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.

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:

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)

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.

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.

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.

+1

I think this thread has run its course.

1. T-34 vs Tiger stopped development. They went bust.
2. FPS is not on the table, check the opening post.
3. Forgotten Hope is based on the BF2 engine - it's old.
4. Plenty of us have open eyes.

Mark me down for agreeing with Furbs and the Cat Doctor....

It never occurred to me that I would ever use my rudder pedals for gas, brakes, clutch and steering. Or my joystick to shift gears....

My simple thought, was that they be used for what they were designed for...flying an airplane...

This patch will make it or brake it...with me.

A naysayer
 

For one lets hope the current bug issues will be resolved in the next patch. If not, then I'm spending my time rather on more fulfilling gaming experiences.

Also, I wish the additional content had more to do with enriching the current game play of CloD. Offline is useless and I have given up on it due to AI plane behaviour.
The strat side of things mentioned by others e.g. why it should be bad for me to just respawn my plane if I see the first sign of damage or why it matters to go after objectives and not just follow my own nose upon take off in multi-player should be of more concern. Addressing these things will add to the current game's immersion and is sorely required. Some mentioned that WoT will be short lived while Clod will have a much more lasting appeal. In my opinion, you are dead wrong. The only tie in at the moment with Clod is the flight experience (shooting someone down is always a perk though), but that is the limit of current game play.

With WoT, the actual tank game play is only half of the experience. Fiddling around with your tank/new tanks, making decision on ammo, calibre of cannon, spending time on the game has a permanent outcome, etc is the tie in...

I see no additional game play elements being added to the flight sim through the ground vehicles playability. Example: I for one will not spend 3 hours driving cross country and get attacked by a flying player that can instantly respawn at his base and attack me in 3mins again. To add to this, the only current reason tankers would do so is to disrupt an airbase. So the ultimate goal would be... drive for 3 hours and then prevent flight simmers from taking off as they spawn? There is no game elements being added, only more unrelated content.

Also, some suggest that this will save the flight sim market. You are once again dead wrong. There is what, 3 small competitors in the flight sim industry? By broadening your market you broaden your competitors as well. There is no way in f*** that anyone playing WoT would be content with a game optimised as a flight sim, buggy as hell, ugly as hell from the ground perspective and with from what I see in the vids not adding any realism above WoT, whilst WoT has almost zero game play affecting bugs, runs perfectly on those +200k players' computers every night and is FREE to play (unless you want some unfair advantage). Seriously? If you want to take on the big boys in their market than surely the "O but flight simming is such a small community" excuse for quality must be addressed first! Staying niche market is the only chance of survival for MG. Unless their only aim is to be bought out by someone that already can compete in the mass market.

Thirdly... I think it is laughable of all the experts on this forum to claim that ground vehicle resources have nothing to do with the other priorities. The common argument is that only ground modellers are involved. One question, what makes these models interact with the game engine? What dictates these models behaviours? Everything is interrelated in software development folks, get over it.

Lastly, I do support Clod and hope the patch solves most of the current issues. Just a little annoyed about the flights of fantasy that some people have on this forum and their response to anyone who's views are based in reality.

But spending 45min in the air just to lose a DF vs a spit is ok? :rolleyes:
Why cant my tank just spawn at the frontline, 3 min away from the battle?


Tankers have the same motivation like fps players or flyboys.
Action and humiliating other players. :grin:



So only a few competitors turns it into a huge business opportunity?
What if there are only 3 competitors because it's an unprofitable market?
If I remember correctly luthier said something about $8M they already invested, if that's correct it's more like 9 by now.
How many copies have they sold?

Another option could be to take $200 for a copy, won't sell for this price though.

And the market for a decent WW2 CA simulation is huge.

No way bashing Italian planes. If properly modeled they do for a lot of exciting missions and scenarios. More planes = more fun.

Hi Swiss, not trying to aggravate you, just my POV. Hope my reply doesn't offend you.

True... I guess, but why can't I have my plane spawn near the action then? Not very simmy if you ask me, but I guess not the end of the world.

