Answers to Community Questions

[Kurfürst]

Regarding trees, I understand that there are way too many trees on the map to make them collidable. That was so since the original Il-2 beta, and was decided there. It was also not much a concern, given the maps were mostly for Russian steppes.

However, I am curious if collideable trees could be done (limited) within the near vicinity of airfields, where they may make a role?

[EAF92_Brigstock]

But you got so close with the last patch....

This new one shows lots of promise too. It just needs a little more care.

I pre-ordered Cliffs of Dover but ended up buying the Russian version too, when it came out, just so I could get a first look. I bought the game twice, because I wanted it so much. To see it finally coming together just as the plug is pulled is heart breaking.

I sincerely hope the RC gets the bugs in it fixed for the steam release. Especially as the last Beta patch brought in so many of the game owners who had given up on it ever coming good.
That includes myself and at least a dozen of my Squad mates. I'd not be surprised to see that reaction from across the entire customer spectrum.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Well, Battle of Britain was a major battle in WW2 and especially to Brits and it's allies it was a show of strength and determination. It had large scale aerial battles all over southeast England and ultimately over London. It decided the fate of Britain and possibly outcome of WW2. So no wonder some members might be a "bit" pissed off when CoD came out in a state it was in and now the sequel decipting Great Patriotic War with features CoD will never see, adds to the insult. Does it warrant rudeness? No, but no need to go with the crowd and dish out more rudeness

Anyways interesting info filtered out there from the intended puns and all. Bring on the next series of answers.

[Kwiatek]

Have you addressed the bugged Mixture issues in the RAF types?
Have you addressed the Engine Overheat issues in the RAF types?
Have you addressed the issue of the Spitfire under performing in terms of relative top speed compared with the 109 (e.g. see graphs in 1st post in this recent thread http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34115)? Thank you.

Originally Posted by luthier

We keep working on aircraft performance, and hopefully the most recent patch showed some improvement in that respect.

Sry Luthier but performacne and FM of CLoD fighters still is crap. I checked british fighters with beta RC and they are still too slow ab. 20-30 mph (like before) at the deck not mention high alts flying. 109 was too slow in CLOD at ab 20-30 kph but British fighters are too slow much more -20-30 mphs ( 32- 48 kph).

Make correct low level speeds and you will get more accurate high alts speeds - that its work in old Il2.

You really need make it better.

[MusseMus]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

Quote:
Sry Luthier but performacne and FM of CLoD fighters still is crap. I checked british fighters with beta RC and they are still too slow ab. 20-30 mph (like before) at the deck not mention high alts flying. 109 was too slow in CLOD at ab 20-30 kph but British fighters are too slow much more -20-30 mphs ( 32- 48 kph).

Make correct low level speeds and you will get more accurate high alts speeds - that its work in old Il2.

You really need make it better.

The speed gauge is showing the wrong IAS speed on all aircrafts I tested. The brit fighters show a value some 15% lower than they accualy go. The gauge in the 109 is better and only show some 5% a lower value. So the problem is not so much the aircraft's performance but the IAS gauge

Luthier said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Falstaff

Thank you, wonderful analogy. This is exactly how I feel.

I see no reason to be polite to people who are going out of their way to be rude to me.

The game sold two and half copies in the last month and had 74 returns (I just pulled those numbers out of thin air by the way). Honestly, if I just replied witha picture of me mooning and flipping off the questions thread, the net result would be pretty much the same.

The situation sucks. I see no reason to sugarcoat it with bull. I don't want to go make empty promises or try to prove that black is white. We released a faulty game. We did more than even seemed possible to fix its faults and add improvements, but in the end it was not enough. There has to come a point where we begin to focus on the future, and Cliffs of Dover just becomes something we can all learn from.

I am sincerely very sorry we didn't do enough to keep you guys happy. Everyone in the team feels exactly the same way.

Well since you replied directly twice, and it is welcome, I will jump back in briefly.

Firstly, we FINALLY have a sort of realistic assessment of where things were (mostly always) at. It has taken a long time...it is only a real shame we didn't have this much, much sooner, and without the sarcasm and window-dressing. I used to work in a highly pressured dev house with large financial backing, mile-stones, the whole nine yards...and these sorts of responses are fine...in-house and on internal email systems. But I don't know of a single project manager - who wants to keep his job - who would let them out into the wider world. 'What goes on in dev stays in dev', or words to that effect. I'm amazed. Personality, yes, credibility...I don't know. That's your call. Personally I'd have a big recent hit under your belt before I took that line.

As for your more technical responses, I am truly baffled by some. They fall into slack-jaw territory. But it doesn't really matter - that game is dead anyway. You said so, and a handful of us knew it from the beginning.

(and boy do the rabid 'usual suspect' element now look silly. Upended on facts, rapidly shifting the goalposts to personalities. Good luck with that one!)

But above all it's just nice to hear some answers to the criticism, and that alone. The effort of replying is worthwhile, believe it or not.

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by luthier

Thank you, wonderful analogy. This is exactly how I feel.

I see no reason to be polite to people who are going out of their way to be rude to me.

The game sold two and half copies in the last month and had 74 returns (I just pulled those numbers out of thin air by the way). Honestly, if I just replied witha picture of me mooning and flipping off the questions thread, the net result would be pretty much the same.

The situation sucks. I see no reason to sugarcoat it with bull. I don't want to go make empty promises or try to prove that black is white. We released a faulty game. We did more than even seemed possible to fix its faults and add improvements, but in the end it was not enough. There has to come a point where we begin to focus on the future, and Cliffs of Dover just becomes something we can all learn from.

I am sincerely very sorry we didn't do enough to keep you guys happy. Everyone in the team feels exactly the same way.

Thanks for the honest answers Luthier, and for covering the questions about the map.

Can I say regarding the bolded bit from your quote above that I disagree somewhat. For sure some here will be hostile no matter what you do. Others, myself included, sometimes feel that poor communication needlessly creates antagonism - eg the delay in providing answers to these questions. A simple post on the forum saying they were delayed but upcoming would have been enough to smooth things over until they were ready.

Some of us who want to be supportive feel that the (lack of) communication here is sometimes more damaging than the issues with the game.

If that could be improved i think people would feel more involved and on your side.

----

Regarding your reply about tree collision only being possible on maps with small numbers of trees! Is this not a reason to review the use of Speedtree in the COD series in favour of an alternative that can be made to work more effectively?

[arthursmedley]

Originally Posted by kendo65

Some of us who want to be supportive feel that the (lack of) communication here is sometimes more damaging than the issues with the game.

If that could be improved i think people would feel more involved and on your side.

----

Very, very good point.

[MadBlaster]

Here is a very sad video on the story of the Kee Bird. For those who need "closure".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxbipBu7Cdc

[Feathered_IV]

Quote:
The single player experience in Cliffs of Dover has been roundly criticized as being decidedly below standard. Can you tell us specifically in what ways you think it is lacking, and explain what you intend to do to improve it?

"First of all, I disagree with it being “below standard”. Your definition of single-player standard is probably different from mine. If you expect Mass Effect or Skyrim, you’re barking up the wrong tree."

I am most certainly Not looking for Mass Effect or Skyrim. That is absurd. I am however looking for effective AI, working comms, AI crew members that behave and interact realistically - navigators who navigate, bomb aimers who aim, plus some sense of what it is to run and maintain a squadron when between missions. Please think about it.