This is called a Straw Man fallacy.

I never said that it was the MOST complicated, nor did I say that it has the best graphics engine. I said that "complicated software is never optimized at release." The logic in that statement is solid. I've been employed as a programmer since 1986.

You probably should not use logical fallacies when you are criticizing someone else's logic.

Software is, most of the time, optimized before release. Here are some examples of very complicated software which run fine at release:

- TESV: Skyrim
- Mafia II

Are those enough? or you want more?

Also, both games have HUGE worlds. With hundreds or even thousands of actors (AIs) and objects. Both of above games have also complex game subsystems.

Both games published by much larger and more financed companies. They also aren't as complex as calculating flight physics and damage modelling, engine management etc.

Apparently we are using different definitions of "optimized". "Running fine" is NOT the same as "optimized".

To me it means "Make the best or most effective use of a resource". That means the code should be as efficient as is possible. I have no idea why you think that either of those games were as efficient as possible at release, but I would bet that you're wrong.

We find ways to make code more efficient all the time.

The complexity of the simulation and of the damage model is really a matter of faith until you have a way to test what is doing the simulator.

You can have that on some simulators
like xplane and rfactor in a very clear and clever way
xplane:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_NDeSPCMks

rfactor 2 tyre consumption and dynamic simulation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZWeEoOxKKw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oha1bQ9C174


that is a kind of complexity that you can compare with the real life simply because you see what is happening in the simulation.

The problem with Cod is that we don't have at all that kind of insurance on the physically correct simulation.

I'm sorry and I would like very much to say the contrary, but for now we have a Physic simulation with huge problems (velocity and ceiling of aircrafts is the very basic of the parameters to judge a correspondance with the reality) and a Damage Model that allows the Hurricane to fly with half wing cut off.
We were promised to have the acrobatic airplane to be able to admire the physic model but there is anything about it more than the promise before of the release.
About the damage model we don't know how it is made and we have not at all any analisys instrument to understand it (I hope to be corrected asap).
It seems that the convergence of the weapons is bugged, but how do we know that the ammo damage is made in a correct way ( or at least with a clear logic on which you can debate but at least you know it)

Those are both games with very little depth in them. They are not complex like a flight sim. At least try and be in the same ballpark

There is an huge difference between a software that needs to be optimized and a sowtware that needs a huge remake of a core system like the graphic engine... but perhaps I was thinking that was obvious but is not.

Sorry, but neither of those are anywhere near as complex as CloD. Nice character animation, sure, but a far stretch from modelling land sea and air and all the complexity and physics of a whole bunch of WWII aircraft and weapons systems.

You'll be telling me they model the ballistics of their pistols next.

do you have an idea of how complex is to manage only the facial expressions of a so big amount of characters?

I provided more similar examples, but talking about complexity it is not true that a flight simulator is more complex; more physic calculations is not meaning more complex. IMHO.

Sometimes you can optimize code by making small changes. Sometimes it requires big changes. It's not always possible to know that you made bad choices early in the design process.

If you were a programmer you'd know that the same routine would be used for all the characters in the game with different data plugged in. More facial expressions is not meaning more complex.

Of course but you recognize those BIG problems during the testing of the Alpha version... not at release!

You can continue this discussion forever, because there is no common measure of the "complexity" of a game. As Tamat says, the complexity of a sim is a matter of faith. And a physical FM can be less complex than a parametric FM.

Not if you run out of time and money and have no choice but to release. Then you release anyways and hope that you can fix it after release.

Does that situation sound familiar?

I can't disagree with you here but you said:
So is every complicated application released because of these issues? :-|

I don't think so.

I tell you guys I always think of one thing in anything that might "bug" me, and I truly always try at least to live by it.

Never sweat the "small stuff", don't sweat the " stuff you cannot control", never look back because " you can't change a dang thing that has already occured".
The only thing I myself can do, from my perspective, is control " how I react" to these things as they occur - and I try to keep the above in mind when I do.

It is amazing when things happen to us, that are really big - like health issues, major surgeries, or worse,or to our loved ones - how are perceptions on the thing we once thought of how very important they were, all of a sudden - they really were not and meant very little.

