TFS - Year in review 2024

[major_setback]

1 hour ago, paul_leonard said:

....

Smallish correction, there are over 300 historically accurate available missions for the player to choose from.

 

It is not a small correction (to the announcement). It's good you pointed out the inaccuracy. It should state that more than 300 new missions have been tailor made for depicting the Dieppe Raid.

(It mistakenly stated 30+).

[343KKT_Kintaro]

10 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

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.....

 

 

Seems to me that you (and others) pay too much atention 1) to the number of players and 2) to discussions in forums. What really matters is what's going on behind the scenes. If whether or not TFS will manage to solve the problems we know, this is what really matters. Future will tell if whether or not this game knows a rebirth. And if a rebirth from the ashes happens, it will be according to modern standards with VR, 4k, longdistance pop ups, 3D clouds, a weather engine, a QMB and, who knows, with newly modelled crewmen and a dynamic career mode. These things won't come by their own, they'll comme if the TFS teams keep working on them, no matter how much players you find in the Steam statistics, no matter what happens in the forums. The numbers of players in the servers and in single player will come if TFS manages to fix the game, and that's all. Numbers of players filling the rosters on the statistics, this is not something we can expect with the game on its state as it is. So, while others were offended because of months of silence of TFS, I was delighted of such silence. Radio silence of TFS in forums means nothing else than radio silence, not that the game is abandoned by its developers.

 

 

[AWC]

Correction: The Dieppe raid will consist of 300+ missions, not 30+. 😊 This has been changed in the OP.

 

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, paul_leonard said:

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.

 

Thanks for the answer! That makes sense.

 

Is there a reason the Do-17 is being used instead of Do215B-1?

 

The two massed daylight raids were by Do-217 - but may have had a few other bombers mixed in (am I remembering this correctly)? When I researched it last it seemed like the Ju-88 and He-111 bombers were mainly active attacking the shipping (particularly in the evening/night). They were also joined by Fw-190A4/U8 fighter bombers in attacking shipping (at least after nightfall).

 

If I recall correctly the B-17's hit the airfields (and acted as a diversion), the Blenheims laid the smokescreens, and the Bostons hit the important targets (as well as did the Hurribombers?) The Bostons should be quite a bit faster and more heavily armed then the Blenheims - but I recognise resources are quite limited. The Defiants were also flying airsea rescue where they would identify downed pilots and vector in / escort the Walruses.

 

Really a marvellously chaotic battle, with horrific costs (particularly remembered by us Canadians). It will be great to see it in a flight simulator.

[Buffo002]

The main goals in the post mean that they have it on their agenda. So why are you addressing AI, I don't understand. Is it written there that they have it in their plans? Yes.

[DD_Arthur]

19 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

big wall of text that translates to;

 

"No, I don't play the game..."

[343KKT_Kintaro]

Play whatever you want DD_Arthur. It's 5 minutes past midnight here in France... happy new year you old fart... 🤣

[DD_Arthur]

16 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

Play whatever you want DD_Arthur. It's 5 minutes past midnight here in France... happy new year you old fart... 🤣

 

😍 Happy new year Kintaro. Big S!

[jdu]

7 hours ago, No.54_Reddog said:

(snip)
jdu (who should know that veiled insults in French are still insults?)

(snip)

 

Pour boucher un trou dans ta culture :
"L’expression « pisser dans un violon » signifie qu’un acte est inutile et ne produit pas de grands résultats, malgré tous les efforts et la persévérance qu’on y accorde."
Aucune insulte dans cette expression.

