I have looked at the background of "Tom Cofield" on SimHQ and did not see any indication that he had ever designed a computer game and brought it to market, nor any product for that matter, unlike myself.

The biggest concern I have is despite being lambasted by SimHQ Luthier remains silent. The patch to fix it all remains a vague promise. ;)

He isn't a game developer but he does work with them and reviews flight sim games and has so since the start of SIMHQ.

Again your credentials are what now? So you have developed a game and brought it to market. Which one is that? Also just because you've built a game doesn't mean someone can't critque 1Cs failed attempt with COD.

The bottom line is COD is far from complete and it lacking many of the advertised features. It doesn't take a developer to point those mistakes out does it?

Anyways moving forward the point was brought up by not only Tom from SimHQ but by others including myself about using the DCS model. DCS did a much better job.

My experience as well. I criticized RoF's DM and the fan boy herd called my knowledge of WW1 into question. As if my knowledge of the history of the Great War had anything to do with rubber airplanes bouncing off of anything they crashed into.

I stopped going to SimHQ and uninstalled RoF, and have never looked back.

Goodness me. Only the most blinkered of the blinkered could possibly suggest the SimHq article was not more than fair.

And I think the criticism about review copies is entirely well founded. Refusal to give them out does suggest you have something to hide. Accusing SimHq of petulance because they didn't get a freebie is very silly and ignores the robust history SimHq has for frank and fearless reviews.

From memory 1c also muddied the waters further with SimHq by holding off on giving a long-promised interview to coincide with the release.

When the interview did come through at the very last minute it was very basic and vague, with no screenshots included.

That said - I do hope 1c can sort out Cod. This game has so much promise, but many of us are still struggling to trust these guys thanks to the colourful stuff that went on before the release.

Thank you for confirming my observation: he is a guy who plays video games and writes about them. My point exactly. :)

Who cares? Just because he is not a programmer does not prove his article is wrong or that he does not know what he is talking about. Fallacious argument big time.

I never said it proves the "article" is wrong. All I am saying is what he wrote is blather.

It was like any other negative post on this forum, well, he used spell check, but other than that it was same crap different place...

Guys, we're going around in circles here while things are dead simple:

a) 1C had a set amount of money to spent and a finite amount of people to work on a new project.

b) They could either do the same solid stuff that they had done in the past or try and add something new in it, but there was not enough money over time and people to do both at the same time.

c) They decided to do the difficult part first and lay down the foundation for the new stuff, then add the rest they already knew how to do from their past work as time goes by, simply because it's easier to do it in that order rather than the other way around.

If you build the game engine so that it works like IL2:1946 and missions can use up to 1000 objects,it's difficult to modify the engine at a later date to include CEM and load 15000 objects in a single mission.

If you do it the other way around and build an engine that is modular and can support a lot of objects, you can release it with some placeholder modules and then start adding to it as time goes by without having to once again code the basic engine in the future.

It's exactly what's happening as we speak: new graphics and new sounds are coming, sometime later we'll get new water and dynamic weather, etc. You can't just cram a new module into a game engine if it's not built from scratch to support certain features. If it was possible they would have just modified the old IL2 engine and not spend time and money to create a new one, since they didn't i guess it's not possible.

It was a choice between "let's build something that we can add to over the years at the cost of some technical troubles early on" vs "let's build the same thing we did in the past with better graphics and have it working right out of the box".

They went with the first choice and i'm absolutely thankful for that, i can't spend another 10 years flying in a sim where people can abuse their airframes and engines as they see fit for no penalty and all aircraft perform to the top of their capabilities without any reflection as to how hard it was in reality to make them perform that way. And in return for a departure from those habits during the lifespan of the series, i'm willing to take a few months of initial teething troubles.

It's that simple, new and untested vs repeating tried and tested stuff, some people prefer one method and some prefer the other.

By the way, i'm not pulling random numbers out of my head here. The map running on the ATAG server has 15000-20000 objects and 5000 of them are flak guns (ask Bliss about it if you don't believe me).
Good luck even getting a mission to load with so many AI units in another simulator, much less play through it.