Just sharing my newbie wisdom of the day...
:)

Have fun!

You need to program the behaviour of the facial expressions with all the different faces also of different races, I am not a professional programmer, but talking about CG effects what you explain to be simple or routine was one of the more complex problems that the movie avatar had. Gaming industry is different obviously, but again complexity is not only something that you can analyse on the final code only..

Infact after the release I was scared about the CloD stage of development since the quantity of evident bugs... just think about at the ones that you don't see (FM, DM ect).

IMO the developer should build SDKs just to test those engines, initially to debug the engine itself and of course finally to tweak the plane's data.

Really? and you know that from.. where?

Do you have ANY idea at all what it means to code a game like Skyrim, and a game like IL2CoD? What game systems are involved in those? How a game engine is working at all? And I am not talking about the graphics/render engine, but about the game engine..

Obviously, you don't, otherwise you would have not mentioned that.

Skyrim has a HUGE world. HUGE! And the Editor.. the TES Creator only in itself is more complex than the whole IL2CoD! Mafia II has physics and damage modelling of cars and weapons. And guess what? It also has collision, on all that HUGE world of it.

Want some other examples? Assassin's Creed games.. also with HUGE worlds, hundreds of buildings, lots of details, collision, hundreds of characters, and so on. Do you know how many animations had the system they've developed for AC1? ANY idea at all? I'll tell you: 10000 animations. Now come and tell me that Il2CoD is more complex than a game that has an animation system for the main character which manages and blends them as beautifully and seamlessly as AC does.. and I'll tell you you never worked on developing games and you don't have any idea what you're talking about!

Don't talk about thing you don't know.. just because you think, I assume from what you "see", that IL2CoD is more complex than those games, it doesn't make it so!

Air combat simulators are very complex.

Every bullet fired has plotted trajectory, every aircraft in the scenario is flying and shooting.

Everything moving has to be accounted for when you compare games.

As long as you see the movement that is all being plotted.

The graphics are doing their thing as well on every moving and non-moving object in the scenario.

The problem is that there are several definitions of "optimized".

User: It works on my machine.
Programmer: It's as efficient as possible (something that NEVER happens)
Developer: It's as efficient as our budget and release schedule make possible.

and if YOU were a programmer, you would know that the same routine is also used by all the airplanes in IL2.

The complexity of a game is given by the routines which are managing the actors, their situation in the world and their behavior in the same world, not by the numbers of actors by itself.

You can talk about those games all day long, and it is argueable in what way those are more or less complex then CloD. But these games were all released from big studios with propper financial backing and with talents from all over the world. 1C on the other hand is almost at home garage level when it comes to team size. By mere maths they will need much longer then an established studio to get their stuff done, especially when it comes to the standarts CloD wanted to achieve.
Insofar the comparison to those games does not really hold.

And? I'd tell you about a game which was doing that WAY before IL2CoD.. and that's Battlefront's Combat Mission game (and series).

Well, yes and no.. Bethesda's team (Skyrim) is not so big as you would imagine. Nor Illusion Softwork's (Mafia II) one. And I've refrained from giving examples of really complex games as MMO's: WoW, Eve, WAR and SWTOR, exactly because had HUGE development teams involved in building them.

And the point was that many claimed the IL2CoD's code is the most/one of the most complex codes existent in game development industry, which is a false statement.

comparing apples and oranges must be really fascinating, especially if none of the participants is a developer of the software talked about, meaning everything said are guesstimates..

David, you once mentioned you worked in a hospital. If the software there is never optimized, I seriously hope I never end up where you work buddy.

I ve player Skyrim and Mafia.They are great games but

1 They had the time to finish the product
2 the budget and the people involved was much greater
3 nobody knows the problems they had due the development
4 Even when stand on a hill and can see very wide you can see ~8 km
in clod you can see from west england to Belgium
5 in those ganes you walk or drive a car. The engine has more time to render as when you fly a fast plane
6 Every second you fly your plane there are processes calculated affecting your plane.

Now you're embarrassing yourself mate, better stop before you make it any worse.

I admit there's a lot of work by graphic artists and 3D modellers in those games but in the end it's just a bunch of complex animations and scripted conversations with triggers, strung together with a bit of action to keep things interesting. Do you really believe they've modelled gun ballistics in those games? It's all smoke and mirrors.