On the other hand, someone mentioned having arcade game play for tanks whilst planes have full flight realism... Not my cup of tea. Sorry, it is either arcade on both levels or full sim, not a mix. Why would I bother with full sim if the opposing player will have an unfair advantage?

Point of this is the only reason MG is able to make a business is because they're not competing with the big players. Once you remove that limitation, customers will be able to make 1 on 1 comparisons. Just because the flight sim market is unattractive doesn't mean they'll be able to make better revenue in a broader market. E.g the larger market is more saturated whilst the flight sim market, although very small, offers little competition to MG. Hence, they can make a living at least. If you take a $50 price per unit times the amount of views on this post alone you already $1mil in compared to the $8mil that went into the production. Which is ok... but to compete with larger software houses, are they prepared to dump 30mil into production like BF3? No? Then you'll see it in the quality and the amount of people purchasing who are expecting BF3 type of quality.

All said and done, why include the flight sim portion then at all into the game if we're talking market percentages? Seems to me the flight sim aspect places the greatest constraints on requirements on the engine in the form of map size, field of view, flight models etc which is not so relevant for producing a tank/vehicle simulator/fps.
Can MG compete with WoTs vehicles gameplay ? The scenario in my origal post says no.
Would it make any difference to a player in a tank if he is being bombed by a AI or human player? Minimal. Would his game play experience be affected by the flight sim requirements? Hugely? I'd say yes. Does this sound like a reason to attract mass market clients in their thousands? I'm thinking no...

WWIIOL might want to call maddox games and see how much...

Why complain so much? The game as it is now is way better then anything out there. Any other dev that got their product shoved out the door would just leave the mess and walk away. Just be happy it was made at all. And be even more happy that they are providing patches. Then cry with tears of joy when you realize they are providing you weekly updates with what is going on. :rolleyes:

True. The way I wanted to understand it was: "In the 1st phase it will be arcade - or we still are unsure."

I'm praying too, lol.


The difference is huge. I, for instance, only play online vs real players. Be it something like AA3 or cash games.

Let me repost this because some people obviously don`t understand anything of what is happenning.

You said it all.
I`m a fighter jock, but I do not oppose making bombers flyable. After all, if I was the same mindset as some poeple commenting this update, I`be against modelling bombers which I NEVER fly and which take much more time and resources to make. That I could also say about any single ground object, as straffing is about 9% of all of my combat sorties.

Hell, why even make British fighters as I never fly them?

+1

Hear hear!

Its going to be in the game, get over it. :-P

Not entirely true. I get repeated questions from interested gamers, if the game is yet fixed - this means CDTs and fps performance. If the patch introduces fixing of those issues, I will be able to give them a go ahead with buying CloD, as I could not really recommend the game before.

There is no way the developer would take away assets that are necessary to develop the flight sim aspects to work on ground sim aspects. I certainly could see IC publishing expanding the developers budget to hire a couple of people to develop the ground sim. I'm not so sure putting those people to work on the FM, DM, AI, etc instead would have a positive effect or just get in the way of the people who already working on them.

Personally I don't think all the angst about the ground sim aspects is merited. Although it does keep the forum as lively and negative as if there no updates at all.

Huh? For $10 you cant go wrong. No matter how buggy the game still is.

Had the same idea, with pretty much the same wording.
You should quote him tomorrow again, but with bold letters. Some still cant see them.
;)

Outstanding post!

They're already making tanks. Putting a human in them will only make them more fun to blow up.

True. Give us more stuff to explode :-D

I think the priority should be first fix the various problems in the Sim with the AIRCRAFT , AI , Multplayer etc , and add the tanks and trains etc. after all the problems related to the FLIGHT sim are dealt with . Don't get me wrong the Ground vehicles are cool and all but first things first . (Not to be a snivler of course ;) )

That's not how software development works. If we waited until we fixed all the problems with the software before adding new features there would never be any new features.

Only in the existing features are working...

I don't have anything against the ground vehicles per-say, except that I'm afraid that it is going to make the flight aspect less enjoyable online.

