Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Biltongbru]

At this stage I think one will most probably not get this answer from any stakeholder because of the sensitivity. ???

I just got the feeling that the developers (Maddox Games) is getting unnecessary flak. Who is to say that  the current disaster is all their fault? 

My opinion and personal view is that the investors/distributors/stakeholders pressurized the smallish MG team to release the sim on a certain deadline or the project would be cancelled. This is the only reason what can  I think of why the quality team at the Maddox stable released an unfinished product. (please only my personal view and thus speculation)

If you agree on this then maybe we could put more emphasis on supporting the developers than to jump on the wagon and play the blame game.

Let’s face it: Maddox Games are on the leading edge of know-how regarding multiple aircraft combat flight simulators in comprehensiveness and in many aspects. There is no current replacement.

The essence of the new IL-2 CloD simulator has so many fantastic and exciting new features and is truly a quantum leap from the last IL-2 1946 release. Almost every time I dig into the features I discover something new that just amazes me.

I was also disappointed, furious and frustrated with the endless list of glitches and crashes but my suggestion now is that we help and support where we can to get  this new IL-2 sim to work properly. In the short time since release there is already great improvement.

(please note that this is my own opinion and I do not claim to represent anyone (for all you guys who are itchy on the "we" word) )

[_AUS_Salmo]

The essence of the new IL-2 CloD simulator has so many fantastic and exciting new features and is truly a quantum leap from the last IL-2 1946 release. Almost every time I dig into the features I discover something new that just amazes me.

1. ClOD has so many bugs & incomplete features that I can only conclude that little beta testing was done on the product before it was released & that release was "forced" by some unknown party(s). Why it was released in such a condition is pure speculation, but it is self-evident that it does not live up to the hype that surrounded it's development. It might even be argued that some of the advertising surrounding the game was misleading or perhaps even deceptive. It's simply against trade practices laws to advertise a product can do something when it can't. Worse still, for many players the game is unplayable due to performance issues.
2. I disagree with your statement quoted above. ClOD is more like IL2 with larger graphics & DirX compatibilty (although even that is arguable).

[Biltongbru]

2. I disagree with your statement quoted above. ClOD is more like IL2 with larger graphics & DirX compatibilty (although even that is arguable).

Hi Aus Salmo; thanks for reply:

What I meant with quantum leap on features include the following:

Aircraft modelling;                       
Huge huge improvement; fantastic life-like detail.

Landscape vegetation:                 
In full settings there is no comparison with the old IL-2

Landscape buildings and objects:   
amazing improvement.

Other objects and combat vehicles:
huge improvement in graphics and vehicle movement dynamics. Combat vehicles have amazing combat AI.

Mission builder:                           
Fantastic improvement on features including the new weather map, load-outs, placing complete squadrons in various formations with the click of a button.etc etc

[StG77_HaDeS]

Biltongbru,

The flightmodels and the dynamics are almost the same like in IL2 and moreover any new feature of the FM can be done in IL2, make no mistake

The graphical improvement mostly is due to the fact that CloD uses bigger textures, its engine is far away of being called "new", as even the hills are .msh objects like in IL2. Needles to say that in IL2 we are always improve the textures and we can also use bigger ones.

CloD is more than 70% an IL2, i would say more than 80%. If you inspect its files you'll see that the only thing is that the developers transferred the IL2 code, the vast majority of this from java to C and in .dlls.

And i would like to ask:

Have you inspected CloD's files and file system?

P.S.
And certainly this argument is wrong, and doesn't smooth CloD's failure in any case.

Let’s face it: Maddox Games are on the leading edge of know-how regarding multiple aircraft combat flight simulators in comprehensiveness and in most aspects. There is no current replacement.

And certainly MG is not "leader" in "most aspects".

[DarkBlueBoy]

I have five English Pounds that bets this thread will get locked or deleted.

[jt189]

I will take that bet but in only yellow metal do not trust paper

[Biltongbru]

Biltongbru,

The flightmodels and the dynamics are almost the same like in IL2 and moreover any new feature of the FM can be done in IL2, make no mistake

Hi StG77_HaDeS

I agree with you here; I think flight modelling is pretty much optimized and set and done up with IL-2 1946 and thus not much need for improvement with the new IL-2 sim. As you know the mathematical modelling of flight dynamics is pretty much sorted out and every aircraft has it's own set of coefficients and performance curves. It is just a matter of feeding every aircraft's own parameters into the programme. 

