Friday Update, January 27, 2012

[Blackdog_kt]

That's the way i see it too.

Was i disappointed with the state of the sim on release: Yes

Is anyone else making a new WW2 prop-sim engine: No

Can any other engine support as many objects (static/AI) on a map and actual programming to make your own dynamic environments: Not to this extent (a guy on simHQ populated the CoD map with about 2000 objects all over both coastlines and it was running the same as when the map was empty on his rig)

Does any other game give you a big enough map AND a representative selection of flyables for the scenario for this cost: No, the trend of the day is to buy everything separately.

And since something's got to give, in all walks of life, in this case it gave in in terms of performance/stability due to last minute rushing to publish the software or scrap the whole thing. What the sim does took up so much money and time, that something else ha to suffer for it and be added in at a later date.


It could have been different but something would still have to give. We might have had a stable sim from the start but have to buy planes individually, or have a smaller map, or an engine that can't handle more than a couple hundred simultaneous objects in a mission.

It's not desirable but it's understandable for everyone who is willing to go a little bit beyond "i want now" mentality and see the big picture. Sure, i want everything too and i want it to work 100%. But i'm not going to act like there's nothing else offered to keep me busy in the meantime, because it clearly is and it just so happens to be the exact features i had hoped for. Maybe they're not fully polished, but the part of the code dealing with them is already part of the game's engine, which is much better than having to shoe-horn them in at a later date.

So, it's also a matter of personal priorities. For me things like AA are the least of my issues. If they came to me and told me "hey man, we'll do the patches in the order you say", i would tell them:

"Visual quality is good enough, if it's performing well too then stop working on it for the next 6 months. Then give me a bit of documentation for the libraries so i can start making some C# scripts, fix the FMs,improve the CEM and fix all bugs in the logic of aircraft controls/systems so that we can fly what we have."

Sadly though, for a technical oriented crowd like we flight simmers are, there's a whole lot of "FPS-style benchmarking obsession" going on which leads to missing the big picture. Nothing wrong with other gaming genres, i play TF2 all the time. But the priorities of making one type of game are not the same as making another one.

I want to work on a project for a dynamic campaign some point during this year. I want the mission script to check if my airfield has enough fuel, then top up my tanks and remove that from the airfield's total. When i come back and land i want the remaining fuel to be added to the total. When the airfield is low on fuel, either due to attacks or normal use, i want it to trigger an AI convoy that will bring fuel from the fuel dump to the airfield. If the convoy is attacked and destroyed then sooner or later it's no fuel for you mr. player, spawn at a different airfield.

In other words, i want to make a supply system that will make what you do online matter. And the engine gives me the tools to do it. So, you can understand how much of a shame it is that these tools are undocumented because through all these months apart from the valid performance and stability complaints, the rest have been requests for purely aesthetic aspects like the nature of tracers or a couple of jaggy aerials.

Sure, visuals and sound are an integral part of the immersion process. So is having a proper environment to fly in though, otherwise we would all be looking at photos of warbirds to get our fix.

Excuse my disappointment, but the amount of people who miss the big picture of

a) what the sim tried to achieve and
b) how the complexity of that goal is actually the cause of its problems

is too damn high.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Excuse my disappointment, but the amount of people who miss the big picture of

a) what the sim tried to achieve and
b) how the complexity of that goal is actually the cause of its problems

is too damn high.

I don't think it's necessarily true. I mean, surely there are people that don't even begin to understand the richness and complexity of CoD, these guys brought the world of WW2 simulation to a whole new planet (the DM itself is worth the experience!), one should ask though whether maybe the combination of setting their goal so high and the series of mishaps they had whilst developing the game it's what really caused all the issues.

I'm sure that we will hardly see anybody else reaching their standard, but boy was it a bumpy ride!

[Frequent_Flyer]

It appears to me, based upon the constant barrage of noise that follows every update, 1C/Luthier/Black Six have taken the defensive position of managing the expectations of their customers. Very little information is given with no target date(s). This is the low maintanace solution and the most prudent course to take.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Frequent_Flyer

It appears to me, based upon the constant barrage of noise that follows every update, 1C/Luthier/Black Six have taken the defensive position of managing the expectations of their customers. Very little information is given with no target date(s). This is the low maintanace solution and the most prudent course to take.

IMHO the last update contained more information and 'insight' than most updates up to this point..

Sadly the negativity and flat out slanderous replies seemed to follow in kind..

Put another way the more 1C says, just provides more opportunity for people to twist what was said..

Thus based off the responce to this last update I would not be surprised that from this point forward 1C says even less in future updates..

And I wouldn't blaim them one bit

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Excuse my disappointment, but the amount of people who miss the big picture of

a) what the sim tried to achieve and
b) how the complexity of that goal is actually the cause of its problems

is too damn high.

So true

[Force10]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Is anyone else making a new WW2 prop-sim engine: No

This IMO, is part of the problem. Competition is a good thing for customers more often than not. When there is no competition, customers usually get more of a "minimum" effort in a lot of ways because they have fewer options.

[Chivas]

There is no competition because no major company is willing to develop complex sims that are far to expensive to make, in a genre far to small to make any serious money. Microsoft, Rowan, etc etc have left the building, The A2A Simulations have left the work to the mod team, have dropped development of sims and have concentrated on making aircraft for FSX. Gaijin is making combatsim light. Studio 777's ROF is barely making enough profit to stay solvent. Its highly doubtful that a major company will come along unless they have a ready built game engine that can easily be converted to a complex WW2 aircombat sim. The only people stupid enough to make these sims are enthusiasts and they are hard to find with the knowledge and cash need to develop one, like Oleg Maddox.

Oleg Maddox didn't run away with the code, he just couldn't get the job done in the time required, and knowing his perfectionism, there is no way he wanted the sim released this unfinished. He either stepped back and gave Luthier the helm or he was forced back, by the investors.

These sims are so complex the setbacks grow exponentially.

[Il2Pongo]

I think the issue is as presented by Luthier.
Just tried for to much. And instead of the absolute shame and loss to all of us of them walking away from it, they have come up with a mechanism to keep the thing going forward and give us the chance of having a growing game to play for years to come.

I look forward to supporting it.

[Sutts]

Originally Posted by Il2Pongo

I think the issue is as presented by Luthier.
Just tried for to much. And instead of the absolute shame and loss to all of us of them walking away from it, they have come up with a mechanism to keep the thing going forward and give us the chance of having a growing game to play for years to come.

I look forward to supporting it.

+1

[Robert]

Originally Posted by Chivas

Studio 777's ROF is barely making enough profit to stay solvent. Its highly doubtful that a major company will come along unless they have a ready built game engine that can easily be converted to a complex WW2 aircombat sim.
Oleg Maddox didn't run away with the code, he just couldn't get the job done in the time required, and knowing his perfectionism, there is no way he wanted the sim released this unfinished. He either stepped back and gave Luthier the helm or he was forced back, by the investors.

These sims are so complex the setbacks grow exponentially.

How can they not be solvent if "RoF is celebrating its inclusion in the Top 100 PC Games of All Time by PC Gamer magazine." (From Jason's Youtube account that I subscribe)

If the case is they are barely solvent and RoF is in the top 100 PC games of ALL time, then what does that say about the market for flight sims? Something to think about?

I've been saying this for a few years prior to the release of CoD. We are in a renaissance in the FS community. I'm beginning to wonder with the high cost and low profit incurred while developing a flight sim, will we be experiencing an extinction of our hobby?