Q/R de Luthier

Salle dédiée à IL-2 Cliffs of Dover et ses évolutions
Avatar de l’utilisateur

Topic author
OBT~Miguel21
Pilote Confirmé
Pilote Confirmé
Messages : 2127
Inscription : 24 mai 2005

Q/R de Luthier

#1

Message par OBT~Miguel21 »

C'est tout frais, ça vient de sortir.

PS: au bout de combien de post ce thread va partir en live???? :innocent:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34680
Good afternoon everyone. Sorry it took so long to get to your questions. Finally got some spare time on a quiet weekend. Went through a bunch of them, still have a lot left. Hopefully will get to them tomorrow.

I also answered a bunch of Russian-language questions on sukhoi.ru. Sorry, no energy to translate them into English. Hopefully someone might help me out and provide a translation for me.
http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthrea...72#post1902572

Here are the answers to your questions.

Quote:
The single player experience in Cliffs of Dover has been roundly criticized as being decidedly below standard. Can you tell us specifically in what ways you think it is lacking, and explain what you intend to do to improve it?
First of all, I disagree with it being “below standard”. Your definition of single-player standard is probably different from mine. If you expect Mass Effect or Skyrim, you’re barking up the wrong tree.
Cliffs of Dover was intended to be a sandbox game more than anything, expansive, open, giving complete freedom to the players. If you’ll remember, the original Il-2 owed much of its success to user-made content. We aimed for the same with Cliffs of Dover. Instead of building complex single-player content in-house, we gave the tools to the community. Cliffs of Dover has a much better mission builder with scripting support, supports complex moddable briefings and debriefings, and so on.
Unfortunately 3rd party support never materialized the way we hoped it would, and we ourselves cannot at this point go back and redo single player.
Still, I strongly disagree with your criticism of the single-player. The two campaigns, quick mission builder, and the full mission builder offer a lot in terms of single-player. Standard? I’ve played plenty of AAA games where the entire single-player content is under 20 hours with 0 replay value, and I didn’t even feel like finishing the entire thing. At the same time I’ve logged way more than 20 hours in quick mission builder alone. What does that say about industry standards?


Quote:
1. Please could you look into the netcode, its killing Multiplayer servers.
Latest patch should take us closer.

Quote:
2. Could you reconsider your position on Co-ops, again this is preventing a lot of people from wanting to continue using your product now and in the future.
Redoing co-op is a huge task. We are a business. We have to make a profit somewhere somehow. We cannot keep pumping resources and releasing free patches for Cliffs of Dover forever.
And regarding not using our products in the future if we do not redo co-op now. I believe the majority in this community actually will. If we offer a much more comprehensive co-op experience in a future product, and especially if such an experience still allows you a trip back in time to fly some Spits and 109s over the Channel, well, I really hope that most people will want to get the sequel.
To reiterate - I've never said that we'll never address co-op, I've only said we cannot do it within the Cliffs of Dover project.

Quote:
3. It was claimed that within recent patches a 50% performance increase was gained but as of yet I have seen no evidence to support this, in fact my performance actually dropped whilst at the same time features were taken out of the game. Could you tell me how I go about getting this performance increase or what system I should use to get the best out of CLOD, I currently have a i72600k running at 4.7Ghz, 2x GTX680 in SLI and 16GB of DDR3 at 1600mhz.
There are plenty of people on the forums reporting a significant performance boost.
You should be getting excellent FPS in the game with your top of the line system.

Quote:
4. Could you tell us how you test your alpha/beta patches before release, many of them have broken has much as they have fixed and your customers are left scratching their heads wondering how you could of missed some of the most obvious bugs, such as the hurricane not starting. Also could you tell me what online servers you or your employees use to test the game.
Ooh somebody’s real grouchy.

Quote:
Can the sequel be merged with COD like the original il2 series and if it can will we get to test features that will be appearing in the sequel I.e. Weather etc.
This question Ilya! Please confirm that the sequel will be able to be merged with our current game as in all previous IL2 releases.
Definitely not planning to release any sequel features as add-ons for Cliffs of Dover, sorry.

Quote:
Also, please, please introduce a coop mode similar to the one we had in IL2 as you are loosing potential sales without this!
As I said earlier, this just doesn’t make sense financially. Redoing co-op in the way that the community wants cannot possibly be profitable within Cliffs of Dover. At this point there’s just no way that any given feature can lead to any kind of profits.

Quote:
How many people are there working on IL-2 Sturmovik series now?
Slightly over 50.

Quote:
Why were the Flyable G50 and Br20 modelled for CoD, when they only played a very minimal role, and more common aircraft left out, such as a flyable Do17 and indeed even the CR42?
Was it originally intended to move to the Med theatre after the BoB?
I was not a part of the decision making process about any flyable aircraft in Cliffs of Dover so I cannot answer this question.

Quote:
Have you addressed the bugged Mixture issues in the RAF types?
Have you addressed the Engine Overheat issues in the RAF types?
Have you addressed the issue of the Spitfire under performing in terms of relative top speed compared with the 109 (e.g. see graphs in 1st post in this recent thread http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34115)? Thank you.
We keep working on aircraft performance, and hopefully the most recent patch showed some improvement in that respect.

Quote:
Would it be possible to hand out information on how to handle each aircraft the proper way?
after 1,5 years, there is still too much confusion about the different types of planes, and how they perform the best way,and how to get the most out of them.
For example every month there is another thread about the prop pitch management of the 109, and even among the experienced 109pilots there doesnt seem to be a consensus on whats the best way...
for example: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34328
there is historical information around in the net and in books, but we dont know whats implemented in game, what works best, and how it is intended to work...
Our goal has always been that the actual aircraft flight manuals should be used with Cliffs of Dover. If that’s not the case, the only people that know the guts well enough to write a flight manual are our aircraft programmers – and in that very case their efforts are better spent bringing the performance in line with the actual flight manuals.
In other words, there’s never a situation where writing a flight manual for Cliffs of Dover is a good idea.

Quote:
1. Can you tell us anything about the forthcoming sequel and where you intend to take the series after that?
I cannot talk about the sequel until the official announcement, sorry.

Quote:
2. Do you consider that you've achieved about as much as you can, performance wise, with the game engine at the moment and that people's systems now have to be improved to improve performance?
Yes, we’re pretty of the same opinion. We’re not doing further optimization at this time, we’re improving features instead. Specifically landscape geometry and clouds for starters, but all that is for the sequels.

Quote:
1. Is going to be more view distance whitouut touching much the performance? I think in the first versions the view dstance was more.
It’s really hard to compare versions, too much has changed. I’m not sure if we can do anything to drastically improve performance as related to view distance at this time, sorry.

Quote:
1. Why was Clod released (in the condition it was in)?
We had to release on the announced release date. Never any question about that on any levels.

Quote:
2. Have you had serious problems re-writing the various code routines?
As clearly shown by some of our beta patches in the past, no, of course not, why would you ever think that?

Quote:
3. Do you still have some of the original engine coders?
Yes. We even still have the core of the original 2001 Il-2 team working on the products.

Quote:
4. Do you have anybody responsible for 'gameplay?' - serious question.
Yes, but not with Cliffs of Dover at this time. Honest answer.

Quote:
5. Do you think releases (both game and patches) have been handled competently?
Well, it was either test with the community, or keep the patches brewing internally with tests taking much longer. If we had done this, the community would have imploded months ago being torn between the latest conspiracy theory of us closing down, and screams of "where's the promised patch give it to us now show us your progress".

