TFS - Year in review 2024

[Nickkyboy99]

Any word on the discord server?

[Flyhighzz]

On 12/31/2024 at 4:14 AM, Soto_Cinematics said:

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).

Why work on the Lancaster when so much is still not done for TF 6.0? 

[BOO]

@Soto_Cinematics

 

You made reference to the JU88 A and C having External and cockpits started - Do I read corrrectly that this is a 4K upgrade and not a remodelling?

 

[Buffo002]

9 minutes ago, Flyhighzz said:

Why work on the Lancaster when so much is still not done for TF 6.0? 

And why is it strange? It's just that whoever worked on Lancaster probably isn't doing anything on version 6.0 or has already done what he was supposed to do in 6.0.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

Buffo is right, TFS works different things at the same time, with different developers, depending on what is required.

 

Please, Soto_Cinematics, do not forget to respond to Boo.

[Flyhighzz]

2 hours ago, Buffo002 said:

And why is it strange? It's just that whoever worked on Lancaster probably isn't doing anything on version 6.0 or has already done what he was supposed to do in 6.0.

If that's the case, then they should rethink their strategy and actually complete things on time

[BOO]

8 minutes ago, Flyhighzz said:

If that's the case, then they should rethink their strategy and actually complete things on time

 

I dont think the Lanc impacts in any way on 6.0. 

[Dagwoodyt]

48 minutes ago, Flyhighzz said:

If that's the case, then they should rethink their strategy and actually complete things on time

Perhaps the prime motivator is the aura of being a "developer" or a member of a "development team". When or whether any project reaches completion...🤔

[No.54_Reddog]

13 hours ago, Flyhighzz said:

Why work on the Lancaster when so much is still not done for TF 6.0? 

I'm more surprised that the team doing it are associating themselves willingly with this shitshow. As I understand it, it's the team making the Lanc for DCS as a mod. I'd have thought they'd have their work cut out with that project alone, but maybe all the 3d modelling is done and their modellers didn't feel like sitting around with nothing to do?

 

So, about that October community survey TFS???? Care to comment or want to continue playing deaf and dumb with your fingers in your ears?

[Hiuuz]

I missed that survey. Any link to it?

[Mysticpuma]

6 hours ago, Hiuuz said:

I missed that survey. Any link to it?

There hasn't been a survey, but one was discussed by Buzzsaw in October....and nothing ever became of it.

[Hiuuz]

8 minutes ago, Mysticpuma said:

There hasn't been a survey, but one was discussed by Buzzsaw in October....and nothing ever became of it.

Oh! Maybe after the release of the Visual Upgrade. Then TFS could take a breath while we answer those questions and with clear head they could find out what's next 😄

[Mysticpuma]

1 hour ago, Hiuuz said:

Oh! Maybe after the release of the Visual Upgrade. Then TFS could take a breath while we answer those questions and with clear head they could find out what's next 😄

The survey was about the visual upgrade 😂

[354thFG_Leifr]

Is the B17 out yet?

[BENKOE]

 

The year, please.

 

On 1/21/2025 at 4:32 PM, Mysticpuma said:

There hasn't been a survey, but one was discussed by Buzzsaw in October....and nothing ever became of it.

[AWC]

Apologies for my lack of engagement here guys Im overseas right now so Im doing stuff most of the day. 

 

On 1/20/2025 at 3:51 PM, BOO said:

@Soto_Cinematics

 

You made reference to the JU88 A and C having External and cockpits started - Do I read corrrectly that this is a 4K upgrade and not a remodelling?

 

 

Anything new that the team is making is in 4K so yes.

 

On 1/21/2025 at 12:32 PM, Mysticpuma said:

There hasn't been a survey, but one was discussed by Buzzsaw in October....and nothing ever became of it.

 

In regards to the survey - I have not received any word about this.

 

On 1/20/2025 at 3:04 PM, Nickkyboy99 said:

Any word on the discord server?

 

This one is on me because as stated Im overseas and didnt plan ahead getting access with my devices. Im currently coordinating its release with leadership.

[deathmisser]

On 1/19/2025 at 8:20 PM, Soto_Cinematics said:

It's planned is all I can say.

Thank you, I really want to play CloD and with even more aircraft coming in it will be a cluster (cough) hehe. So now with that in mind I hope it similar to the old 46 or at least easier to navigate. 🫡

[Buzzsaw]

On 12/31/2024 at 9:35 AM, Mysticpuma said:

 

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.

 

Those comments explain exactly why you are no longer a member of TF, and why you were voted out.

 

The members of TF work on their own time... when they have time... they are not available to the same standards of a paid employee.  They all have to pay the bills, and sometimes that means putting TF work aside.

 

If I was to demand weekly updates I would soon have zero members remaining in TF.

 

We provide updates when we have them... and I have already explained in detail why we are behind schedule in our 3D modeling work.  Did you read the post ?  If you did, then why are you asking these questions ?  If you didn't read the post, please do.