Nowhere near the complexity of a flight sim which simulates the world and complex machines within it which interact in 3 dimensional space.

+1

Every second you fly your plane there are processes calculated affecting your plane ...............and all the other objects visible for miles around, not just a street.

That depends on your definition of "optimized". If it means "the software isn't going to kill you", then it's optimized. If it means "is working as efficiently as possible", then it isn't optimized.

BTW, I don't work in a hospital.

Not only this, but it doesn't matter at all that there is a huge world. The world is not rendered all at the same time and there are view distance sliders for all objects that get rendered. The world is all created beforehand and they had 8 people just for dungeon design- not textures, art assets, graphics engine etc. With Cod there is haze, but there is far more being rendered (eg. buildings- each one is a 3d model, unlike skyrim).

The studio is so big they have their own (not the buildings) gym and a massive kitchen. As you can see from development pictures and updates, the CoD team barely fill a room. You cant compare the two really.

I'm sorry to say, adonys but Skyrim for example is not a good example. Physics are off, there is no advanced a.i, everything you see is either 100% scripted or just randomly generated. For example, how often do you see any NPC characters in that game, go in to town, buy some materials for armor/sword and then goes to the blacksmith and make him/herself an armor or sword and after that proceeds to the pub and asks someone for a quest?
That's right, it never happens in that game. NPC's are just standing around doing nothing or walking around doing nothing, spitting out the same dialog over and over and over again. There is barely any a.i at all in that game methinks, either NPC's are attacking you or attacking someone/thing else, that's Doom level a.i right there.

Yes, sometimes when you are outside of a town you may see some random stuff happening, a group of bandits fighting a dragon or something but that's all it is, randomly generated stuff that a computer from the 90's can handle. I love Skyrim, I have it on Steam (Mafia 2 also) but it's grossly overrated, it has pretty graphics, cool dragons, interesting story, lovely music etc. but an advancement in videogames it is not IMO.

Don't get fooled. Flight sims are extraordinarily complex, but that isn't to say other games/programs are not as complex. MMO's for example are also extremely complex. The complexity merely lies in different areas. Instead of looking up performance data from an array or idealized formula (consumer flight sim) it might be handling thousands of database transactions per second (MMORPG) or rendering hundreds of sprites with as little latency as possible (multiplayer FPS).

Programming a 3D game is never trivial.

Hey! Try walking around like that all day if you have taken an arrow to the knee yourself! ;)

aaa.. what objects visible for miles around? You're not talking about IL2Cod, are you? because, actually in IL2CoD those objects you are mentioning are NOT there, unless you are within a mile or so from them. Go at 3k, and look down from above those huge radar antenas for example.. and.. you won't see them!

In AC you can climb atop of the highest building from a town, and see EVERYTHING around you, the whole damn town.

And about processing.. again you don't know what IL2 is really processing. Just load the map, and don't spawn any actor, spawn a plane, destroy it then just walk with the free camera, and write down your FPS.

Then do the same from your airplane, but without any cockpit (to not have the FPS influenced by rendering the cockpit), and write down FPS again. Spawn an AI in your flight, and fly with him, and again note the FPS with your flight mate in view, and not in view.

Then compare them all, and you might be surprised :)

A lot of the "complex" calculation of which you are talking about in IL2, are not actually there. many actually happen only when triggered (like when pressing the fire button, or when bullets are actually hitting something).

And don't mistake a big number of computations needed to be done with a complex computation system. those are different things.

I think you would understand better all of this if you try to find out a game engine development book, and try to read it.

As it is, you really don't know what's this about, not even the ones of you which are programmers, but never worked as game programmers.

:-xLOL. I work in a hospital. The software that we use is by far the worst, dysfunctional, bug filled, poorly performing archaic garbage I have ever used in any type of application. It is obviously far, far from optimized and the update schedule is glacial. And it is used in hundreds (thousands?) of hospitals across the USA.

McKesson

Shoot me, please do it.

Heh, Skyrim for the PS3 is still broken if you're looking for comparisons and yes, the developers are avoiding talking about it and no, they've not apologised at all ;)

roftl

Just curious... how is the "free camera" view accessed?

