People like to have someone blame, its much more satisfying than reflecting on our own screw ups. ;) UBISOFT was the big bad villain for a long time, but there have been doubts cast on their vileness so we are researching other prospects.

David Hayward opined:

>>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. <<

Perhaps it's none of your business if others wish to know? And if you're not interested, as professed, why should it concern you? As for pissing-contests, you're one of the shoe-ins for the patron-saint short-list.

Enough of the dubious one-liners and terse bluntness. Who do you think you are? King of the high horse?

When I see your posts all I see is an ego looking for an argument, a bunch of glib, stand-offish wiser-than-thou assertions, and an inordinate amount of low-level nastiness.

Have some back, sunbeam :)

Ben

Chivas, I see nothing has changed. Your knowledge of the human condition, and step-by-step iterating of what is going on (all presumed) inside the dev house is boundless :)

All spoken with a matter-of-fact certainty.

Unrealer and unrealer....

Ben

I'm asking anyways.

You always do. And if there's no question to be asked, or answer to be had, you ask anyway. As tersely and rudely as possible. No-nonsense-man-in-the-corner alert...

Let's see how you fare when you're picked up on it. With someone in your own language.

I'd say, in defence of Chivas there, that what he is saying is standard Psychology 101. :)

Some people do want to know who to blame, right or wrong.... some people don't.

As for Ubisoft regaining some reputation..... not going to happen either way. They are just under EA on the popularity scale. :D (Of course, as much as people seethe, they keep buying their products..... that's another one for the psychologists. I'd suggest it is an S&M thing.)

Yes, I asked. So far, no answer. It seems like there should be a reason for an argument that goes on and on and on. But there appears to be none.

Falstaff, Its called common sence...you should try it.

Can anyone explain to me why I should care about that question?
:grin:

>>Yes, I asked. So far, no answer. It seems like there should be a reason for an argument that goes on and on and on. But there appears to be none. <<

Big deal.

Do you also go up to complete strangers having a private argument of their own, and demand to know the answer (if there is one) and expect all eyes to instantly turn on you?

Inimitable.

Ben

This isn't a private argument. If you want it to be private, take it to PMs.

Chivas said:

>>Falstaff, Its called common sence...you should try it.<<

Playground 101 aside...I'm not the one who take sit upon himself to be self-appointed oracle of each step inside the dev house, or making spurious generalisations about people's motives in questioning who is reponsible for this goddamn-awful fiasco...all the while adopting a tone of detached factualness. When pushed on this months (and years) previously you said you have zero inside track on the dev process, and unlike some of us, have never worked in a dev software house.

It may impress and seems coolly logical to some younger members. It doesn't fool me for a second, and, I'd guess, others. It's mostly a veil for attacking the critics. Sorry, whiners.

*Common-sense* dictates you dont make yourself sound like a mouthpiece or intellectual proclaimer of the ongoing dev process...if you have not a whit of a sniff of a jot of clue about what is actually going on inside there.

In reality it's just 'Dont panic, the first ship may be sinking, but just look at the nice shadows coming through the wheel in the cabin of the next ship...'

I find your assumptions, and the tone that delivers them, laughable.

I'm surprised others haven't called you on it more often.

Ben

David Hayward said:

>>This isn't a private argument. If you want it to be private, take it to PMs. <<

No, because you seem to stick your nose in everywhere, especially if you can get an argument out of it, and display your all-seeing powers of patience and detachment. You seem to specialise in going after the critics, especially those (liek the poster of the Youtube video) who do not have English as their native language. So I'm going after you, and your supercilious condescending forum manner.

In public or private, I'm easy either way. Why not both?

But make it quick, another ban is probably imminent...

Let me make this real simple for you Falstaff. When you look at a healthy baby you don't see something that can't talk, walk, or run. As you get older and wiser Falstaff, you will learn there is a good possibility that the baby will grow up to be able to talk, walk, and run. Of course alot of things can go wrong in the process and it won't work out, but I think you may start to understand. Give it time, let it sink in.

Chivas,

You'll have to do better than that.

And dont throw that baby out with the bathwater.

All the arguments about it being a different dev team, leader, set of circumstances are written in 48 point burning gold letters atop the nearest hill.

It wont wash.

Ben

OK Falstaff, I see this going to take sometime. I will keep repeating it until you get it right.

