TFS - Year in review 2024

[AWC]

TFS progress

 

 

Important information

Thank you for your patience and continued support of TFS and the Cliffs of Dover series. As has been announced, TFS and Fulqrum have decided to delay the release window for Fortresses and Focke-Wulfs – Dieppe.

There were several reasons for this.
- Significant bugs originating in the original Maddox game software caused a major bottleneck with our VR implementation. Most have recently been overcome and we work diligently to fix any remaining issues.
- Keeping TrueSKY up to date has proved more time consuming for our programmers than originally anticipated.
- We also acknowledge that some of our 3D team completed additional work with a competitor in the flight sim industry. Our workflow was affected but we have been able to recruit new members who have made a positive impact.

We realise we have an opportunity to capitalise on the market. Once again, the IL-2 Cliff of Dover series is the main European theatre combat flight sim in development. We believe we are uniquely placed to offer large-scale aerial battles, highly detailed clickable cockpits with engine management, and historical scenarios. We look forward to completing our project and offering it to the public.

The notion that no work has been done this year is mistaken. We can summarise our goals and progress below and in the attached video.

Major Goals

- Complete the long-awaited Visual Update/VR Implementation.
- Complete the Fortresses and Focke-Wulfs - Dieppe DLC.
- We also plan to transform our approach to communication. We have a public Discord ready to launch to encourage positive public engagement and to provide better updates about our progress.

Aircraft for TF 6.0

Active in production:

- Typhoon Mk IA/IB (complete and in game).
- Fw 190A-1/A-2/A-3 (externals complete awaiting import, cockpit WIP).
- B-17E (external complete awaiting import, cockpits WIP).
- Morane MS.406 AI (externals complete, awaiting import).
- P-51A (externals and cockpit WIP, two modelers working simultaneously).
- Spitfire Mk IX (externals have begun).
- Ju 88A and C (externals and cockpit have begun).
- Spitfire Mk Vc (adaptation of Spitfire Vb is WIP).
- Swordfish Mk I AI (externals WIP).

Awaiting assignment:
- Beaufighter Mk VI (minor changes to existing Mk I required with additional ordinance)
- Bf 109 G-2 (adapting from F-4, cockpit and external)
- Bf110F series (adapting from C model, cockpit and external)
- Wellington III (adapting from Wellington I, cockpit and external)

Aircraft for TF 6.5
- Lancaster B.I (3D model, external textures, cockpit WIP).

Ships and Vehicles

The below are in advanced stages of modelling:
- Artillery.
- Landing craft.
- Destroyers.
- Cruisers.
- Battlecruisers.

Environment

- The new 4K Dieppe map is progressing well. Landmarks, fortifications, and gun batteries are now emplaced along the coast of England and France. Currently, airfields are being brought up to their 1942 state, road placement is being updated, and new landmarks continue to be created.
- New Speedtree 8.42 vegetation systems successfully integrated. Shader work has been implemented at various distances, lighting conditions, weather, etc. Currently we are about to begin work on the new grass and small objects integration.
- New TrueSKY cloud and weather system upgrade progressing well. Multiple bugs originating with the Simul software has been fixed in consultation with their software engineers. Multiplayer synchronisation of clouds and the integration with the mission editor has also been fixed. Issues with particle rendering synchronisation are ongoing.
- Sunset/sunrise aspect improvements.
- Reflexion cube map also improved.

Technologies/programming/coding

- VR - small breakthrough. Bugs from the original game which caused crashes have been identified and fixed in our stripped down version. In the latest beta version, we have accumulated 41 hours of gameplay among all testers, with no crashes and smooth gameplay. The next stage is the re-introduction of the new visual elements one by one with testing at each stage to identify and eliminate any bugs which appear.
- A crash reporting tool system has been created for the closed VR Beta and in preparation for a public testing build.
- Mirrors refresh rate fixed and unpixellated, awaiting implementation.
- Flight and damage modelling underway for the new and updated types.

Singleplayer updates

- The Dieppe raid minute by minute is completed and awaiting implementation of new aircraft. 300+ missions crafted with high detail that recreate the entire Dieppe raid from 0445 to 2030 hrs, made to be accessible to all players with a tiered system of PC requirements – historical, medium, low, and VR.
- Single player campaigns new and updated. A B-17 campaign is complete and awaits the implementation of its namesake. New single missions based on the Battle of Britain and Battle of France are also in production. Additionally, existing campaigns are being brought up to date to work with the new map.
- Unternehmen Zerberus/Channel Dash missions to be assigned.

