Latest Patch HURRICANES NOT STARTING AGAIN???

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Hi Chivas, I respectfully suggest you look up the definition of "Release Candidate," because you apparently have your terminology mixed up.

I apologies for any confusion I caused with my poorly chosen words "Beta/RC", but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. My point was the "Patch" was sent out to the community, not Steam, for further testing, and I was surprised when people got so uptight about finding bugs. They will fix the start procedure, and whatever bugs they can, and release another "Patch" for testing, or send it directly to Steam. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your point of view, the sim isn't finished yet, and will continue to evolve thru the life of the series.

[Trumper]

Originally Posted by Chivas

Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your point of view, the sim isn't finished yet, and will continue to evolve thru the life of the series.

I know BUT if we don't want to buy BOM we should at least have the sim we bought working.I
This should NOT be a option where you have to buy product B to get product A working ,that is called blackmail.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Trumper

I know BUT if we don't want to buy BOM we should at least have the sim we bought working.I
This should NOT be a option where you have to buy product B to get product A working ,that is called blackmail.

Sadly due to a lot of misinformation put out by some people there is this since of being ripped off, lied too, broken promises, or as you put it being blackmailed.

There is only one way to get past this false feeling to see the truth..

Sadly not too many people are up to the challenge..

THE CHALLENGE:

Step one of the challenge is to list all the so called broken promises..

Note for some this will be hard to do, because most of the poster only say 'broken promises' never actually listing any specific promise. For some they do this on purpose to keep the lie alive and whip up others into thinking there is a long list of broken promises, for most of the rest, they do this only because they got caught up in the lie that there is a long list of broken promises.

Step two is to provide a reference and/or link to the source of each so called promise, this step is key in that most of the so called broken promises where NOT promises at all! They were simply features that Oleg and others at 1C have talked about over the past 10+ years of some of the things they would like to do, or are trying to do at that point in the development of CoD. Another reason to find and post the link to the source of the promise is that over time what was actually said is very different from what is now being said and thus taking on a life of its own to mean something very different, seeing the original promise should clear this issue up. Than there is the whole opinion aspect of a feature in the game, take AI for one example, some consider the feature in CoD to be top notch and others consider the feature to be broken! Linking to the original promise of said feature will help those see how human expectations can not only far exceed what actually possible to do, but what was originally promised.

Only after completing these two steps will you begin to realize just how short the list is..

At which point should be able to get past this feeling of being ripped off, lied too, and or blackmailed into buying the sequel to get what you think you were promised in CoD.

In the mean time..

Take note of how many people will take issue with what I just said, and resort to attacking me personally over taking up the challenge..

Why?

Well because some here are very vested in the idea that there is a long list of broken promises, and anyone that tries to take this away from them will be attacked (kill the messenger).. The good news is all those that do only expose themselves and their true agendas

[MadTommy]

I must have missed where Trumper mentioned broken promises.

His concern was that CloD would only ever get fixed in the sequel.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Well Aces as you have been around here since the original IL-2 and then when 2004 Oleg announced the Storm Of War aka Cliffs Of Dover, he did say MANY times that CoD will be the starting theatre on which new expansions will be merged on like in the successfull IL-2 series. But that seems to have been thrown out from the window as can be read from answers to community. Sequel is a standalone more or less, CoD a bargain bin product after last official patch. No big deal, but kiss goodbye to merged installs?

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

S!

Well Aces as you have been around here since the original IL-2 and then when 2004 Oleg announced the Storm Of War aka Cliffs Of Dover, he did say MANY times that CoD will be the starting theatre on which new expansions will be merged on like in the successfull IL-2 series. But that seems to have been thrown out from the window as can be read from answers to community. Sequel is a standalone more or less, CoD a bargain bin product after last official patch. No big deal, but kiss goodbye to merged installs?

The idea of merged is a little misleading..

Some think it means the sequel has to be installed over (merged) CoD to be able to use the maps and fly the planes from CoD..

But that may not be the case at all..

As we have seen with IL-2 over the past 10 years there as been several sequels, and most of them were 'stand alone' products

Where each one of those 'stand alone' contained all the maps and planes from the previous versions of IL-2, thus each 'stand alone' was in essence a 'merging'

So the way I see it there is only 3 possibilities here

1) The sequel installs over CoD and we can use all of the maps and planes of CoD.
2) The sequel is stand alone but contains all the maps and planes of CoD.
3) The sequel is stand alone but does NOT contain all the maps and planes of CoD.

I am fine with option 1 and 2, only option 3 would suck IMHO!!

[fruitbat]

option 3 would be a disaster, option 1 or 2 will lead to good future for 1c....

[Flanker35M]

S!

Agreed. Option 3 would be suckamondolicious in extraordinary proportions.

[bw_wolverine]

If a developer releases a first person shooter, but never explicitly states that the guns will actually fire, does that mean they haven't broken any promises when none of the guns work?

Also, the movie that plays on Steam's store when looking at purchasing the game still has all the fancy graphical stuff that has been taken out of the game and, going by the readme of this final release candidate patch (and note that by calling it a release candidate there is NO POSSIBILITY that anything not mentioned in the readme will be added at this point - only things in the readme will be fixed if they're broken...HOPEFULLY) that's a pretty dishonest advertising movie since there will be no chance for anyone who gets the game to make it look like that.

There's a whole lot of mess here. I have no problem with anyone being vocal in 2949842 threads about a major game breaking problem if it means that we get it fixed before MG and 1C cut the cord on this game and don't look back.

[Codex]

While I'm still the "wait and see" camp before I'll buy BoM, I seriously think people need to calm the f#$k down. As Chivas and other are trying to highlight, its not the final patch Illya was talking about.

While I agree the devs seemed to have gone backwards with this RC in terms of bringing back some old bugs (this is nothing new mind you ... remember the Pacific Fighters patches?), it is still an RC and when you look it from a development point of view, it's still a beta at the end of the day. If this RC patch is bogus, report it in the proper channels.