kintaro]

6 hours ago, zzzxxxxzzz said:

Relax. I would say he was just joking

 

 

For year's we've had a so bad atmosphere in this forum that we can no longer tell who's joking and who's serious...

 

 

[Hoots]

17 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

For year's we've had a so bad atmosphere in this forum that we can no longer tell who's joking and who's serious...

 

 

Your response to an innocuous post does rather add to the bad atmosphere side of the equation. 

[Mysticpuma]

16 hours ago, major_setback said:

 

There was a lot of criticism of this coder, with people demanding that they also be allowed to see his work, or be included in what he was doing. Most of this criticism may have been internal, from within the team by newer team members .. but also by older team members and also from outsiders. Continual badgering to allow insight into his work or be allowed to partake in it, is the reason this coder tired of this work.

 

Criticism and critique are important for promoting improvements to the game ... but everyone ... please realise the damage that excessive criticism causes. It can deplete the enthusiasm of the most dedicated workers within the development team.

That coder was able to extract the data from the .dll and took responsibility for it, refusing to share it with anyone as he wanted to make sure that CloD wasn't faced with another IL2 issue, where the game was modded and every man and his dog was able to create their take on what should be the correct version.

The 'cracking' of the original IL2 code, led very quickly to a splintering of the community and online play withered because you didn't know if the server you were joining would have the "Dark Blue World Mod", the "SAS" mod, the "HSFX" mod or if it was going to be vanilla. There was a lot of frustration, and like I said, the online community suffered.

 

The CloD coder, did work hard and made lots of changes (when possible) to progress the various modded versions available.

 

However, with great responsibility, comes great power, and the success he achieved in extracting the code (and being solely responsible), then meant anyone who joined TFS and was brought onboard to help, were all standing in a line waiting for their turn to be given access to the code they needed, and they waited....and waited...and waited. The coder now became a victim of his own success because those new and old members of TFS were 'demanding' (I use that word as MS did) but in fact, they just got bored with not being able to do anything and left the team. Delays became the issue and the coder became the bottleneck. Frustration built from within from those brought in to help, but then left standing in the cold with no idea when they would be able to get involved. Quickly their excitement turned to dismay and they walked away.

 

What is clear now though is TFS since having the code have been able to cast a net much wider and move away from the bottleneck, and it does appear in the last few months (after a few years of delay), that progress is finally happening.

 

Those of us still here just wait for what happens next, but it's easier to view it as a "one day it might happen" rather than "I want it now". It's easier to just give up caring and one day get a surprise when TFS knock at the door, rather than be invested and then get disappointed when yet another year rolls by and CloD doesn't come home

PS. I did deliberately misquote Uncle Ben