Sounds and Music

- New Dieppe music is completed and ready to be listened to on repeat!
- New aircraft sounds WIP.


AI Behaviour Improvements

- Improvements to player command of AI to be assigned.
- Improvements to AI return to base and threat reaction behaviours to be assigned.

 

 

 

[Hiuuz]

Hey, that is what I call a "dev diary". If these type of reports would come regularly, much of the complaining voices would be gone. Thank you very much! I'm eager to spend my spared money to this! 🙏♥️🍻

[Avimimus]

Thanks for the update!

 

I still feel that, if there is any way to do it, having an AI Do-217E-4 would be very valuable for Dieppe. It was the main bomber used, and the counter bombardments were the last massed daylight raids conducted by the Luftwaffe on the Western Front... so it would be nice to see this accurately depicted.

 

The other (more minor) gap I notice is the Fw-190A4/U8 which were used to attack the transports during Dieppe, and the Boston III (which was used to provide some additional air support to the landings). Overall, it should be pretty impressively complete in a lot of ways (e.g. even the Walrus/Defiant air-sea rescue teams can be depicted in the sim, as can the smoke laying Blenheims)! The only real gap I'll notice is the Do-217... I suppose the mission designers could try to use the Do-215 as a stand-in? Although the defensive armament will be much weaker (and if one looks closely, all of the details will be wrong).

[343KKT_Kintaro]

Thank you Soto Cinematics. Please tell me, is Joost Schlebaum the composer of the OST for Dieppe? the same guy who composed the themes for Blitz and Tobruk?

 

 

[FTC_Oakwoodson]

17 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

Thank you Soto Cinematics. Please tell me, is Joost Schlebaum the composer of the OST for Dieppe? the same guy who composed the themes for Blitz and Tobruk?

 

 

I can answer that for you - Yes! He's still making excellent pieces for CloD

[343KKT_Kintaro]

Many thanks Oakwoodson!

[Avimimus]

Now that I've seen the video - really excellent work there from the maps team and mission designers - looks a lot like actual photos of the landings! Brilliant job!

[Dagwoodyt]

3 hours ago, Soto_Cinematics said:

A crash reporting tool system has been created for the closed VR Beta and in preparation for a public testing build.

A "public testing build" not requiring ATAG registration or other hoop jumping would bridge the gap between Blitz/DWT as is and TF 6.0, fulfill prior commitment and remove all doubt regarding viability of the CLoD series.

[Mysticpuma]

I take all the positives and hope for future monthly updates like this. Maybe you will be able to talk to the team without Buzzsaw being a stumbling point, to allow you to do your job.

 

My main disappointments are the fact v6.0 was due by the end of 2024, and yet with the complete stonewalling of communication, it is only now we see just how far behind the actual plan was. Literally no change in imported aircraft, everything as it was 18 months ago with aircraft (in terms of still WiP). Yes, people are working on them, but in 18 months not one other aircraft finished and in game.

 

Finally, the Single Player content, already identified as the largest player base, no current improvement in the Ai, still on the 'one day we'll look at it' list, also I understood there was a Quick Mission Builder in progress. What is the state of play with that? Are different options available yet to change the advantage/disadvantage, paint schemes on individual aircraft, mission targets/objectives?

 

Ultimately this is everything we knew, respun a different way.

 

Appreciate the update, cheers, Mysticpuma.

[Hiuuz]

I think the programmer guys are busy with the VU/VR implementation. If it will be released and bug free, than they will have time for other stuff I think. If they will stay in the line of coure 🤔😅

I hope they will be rewarded enough to do so 🙏

[506CR_Ave_Fenix]

Thanks for the update sir

 

S. 

[Dagwoodyt]

Wonder why the Steam forum does not seem to be kept informed of what's happened WRT the TF 6.0 schedule.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

31 minutes ago, Mysticpuma said:

I take all the positives and hope for future monthly updates like this.

