Any chance of an updated patch?

Friday update and then new holidays in Russia:)

Are you serious?!? More holidays?! No wonder their economy doesnt pick up with so many holidays!:-P

Unfortunately im not very excited about friday updates anymore. Blacksix its not your fault! We really appreciate that you take time to keep us updated!! Really!!
Its just that its the info you collegues at UBI give you is the same every friday...

"Pictures of another game that we dont have and wont buy until the one we bought is working properly"
And something like "the testing is going well, the team is working hard to fix some newly and unforseen discovered bugs"

Something like that...
Anyway Blacksix you are only the messenger so this IS NOT personally towards you! ;)

Ubi has been out of the game since it's out, don't blame them ;)

Sadly time is passing fast, IL2 1946 has lost it's shimmer and attraction and nothing is there to fill the gap, the squad is beeing almost dispersed. H*ll, those of us who are left are playing a zombie mod for ARMA2!!?!??

Sorry for the negative approach, it just an indication that something has changed... very recently... our mentality! Once we were eager for every Friday Update "oh, it's flyable for us all.. maybe soon". It feels like we have been a leaf floating on water for too long, and it just sank.
In our squad, who have flown as a group for 10 years, there is almost no interest left for flightsims, this endevour has taken too long.

I really hope we can turn this around, gather the fellas once this title is mended... not sure though..


cheers

Couldn't put it much better if I wanted to really

you forgot: "thank you for your support and patience":cool:

They are totally working on it. Or something else, be sure!

The sarcasm of the non participants in a project is maybe justified but not helpful to anyone. One can be skeptical, delusional, tired etc etc but I don't see the added value of publishing that on this forum.
I would expect that kind of purposeless manifestation from a children unable to control his reactions, but if it was my son I would explain him two or three things about self control.

No offence intended, just my point of view on what a forum like this is for.

Cheers!

:)
Do u realize what you just did mate :D

:-) no, but of course I wasn't referring to your post, with which I agree totally.

Cheers!

Which he said last week we wouldnt have a patch this week...

Thx BS for comm... i may not waste my time hitting F5 as said above news are already knowed...
No more illusion, hope or so about the game and the team...
Good news : i can now fu.. the dual boot and let my Ubuntun breathe.

May be back in some months to check if there is stil light in rooms !

Yes, They have holiday ;) , Today Russia plays football match with the Czech Republic on Euro 2012.

Thanks for changing your avatar...like the new one!...I think a patch today late.:grin:

From 2004 to 2008 there were only a couple of guys working on SOW. Most of Oleg's crew were helping Luthier finish Pacific Fighters which had expanded from Luthier's work on a single aircraft carrier to a full addon. Then they continued work on further addons for the old IL-2 engine in those years up to IL-2 1946 release.

I was under the impression from Olegs first statements on BOB that he was going to use a new game engine, but apparently he may have been trying to wring more features out of the old engine until late in 2004 which didn't work out. This is speculation derived from a Luthiers quote in 2009, which states they decided to build a new game engine in 2005, although Luthier was busy working on Pacific Fighters at that time not BOB and may have still been living in the states. In May of 2005 Oleg said SOW was using a new game engine, but he didn't state when they decided that.

I know they were having problems changing things with the old engine because it was hard to find and change code embedded in one big mass of code. This may be part of the reason they wrote the new game engine with a Modular system. Where each major aspect like Graphics had there own module which was easier to find and change without effecting unrelated code as much. Makes me wonder if these modules cause problems themselves, like the special drivers need to combine two graphic cards, to display on scene without stutters.

Bingo!

Yet that does not stop the whinners from refering to that as some sort of 'full year effort'

On that note, every software company I have delt with is allways 'working' on thier next thing.. If not just to keep current with the changes in tech

So to try and paint that inital efforts by 1C as some 12 month effort that they wasted money on is just plane ignorant and/or silly

I agree, unfortunately its easy to skew any information to suit a postive or negative agenda. Of course from my positive point of view I find the negative view takers much more skewed with their interpretation of information. :)

I personally love the one were people have suggested that the unfinished game engine thats being designed to continually evolve and incorportate future tech will be "outdated" by the time its finished.

I agree with the above.

My only injection would be this:

The video of SoW on the 1946 DVD showed, what appeared to be, a working game, corroborated by the showing of this version at the exhibition which Mysticpuma attended.