"Let me make this real simple for you Falstaff. When you look at a healthy baby you don't see something that can't talk, walk, or run. As you get older and wiser Falstaff, you will learn there is a good possibility that the baby will grow up to be able to talk, walk, and run. Of course alot of things can go wrong in the process and it won't work out, but I think you may start to understand. Give it time, let it sink in."

Apparently Falstaff can't explain why it's important to determine the CoD financing structure. Does anyone else have a good reason?

Chivas,

In order to be able to patronise someone, they have to be susceptible. I'm probably a good deal older than you, and a lot more experienced in software dev, having worked in it for a few years some years ago. You're off to a bad start?

So, what are the devs working on next Tuesday, say about lunch-time? Surely your delineated step-by-step explanation of their inner working can yield this info? Now dont tell me the crystal ball is hazing over....

Ben

David Hayward said:

>>Apparently Falstaff can't explain why it's important to determine the CoD financing structure. Does anyone else have a good reason?<<

Apparently I have no wish to, and have never expressed the slightest interest in it, sunflower. But others have and that's good enough for me, God.

Now, justify your posts and presence here. Why? Because I said. (good, innit?)

It's fine with me, too. I'm not looking for people who can't think of any good reasons, I'm looking for someone who does have a good reason.

You may be older Falstaff, but I doubt it. If you are you certainly haven't learned much in all your years. Tell you what lets readdress this when you and sim are alittle older, to see if the sim has learned to crawl and you've matured.

David..no, you're looking for an argument, as always. Or even better, a question to which there may not be a simple answer, or one which will never be in the public domain. Which suits you down to the ground. ideal. Carry on grand-standing and tub-thumping. So what have you won preciesly? Slightly lower self-esteem, when the mist clears?

I haven't won anything yet. If someone answers maybe I'll understand the point of this argument.

Chivas,

As I said, the patronising thing isn't going to work. Do you have a new tack I should look out for? (when you're not sooth-saying the inner workings of a dev house to which you have no link whatsoever, according to...umm, you).

All the 'probably's and 'will's and any other modal verbs you can lay your hands on are not going to put you any closer to that dev house, or to knowing its workings or history. It is all sophistry and speculation, or charlatanry, you decide...

Ben

David Hayward said:

>>I haven't won anything yet. <<

Dont be so modest. You have won lots of minor semantic skirmishes, bless you. Why, you have ridiculed several posters (not posting in their native language) and logically corrected a veritable plethera of needy citizens.

No, you're right, you haven't, not a one (at least against a native English speaker). But you would dearly love to. And you have offered nothing substantive either.

>>If someone answers maybe I'll understand the point of this argument. <<

I highly doubt it. That is not your aim in any case, as other posts have made very clear.

Your aim thus far is be nasty and appear superior. You may have succeeded in the first. And what a glowing achievement that is.

Ben

Read it again Falstaff.

"Let me make this real simple for you Falstaff. When you look at a healthy baby you don't see something that can't talk, walk, or run. As you get older and wiser Falstaff, you will learn there is a good possibility that the baby will grow up to be able to talk, walk, and run. Of course alot of things can go wrong in the process and it won't work out, but I think you may start to understand. Give it time, let it sink in."

I don't want to get in a tussle with anyone here (it's more fun to stand on the sidelines pointing and laughing) but if it's something that this forum has taught me it's that age has nothing to do with being mature.:) This is not pointed at anyone in particular, now carry on.....

How would you summarize what you have achieved in here?

Chivas: no, niet, nada, nein. Once was enough.

But you do prove one hting: most of your posts are the same :)

(And you need to work harder on the colloquial tone for the put-down. Aim for rmatey-ness. Knowingness is hit-and-miss.)

Go for it, son.

Ben

A polite and respectful "golf clap" for Falstaff....:-)

David Harward said:

>>How would you summarize what you have achieved in here? <<

Not much, but I have called you on your awful malicious manner, and that is good enough for me.

Anything else, such as pointing out Chivas' complete and utter works of fiction (i.e. pretending to know what is going on inside the dev house, and general Yoda-ness) is a bonus before the ban takes place.

And then you can prcatise nastiness against others not so adept at responding. But with me, you'll get nowhere.

Ben

I see you never got the account deleted like you begged for Ben Scammel.......so who really came here just looking for a fight?

Congrats for that "accomplishment"!

Do you expect anyone is ever going to call you out for your awful malicious manner?