 

 

I simply cannot understand why this is such a priority to you, Puma. All lessons learned, the conclusion is that TFS still struggles to implement the visual & VR update, and that latter should be considered, in my opinion, the priority. If we were sure about a successful issue by the end of 2025, I'd be glad if the TFS guys spent the entire year of 2025 resolving that problem. 2025 for solving the visual update & VR issues, 2026 for retaking the work where they left it off in 2024, and 2027 for the release of the DLC, with visual update and VR, both correctly implemented. It's not like anyone died if we needed to wait one or two years more to see this DLC comes into fruition.

 

 

[Dagwoodyt]

Given a truly public beta test to successful VU/VR implementation, I think an AI overhaul should take priority over completion of TF 6.0.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

What's so funny @STINGRAY- ?

[No.54_Reddog]

Thank you Soto for your post.

 

It would seem to me that the initial timescales were dramatically off what realistically could be expected.

 

The original announcement was in Sept 2023, for 18 new flyable types, a new map for 1942, new land and sea assets, new AI routines and improved combat behaviour, new QMB. This was intended to be delivered in "late" 2024.(well you managed the late bit I guess...)

 

From your post, it would appear that there are now only 17 aircraft ?, of which a whole TWO are actually complete. Those two appear to be the same 2 that were complete when the announcement was made?

 

The map is not yet finished.

 

The new land and sea assets appear not to be complete (although some must be as we saw a very nice 105 the other day)

 

The AI improvements appear not to be done (but would logically require a coder who one can assume would have been assigned elsewhere to deal with the VR and VU issues)

 

On the basis that no timescales have been given (sensibly I suppose since TF have never hit a deadline of their own yet), is there truly a belief that this is even all achievable? And realistically how long will it take? Given the shocking level of progress in % terms so far are we looking at 2 years? 5 years?

 

Given that we have repeatedly been told that "coders" don't do modelling, and that the issues with VR and the other elements of the Visual Upgrade would appear to have required coders, not modellers, what is the reason that the modelling requirement for the DLC appears to be nowhere near complete? Is it purely down to these 3 modellers who left TF to work on other projects? 

 

I very much applaud the transparency of the progress update. However the reality is that this project is floundering. And doing so badly. The current way of doing things clearly does not work. Something needs to change.

 

 

1 hour ago, Soto_Cinematics said:

 

 

Thankyou but we would prefer not to receive negative comments like this. This post was a collaborative effort.

 

I'm sure you would prefer not to receive negative comments. But I think we can all agree that they are warranted. Perhaps you can avoid receiving them in the future by doing things differently?

Edited December 31, 2024 by No.54_Reddog
Formatting

[Avimimus]

Most of the criticisms seem to be based primarily on wanting it done faster... or wanting more transparency showing it is being done faster...

 

Reading through all of this, it makes me think that, if I were a developer I'd never give even a rough release schedule publicly. I'd also probably limit development updates until it comes time to build hype very close to release... easier that way.

 

[Mysticpuma]

1 hour ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

All lessons learned, the conclusion is that TFS still struggles to implement the visual & VR update, and that latter should be considered, in my opinion, the priority. 

But, and let's be clear here, just for the sake of anyone who hasn't read the update, that is not what modellers do.

There is no problem, with a modeller, taking 5 screenshots, of WiP, every week, and sending them to Soto. It's easy! That's not the VU, it's not the VR, it's not Speedtree, it's not the QMB.... it's model progress. Simple, easy to screenshot, progress.

It won't delay the team, it won't delay progress, it won't end the timeline..... it's seconds out of the day, to send Soto content to post updates 

It's community engagement. It's respectful. It's talking with potential buyers. It's Marketing and PR. It is literally what Soto is there to do.

It is just ridiculous for anyone in this day and age to say taking a screenshot will put development back months. Just stop with the pathetic argument against keeping the few remaining followers in the dark.

 

Following up on my initial comment about the Ai, I assume that any improvements to that will automatically affect any QMB work, so the Ai would have to be completed before the QMB? Also, is there any news for progress on a DCG (that isn't 3rd party).

 

Cheers.

7 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

Most of the criticisms seem to be based primarily on wanting it done faster... or wanting more transparency showing it is being done faster...

 

Reading through all of this, it makes me think that, if I were a developer I'd never give even a rough release schedule publicly. I'd also probably limit development updates until it comes time to build hype very close to release... easier that way.