Quote:
6. Do you think the strong criticisms of Clod, on a forum such as this, are fair and reasonable?
I do think that people that post on the forums are naturally much more passionate and particular about the game than the average player. I do believe that we deserve most of the criticism that we get, if not always the tone in which it is offered. So, that covers fair.
Whether it’s reasonable is a more complex question to answer. The vocal minority always claims (and sincerely believes) that they represent the silent majority. We have our own opinion of what the silent majority wants however, and that often clashes with the forum consensus. At other times forum criticism can be unreasonable simply because some forum posters just don’t understand the simple realities of running a business.
So, in short, forum criticism is almost always fair, but not always reasonable.

Quote:
1. will this game ever run good on windows xp using dx9? 'good' defined as 30 avg fps on black death track.
That’s quite an interesting way to define “good” performance. Black Death was never intended as a 30 FPS benchmark goal. It was rather intended as an extreme way to bring any system to its knees.
Just upgrade to Win 7, please.

Quote:
2. will you ever consider getting rid of steam and going to hyper-lobby format?
No.

Quote:
3. what pc components, drivers, supporting software...etc. do you now recommend to run the game optimally, given so much of the code has changed since original release date since the game was first spec'd out.
I cannot answer that question off the top of my head, sorry

Quote:
4. was the epilipsy filter a fraud? honestly, it was so absurd. very hard to believe in hindsight.
No that was indeed a real situation, a real publisher requirement, and our desperate attempt to address it at the last second.

Quote:
5. surprise, did you know that B6 doesn't even like CLOD?
Why would that be a surprise? I know very few people that, you know, love love Cliffs of Dover.

Quote:
6. did you hire any of the Daidalos Team member to work on CLOD when you put out those help wanted advertisements a while back?
We need full time employees in our Moscow office. Most of our current employees only speak Russian, so new employees have to be fluent in Russian as well. I’m not aware of anyone at Daidalos who fits all those criteria.

Quote:
7. will the final patch include moving dogfight server and rearm, refuel and repair capability?
Of course not, who ever said that it would?

Quote:
8. after the final patch, where do we go to join 128 player battles online?
We don’t run our own servers if that’s what you ask.

Quote:
9. why did oleg leave? the real reason.
The only person who should ever answer this question is Oleg himself.

Quote:
10. if you could do it all over again, would you?
Yes, just differently.

Quote:
Have you seen how many times the same questions are asked, and if so
Why are they not being answered unambiguously, or a way that appears deceptive?
Why is there so much emphasis placed on the sequels process when most want CoD fixed?
Because we’re a business. Our goal is to make money. Fixing Cliffs of Dover does not bring in any money, and it has not pretty much from the start. Even if we spend another year working on nothing but Cliffs of Dover and release a super-mega-ultra update with co-op, blackjack, and hookers, how many copies do you honestly believe the game will sell?
Then the entire team can happily go and look for a new job, preferably in a third world country where it’ll be easier to hide from our investors.

Quote:
Can you please open the game up to third parties and modders to fix.
The game has amazing potential, but is obviously quite broken at the moment.
This has always been our plan, and we still cannot get around to it. We obviously cannot just release the source code, and making end-user tools is not something that we have the resources to do at the moment. This fact greatly upsets me.

Quote:
Are you ever going to fix the severe particle effects fps issues without resorting to making the effect look like it was made with lego?
(blows a raspberry).

Quote:
My questions would be all about the main map itself (many others are pointing out all the other issues, no need to add anything there) but they would need elaboration and this is not the place. So I will be short:
1. As a matter of principle would you be OK with one or two "communities" (actually myself and some others) working to correct the many flaws, lacks, incoherences, wrongs, missing elements etc of the MAIN map, under your control, when it is possible (even if still far away, the work itself will take probably more than one year anyway)?
2. An idea when this could happen (granted as long as it is not "never" the question is rather rhetorical...I suspect the answer)?
See above about tools. Map-making tools are number one on our list of end-user tools to release, whenever it is we’ll be able to.

Quote:
1. What specifically is preventing clouds from being depicted in a volume and quality that is competitive with other sims currently on the market?
Are you saying there is a sim out there today that has clouds of better quality at greater volume, and offering better performance? I.e. matches all three criteria, quality, volume, and FPS?
Because I know there isn’t.

Quote:
2. What is your assessment of the quality of current AI speech routines. What if anything do you intend to do to improve them in the future?
AI speech does less than half of what we wanted it to do for Cliffs of Dover. Unfortunately the person responsible for the task left without completing it and we’re still trying to pick up the pieces.

Quote:
Will the sequel have AI comms that work properly and have a level of detail/available commands that is closer to what we had in IL-1946 series. Offline play in even the exceptionally good Desastersoft campaigns is badly stifled by the extremely limited AI comms system we are stuck with in Cliffs.
Yes it will.

Quote:
Will it ever be possible to add collisions to trees?
This murders FPS. We have too many trees.
We can only do it on a map that’s not as tree-y as the Channel.

Quote:
1. Can we ever expect authentic looking cloud cover and weather environments that actually effect gameplay?
That’s what we’re working on right now, for the sequel.

Quote:
2. Lastly has there been any progress on making the AI work and fly like we would expect or are we stuck with either barrel rolls or no reaction at all?
It already does a lot more than barrel rolls or no reaction.

Quote:
1. How do you expect your current business model to deliver a profit while using the traditional il-2, addon every 2-3 years approach, and do you plan to offer DLC content in the future?
Add-ons every 2-3 years has never been our business model, and we've evolved even further away from Il-2 lately.

Quote:
2. Why are weathering layers of skins unable to be packed in such a way that they can be modified or improved by users?
We hated seeing horrible flat user-made skins everywhere in the original Il-2, so we settled on the technology that keeps the lower-end of the quality bar firmly set where no user effort can nudge it lower – even if that means also setting the ceiling for great skin makers.

Quote:
1. Are the team hoping to continue the series (all being well) as was mentioned earlier in the development cycle?
Yes

Quote:
2. Are you going to be in a position to give the planned overdue announcement regarding future development’s any time soon?
I hope so.

Quote:
Can we increase even more the degree of realism e.g. available & working aircraft systems?
Just a side note, please remove the ever icing clouds, most of them are not, especially flying low, it's not that often sub zero.
We are seriously addressing our approach to modeling various systems. A lot of the stuff that we spent so much effort on with Cliffs of Dover ended up being a dud, no one wants it, no one uses it. At the same time a lot of systems people clearly want and need are not modeled with enough details.
So do expect a more sane approach in the sequels.

Quote:
1. Is it possible to expand on the not before seen special feature that was mentioned? Will it come for the sequel or will it not come out now?
Sequel

Quote:
2. Any news on how the vehicle control will be implemented? Will that ship with the sequel?
We still don’t know what to do with the feature commercially.

Quote:
1. Is it save to say that the the sequel will, besides adding new content, fix all major gameplay, graphic ,multiplayer issues we currently have?
Since I fear we may differ on our definitions of major issues, I’d rather not commit myself to that.
Obviously no one here wants to repeat the Cliffs of Dover release fiasco. We really do want to get it right next time.

Quote:
2. Will there be a solid documentation for engine management, level bombing etc.?
We are planning for an in-flight checklist feature, for starters.

Quote:
3. What happend to the offical announcement for the sequel?
Delayed due to external circumstances. Not under my control at all.

Quote:
4. Is someone still working on improving and/or adding new/better sounds?
Yes, that’s our sound designer’s only job.

Quote:
You said earlier:'we really want to release at least the map-making SDK to the public “as is”, which is why they’re not covered by the next patch v. sequels discussion.'
If this is released will it be possible for an organised community effort to improve certain elements of the main COD map or will the sdk be only for creating new small maps?
Yes, the SDK will allow people to edit existing maps.