Edited January 1 by jdu

[CAG_Sanders]

Nice update Soto. I hope this type of update is the new norm. Only thing that would have been better is if it was done 2 months ago, instead of last minute. I think most of us can appreciate the slow nature development as it's a labor of love. I also do agree with  the comments about it probably was never realistic to make the 6.0 by year end of 2024 even without the unexpected delays and loss of team members. I think an announcement a couple months out from a release makes more sense, and making immediate announcement if something happens that would surely delay said release. I know it must be frustrating by the dev team to see all the negativity, while giving up their time and skills for this. But remember that the negativity stems from people who want this to be their go to flight sim. The community who will be the ones to pay and play and spread the good word. They are frustrated at the poor communication, I haven't been around as long as others, but it is clear the dev team has many talents outside of of PR. I have faith that you will help smooth that over based on this wonderful update. Last thing I will say the VR beta has made big strides the last couple months and I think the core development will really pick up speed on 2025. Happy New Year!

[BladeMeister]

6 hours ago, Buffo002 said:

The main goals in the post mean that they have it on their agenda. So why are you addressing AI, I don't understand. Is it written there that they have it in their plans? Yes.

One problem is that the AI is so jinky, unnaturally jinky, and happens as soon as the player gets in the proper gun range that it really basically ruins dogfighting. Also the AI fighters have to fast of a roll rate. TFS has known of this and had addressing the AI problems in their plans now for years, as in 3-4 years literally. They could have and should have already addressed these 2 problems so that all of their paying customers who have already paid for CLOD & DWT could enjoy the sim that we already have paid for. Yes CLOD is usable, but these 2 AI problems detract heavily from normal use and having fun. Hate to say it but this whole fiasco has become $#!+ show.

Very disappointing after 4 years of waiting.

But hey, Happy New Years!🎉

Maybe this year you will release something Buzzsaw, ........................ or maybe not. Only time will tell.

 

S!Blade<><

 

 

 

[BOO]

3 hours ago, BladeMeister said:

One problem is that the AI is so jinky, unnaturally jinky, and happens as soon as the player gets in the proper gun range that it really basically ruins dogfighting. Also the AI fighters have to fast of a roll rate. TFS has known of this and had addressing the AI problems in their plans now for years, as in 3-4 years literally. They could have and should have already addressed these 2 problems so that all of their paying customers who have already paid for CLOD & DWT could enjoy the sim that we already have paid for. Yes CLOD is usable, but these 2 AI problems detract heavily from normal use and having fun. Hate to say it but this whole fiasco has become $#!+ show.

Very disappointing after 4 years of waiting.

But hey, Happy New Years!🎉

Maybe this year you will release something Buzzsaw, ........................ or maybe not. Only time will tell.

 

S!Blade<><

 

 

 

 

+1

 

 

 

 

[Buffo002]

But I didn't write anywhere that AI was solved or okay. I was just responding to one link where the writer said that they should focus on AI. And I just replied that they have it in the program and that they will solve it.  

[BOO]

13 minutes ago, Buffo002 said:

But I didn't write anywhere that AI was solved or okay. I was just responding to one link where the writer said that they should focus on AI. And I just replied that they have it in the program and that they will solve it.  

 

But you missed point that the AI is affecting the game badly now. And has for years and is thus a current issue not a nice to have on some wishlist, taking lower priority over shiney new things and stuff no-one asked for.  

[Hiuuz]

Maybe if TFS leadership would speek with Falcon BMS leadership, how they manage things. That is also a relatively small community but there people feels things happening.

 

But one aspect of developement difference between the two. There are more smaller updates comming regularly. If TFS would separate the VU and the VR update and would focus on one thing at a time, than fans could feel things are happening here too.

[AWC]

The video is now embedded and the topic is pinned.

Edited January 1 by Soto_Cinematics

[Buffo002]

18 minutes ago, BOO said:

 

Ale uniklo vám, že AI teď hru špatně ovlivňuje. A má už léta, a proto je aktuálním tématem, není hezké mít na nějakém seznamu přání, protože má nižší prioritu před zářivými novými věcmi a věcmi, o které nikdo nežádal.  