Well it goes without saying that much of the processing is restricted to objects that fall within the player's bubble but that bubble is a darn sight larger than in the games you refer to due to the nature of air combat.

Then think about the miles and miles of wooded areas you can see from thousands of feet up.

>>In AC you can climb atop of the highest building from a town, and see >>EVERYTHING around you, the whole damn town.

Well try flying over a town in CloD - I think you'll find you can see the whole damn town too - amazing.

But in these complex programs you talk about, what does the program have to do other than track a bunch of actors and simplified vehicles around town, keeping track of the latest garbage script that's been spoken?

If you take away the characters with their nice animations and the convincing environment (which is possible when you're only rendering a street), there's not much going on really.

And don't try to be a judge of me and my development experience.

I very much doubt you're a professional game programmer yourself, probably just a jumped up dabbler like most folk who bs like you.

You just forget that AC have about 1/1000000 map of the size as the il2:COD has. Plus the physics calculation are taking up a lot of resources in il2:COD. And in AC you could not see people rendered so far away, just buildings + a loading screen once you wanted to go to a new place.
**** game too, repetetive, easy and scripted. Most boring assassin game I have ever tried. Hitman bloodmoney is 10 x better. There you have freedom how to assassin your target

Have to say in the past i wasn't a big IL-2 fan i use to play a other ww2 fighter online game till its closing The grafix's were no where near IL-2's But the eazy to start and go and dogfight was what kept me coming back .. the idea of buttons engine warm ups etc and huge map with small numbers of players isn't ideal for me ..I first started playing this game lost .. having tried setting my joystick to a airplane that was bouncing up and down on take off and downloading a PDF file on how to use the controls seems between the lag and freezes and jumping and the unstable controls and lack of 5 hours to set up everything I found my self my own game programmer then a dogfighter then white knuckes and a big grin

That was in april of 2011 when most in North America never had the game
I didn't mind the Bugs etc But to find out you need to find hidden switches outside the plane or behind this Or no clue on how to use diffrent ammo settings ..add this and that and hearing a new update was coming on grafix fix and bug fix Or finding my airspeed in a spitfire was matched by a JU 87 had me a loss. WAY too much to this SIM to just have a good old dogfight

Just wasn't worth it for me . I cut my lost and after upgrading my Motherboard never bothered to reinstall COD back 5 months ago
I see the not much has changed other then new Dogfighting games online coming out and a few sorry's from luther ..I'm not really here to bash or point I just think "for me" This game could of been a basic great looking game with less cream filling sim ..i sorta laughed at the time there was lots of bugs but we got new lights in the houses

the point of IL-2 has always been "a cream filled sim"

il-2 just isnt the right series for you if you want quick start dogfights...

If I may...
 

Hey guys, I think the real issue here is the fact that 1C decided to release
an "incomplete" game, and they knew it would be a fiasco....
Had they released it , for the first time (!) with the upcomming patch, we would not be having this discussion about code complexity, small tream, big team, optimized or not , big budget or small budget...It is irrelevant , because if any
project is released and sold as a final product but is plegged with bugs and doesn't not play well enough for the majority, will be exposed to the same critisms as CLOD...whatever the budget and resources....
Why did they released it a year before completion knowing it would be a marketing catastrophe ? That is the real question IMHO....

Hear! Hear! I am an absolutely atrocious dogfighter (Though practice makes perfect!)... the sheer satisfaction of keeping my 109 up in the air without trashing the engine is joy enough! That is why I keep coming back to this sim and haven't touched my copy of "Wings of Prey" since.

There are always going to be people that dont get on with Sims, My experience with Il2 series has always been golden, true i have had to spend many hours setting the game up and getting all my controls worked out... I even had to wait a year almost till i had a more respectable system to run it on.

Compared to some of the competitors such as the dcs series (which i love) Il2 CLoD has actually been one of the easiest to get to grips with from a cold start. I was playing MP Coop With a friend whithin 24 hours and actually shooting stuff down AND having super awesome dogfights (the trick is to have lots of enemies and they seam to attack the player more).

