Friday Update, January 27, 2012

Originally Posted by csThor

Sternjaeger you grossly underestimate the amount of research neccessary to create a model as shown in the screenshots (with all the interior parts, wing ribs etc). For that stuff you need solid data and not just any cr@p a google search finds you. That stuff requires something better than a few thrown-together TGA schemes ... On top of that you need original manuals to study and understand the various systems of the type, manuals which often are either unavailable at all, only partially available or not available in the language you need them (remember the development team speaks native russian, not german or english). I remember Dietger and Jippo spent one and a half years only on collecting the necessary manuals to begin modelling the Ju 88 back in 1946. And, let's be honest, the 1946 Ju 88 is a much less sophisticated model than the CloD one.

and how many years 1C had for CLOD? Oh we have all the main planes from the BOB but we dont have a working (without major slowdowns when effects are near) game engine...oh nooo!!!!!

Im not whining...Im angry....with right...thats all...get over it...

see you in a year..or maybe sooner...who knows...Luthier will promise something im sure...sometimes...so you can all get wet (for some reason)
goodbye

[csThor]

Harping on about it won't change anything, either, Tvrdi. I just replied to Sternjaeger and his - IMO - grossly optimistic development timeframe estimation. I didn't say anything about previous development or what MG does.

[Strike]

Originally Posted by Tvrdi

Im not whining...Im angry....with right...thats all...get over it...

see you in a year..

I dare you to disappear until 27.01.2012

Otherwise, this bashing between RoF and CloD isn't getting us anywhere. If cluttering up the internet with hate-spam is your main goal in life, the joke is on you. I play both sims, I have my own reasons for preferring bits and pieces of both of them. If I could have it my way, I would combine the best of RoF and CloD's game engines, but that would probably be a game set for release around the time where Skynet's robots are erasing humans from the planet.

If you ask me personally, my opinion is that Luthier is right about one very essential thing. When they set off with this goal "make 2nd Gen IL-2 series BETTER than first" they chewed over A LOT more than they could swallow.

What it is is really like comparing a 18th century cannon towards a M109 Howitzer. Imagine the issues you could have with a cannon= Fuse wet, wrong amount of gunpowder, wheel falls off cannon rig etc... Then imagine a M109... think of the million pieces of hardware and software tied together in a very finely tuned engineering masterpiece. What we have is CloD.. aka the M109 that - unfortunately - was not finely tuned at release. So now what? Well the gun fires, it can drive around but every now and then the turret hangs up and the thing breaks down. Annoying as "F" and you probably wished you had a damn 18th century cannon instead But the point is here, the devs have to take into account a system so vast, any small tweak may have a large impact in the end of the coding string. A simple parameter in the JU87 AI divebomb routine config, may render all other aircraft with bombs to commit CFIT suicide. And now you have to write new code, that may effect other elements of the game in a negative behaviour, so you need to open a whole set of branches in a huge coding-tree only to implement a simple alteration of an AI tactic.

Again, to step away from this wall of text, I feel that Luthier set the bar too high. Hence temporary(?) removal of advanced weather features, animations, atmosphere etc etc. As the project moved along, things must only have become more and more difficult. Making all parts of this game engine communicate and cooperate properly is a huge undertaking. It's miles ahead of anything else on the market when it comes to damage modeling. The potential that lies in the game engine to introduce player controlled ground/air/sea vehicles is also a strong competative factor one should consider. It could potentially lure tank-warfare/naval-warfare enthusiasts into the genre some day.

But what about us? All the waiting? What about our satisfaction? The bang for our bucks?

Well mate, it's all up to YOU! Nobody can tell you how you are supposed to react when playing this sim. It's all up to your expectations and needs. It's wether IL-2 CloD hits you on all the right spots, or completely strokes you against your hairs that will help you judge the game.

I can only speak for myself when I say that when I fly my trusty spit over the french coast I get excited only by the fact that some german AA gun may target me, and the damage I potentially can receive could do anything really, but based on the accurate calculations of bullet velocity, ammunition type, impact angle, shrapnel, material strength, penetration, structural consequences, component damage etc etc. It's thrilling to know all of this stuff is being calculated as the sim plays out, and no outcome is identical.

What I miss is working launcher.exe during MP, more varied and indepth sound, better AI, campaign etc.. But as long as they claim they are working on this, I can wait a few months. What I have now gives me the kicks I need - a.k.a the good outweigh/balance the bad.