Quote:
As you probably know quite a few people are disappointed with the current map and feel it could be made better by making changes to tree coverage/ hedgerows/etc. These would not be difficult changes technically, but would be time consuming and labour intensive - and therefore ideal for talented community members to undertake whilst the developers focus on the sequel (almost like a Team Daidolos for COD).
If the choice is between NO further work on the map OR allowing an (organised) community effort to make improvements (with your final approval regarding quality) would you be agreeable to this happening?
See above.

Quote:
Videos from the Igromir pre-release version of COD seem to show a better implementation of the map. Were changes made after Igromir for performance reasons, and if so can those changes be easily reversed?
The entire year before the release is really hazy for me. I cannot say what changes were made to the map after Igromir. I want to say it shipped largely the same. If anything, we might have reduced the number of smaller trees and bushes around the landscape to improve performance, and adding them back would be a quick, fatal fix.

Quote:
May I expect a sequel including a comprehensive manual for the DM, FM, FMB, including scripting?
Probably not comprehensive enough. See our manuals for the old Il-2 products.

Quote:
Can you comment at this time on whether the next sequel will be Moscow as previously stated, whether Stalingrad will be a separate sequel to follow, or how the MMO option will fit into the series?
I cannot talk about the sequel until the official announcement, sorry.

Quote:
2. How about flak control? it's for the sequel?
Yes, not for Cliffs of Dover.

Quote:
I'd be interested to know if you've addressed the aircraft visibility (or invisibility) issue? IMO, the problem has all but killed the game. Whatever the reason for it, it doesn't really work in a simulation. You simply can't shoot what you can't see.
We hope it’s been addressed with the latest patch.

Quote:
Precisely how many separate projects does Maddox Games intend to work on at one time? Is the rumoured MMO to be developed by MG also?
I cannot talk about the sequel until the official announcement, sorry.
Do want to add however that the occasional rumors that pop up around here simply mystify me. Why would anyone go through the trouble of doing all that? Lame and so very very creepy.

Quote:
Luthier, will you continue to support CLOD independently with updates 'AFTER' the release of a sequel?
No. As I stated previously, this current patch, once pushed out to steam, will be our final update to Cliffs of Dover proper. All future work will be done within the framework of the sequels.

Quote:
1. Why are there no plans to sort the problem of not being able to use the main componant of this game (the Channel Map) for coops?
Please see above.

Quote:
2. Will the terrible weathering on Allied aircraft be fixed?
It’s not terrible.

Quote:
Hello Luthier, my question is simple, shall have we the correction of the bug of rear-view mirrors on the English planes for the next patch.
We “almost” got it into the release candidate, but decided not to delay it because of the mirrors. Really hoping to get it working for the final release.

Quote:
1. Will dev fix the pop up trees and buildings or provide greater view distance for people with high end cards?
2. Why do you have pop up buildings and not fade in.
People in bombers can't fly higher than 3'000m because targets pop up seconds before they must drop bombs.
We are aware of the issue, especially in relation to bombers.

Quote:
When will you fix the service ceilings in aircraft? The 109 is not able to reach 10000 meters. The real ones do.
Please see the most recent patch notes.

Quote:
You say you are 'not proud' of Cliffs of Dover' and fair enough you should not be.
Will you be offering a discount on the sequel, to people who bought Cliffs of Dover, as an apology?
Seriously?

Quote:
1. Will the lack of a decent Co-op mode be put right in the patch or the Sequel.
Please see above for my thoughts on co-op.

Quote:
2. Will the Channel map be available for Co-op in the online mode.
It’s available now.

Quote:
Are you working on the bombers bombsigths? The german one dont work completely , (the triangle that shows when the bomb drop occur isnt working)
We’ll see if we can get this in. The list of issues is dozens of pages long, and the amount of time to do everything is almost astronomical. We’re tying to prioritize.

Quote:
I know you stated the next CloD patch will be the last, so that means any fixes, advances and such into the game engine that come from the sequel will not be translated at some time or another back into CloD? Will Clod be completely abandoned in whatever state the final patch leaves it with no hope small updates, etc?
Why would you think that? We’ve never done that before, and I’ve always stated that our plans remain the same. There were many issues in the original IL-2 in 2001. After a few updates to the original, Forgotten Battles was released and there were no more updates to the original Il-2. That doesn’t mean it was abandoned however! You can still play all of the original Il-2 content with 1946, all carried over and updated with the rest of the engine.

Quote:
Any chance of stopping the trees and their attendant shadows looking like they're having an epileptic fit?
I would think most of the community should know by now that mentioning epilepsy to the team is a very, very bad idea.

Quote:
If your team cannot fix this first game, and give us what was originally promised/expected, what is there to show us that the new game will be any better, and worth our support, dedication, and more importantly, our money?
Don’t give us your money on day 1. [/QUOTE]
"Les chiens aboient, la caravane passe..."

Stirwenn
Nouvelle Recrue
Nouvelle Recrue
Messages : 192
Inscription : 12 juin 2009

#2

Message par Stirwenn »

Ca part suffisament en sucette sur le banana forum pour en rajouter... même pour moi...

Taeht Dewoht
Pilote Confirmé
Pilote Confirmé
Messages : 3210
Inscription : 02 janvier 2008

#3

Message par Taeht Dewoht »

Heu ... qu'est-ce que ça raconte... 5 lignes je peux me débrouiller mais des mémoires complets je suis un peu juste...

Taeht Dewoht
Pilote Confirmé
Pilote Confirmé
Messages : 3210
Inscription : 02 janvier 2008

#4

Message par Taeht Dewoht »

JV69_Devau a écrit :Heu ... qu'est-ce que ça raconte... 5 lignes je peux me débrouiller mais des mémoires complets je suis un peu juste...
Boah, je me débruille pour certaines questions après tout.
Avatar de l’utilisateur

Rodolphe
Pilote Confirmé
Pilote Confirmé
Messages : 2330
Inscription : 19 mars 2007

#5

Message par Rodolphe »

Part II


http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.p ... stcount=74

First of all, I see that my brand of humor offended some people. I forget sometimes that some fans are so passionate about this game they can’t take anything but straight out plain answers, so I’ll answer some of the earlier questions again.


Quote:
4. Could you tell us how you test your alpha/beta patches before release, many of them have broken has much as they have fixed and your customers are left scratching their heads wondering how you could of missed some of the most obvious bugs, such as the hurricane not starting. Also could you tell me what online servers you or your employees use to test the game.

The entire point of an alpha-beta patch is to TEST things. If an alpha-beta patch had no problems, it wouldn’t be called an alpha-beta patch, it would be called a release patch.
We release these test patches fully aware that a portion of the community will get upset over every issue and blame us for it, but we’re still doing it because it allows us to test our software on a wide range of hardware by a huge number of people, and locate and fix problems much faster than if we test in-house.
Programmers themselves usually do a limited amount of testing, and that’s precisely why it’s always a good idea to have their work tested by other people when they think they’re done. Our other employees are usually far too busy to thoroughly test patches, and external teams of professional testers we have access to are not, you know, simmers and if we test with them we’ll get nowhere near the feedback we get over here.
So, we will continue to use this approach in the future as well.
I just want to add however that if you are one of the people who gets really, really upset when alpha or beta software does not work perfectly then please, please don’t participate in beta tests. I’m not being sarcastic or snarky, I sincerely mean it. Beta tests will always be buggy by definition.