Yes it may be broken in places but there is usually a reason or fix and you work around it... well some of us do, I had ctd issue loads and loads... Had to test 10 diff gfx settings (changed to DX9). and you know what havent had one in 2 weeks.

Anyways i wanted to say it is an awesome sim and d*** the producers for pushing it out and putting the devs in this situation. Dont release anything till its ready.

S!

If you remember those old updates before IL2 CoD was released and Oleg was still in the team h said that IL-2 COD does NOT use complex computations for AI or anything else outside a range from player AC. What the range is hard to tell, but sometimes when you approach a formation there is a slight stutter which COULD possily indicate more complex things taken in account. But this is only my guess as Oleg's message was that the calculations for objects outside vicinity of player were barely calculate if at all.

The answer to that question is the easiest by far. The investors were no longer willing to keep funding the project. If they hadn't released what was done, to that point, the development would have shut down. Which would you rather have an unfinished sim with a decent chance it will be finished, or no sim at all. Luckily the developers past reputation for delivering a quality product spurred enough sales to give investors the confidence to continue supporting the sim.

I realize that you are trying to be "helpful" Chivas.
Your explanation, is not the answer. It's your opinion.

The answer, only comes from the dev's.
Thus far, the only answer from them?
Is very very ambiguous and sorely lacking definition.

No personal attack here at all. Chivas, you have earned everyone's respect.

S~

1. They're never going to tell you.
2. It makes no difference to the future development of the game if they do tell you.

I have no idea why some people refuse to let it go.

I agree Pudfark there never has been an explanation for the early release from the publisher/developers, but IMHO its the only logical one. Why would any sane publisher/developer release a sim in this state, and knowingly garner all the negative reviews and forum posts unless it was absolutely necessary to save the development. I really don't think the publisher/developers thought that the sim recovery would take this long. They new the sim needed optimization, but they probably didn't realize at the time that the graphics engine would require a rewrite.

~Salute~

I agree, that's the only logical explanation - as it does not make sense otherwise...

When it was first released I thought that it was really sad as 1C obviously had lost their faith in the product after too many years of development and pushed the half finished product out on the market to just get some payback for the investment. If that was true one could expect a patch or two the weeks after release and then a message that Maddox Games unfortunately had been forced to shut down... But now they are still alive a year after the release and they are obviously hiring. So why on earth would they push an alpha version out on the market if they had the money to keep MG alive for a year? This is naturally only true if it's the same funding source today as it was a year ago...

So - I agree, they must have pushed it out as they though it would "fly" after a patch or two in the weeks after the release. But even that seems like an unnecessary business risk for the years of funding. I just can't understand the logic behind this release...

You should consider that the relationship between a financer and a developer is defined in a contract, whose contents are not public, but that likely contain deadlines. And that the sponsors' trust must be eventually fed with hard facts, after so many years of development.

From development team comments (about epilepsy filter, working to external deadlines) they have made it sound like it may have been ubisoft rather than 1c that were the cause for pushing it out before it was ready, but I may be wrong.

I agree, plus they probably had a firm deadline set in contract with UBI which could have been shifted a couple of times before that already. I do not think they had any choice. Furthermore they could not tell us it was not ready because of a NDA.

Someone from "inside" (Ilya I guess or maybe it was Jason with his "side comments"?) said after the release that Ubisoft had no influence over the project and did not fund it in any way - they are just the western publisher. No money, no power and in that case they could hardly influence the release date - and it was 1C that released it first... The only thing expressed is however that Ubisoft was not involved in the funding, there has been no official word on that 1C funded it - could be some other Russian investor and then 1C just publishes it in the CIS. The late arrival of advertising and information on the Russian 1C site may indicate the later case? Just speculating here - the fact is that whoever financed the game must have misjudged the situation of the code and pushed it out of the door hoping it would run fine with the "zero day patch" and then quickly get in the air after a few more patches. One thing is sure and it's that Maddox Games never would have released it in the state it was a year ago after all that hard work over many years...

Thats quite interesting. I was sure that someone said that Ubisoft were the ones who made them implement the anti-epilepsy filter. Maybe it said publisher and I assumed that meant Ubisoft as they are the ones on the splash screen (in the UK at least).