Chivas, those in glass houses should not throw bricks. You have the grammar and spelling capability of a 14 year old boy. Common sence really.

And I am being sarcastic. But comments like this are spiteful, no? And serve no purpose to the debate at hand. Addman is right.

Whilst I find you one of the more level-headed posters, Falstaff is correct: you do act as though you have some inside knowledge none of us are aware about. Did you support Tree's posts pre-release? If so I would have to bow down to your current 'knowledge' and assume it's correct; but otherwise history shows that you've got no credible background to substantiate your allegations. I don't think any of us do really: just lucky (fluke-ish on some level; realistic on others) guesses.

CloD isn't a maturing baby. It's a late birth infected with a curable host of illnesses. And you are no doctor; nor are any of us. But at the end of the day, the illnesses are currently unshakeable.

And that may sound harsher than I intend it to be, because I do believe the game will mature into something great: be it through add-ons or community service.

Actually taildragger, I did..check with the mods. I checked-in again on the off-chance that my IP cycle has ticked over, whcih it seems to have done. The only reason was to give back a taste to some posters what they have been dishing-out, which I dont like.

A ban is imminent (I hope) so you can carry on lionising such posters if you wish, and defend their right to attack people unopposed. I'm not pretending to be a white knight of righteousness, more just venting at some of the nastier idiots who seems to have this place in thrall.

Ben

2 wrongs don't make a right dear boy

p.s. @Philiped you spelled sense incorrectly

david Hayward said:

>>Do you expect anyone is ever going to call you out for your awful malicious manner? <<

No, because generally I do not have one. I am posting specifically because of your postsm, recently, and previously. And they deserve to be held up.

And your endless use of the interrogative (question) is dull as dishwater.

taildragger said:

>>2 wrongs don't make a right dear boy <<

No, they dont. But a little natural justice doesn't hurt occasionally, if it's kept in check, and if it's justified, as here.

Ben

All evidence in here to the contrary, I suppose.

But I thought you said you weren't pretending to be a 'white knight', now you proclaim yourself a champion of natural justice.....

Falstaff entered the thread quoting me and throwing the first brick. He has to expect content in kind.

I've had many agruments with Tree and can't remember them all. He seems to be getting respect from people for stating the obvious. That the sim will be delayed. As far as I'm concerned Tree is the poster child for developers not to include the community in the development process as some people just don't understand the process. Even to the point of calling the developer "liars" when they were just explaining what the development was trying to achieve. The developer continually stated there were "No Promises" The other argument was over UBISOFT no longer being involved and I said that wasn't necessarily so, shown by UBISOFT publishing every combat flight sim built by the developer.

As for your comments about my grammar and spelling. When you get older you'll find that common sense isn't necessarily the domain of the educated. Common sense should have told you that I have no inside information, but have a followed the series closely since the start, and know from the developers past comments, what they are trying to achieve. Which could change at any time. Many people still believe that BOM will be built on a different game engine and COD will no longer be supported.

Taildragger...no, I think you're trying to be too clever and picking holes in an argument that isn't there. Ego? Like Hayward's?

No champion of natural justice or anything of the sort, nothing so grandiose.

Posters such as Hayward should get a little back of what they put out, it's as simple and silly as that.

Trying to impute anything more to it is wasted energy and isn't going to get the big argumentative response that perhaps you hope it will?

Ben

Chivas,

It's *almost* nice to see you getting a little riled, instead of maintaining that holier-than-thou-all-seeing-eye response, when in truth you know precious little, and certainly less about complex software dev than I do. And I dont claim to know squat about this dev process, other than the obvious.

Your stock 'patience-grasshopper' responses and, failing that, attempts at mockery, fall short. They are not you. Don't forget, I've seen your posts of ryears, here and in the other place, as you well know.

As an apologist for the dev process you do more harm than good.

Like the devs, you show precious little contrition, except when you feel it is expedient.

Ben

>>I've had many agruments with Tree and can't remember them all. He seems to be getting respect from people for stating the obvious.<<

No, he was merely stating what I and many others have often said, in varying strengths. Ib=n fact, I can think of several posters who were earlier and as if not more accurate than Tree.

>>That the sim will be delayed.<<

No, he and I and others have said much more than that, in much greater detail.

