TFS - Year in review 2024

[Enceladus828]

8 hours ago, Mysticpuma said:

I think the most disappointing part about the FaF announcement 18-months ago was that we had an 18 months wait for the release of all this amazing content.

Now 18 months later we are at a point where not only have we lost those 18 months, we now have what we had before which was no expected timeline for release.....so if we add another 18 months, we're likely looking at a December 2027 release ....sigh...

Did it ever strike you that if you are discontent with the progress and PR of TFS that you and others can otherwise start up your own flight sim to cover let’s say Malta/Sicily to give players something at a development rate that they expect? At the current rate, Avatar 5 may be released before TFs releases their Malta/Sicily installment. Wouldn’t you want to give players a taste of that area or a depiction that’s better than nothing or in War Thunder? Maybe 3-4 planes per side, some ships and a carrier for say?

[PO_Baldrick]

1 hour ago, Dagwoodyt said:

Interaction with the FMB should not be required to set up a simple 1v1 dogfight. Whether such encounters were "rare" in RL is irrelevant. This is the basic encounter a new player is likely to want to create. In a QMB a default loadout should be full ammo/100% fuel unless the player choses otherwise. TFS seems to operate on the premise that it can find enough CloD-friendly customers to survive instead of creating a new-user-friendly UI. I use the word "survive" rather than "be commercially successful" since that seems the path TFS has chosen. The 1v1 dogfight is easily set up in Il-2 GB just as it was in RoF and in DCS. Why is this still an issue with CloD? If they have had a QMB in the works for several years now, why will they not describe how it is going to make the game more accessible for new users?

Rather than survive it feels to me that TFS' primary goal is to create the sim they want for themselves and the pilots who they regularly fly missions with. The rest of their customers are somewhat along for the ride but commercial success isn't the primary driver in my speculative view.

 

For decades many developers have struggled to create the products they want driven by commercial need with parent companies and/or publishers calling the shots. This is more like an enthusiast hobby IMHO and personally I think if commercial success was the goal we wouldn’t have it, so it seems a good option in the mix, even if sometimes rough around the edges.

[FTC_Rostic]

2 hours ago, Dagwoodyt said:

Interaction with the FMB should not be required to set up a simple 1v1 dogfight. Whether such encounters were "rare" in RL is irrelevant. This is the basic encounter a new player is likely to want to create. In a QMB a default loadout should be full ammo/100% fuel unless the player choses otherwise. TFS seems to operate on the premise that it can find enough CloD-friendly customers to survive instead of creating a new-user-friendly UI. I use the word "survive" rather than "be commercially successful" since that seems the path TFS has chosen. The 1v1 dogfight is easily set up in Il-2 GB just as it was in RoF and in DCS. Why is this still an issue with CloD? If they have had a QMB in the works for several years now, why will they not describe how it is going to make the game more accessible for new users?

 

Maybe because of priority of tasks?

 

I can imagine priorities in this order:

1) Core update for VR/VU which are include at least:

1.1) TrueSky integration.

1.2) New speed tree integration.

1.3) Update and adjust all the textures and shaders for existing and new assets in respect of new lightening.

1.4) I'd like to see here updated UI for better integration with VR and make it more user friendly. I do not think game need completely new redesign of UI. Just replace noisy wallpapers with more clear images, like I propose there https://www.tfbt.nuvturais.de/issues/1514 .  Redraw controls. Adjust sizes of some elements and that's it. Well, maybe some redesign needed in some pages. For example multiplayer page. Most new players, whom I was trying to bring to CloD, lost there and could not understand how to select faction, how to spawn in aircraft, how to despawn, they have problems with finding spawn areas. Quick mission, Single mission, Campaign, Settings screens are quite straight forward.

2) FaF DLC (all the assets, aircrafts, missions etc.).

3) AI, AI, AI, AI - endless amount of improvements and most of issues to be fixed.

4) Simple, but long awaited feature requests (like ability to disable server events logging to chat ).

5) Bug fixes before release VR/VU.