Example:

This engine is limited to 128 people in multiplayer (realistically, much fewer than that). You have maps so large that they make ARMA II maps look like Quake III maps. Fitting 64 players into a BF1942 map was possible, and even then some of the maps resulted in spending more than 10 minutes driving around and never seeing an enemy. Move those 64 players into a Clod map, have them divided between two sides, and two different aspects (air and ground) and you'd have pilots who never run into other pilots, and ground vehicles who never meet their own side, or the enemy for that matter.

Let's say that by some miracle 80 people logged into the same map.

40 on each side.
One side has 20 pilots, and 20 vehicles. Assume the same for the other side. Putting that many into a CLOD map means that there is a hell of a lot of ground to cover before you even meet an opposing player, if you do. To make sure ground units even have a chance to run into their opposing side you have to bring the scale of the map down drastically, and in that case flying becomes a claustrophobic experience much like BF1942.

You're going to have a half-assed ground war, and in order for it to even be a little bit fun you have to handicap the air war by limiting the map size. Hell might as well just play ARMA II and get the 1944 mod.

Maybe they have some revolutionary idea that will circumvent this, but they're not saying anything except, "This is a test, we don't know if it will be implemented". To me it sounds like they are going for a market that isn't just a niche or a sub-niche, but might not even exist.

The only way I see this working is if the tanks were already AI controlled and doing their own thing to begin with. Maybe when the AI tanks approached where the action is, human players could just jump into them. But then you have fewer people in the air. If most of the aircraft are just AI controlled, then what is the draw for the human players to play online instead of SP?

Exactly.

If these latest updates are being worked on as WELL as the rest of the sim then brilliant BUT if it has taken over from mending Clod then not really the right way round.

This is exactly how it would work. The AI would control most of the tanks and aircraft on the server, while a human player or group of players could either jump into the AI aircraft or vehicle or spawn onto the appropriate airfields with their own aircraft.. The server would control how many people could use vehicles and how many could fly aircraft. Also not knowing whether that aircraft your fighting or about to fight is AI or not will definitely be interesting.

A mission builder could easily build a historic mission with totally AI controlled aircraft and tanks with human players able to jump in at anytime for a regular server or all at once for a coop. If the human player doesn't follow the historical mission plan then its just a fog of war scenario. Or the coop could ask all players to fly the mission historically.

Totally agree. Although any questions answered by Luthier and BlackSix should be copy and pasted to the Friday update thread. One very good feature mention by BlackSix in the thread seems to have been missed by many in the forums.....That the trees will eventually have a collision model.

I suggest:
Top right corner of the thread is a box:
search this thread
Click on that, then:
Advanced Search
Right hand side:
Search by username
Type BlackSix in that box.
voila!
Sometimes I wish I could just do the same...

Guess the patch is getting closer....if all they fixed was the crashes and AI behaviour ...I would be pretty happy... Our small group has planty of coop missions..so thats all we need to enjoy a mission flight... .all the new stuff is nice to have... but without a stable Sim...what's the point

Does this count for anything? I've been showing these updates to a few friends who are mostly not involved in this game. They are very impressed especially one who's father was in Russia. He just loves these vehicles and wishes he had the PC to run this game because Edmund was scared sh*tless of those Russian tanks and he would like to blow some up for him with whatever. A Stuka a Panzer IV etc. I would too because I knew him pretty well.

Quoted for truth mate. This additional stuff looks good, but ultimately irrelevant if the core game still stutters when there's too much going on or crashes when it fills up your on-board memory.

I think, that in the 39 pages of back and forth about the ground vehicle feature of the game that is in progress, that some of the complainers have lost sight of the most important aspect of this update:

That a patch that completely remakes the graphics engine of the game is very nearly finished! And that benchmarks are demonstrating significant performance improvements.

Which underscores the conclusion that, apparently, they are both able to improve the performance of the game AND work on this new facet to gameplay. Which IMO, will make the whole game experience more interesting in that vehicles or AAA that you take out may in fact be a human opponent.

+1

+2
IDK why some people think that just because they are making controllable ground vehicles, means that the rest of the sim isn't being to be worked on.

