Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - Friday Update, February 24, 2012

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=189)

- - Friday Update, February 24, 2012 (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=29967)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 394143)

This is directed at our bunch of complainers.

I recently posted a thread on the Games forum of my football club to ask why the flight genre is so overlooked. There are loads of crappy FPS and other genres which are healthy yet CFS struggles. The answers were:

1. Too complex to learn (steep learning curve).
2. Boring (ie long flight times vs short action). Gamers want to fire up the XBox and be instantly into the action.
3. Not portable to console.

So, the market is limited, the income is small and the detail required is large. Therefore we have to ACCEPT that in order to keep this going it either has to be programmed for FREE by a community or it has to be extended into other income streams. That or nothing at all.

That is unless you can persuade the multitude of BF3 and CoD:MW players to buy a PC and flight controls. They won't, but we can move into areas that meet the demands of others.

Regarding tank "Simulator". Don't assume that just because you are nerdy enough to want every detail in a tank replicated that everybody else does too. If you take into account the above and couple it with the short attention span for entertainment today (movies need instant action, pop music is instant stardom for a year only) then it makes perfect sense to have an 'arcady' tank sim anyway. I re-iterate, the majority of gamers want instant action - that means something easy to learn. Just means players jump from unit to unit as they point and destroy - which means a bigger battle on the ground anyway!

Looking forward to it, bring on the Navy!

This is the truth that some people either can't comprehend or won't comprehend. There's also a larger complexity to attracting new players and those players eventually takes up interest in flying planes instead of driving tanks involved here. Weekend night ATAG server: max a hundred clients or so? Weekend night at WoT: 100.000+ players. Now imagine if we could only get a fraction of those players, that would mean more servers, more to choose from, more! more! more! Arcade servers, realistic servers, happy medium servers, dynamic war servers! You name it.

I like tanks but not nearly as much as aircraft, still I embrace diversity and the possibilities of it. Finally IMO, this game is getting some desperately needed "gaming" features to make the game both fun and challenging. You think you're gonna shoot down a Spitfire in you're Panzer III? forget it! Trajectory is modeled in the game, so even if the tanks and AAA will be somewhat simplified, shooting stuff won't be easy, kinda like RO2.

On another note, am I the only one who noticed the "coming soon" text at the end of the clip? "Coming soon" as in 2 years or "coming soon" as in coming soon?

Most know they are being worked on yes, its just getting on a bit you know, almost a full year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoenix1963 (Post 394166)

I think the really interesting question raised by this much vehicle detail is whether Luthier et al have managed to distribute the AI control of many vehicles across many computers.

If they have managed this difficult job - hard because the AI actions have to appear to be the same on every flyers computer - then there's the possibility of very large (mostly AI) tank engagements with us flying ground attack - like Kursk.

I always felt that was one of the big limitations of il2 '46, the numbers of vehicles that could be handled was always too low.

Now, I suspect they haven't solved this problem, because it would mean huge amounts of data to be communicated. But if they have, and the "spheres of influence" effects that we see affecting ship positions may be a way of limiting communication load to nearby vehicles, then that really would be a huge step forward for the series.

56RAF_phoenix

AI activity is computed by the server and the 3D point in space of each object distributed to each connected player for rendering, but only those within visual range. That's how I understand it anyway. Offline it is all on your machine.

Next infantry vs artillery and royal navy vs Kriegmarine...... and the battle of Britain has been complete. Of course, new planes and fixed the errors, and the future.... battle of moscow..... :shock:

Quote:

Originally Posted by furbs (Post 394171)

Most know they are being worked on yes, its just getting on a bit you know, almost a full year.

Its not like this is the first patch we got this year. After a while the team relized that its better to make major changes to the core in stead of putting band aid on a broken bone and of course that will take longer.

A big part of the community doesnt seem to want to or simply cant realize that they ARE addressing the core problems while they are adding EVEN MORE content that in no way detracts resources from the important issues. What is the problem really?

People going "tanks, WTF?" also doesnt think about the fact that the same can be said for ships for ex. I personally couldn't care less if we have a german minsweeper or a fishing trawler, i simply dont care and yet we had another massiv "we are doomed" reaction on that very topic a while ago (some of them are the very same people going "WTF" now btw) . What i am trying to understand though is that its not allways about me me me. If just one person on this forum was allowed to decide the entire content of this flightsim i guarantee u that it would look a lot different than, for ex, your perception on how it SHOULD look.