 

Based on that thinking we wouldn't have heard or seen anything since 2018 and no-one would be here.

[Avimimus]

7 minutes ago, Mysticpuma said:

Based on that thinking we wouldn't have heard or seen anything since 2018 and no-one would be here.

 

Which would be so much more relaxing, don't you think?

 

But that is an implication also - the behaviour of some players can create a strong incentive for developers to not share information... people might think that they'll get more information by behaving a certain way while actually creating every incentive to share less. This is, I suspect, especially true in a smaller community and when interacting with a partially volunteer team.

[jdu]

Coders, modders, community managers, sound and music composers, mission builders, team leaders, all work voluntarily and in their spare time.
Progress would certainly be faster if we had the chance to make our passion pay the bills, but that's not the case.
It's about time that some people realized this fact once and for all!

It takes a great deal of motivation to be able to continue and not give up, knowing that no matter how hard we try to produce quality work, we're bound to come up against negative criticism, unfortunately always from the same naysayers.

Best wishes for 2025 to all those who support us and understand that we are not always as masters of our own time as we would like to be.
To the others, I have nothing more to say (as we say in French: “Autant pisser dans une violon").

Edited December 31, 2024 by jdu

[Buffo002]

And here it is again, the same critics. It seems to me that some did not read it properly ... There is a difference in having codes available that can be used immediately (VR), where only work on new changes counts. But here the point is that they have been deciphering the codes for several years and that is what some of you still do not understand. It is right in the first explanation:
"Significant bugs originating in the original Maddox game software caused a major bottleneck with our VR implementation. Most have recently been overcome and we work diligently to fix any remaining issues."
And sorry, I do not know of any game where the developers have kept the exact date of release of an addon for a game ...

 

[343KKT_Kintaro]

Thank you for your response, Puma. I understand your position for it is now the most common one, apparently assumed by a majority of the community members after tens of years of such a way of doing things in the internet era, with social networks, forums and faster-than-light information spreading from one PC-equipped home to another PC-equipped home... But this game, Cliffs of Dover, doesn't fit well in this present-day "common" scenario. The game presents too many problems so that an "appointed PR" can regularly present progress and advancement as if it was any other game. If it was that easy, we would have had those monthly DD you as k for. And if we trace back the two main survey WWII combat flight sims to their respectively original years of development, it appears that both Cliffs of Dover and Great Battles started to be developped in 2003/2004. But for some reason, still remaing deeply related to its source code, Rise of Flight's source code was smoothly adapted into a version compatible with VR (by 2016/2017 if I remember well), and Cliffs of Dover's it is not being smoothly adapted. On the contrary, even now the TFS guys barely obtain satisfactory results, even after 4 years of work (first attempts of VR implementation in Cliffs of Dover : 2020/2021). This being said, it is better we, fans, keep calm, leave the teams work on the problem, leave their PR show what he's allowed to show, stop being that demanding, and cross fingers so that the real, serious problems of VR in this game are solved. We simply cannot behave as children who didn't get their toy for Christmas. Or photos of the toy being built. Let's play DCS or Great Battles if we have some VR appetite, or Desert Wings Tobruk, with a good Track-IR for those not considering VR as a vital feature.

 

 

[Avimimus]

25 minutes ago, Buffo002 said:

And sorry, I do not know of any game where the developers have kept the exact date of release of an addon for a game ...

 

Even well financed fully professional teams often have release dates slip by two or three years these days (software is complex), and sometimes end up releasing considerably fewer features than originally envisaged. I can't think of any team that met its release date in the past few years that didn't essentially have the product ready to release when they created the external release date - and I wouldn't be surprised if all of those teams had internal release dates slip. Just part of the reality these days.

 

Also - to respond to something else posted in this thread - there are extremely different types of programmers. Programming is a language which is used to write systems (sometimes containing a variety of mathematical calculations)... to solve different problems as a coder requires different backgrounds - and for flight simulations it often involves understandings of different types of complex systems, different types of optimisations, or different types of maths. You can't expect a programmer who is adept at working on VR to be able to program AI (for instance)... or implement flight models - at least not without training or extensive experience in other fields.

[Mysticpuma]

35 minutes ago, jdu said:

Coders, modders, community managers, sound and music composers, mission builders, team leaders, all work voluntarily and in their spare time.