>>As far as I'm concerned Tree is the poster child for developers not to include the community in the development process as some people just don't understand the process. <<

So once again, what *do you* understand about the process, Chivas? You with the inside track, the day-to-day knowledge, the probabilities, the likelihoods? And what is your own (nascent) experience of day-today software devlopment, management, testing, mangement? I've had some and can explain if you like, though it is peripheral - what is yours, exactly?

>>Even to the point of calling the developer "liars" when they were just explaining what the development was trying to achieve.<<

You are simplying and conflating several different arguments. If you like, I can spread them out and go them through them individually. They do not add up singly or collectively. Swiping them all together does not help your cause.

If you're going to evangelise on behalf of the devs, at least put their position coherently, and that of the critics. You may fool some of the younger members, you wont have such luck with older ones with actual experience in that field. You dont know what the devs think or what they're doing. You yourself have said so.

In short, I think you're full of it.

Ben

Actually, it appears that he found a huge hole right in the middle of your posts. It was pretty funny.

>>Actually, it appears that he found a huge hole right in the middle of your posts. It was pretty funny. <<

Really? Where? I think your cackle may be sounding a bit hollow. Desperation? The old nastiness trying to find a bed for the night?

Unlike you, I do not need a nod from the peanut gallery. Stand on your own two feet, son.

Ben

Falstaff you obviously know very little about how complicated this development is, but the sad part is you don't have enough common sense to figure it out.

Read his posts.

Chivas said, again:

>>Falstaff you obviously know very little about how complicated this development is, <<

I have an idea. Would you like to discuss core run-times, memoring handling and paging, asset libraries, DLLs or equivalents, optimisation, de-bugging?

Which of the above? Or the work-flow? The goals? The short-term? The inter-linked parts? The bug-fixing, stripping, occasional assembler routines, graphics card sub--routines and calls, hot-fixes? Project management? Time-scales, Scaleability? Funding? Contract nuances and penalities?

Enlighten me.

Granted, I'm going back a bit since I was involved but I bet the underlying principles are the same.

You?

>>but the sad part is you don't have enough common sense to figure it out. <<

So tell me, what commonsense is required? What don't I understand? Where do the specific conundrums lie, Yoda?

You're floundering, and still full of it.

Ben

>>Read his posts. <<

I have. I'm still at a loss.

And you're still piggy-backing his posts, having apparently lost faith in your own.

Ben

I know. That makes it even better.

David Hayward said:

>>I know. That makes it even better. <<

Of course it does, love.

Falstaff you don't have enough common sense to make any knowledge you may or may not have worth while.

I absolutely loved this post, 'trying to be too clever'......classic, so who exactly is really 'trying to be clever'?

if you like I can actually 'quote' the part where you said you werent pretending to be a 'white knight' followed by your own justifications for defending 'natural justice'

here goes


your proclamation may not have been verbatim, but it is clear you are justifying your rants here for exactly that reason, therefore my point is very valid and I picked a hole in an argument very much present, no ego or sinister motives behind my post.......other than perhaps to highlight some hypocrisy on your behalf, I look forward to your most eloquent attemps to dig yourself out of another hole.

Taildaragger said:

>>I absolutely loved this post, 'trying to be too clever'......classic, so who exactly is really 'trying to be clever'?<<

Did you absolutely love it? Adore it? Or is this just the usual exaggeration for effect?

>>if you like I can actually 'quote' the part where you said you werent pretending to be a 'white knight' followed by your own justifications for defending 'natural justice'<<

Let me help. A white knight is a rather grandiose emblem (deliberately). I am not claiming any spear of valour or leading a charge, I am simply giving back a little to a couple of the nastier members here, hence the natural justice.

The two are not incompatible, and they are not the same.

It seems you are intent on dragging this down to semantic hair-splitting (where you are also mistaken) instead of going with the spirit of the thing. And in a sad kind of way, you are doing Hayward's work for him (if you are not him)

Your tone of sprightly success is a bit premature.

I'll boil it down for you. This place suffers because of the tone of those such as Hayward, Carguy, Ace of Aces et al.

And yes, you are trying to be clever by following this tack and trying to pick holes, rather than answer the main charge...which is the pure (veiled) spite of many of those posters named above. Fundamentally they get away with it because this forum is run in aid of the game, and they pretend to be doing a service by ridding it of pesky critics.

The end result is the exact opposite. They drag it down, confuse genuine critcism, and give a lop-sided view of the real state of play - which is still fairly atrocious.

