Time now to let TD loose on CloD for bug fixing only! Not for new content? 1c listen?

[BigC208]

TD to the bug fixing rescue? I think the TD guys enjoy bringing in new content and effects, not so much fix bugs. Also giving TD acces to the source code is much too risky. It's Luthier's Golden Goose. Next thing you know it get's leaked and content/theatres that they wanted to make and sell themselves will be available for free. Maybe in ten years when they've squeezed the last drop out of the source code will it become available. I've enjoyed TD's work on the original Il2 series and I hope they continue their work. Right now it's the only reason I still have 1946 on my drive.

[NervousEnergy]

Originally Posted by Ailantd

You are wrong.
Sequel stand alone means that you will can buy only BoM and play only BoM. But if you already have CoD they will be merged. In other words: BoM will be not a DLC, but a stand alone expansion.

I'll have to go back and look, but I'm pretty sure Luthier said at one point that CloD assets would be included in the sequel. There would be no need to 'merge' the games since that would be redundant.

Though that also begs the question of why they so flatly state there will be no more patches for CloD. If the sequel will be an improved version of the codebase with more content assets, then why wouldn't they release incremental improvements to the engine as they're built, if only to test them? CloD's development has made it clear that 1C doesn't have a lot of in-house testing resources, which is understandable for a small dev.

Not that I'm upset about that. The sim runs great for me. I still play 1946 more just because that's where all the guys I fly with are (Spits vs 109's HSFX server), but Cliffs seems to run pretty sweet now. Just curious why they'd cut off all patches if the new engine is supposed to still be able to run the CloD assets.

[He111]

How about PAID-BUG-FIXES ?? 1C needs funds, Users want bugs fixed - lets do a deal ! Users bid money for bug fix priority .. I know this sounds almost criminal ... but it's one option that might work, especially if modding won't be supported.

If I'm willing to pay A$1,000 for a flyable defiant, I don't see why paying a small amount to get bug-fixes moved up the priority ladder is any different. I'm a scenario builder, ATM I cannot do that because of CLOD bugs.

SDK sounds good but when and what will it allow ??? Will a few $100 help that along?

(and don't say - more money than cents! )

.

[mazex]

Well, as the source code for the core game will be off limits until MG takes down the sign or does a new core engine in 10 years, the best solution to this would be that they released the SDK that was actually "promised". Both for aircraft and maps. That way we could get flyable Defiants, Whirlwinds etc and all bases corrected with every last shithouse in the right place as it was in September 1940 And we could get a Spitfire IIa "community edition" to use at servers that allow that. Maybe MG could take the time to add the best community effort to the "official" base plane set too? At least the most needed ones...

It does not matter if the SDK is crappy and without documentation. I'm sure a lot of enthusiasts would wrestle it around rather fast anyway....

[He111]

SDK will need some doco as most simmers / pilots may not be programmers, plus I'll need some form of AI modding ability.

Plus, if we're allowed to mod aircraft then we'll need to know what modelling software 1C developers use.

.

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by mazex

Well, as the source code for the core game will be off limits until MG takes down the sign or does a new core engine in 10 years, the best solution to this would be that they released the SDK that was actually "promised". Both for aircraft and maps. That way we could get flyable Defiants, Whirlwinds etc and all bases corrected with every last shithouse in the right place as it was in September 1940 And we could get a Spitfire IIa "community edition" to use at servers that allow that. Maybe MG could take the time to add the best community effort to the "official" base plane set too? At least the most needed ones...

It does not matter if the SDK is crappy and without documentation. I'm sure a lot of enthusiasts would wrestle it around rather fast anyway....

Why would you want to divide the community

[klem]

I wouldn't want to see an independent third party given access to the CoD code. TD may have a good reputation in IL-2 '46 but that is only part of the story. The code is 'out there' and there are/were the Ultrapack mods, the HSFX mods and the AllAircraft guys mods before that. The online servers became a mess and the community fragmented.

We need one constant playing field.

Even if 1C were to use third party developers tied by their small tender parts to a nasty contract, the code would inevitably escape somehow.

Luthier's answers on BoM and merging with CoD did become a little confusing but my last understanding was that any improvements in the 'core' element would also be available to CoD play because they would all sit under the same game/file structure, like IL-2 did. As for unique CoD elements like the map and the BoB era aircraft, its not clear if those aircraft files (e.g. a BoM Hurricane) would be separate from CoD aircraft and, if so, if they would then also take the opportunity to overwrite the CoD files with ones containing the latest FMs etc.

[mazex]

Originally Posted by SlipBall

Why would you want to divide the community

OK, you are correct that we risk a division by zero which is a big no no in programming I'm not that fond of the divided old IL2 community either so maybe the best solution would be that new planes done with the SDK can only be used online after MG has approved them and added them to official plane set? That would of course imply that they have to release more patches and do some work testing them etc... I remember that they talked a lot about how much work it was in the old IL2 engine when they added community developed planes (before the "hacked" mod versions arrived).

