homepage Forums Read Only Forums Read Only Forums IL-2: Cliffs Of Dover (Read Only) Patch progress update 05/03

It is interesting that on the yellow forum the post are mostly saying "thanks" and very positive under the Patch News thread. I say thanks because I am having a good time with this sim. It has flaws but I cannot remember a sim (and I have played and worked on almost all of them) that did not come out with problems.

This forum has a problem though and it is not something that can be fixed as easy as a game. The same people come here day after day to proclaim their dislike of this sim in the most inventive ways. At first it was entertaining and popcorn time but after a month or so it gets very old.

Being new to this forum, but long time simmer, I totally agree. Like being in Junior High again. Hardly any constructive remarks tbh.

That was Luthier's and Jason's plan all along. More cash for RoF. Then when RoF get's the capital they need to finish the dynamic campaign, Luthier turns on all the gizmos, gadgets, and full screen. Voila' two friendly teams have two great sims for hungering fans.


(Seems to be the week for 'conspiracies.')

Do you have the game yet, or are you still just whinging, if you dont own the game, then it doesn't make a great deal of difference whether full screen support works or not, why not just crawl off to the WOP forums and entertain all the posters over there... oh thats right there isn't any.

I guess trolls will be trolls though.

+1

well, this is hardly the proper place to accuse people of too much forum participation, don't you think? Your post count btw somehow qualifies you for your aforementioned category, too. Doesn't it?

As long as those who dare to post non-constructive criticism here have actually bought the game or plan to buy it, I am happy with it. I take the forum activity and sales hints Fearless observed as a sign of continuing fascination and brand name power. I am tempted to interpret the highly emotional postings the same way. So I hope it will keep selling itself eventually, in despite of or hopefully because of the reviews to come. The last time I saw something similar was FSX and the traffic about it at the AVSIM forums. And I sincerely hope the development will be kept on, not like in FSX.

I accommodated myself to the state the sim was released in, and now I am ready to explore the things given and already working and find it very impressive, to say the least.

Michael

I appreciate this is the CoD forum, but must add my +1 to RoF comments.

CoD has been an exercise in potential and frustration. While I am very optimistic it will get better, I have (re)discovered RoF

It was not an era that particularly interested me, but RoF is immersive and stunningly well done. I have gone from the basic edition to having purchased every plane in the last few weeks.

Even more, he was the one who headed up the third-party add-on scene for IL-2 and in fact was one of the first third-party modelers with the BI-1.

You didn't seem to get it. If I hated the game as much as those people do I would obviously have left the forum to spend my time better elsewhere. I didn't particularly like WoP and so just posted once or twice in that forum and let it be, left the forum it for those who enjoy that program... Isn't that the logical thing to do? Well, it is if you're not a total loser as the haters in here, who just have a congenital need to vent their spleen all the time in all the threads they open.

I agree that full screen is a basic game programming concept. With 1C's pedigree, I can't see them being so dim about it. Thus, it is either an unlucky logical bug in their code, or they tried something innovative in their code and it's run into unexpected issues. Knowing Oleg's history, I'd go with the latter.

Time will tell...


And Ming, what's with the lack of Minglish??!! Your post was completely normal. Slipping in your old age?

I am not familiar with the personae of the IL2 history. Would you reckon that Luthier has the stamina to keep the project going, or was it all a one man show running out of juice when Oleg left? The latter scenario really concerns me, as it would explain the apparent disarray over the code. I'd appreciate your input.

Michael

(This is not a 'negative' post just an observation)

Do you remember in the very early days the developers telling us that they had halted work on the sim because they realised that the coding would be out of date by the time of release (or something) and so they binned the lot and started all over again "from the ground up"? I remember it happening very well.

You have to wonder (a) what it would have been like if they had carried on with what they started with and (b) whether it really was 'new code' or (/conspiracy theory on) they did it in reverse, ditched the new code and tried to modify IL2. (/off).

I don't have the sim and am not passing any judgement.....just going by what I have seen and read. From the videos the FM do look very similar to IL2 to me too.

I have the product and long ago concluded that it is Il2 repackaged. The ai routines and problems with hi altitude flight are telltales. The shear number of broken pieces is astonishing. How could a team custom build a BoB sim from "ground" up only to discover upon release that it lacks a high altitude FM and has no working comm system? You do not need to be a conspiracy theorist to ask a logical question. All that's needed are you lying eyes and ears.

Freycinet said:



A silly remark, but not unexpected.

As long as you keep targeting posters, rather than posts, you'll do just fine.

Or is that the other way round?

And I'd say your post count, and constant 'criticism of the criticisers' puts you firmly in control of the bile ballast tank.

I do not agree with Chivas a huge deal, but I can respect his arguments to a greater extent, and where he's coming from. And i respect his grudging acceptance of the fact the game was release porked.

For you, Freycinet, I have no respect. Maybe a little bit for your persistance. But even then I'm not really sure. I havne;t given it enough thought. So, since you keep naming me and others, I thought you'd like a little back. And the more you do it, the more you'll get back.

And do you want moving shadows with that?

Ben

Put him on ignore mate.

Trouble is in your attempts to defend the sim (I assume that is your intention) you come across as a troll hiding behind the good guy tag. Just my opinion.


Komrad.

Probably yes, but I am joining you. I hope development will continue and I would gladly pay for planes (as long as they do not commence trying to sell silly things like field mods, compasses or something ) and maps and missions.

Michael.

I have the sim and have seen some of its limitations WRT performance. I've not yet experienced the many faults reported here, but I fully beleive they are there. When you consider the sudden release announcement, the staggered release with the US market (likely to be the largest market) and the level of incompletion for the game, it looks to me like they were faced with these equations;

Publish now = get some money so they can continue with full development.

Don't publish now = go bankrupt and publish nothing/never.

Of course it could get much more complicated that this if you consider they may have financial investors who wouldn't wait any longer to get some return.


I suspect the same/similar thing happened with RoF and ArmaII. Not being a computer game analyst, so I'm really guessing here, but I suspect it's probably common-ish practice among relatively small development teams that are squeezing as much out of their investment capital.

1) I'm still waiting for CoD to be released.

2) was written like that's a bad thing. I find it to be a main selling point.

3) RoF was indeed forced into publishing too early by investors, and Neoqb so much as said so. I'd like to know what sort of fire sale price Jason got it for.

There's no question that CoD was released when it should not have been.

Who's fault is this? We can point the fingers to two responsible parties.

1 - the project manager for not meeting the project requirements.
2 - UBI for allowing it to be released in the state it's in.

UBI has a long history of releasing products when they're not ready for the PC market. It seems to be the opinion that 'screw quality, release it, we can patch it later' when it comes to PC releases.

What I'd like to know is how long are publishers LEGALLY bound to support a product after release? Is there such a thing?

We all saw that with LOMAC it was released with placeholder components that they never fixed (such as the multiplayer code being synchronous LAN code). Nobody who purchased that product ever got what was advertised (internet multiplayer). Only when they purchased another product (flaming cliffs) did they get it.

I am very leery of a culture of releasing incomplete products and essentially giving a consumer the choice of paying extra for what should already have been in the product, or not paying and being left with an incomplete product.

I'm not saying the devs are going to screw us, but UBI does have a record of doing so.