Quote:
2. Have you had serious problems re-writing the various code routines?

You’ve seen how hard it was for us to redo graphics. AI and radio comms are even worse. Flight models? Nightmare.
The only time redoing a feature turned out well was when we redid the sound engine. Pleasant surprise for everyone.


Quote:
Are you ever going to fix the severe particle effects fps issues without resorting to making the effect look like it was made with lego?

Yes, the current particle system still needs a lot of work.


Quote:
You say you are 'not proud' of Cliffs of Dover' and fair enough you should not be.
Will you be offering a discount on the sequel, to people who bought Cliffs of Dover, as an apology?

I’m not in charge of setting prices in any way. I seriously doubt that any of the people who are responsible for setting prices and distributing the product would ever consider anything like that. If I were to suggest something like this to me they’d look at me with big crazy eyes, quietly walk away, and never speak to me again.

----------------


Quote:
1. What exactly is the awesome feature never done in a flight sim before you told us about at some point?

Previously answered – can’t reveal yet.


Quote:
2. What is, or when can we expect to hear the June/July announcement?

Previously answered. Sorry, not my call.


Quote:
3. Will the radio comms be fully completed and working in the CoD patch? or at the sequel's launch?

Redoing and adding a lot for the sequel.


Quote:
4. Will the most urgent AI bugs:
- AI not following your radio comm commands
- AI not following you as a flight leader
- AI not considering you a part of their flight
- AI flying straight into terrain
- AI landing procedures
- AI waiting for player warm up (even if they don't have player's CEM, they can be forced to wait for a few mins before starting up)
bugs be fixed for the CoD patch or sequel (which bugs in which patch/release)?

Sorry, sequel.


Quote:
5. Was sighting ghosts bug fixed and will the fix be included into the CoD patch/BoM sequel?

We hope it’s been fixed in the RC patch. I see some reports that it isn’t, so we’ll start investigating on Monday.


Quote:
6. Was the netcode looked for, and bugs like flying ships or warping planes fixed for the CoD patch?

See the most recent patch notes.


Quote:
7. When can we expect to receive a dedicated server?

Dedicated server shipped with the initial release?


Quote:
8. Will we get own airframe hit visual and sound effects added/bug fixed for the CoD patch/BoM sequel (and in which)?

This is something that we’ll make sure is in the final release patch.


Quote:
9. Will model LOD/dots transition be fixed for the CoD patch/BoM sequel (and in which)?

We are looking into this, the current situation is unintended.


Quote:
10. Will model LODS range (like terrain targets not visible even if in a proper distance, and warping out from dot to a big model - ships, buildings and facilities - things which are practically destroying bombing and recon missions) be fixed for the CoD patch/BoM sequel (and in which)?

We won’t address ground object LODs in Cliffs of Dover.


Quote:
11. Will the aircraft loads GUI be fixed for the CoD patch/BoM sequel (and in which)?

Completely redoing the entire GUI for the sequel.


Quote:
12. Will working clouds/rain (at least a basic, static, decent weather system) be available back for the CoD patch/BoM sequel (and in which)?

It’s nowhere ready at the moment, so you won’t see it before the sequel is released.


Quote:
13. Will flickering shadows be fixed for for the CoD patch/BoM sequel (and in which)?

Unfortunately, it’s working is intended at the moment. See most other current gen games.
All our shadows are saved into something called a shadow map, a single shadow texture that is then placed on top of the landscape and other objects. The shadow map is of a standard resolution. The technology often leads to a case where a shadow map pixel is not the same size as a terrain or object pixel underneath it. As the camera moves, the shadow map is redrawn and reapplied, and the mismatched shadow map pixels appear to shift or shimmer. This is especially noticeable with a large amount of small objects.
The only solution is to increase the size of the shadow map, and that leads to a huge performance hit so it's not an option at this time.


Quote:
14. Why can not the trees be made darker, as they should, by a simple texture modification?

Don’t have an answer.


Quote:
15. What features were removed from the current engine (due to optimization reasons)? will they be added back into it, and when, please?

Few features were outright removed. The only thing, if I remember correctly, that we had and you guys could not access was player-controllable ground vehicles. Other features may have been modified, shrunk, or not completed to desired specs, but I can’t even remember anything that was cut per se.


Quote:
Will there be anymore flyable aircraft added to COD in the future?

No.
They’re too expensive to make to release for free, and we can’t possibly hope to make any money selling them as DLC for Cliffs of Dover.


Quote:
Is the video recording to record the fixed and the outside view in a server with which it is deaktivatet. Because as far as I can remeber me this unfortunately did not work, and so online battles and events on Full Realitic can't be made movies or other video.

It’s working as intended. View settings cannot be changed in a track, otherwise people would just record a track online, quickly play it back on another machine, and see exactly where all the enemy planes are.


Quote:
When the bug with flight of bombs underground, found at the time of a patch v1.05.15950 , and described here http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=294 will be corrected? Do you know about that bug? The bug still is present аt BETA PATCH v.1.08.18956

It appears that the track did not record the bomb bouncing off the roof. If you watch bombs dropped at a shallow angle in real time (i.e. while flying) you’ll see that they’ll bounce. This is what happened, but apparently the bounce didn’t play back in the track.


Quote:
Luthier, you spent considerable time making some vehicles drivable, I guess it dawned on someone at some point that due to the fact there is no collision model on the tree's any kind of ground vehichle usage is pretty much defunct, do you think you could of spent all that time better by trying to fix the flying part of the game?

I’m not the only employee here. We have different people with different skill sets. The person who worked on player-controllable vehicles has absolutely nothing to do with aircraft or any flying part of the game.


Quote:
I want to ask that you don't loose sight of the fact this is a game and the importance of "Game Play" isnt lost in the effort to "fix" CLOD and release new content for the sequel. More content in a new theatre with slightly better graphics and dynamic weather and "better simulation" or what ever other features you introduce wont make up for bad game play and game dynamics... I think you know what I mean by this. The game, bottom line, also needs to be fun.
1. In anycase, my question is, do you think you can do better with "gameplay" in the sequel? Whether that be, "MMO" or a new "co-op" mode or team "death match", "capture the flag" these kinds of things from a flightsim perspective for the online world would bring a bit of variety. The other obvious thing missing from CLOD was a campaign...

Definitely very important considerations. In addition to myself, we now have several new game designers working very hard on improving gameplay elements and creating interesting, exciting, new online modes.
Now that the game engine is rather mature and we aren’t constantly distracted by FPS or crashes, we can finally take a deep breath and start, you know, making a game out of all this.


Quote:
2. Will a sequel contain the ability or content for a dynamic campaign? or even better, a rolling dynamic online war, where choices your team makes determine the outcome of a battle over a number of days or weeks?

(wink)


Quote:
Agree and support and would like to add to this question...will the sequel include a dynamic campaign?
The community can build missions and static campaigns and for 1946 the best campaigns were comunity made. Desastersoft does great static campaigns. Heinkill does fantastic historic and alt history missions.

(hurts his eye winking, ow)


Quote:
Question, is the Dev team aware of the "new" flicker issue in the zoom mode when dogfighting? Several members, including myself, are experiencing this bug for the first time. Other than with that, happy with the progress, and hoping the final patch and sequel are a hit.

Yes, we are aware of it. Sorry, we don’t have a solution yet, looking hard into it.


Quote:
Will AI get the attention it deserves? Offline players are not happy with this at the moment.

It is getting the attention it deserves. Unfortunately the code is so bloated and complex, changes to it take forever. See how long it took us to get the graphics working – the AI is even worse.