So it's about the order in the list. But all those priority things are mainly about finishing the models for 6.0 + 6.5 planes, ships, buildings, map, that's an add-on for the new DLC that was supposed to come out now to work with VR and TRUE SKY encoding, some new missions for the new DLC, then sounds, for me a big plus are the sounds of the planes and models, the music for the addon and then AI. For example, I completely miss the pilot's log for every static campaign. Although the update is written for single player, so let's see what everyone thought. I don't know, but every player sees a different priority... and I'm sorry that people tell developers what to do first, I find it strange... TFS has its own program that it adheres to, a work process. .. And if I remember, a lot of people here preferred VR TRU Sky 4K etc... in about 3 years maybe more

And when someone writes a list, it doesn't necessarily mean an order, but a set of things they will work on or are working on. It wasn't said if that means in order of what they will do first. And they will definitely be working on multiple things at once.

Edited January 1 by Buffo002

[BOO]

31 minutes ago, Buffo002 said:

So it's about the order in the list. But all those priority things are mainly about finishing the models for 6.0 + 6.5 planes, ships, buildings, map, that's an add-on for the new DLC that was supposed to come out now to work with VR and TRUE SKY encoding, some new missions for the new DLC, then sounds, for me a big plus are the sounds of the planes and models, the music for the addon and then AI. For example, I completely miss the pilot's log for every static campaign. Although the update is written for single player, so let's see what everyone thought. I don't know, but every player sees a different priority... and I'm sorry that people tell developers what to do first, I find it strange... TFS has its own program that it adheres to, a work process. .. And if I remember, a lot of people here preferred VR TRU Sky 4K etc... in about 3 years maybe more

And when someone writes a list, it doesn't necessarily mean an order, but a set of things they will work on or are working on. It wasn't said if that means in order of what they will do first. And they will definitely be working on multiple things at once.

 

No. It not about the order. Its about what affects the game now and the fact its taken a lower priority under stuff that doesnt affect the game now.

 

Each to their own Buffo, but if the music is more important to you than a trigger pull sensing UFO then there is nothing more to say. When Laobi reviewed the title it wasnt the old trees or music that drew critisism. It was the fact all his AI wingmen flew around like drones and lawn darted into the ground instead on landing. 

 

And you remember incorrectly. The absurd AI has always been an issue. Always. That VR took over the comments from new players because of the unrealised proimise that buying DWT would bring it on quicker didnt alter that. Nether did the forcing of conversations about True Sky and speed tree as that was TFS wanted to talk about. 

 

 

[Buffo002]

Just now, BOO said:

 

No. It not about the order. Its about what affects the game now and the fact its taken a lower priority under stuff that doesnt affect the game now.

 

Each to their own Buffo, but if the music is more important to you than a trigger pull sensing UFO then there is nothing more to say. When Laobi reviewed the title it wasnt the old trees or music that drew critisism. It was the fact all his AI wingmen flew around like drones and lawn darted into the ground instead on landing. 

 

And you remember incorrectly. The absurd AI has always been an issue. Always. That VR took over the comments from new players because of the unrealised proimise that buying DWT would bring it on quicker didnt alter that. Nether did the forcing of conversations about True Sky and speed tree as that was TFS wanted to talk about. 

 

 

Did you misunderstand me again, Music? I meant the sounds of airplanes. I just said the music as they had it written there. But it's not my priority, my priority is the single player and the pilot's log. I want all the problems that TFS wrote to be solved. I just said that the list doesn't have to be in the order it's written.

[No.54_Reddog]

In fairness, the community survey of October very clearly set out what the community wanted TFS to concentrate on.

53 minutes ago, Buffo002 said:

for me a big plus are the sounds of the planes and models, the music for the addon and then AI.

This is what you wrote Buffo. I know English is a non native language for you so maybe your meaning is not coming through clearly, but to a native English speaker, that means very definitely, you place the sound of the aircraft and models, then the music ABOVE the AI in terms of importance.