Now is it the work on the engine which caused the host of problems in providing minimal tangible development between 2007-2011? Because it is certainly the lack of development between the first two builds which I think causes a lot of the so called 'negativity'.

See there is a gulf between the two engines, but this may not be as clear as we would like to imagine. It's only really noticeable visually in the self-shading, and landscape geometry.

But let's further this odd scenario with the map-editor, shown in 2008:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KozuhKXGDoY

Which build is this? The geometry would suggest the engine CloD has now, however the cliffs and terrain textures aren't so different from the first build.
And I think the colours and textures look a lot better than what we have now (save for the repetition which could be tweaked).

So if this is the current build, why has the landscape taken so long to come together, and yet not provided a 3 year gulf in visual experience?



The answer is there are a lot of ways to look at it, from a positive perspective which takes the problems with the team and lack of initial resources into account, and then the other view which highlights the apparent lack of major development over the years.

I personally think it's 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. Oleg was a perfectionist, and I think they ran out of time in producing their dream game so had to come out with something quickly: CloD.

I think this statement by Oleg along time ago says alot about how features are implemented and removed or scaled down until a later date.

"Oleg: When we are designing the engine we put in anything we want or can and we're not very much afraid that there is not currently a PC that will run it well. However, when we are close to release we "cut" some features to get the right working gameplay - to get it playable with good FPS. Those features that were "cut", we will release or open later, when the new hardware will be coming. In the same way we did for the IL-2 series and it's why our old engine is still looking modern."

This is the bottom line, you build the engine to be capable of much more than computers are capable of displaying, and then turn down whatever features necessary to make the sim playable. You turn them back on again as the features are optimized or computers are more powerful. This strategy works well over the long haul, as thats the business model of a number of Sequels using the same game engine.

Unfortunately many people have ignored these statements over the years, and expected everything the developers are working on will be in the first release. This and the fact the sim had to be released unfinished has caused all the negative feedback.

Now some would blame everything on the development team not being capable of building such a complex game, there may be a small element of truth to that, but most is just a function of the scale of the project and people expectations. Its costing the investors thousands of dollars a day to keep this development going so they must see a rainbow of hope otherwise this development would have been shut down ages ago.

Very good point indeed.

However, to contradict this slightly, surely the current level of tweaking highlights that a lot of the software is not running adequately even at the more simpler levels? And the graphics re-write itself cut a lot of nice features (those beautiful cockpits and some of the nice lighting) but similarly added some improved ones such as coastlines and atmospherics.

It all gets very complicated.

But I think that quote needs to remembered. That first spitfire cockpit video showed a lot of lovely features which didn't make the game: atmospherics over the water, lovely cloud lighting (even if the clouds were poor) and those lovely cockpits which did make the game, but were 'tweaked' poorly IMHO.

I'd love someone to make that video with the current game and see the difference.

Your right the graphic rewrite probably cut a number of eye appealing codes, to cut down on CTD's etc. My system has never crashed but most peoples systems probably weren't as optimized as my was to run the sim. The new graphic code has just been written and hardly optimized, so in the future I'm sure we will see more appealing graphics etc as the sim is optimized and computer power allows. Personally I don't like the idea of scaling down the code to suit lesser computers, as this should be an available option, but there is probably far more too to the problem than I can imagine.

What I hope for is the SDK to allow a fair amount of cosmetic modifications: notably changes to, say, the cockpits, the shaders, the landscape colours, even speedtree, in the hope that the devs can then offer these as switch able features a la RoF. Or, with the case of speed-tree, even replace what's there.

I think the team should invest in this burford holly, and replace a lot of the trees with hedgerows:

http://www.speedtree.com/trees/?tree...ort=CategoryID

The terrain mapping tool, and SDK, should have that capablility, if they don't, they should be made to have it. The trees in COD are one of the biggest immersion killers for me. In COD many of the trees bordering roads and fields should be changed to hedgerows. As it is now flying at low level trying to navigate is very difficult. I use forest shapes, roads, and railroads to navigate. All the extra trees mask the shape of the forests and roads that make it almost impossible to navigate visually, as there are few other landmarks. Nice to see that Speedtree has a something that looks very much like a hedgerow. I'm sure the development or modders will at some point be able to replace some of the existing trees with a version of those hedgerows.

Sorry chaps, but isn't this thread supposed to be about news from Sukhoi.ru?

Please could you take the historical discussions elsewhere? Only I'm getting a bit tired of seeing new posts in this thread which have nothing to do with news from Sukhoi.ru. Including this one.