 

When that is done:

6) again AI, AI, AI, AI - endless amount of improvements and new discovered issues to be fixed.

7) Quick Mission Builder feature can be started. No sense to start work on QMB with old UI and then redo it again for new UI? (if UI update is in a thing... I never heard UI update is in development or at least planned). Also, I have no idea why there is so much fuss around QMB??? It is not much different to Quick Mission. Most of mission types are already there. I'd like developers just add ability to adjust more things for AI aircrafts (like fuel amount, ammo types, ordnance, etc.), altitudes of air groups and that's it.

8.) Single player dynamic campaign if this is something players really need? But to be honest this is something community can do itself. There is no need in access to game source codes. Though, maybe, some external apps to be created for campaign initialization (to select player faction, aircraft, squadron, etc.). Though, I think there was a way to create custom in game campaign pages. Not sure if this is working thing, bet definitely interesting example of source codes:  https://code.google.com/archive/p/il2dce/

9) Precipitations for TrueSky (in case not going to be done on first VR/VU release).

10) PBR textures implementation.

11) Better water rendering.

12) Implementation of tessellation for ground rendering. Very well implemented in BoX winter maps.

13) More complex aircraft systems - currently CloD looks like simplified version of DCS.

14) Aircraft icing system. This one was in original game release but worked in very strange way and was removed (by TFS?).

15) More DLC, much more DLC....

 

No doubt, I forgot to add something else... Wish list is crazy large. But most of that is just a nice dream, unless all the dreamers allocate some free time to get new skills and join the development team to speed up development process. And yes, I do know, that joining developers teams does not mean you will be able to do what you want. Only tasks assigned to you by team leader(s?). If not, the only thing left is to wait silently, or wait blaming all around of no one doing important things, or waiting with optimism that you'll live long enough to enjoy all future game updates.

 

Damn, that is a lot of text. I have a feeling - shit will hit the fan

Anyway... Submit Reply!

Edited January 2 by FTC_Rostic

[BOO]

@FTC_Rostic  you could add somewhere

 

a coms menu that it both a little more comtemporary but mainly has commands the actually tie to something that works

 

refinement/rewrite of the ground handling and the wallowing though ploughed fields dynamics as experienced in fighters

 

better implementation of loadout management (more presets based on historic with better descriptions and abilty to save convergences as well as belt composition, full explanation of fuse types, some thought around the confusing number of "saves" in the customisation screens.  

 

 

[FTC_Rostic]

4 minutes ago, BOO said:

@FTC_Rostic  you could add somewhere

Well, all the Feature Requests can be added to Team Fusion Bug Tracker. No promise they'll be implemented, but at least they all be saved in one place.

By the way. At least one of the feature requests I added there was (partially) implemented by TFS! Though still open fore some reason: https://www.tfbt.nuvturais.de/issues/1128

[BOO]

12 minutes ago, FTC_Rostic said:

Well, all the Feature Requests can be added to Team Fusion Bug Tracker. No promise they'll be implemented, but at least they all be saved in one place.

By the way. At least one of the feature requests I added there was (partially) implemented by TFS! Though still open fore some reason: https://www.tfbt.nuvturais.de/issues/1128

 

I afraid I have as much faith in the bugtracker as I have the prospect for world peace by the 15th of this month. They do it or they dont. Dosent need a report, its as obvious a problem as as Stormtrooper at a bar mitzvah

[Hiuuz]

Will any rain effect introduced with TrueSky?

[FTC_Rostic]

5 minutes ago, BOO said:

 

I afraid I have as much faith in the bugtracker as I have the prospect for world peace by the 15th of this month. They do it or they dont. Dosent need a report, its as obvious a problem as as Stormtrooper at a bar mitzvah

 

No need in being afraid. No harm can be done by adding Feature Request to bug tracker. All of them will be in one place. No need for devs to search am all around internet. Trust me, devs really read them. There is not always a time to implement them

 

I just recommend to spend some time formalizing request. And no rush publishing it there immediately. Create text file on PC. Wait day or to. Read it again, rethink, edit. Then publish.