[No.54_Reddog]

6 hours ago, Buzzsaw said:

Those comments explain exactly why you are no longer a member of TF, and why you were voted out.

 

The members of TF work on their own time... when they have time... they are not available to the same standards of a paid employee.  They all have to pay the bills, and sometimes that means putting TF work aside.

 

If I was to demand weekly updates I would soon have zero members remaining in TF.

 

We provide updates when we have them... and I have already explained in detail why we are behind schedule in our 3D modeling work.  Did you read the post ?  If you did, then why are you asking these questions ?  If you didn't read the post, please do.

Nobody is asking you to "demand". Mystic it appeared was simply pointing out that progress pictures would be feasible between model start, and model finished. Whether that progress is delivered in a straight line, week on week or sporadically is immaterial to the provision of pictures. 

 

I note that once again you've posted multiple times without addressing the points I keep raising. I might have to start taking being stiffly ignored personally if you keep it up 🤣🤣

[AWC]

Guys let's not divulge into personal comments. I will be removing comments as they are not on topic.

 

For the record if you're making criticisms, do so, but be civil about it please. Jaded personal comments are more likely to be removed.

[Dagwoodyt]

13 hours ago, Buzzsaw said:

The members of TF work on their own time... when they have time... they are not available to the same standards of a paid employee.  They all have to pay the bills, and sometimes that means putting TF work aside.

There is no way to know how many TFS years equal one calendar year. The same quote will repeat each year and respond to any and all timeline inquires. If the VU/VR is not in a condition to be shown to customers after three calendar years maybe 6 calendar years are needed(?). If the current VU/VR is as impressive as has been implied it could be made available as a Steam opt-in. The private "beta" team, whatever its' current participation, could carry on.

[BOO]

3 hours ago, Soto_Cinematics said:

Guys let's not divulge into personal comments. I will be removing comments as they are not on topic.

 

For the record if you're making criticisms, do so, but be civil about it please. Jaded personal comments are more likely to be removed.

 

I think we both know that there is a big green elephant in that there room Soto. 

 

I dont think anyone would expect you to comment, defend of otherwise take any action and it would be unfair to expect you to do so.  

 

I would expect the author of those comments however to self moderate in a smilar to spirit to the rules set for everyone else especially given his target really has no right of reply. 

[PO_Baldrick]

1 hour ago, Dagwoodyt said:

There is no way to know how many TFS years equal one calendar year. The same quote will repeat each year and respond to any and all timeline inquires. If the VU/VR is not in a condition to be shown to customers after three calendar years maybe 6 calendar years are needed(?). If the current VU/VR is as impressive as has been implied it could be made available as a Steam opt-in. The private "beta" team, whatever its' current participation, could carry on.

From my observation there is nothing sinister about not making the current VU/VR generally available, it is simply going through a thorough testing regime with the VR beta testers adding one component at a time having been stripped to its bare bones - which has been discussed here.

 

The good news is it seems major progress has been made, so crossing fingers that we can get an update some time in the not too distant future.

[Mysticpuma]

16 hours ago, Buzzsaw said:

Those comments explain exactly why you are no longer a member of TF, and why you were voted out.

 

The members of TF work on their own time... when they have time... they are not available to the same standards of a paid employee.  They all have to pay the bills, and sometimes that means putting TF work aside.

 

If I was to demand weekly updates I would soon have zero members remaining in TF.

 

We provide updates when we have them... and I have already explained in detail why we are behind schedule in our 3D modeling work.  Did you read the post ?  If you did, then why are you asking these questions ?  If you didn't read the post, please do.

🍻 👍 K

Edited January 28 by Mysticpuma

[Dagwoodyt]

2 hours ago, PO_Baldrick said:

From my observation there is nothing sinister about not making the current VU/VR generally available

"Sinister"(?), not a term I have used.

[AWC]

4 hours ago, BOO said:

 

I think we both know that there is a big green elephant in that there room Soto. 

 

I dont think anyone would expect you to comment, defend of otherwise take any action and it would be unfair to expect you to do so.  

 

I would expect the author of those comments however to self moderate in a smilar to spirit to the rules set for everyone else especially given his target really has no right of reply. 

 

Thanks for the reply. We'll continue to moderate this forum approiately.

[PO_Baldrick]

7 minutes ago, Dagwoodyt said:

"Sinister"(?), not a term I have used.

 

Sinister in the sense that by withholding a public beta one could assume it simply isn't fit for purpose, may take years or never may be.

 

IMHO there are very valid reasons why it isn't available for public access right now but having flown DCS and IL2:GB in VR for many years I believe it is in very good shape. Though without joining the VR beta program you will just have to take my word for it which probably isn't going to fly 😀

 

 

 

[Dagwoodyt]

1 hour ago, PO_Baldrick said:

 

Sinister in the sense that by withholding a public beta one could assume it simply isn't fit for purpose, may take years or never may be.