Yeah sorry. It's been a bit quiet on the Sukhoi front at present.

BlackSix, COOPs is the No.1 missing feature as voted on IL2bugtracker http://www.il2bugtracker.com/project...ues?query_id=1
It was extremely popular in original Il-2 and absent now in spite of "coop" folder shown in the MP mission selection menu ( \1C SoftClub\il-2 sturmovik cliffs of dover\missions\Multi\Co-Op ).

COOP fix is not related to crashes, graphics, FM or AI and can be programmed by different people I guess. This will not slow down the patch development.

Could you please ask Luthier for the next info-update when we will see COOPs fixed in ClOD? I do not think he would ignore the most wanted feature by community.

Details of required COOP fixes are listed on the bugtracker.

What kind of ctd's has the dev team fixed then? Ah yes - workarounds for poorly optimized systems :-)

+1. Please B6 convey this to Luthier.

+2 on COOPS!!

I think that coops can bring more squads into CloD. +3 for coops.

Cheers!

+4

I want close or unstick this thread. It's not "Fresh stuff from sukhoi.ru", it's ordinary discussion.

Yes...please stay in touch tho,:grin: with possibly a new locked information thread...name it "Fresh stuff from BlackSix" :-P

Maybe we'll start this thread again with hard rules? Only news from Sukhoi from any member of the forum and any discussion will be deleted. What do you think about it?

A good idea!... I like it

Do it!

..or shift the crud to the pilots lounge or other suitable forum.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Please do it

We will use this thread as a discussion thread for info posted at Sukhoi. Unfortunately some people have taken it too far O/T to be saved.
New thread for Sukhoi.ru news created here.
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...718#post433718

B6, don't be shy...be the first to use your new info thread:-P

Yes unstick !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yak-1
Here it is important not to overdo it! Failure of systems and mechanisms is quite acceptable, but regularly falling off the plane (possibly with randomization is) will look like complete nonsense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blacksix from Sukhoi
Of failures, I did not say anything yet. I do not know whether we will do it at all. Physical deterioration - increase drag airframe, engine sdohshy, Nedodaev power, the current cooling system, etc.

Does anyone understand this?

It looks that he is discussing the level to which they may or may not do the damage modelling in the sequel....

I hope that the sequel does not retreat from, but expands on CEM, and the DM.

They are talking about the physical weathering, they plan to have a fully weathering system in the next add-on/sequel.

Currently we have a esthetic weathering only, you can add it to your plane and then the paint will look old and the plane dirty.

In the sequel or merged add-on the game will have physical weathering so not only our paint get old but our plane too, affecting to air drag, engine, power, cooling ...

This system will give to servers admins and mission builders more wide possibilities, including use it as balance tool.

How did you reach your conclusion?...I'm not seeing that at all in the quote's, seems to be about random failures.

That quote is just a user being afraid that this system can be overdone and become a random failure system.

Then the poor Blacksix said that he don't know how works, he is not a coder, but that it just weathering parts.

Again time wasted in boring clarifications over wild speculation if you ask me, we also have this over here :rolleyes:



Here is the true deal where you can read about the weathering system and where I had my conclusion :

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...01&postcount=2

Personal opinion: Maps can't be large enough. The smaller the map the less flexible it is in its use. 1946 showed - sometimes drastically - why cutting off maps can be an awkward affair. From my POV (which is focused on history first and foremost) a map for the Battle of Moscow should be almost as large as this to incorporate all relevant areas and to allow the placement of bomber units at the right bases (without the need to have them airstart):

http://rkka.ru/maps/moscow5.jpg

+1 agreed

+1, agreed

Imagine one day: Fly from London to Moscow (maybe with pit-stop in north africa) in a b-29 on one hughe map of europe...

Yes, it's excellent image. And we would make such map about 3-4 years. It's impossible.

B6, it was said today would be the earliest day for release of the patch...is this still possible today?:grin:

I am waiting info from Ilya as usual.

why not make maps like a puzzle, where all single maps could be connected to each other one day.
so that in the end, one big WWII map would be the result....
you may say im a dreamer

That's very understandable. However that still does not invalidate my worries about map placement and "truncated maps" which show historically rather insignificant areas while the relevant ones are being left out. In 1946 several maps suffer from this desease. :-?