I bet Ubisoft told MG that if they wanted to get CloD published in the EU they had to implement the anti-epilepsy filter most likely because of EU legislation or Ubisofts own policy. I would bet cold cash that Ubisoft is merely the publisher for CloD in the EU/rest of the world. Their job was to manufacture the DVD's, make sure they ended up in retail and also do the marketing for CloD which would also explain why the marketing was so meager for CloD. CloD is no Assassin's Creed for Ubisoft, that game is developed and published by Ubisoft alone, 1c:MG probably had some relations with Ubisoft since the old IL-2 series and asked them if they would be so kind to publish CloD for them outside of Russia/eastern Europe. IMO and from what I understand from previous posts is that Ubisoft is not a dictating force in this farce of a game release.

P.S Just like it was with the original IL-2 Sturmovik, blue-byte was the original publisher but MG needed a bigger partner to get the game out in retail worldwide, Ubisoft fit the bill.

The two facts are not in contradiction. Ubi would publish the game at his general contract conditions, which must include strict anti-epilepsy specifications, measured by specific tests. It seems also quite plausible that Ubi didn't decide the date, nor financed this venture.

I would say these are the facts...if I only had something to back it up with.

With what 1c have said about digital distribution: http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/opinion-retail-vs-steam

I wonder why they bothered getting ubisoft invovled. I would guess it is because they thought most flight sim fans would like a dvd and box, which ubisoft could provide for them in W.europe. Interesting comments in the article from 1c though:

I would suggest going over the the ED forums and reading this:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.ph...612#post640612

Pretty good insights.....

Sometimes speculation is better than facts ... :-)

UBISOFT has little input on COD, other than forcing the epilepsy filter, before they would publish the sim in the West. UBISOFT may have a had a good percentage of the investment in BOB SOW in the early years unitl 2006/7, but it now appears that the IC Company is the controlling investor and likely making all the financial decisions. UBISOFT can be let off the hook for forcing the early release of COD, but could still have some investment or contract, which might have forced the IC Company to keep them as the Western publisher, instead of just using Steam. With 8 million already invested I don't blame the IC Company investors for releasing what was completed to see if there was enough interest to continue spending monies on the sim. Why throw good money after bad. Don't confuss the IC Company with IC Maddox Games. IC Maddox Games is just a part of the huge IC Company.

Was there something mentioned about the name being switched back to Storm Of War some how for the addition or how did that go? Battle Of Moscow Storm Of War?

Kickstarter
 

Next time 1C, do like these guys:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/inxile/wasteland-2

They have got $1,621,839 already. They needed "just" 900 000, but still more is coming in.
95 % of the money goes do the developers. And they listen to the gamers in a forum what they want for 6 months of pre-production ;)

But maybe not the sim marked is as big as the old RPG marked?
This will be like fallout 2 was, only deeper gameplay. Hunger, thirst etc.

HA! That's nothing, look what Tim Schafer and his team managed to "scrape" together: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...nture?ref=live

Really on the GFX Settings?
 

How about sharing your Graphics settings that you claim slow down the CTDs.

Both Card and in game settings. I am sure many are curious.

A year later and I am still waiting to play this game. I only noticed I had it installed because I bought another steam game, but I am glad a patch is due soon. I would hate to be in some of the peoples position in these forums who have been waiting for this patch so long because I think I would have been driven mad. I just hope the other niggles in the game don't take to long to fix now I am aware of the game again :)

Remember this Chivas...


Posted by TreeUK 28/8/11


For those that were/are still under the belief that CLOD was financed by Ubisoft then read this below, especially Chivas who as been on my case about this for a long time.


Originally Posted By: 777 Studios - Jason

I'm sorry, but I need to say something because your comments are not correct.

1.) Luthier is a long-time friend of mine and you are smearing him with no proof or knowledge of what really happened that caused the less than stellar release of CLOD. Oleg didn't hand Luthier anything. Luthier was asked by 1C to try to finish the project after Oleg was, depending who you talk to, relieved of duty by 1C or he quit 1C. You make the call. Luthier is making the best of a bad situation and he is a good guy and from what I can tell a good manager. My point is you can't blame him for the release or bad decisions that were forced upon him by others. He was given 12 months to correct 6 years of bad decisions made by others. A good analogy is blaming me for every decision made regarding ROF before my company took over. Coming from someone who had to take over a not so great situation I know what he is going through.