You dismissed something before as  "wordplay". I would say words have very specific meanings, they are precise instruments and are used in a very deliberate manner as they have great importance. Again, translation may have significant impact here.

[BOO]

36 minutes ago, No.54_Reddog said:

In fairness, the community survey of October very clearly set out what the community wanted TFS to concentrate on.

 

Just remind me again what those were...

[Buffo002]

39 minutes ago, No.54_Reddog said:

In fairness, the community survey of October very clearly set out what the community wanted TFS to concentrate on.

This is what you wrote Buffo. I know English is a non native language for you so maybe your meaning is not coming through clearly, but to a native English speaker, that means very definitely, you place the sound of the aircraft and models, then the music ABOVE the AI in terms of importance.

You dismissed something before as  "wordplay". I would say words have very specific meanings, they are precise instruments and are used in a very deliberate manner as they have great importance. Again, translation may have significant impact here.

Yes, English is not my language, I use a translator. So it was badly written and misunderstood. And I repeat again, I am not prioritizing anything (and music at all), I was just writing the order as written in the first link. But I repeat again, it is a list, but it does not have to be the order of what they will do first and what last ... now that TFS is no longer pushing the new DLC deadline, I think they will work on some of the things from that list simultaneously.  

And as for the sound, I wanted to say that I'm glad that the sounds of the planes (engines and probably weapons) will be addressed because I don't really like the current sound. But it's not my priority, it was just a note about the sound.  

Edited January 1 by Buffo002

[Mysticpuma]

On 12/31/2024 at 9:14 AM, Soto_Cinematics said:

.Singleplayer updates

- The Dieppe raid minute by minute is completed and awaiting implementation of new aircraft. 300+ missions crafted with high detail 

 

Won't these all have to be redone when the Ai changes? I presume they are based on the current state of play, and with the comments that Ai is still to be updated, won't that mean the mission programming will all have to be redone to work with the new routines?

2 hours ago, Hiuuz said:

Maybe if TFS leadership would speek with Falcon BMS leadership, how they manage things.

 

That's never going to happen!

One other suggestion for video updates, would it be possible for Soto to use any other music instead of the (now) very repetitive CloD soundtrack. There is lots out there to be used....it really would make a difference.

[BOO]

16 minutes ago, Mysticpuma said:

Won't these all have to be redone when the Ai changes? I presume they are based on the current state of play, and with the comments that Ai is still to be updated, won't that mean the mission programming will all have to be redone to work with the new routines?

 

Or does it mean the AI rework yet "to be assigned" is some significant time away. 

 

AI has been an known issue since the get go. Its always eluded a fix. The "to be assigned" status leads one to think its also an unknown quantity in terms of what can be done or even an assessment of what is wrong.

 

Yet its also a cornerstone of the whole SP experience and even any potential AI augmented MP and Co-op. 

 

I remain confused as to how this takes a lower priority than other things even now TFS have finally conceeded 2024 was not a release year and afforded themselves some breathing space. 

 

I just dont see the sense in trying to make your house more sellable by re decorating when the roof is leaking. 

[AWC]

1 hour ago, Mysticpuma said:

Won't these all have to be redone when the Ai changes?

 

Possibly, but our mission makers are more than capable of implementing these changes.

 

  

37 minutes ago, BOO said:

 

I remain confused as to how this [AI] takes a lower priority than other things.

 

According to our schedule, AI will be worked on when the Visual Update/VR is complete. No word on if that will be done with the release of Dieppe or not.

Edited January 1 by Soto_Cinematics

[Dagwoodyt]

31 minutes ago, BOO said:

AI has been an known issue since the get go. Its always eluded a fix. The "to be assigned" status leads one to think its also an unknown quantity in terms of what can be done or even an assessment of what is wrong.