Edited January 2 by FTC_Rostic

[343KKT_Kintaro]

29 minutes ago, FTC_Oakwoodson said:

Can someone expand upon what the B17 campaign will be about? Is it the early endeavors of the VIII into Europe? The current map is somewhat limiting in what B17s can target.

 

 

 

The B-17E is being modelled for version 6.0, the Dieppe raid, but obviousely the bomber will be used in subsequent events in the game's timeline.

 

The missions of the "Mighty Eighth" over Germany, those you refer to, will be player-flyable but further into the game's timeline, not before version 9.0... and this is long into the future.

 

If I got it right, the game's timeline is the following:

 

Version 4.5 = "IL-2 Sturmovik : Cliffs of Dover - Blitz" (set in the Battle of Britain)

 

The current version 5.0 = "IL-2 Sturmovik : Desert Wings - Tobruk" (set in the first years of the Desert War)

 

Version 6.0 = "IL-2 Sturmovik : Fortresses and Focke-Wulfs - Dieppe" (set in the raid of Dieppe, the next release if all goes well)

 

Version 6.5 = Title yet unknown, this will be a mini add-on destined only to add a few flyables to the game, an Avro Lancaster among them.

 

Version 7.0 = Title yet unknown (set in Central and Western Egypt, will complete the historical facts of "Desert Wings - Tobruk", our existing add-on of version 5.0).

 

Version 8.0 = Title yet unknown (set in the Mediterranean, Sicily and Malta)

 

Version 9.0 = Title yet unknown (set in Western Europe, a 600 x 600 km map for bombing Mainland Europe : France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany... I cannot remember if the map goes East up to Berlin but the Ruhr industry will be in I think). Diurnal missions on board B-17s, nocturnal on board Lancasters...

 

All of this is extremely planned, same as it is extremeley delayed... so let's hope TFS fixes the game first.

 

 

[Volant_Eagle]

6 hours ago, Dagwoodyt said:

For the G50 this looks like the "Default" ammo loadout in FMB:

 

vs:

a possible "Custom" loadout:

Whichever loadout is chosen it seems that at some point the AI will ignore an immediate threat and head back to base. It is easily possible to fly formation with the AI once the AI decides it has a more important appointment at its' assigned waypoint.

Seems like threat assessment is an issue.

Modifying the "Main belt" has nothing to do with how much ammunition is on the plane. As far as I know there is no way to make an aircraft spawn with a partial ammunition load in CloD. It's only empty or full. When you put different types of ammunition in the "main belt" you are just determining the pattern of individual bullet types loaded into that belt. That pattern will be repeated throughout the belt for however long it is. Putting more or less rounds in the "main belt" has no effect on how long it is. "Default" just means it will be fully loaded with belts that have the bullets types that are whatever the game designers thought was a good stand in for a historically accurate load for that particular airplane.

 

If you want to test whether running out of ammo is causing that AI behavior, I suggest setting ammunition to unlimited in the realism settings.

 

I really wish CloD had "ammunition" and "ordinance" defined as two separate things. CFS3 worked that way and it was much more convenient. "Ammunition" only referred to cartridges fired from guns. "Ordinance" referred to any other type of weapon that didn't use bullets (basically just bombs and rockets for WW2).

Unlimited Ammunition and Unlimited Ordinance were therefore two separate options in the realism settings.

 

I don't think having the ability to load anything less than full ammunition is a mechanic worth having in a combat sim. However, I do think being able determine the exact amount of "ordinance" an aircraft spawns with is nearly a necessity. At least for bomb loads on bombers. I only fly bombers occasionally in CloD, so correct me if I'm wrong, but basically all the bomb load options in game seem to only be a full bomb load capacity for that bay. In other words, the player can only choose what type of bombs they carry, they can't choose how many of them they carry. You're always stuck with the full bombload capacity of that bomb bay. That is kind of limiting and unrealistic. It's nice we can determine the load for each individual bomb bay, that's better than nothing, but some planes only have one bomb bay. I also imagine that if you wanted a 50% bomb load in real, you wouldn't necessarily load one bay totally full and leave the other empty. Maybe you would in some planes, but in others that might be less than ideal for weight and balance. I really hope we get at least some updates to bombload mechanics by the time we get the B-17. I sure don't want to always to take off with 14,000lbs of bombs when 6,000lbs was the norm. I imagine they'll include a few "canned" 6,000lb loads, but I'd much rather have the ability to select exactly how many bombs I'm carrying as standard game mechanic.

