Friday Update - December 9, 2011

[Dano]

Originally Posted by cheesehawk

But there are laws at least in my country about bait and switch. Asking someone to pay for a different product which contains the something they advertised in a current product, is deceptive and illegal. Wonder if the maybe 35 guys that post regularly in this forum would count as "class-action" or not, lol.

What exactly is missing that was promised? Actually promised and not just discussed. And again, what possible good do you actually see it doing other than forcing the premature end of sims from Luthier and 1C or are you actually that short sighted that you think they have a fully working sim at the office just waiting for somebody to take legal action against them before release?

[Dano]

Which of those do we not have?

I'm not 'bashing' anyone, just curious as to what good you actually think it would do to create a further financial burden on a company that is in a niche market and has obviously already had issues.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Dano

Which of those do we not have?

Dano..

Don't bother.. They will never answer..

Why?

Because any attempt at providing an answer will only prove the fact that there is nothing missing that was advertised.

And don't even bother to try and understand why they would want to promote such a myth.. You probably wouldn't want to know anyway, surly some Freudian cigar thingie!

All you can hope for is to put out the true information in the hopes that those new comers and old who are reading this thread will realize that they never provided an answer

At which point they will realize 1C did not rip them off and thus not get upset over a myth

Having people pissed off over a myth does not do them or the progress of this sim any good

So just keep the truth out there in opostion to the myths..

Just don't hold your breath waiting for an answer from the myth makers!

[klem]

Well BlackSix, if you're still reading posts this far down the thread you'll have a taste of what Luthier had to put up with. Guys are speculating, some are complaining and then they begin to argue about their speculations and complaints as thought they are fact. Then they blame 1C for the speculations and fights they have created themselves. Welcome to the banana forum.

Thank you for the information, it is what it is. It doesn't meet all our hopes but two direct questions may answer many speculations and complaints.

You say you don't know if the next release will be "compatible with CoD". A more direct question which I don't think people have asked clearly is:

"Will it be possible for BoM to be merged with CoD?" (Like we did in IL-2).

"If so, will all the new core improvements work for CoD maps and aircraft?"

[xHeadbanDx]

Yaaa for updates !!!! hope the squeal adds Americana and Russian planes.

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by cheesehawk

From Steam's advertisement, the original 1c one is full of more promises, but take a look at which of these features you have right now. Go look for Oleg's posts dating from way back, you'll see small, but important lines, telling us what is for this installment.


http://store.steampowered.com/app/63950/


You're bashing at the wrong guy, I'm one that normally opens people to the stuff that is right here. But hearing that they are dropping work on giving us the goods, in order to work on something we're going to have to pay for is just wrong.

Its highly unlikely that you will have to pay for the Battle for Moscow to get any new features like dynamic weather. It would probably be added as a patch to COD, although most people will probably buy Battle for Moscow and any new features will be added to COD, when they do a merged install. Personally I don't have that much interest in the Eastern front but will quite happily buy it to support further theaters, like the Med.

[salmo]

Thankyou for the update BlackSix. Your efforts are much appreciated.

However, I have to say that the response to requests for documentation on the FMB, triggers, switches & scripting is unsatisfactory. It's been 9+ months since the game was released with no (zero, nada, zip, nil) fmb documetation & to recieve the response " People who can write the documentation are same people who improve the game. They are buried in other tasks and cannot yet put the game away and start writing prose." simply beggers belief

IMO, the game will not mature until the community can get actively involved in enhancing the game, for this they need documentation & the SDK's. That way, the community can develop certain game enhancements while the Dev's continue to improve the core of the game.

I just looked at the on-line COD server list , which makes very disappointing viewing. It does not bode well for the game's future. Just 12 on-line game servers, 11 of them empty & one with just 10 players only on a weekend (Friday night/Saturday).

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by salmo

Thankyou for the update BlackSix. Your efforts are much appreciated.

However, I have to say that the response to requests for documentation on the FMB, triggers, switches & scripting is unsatisfactory. It's been 9+ months since the game was released with no (zero, nada, zip, nil) fmb documetation & to recieve the response " People who can write the documentation are same people who improve the game. They are buried in other tasks and cannot yet put the game away and start writing prose." simply beggers belief

IMO, the game will not mature until the community can get actively involved in enhancing the game, for this they need documentation & the SDK's. That way, the community can develop certain game enhancements while the Dev's continue to improve the core of the game.

I just looked at the on-line COD server list , whch makes very disappointing viewing. It does not bode well for the game's future. Just 12 on-line game servers, 11 of them empty & one with just 10 players only on a weekend (Friday night/Saturday).

All this is a function of the sim being unfinished. When the sim is finished then they can produce the documentation. You can't document something until your sure how it will end up. Same with On-line play, although its very playable online for people with decent clean systems, its not for othere with weaker systems. The sim still needs optimization. Off-line the sim isn't very good for anything but furballs. When the sim is finished and documentation complete, it will take off, until then a considerable amount of patience is required.

Yes we can throw the development under the bus for the constant unrelenting delays, but then what. (zero, nada, zip, nil) for the next ten, twenty years until someone else trys to build something this complicated. The almost limitless money pit of Microsoft along with everyone else gave up long ago.

[csThor]

It's rather telling ... I mean rewriting the gfx engine and the sound engine (and perhaps the physics engine, too?) means that they're essentially doing a new engine from scratch. So apparently something has gone thoroughly FUBAR during development of the current/previous one. Not to mention that there was a change in management, a whole new bunch of team members and an increase of employees to boot.

It is, indeed, not satisfactory that key features are missing - a real campaign system, the promised weather stuff, documentation ... But then rewriting a game engine is never easy and quick. Right now we've paid for an unfinished game engine ... and MG will have to deliver quite a lot to regain the lost faith of the customers with the sequel. I don't expect anything ground-breaking until the new title.

[kestrel79]

Guys relax,

This is most likely just going to be like the IL2 series with sequels (updates) being able to be merged into the Cliffs of Dover install, just how Pacific Fighters worked.