Cliffs of Dover, a Year Later

[Peaveywolf]

Originally Posted by adonys

Software is, most of the time, optimized before release. Here are some examples of very complicated software which run fine at release:

- TESV: Skyrim
- Mafia II

Are those enough? or you want more?

Also, both games have HUGE worlds. With hundreds or even thousands of actors (AIs) and objects. Both of above games have also complex game subsystems.

Those are both games with very little depth in them. They are not complex like a flight sim. At least try and be in the same ballpark

[6S.Tamat]

Originally Posted by Peaveywolf

Those are both games with very little depth in them. They are not complex like a flight sim. At least try and be in the same ballpark

do you have an idea of how complex is to manage only the facial expressions of a so big amount of characters?

I provided more similar examples, but talking about complexity it is not true that a flight simulator is more complex; more physic calculations is not meaning more complex. IMHO.

[Sutts]

Originally Posted by adonys

Software is, most of the time, optimized before release. Here are some examples of very complicated software which run fine at release:

- TESV: Skyrim
- Mafia II

Are those enough? or you want more?

Also, both games have HUGE worlds. With hundreds or even thousands of actors (AIs) and objects. Both of above games have also complex game subsystems.

Sorry, but neither of those are anywhere near as complex as CloD. Nice character animation, sure, but a far stretch from modelling land sea and air and all the complexity and physics of a whole bunch of WWII aircraft and weapons systems.

You'll be telling me they model the ballistics of their pistols next.

[adonys]

Originally Posted by Sutts

Sorry, but neither of those are anywhere near as complex as CloD. Nice character animation, sure, but a far stretch from modelling land sea and air and all the complexity and physics of a whole bunch of WWII aircraft and weapons systems.

You'll be telling me they model the ballistics of their pistols next.

Really? and you know that from.. where?

Do you have ANY idea at all what it means to code a game like Skyrim, and a game like IL2CoD? What game systems are involved in those? How a game engine is working at all? And I am not talking about the graphics/render engine, but about the game engine..

Obviously, you don't, otherwise you would have not mentioned that.

Skyrim has a HUGE world. HUGE! And the Editor.. the TES Creator only in itself is more complex than the whole IL2CoD! Mafia II has physics and damage modelling of cars and weapons. And guess what? It also has collision, on all that HUGE world of it.

Want some other examples? Assassin's Creed games.. also with HUGE worlds, hundreds of buildings, lots of details, collision, hundreds of characters, and so on. Do you know how many animations had the system they've developed for AC1? ANY idea at all? I'll tell you: 10000 animations. Now come and tell me that Il2CoD is more complex than a game that has an animation system for the main character which manages and blends them as beautifully and seamlessly as AC does.. and I'll tell you you never worked on developing games and you don't have any idea what you're talking about!

Don't talk about thing you don't know.. just because you think, I assume from what you "see", that IL2CoD is more complex than those games, it doesn't make it so!

[6S.Tamat]

The complexity of the simulation and of the damage model is really a matter of faith until you have a way to test what is doing the simulator.

You can have that on some simulators
like xplane and rfactor in a very clear and clever way
xplane:

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

rfactor 2 tyre consumption and dynamic simulation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZWeEoOxKKw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oha1bQ9C174

that is a kind of complexity that you can compare with the real life simply because you see what is happening in the simulation.

The problem with Cod is that we don't have at all that kind of insurance on the physically correct simulation.

I'm sorry and I would like very much to say the contrary, but for now we have a Physic simulation with huge problems (velocity and ceiling of aircrafts is the very basic of the parameters to judge a correspondance with the reality) and a Damage Model that allows the Hurricane to fly with half wing cut off.
We were promised to have the acrobatic airplane to be able to admire the physic model but there is anything about it more than the promise before of the release.
About the damage model we don't know how it is made and we have not at all any analisys instrument to understand it (I hope to be corrected asap).
It seems that the convergence of the weapons is bugged, but how do we know that the ammo damage is made in a correct way ( or at least with a clear logic on which you can debate but at least you know it)

[philip.ed]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

This is called a Straw Man fallacy.

I never said that it was the MOST complicated, nor did I say that it has the best graphics engine. I said that "complicated software is never optimized at release." The logic in that statement is solid. I've been employed as a programmer since 1986.

You probably should not use logical fallacies when you are criticizing someone else's logic.

David, you once mentioned you worked in a hospital. If the software there is never optimized, I seriously hope I never end up where you work buddy.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

David, you once mentioned you worked in a hospital. If the software there is never optimized, I seriously hope I never end up where you work buddy.

That depends on your definition of "optimized". If it means "the software isn't going to kill you", then it's optimized. If it means "is working as efficiently as possible", then it isn't optimized.

BTW, I don't work in a hospital.

[Walrus1]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

David, you once mentioned you worked in a hospital. If the software there is never optimized, I seriously hope I never end up where you work buddy.

LOL. I work in a hospital. The software that we use is by far the worst, dysfunctional, bug filled, poorly performing archaic garbage I have ever used in any type of application. It is obviously far, far from optimized and the update schedule is glacial. And it is used in hundreds (thousands?) of hospitals across the USA.

McKesson

[Jatta Raso]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

David, you once mentioned you worked in a hospital. If the software there is never optimized, I seriously hope I never end up where you work buddy.

roftl