>>your proclamation may not have been verbatim<<

Eh? No prooclamation...or edict...or dictat...or whatever word you choose.

>> but it is clear you are justifying your rants here for exactly that reason, therefore my point is very valid and I picked a hole in an argument very much present, no ego or sinister motives behind my post.......other than perhaps to highlight some hypocrisy on your behalf, I look forward to your most eloquent attemps to dig yourself out of another hole. <<

I am not ranting, not in the least :)

Look at the above sentence. Logically it does not follow whatsoever. (To paraphrase) ranting...therefore my point is correct? Run that by me again...? It is saturday therefore this Easter egg is blue...?

Yes, there is plenty of ego - why get involved in a spat that doesn't involve you, but Hayward? Why try and appear to win a debate by making spurious points and ignoring the main charge? And why make non-logical statements and then claim victory/hypocrisy on the back of them? Probably a bit of a fun for you, and ego. A bit like Hayward. 'Other than to highlight'...oh, righty ho....sure, sure....


That is a shame.

Chivas looked into the oracle and spaketh:

>>Falstaff you don't have enough common sense to make any knowledge you may or may not have worth while. <<

yes Yoda.

Sorry...Confucious

...I mean Socrates

'usual'?.....what do you know about me?.....no simply 'I loved it' as in the conventional exclamation widely used in modern english to convey a sense of genuine 'entertainment', nothing unique in my use of the well established expression.

Let me help you, there is no convention on any actual need to 'actually' have a horse or sharpened stick to be labelled as a 'white knight', again you seem to fail at grasping the use of metaphor.

indeed I am not him, nor do I act on his behalf, quite frankly he/she/whatever is irrelevant, simply I made a response to an astounding act of hypocrisy in my own 'white knight' style, any further discussion could just as easily be circumvented by your own absence from them.

and this is supposed to make me believe you aren't self righteous?

You could try answering the main point, for a start...

The main point and reason I posted is:

Hayward's posts tend be nasty, especially towards non-native English language speakers. Others are also very nasty, and a lot of this goes unchecked.

Chivas sets himself up as some sort of soothsayer and hasn't a bleedin' clue.

Those who attack the critics in general act disproportionately (broadly sanctioned by places such as this being pro-game by nature...idont have a problem with this), and mask the true state of things, usually with slavish devotion. Often to comic effect, but also plain bloody irritating.

No *common sense* to be found in any of it.

Instead of sparring, answer the main point/s. I couldn't care less whether the language is flowery, fancy, matey or street-speak. That's not the point.

So you're telling me posters such as Hayward should just post away unchecked, aloof, nasty, cynical and manipulative? It is dowdy and cowardly.

No hole to be dug out of. Stop trying to bounce it onto me. Whether I am being 6/10 or 7/10 or 2/10 self-righteous is neither here nor there and beside the point.

I guess I will have to quote these separately as you don't seem to be able to complete the act of thinking before speaking therefore the overuse ov self edited posts.

You have a problem with a command of the english language?

Au contraire..

Whaaa?.......are you ok?

and whose authority did you have to involve yourself in responding to posts made by anybody else? you came pracing in here as if reciting a Shakespearian play justifies everything you say.

Interesting....yet when Philiped criticised Chivas for his spelling you made no such attempt to nobly defend him.....I don't know Chivas but there is a chance English is not his first language, but I guess you nobly decided to keep quiet about that because Philiped is 'on your side'.......sniff....sniff....you smell that?.......smells like hypocricy.

Oh well... that's this thread done


IBTL

Taildragger...you are grasping at straws. Like most I edit when I want to change or add something, as now. That's what the Edit function is for, believe it or not.

And you have still not answered the main point. This might be because you are not able to. Or it might be because you do not wish to. And would prefer a slanging match.

BTW, I think Chivas is Canadian and his grasp of English is very good. In fact, as good as yours.

Trying to take pot-shots at me or my use of English (which is at least on a par with yours) is a sort of admission that the nastiness charge stands. You haven't seemed able to answer it. Nor has Hayward. And as before, nastiness masks the true state of play, from which we all suffer (that is the real justification, if there should be one).

And as elsewhere, the patronising tone wont wash. Sunbeam. And after having tried the fancy-pants tack, you're trying the 'sniff...sniff' schoolyard variety.

I dont know why you got involved in the first place, other than to try and score some irrelevent points (which you have not).