As for RoF, it's the wrong forum to be discussing, but I didn't play it until a year after I bought it I was so disappointed. 5 flyables or something like that, loads of bugs and unoptimized content, menus etc.. As for now, I enjoy it, but more in the essence of how I think of BF3 and ARMAII. I play BF3 for hours and hours for a great action game, with even balancing and 15 second respawn. But I play ARMA II for the more "hardcore" game, which happens to have bogged physics etc, but gives me a LOT greater feeling of "acheiving" something. RoF is like an online deathmatch frenzy, all planes are so balanced, but you always get shot down by a turning camel or Dr.1 . 'Special damage' seems utterly random (fuel leak, oil leak, ammo explosion, fire) and wing damage is just climbing %. The higher the % damage is the easier it breaks off. For me, I feel nothing special when gunning at planes in RoF. It's like ok theres a 50% chance the wings come off, there's a 25% chance the engine catches fire and a 25% chance the pilot dies. All the trailer videos showcasing advanced engine models etc feels like a marketing stunt to me. In CloD at least my individual cylinders can misfire! But Rise of Flight has been more immersive due to some cool effects such as the dynamic wind, rain/blood spatter, sound etc. But then again it all feels so built up around core elements such as "pretty art-like graphics" and balanced flight models.

So you can basically ignore my opinion on CloD and RoF and have your own, but bashing them back and forth in a thread for discussing the upcoming expansion and promised friday updates is just rude. I totally welcome and promote constructive feedback, but this is NOT the place for waging forum warfare and CERTAINLY NOT the place for addressing problems with RoF :p It could be an own thread in the pilots lounge: "IL-2 CloD - RoF: Comparisons".

I would like it to be made common knowledge just exactly how complicated this simulator actually is, what's being taken into account, what's being rendered and then perhaps everyone would understand the amount of time and work is required to actually "fix" something. Too many people claim that "Oh well fixing this should be easy". Well there it is^^ In the update stated by the boss himself. It is almost NEVER easy - be sure.

As for the update? I base my expectations on the previous update records, and sooner or later, we're all bound to be positively surprised aren't we?

I've bought the game, there's nothing I can do about it now whether I like it or not, besides whining about it, or doing something more productive*. Do like Chuck Norris, choose the latter.


*(there's a huge list of productive stuff to do, pm me if you need advice)


Thanks for the update Luthier, I'll bee seeing your update next week Be sure

[Sutts]

Originally Posted by Tvrdi

same old hypnotised diehard fanboy..I guess you never played CLOD just like your hot brother Aceofaces....soon u will hit hard with ur stubborn and hypnotised head once u realised - nothing from their promises is realized

I thought you'd gone Tvrdi? You said eariler you were leaving the forum. Please. Pretty please. Give us a break for a while won't ya? I can only take so many negative waves in a day you know.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by csThor

Sternjaeger you grossly underestimate the amount of research neccessary to create a model as shown in the screenshots (with all the interior parts, wing ribs etc). For that stuff you need solid data and not just any cr@p a google search finds you. That stuff requires something better than a few thrown-together TGA schemes ... On top of that you need original manuals to study and understand the various systems of the type, manuals which often are either unavailable at all, only partially available or not available in the language you need them (remember the development team speaks native russian, not german or english). I remember Dietger and Jippo spent one and a half years only on collecting the necessary manuals to begin modelling the Ju 88 back in 1946. And, let's be honest, the 1946 Ju 88 is a much less sophisticated model than the CloD one.

well I provided materials and translations both to you guys for your expansions and Oleg for IL-2 and CloD, and all it takes is knowing what you're doing. People might have material but they're not necessarily competent on a subject.

It's down to the devt. team to choose the right collaborators, get them involved in the creation of a database (which is what I'm working on at the moment).
Other resources/drawings/manuals can be bought online, again the Internet is your friend.

If you can't find enough info on a specific plane, just put it away and concentrate on another project, simple.

I don't know whether Daidalos Team is a fulltime job or not, but again, I can tell you that there are ways to optimise production and make the best out of it, no matter how complicated it is.