2.) Again, you see to blame Ubi for all this. Why don't you ask 1C if $8 million and 7 years was enough time and money for a team to eventually be held accountable for there work and produce a product? Ubi is not quite the monster they are being portrayed as. Again, see my comments about Oleg's departure. Only Duke Nukem' can have a never ending dev cycle and hell even that got released eventually. Bringing Oleg back isn't going to solve anything. 1C loves when you blame Ubi. 1C was the day to day manager and owners of IL-2 franchise, not to the mention the primary funding source so why aren't they held accountable? Some of you hold Oleg and 1C up like some sort of gods and people who can do no wrong which is foolish.

I'm not going to say anymore, but what you've said about Luthier isn't fair to him. There is no need to be an Oleg or 1C apologist.

Jason

There is nothing in that posts that suggest what I said in my post is wrong, infact portions help confirm what I'm saying.

"1C loves when you blame Ubi. 1C was the day to day manager and owners of IL-2 franchise, not to the mention the primary funding source so why aren't they held accountable?"

What exactly are you trying to say about my post Furbs?

Chivas, im channeling here :)


"My point is Chivas is that when Tree posted 2 years ago that Ubisoft were not financing the project you and others ridiculed him. Now your saying the exact opposite"

I've contradicted Tree a number of times, and since you started bringing up old posts please post one and the link where I've ridiculed Tree on this subject so I can check the context of my post, and how it would apply here.

If I remember correctly Tree said the UBISOFT is no longer the publisher of BOB/SOW/COD and I said there never has been a comfirmation of that. As it turns out UBISOFT has published every sim from the original IL-2 series to the start of the new series IL-2 COD.

What I'm saying now is I think UBISOFT stopped being an investor with some control over the development in 2006/2007 and the IC Company has since become the major investor and thus financial decision maker. We know that UBISOFT has long taken heat from the community and Luthier and Oleg have said they were quite happy with the support they were recieving from UBISOFT at that time, which would suggest that UBISOFT was providing financial support a few years ago. Propably one of the reasons the IC Company kept UBISOFT on as the western publisher.

Tree was quite emphatic that Ubi had nothing to do with BOB of course we were all using the working title of Storm of War at the time.

The debate got quite heated at times.


Need we go on? Now I don't want to turn this into a tree bashing session. We all have our idiosyncrasies, but Tree_UK is a free spirit, and extremely possionate about his flight simming.

If Ubi has nothing to do with Clod why does the DVD box have the Ubi logo and text stating "play at Ubi.com"?

In all fairness I suspect the box art was printed up long before Clod went gold.
As there is no mention of Steam but Tages is mentioned.

Also if Ubi is not involved why is there the Ubi opening logo on my digital downloaded game?

UBISOFT is involved as the Western Publisher, that doesn't mean they have the power to decide when the sim could be released, but could demand that the sim provide the epilepsy filter before they would publish in the West. We were mainly talking about who has financial control and that would be the main investor the IC Company.

Slightly OT as its more of a technical thread topic but I did test this and got rid of offline ctd's by going back to DX9 in the config settings. The downside was visual artifacts (mainly on coastlines) and lower performance. How this would work out online I do not know.

Back OT. I've backed off these threads and boards in general simply because what is being discussed is for the time being an endless repitition of what has been said many times before. The forums won't move forward until the game does.

Yah OT ...but interesting.. I flew a custom MP mission tonight for over an hour after I flew a stock SP mission that crashed after 9 minutes

If you have an AMD Card...try Land Shading on Low and see if that helps eliminate the shoreline artifacts... that worked for me

I was referring to a quote from a Ubi representative.

"Ok, just had another phone call from Phil Brannelly he has confirmed what most of us already knew, Ubisoft are no longer involved with SOW period"

It just sounded like a contradiction to me.

Maybe he meant on the development side and not the publisher side.

Agree, and the most interesting part is actually that someone still sponsors the development which is all I really care about. What people here seems to forget is that things can change very fast when investors get tired... From one month hiring staff to taking down the sign the other happens all the time...

