Friday Update - December 9, 2011

[addman]

Originally Posted by Chivas

I agree to some extent. The developers bank account and the publishers are probably pushing the developers to do another paid sequel as soon as possible. Then they will have more time and money to flesh out the missing or unworking features. Of course a few of the missing and unworking features should be working by the time the Battle for Moscow comes out. This scenario will probably evolve the same way with each added theater. Overtime average computers will be more powerfull allowing for larger theaters, and more advanced features. This has been a long hard road for the developer, and I don't see it getting much easier until the game engine is more refined and capable.

I feel this is a very common misconception around here, the misconception that "with time, technology of high spec PC's will allow this and that and so on and so fourth". The problem in this day and age is that smaller game developers are having a harder and harder time to cope, making advanced PC/video games whilst lacking the mighty funding from publishers such as EA or Activision as an example. Yes, there are enormous possibilities for game developers right now but it also requires more manpower and funding behind them.

I think this might be one of the reasons why CloD was rushed the way it was. You just have to look in the control settings menu in CloD to realize the ambition that Oleg and his team had but alas, when the mighty dollar speaks, everybody has to obey. I bet it's actually easier to create something solid in a limited environment where choices are fewer then having too many options/ideas and leaving most of them half-baked. CloD is lacking focus, it's sprouting out in every direction, it doesn't have a foot-hold or a solid foundation to grow from yet but hopefully that will be rectified in the not so distant future.

You can't keep developing for the next generation and the next generation in mind only. You have to think about what you want to achieve, what you want to create first then you look which technology can help you achieve these goals, not the other way around. That's what happened to Duke Nukem Forever, they kept replacing game engines for like 12 years! and when it finally was released it barely looked like a DirectX 9 game and the game itself (the important stuff) was total and utter crap, I played the demo...unfortunately.

To the point, new technology is a good thing but it doesn't guarantee a good game.

[Gourmand]

for the sequel
for the sequel
for the sequel
...



i hope the feature in the sequel will be backward compatible with cliff of dover ( less buying the sequel), i bought the collector 70€, and the feature will for the sequel?!?

for the open radiator :
if you start flight with plane whose begin flying, you should hurry up to open your radiators i think this question is for this case, having a normal radiator opening with airstart aircraft ( like the gear up, the engin started... )

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by addman

I feel this is a very common misconception around here, the misconception that "with time, technology of high spec PC's will allow this and that and so on and so fourth".

When I read Chivas post..

I got the impression he was making a reference to the new CoD graphics engine..

That the new CoD graphics enigne is bringing the current crop (read average) PC and video card to its knees (read poor FPS)

But with time the advancement of the PC hardware will make this a none issue.

As was the case with IL-2

When it originally came out some 10 years ago, its graphics enigne was bringing the current crop (read average) of PCs and video cards at that time to thier knees also

But some 10 years later what with all the PC hardware advancement even a cheap PC with a cheap video card can run IL-2 smoothly.

The point being, 3 to 4 years from now you will not see anyone complaining about poor FPS in CoD and it's sequels.

Not some blanket statement that PC hardware advancements solves all developer problems

[addman]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

When I read Chivas post.. I got the impression he was making a reference to the new CoD graphics engine..

That being it is killing alot of PCs today..

But with time the advancement of the PC hardware will make this a none issue.

As was the case with IL-2, when it orginally came out some 10 years ago, its graphics eninge was killing the standard PC of that time, but 10 years later what with all the PC hardware advancement even a cheap PC with a cheap video card can run IL-2 smoothly.

The analogy being, 3 to 4 years from now you will not see anyone complaning about poor FPS in CoD and it's sequals.

Yes this is a correct assessment if they create a stable platform to build from. Also what I meant was that even though newer and better hardware will help games perform better/contain more advanced features it doesn't make it any less of a gargantuan task for developers to push out stable and well performing software. I think for smaller developers like MG, it is crucial for focus instead of trying to create a jack of all trades that really won't be good at anything. What I think is that MG are on the right track now, it seems as if they have narrowed down their priorities. It's all in my mind of course but that's how I perceive it.

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by addman

I feel this is a very common misconception around here, the misconception that "with time, technology of high spec PC's will allow this and that and so on and so fourth". The problem in this day and age is that smaller game developers are having a harder and harder time to cope, making advanced PC/video games whilst lacking the mighty funding from publishers such as EA or Activision as an example. Yes, there are enormous possibilities for game developers right now but it also requires more manpower and funding behind them.

I think this might be one of the reasons why CloD was rushed the way it was. You just have to look in the control settings menu in CloD to realize the ambition that Oleg and his team had but alas, when the mighty dollar speaks, everybody has to obey. I bet it's actually easier to create something solid in a limited environment where choices are fewer then having too many options/ideas and leaving most of them half-baked. CloD is lacking focus, it's sprouting out in every direction, it doesn't have a foot-hold or a solid foundation to grow from yet but hopefully that will be rectified in the not so distant future.

You can't keep developing for the next generation and the next generation in mind only. You have to think about what you want to achieve, what you want to create first then you look which technology can help you achieve these goals, not the other way around. That's what happened to Duke Nukem Forever, they kept replacing game engines for like 12 years! and when it finally was released it barely looked like a DirectX 9 game and the game itself (the important stuff) was total and utter crap, I played the demo...unfortunately.

To the point, new technology is a good thing but it doesn't guarantee a good game.

I upgraded my highend systems a number of times during the life of the original IL-2 and will probably do the same with the new series. Technology makes a huge difference and I never once had to complain about blue screens, freezes, stuttering, fps, in IL-2 or COD on High settings. BUT your right it never guarantees a good game.

I also agree that MG may have tried to achieve to much, but you have to remember he wasn't designing a game engine for now, but one that could easily upgraded for many years. One of the reasons he divided the game engine in modules.

Unfortunately the game engine is so complex, and for many reasons has taken far too long to build. Once it is complete, then the developer can be more focused on which features and what time frame they would like to introduce these features.