Yep, been there, done that. So it's not like some of the naysayers are blinkered and have no idea what you are entrenched in.

 

Most likely the negativity comes from the radio silence enforced by some, so as not to be caught out in the misdirection being played to avoid just being honest about the state of play.

 

I along with others did not set the date as the end of 2024, and yet when it became clear the target wouldn't be reached, did Buzzsaw let his Marketing and PR manager reach out to the community and advise us that that Blitz and Tobruk would be 'lonely this Christmas'? Nope. Shutters down, finger in ears and deny all knowledge.

 

Discussion and engagement goes a long way. Now we are left looking at the true state of play, that being that TFS are barely further forward than they were 18-months ago, except the coders do appear (well done guys), to have made a huge step forward in getting VR working stably.

 

Finally, everyone who hates on the community members who are vocal about the state of play, no problem, you have an opinion.

I personally think CloD is the best and most accessible WW2 Combat Flight sim available as of now. I can't put into words just how much I enjoy it and look forward to TFS finally releasing V6.0, which I will get on day one. The reason I am still here is because I am still passionate about it, even after all these years. Look at how many members of the community are no longer here or who have just walked away, unable to stick with the never ending timeline. I stay though because I really enjoy the Sim. I just voice my frustration at the lack of engagement with the community which is so simple to do, yet regularly neglected and frowned upon by voices within TFS.

 

Good luck TFS, I'll be waiting for the release, looking forward to making videos.....but just stay in touch with what's left of your community before even the strongest of stalwarts just leave it in limbo and fly to new adventures.

 

 

[No.54_Reddog]

49 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

Which would be so much more relaxing, don't you think?

 

But that is an implication also - the behaviour of some players can create a strong incentive for developers to not share information... people might think that they'll get more information by behaving a certain way while actually creating every incentive to share less. This is, I suspect, especially true in a smaller community and when interacting with a partially volunteer team.

 

Ah, I see what you're getting at, customer opinions driving performance and engagement of the developer team! By that measure then, the team should have delivered and in spades surely? After all, for every Reddog there's an Avimimus, for every Mystic there's a jdu (who should know that veiled insults in French are still insults?), and there's a Buffo left over. Thus by that logic we have a nett positive outlook and all should be incentivised? No?

 

Or were you saying that paying customers don't have a right to comment if that comment is negative for fear of disinsentive? That can't be right surely?

 

My criticism is not, has never been, and never will be of the individual developers. It is of the "leadership" and how this project has been run from the very start. When the enemy is behind you, flying straight and level is usually not recommended, some change of course is required.

[jcole]

Thanks for the update status. Hard work but making progress. Happy New Year to all. 

[Buffo002]

Just now, No.54_Reddog said:

 

Ah, I see what you're getting at, customer opinions driving performance and engagement of the developer team! By that measure then, the team should have delivered and in spades surely? After all, for every Reddog there's an Avimimus, for every Mystic there's a jdu (who should know that veiled insults in French are still insults?), and there's a Buffo left over. Thus by that logic we have a nett positive outlook and all should be incentivised? No?

 

Or were you saying that paying customers don't have a right to comment if that comment is negative for fear of disinsentive? That can't be right surely?

 

My criticism is not, has never been, and never will be of the individual developers. It is of the "leadership" and how this project has been run from the very start. When the enemy is behind you, flying straight and level is usually not recommended, some change of course is required.

I didn't say that all critics were vulgar, but only some. And some seemed to mock that TFS had done nothing all this time. So it only concerns a few people, but criticism should be there and you have the right to it, I just said that criticism should be decent and without insults and ridicule.

[Mysticpuma]

2 minutes ago, Buffo002 said:

I didn't say that all critics were vulgar, but only some. And some seemed to mock that TFS had done nothing all this time. So it only concerns a few people, but criticism should be there and you have the right to it, I just said that criticism should be decent and without insults and ridicule.

It isn't mocking, it's just seeing through "The Emperor's New Clothes", while others seem to think those who can see are the blind ones.

[PO_Baldrick]

1 hour ago, Mysticpuma said:

It is just ridiculous for anyone in this day and age to say taking a screenshot will put development back months.