In the Il-2 GB QMB and DCS Mission Editor it is easy to set up a 1v1 fight. The AI will commit and remain aggressive throughout, enabling a decisive outcome. In my experience that does not happen in CloD. The AI makes several aggressive passes then goes into a passive/escape mode. There is a transition from "fight" to "flight". This happens no matter the tactical advantages given to the AI in terms of available fuel or proximity to its' base. In that scenario the bizarre jinking is symptomatic of this "escape mode". To my recollection I have noted that behavior since the very first iterations of CloD. What has always astonished me is the seeming unwillingness to acknowledge the issue. 1v1 seems like the most basic task requested of a QMB/ME by a new player.

Edited January 1 by Dagwoodyt

[Avimimus]

17 minutes ago, Dagwoodyt said:

In the Il-2 GB QMB and DCS Mission Editor it is easy to set up a 1v1 fight. The AI will commit and remain aggressive throughout, enabling a decisive outcome. In my experience that does not happen in CloD. The AI makes several aggressive passes then goes into a passive/escape mode. There is a transition from "fight" to "flight". This happens no matter the tactical advantages given to the AI in terms of available fuel or proximity to its' base. In that scenario the bizarre jinking is symptomatic of this "escape mode". To my recollection I have noted that behavior since the very first iterations of CloD. What has always astonished me is the seeming unwillingness to acknowledge the issue. 1v1 seems like the most basic task requested of a QMB/ME by a new player.

 

I wonder if this is actually more realistic?

 

Actual pilots should try to disengage, panic, have poor situational awareness at times... even skilled pilots should often make only one or two passes at a target and then disengage (if one reads after-action reports that was pretty normal - with rare exceptions being extended dogfights).

 

My bigger issue is the random barrel rolls.

[Hiuuz]

I think at the moment the cards are down, the VU/VR is in the center of developement. But once it released and stable, the developement must focused one thing at a time! If it's AI than it's Ai. If it's UI than it's UI. If it's QMB than it's QMB, but ALL coder must work on that task, to complete that single feature and release as quick and possible! Than we will not be in the same situation, waiting years for a complex pack to release!

 

DLC's as maps and planes are other things, which on programmers barely to do things. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

But I share the thoughts that first CloD needs a strong fundament what on DLC's can be built! Otherwise no matter how many planes and maps we have, new people will come and leave within weeks.

[Dagwoodyt]

13 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

I wonder if this is actually more realistic?

 

Actual pilots should try to disengage, panic, have poor situational awareness at times... even skilled pilots should often make only one or two passes at a target and then disengage (if one reads after-action reports that was pretty normal - with rare exceptions being extended dogfights).

 

My bigger issue is the random barrel rolls.

Please make clear as to whether you acknowledging the AI behavior as described or denying that it exists?

[343KKT_Kintaro]

8 minutes ago, Hiuuz said:

But I share the thoughts that first CloD needs a strong fundament what on DLC's can be built! Otherwise no matter how many planes and maps we have, new people will come and leave within weeks.

 

 

Boo already said that, with his own words though: "I just dont see the sense in trying to make your house more sellable by re decorating when the roof is leaking".

 

And the leaks are those we know : buggy AI, lack of dynamic campaign, lack of quick mission builder, lack of workable dual controls, lack of a modern standards weather engine, difficulties to adapt into a VR game, obsolete 3D-modelled crew members, buggy behaviour of the latter, etc. And all threads in this forum always turn into criticism against TFS, if not against its so pretended incompetence, then angainst its ways of management.

 

On a sidenote: hey Dagwoodyt, you're amazing... how dare you to ask such a question to Avivimus? What words don't you understand in the line "My bigger issue is the random barrel rolls"? Amazing... unbelievable... the guy does'nt even need to respond...

 

 

[BOO]

40 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

I wonder if this is actually more realistic?

 

 

Without G suits, F35 levels of automated SA, pitch perfect co-ordinated control irrespective of stain or stress, and and ability to forget in an instant what it was you were doing 3 seconds before, I doubt it. 

 

What more it varies from plane to plane but it is notheless predicatable if not impossible to follow. 