Quote:
Luthier, Is there any prospect of opening up COD for the community modders to improve content/gameplay & fix bugs? Perhaps with some sort of mechanism to allow 1C/dev's to "approve" altered content. I've always believed that there are community skills that could be utilised "for free" to improve COD which would relieve some of the load on the development team.

See earlier about the mods


Quote:
When you state that no other developer would have supported this release as much as you people have really gets me annoyed, Mr Shevchenko could you tell me in what other form of business could such a complete mess have been released as a working product without a recall and demands for a refund??. I think you should be grateful that 1C are still employing you and the team given the failure in an 18 month time period to fix this product to a satisfactory level??.

Well I could always run for senate.


Quote:
On ATAG it`s very easy to lose sight of targets or chase ones that simply aren`t there,
can that be fixed please?

We’re hoping it’s been fixed in Friday’s RC,


Quote:
I know you have said that there will only be one more patch before the sequel but is there any possibility that features that were going to be in COD and are being made in the sequel could be tested in COD?

No, I don’t believe so.


Quote:
Is there a way that you can make the sequel(s) independent of Steam please? I'm wanting to be able to buy a CD and install it and be able to play it in the distant future (I'm saying when I'm 36 in 20 years about) without having to worry about Steam. That is just hope that I have since I hope to continue flying this for as long as I can (devolpment of the original IL-2 started before I was born and it's my favorite game that I own).

Thank you for your support and your kind words! I can’t make any comments on online platforms for the sequels at this time however, and I really wish I could.


Quote:
Luthier, you say that many core problems will be fixed by the sequel but there will only be one more CoD patch. The fact that the sequel can be loaded over CoD means that CoD will benefit from all of those improvements. These may be net code, LODs etc which we may have to wait for.
BUT! Unique CoD issues have only one more chance. This essentially means the map and the aircraft. Everything else would seem to be 'core' although I may have missed something.

As stated previously, it’s still my hope that we’ll release a map-making SDK allowing the community to change the existing map as they see fit.
Aircraft – as I wrote previously, they won’t be abandoned with the upcoming final patch. We are carrying everything over to the sequel, and they will get the same attention as new sequel aircraft and definitely benefit from our future efforts.


Quote:
The BoB was to have been the flagship of the SoW series (as it was originally called) and for a very good reason. It was the iconic air battle of the war and particularly spotlighted air combat between the fighters. CoD cannot even come close if the FMs for the aircraft are incorrect. Anything else is just noise or are core issues that will be fixed anyway.
We still want to fight the BoB on a realistic basis as far as the aircraft are concerned, particularly the fighters.
Will you please confirm that if the FMs are still not close to historical data when we beta test them in the next patch (as regards basic performance like speed, climb and turn) you will put maximum effort onto this important CoD aspect and get them right or promise a final patch that fixes this single important aspect?

Absolutely.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kendo65
Can I say regarding the bolded bit from your quote above that I disagree somewhat. For sure some here will be hostile no matter what you do. Others, myself included, sometimes feel that poor communication needlessly creates antagonism - eg the delay in providing answers to these questions. A simple post on the forum saying they were delayed but upcoming would have been enough to smooth things over until they were ready.

Some of us who want to be supportive feel that the (lack of) communication here is sometimes more damaging than the issues with the game.

If that could be improved i think people would feel more involved and on your side.

I meant that it wouldn’t do anything for the bottom line, for sales. Whatever I do here today won’t sell any new copies, and it will have no effect on the sequel.
The only reason we ever did anything with the game, starting as far back as about last May, was for forum brownie points. It was clear enough even then that any additional fixes won’t pay the bills, that the only way for us to survive financially is to release a good sequel, fix any issues with Cliffs of Dover while making the sequel, and grandfather CoD content into it.
We made the decision then to try to release as many of the fixes as we can in the shape of free updates for Cliffs of Dover and hope that it restores some of the trust and placates the community. That unfortunately never materialized. The community is as hostile as ever, and for most of us the general atmosphere of “you fixed X, about time, let’s never mention it again, now why the hell aren’t you fixing Y” is extremely tiring. Again, don’t feel like being all PC today. Definitely not judging anyone for their attitude or saying they have no right to feel that way, but I personally can only take so much abuse, and that’s why I post here so rarely.
To me, the product speaks for itself, and my efforts on the forums are secondary. I feel that if the people aren’t happy with my product when they play it, I certainly can’t convince them to like it by posting about it on the forums.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GF_Mastiff
yea' but now there seems to be texture lod issues again with the 109s disappearing when 300 meters away either this is modeling issue or texture
planes are causing micro stutters when they get near my plane
Spits won't start
Hurricanes won't start
throttle settings are incorrect
Boost scale is way off
Single player customization ammo load outs are not working
objects and horizon are visible through the cockpits again
objects are visible through the terrain and clouds
now if those were fixed, I think 95% of us would be happy with it.

Great list, thank you! Do everything we can for the final release.
Avatar de l’utilisateur

Gourmand
WSO Co-pilote
WSO Co-pilote
Messages : 914
Inscription : 21 septembre 2010

#6

Message par Gourmand »

bon je trouve qu'il est honnête envers les questions, meme celle qui font "mal"... et que c'est pas forcement les réponses que l'on attend...
trop peu de jeu s'amuse a se genre de Q/R...

et puis il a répondu a une question que j'attendait :

en gros :
Si votre team ne peut pas fixé clodo, nous donner ce que vous aviez promis au départ, comment compter nous, prouvrer que la sequel sera meilleur...

sa réponse :
Ne nous donner pas votre argent au lancement

:Jumpy:
moi j'aurai préféré une démo...
Avatar de l’utilisateur

Kerdougan
Pilote Confirmé
Pilote Confirmé
Messages : 2083
Inscription : 27 décembre 2006

#7

Message par Kerdougan »

Mouais, en parcourant le topic en diagonale ça laisse une impression de "tant pis pour vos gueules" dans le ton des réponses. Vraiment pas diplomate le père Luthier.
ImageImage
Avatar de l’utilisateur

OBT~Gib
Mécano au sol
Mécano au sol
Messages : 524
Inscription : 23 juin 2012

#8

Message par OBT~Gib »

Eh bien, en résumé, bp de blabla pour pas grand chose.
En qqs mots ils portent tous leurs effort sur la suite, le prochain patch Steam sera le dernier.
Avatar de l’utilisateur

PIPS
Jeune Pilote
Jeune Pilote
Messages : 1748
Inscription : 28 août 2002

#9

Message par PIPS »

Gib a écrit :Eh bien, en résumé, bp de blabla pour pas grand chose.
En qqs mots ils portent tous leurs effort sur la suite, le prochain patch Steam sera le dernier.
Oui, ben ça, on le savait déjà !!! s'il n'y à rien d'autre, je vais refermer ce topic et retourner sur mes autres jeux favoris lol
Image


La grande leçon de l'histoire est que l'homme ne tire presque jamais de leçons de l'histoire.

Rama
Pilote Confirmé
Pilote Confirmé
Messages : 2727
Inscription : 18 mars 2005

#10

Message par Rama »

Un truc bizarre (entre autres), c'est sa façon "tout ou rien" d'envisager les béta-tests. La façon dont il le présente est qu'il n'existe aucun groupe de test géré par eux (à coté du débogage développeur et des tests basiques), et qu'en gros c'est à la communauté de remonter tous les bugs (sans d'ailleurs que quelqu'un dialogue avec elle pour vérifier la teneur de ce qui est remonté).
Avec cette façon de fonctionner, il n'est pas étonnant d'avoir des régressions de versions beta en version beta et de ne pas prioritiser ni traiter de façon exhaustive des bugs.