[AWC]

3 hours ago, Dagwoodyt said:

TFS seems to operate on the premise that it can find enough CloD-friendly customers to survive instead of creating a new-user-friendly UI. I use the word "survive" rather than "be commercially successful" since that seems the path TFS has chosen.

 

If they have had a QMB in the works for several years now, why will they not describe how it is going to make the game more accessible for new users?

 

1. Fulqrum has signed on to the release of the DLC so it's financial viability has been assessed.

 

2. This usually comes down to availability of members and task priorities. The QMB would need more work before it is released to the public as it is right now.

[Dagwoodyt]

18 minutes ago, Soto_Cinematics said:

 

1. Fulqrum has signed on to the release of the DLC so it's financial viability has been assessed.

 

2. This usually comes down to availability of members and task priorities. The QMB would need more work before it is released to the public as it is right now.

1. I had no idea that Fulqrum is actually providing up front funds for TF 6.0 through to completion. Good to know.

2. All I've seen of the QMB is a single screenshot from the old VU/VR promotional video. Nothing since, so sounds like not in active development if it ever was.🤔

Edited January 2 by Dagwoodyt

[major_setback]

22 minutes ago, Dagwoodyt said:

1. I had no idea that Fulqrum is actually providing up front funds for TF 6.0 through to completion. Good to know.

2. All I've seen of the QMB is a single screenshot from the old VU/VR promotional video. Nothing since, so sounds like not in active development if it ever was.🤔

I think Soto was saying that Fulqrum's assessment of the game was that it was financially viable. He didn't mention funding.

[Dagwoodyt]

33 minutes ago, major_setback said:

I think Soto was saying that Fulqrum's assessment of the game was that it was financially viable. He didn't mention funding.

Thanks for the clarification.

[paul_leonard]

5 hours ago, Dagwoodyt said:

Interaction with the FMB should not be required to set up a simple 1v1 dogfight. Whether such encounters were "rare" in RL is irrelevant. This is the basic encounter a new player is likely to want to create. In a QMB a default loadout should be full ammo/100% fuel unless the player choses otherwise. TFS seems to operate on the premise that it can find enough CloD-friendly customers to survive instead of creating a new-user-friendly UI. I use the word "survive" rather than "be commercially successful" since that seems the path TFS has chosen. The 1v1 dogfight is easily set up in Il-2 GB just as it was in RoF and in DCS. Why is this still an issue with CloD? If they have had a QMB in the works for several years now, why will they not describe how it is going to make the game more accessible for new users?

Enhancements to the QMB are in the pipeline, although I don't have line of sight to that.  You are quite right, it should be easier to set up a quick mission and be in control of the AI, loadouts and such.  It would also make the game more accessible.

8 hours ago, FTC_Rostic said:

About situation when whole squadron attack same target...
I never tried, but when I'll have time, I want to test if that AI behavior can be changed by setting different skills individually for each aircraft in group.

For example for 8 Bf109 fighters it can be like this:

 

1-1 - Discipline 70-80%. Flight lead most likely will do what planned, but he still can think and make decisions.

1-2 -  Discipline 80-95%. Wingman is better stick to his leader.

1-3 - Discipline 60-70%. Second pair lead can feel him self more free to detach from flight lead.

1-4 -  Discipline 75-85%. Wingman is better stick to his leader but lets make him less discipline.

 

2-1 - Discipline 50-60%. Second section lead can feel him self even more free to detach from lead section.

2-2 -  Discipline 80-95%. Wingman is better stick to his leader.

2-3 - Discipline 0-40%. Second pair lead of 2nd section will be b-b-b-bad to the bone

2-4 -  Discipline 50-65%. Wingman is better be a bit more disciplined then his dare devil leader.