 

What dagwoodyt is describing isnt an advanced level of AI implementation that needs a tweak,  its broken AI , running off short span and limited routines whilst disregarding everything a human would be contending with and enhancing their bot pilots with esp. 

 

C'mon.  Debate is good but debate for the sake of debate on this issue - its almost gaslighting.  

 

 

[Avimimus]

30 minutes ago, Dagwoodyt said:

Please make clear as to whether you acknowledging the AI behavior as described or denying that it exists?

 

Sure. There are other AI behaviours which are issues as well.

 

Have you tried the full mission builder? The earlier comment about the AI 'doing what the mission builder tells it' makes a lot of sense to me considering that there are sliders which allow changing the frequency of different behaviours for each aircraft - a very advanced feature.

 

IMHO, the issue isn't so much with that feature as with a few of the behaviours which are called - the disengagement behaviour could be made more realistic, the excess wasting of energy on barrel rolls should also probably be tweaked. It is undoubtedly extremely complex though.

[Dagwoodyt]

11 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

Have you tried the full mission builder?

I am speaking about my experience in using the CloD FMB.

 

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

Actual pilots should try to disengage, panic, have poor situational awareness at times... even skilled pilots should often make only one or two passes at a target and then disengage (if one reads after-action reports that was pretty normal - with rare exceptions being extended dogfights).

So, in a 1v1 mission I have designed in order to test the AI, I should make a few quick passes then run away? Thankfully Il-2 GB and DCS haven't made their AI adopt the CloD behavior. It is simply ludicrous to have AI make a few passes then jink away forever thereafter. It seems even more bizarre when using ffb joystick base and watching the seemingly effortless AI rolls whenever my sight ring edges toward him.

[Avimimus]

23 minutes ago, Dagwoodyt said:

So, in a 1v1 mission I have designed in order to test the AI, I should make a few quick passes then run away? 

 

It might be most realistic. Use an element of surprise, get off a couple of good bursts and then disengage before the enemy flight can respond (especially important in a non-1v1 fight).

 

That said, it doesn't solve AI behaviour issues - the AI should be able to fight effectively, manage energy, and win a prolonged dogfight as well.

[Aapje]

2 hours ago, Hiuuz said:

But once it released and stable, the developement must focused one thing at a time! If it's AI than it's Ai. If it's UI than it's UI. If it's QMB than it's QMB, but ALL coder must work on that task, to complete that single feature and release as quick and possible! Than we will not be in the same situation, waiting years for a complex pack to release

 

You'll just wait longer, because it will mean that people will have to work outside of their expertise and people will be in each others way.

[Mysticpuma]

2 hours ago, Soto_Cinematics said:

According to our schedule, AI will be worked on when the Visual Update/VR is complete. No word on if that will be done with the release of Dieppe or not.

That's very disappointing to read. As mentioned earlier, Single Player is a 4x larger player base than multiplayer and Ai is intrinsic for a good experience.

We all know what @BladeMeisteris referring to with the psychic ability of the enemy to know exactly when the gun sight lines up, as you see the aircraft noticeably switch to begin it's barrel rolls away. They still crash into the ground, not as much, but they still do. Then as has been said, the dogfight which instantly quits and the enemy regroup and fly straight and level for home and find any attacks and inconvenience rather than a fight for life and death. Then the Radio Commands to talk with the Ai, I guess these will stay broken? 

 

Ai has been ignored for most of the development of CloD, arguments often put forward are "get online, it's much more fun" can be as easily countered with "go offline, it's much more fun". Each person has a different opinion, but the facts are, the player base with the larger customer reach is Single Player and if the Ai stays broken because "online is the target audience" (as has been seen for the many years of development), then that's a large amount of revenue the team are actively missing out on.

 

I can't stress how important improving the Ai of CloD is and I really do hope V6 isn't released with Ai yet again ignored.