/mazex

Thanks,

Dropping the clockspeeds on myGTX570 (in DX10 mode) did it for me. Just a fraction from stock. Don't know how it would be with multiplayer and I dont know why it works. Temps were cool and everything else I have runs fine on stock clocks. Weird.

Hmm... I found this quite similar to one wrong strategy, historically proven - lets try England - hm, didnt work out, lets move to Moscow...


Btw... does it mean, your team of great programmers will give next major release as Free to Play? Or at least some demo first, just to check if we have too old PCs for it? Just hope you will prove "detractors" wrong by releasing demo, not alpha as final product...

That's unfair. Ilya showed the right motivation, I cannot help understanding your analogy apart from the theaters of operations.

Were you hoping that he'd offer to surrender?

777 Studios - Jason
( This is probably a bit OT & unsollicited,but...
I just wanted to say what a good job I feel 777 studios is doing with RoF,in particulat their website design,whicj makes good clear announcements from time to time & show plenty of screenshots of up & coming features.Although I can't say I'm fond of buying new aircraft,at least the store makes it easy to do.It seems like a very professional out fit.
All this and a steadily improving Sim too. RoF hit the market a very flawed Game , but after a year's time it was clear it was in the market to stay. I really wish the folks at Clod can follow 777's example. )

Careful what you wish for..Im OK with DLC but would rather not be forced into that option to carry on enjoying a game

Ze-Jamz-
You're right-RoF's not perfect (& I get shot down a lot too,while trying to see around those two rather large wings!)
I guess what I am trying to say is that they've handled teir website & releases quite a bit better than over here,& there are not nearly the number of just plain angry ,nearly unprintable emotions seen here either by people who are very annoyed at the progress of things.I think IC or Ubisoft ( whome ever...) could do a lot better job of PR than they have managed thus far.They did a nice job way back when with the original Il-2 with their Friday posts & way back at the beginning news of SoW ( now CloD) they posted regular screenshots & lots of them,but now its almost like pulling teeth .They need a more 'official " way of calming the waters with more info,telling us about what happened to other flyables in Clod & why they won't be showing up ( or will in the future,) what has caused FPS issues, when will loadouts work, Battle of Moscow ( or whatever it will be called,) & difference between it & CloD,when & if modders will be involved ( over at Il-2 - it really took off when SAS & AAS got going- they changed everything...)and perhaps more visuals,vids & screenies. It wouldn't take much , but it seems like PR & friendly marketing has eluded the developers.
Having said all of this I really enjoy the sim even with poor FPS & anxious about the up coming patch...hmmm... now about that patch...I wonder when....????

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d1...223_170051.jpg

The ROF development definitely had problems at release, but it was closer to being finished than COD and they didn't have to do a major performance rewrite. The COD development has been like a Keystone Cop excesses with alligators everywhere. Once the game engine is done and running smoothly you will probably find that the developers will have more time, to refine their website, and have a better idea on what features they can implement and in what time frame.

Chivas I agree. I'll have a glass of C. Regal in your honor .. :-)

The reason why ROF was better and more finished at release is because 777 is its own developer and distributor.

I wonder how much was spent on ROF by release day. We could do a cost vs. quality analysis for fun. ;)

neoQB was the original developer publisher. Jason didn't come aboard until a year or a year and a half into release. RoF was a jewel in the rough, and many folks had issues with it. I myself never experienced the issues that were common in the beginning. Still, as a whole, it was a better release than CoD's....... sadly.

That said it appears CoD will have further backing and that means a chance to right the ship. I'll support that.

Can anyone explain to me why I should care how CoD was financed?

It can have a bearing on who dictated the release date (eg. Epilepsy filter controversy). No-one is telling you personally, so ignore the posts if you are not interested, others are.

Why should anyone care who dictated the release date? That ship sailed a long time ago.

That doesn't mean its irrelevant. As I said, if you aren't interested- ignore it. Some people are interested in the publishing and financing of who made the game they play. If you aren't thats fine.

I know they are. I'm trying to find out why. It seems pointless. If there is a point (other than the usual internet pissing contest), I'd like to know what it is.