You can set AI skills by individual aircraft.  It would be interesting to test.  

[Volant_Eagle]

Regardless of how far out in development the QMB is, I think it would be wise to at least share a screen shot or two of the WIP QMB menu (Assuming one exists at this point). That way the community can way in on whether development is headed in the right direction or not. It would be very disappointing not to find out until release that the QMB doesn't actually offer what we're looking for.

 

Personally I'm hoping for is something along lines of "Quick Combat" from the Microsoft sims. The QC menu from CFS1 is still my favorite of any combat sim I've played. It's definitely dated and simplistic, but it covers the important options I'd want in order to boot the game and be in whatever dogfight I want in less than a minute. That's the type of gameplay option that is completely missing from CloD right now. Therefore that's what I'm hoping a QMB would bring. Right now you can only play SP by selecting one of the pre-made missions or campaigns. If you want to fly something custom you need to build an actual mission in the FMB and save it to missions so you can then select it from the single player missions. If you want to change anything other than what type of plane each flight has or which plane is the player's, you need to go back to the FMB and make a whole new mission! By the time I've done that I could have flown the dogfight once or twice over! Ugh!

 

A menu like this is what I'm looking for. Although I'd definitely like the option to bring up a map and click on any grid or airfield instead of using the dropdown list. I'd also like more detail in the skill level and the ability to spawn friendlies.

 

The options available the 1946 QMB are almost exactly what what I'm looking for as far as aircraft and situation go. Once again it doesn't have a map to choose the location from though. In fact all you can pick is just the map itself! There's also no weather options like CFS1 has. The way the menu looks in 1946 is also an absolute eye sore. 

Good heavens! What a mess of drop down lists, blue, cheesy mechanical buttons, blue, more drop down lists, and blue.

 

Great Battles uses a map view in Quick Start. This is definitely an upgrade visually but I don't like how it functions. The whole point of having a map view is to easily select exactly where you want to fly. But using the map in GB you can only select from a few random spots and each spot only lets you fly a particular type of flight from that spot. Why even bother having locations to pick from then? Sure it looks nice, but in CFS1 I could pick any airfield I want for any dogfight setup I want. In that particular regard 'Quick Start' actually feels like a step backwards from CFS1.

 

Usually when I'm brand new to a sim I just want to dork around test random things until I get a good feel for how things work. The Microsoft sims were great in this regard as was IL-2 1946. DCS and Great Battles less so. But CloD just doesn't even have this option.

 

Hopefully TFS can glean from what people like and dislike about these different approaches and make something better all around.

 

[Roover]

Well just reinstalled the game with my old trackir and decided to give it a go (kinda hard to go back when use to VR).

 

Anyway, reprogrammed my hotas and decided to give it a go.

 

Well, the ai did not improve. Really hard to shoot down, planes roll like an F16 or just fly straight and bye bye...

 

Not much changed (AI wise). Tried to play online but no players. Too bad because this game has got a lot of potential compare to competitors (other era).

 

Juts my 2 points. I'll be ready to pay to improve this game. I know it's hard work.

 

There so much possibility here.

 

Waiting for VR and improve AI. But just VR will be awesome.

 

Happy new year all and the team.

 

Keep up the hard work

[Buzzsaw]

On 12/31/2024 at 1:44 PM, Dagwoodyt said:

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

This is one of the issues we have acknowledged and plan to correct for TF 6.0.

 

It is in the 'To Do' list... along with the other 100 different improvements which are currently being worked on or will be corrected for the release.

9 hours ago, Dagwoodyt said:

1. I had no idea that Fulqrum is actually providing up front funds for TF 6.0 through to completion. Good to know.

 

No.  Not at all the case.

 

Fulqrum has not provided any funding to Team Fusion.

 

Team Fusion's financial model remains the same.  We work for free till we complete the projects... and they are published.  Then we receive revenue share from the sales of the published product.

 

We cannot fund raise on our own or crowd fund.  We cannot release 'Early Access' products to gain revenue prior to completion.