Si je fais le parallèle avec RoF, il existe:
- un groupe de test alpha (des joueurs volontaires, sous NDA) qui testent les versions alpha ou sont intégrés les nouveautés, indépendamment, puis de façon incrémentale. Ils participent aussi au tests beta et RC.
- un groupe de test beta (des joueurs volontaires, généralement membres d'escadrilles virtuelles, dans un groupe clos, mais sans NDA), qui testent les versions beta et les RC (cela prend de deux à 4 semaines suivant les cas)
- pour les très grosse releases (c'est arrivé une fois), il peut y avoir une open beta.
Il y a une personne à quasi à plein temps pour s'en occuper, dialoguer avec les testeurs, poser des questions additionnelles, proposer des protocoles de test, gérer les bugs, leur historique et s'assurer qu'ils soient traités.
Bien sur, aucun système n'est jamais parfait, et certains bugs échappent aux différents filets tendus pour les attraper.

C'était juste pour dire que ce que présente Luthier ressemble plus à une non-gestion d'un joyeux (ou pas d'ailleurs...) bordel, qu'à quelque chose d'organisé.... et il n'y a pas que pour les bugs que cela donne cette impression.
... et malheureusement, cette impression est persistante depuis le développement de PF.

Bref, comme d'autres, j'avais acheté la version collector histoire de leur donner une chance.... et il ne semble pas que j'aurais un jour le simu espéré ce faisant.
Je ne regrette pas d'avoir fais cela. Quand on parie sur quelque chose, on prend le risque de perdre son argent... c'est normal. Je le referais les yeux fermés... Il n'y a pas assez d'initiatives dans le développement de simu WVII pour ne pas laisser sa chances même aux projets les plus mal fichus.
Je pense même que j’achèterais la séquelle, même s'il n'y a qu'une chance sur un million que Luthier en fasse quelque chose de valable....
Rama: Mesquin, Rancunier, Trucideur de projet, Malhonnête, Saboteur, Diffamateur, Chauve et Bigleux
Que du bonheur....
Avatar de l’utilisateur

PIPS
Jeune Pilote
Jeune Pilote
Messages : 1748
Inscription : 28 août 2002

#11

Message par PIPS »

Rama a écrit :Un truc bizarre (entre autres), c'est sa façon "tout ou rien" d'envisager les béta-tests. La façon dont il le présente est qu'il n'existe aucun groupe de test géré par eux (à coté du débogage développeur et des tests basiques), et qu'en gros c'est à la communauté de remonter tous les bugs (sans d'ailleurs que quelqu'un dialogue avec elle pour vérifier la teneur de ce qui est remonté).
Avec cette façon de fonctionner, il n'est pas étonnant d'avoir des régressions de versions beta en version beta et de ne pas prioritiser ni traiter de façon exhaustive des bugs.

Si je fais le parallèle avec RoF, il existe:
- un groupe de test alpha (des joueurs volontaires, sous NDA) qui testent les versions alpha ou sont intégrés les nouveautés, indépendamment, puis de façon incrémentale. Ils participent aussi au tests beta et RC.
- un groupe de test beta (des joueurs volontaires, généralement membres d'escadrilles virtuelles, dans un groupe clos, mais sans NDA), qui testent les versions beta et les RC (cela prend de deux à 4 semaines suivant les cas)
- pour les très grosse releases (c'est arrivé une fois), il peut y avoir une open beta.
Il y a une personne à quasi à plein temps pour s'en occuper, dialoguer avec les testeurs, poser des questions additionnelles, proposer des protocoles de test, gérer les bugs, leur historique et s'assurer qu'ils soient traités.
Bien sur, aucun système n'est jamais parfait, et certains bugs échappent aux différents filets tendus pour les attraper.

C'était juste pour dire que ce que présente Luthier ressemble plus à une non-gestion d'un joyeux (ou pas d'ailleurs...) bordel, qu'à quelque chose d'organisé.... et il n'y a pas que pour les bugs que cela donne cette impression.
... et malheureusement, cette impression est persistante depuis le développement de PF.

Bref, comme d'autres, j'avais acheté la version collector histoire de leur donner une chance.... et il ne semble pas que j'aurais un jour le simu espéré ce faisant.
Je ne regrette pas d'avoir fais cela. Quand on parie sur quelque chose, on prend le risque de perdre son argent... c'est normal. Je le referais les yeux fermés... Il n'y a pas assez d'initiatives dans le développement de simu WVII pour ne pas laisser sa chances même aux projets les plus mal fichus.
Je pense même que j’achèterais la séquelle, même s'il n'y a qu'une chance sur un million que Luthier en fasse quelque chose de valable....
En ce qui me concerne, NON!!!!!!! Jamais je ne mettrais un kopeck dans la sequelle ...> sans remontée "positive"

Je préfère mille fois payer des avions, des accessoires et des "babiolles" à l'équipe de ROF qui est constituée de vrais professionnels !!!
Je vais même accentuer mon soutient en pré-commandant la future carte (ce que je n'avais pas encore fait)....juste en espérant que cette équipe là puisse continuer à vivre de son travail et qu'uen jour?? peut être, elle débordera sur la période WWII ce qui nous permettra d'oublier définitivement COD!!!
Image


La grande leçon de l'histoire est que l'homme ne tire presque jamais de leçons de l'histoire.
Avatar de l’utilisateur

gilles41
Jeune Pilote
Jeune Pilote
Messages : 1463
Inscription : 16 décembre 2010

#12

Message par gilles41 »

bref finalement chacun voie midi à sa porte:sweatdrop
ASUS TUF Z-690 PLUS - ASUS TUF RTX 3060 12Go - Kingston 5200 4X16Go
Intel I5 12600 - M2 500 Go /OS + SSD 500 Go + SSD 500 Go Data + SSD 1 To DCS
TrackIR 4 pro - Logitech G940 - Saitek Throtlle quadrant

le plus dur prends du temps l'impossible un peu plus ...

paco73
Nouvelle Recrue
Nouvelle Recrue
Messages : 64
Inscription : 22 février 2012

#13

Message par paco73 »

et qu'est ce qu'il dit pour les hurricanes,parce que rendre le principal avion de la BOB indemarrable,c'est moyen quand meme....

NNFFL=Clovis=
Apprenti-Mécano
Apprenti-Mécano
Messages : 321
Inscription : 08 avril 2009

#14

Message par NNFFL=Clovis= »

Quote:
Any chance of stopping the trees and their attendant shadows looking like they're having an epileptic fit?
I would think most of the community should know by now that mentioning epilepsy to the team is a very, very bad idea.
Au moins, on rigole.
Avatar de l’utilisateur

Gourmand
WSO Co-pilote
WSO Co-pilote
Messages : 914
Inscription : 21 septembre 2010

#15

Message par Gourmand »

paco73 a écrit :et qu'est ce qu'il dit pour les hurricanes,parce que rendre le principal avion de la BOB indemarrable,c'est moyen quand meme....
je crois pas qu'ils gerent les PEBCAK commes problemes... :innocent:
t'a essayer le mode arcade ? :Jumpy:

paco73
Nouvelle Recrue
Nouvelle Recrue
Messages : 64
Inscription : 22 février 2012

#16

Message par paco73 »

c'est quoi les pebcak?
le mode arcade pas trop mon truc je joue que sur atag en fait
Avatar de l’utilisateur

OBT~Gib
Mécano au sol
Mécano au sol
Messages : 524
Inscription : 23 juin 2012

#17

Message par OBT~Gib »

Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair

En gros une erreur humaine d'utilisateur. Pas un bug. la différence peut être subtile ceci dit :)


Je crois que Gourmand te branchait un peu.
Ceci dit, je ne sais pas pour le Hurri, mais pour le spit il faut maintenant attendre les paramètres moteurs même pour rouler sinon le moteur s'étouffe. C'était pas le cas avant le patch. Par contre aucun problème de démarrage mais il faut mettre un peu plus de gaz qu'avant.
Avatar de l’utilisateur

jvmasset
Mécano au sol
Mécano au sol
Messages : 417
Inscription : 23 février 2006

#18

Message par jvmasset »

Rama a écrit :...
Salut Rama, salut tout le monde!