The issue isn't the time taken to post up some screenshots but the effort needed to manage the conversation it creates and the speculation that gets generated, be it on progress in relation to suggested release dates, direction the organisation is taking and so on. These posts get analysed to the nth degree and unmanaged can create more negative reaction than not posting.

 

You don't really want your developers having to field all this stuff, that is the role for community managers. We all know that this is not a TFS strength (to say the least). We can hope that will change but whether that is a top priority is open to debate. I recall a conversation I had (old school on the telephone!) with the president of a well known sim racing company on the subject of community management and the criticism they faced. He candidly stated he would rather hire another engineer than a community manager as managing the negativity on the forums was simply too draining of resource.

 

As with most here I would love to see more engagement but more because it is nice to have discussions with devs and feel part of a community than a feeling it really impacts the commercial success.

[Dagwoodyt]

Repeated implication that "critics" are prone to vulgarity is inappropriate.

[DD_Arthur]

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

Reading through all of this, it makes me think that, if I were a developer I'd never give even a rough release schedule publicly. I'd also probably limit development updates until it comes time to build hype very close to release... easier that way.

 

That's exactly the way TFS 'leadership' has handled things for eleven years.

The calls for speeding up the process and more transparency are due to the impression; given repeatedly for ten years by TFS, that nirvana is just around the corner.

It's at moments like these, when something forces the curtains open, that the emperor is revealed naked.

 

4 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 All lessons learned, the conclusion is that TFS still struggles to implement the visual & VR update, and that latter should be considered, in my opinion, the priority. If we were sure about a successful issue by the end of 2025, I'd be glad if the TFS guys spent the entire year of 2025 resolving that problem. 2025 for solving the visual update & VR issues, 2026 for retaking the work where they left it off in 2024, and 2027 for the release of the DLC, with visual update and VR, both correctly implemented. 

 

A completely reasonable summation of the present state of development and achievable progress.

 

I mean, none of this is a surprise.  We've been here before.

Cliffs will continue plodding along but numbers actually using it will decline into single figures and the whole shebang will actually only exist here...on the website of a competitor sim that has no commercial connection with Cliffs whatsoever. 

 

Bizarre...but true.

[paul_leonard]

9 hours ago, Avimimus said:

Thanks for the update!

 

I still feel that, if there is any way to do it, having an AI Do-217E-4 would be very valuable for Dieppe. It was the main bomber used, and the counter bombardments were the last massed daylight raids conducted by the Luftwaffe on the Western Front... so it would be nice to see this accurately depicted.

 

The other (more minor) gap I notice is the Fw-190A4/U8 which were used to attack the transports during Dieppe, and the Boston III (which was used to provide some additional air support to the landings). Overall, it should be pretty impressively complete in a lot of ways (e.g. even the Walrus/Defiant air-sea rescue teams can be depicted in the sim, as can the smoke laying Blenheims)! The only real gap I'll notice is the Do-217... I suppose the mission designers could try to use the Do-215 as a stand-in? Although the defensive armament will be much weaker (and if one looks closely, all of the details will be wrong).

Good points.  None of the Do-17 types are flyable in game.  The current design decision is to use the Do-17Z-2 in all missions where the player is flying something else (so they will see a Do-17), and then to substitute a mix of the Ju-88 and He-111 for missions where the player wishes to fly a bombing mission themselves.  Both the Ju-88 and He-111 were actually present and active over Dieppe on August 19, 1942, so while less than ideal, will give those interested in bombing missions the opportunity to experience the events as they unfolded.  So you will be correct, details wrong, but hopefully experience on point.  Boston's are not in the game as well, so the Blenheim has been substituted (which was also historically present that day), again to provide an opportunity to experience the relevant events.  The Walrus is not currently featured, but could be, although again not flyable.  The Defiant does appear in select historical correct missions as it was engaged in electronic countermeasure missions that day.  Who would have thought.  Smallish correction, there are over 300 historically accurate available missions for the player to choose from.

Edited December 31, 2024 by paul_leonard

[paul_leonard]

4 hours ago, Dagwoodyt said:

Given a truly public beta test to successful VU/VR implementation, I think an AI overhaul should take priority over completion of TF 6.0.