[Buzzsaw]

11 hours ago, FTC_Oakwoodson said:

Can someone expand upon what the B17 campaign will be about? Is it the early endeavors of the VIII into Europe? The current map is somewhat limiting in what B17s can target.

The B-17 campaign will focus on the first missions flown in August and September of 1942... this was the debut of the 8th Air Force in Europe.

 

We are also hoping to have some missions for the RAF American Volunteer "Eagle Squadrons"... (No. 71, No. 121, No. 133) in the actual campaign they were often tasked with escorting the heavies... as members of the RAF.

 

Later that fall these Squadrons were transferred to the USAAF and formed the 4th Fighter Group (334th, 335th, 336th Fighter Squadrons) but we may not carry it that far in our campaign although the markings etc. will be available for online play.

 

And of course, there will be campaigns for the FW 190A in TF 6.0.

[Mysticpuma]

11 hours ago, Hiuuz said:

Will any rain effect introduced with TrueSky?

Rain effects and a complete new water system are all part of Truesky, BUT Buzzsaw has said all the water effects (like it can create completely new seas and oceans) won't be in V6. Also rain won't be implemented as part of v6 as this requires coding to make the rain interact with every aircraft (and model) surface, which would include canopies.

So rain does work in Truesky, it just won't be happening in V6 (Buzzsaw's words, not mine).

[Buzzsaw]

Just now, Mysticpuma said:

Rain effects and a complete new water system are all part of Truesky, BUT Buzzsaw has said all the water effects (like it can create completely new seas and oceans) won't be in V6. Also rain won't be implemented as part of v6 as this requires coding to make the rain interact with every aircraft (and model) surface, which would include canopies.

So rain does work in Truesky, it just won't be happening in V6 (Buzzsaw's words, not mine).

We have already demonstrated Snow and Rain in trueSKY.  That is not the problem.

 

The issue is animating the rain and moisture effects on the windshields/aircraft/objects/terrain... that requires a lot of work.

 

If we had the members to do that work, we would certainly include it... but right now with our limited manpower we have to focus on the priorities... which are getting the new aircraft and ships/vehicles modeled.

 

Everything is possible if you have unlimited resources... but TF has to be realistic about our goals.

[Mysticpuma]

5 minutes ago, Buzzsaw said:

We have already demonstrated Snow and Rain in trueSKY.  That is not the problem.

 

The issue is animating the rain and moisture effects on the windshields/aircraft/objects/terrain... that requires a lot of work.

 

If we had the members to do that work, we would certainly include it... but right now with our limited manpower we have to focus on the priorities... which are getting the new aircraft and ships/vehicles modeled.

 

Everything is possible if you have unlimited resources... but TF has to be realistic about our goals.

I think that's what I said, bye the way, do you have links to those demo's ? I don't recall seeing them in game? 👍

Edited January 3 by Mysticpuma

[FTC_Rostic]

2 minutes ago, Mysticpuma said:

I think that's what I said, bye the way, do you have links to those demo's ? I don't recall seeing them in game? 👍

 

I think, there was a screenshot of F-4F flying through blizzard... or something like that. Can't remember where to find it.

[Buzzsaw]

1 minute ago, Mysticpuma said:

I think that's what I said, bye the way, do you have links to those demo's ? I don't recall seeing them in game? 👍

We have not released them in the VR Beta... there is no point... the animations are not ready, and the added code would just be another element which could cause bugs.

 

We have to focus on the elements we are trying to deliver... not elements which are not ready and won't be included.

[Mysticpuma]

20 minutes ago, Buzzsaw said:

We have not released them in the VR Beta... there is no point... the animations are not ready, and the added code would just be another element which could cause bugs.

 

We have to focus on the elements we are trying to deliver... not elements which are not ready and won't be included.

Ah, I thought you meant publicly, not in house, understood.

[PO_Baldrick]

9 hours ago, Volant_Eagle said:

Regardless of how far out in development the QMB is, I think it would be wise to at least share a screen shot or two of the WIP QMB menu (Assuming one exists at this point). That way the community can way in on whether development is headed in the right direction or not. It would be very disappointing not to find out until release that the QMB doesn't actually offer what we're looking for.