The challenge for development of the IL-2 family of games I would say is in  graphics, AI and mission building to mention a few. This is exactly where the new IL-2 CoD concentrated on?

To be honest I do not look into the files and coding of games and do not really have an urge to do that, so if the MG team used 5% or 10% or 99% of existing codes it does not matter to me. What matters is the result and regarding the graphics, some AI and mission building I think the Maddox team did an excellent job.

The major problem is the smoothness in running of the game and hopefully that will be solved. This is the area where I feel we can support as much as possible.

Things like wrong sounds and skins the guys complain in long threads is nothing to fix for the developer, as you know.

Regarding "leader in most aspects" thanks for pointing this out change to "leader in many aspects"

[Biltongbru]

I have five English Pounds that bets this thread will get locked or deleted.

Okay, I will take on this bet, as is I will forward you my account details; is 1 month test time ok?

edit (Malone you can have 2 afterwards)

[SAS~Malone]

perfectly decent thread so far, imho.....no reason to be hauling out my rusty old padlock, surely......
me, i blame ooooOOOBIE!!!! 

[benitomuso]

Biltongbru,

The flightmodels and the dynamics are almost the same like in IL2 and moreover any new feature of the FM can be done in IL2, make no mistake

The graphical improvement mostly is due to the fact that CloD uses bigger textures, its engine is far away of being called "new", as even the hills are .msh objects like in IL2. Needles to say that in IL2 we are always improve the textures and we can also use bigger ones.

CloD is more than 70% an IL2, i would say more than 80%. If you inspect its files you'll see that the only thing is that the developers transferred the IL2 code, the vast majority of this from java to C and in .dlls.

And i would like to ask:

Have you inspected CloD's files and file system?

P.S.
And certainly this argument is wrong, and doesn't smooth CloD's failure in any case.

Let’s face it: Maddox Games are on the leading edge of know-how regarding multiple aircraft combat flight simulators in comprehensiveness and in most aspects. There is no current replacement.

And certainly MG is not "leader" in "most aspects".

I agree in most concepts with Hades. They basically took a product that existed and tried to "update it to the year 2011". And as most of the games nowadays have very detailed graphics they knew that improving that was necessary. They had very clear that the Java interpreted structure was a limitation so they decided to get rid of it.

But just making an equation, if any of us with the original IL-2 working properly on his computer, add a buinch of new more detailed textures to the game to make it more realistic, our FPS counter will fall some units, but I hardly believe that it could never ever be so bad as the ClOD.

So: what have they "improved" in the compiled C code if it performs as bad as the Java managing the same ammount of textures?

The engine clearly has deep failures in the way it interacts with video hardware (through DirectX). Only few users can play it reasonably and most (including myself) are absolutely in the side of the unplayable game (with a very decent computer).

I think that there are many things to complain to the developers (not only the stakeholders who are responsible too). If you are going to reinvent a product it really has to have clear, evident and not subjective improvements. All the advertising spots used for ClOD are unreal in the 98% of the computers we have at home. That's a lie, ClOD is a lie in the way it's promoted.

I'm very dissapointed!

Regards,
                     Pablo

[Uufflakke]

There is a very informative and interesting read about ClOD at Ubi for those that are not a regular visitor over there.
To me it is the best article I've read about ClOd's game engine till sofar.
Written by a guy named Gibbage1 who worked as an artist for Oleg. For instance he worked on several planes and is familiar with the IL2 engine and other game engines as he did a lot of things for other (flightsimulator) games as a 3rd party add-on maker.
So he knows a lot about the stuff he is talking about.
I'm not familiar with all the CPU, GPU, Multi-CPU, Multi-GPU(SLI) data he is talking about but according to him ClOD does have a serious problem which seems hard to fix.
Quote by Gibbage1: "very old code being used on new hardware. You cant teach an old dog new tricks!"
Another quote: "Buy the game AFTER they finish it, and that will tell the publishers and distributors that you will NOT put up with them publishing unfinished games!"

Anyway you can read it here:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/8071032709/m/5181035919

Basically everything I've read about the issues with ClOD here and there it's in his article and replies to other members. A must read.

 

[DarkBlueBoy]

@Biltongbru ... I am suspect foul play sir!