Really I don't see why working on two aspects of the game, especially one that would give the team more money to work with in the future, instead of just one is cause for whining.

With all this talk about vehicles we're forgetting the new patch is close to being here. I don't know about you guys but I'm really looking forward to some extra fps, maybe some tweaked lighting, more sweet sweet new sounds, and some bug fixes hopefully.

As someone who just flies online an increase in fps will alone be a huge improvement. I've never had a any CTD issues, but if this is fixed hope to see more of you online with some more detailed and varied missions! Should be awesome.

Great update B6!

How about an early war senario beetling at tree top level around in a Tigermoth ( an Auster would be ideal) directing live players in tanks onto their targets. I wonder if they could mod the Tiger with smaoke markers? I guess the Axis side might need a Storch.


Cheers!

K-U-R-S-K.........:)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...iger-kursk.jpg

Looks a bit chilly for Citadel.

Jeez, just focus on the Tigers, THE TIGEEEEERS!8-):twisted:

Good update!
 

Every friday we do get an update now. Thats awesome. Big Thank you to the team. I am realy looking forward what comes next friday. :grin:

I am glad that this wunderful Sim was not abandoned like many other games. Hard work and money is invested. Yes, I don't realy care about vehicles, tanks and AAA but: I am glad that a big part of the community likes it because this means that this Sim lifes on and grows.

They are implementing what always was intended to be there, they fix the bugs, there is a new addition to the series in sight. That will take time but -happy happy joy joy. ;)

Maybe I have once a weak day and then I grab myself a tank...

Good idea for everyone to try doing a simple flight sim themselves. Being a programmer I tried that once and it was interesting how tough it was... It had driveable tanks and jeeps too by the way ;) And a flat world ;) Making the tanks behave somehow realistic was piece of cake compared to the darn planes... It's so much harder doing a game from scratch than anyone can think.

/mazex

Although very dated, the programming book Flights of Fantasy gives a bit of an idea about creating a flight sim in the C++ environment.

I bought the book in my programming days, unfortunately it predates DirectX so would not have much application in a modern programming context. - unless your into WinG programming????? It might be worth the .52c for the second hand version though there would be better texts around for $68.00!!!!!!!!!


http://www.amazon.com/Flights-Fantas.../dp/1878739182

Great Minds..

I got that book too.. Back in the 90s.. Not only is it pre DirectX it is pre Windows.. A real old fashion DOS game.. As for give you a feel as to what goes into making a modern flight sim.. Remember the whole project fit on one floppy drive.. The basic strucuture is there.. So not sure if it would give a good feel for those who do any programing today.. But most of what goes into today is eye candy.. But for those who don't do any programing.. That one floppy would probally blow thier minds.. Now take that times 100 for a modern flight sim

I'm genuinely puzzled as well. I mean, the things we all wanted to see getting fixed are mentioned in the update as being very close to completion, yet we have an explosion of disapproval over what is simply a small tech demo of a feature that's still months away :confused:


I'll make this red text so that it stands out, i don't want anybody missing their fair warning or anything.



This. Anyone who wants to blow off some steam can go to the pilot's lounge section and start their own thread, that's why we have it in the first place.

This thing repeats itself on every update thread.
Nobody talks about the actual update or asks questions about it:
-How are you implementing the new FMs? Can you describe a case where the new FM would really make a difference in handling?

-How is the tank damage model? Is armor thickness and slope taken into account? What about different ammunition types and their armor penetration capability?

-Can you give us an example of the performance of the new graphics engine? For example, on such and such hardware, we get that amount of FPS flying over this part of the map.

All these are valid questions for an update thread that almost NOBODY ever asks.

Instead, we get the same process each and every time where:

1) Someone will suppose something is done a certain way without having any actual knowledge of it. Instead of asking about it, he will take it for granted.

2) Using that assumption as a stepping stone, he will then proceed to make an argument unrelated to the update content.

3) A user with an opposing viewpoint will be along to counter the previous poster.

....

12) Personal attacks, name-calling, trolling and making the thread unreadable for anyone who wishes to gain some meaningful information about the topic.