As for the "small maps" issue. IMO the only useful map in CloD is the Channel map - all others (especially those "weirdos") were a waste of time and manpower. If smaller maps were asked for why weren't real-life areas chosen? For example a map confined to the Pas de Calais area with just a corner of England? Or a map of the Cotentin peninsula up to the coast of England? Just saying ...

...but you´re not the only one...
I hope some day you´ll join us..
and the world will be as one...

Imagine, there is no heaven... ;)

Yes) We'll make it by different way in our next project. After announcement you will know about it.

I don't know and I can't say.

I was speaking in a general sense. For CloD it's all over map-wise, I know. :)

I'm wondering why you keep posting discussion, in the sukhoi information only thread...have you noticed your posts are being deleted?

Yeah I was hesitant to post in that thread as well, as earlier I'd actually reported a post or two in that thread for being completely OT. But I wasn't sure if a translation correction was considered OT or not for that thread. :confused:

Sorry in advance.

When you say "in our next project", are you talking about the "earliest next project" (the one you posted images) or the project that will have an alpha in 2013??

Thanks.

Lets hope the ability to create maps will be in the SDK as well...

I said about our next project what will have an alpha in 2013.

If we'll find free time for SDK in the nearest future. Free time is main problem.

Thanks a lot B6! :)

]

Yeah, tell me about it... even if you release the SDK I have to find the time with a 2 month old right now :D

What are you talking about? This thread here has been turned into the discussion thread so I posted my comment here (edited the post in the other thread). :confused:

Any discussion in the other thread is just going to be deleted, so please don't post anything there that is not news from Sukhoi. Use this thread.

Uther, can it not be moved to this thread? Or will a post just be binned?

I seem to remember Oleg showing exactly this some years ago. Didn't they announce a mapping environment that could go from orbit down to village scale?

I realise much has changed since then, but surely this part of Storm of War still exists?

I sympathise with the amount of time mapmaking takes, but was there not also a video of a tool to paint the details on the map?
Getting the community involved would surely breath most life into the game?

56RAF_phoenix

There's now an offspring from the thread with the map discussion at sukhoi.ru and I find that one very interesting. Some of the opinions there match my own - maps are only large enough when the historically relevant bomber bases are on the map. On the CloD map 99% of the bomber bases are not on the map at all ... only Amiens - Glisy (Stab & I./KG 1), Montdidier (II./KG 1), Rosieres-en-Santerre (III./KG 1), Creil (II./KG 76), Beauvais-Tille (I./KG 76) and Cormeilles-en-Vexin (Stab & III./KG 76). There is, for example, not a single bomber base of Luftflotte 3 represented which - if we had a campaign engine - would seriously limit the campaign possibilities for a bomber pilot.

I know about the limited resources, but quite honestly with maps not encompassing the relevant bases for all types of aircraft (with the bombers having the ones farthest back) then the gameplay will always be rather limited even offline. 'cause if you don't have a base an offline campaign is pointless. ;)

I don't understand why the CloD map took at least three years to make. Obviously it's a big area, but surely WW2 maps could be used to map the location of every road, town, village etc and then just use the tool in the editor we saw to add the housing and fields...? A lot of tailoring would be needed, but with a sufficient team I don't think it's impossible, especially considering the work that was done on the Cross Channel map for Il-2.

It's probably a lot more complex to make sure everything fits, but bear in mind the BoB2 has a larger map IIRC with every road and landmark visible in 1940.

I can only imagine all the problems, issues, time and effort that goes into a map the size of the channel map, and how long it would take to build, populate and make look half way decent.... 3 years sounds pretty right from start to finish...

This was another of the big disappointments for me. We have a Walt Disney map whereas with old maps as guides, even templates, we could have had far more historical detail, properly placed roads etc and I doubt if it would have taken much more effort than what we have.

Perhaps he SDK will allow us to create a new map and perhaps even submit it for 1C to include in the file set.

Well, I think the only way to get maps of that size is do a very crude auto generation - or have the community do them with an SDK that allows making large maps. Maybe that would be OK? Have the relevant parts of the map detailed and autogenerate the stuff in the peripheral parts that are mostly interesting for a very small group that like to take off from a bomber base hundreds of miles from the target and actually spend hours before getting there? I do realize that there are people that like this but they can't be many percent of the target audience to make this game profitable.