J'ai trouvé les réponses de Luthier plutôt intéressantes et très franches! Quand on essaye d'avoir une vision d'ensemble il me semble à peu près clair que nonobstant ses qualités (ou son supposé manque de) en tant que manager il a hérité d'une situation bordélique qu'il a eu a un mal de chien à tenter de redresser.
Il me semble symptomatique de le voir avouer que certaines fonctions avaient pris un temps énorme à développer et qu'en fait elles enmm..dent tout le monde (je pense au givrage verrière qui aurait pu être une bonne idée correctement implémenté...mais il aurait fallu rajouter une modélisation de température/humidité/altitude, ce qui n'a peut-être pas été fait etc), de choix inadaptés (SpeedTree inventé pour des FPS/MMO et utilisé en bien trop grand nombre dans une simu…alors qu’ils avaient au départ leur propre modèles et qu’ils ont renoncé au profit de ST !) etc…

Il reconnait qu’ils ont merdé et si c’était à refaire il referaient différemment…mais il faut qu’ils gagnent leur vie et c’est évident que rien de ce qu’il pourraient faire pour CloD ne les y aidera…c’est dur mais c’est ainsi dans notre si délicieuse et si matérialiste société…

Ilya reconnaît qu’il n’y a qu’une solution c’est de réussir la sortie de BoM et d’implémenter là une bonne part de ce qu’ils auraient espéré mettre dans CloD ; au moins pour BoM ils ont encore un budget !

Le plus important pour moi est qu’il a confirmé que :

1) tout ce qui fait CloD, BoM en héritera (notablement carte et avions)
2) Le SDK à venir (un jour !) permettra de modifier la carte de CloD et c’est ce que j’attends avec impatience (pour pouvoir corriger la myriade de défauts et manques !)
3) Il est très conscient que seul la « communauté » sera capable de faire évoluer la partie CloD du jeu…MG n’en n’a pas (plus) les moyens financiers ; il a même ajouté qu’il ne servirait à rien pour eux de faire de nouveaux avions pilotables (qui a dit Do 17Z ?) : un don pur et simple ou même une vente sous forme de DLC ne peuvent pas combler le coût de développement…quand on parle de choix malheureux pourquoi avoir un BR20 pilotable et pas le Do 17Z alors que le BR20 aurait été bien plus approprié comme AI???

D’autre part beaucoup de gens se demandent pourquoi cet incroyable déficit de communication et de management des tests Alpha, Beta etc ? Dans mon esprit c’est terriblement simple (et c’est quelque chose qui existait déjà à l’époque d’Oleg, et c’est confirmé indirectement par Luthier) : 95% du studio ne parle que russe…Comment voulez vous interagir ??? J’ai passé deux ans à passer à MG des infos, photos, commentaires sur les aérodromes allemands (et leur relief), les hangars, les chemins de fer, ports, villes, géographie etc : je n’ai jamais eu une question, une demande d’éclaircissement de la part de MG à mon horreur grandissante…on voit le résultat sur la carte !
La comparaison avec RoF est simple : les studios de RoF (et d’autant plus depuis que 777 a repris la barre) ont nettement plus d’anglophones à bord et l’interaction avec les apporteurs d’informations (et je crois que Rama pourra confirmer) se fait d’une manière beaucoup plus bilatérale…

Je crois vraiment que c’est ce qui a vraiment manqué à MG (trop d’arrogance après le succès de Il2 ? Je ne sais pas)…

Mais je ne lâche pas l’affaire…et j’achèterai BoM sans me poser de question…j’ai bien trop envie de voir cette foutue carte de CloD au niveau ou elle devrait être !

Mais je suis un peu givré…J’ai acheté la totalité des avions, hydravions, field kits et maps de RoF, et je n’y joue qu’à peine (ça viendra)…mêmes avec les boules quelques fois je ne cesserai jamais d’encourager 777 et MG (et n’importe quel autre qui pourrait se présenter en simu WWII)

JVM, gogol de service lol
Avatar de l’utilisateur

PIPS
Jeune Pilote
Jeune Pilote
Messages : 1748
Inscription : 28 août 2002

#19

Message par PIPS »

Non, pas Gogol...simplement un véritable "fan" de simu et c'est respectable!!

Pour mon cas, je ne supporte plus Mg parceque j'estime que maintenant, nous passons plus de temps à discuter de leur simu, à chercher comment le faire fonctionner correctement, à nous rendre compte qu'un truc qui marchait bien, ne fonctionne plus après le dernier patch......etc...etc ..... qu'à y jouer!!! (c'est quand mêm un comble!!!)

Désolé, mais je préfère jouer la carte de gens qui ne m'ont jamais déçus!!

Mais, je le répète, ta position est respectable!!! :flowers:
Image


La grande leçon de l'histoire est que l'homme ne tire presque jamais de leçons de l'histoire.

Taeht Dewoht
Pilote Confirmé
Pilote Confirmé
Messages : 3210
Inscription : 02 janvier 2008

#20

Message par Taeht Dewoht »

Je rejoins l'avis de Rama et Jvmasset.
je ne regrette pas d'avoir acheté le jeu au prix plein (et je trouve toujours un peu limite la volonté d'obtenir un soft qui est sensé durer des années... à 10 Euros.) Faut pas s'étonner que cela coince quelque part dans le créneau si tout le monde veut le must à 10 E.
C'est vrai que c'est différent dans ce cas-ci: ils ont merdé dès la sortie et le jeu s'est retrouvé de lui-même à 10 E. 6 mois après...

Moi ce qui m'attriste, c'est de voir se concrétiser une impression très négative que j'avais sur le travail fourni et cela depuis des mois et des mois: foutoir abyssal, manque total de perception des priorités, travail sur des détails (on est bien avancé maintenant en regardant les screenshots des tubes de DCA, des chars et des autos pilotables), travail à la truelle. Bref, du grand délire en définitive....

Pour BOM, j'ai beaucoup de peine à imaginer que ces tripotailleurs accouchent subitement d'un chef d'oeuvre... S'être contenté de si peu pendant deux ans pour finir par admettre que rien ne va très fort n'augure rien de bon sur leur base de travail actuel dans BOM.