[He111]

If a user was willing to buy the same modelling tool 1c deveoplers use, to change the Blenheim for example, to add a 4 x 303 mg pod under the aircraft and create a fighter, which he gives to the community to use , and it passes 1C standards, how does this divide the community ? yes, it's 1Cs software, they will need to put their final stamp on any user mods / changes.

If CLOD was a great seller and 1C had a huge team developing CLOD / BOM then we wouldn't need user/developers .. but unfortunately that's not the case. 1c has stated that they have washed their hands of future CLOD development, which some users think is a little hastie ... so why not allow users to add content .. for a fee (maybe?) .. or 1C hires extra developers for user-paid additions (although that could be too expensive)

I would like to see, and willing to pay for/work on, the following;

(1) Blenheim Fighter - start with something easy.
(2) Blenheim short-nose fighter - changed cockpit
(3) flyable defiant - new cockpit and gunner
(4) flyable Wellington - new cockpit, nav, radio, gunners
(5) flyable Beaufighter - new cockpit, nav

BTW, i'm not a skilled programmer, I know 'C' etc but that was along time ago. We users would need some skilled help ..


.

[FC99]

Originally Posted by Mysticpuma

So may I humbly suggest that 1c allow TD the chance make CloD work as it actually should by letting them read the bugtracker and fix the most 'popular' bugs still present.

That's very unlikely, I don't think that anybody in DT have such interest. I can only speak for myself and I can tell you that I will not work on anything CloD and its sequel related without the pay. So if somebody put the money on the table than why not, there are far worse jobs out there but for free no way.

Originally Posted by salmo

I would be rushing to get TD alone to monopolise potential future development. There are many talented individuals in the community that could improve COD given the chance.

Nobody stops them to contact Luthier and give him their proposition for future development of the CloD.

Originally Posted by zapatista

you really think they are going to give away their source code to let a few amateurs tinker with it and waste the millions it took to get where we got to now

rather odd idea

What's wrong with amateurs? Amateurs contributed a lot to mankind in many fields, especially programming. Kids from school are often doing amazing things.

And how would "amateurs" ruin the code with bugfixing, it is rather silly that you are afraid of 3rd party in game that was riddled with bugs from the get go. It would be more logical to be afraid of developers who released the game with so many bugs. Not that you have to be afraid of them but why you think that other developers would be worse?

BTW DT programmers have one form or another of formal education in programming so we qualify as amateurs only in terms of money reward for our work. OTOH our modelers have done payed work for Il2 and other flight sims so we are not amateurs in that area either.

Originally Posted by Red Dragon-DK

I hope Never to see DT in this sim. They have there own agenda and try to push all others away.

Of course that we have an agenda, we are an organized group. As for pushing others away, really, are you serious, who are that others anyway?

Originally Posted by Red Dragon-DK

Luther have already said, that more updates will come in the sequel. So there is no reson at all, to give DT access to fix bugs. A proposal that do not have its justified, in my believe.

If you gave DT access to CLOD as a stand alone Sim it would not merge with the sequel.

If we do it for free than it makes lot of sense to use us for bugfixing, they could benefit even if they pay us. I didn't see the CloD code but many of the reported bugs suggest that lot of the problems in CloD are transfered from Il2 to CloD, especially in FM and AI, our knowledge and experience could help them a lot to speed up the development in these areas.

In case of standalone sim that is not necessarily bad for 1C, game engines are sold or licensed under different terms on regular basis. I highly doubt that 1C would hesitate to sell game engine to anybody who offer them the right money. IMO their bigger problem is lack of potential buyers than anything else.

Originally Posted by BigC208

TD to the bug fixing rescue? I think the TD guys enjoy bringing in new content and effects, not so much fix bugs. Also giving TD acces to the source code is much too risky. It's Luthier's Golden Goose. Next thing you know it get's leaked and content/theatres that they wanted to make and sell themselves will be available for free.

Apart from adding new stuff to the Il2 we have fixed hundreds of bugs, but that don't gets as much public attention as new features and TBH we don't document every fix in readme.

Danger for code leaks is always present but you are right, more people involved bigger the danger.

Originally Posted by klem

I wouldn't want to see an independent third party given access to the CoD code. TD may have a good reputation in IL-2 '46 but that is only part of the story. The code is 'out there' and there are/were the Ultrapack mods, the HSFX mods and the AllAircraft guys mods before that. The online servers became a mess and the community fragmented.

Even if 1C were to use third party developers tied by their small tender parts to a nasty contract, the code would inevitably escape somehow.

Il2 code is out there because game was hacked, that can and probably will happen to CloD and it's sequels too but that doesn't have any similarity with licensing the game engine to other developers. It is interesting that you somehow think that code is safe in 1C hands and it will be compromised if it is sold to somebody else. Why, it is quite possible that other developers have better security system than Maddox games?