The risk is you end up with a committee of everyone and every screenshot gets pages and pages of forum posts both critical and positive with a zillion different "better" suggestions. IMHO there should be enough combat flight sim experience in TFS and those in Alpha/Beta programs to aid in the design. Much like in corporate development where key stakeholders are involved in the requirements definition and usability testing groups.

[Mysticpuma]

@paul_leonard

 

Paul, if you launch the latest VR Beta and load the Single Player mission "German Airfield Attack". Using the default controls, (I use CTRL+F2), change to the Allied aircraft and cycle through until you get the Spitfire with the marking NVS. Take control of that and start hunting down the 110 or 109's. They all display the poor Ai behaviour of barrel rolling, drone mode heading for home, etc, etc. I find this one a perfect example of the issues with Ai.

 

That would be an interesting one to see improved as it is really a great SP mission, spoiled only by the poor Ai.

 

Cheers, Mysticpuma

[Dagwoodyt]

7 hours ago, Buzzsaw said:

This is one of the issues we have acknowledged and plan to correct for TF 6.0.

Thanks for the acknowledgement. I have never seen the "AI drone mode" acknowledged until your post here. I guess I just missed it somehow. Ditto for the need to have one-click access to track recording while in-game. It finally was implemented without fanfare. Great to have it.

 

7 hours ago, Buzzsaw said:

Fulqrum has not provided any funding to Team Fusion.

I wanted to understand the meaning of "financial viability"🙂

 

4 hours ago, PO_Baldrick said:

IMHO there should be enough combat flight sim experience in TFS and those in Alpha/Beta programs to aid in the design.

I think that what is being asked is a "proof of life". Is the "WIP" QMB real vs thrown into the old promotional video to increase customer buy-in to the VR beta. If real, tell us how it works.

Edited January 3 by Dagwoodyt
add

[major_setback]

46 minutes ago, Dagwoodyt said:

...

 

I think that what is being asked is a "proof of life". Is the "WIP" QMB real vs thrown into the old promotional video to increase customer buy-in to the VR beta. If real, tell us how it works.

 

I think it was just this simple: it was absolutely unintentional  yet was picked up by MP. Somebody had posted a screenshot/video without thinking. So no, it was not meant to generate interest in any way. 

Edited January 3 by major_setback

[Mysticpuma]

43 minutes ago, major_setback said:

 

I think it was just this simple: it was absolutely unintentional  yet was picked up by MP. Somebody had posted a screenshot/video without thinking. So no, it was not meant to generate interest in any way. 

But...it has generated interest because it's something the players really would like.

[major_setback]

6 minutes ago, Mysticpuma said:

But...it has generated interest because it's something the players really would like.

Somebody put a placeholder there for something that might be worked on in the future. As far as I know there is nothing more. 

[paul_leonard]

4 hours ago, Mysticpuma said:

@paul_leonard

 

Paul, if you launch the latest VR Beta and load the Single Player mission "German Airfield Attack". Using the default controls, (I use CTRL+F2), change to the Allied aircraft and cycle through until you get the Spitfire with the marking NVS. Take control of that and start hunting down the 110 or 109's. They all display the poor Ai behaviour of barrel rolling, drone mode heading for home, etc, etc. I find this one a perfect example of the issues with Ai.

 

That would be an interesting one to see improved as it is really a great SP mission, spoiled only by the poor Ai.

 

Cheers, Mysticpuma

Will do.

[FTC_Rostic]

2 hours ago, Dagwoodyt said:

I wanted to understand the meaning of "financial viability"🙂

 

He answered that in the same post you cited. Just few lines below. I marked the answer by red color.

 

9 hours ago, Buzzsaw said:

...

Fulqrum has not provided any funding to Team Fusion.

 

Team Fusion's financial model remains the same.  We work for free till we complete the projects... and they are published.  Then we receive revenue share from the sales of the published product.

...