I've made my point and de-railed this thread enough. Now you have some time to think up a suitably withering put-down (God please make it wittier than the last)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZwuTo7zKM8

;)

Falstaff... chill out! :D It's only a game and, when all is said and done, it's only a matter of not getting along with some people on a forum of all things.

It's not the end of the world.

Use your passion... take up politics or something! Change the world and try and make it a better place. :D

Whatevva!!.....now put the skull down and take of those ridiculous tights, Sunbeam? aww how sweet...I'm your little ray of sunshine, I will restate that any authority I had to post was the same as yours, there is an imbalance happening here, first whiners, followed by the anti-whiners, subsequently the anti-whiner whiners, meanwhile genuine forum users have to sift through pages of this crap.

Falstaff....I 'DID' answer your main point, it was about the unfair methods of some to pull no english speakers up on spelling, I gave you an answer, Chivas may or may not be canadian, he may or may not be a 'French speaking' canadian, I have no idea.

I'm trying so hard not to become involved..... being one of those normal forum users having to wade through crap that you mentioned.....

But +1000,000 for the imagery alone. PMSL :D

Are you kidding!? Seven solid pages of this nonsense so far. These are, apparently, grown-up, tax payers and eligible to vote too, lol.

"Darling, it's midnight, aren't you coming to bed tonight?"
"Just a minute Mary, someone is wrong on the Internet!"

lol direct hit:D

Done on purpose mate because that's how Chivas spelt it; hence the italics.

Did you read my post? I stated that My 'jab' was purely to show how people in glass houses should not throw stones. I wasn't trying to upset: merely to offer an element of neutrality. Yes, the element is minimal. But I'm old enough to deal with that.

Whether you like it or not, all that Flastaff was doing was showing that David can be horrible (with intent) and Chivas acts as though he has some inside-knowledge which transcends anyone else's. It's not a case of logic: it's guesswork behind the facade of fact.

roflmao

I'm pretty certain nobody here is actually trying to 'upset' anybody, but sadly it all becomes a 'side effect' of this constant and futile bickering, I mean seriously.....complaining about complaining about the complainers?

All that Falstaff was doing was pointless, nobody needs anybody else here to shows us how people behave, were all quite capable of seeing things for ourselves, when it comes to 'glass houses' even you have some shaky ground to stand on, I have seen you be less than pleasant to other forum users.

It would be nice if we go back on tropic.

Thank you.

it would be nicer if there 'was' a topic, everything after Luthiers post is totally irrelevant, endless pages of 'thanks' or 'why did you release it unfinished my life is over!!' etc etc.

But just for the hell of it, COD 1 year later....woohooo! I survived, I paid for the game and I can still afford to eat, now pull your fingers out and get this damn thing sorted.

I've been following the new series closely since it was first mentioned, and from the developers own posts I have a good idea what they're is trying to achieve. Yes the developer has yet to achieve many of those goals, and the forced unfinished release certainly points that out in spades. IMHO as long as the development is still working there is a chance those goals will be realized and features they've never even considered could be developed before the series is done.

Falstaff likes to suggest that I pass myself off as having insider information, when its only info the developer has supplied in past, on what they are trying to achieve. Anyone with a modicum of common sense would know that. I'm just like everyone else here speculating on the future of the sim, based on their information. The majority of my posts don't comply with Falstaff negative point of view, and he responds negatively.

People like Falstaff only have negative points to make on the new series. When someone suggests something positive like, the developer has a history of developing and finishing their projects, he suggests thats not possible because it isn't the same development crew. Well the fact is, its still basically the same development crew, that has had a few additions, and subtractions in the last five years, just as many successful business have.

I have alot of respect for the development crew and have enjoyed their work for the last eleven years and hope their latest project is successful. I have no respect for people like Falstaff who tout their own knowledge about how a development should work and continually craps on a developer who is actually in the process of accomplishing something.

+1 Well said.

Watching these forums for so many years can give you a good feel for where we're heading - if we give the devs a chance to put things right. I strongly believe they have a passion for what they're doing and will deliver a product that will be played and admired for years to come. While the team remains committed to the series they will have my full support. Negativity achieves absolutely nothing.

Chivas said:

>>I've been following the new series closely since it was first mentioned, <<

You're not the only one. Plenty of us have. It does not by itself grant you any credentials.

>>and from the developers own posts I have a good idea what they're is trying to achieve.<<

So have we all. And how much have they achieved of those stated goals?