1 hour ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

Boo already said that, with his own words though: "I just dont see the sense in trying to make your house more sellable by re decorating when the roof is leaking".

 

And the leaks are those we know : buggy AI, lack of dynamic campaign, lack of quick mission builder, lack of workable dual controls, lack of a modern standards weather engine, difficulties to adapt into a VR game, obsolete 3D-modelled crew members, buggy behaviour of the latter, etc. And all threads in this forum always turn into criticism against TFS, if not against its so pretended incompetence, then angainst its ways of management.

 

Yeah, so as you point out,  they are well known..... wouldn't it be great if the concerns raised were targeted and the foundations completed before building on top of it?

18 minutes ago, Aapje said:

 

You'll just wait longer, because it will mean that people will have to work outside of their expertise and people will be in each others way.

It's been years already...as long as TFS discuss it with the community, I think many would be happy to continue waiting. Get it right in one go. You only get one chance to make a first impression, so releasing V6 with the still broken Ai seems ridiculous?

[BladeMeister]

Here's the deal and TFS leadership knows this and still continues down the same road of building new shiny things like most Devs and they basically ignore existing problems. TFS has the opportunity to blaze the trail in this area,  but so far, it's not happening. When I get a flat tire on my car, I do not get out the wash, wax and detail kit and work on making my car look like new for the next 3 years, I fix the tire with the donut spare, drive to the tire shop and have my main tire replaced or repaired and remounted on my car. Then when I get home I  wash wax and detail my car all that I care to. It's not rocket science. The person elaborating about the BMS team working on and releasing smaller progressively sim improving patches is on the right track. Instead CLOD has seen virtually no hard game mechanics improvements in 4 years, and please don't say but they made tons of single player missions and campaign missions corrections. If you do I think I will just off myself. It must be frustrating to be a coder or 3d modeler for TFS and never see your work actually released to be sold to the public.

 

S!Blade<><

[PO_Baldrick]

27 minutes ago, Mysticpuma said:

That's very disappointing to read. As mentioned earlier, Single Player is a 4x larger player base than multiplayer and Ai is intrinsic for a good experience.

 

We all know the Visual Update/VR was expected to be finished long before TF6, stuff happens and the difficulties encountered could have seen VU/VR get chopped (from a commercial perspective that may have been the call but fortunately that doesn't seem to be the driver).

 

From a personal perspective the VU/VR update is the reason I and others have an interest in CLIFFS. It needed graphically updating and in my case VR is a must.

 

I understand the frustration for existing users content with the 2D product as is graphically, looking for new and updated features but IMHO the VU/VR is an essential core development.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

1 hour ago, Mysticpuma said:

Yeah, so as you point out,  they are well known..... wouldn't it be great if the concerns raised were targeted and the foundations completed before building on top of it?

 

 

Agreed!

 

Now let's admit that too much efforts are being provided by TFS in an array of fields that overlap the simple programme of fixing the game. If there was one request I could ask to TFS, that would be "please fix the the game so that it becomes a correctly working standard survey-level combat flight sim". And, after that, only after that, add new features like visual or VR updates.

 

 

[BOO]

8 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

Agreed!

 

Now let's admit that too much efforts are being provided by TFS in an array of fields that overlap the simple programme of fixing the game. If there was one request I could ask to TFS, that would be "please fix the the game so that it becomes a correctly working standard survey-level combat flight sim". And, after that, only after that, add new features like visual or VR updates.

 

 

 

....the simple programming of fixing the game?   Now, dont get wrong, I aint about go full on fanboi here, but I doubt its a simple bit of programming.  What I know about programming will fit on a pin head but it seems to me that getting that source code was akin to finding the all pages of a dictonary full of the meanings but without the actual words and not in any particular order. If it were simple, AI would have been a non-conversation since before 4.312. 

 

Which leads me back the point that the AI should not ever be considered as a nice to have once all the shiney bits are finished since its not something that can be corrected quickly.