I'm starting from the last page and going backwards to clean up the thread. On strike two it's infraction time for purposefully derailing the thread even after ample warning given.
Whoever it might concern, you've been fairly and adequately warned and cut your share of slack, don't cry if the same situation repeats itself and the banhammer starts swinging.

Thread is locked until clean-up is complete.

Thread reopened. Please stay on topic, which is

The content of the update:
Ground units (questions about interface, controls, damage model, etc)
New graphics engine (questions about performance mainly)
New flight models and physics calculations (questions about handling differences, how it affects gameplay, asking for examples etc)

It's pretty simple, this is a "let me ask you how it works" thread about the things we've been shown in the opening post.

Things that don't fall within the topic:
What we like/don't like/love/hate, unless it directly concerns the update content it's irrelevant to this thread.
What happened during development and whose fault it is.
How we believe a flight sim should be made and marketed.
Convincing other people about the error of their ways and opinions.

Do things on the first list and enjoy yourselves.

Do things on the red list and collect infraction points and possibly a ban for derailing the thread.

I'm supposed to maintain this mess in readable condition so people can ask questions and find the information they seek. If a vocal minority won't work with me towards that direction and keeps disrespecting the right of their fellow forum users to access information, i'll work with the forum tools provided to fix the situation for the majority.

To discuss other matters go to existing related threads, or if none exist start a new one in the appropriate section.

@BS:
What about the AI? Will there be an improvement?

Yes with out a doubt, they hired a new FM guy, he has had 5 months and all the help he could ever need, of course we will see a big improvement in AI.

i really hope so....
luthier mentioned a while back, i think pretty short after the first patch, that they are working on the ai.i think the time has come to see an improvement soon.

You can edit the FM now for the aircraft , can't remember how but you unpack all the files then edit the FM ones for the specific plane. Change the numbers around ect.

IS the graphics update going to improve the CTD's I have been having when getting close to another player on the server? Or is that a net code issue? Also will the graphics update fix the severe stuttering on the airfield during take off that some of us have?

I'm pretty sure those aren't the FM's, which are encrypted files.

I like the updates.


It's funny, people wanted updates, but the devs can't give updates that most want (patch info + wanted features being implemented), so they give us updates on other things they do have.

People can't fault them for using extras / features / special features, as those are in a show-able (but not releasable) state and to generate further interest in the game.

You know they can do so much with the ground stuff. Like if you have a favorite server, and then join it but a game is started, you can wait. But wait! While you're waiting you can control any assortment of ground vehicles to occupy you time.

I like what is going on. The devs have been moving further along the game and showing what it can be.


One of the things is also I noticed in the tank video was the field of view in the driver mode, some of them looked like it was close to no cockpit. But then again, some tanks allowed the driver to poke his head out, which gave him a great FOV.

Also I hope the tanks are modeled as accurate as possible and ballistics for tanks / artillery are modeled.

LQTM, I can see next update is a FPS / soldier's perspective.

Then all the requests for "Can I control my pilot and make my way back to safety after I bail out . . ." will ensue.

Thanks again for the update

You gotta think the FM files would be encrypted. I remember flying CFS2 we could spot cheaters by taking off with them. Their wheels would be off the ground in a few meters as they changed the weight of their Corsair to less than a japanese Zero. It took about thirty seconds to change the aircraft weight in the files with notepad.

Pretty sure this was the outside view to show how the vehicle moved accross terrain. I dont think you will be able to do that on closed pit servers. Also there seemed to be driver and gunner positions...

Is this the right direction?:arrow:

I don't think they are. This is basically what I did . I changed my roll rate to fight fire with fire as the Ai can do stupid maneuvers so i'm going to too!

If you unpacked an SFS file then you're in shady waters. 1C doesn't want people fiddling with such things and - depending on whether VAC is on or not and if not when it'll go live - it may cost you your STEAM account (and all the games you've purchased there). The SFS files are not meant to be accessed. :cool:

Good questions. Once you had posted i would like to ask the same things. Are the developers reading the thread? Any info about?

If they weren't meant to be accessed then 1C probably would have encrypted them decently enough so that a programmer couldn't crack them on the release day.