 

Edited January 3 by FTC_Rostic

[Volant_Eagle]

6 hours ago, PO_Baldrick said:

The risk is you end up with a committee of everyone and every screenshot gets pages and pages of forum posts both critical and positive with a zillion different "better" suggestions.

I would absolutely expect that to happen. Pretty much everything they've ever posted on this forum gets a similar result. It's just that more information is always better than no information. And if TFS doesn't like what we say, or can't figure out what we want, they aren't required to listen to us. We are players and enthusiasts, not shareholders or board members. So what is being risked on their end if such a post is made?

 

7 hours ago, PO_Baldrick said:

IMHO there should be enough combat flight sim experience in TFS and those in Alpha/Beta programs to aid in the design. Much like in corporate development where key stakeholders are involved in the requirements definition and usability testing groups.

I would think so too. But I would've thought so about any of the teams developing the QMBs I showed as examples. All of them still had significant weak areas. Instead of combining only the good features of previous sims in order to create something better, it's more common to see developers come up with something completely new that will inevitably have it's own new set of pros and cons. I hope TFS will do an excellent job once they get around to it, but isn't knowing better than hoping?

 

2 hours ago, Dagwoodyt said:

I think that what is being asked is a "proof of life". Is the "WIP" QMB real vs thrown into the old promotional video to increase customer buy-in to the VR beta. If real, tell us how it works.

If you're referring to my post then that wasn't my intention. But I imagine quite a few people do see it that way and just want proof it's real. I'm genuinely interesting in the QMB being what it can and should be. It's honestly perplexing to me that no one has made a QMB that's an improvement on what CFS and the original IL-2 already had. And those games came out 27 years ago!!!

 

1 hour ago, major_setback said:

Somebody put a placeholder there for something that might be worked on in the future. As far as I know there is nothing more. 

Ah, thanks. It wasn't clear whether this was actually in the works or just on their "to do" list. Either way though, even if it's just on the to do list, I think my concerns are still valid.

[Dagwoodyt]

1 hour ago, FTC_Rostic said:

He answered that in the same post you cited. Just few lines below. I marked the answer by red color.

 

10 hours ago, Buzzsaw said:

...

Fulqrum has not provided any funding to Team Fusion.

 

Team Fusion's financial model remains the same.  We work for free till we complete the projects... and they are published.  Then we receive revenue share from the sales of the published product.

...

 

I guess I saw some humor in the use of terminology. Thanks for explaining though☺️

[Dagwoodyt]

2 hours ago, major_setback said:

Somebody put a placeholder there for something that might be worked on in the future. As far as I know there is nothing more. 

Again, an issue must be raised repeatedly before someone from TFS acknowledges the reality WRT its' WIP assertion in the screenie from that promo video. 😔

[major_setback]

23 minutes ago, Dagwoodyt said:

Again, an issue must be raised repeatedly before someone from TFS acknowledges the reality WRT its' WIP assertion in the screenie from that promo video. 😔

I'm not acknowledging any reality. I wrote 'as far as I know'.

Edited January 3 by major_setback

[Mysticpuma]

2 hours ago, paul_leonard said:

Will do.

I would have sent you a DM at ATAG but don't have your user name there

[BladeMeister]

23 hours ago, FTC_Rostic said:

 

No need in being afraid. No harm can be done by adding Feature Request to bug tracker. All of them will be in one place. No need for devs to search am all around internet. Trust me, devs really read them. There is not always a time to implement them

 

I just recommend to spend some time formalizing request. And no rush publishing it there immediately. Create text file on PC. Wait day or to. Read it again, rethink, edit. Then publish.

The obserdity of adding new feature requests to the bug tracker list says a lot.  This is reminiscent of the Bismark cruising full steam ahead in circles with a jammed rudder and fighting to the death.

😭

 

S!Blade<><

[No.54_Reddog]

Now that you're back around Buzzsaw, will we have an explanation of the factual inaccuracies contained within the locked discussion thread as stated?

 

Also, what's happening with the October community survey? As you've noted, you're aware it's now a new year?