They are working on the problems AND more.

Again, whats the problem really? (not directed at you specifically)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 394173)

Indeed, but they have to communicate a lot more than just the 3D point in space - for example where the gun is pointing, when it fires, the trajectory of the shell, the damage to the vehicle....

My point is about the AI decision making - whether that could be distributed - as I understand it, that is all done on the server and would be a huge load for Kursk-like battles.

Maybe all the vehicles within a client's sphere-of-influence could be "controlled" by the client, taking load off the server? But then what happens when more than one client is within range?

56RAF_phoenix

My problem is what has the FM guy been doing for the last 12 months, not wait whats he been doing for the last 3 years?
Same with AI and DM,CEM what have them guys on the payroll been doing for the last year? the problems have been well documented since release.

The core aspects of CLOD need to work before ANYTHING else, with out them we dont have anything.

There is a reason why the numbers are so low in MP, its because it doesn't work as well as it should, no COOPs and the problems it had since release.

There is no other reason, if it was working great and didn't have major problems with the core of the game it would be more popular.

Fix the problems and more people will play.

I hope so much this patch has been worth the wait and addresses the core problems, we know it fixes the FPS issues, what we dont know is has it stopped the CTDs or improved AI, FMs and the rest.

Lets all hope this is start of something great.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6BL Bird-Dog (Post 394005)

QUOTE FROM FRIDAY 17 UPDATE from Black Six
We haven’t talked about our flight model for some time. We haven’t been idle however. Not only are we fine-tuning plane performance, we’re making some very deep changes to the underlying core of our physics code.
We are completely rewriting collision and landing gear, while also making other elements of the flight model more complete and precise. Control surface behavior and reaction has been significantly improved. Refined transverse velocity calculations in relation to aircraft performance. Made it possible to calculate different transverse velocity at different points along the wing. Improved pylon and loadout FM calculations. Added many new features to allow FM calculation needed in future sequels. Many of these changes have also entailed completely rewriting existing code.
And this is by no means a complete list!
QUOTE FROM FRIDAY 26 UPDATE from Black Six
Most of us are busy preparing the beta version of the upcoming patch. We did make a whole lot of FPS benchmarking, and the great news is, it’s all in line with the previously announced numbers. The performance increase is very significant.

I gues at the moment the preperation for the Beta patch would include a write up of bug fixes,FM changes & GUI if any .It appears from what Black Six has said that a lot of the team are presently involved in this .

Once the Beta has been released we can post reports of bugs,FM problems &suggestions ,until then DONT PANIC:rolleyes: its a waste of energy.;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR6wok7g7do :razz:

And for entertainment purposes only:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr_v_...eature=related

The simple fact is that combat flight simulation is probably the smallest niche in all of computer gaming.

Yet, we all clamor for more and more features, realism, details, dynamic everthing. Raising the bar this high above last generation sims exponentially increases the amount of time and money it takes to produce sims to this level. Yet, and this is the important bit...

The amount of time and money available is the same or less than before.

So what is a developer to do?

Well, you can do it like DCS and only make sims that feature one aircraft at a time, that will never have broad appeal, and still cost as much as a full featured WW2 air combat sim.

Or,

You can have a sim like Rise of Flight, where you buy all but the most basic plane set one aircraft at a time, and where even the most basic necessities like the correct gun sights and instruments, have to be purcased seperately for each aircraft.

Or,

You can try to broaden the player base by adding a ground and sea element and making a combined arms simulation.

Of the three, and I've recently been back in RoF, I'll take Oleg's vision of how to do it.

So, do you want a study sim like DCS?, or a pay as you go like R0F that still struggles owing to a small player base and poor choices, or a full featured simulation that you may have to wait longer for and may have areas that don't necessarily interest you, but that will be sustainable in the long term?

Think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speculum jockey (Post 394220)

People who want a WWII Combat Flight Sim: Picked up CLOD and are wondering what the hell is happening!

You don't care if someone likes it, why do you expect to anyone to care that you don't? :grin: The aircraft-simulator part is not worse because of it, so the problem does not exist, only you generate for yourself.