Regarding the debate on controllable tanks, AA, etc, I came across a pdf file I'd saved with an interview with Oleg from Feb 2009. It's an English translation of an interview originally posted on a Russian site - spread-wings.ru (?). English translation is by Luthier

http://spread-wings.ru/content/view/154/1/

Although obviously out of date there is some interesting talk about the goals they had in mind back then about SOW/COD future development. I can't post the pdf as it's 2.66MB (don't know if the pdf is still available online?), but here are some interesting excerpts (my highlights in bold)

Q: You’ve stated many times in previous interviews that BoB will be drastically different from the
Il-2 series. What do you mean by that?

Oleg: Not a very easy question to answer, but I’ll try to respond the best I can without divulging some secret information.

1. The engine and the system we’re developing is built from the ground up to allow future expansions. Each new product can be stand-alone, or it can plug in with the others starting with BoB, following the success of Pacific Fighters which proved that this model can be viable.

2. We’re developing a system that is more than just a flight sim, but can be a sub sim, PT boat sim, tank sim, helicopter sim, etc. By the way, we just might have a flyable autogyro in BoB.

3. We’re also writing a completely new, drastically improved online code with multiple modes and features. It can even support a server-based MMO with a monthly fee. This of course won’t happen with BoB itself, but is possible on its engine, possibly made by other teams that further develop into this direction.

4. Quality level for ground and air objects is ages beyond what was one with Il-2. I don’t think that such a huge leap will be possible after BoB; the only changes that can happen is increase in polycount or texture size, or more detailed interior details. Even Il-2 was often used as a reference by other developers, and BoB will even have uses for movies.

5. We’re working on an add-on and expansion module that will not affect the online playing field. After BoB is released we plan to publish a set of tools that will allow end-users to:
* Create new planes;
* Create new vehicles, tanks, ships, etc;
* Create new static objects, such as building, bridges, equipment, etc;
* Create new maps, with limits on total size. We’ll leave large maps for ourselves, for our own new sims.


Q: And now Oleg, please go into more details on your thoughts of the future of Storm of War
compared to Il-2, given the potential you’ve built into the engine from the start.

Oleg: Considering what I’ve said already, and given an initial commercial success of BoB, here’s what I see:

1. Some number of developers internationally that worked with MSFS, and probably a large part of them too, will convert to our side. This is especially to be expected considering the recent closing of Aces studio. So these add-on developers might just start making add-ons for Storm of War. I think this might even include jets, including modern ones. At the very least I would expect someone to do Vietnam, not to mention WWI. This
should happen too. Generally WWI aircraft are easier to model and program, since they don’t have such complex aerodynamics, no retractable landing gear, propeller pitch, and other advanced devices. There’s also no radio, which means there’s no need to develop and record radio chatter.

2. Korea, in conjunction with RRG. Its development is now in background mode. Their
team is now working with us finishing up planes for BoB, and also modeling ships.

3. Africa, Malta, USSR. These are most appealing choices for us. Even though we know for sure that the Pacific is the most interesting subject matter for the international market, besides Battle of Britain that is. Generally the Eastern Front is a bit easier for us to do since we have loads more data on it, and there’s less variety of vehicles and aircraft to model than all the other fronts.

4. Continuing combat around the English Channel, which will largely be made via expansions since we’ll already have the main map.

5. Cooperation with other teams to create other games (perhaps by selling the engine). For example, an MMO with controllable soldiers and submarines etc. Or even a space sim around planet surfaces with somewhat realistic physics.

6. Console variants with simplified features.

Are the core files in SFS files packed? Yes. That alone means to me that they were never meant to be accessed externally. I find it extremely impudent to construct an argument in favor of cracking the SFS files by 1C's omission of a different encryption algorithm. Who says they're not going to do that, once more important code issues have been solved?

You also also add in a line for CHEAT DETECT in the .cfg which would put an asterix beside the non standard (modified) files' flyers. A snapshot could be taken of that and then a name and shame done.