But it would be nice to please both the broad and the narrow users. But that would have to involve some autogeneration that off course would have threads with people crying about roads going over rivers with no bridge etc... Roads that where built in 1990 in the game etc... I think an auto generated map would have to use OpenStreetmap or similar to be economically possible. Maybe with manual deletion of major highways around cities etc that would be to hurting for the eyes ;)

I really don't thing that the business model where the SDK only allows the making of small maps is a wise one... If you can only do maps with the available terrain and props, why not focus on releasing new game modes and features that gets packed in new "versions" that everyone wants to pay for, and let the community or third party build all the maps they can to expand the product?

And by the way as this is a theoretical discussion - any kind of SDK would be a boost for the product ;)

EDIT - a crazy idea, make a web based GUI built on OpenStreetmap where users can add or remove roads etc like in the "real" OpenStreetmap and then have an engine that "bakes" the map into a CloD map :) I have added a number of minor roads and paths into OpenStreetmap where I live and added a road into Google Maps too that was marked the wrong way... That way it would gradually get better and better and instead of whining about a missing bridge - people could add it themselves :) Just dreaming... And then have monthly builds where the new stuff gets into the baseline map.

That doesn't bode well. There will never be "free" time to do it - it has to be planned and resources allocated beforehand. But I guess project management is not MG's strength.

In Russia project manages you.

At the moment MG is still firefighting the CoD engine,
planned work happens only to the people working on the sequel,
for the rest planned working will resume when CoD is running as it should.
Imo.

Yup, I think all bets are off till CoD is running at an acceptable level, then we might start seeing the things they planned like the SDK.

Totally agree, they have people working on the planned work and resources allocated accordingly, but their work can't be implemented until the other coders get the game engine sorted. If and when the game engine is sorted then features should be fixed and new features added in a more timely manor.

Seriously Chivas, that almost made me spit my morning coffee! :grin:

And the longer the game engine goes unsorted, the more new content that goes untested and unoptimised, resulting in another godawful fiasco when they try to put it all together.

This is still the discussion thread for fresh stuff from sukhoi.ru forum, not a general discussion thead.

Has anyone else been getting a missing dependency error when they visit sukhoi.ru lately?

Somebody over there screwed up their server, methinks.

B6 say something...it will bring some life here :-P

Something)

hhahahahahahahahahahaha

:lol:

Is this a hint of "something" ?

Please ask luthier about news on coops for tomorrow's update. This is #1 missing feature.

lol.

No change, we have time only for fix CloD:

When flying online I read the mission briefing, I use teamspeak and cooperate with the the others on my side. It is good and simple and fits in with the small amount of time I have available.

What more could a man want? (a young Pammie Anderson excluded!)

@BlackSix:
Can you ask Luthier if it's possible to use Addins for Multiplayer at the moment?
And if so, can we get a short example how to make one? Only a example like tstcampaign needed ;).
And if not is this feature added to the next regular patch?

Please, Please ...

It's clear that we won't get a GUI change, we should concentrate on workarounds.

However there is one issue that is even worse than the GUI: The AI doesn't recognize the take-off of client players unless the AI control is enabled after take-off. So the AI stays on the ground forever if a client player is within the group.

Please read Black Six
 

Hi Black Six,Sorry but I do not understand Luthiers statement.
Present Coop setup in the game does not work at all in anyway shape or form as the old one from the original series.
Please ask Luthier to look into this again and if he feels it does then write clear instructions on how to load /join//select /read brief/participate end the mission and view all the results as was possible before.Perhaps we are all missing something here ? The old methiod was simple and easy to use .
Customers have voiced their feelings on the apparent lack of this feature as in the last series here:
http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/51 & also here:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...ight=coop+poll
Talk on Teamspeak whilst participating in the old game and forum chat across squads indicates that although many have purchased Cliffs of Dover and have shelved it whilst they wait for the patches to fix the games functionality,they stil remain puzzeled as to the lack of a functional Coop mode as was in the previous series
Many I have spoke to,including a moderator on this forum are of the opinion that the increase in numbers playing online will only increase marginaly when the game is fixed and the Battle of Moscow sequel will lose concideable sales volume in this neck of the woods without a functional Coop interface .
Whilst the talented in the comunity have made temporary scripts as a work around for fellow users the full functionality of the old interface is sadly missed.
41Sqn Banks makes a good point on Ai behaviour too.

Our lists are filled by different demands and suggestions. I'll pass, but we don't promise anything.

Many thanks ,I am sure if this were rectified it can only benefit Cliffs of Dover and any further sequels:)