>>Yes the developer has yet to achieve many of those goals<<

You don't say.

>>and the forced unfinished release certainly points that out in spades.<<

Does it? No-one has been able to quanitify it or describe it in much detail (in the space of a year). It neatly removes dev responsibility to be able to say they were forced to do it. And if it is 100% true, what does that tell you? That the project had always run smoothly? Really?

>>IMHO as long as the development is still working there is a chance those goals will be realized<<

Possibly. But when do you stop giving the benefit of the doubt? How many weeks, months, years? (given a possibly different dev team, economic circumstances, market-place, project leaders etc)

>>and features they've never even considered could be developed before the series is done.<<

Yes, they could be. And they couldn't be also.

That lovely, bright, gleaming future, all-singing, all-dancing. Forever just around the corner.

How about we concentrate on the present occasionally, where features dont work or are missing wholesale? Oh I know it's a party-pooper.

>>Falstaff likes to suggest that I pass myself off as having insider information,<<

I dont suggest, I state plainly that you do, through your factual tone. Which is why you're conducting this damage-limitation exercise now. As if it mattered.

>>when its only info the developer has supplied in past, on what they are trying to achieve. <<

Glad to hear you say it. And yes, the developer is trying (not necessarily achieving). I think they have a great deal to concentrate on in the non-achieving dept, before they go onto the bright shiny new future.

>>Anyone with a modicum of common sense would know that.<<

Oh, of course. Not judging by your idolatrous posts they wouldn't. We would think the whole enterprise is a careful process of following well-documented steps to gaming nirvana. Only it hasn't been; it has been, thus far, pretty much a fiasco. And remains one as we speak.

>>I'm just like everyone else here speculating on the future of the sim, based on their information. The majority of my posts don't comply with Falstaff negative point of view, and he responds negatively.<<

Yeah, you're just one of the boys, I'm sure. One of the regular guys, never goes after anyone (unless they happen to be critical).

>People like Falstaff only have negative points to make on the new series. <<

But I, and maybe some others, would quite like to see the first installment finished first, before high-stepping into the sunlit uplands of the next one. If that is okay with you. The bright, shiny future can wait. It certainly sounds worth waiting for.

>>When someone suggests something positive like, the developer has a history of developing and finishing their projects, he suggests thats not possible because it isn't the same development crew.<<

To hell with sounding positive for its own sake.

>>Well the fact is, its still basically the same development crew, that has had a few additions, and subtractions in the last five years, just as many successful business have.<<

Waffle. No, you have no idea, and nor do I. Bland, banal, meaningless positive spin for it's own sake. You might as well add 'just as many unsuccessful businesses do'

>>I have alot of respect for the development crew and have enjoyed their work for the last eleven years and hope their latest project is successful. <<

And what do you hope to achieve by publically genuflecting and giving yourself a beige-tan shade of brown tongue? Earnestness? Sincerity? After all your attacks on anyone remotely critical?

>>I have no respect for people like Falstaff who tout their own knowledge<<

I have some knowledge, yes - and experience - but I dont tout it. I mention it to highlight your own lack of knoweldge int his area, and therefore the bogusness of your matter-of-fact-this-is-how-it happens tone. And I have no respect for you. None.

My experience is peripheral and some time ago. But real and detailed for all that and in a well-established complext software dev house. Yours appears to be none.

And I am not willing to see the natural wonders of the world in every syllable of each dev post as you are. You are fighting a phoney war and misrepresenting the game, and the situation, which ultimately helps no-one and just keeps the unreality locked in place.

No wonder so many have walked away from this game, and it's associated forums.

Ben

...the rumour has it that this should be a good place to walk to:

http://warthunder.com/en/

This place on the other hand is just for dreams & promises.

You've clearly given up on the product so why don't you do us all a favour and disappear back down your hole instead of polluting this forum with your worthless drivel? The patch will be ready when it's ready and harping on like that is adding nothing whatsoever.

Falstaff, didn't you say you were leaving the forums, and you wanted the forum to delete your account, why don't you do everyone a favor, and actually accomplish something you say your going to do.

Just as many dreams and promises over there me thinks. I reckon you may be disappointed but good luck all the same.

If you're prepared to wait for that then why not wait for the CloD patch before making your judgement?

trolls on commission. when's payday?