I work and collaborate with the car manufacturing industry, universities and private businesses, reassessing procedures and standards for thousands of employees, I'm more than confident I would be capable of helping a small software house to reassess their work process. Considering my interest on the subject, I'm even ready to do it for free.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

well I provided material both to you guys for your expansions and Oleg for IL-2 and CloD, and all it takes is knowing what you're doing. People might have material but they're not necessarily competent on a subject.

It's down to the devt. team to choose the right collaborators, get them involved in the creation of a database (which is what I'm working on at the moment).
Other resources/drawings/manuals can be bought online, again the Internet is your friend.

If you can't find enough info on a specific plane, just put it away and concentrate on another project, simple.

I don't know whether Daidalos Team is a fulltime job or not, but again, I can tell you that there are ways to optimise production and make the best out of it, no matter how complicated it is.

I work and collaborate with the car manufacturing industry, universities and private businesses, I'm more than confident I would be capable of helping a small software house to reassess their work process. Considering my interest on the subject, I'm even ready to do it for free.

Sounds cool, I remember the days in IL2 when people desperately looked for material, checked museums, private collectors, archieves to find blueprints of some of the more obscure planes but also for a lot of german mainstay airplanes (lots was destroyed in the last year of the war). An expert in this field who is much more competent then all others who laid their hands on this so far I am sure you will be welcomed with open arms.

[katdogfizzow]

Awesome

[Pluto]

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos

Well, I admit this is a better communication "package" compared to the last one I gave you my feedback upon (the infamous "balalaika" youtube video...).

Still, you are becoming masters in disguise... (I avoid using the term masters of deception out of politness).
I had to read the text twice to understand. Worthy of SunZu's teachings, brilliantly worded, it earns my respect!
Cudos to your effort!

Now that I have given you credit for the worthwhile effort, please allow me to tell you some things which I appreciated less:
Pretty pictures - little content.
You left us with a memory leak that grows to 4Gb RAM before crashing, obliging us to restart the game after every flight, for weeks now.
Careful reading of your statements makes me deduct that you have not being able to trace the cause of the memory leak much less provide a fix for it.
More concerning, no comment any more about the complete graphics model overhaul (which was the cause for not creating an intermediary patch).
Last but not least, no comments on the current flight model bugs in terms of performance of existing airplanes (e.g. SpitII) and funtionality of airplanes (e.g. JU-88 not working gyros).
Not posting a single date/ timeframe for completion of tasks (any task!) makes me speechless.

No need to worry gentlemen, I will buy your next sequel, and the one after that.

What frustrates me is that I am 46years old, have four university degrees (= my brain is working) but sometimes I feel I am reading communication destined to 12 year olds...

~S~

.... I like it, well written and true!

I gave up on that subject, but you are right!

Good that there are some other nice games to play while waiting for this one to get fixed.

[Sutts]

Originally Posted by Pluto

.... I like it, well written and true!

I gave up on that subject, but you are right!

Good that there are some other nice games to play while waiting for this one to get fixed.

I know English is a second language to many on this forum so I'll cut you some slack but for the second time I must correct this misleading statement.....


Luthier did address the graphics overhaul quite clearly.....

"Graphics are virtually complete. Almost all of the newly introduced bugs are squashed. There are lots of other improvements."

"The engine still has some problems".

Which bit of that doesn't cover the graphics overhaul?

In terms of the memory leak, it frustrates me too but Luthier explained a long while back that the leak was in part of the old graphics code which was being replaced. It simply didn't make sense to spend hours trying to fix the old code when the new code was close to completion and would fix the issue.

I'm sure there will be a few teething troubles but I bet the graphics rewrite will be worth the wait.

Originally Posted by Sutts

when the new code was (is?) close to completion.....

You know something we dont know?

Nope?

Then dont give us false hopes...


TBH, most of us who "whine" really loves old IL2 and for CLOD we had hopes it will be even better. Most of us ACTUALLY PLAY CLOD unlike some die hard fanboys on this board. Last night ACE OF ACES was playin ROF all night. LOL I never saw him in any of the CLOD servers...What do you think why ppl complain? They care...and they have the right to complain..because of their voice this game is gettin fixed (is it?)....Its really pitty 1C doesnt recruit open beta testers...I would glidely join...

CLOD as it is,...is playable (for us with stronger rigs) but it has serious performance issues (like I said earlier, mostly when effects are near, or more planes etc.) and it would be ME who will "mourn" if they dont succeed in optimising the sim....