This is the same argument of thieves: it they didn't want them to be stolen, why didn't they use a stronger lock? :-D Jail is where this people ends always ... ;-)

Beta Patch
 

Where's the BETA PATCH?

In a caraibic island well buried under six feets of sand.

Its either lost or the developer is still working on it....you figure it out.

Somewhere between Alpha and Omega, usually not too far from Alpha so it can't be too far. Go out and have a look. We'll call you if you're late for dinner.

Maybe raaid's Aliens stole it. :-x

It was on the way out 2 weeks ago but, got an arrow in the knee...




~S~

PS. Sorry for the OT

The cake is a lie, took an arrow to the knee, all your base are belong to us.....2 weeks be sure. Now, can somebody please shoot me? :arrow: to the knee

Didn't Custer die from an arrow to the knee at Wounded Knee?

No, he was given a close haircut;)

This is a post everyone should read. The direction of the sim could alway change for many reasons during a long development, but it appears the game enigne is capable of atleast ground vehicle control. If the game engine ends up as future proofed as Oleg hoped and the average computers become much stronger, we are in for some interesting times.

just to let you not die ignorant, ...
 

... Custer died at the battle of "Little Big Horn", where he and his 7.th US cavalry were defeated by the Lakota, Arapaho and Cheyenne Indians.
(and he deserved it!)

Sorry for being a smart-ass, couldnt resist when I read this.
The above mentioned "die ignorant" was not meant as a personal insult or so.
:!:

We know that the man had this great vision. We all idolized him and loved his ideas and believed they were near future developments. The road proved to be much longer and winding than anyone could foresee.

Which is good news if you are of the mindset that in life that it is the journey not the final destination that makes it all worthwhile.. If not of that mind set (read x-gen att span) than you may not be willing to sit still (read are we there yet) long enough to see it too it's end

More that a great vision I would say great ambition.

A man with the former should realize that a big project needs great resources... infact we're still here after 6 years (IIRC SoW's development started in 2006) and he has thrown in the towel.

More like had the towel thrown at him :???:

Yeah if you mean *that* final destination, I prefer the journey big time ... :-D

No I don't mind. I goofed and should have known better. Thanks.

hmmm, he usually says "Have a good week" or, "See you next week" or something similar.


Maybe this:
is a hint that the patch will come BEFORE Friday this week! :-P ;)

I think your on to something Dr Watson

I can't wait to find out if the new performance in the patch will help me turn up the settings in the game.

Right now we can only select the controls input by moving the sensitivity bar on controls menu. Is there any way we can manually enter the output sensitiviness on controls config? I mean like we can do in il2 using IL2 Joy Config building our personal sensitivity curves.

Is there any way to develop a tool like il2 joy config to CloD?

+1 :)

Right.....

Although I have no interest in driving around in a ground vehicle especially in a flight sim (I have a real one on my drive) I have to say that I am very encouraged by them, Obviously it means they have fixed the 'no tree collision' which is wonderful news and also they will have fixed the issue where you could turn trees off, by that I mean I have my trees on max settings and my opponent has them on minimal I think I’m losing him in a dog fight by dropping down into a clearing and all he see's is just ground and wonders what the hell I am doing!
It’s clear this has now been addressed and will hopefully be in the next patch, I would imagine the massive FPS increase as allowed them to now have a permanent landscape (i.e. cant increase decrease tree amounts), which the guy working on ground vehicles would of insisted on, you see if you had hidden your tank in the woods but your opponent can’t see the woods because he's turned them off it kind of destroys any idea of having ground vehicles that can be used in a simulation/ground war. So, by introducing drivable vehicles we will have a more realistic sim with tree collision and a permanent landscape so I think that it’s great news.

:)
 

PATCH! PATCH! PATCH! PATCH! :grin::grin::grin::grin::grin:

What do we want?! PATCH! When do we want it?! NOW!!! Or, I mean, please sir? :rolleyes:

Im more excited by the boost in FPS, it should mean the broken FSAA and AF can be fixed after a year!

FPS boost
Tree fix
FSAA
AI fixes
CTD crash fixed
FM fixes

At last CLOD can rise from the ashes.

Roll on patch Friday i say!