World Of Planes is doing everything so much better then COD. I know it's a video and COD looks pretty amazing too with cleaver editing , but this looks pretty special. Closed Beta gives me alot more confidence that they will get it right the first time too.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5N1p...yer_embedded#!

Yes, the World of Planes looks good. Trailers are developed to create interest and make sales. You shouldn't get your hopes up.

IMO, you would do better to go to Il2 1946 with the latest TD and mods.

There just isn't or won't be anyone that will expend the effort or spend the money to build a peer to either IL2 or COD.

We have members of this forums who worked on Il2 1946 "the slot" map. It took over a year for that team to create those maps. When things are done very well and very accurately, time works against you.

Maps don't need to be huge , you create more atmosphere by concentrating on smaller more detailed maps then creating one big one where %90 of the people don't care about flying too.

...says the typical arcade player. Sims work differently, and that is why CoD is a simulator, and WoP a game.

War Thunder looks very interesting, and could be alot of fun. If they increase the BOB map large enough to include enough of France for a couple of airfields, and farther west to include London, it may last longer on my harddrive than Wings of Prey did. Wings of Prey looked very interesting at the start as well, and I tried hard to like it, but the support dried up to a trickle. I still don't think they've finished the Mission Builder.

WOWP looks superior to COD in every way as far as I can see. Defenatley far better graphics , flight model no worse then COD , better effects . Map size I don't care about. You only fly when it boils down to it , a fairly small concentrated area on the way and around your objectives.

So once again , why do you need to make an entire country that looks fake.

You know the principle of the other release (World of Tanks)? This is anything but realistic, it's an arcade shooter and nothing else. That one will follow the same gameplay idea and will not be a simulation, either.

"FM no worse than CoD" ... I'd wish you give us some data to substantiate this statement. As far as the big maps, they are mandatory for anything beyond the instant dogfight arcade game style.
But if you like WOWP, go in peace instead of trying to convince us that it's a superior game. Play with it and enjoy it, what's the issue? Ah yessss ... it's not available yet ... LOL!

Chivas said:

>>Falstaff, didn't you say you were leaving the forums, and you wanted the forum to delete your account, why don't you do everyone a favor, and actually accomplish something you say your going to do. <<

Real last resort stuff, Chivas. Well done.

BTW, I did, they did, and I did. And now I've come back briefly, like the ghost of games-past, to haunt all your matter-of-fact Mr Reasonableness statements. The ones peppered with 'probably', 'will', 'should', 'if', 'when' time after time. Just once, try swapping the future and conditional tenses for the present tense. As for the past, they do things differently there.

You failed to answer a single point above. Is the playground and peanut gallery really the better option (I believe you're an adult?)

Ben

Whats so realistic about COD?

TROLL
1a. Noun
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

(...)

1c. Noun
A member of an internet forum who continually harangues and harasses others. Someone with nothing worthwhile to add to a certain conversation, but rather continually threadjacks or changes the subject, as well as thinks every member of the forum is talking about them and only them. Trolls often go by multiple names to circumvent getting banned.

multiple names (accounts) - or multinics, as they are sometimes known... are known as sockpuppets

When you go on a long quote fest, I can't be bothered to read your posts let alone answer the drivel. You've gone on and on about the developer not living up to what they say they're going to do, you say your leaving, yet here you are. TROLL

Chivas said:

>>When you go on a long quote fest, I can't be bothered to read your posts let alone answer the drivel. <<

Can't answer the points, revert to type, insults and playground. Factual alooofness now MIA.

>>You've gone on and on about the developer not living up to what they say they're going to do<<

Well, that's because they haven't. A year later. And the talk is of the next one.

>>you say your leaving, yet here you are. TROLL <<

I left and came back briefly. Deal with it, as they say. Perhaps if I hadn't had to put my wellies on and wade through months of steaming supposition and nasty posing-on-high from various members, I'd have stayed out of here.

Would you like a hand putting your toys back in the pram? (Has some sort of distance record has been achieved?)

You've dished out enough, both slyly and overtly.

I am tired of everything been hazed over with with wilful mis-reading of the facts as they are known, and the tiresome fox-and-hounds chase after anyone who dares point out the obvious. It's as if the basic compass points are reversed.

And see if you can resist replying.

Ben

^^this

You maybe know this, but just to clarify: War Thunder-World of Planes (by Gaijin Entertainment) and World of Warlplanes (by Wargaming.net) are totally different games.