 

IMHO there are very valid reasons why it isn't available for public access right now but having flown DCS and IL2:GB in VR for many years I believe it is in very good shape. Though without joining the VR beta program you will just have to take my word for it which probably isn't going to fly 😀

 

 

 

From a quick Google search:

 

"insidious, sinister, or pernicious?

Few would choose to be associated with people or things that are insidious, sinister, or pernicious; all three of these words have decidedly unpleasant meanings, each with its own particular shade of nastiness."

 

You are using the term "sinister" as a "strawman".

Edited January 28 by Dagwoodyt

[PO_Baldrick]

8 hours ago, Dagwoodyt said:

From a quick Google search:

 

"insidious, sinister, or pernicious?

Few would choose to be associated with people or things that are insidious, sinister, or pernicious; all three of these words have decidedly unpleasant meanings, each with its own particular shade of nastiness."

 

You are using the term "sinister" as a "strawman".

From the same website you quoted above:

 

it may also suggest an ominous foreshadowing of some unfavorable turn of events

 

In this context not releasing a public beta may be interpreted as an indication things are going badly wrong and isn't as "impressive as has been implied".  I simply don't believe that to be case, nothing more.

 

 

 

 

[Avimimus]

If people want to engage in personal disputes, or re-litigate things which happened a half-decade ago, they can take it to private messages. Regardless of who is doing it, it really isn't appropriate to criticise other forum members by name. This should apply to all forum members, include present, and past, TFS team leaders.

 

This section may be moderated relatively independently - but it doesn't mean that the forum rules don't apply. So, I'd strongly encourage avoiding using the public forum for criticising either Buzzsaw's or Mysticpuma's leadership or anyone else - including criticising each other. Constructive suggestions for the project are fine, but getting personal is not.

[BENKOE]

Just a question:

 

" Significant bugs originating in the original Maddox game software caused a major bottleneck with our VR implementation."

 

Would you also strongly encourage avoiding using the public forum for criticising Oleg Maddox and other game developers? 

[Avimimus]

13 minutes ago, BENKOE said:

Just a question:

 

" Significant bugs originating in the original Maddox game software caused a major bottleneck with our VR implementation."

 

Would you also strongly encourage avoiding using the public forum for criticising Oleg Maddox and other game developers? 

 

I think the answer would hinge on whether it is Maddox Games or Oleg Maddox - the form is a company, the latter is a person.

[BOO]

 

27 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

If people want to engage in personal disputes, or re-litigate things which happened a half-decade ago, they can take it to private messages. Regardless of who is doing it, it really isn't appropriate to criticise other forum members by name. This should apply to all forum members, include present, and past, TFS team leaders.

 

This section may be moderated relatively independently - but it doesn't mean that the forum rules don't apply. So, I'd strongly encourage avoiding using the public forum for criticising either Buzzsaw's or Mysticpuma's leadership or anyone else - including criticising each other. Constructive suggestions for the project are fine, but getting personal is not.

 

Fine words but the comments alluding to MP by Buzzsaw remain however. 

[Avimimus]

3 hours ago, BOO said:

Fine words but the comments alluding to MP by Buzzsaw remain however. 

 

I've posted this reminder mainly with an eye to the future.

 

If you (or anyone else) has comments or suggestions regarding moderation - send a private message to the moderators or Community Manager (LukeFF). See forum rule #6.

[BOO]

22 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

I've posted this reminder mainly with an eye to the future.

 

If you (or anyone else) has comments or suggestions regarding moderation - send a private message to the moderators or Community Manager (LukeFF). See forum rule #6.

 

Sent

 

[354thFG_Leifr]

What a sad thread.

[Dagwoodyt]

On 1/28/2025 at 11:57 PM, PO_Baldrick said:

From the same website you quoted above:

 

it may also suggest an ominous foreshadowing of some unfavorable turn of events

 

In this context not releasing a public beta may be interpreted as an indication things are going badly wrong and isn't as "impressive as has been implied".  I simply don't believe that to be case, nothing more.

 

 

 

 

After three years the "beta" is now going so well that even the instructions to "beta" testers for each new test version is a carefully guarded secret.😉

[major_setback]

19 hours ago, Dagwoodyt said:

After three years the "beta" is now going so well that even the instructions to "beta" testers for each new test version is a carefully guarded secret.😉

Shhhh, don't tell anyone! Even that is a secret!

[Dagwoodyt]

2 hours ago, major_setback said:

Shhhh, don't tell anyone! Even that is a secret!

Or is the real secret that it's still alpha?🤣

[343KKT_Kintaro]

For almost all of us, after years and years of being lectured by a few individuals in this forum, it should be collectively aknowledged that there are no more secrets in connection with TFS and its Dover series of combat flight sims.