A subject for future debate.  I have spent a lot of time in the Full MIssion Builder (FMB) and have concluded that in many respects, the existing AI does exactly what the mission builder asks it to do, sometimes in very unexpected, although ultimately logical ways.  But it does take the investment of learning the FMB to extract the most from the AI, plus learning a few tricks.  The basic mission builder is admittedly not up to the task of harnessing the in-game AI.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

49 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

That's exactly the way TFS 'leadership' has handled things for eleven years.

The calls for speeding up the process and more transparency are due to the impression; given repeatedly for ten years by TFS, that nirvana is just around the corner.

It's at moments like these, when something forces the curtains open, that the emperor is revealed naked.

 

 

A completely reasonable summation of the present state of development and achievable progress.

 

I mean, none of this is a surprise.  We've been here before.

Cliffs will continue plodding along but numbers actually using it will decline into single figures and the whole shebang will actually only exist here...on the website of a competitor sim that has no commercial connection with Cliffs whatsoever. 

 

Bizarre...but true.

 

 

 

"Cliffs will continue"... "will decline"...  "will actually only"...

 

That's a lot of "wills", DD_Arthur. Future will tell about your "wills". At the moment the TFS people still say they're working on the planned features and DLC, and as long as they'll have patient followers like me, and like others (see above), I trust they'll manage to solve the problems and launch the DLC. Good luck TFS, we stand by you!

 

 

[major_setback]

1 hour ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

...

 

It's at moments like these, when something forces the curtains open, that the emperor is revealed naked.

....

 

 

This is completely untrue. Neither myself - nor any other member of team - has ever seen Buzzsaw naked.

I wish to make this completely clear.

 

[Buffo002]

44 minutes ago, paul_leonard said:

A subject for future debate.  I have spent a lot of time in the Full MIssion Builder (FMB) and have concluded that in many respects, the existing AI does exactly what the mission builder asks it to do, sometimes in very unexpected, although ultimately logical ways.  But it does take the investment of learning the FMB to extract the most from the AI, plus learning a few tricks.  The basic mission builder is admittedly not up to the task of harnessing the in-game AI.

As for AI, it's in 1 post that they are working on it and will continue to work on it. At the very end.

AI Behaviour Improvements

-           Improvements to player command of AI to be assigned.

-           Improvements to AI return to base and threat reaction behaviours to be assigned.

 

 

[Dagwoodyt]

1 hour ago, paul_leonard said:

I have spent a lot of time in the Full MIssion Builder (FMB) and have concluded that in many respects, the existing AI does exactly what the mission builder asks it to do, sometimes in very unexpected, although ultimately logical ways.

So, given your time in, how do you prevent the AI from leaving a 1v1 fight and going into "target drone" mode?

[DD_Arthur]

1 hour ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

 

"Cliffs will continue"... "will decline"...  "will actually only"...

 

That's a lot of "wills", DD_Arthur. Future will tell about your "wills". At the moment the TFS people still say they're working on the planned features and DLC, and as long as they'll have patient followers like me, and like others (see above), I trust they'll manage to solve the problems and launch the DLC. Good luck TFS, we stand by you!

 

 

 

I merely point out the current - continuing - trajectory of Cliffs under TFS 'leadership'.

Do you think this announcement will change that?

You are quite correct; Cliffs will continue to be developed by TFS.  However, the numbers actually using it will decline to a point where it doesn't have any regular users.

At this point it will only actually exist here - on the website of the successor that killed it off, where the patient followers will support it - but not actually use it. 

 

If TFS didn't have a presence here on these boards it would be completely invisible. Both the Fulqrum forum and the ATAG forum run at periscope depth.....

16 minutes ago, Buffo002 said:

As for AI, it's in 1 post that they are working on it and will continue to work on it. At the very end.

AI Behaviour Improvements

-           Improvements to player command of AI to be assigned.

-           Improvements to AI return to base and threat reaction behaviours to be assigned.

 

 

 

Buffo, you do realise that quote means no one is working on the a.i.?

[No.54_Reddog]

6 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

Buffo, you do realise that quote means no one is working on the a.i.?

No, despite haranguing people for having opinions and decrying they haven't read things properly, old Buffo definitely did not read and comprehend the announcement.

[Buffo002]

Wordplay. Because they've been working on something else so far, but the important thing is that they have a plan and they know that AI is a problem. So they probably won't be working on too many things at once.