Rama
Pilote Confirmé
Pilote Confirmé
Messages : 2727
Inscription : 18 mars 2005

#21

Message par Rama »

jvmasset a écrit :Le SDK à venir (un jour !) permettra de modifier la carte de CloD et c’est ce que j’attends avec impatience (pour pouvoir corriger la myriade de défauts et manques !)
Ah mon avis, tu peux attendre longtemps. Faire un SDK qui tiens la route pour les cartes, c'est un gros développement (pareil pour RoF, cela se fera sans doute si les développements fait actuellement par des tiers aboutissent... sinon, on peut attendre longtemps).
Il est plus probable que s'ils font quelque chose, cela se limitera à donner les specs de fichier existant... charge à ceux qui veulent modifier la carte ou en créer de nouvelles de réaliser les outils pour le faire.
Il est très conscient que seul la « communauté » sera capable de faire évoluer la partie CloD du jeu
Dit par Luthier, cela ressemble plus à du "bottage en touche" qu'un une "prise de conscience".... et c'est même un peu du foutage de gueule si on parle des développement complexes (les avions par exemple... c'était déjà compliqué pour que les tierces parties fassent des avions "au standard" sur IL2, ça prenait des années... alors avec des bouzins 10 fois plus compliqué, il ne faut pas espérer grand chose. Il y a des limites à ce qu'un amateur peut faire, principalement en don de temps libre (je les ait atteinte plusieurs fois... je sais de quoi je parle)).
D’autre part beaucoup de gens se demandent pourquoi cet incroyable déficit de communication et de management des tests Alpha, Beta etc ? Dans mon esprit c’est terriblement simple (et c’est quelque chose qui existait déjà à l’époque d’Oleg, et c’est confirmé indirectement par Luthier) : 95% du studio ne parle que russe…Comment voulez vous interagir ??? J’ai passé deux ans à passer à MG des infos, photos, commentaires sur les aérodromes allemands (et leur relief), les hangars, les chemins de fer, ports, villes, géographie etc : je n’ai jamais eu une question, une demande d’éclaircissement de la part de MG à mon horreur grandissante…on voit le résultat sur la carte !
La comparaison avec RoF est simple : les studios de RoF (et d’autant plus depuis que 777 a repris la barre) ont nettement plus d’anglophones à bord et l’interaction avec les apporteurs d’informations (et je crois que Rama pourra confirmer) se fait d’une manière beaucoup plus bilatérale…
Je ne peux pas confirmer quelque chose de faux. Le "donneur d'ordre" est anglophone dans les deux cas, et l'équipe est 100% russe dans les deux cas, avec un pourcentage de dev balbutiant l'anglais à peu prêt identique.
Par contre le dev de RoF a pris soin (et ce depuis bien avant que 777 ne reprenne l'affaire) de mettre le seul gus parlant à peu prêt bien l'anglais au contrôle des équipes de alphs-tests et béta-tests, ce qui fait que les tests sont très bien organisés (à la différence de CoD ou ils sont inexistants)... et les échanges d'infos existent depuis 2005, avec des retours sur ce qui est fourni, des questions, etc... même s'il faut dès fois dire les choses 5 ou 6 fois avec des mots différents pour arriver à la fin à se comprendre.
La différence n'a rien à voir avec un problème de langage (qui est le même dans les deux cas), elle a tout à voir avec un problème d'attitude, de volonté de d'échange (absente avec CoD) et de reconnaissance de l'apport des tierces parties.

J'ai eu le même problème que toi, que ce soit avec Oleg ou Luthier (qui pourtant n'a pas de problèmes d'expression anglaise), il n'y avait aucun retour sur ce que je pouvais leur fournir.
Coté RoF par contre, quelque soit le dev en interface (qui au mieux baragouine un peu d'anglais scolaire), les échanges ont eu lieu, et au bout de suffisamment d'itérations on pouvait se comprendre.
Je crois vraiment que c’est ce qui a vraiment manqué à MG (trop d’arrogance après le succès de Il2 ? Je ne sais pas)…
De l'arrogance, Oleg n'en a jamais manqué.... mais au moins il était bon et savait organiser son équipe (au moins jusqu'à la fin d'IL2 premier du nom). Luthier est sans doute moins arrogant, parle mieux et sait sans doute faire de la comm.... mais pour tout le reste, tout ce qu'il a montré jusqu'à aujourd'hui... c'est surtout de l'incompétence.
Mais je ne lâche pas l’affaire…et j’achèterai BoM sans me poser de question…j’ai bien trop envie de voir cette foutue carte de CloD au niveau ou elle devrait être !
J’achèterais aussi BoM... mais avec autant de conviction qu'en allant chercher une morue fraiche sur le vieux port...
Quand à la carte de CoD, vue la taille... faudra une méchante équipe de tierce partie hyper-motivée, prête à bosser pendant quelques années, pour arriver à faire quelque chose de bien.
Rama: Mesquin, Rancunier, Trucideur de projet, Malhonnête, Saboteur, Diffamateur, Chauve et Bigleux
Que du bonheur....
Avatar de l’utilisateur

PIPS
Jeune Pilote
Jeune Pilote
Messages : 1748
Inscription : 28 août 2002

#22

Message par PIPS »

Pour la morue fraiche sur le vieux port...........> je confirme !!! y en à pas!!!! par contre, des moins fraiches, y en à plein dans les rues derrière !!!! :Jumpy::exit:
Image


La grande leçon de l'histoire est que l'homme ne tire presque jamais de leçons de l'histoire.
Avatar de l’utilisateur

jvmasset
Mécano au sol
Mécano au sol
Messages : 417
Inscription : 23 février 2006

#23

Message par jvmasset »

Rama a écrit : Je ne peux pas confirmer quelque chose de faux. Le "donneur d'ordre" est anglophone dans les deux cas, et l'équipe est 100% russe dans les deux cas, avec un pourcentage de dev balbutiant l'anglais à peu prêt identique.
Par contre le dev de RoF a pris soin (et ce depuis bien avant que 777 ne reprenne l'affaire) de mettre le seul gus parlant à peu prêt bien l'anglais au contrôle des équipes de alphs-tests et béta-tests, ce qui fait que les tests sont très bien organisés (à la différence de CoD ou ils sont inexistants)... et les échanges d'infos existent depuis 2005, avec des retours sur ce qui est fourni, des questions, etc... même s'il faut dès fois dire les choses 5 ou 6 fois avec des mots différents pour arriver à la fin à se comprendre.
La différence n'a rien à voir avec un problème de langage (qui est le même dans les deux cas), elle a tout à voir avec un problème d'attitude, de volonté de d'échange (absente avec CoD) et de reconnaissance de l'apport des tierces parties.

J'ai eu le même problème que toi, que ce soit avec Oleg ou Luthier (qui pourtant n'a pas de problèmes d'expression anglaise), il n'y avait aucun retour sur ce que je pouvais leur fournir.
Coté RoF par contre, quelque soit le dev en interface (qui au mieux baragouine un peu d'anglais scolaire), les échanges ont eu lieu, et au bout de suffisamment d'itérations on pouvait se comprendre.
Ah OK, je comprend mieux...j'étais trop gentil apparemment...
Quand à la carte de CoD, vue la taille... faudra une méchante équipe de tierce partie hyper-motivée, prête à bosser pendant quelques années, pour arriver à faire quelque chose de bien.
C'est vrai mais je pensais me limiter aux aérodromes, (grandes) villes, ports et chemins de fer...avec une reprise du relief en ces endroits...Refaire toute la carte est un rêve...

JV
Avatar de l’utilisateur

Topic author
OBT~Miguel21
Pilote Confirmé
Pilote Confirmé
Messages : 2127
Inscription : 24 mai 2005

#24

Message par OBT~Miguel21 »

Bon, je vais essayé de faire une synthèse sur ce qu'on peut attendre ou pas, d’après sa dernière intervention.

Netcode : prévu pour le dernier patch

Coop fonctionnel: non

Nouveaux Avions ! non, ou alors avec l'aide de la communauté si le SDK (outils pour développement) sort ...

Compatible XP? : il vaut mieux migrer sur Seven

Possibilité de refuel, rearm, repair? non

Donner à la communauté des outils pour créer carte et avion ? oui, mais en dernier

Les ordres radio aux IA? : ils fonctionneront (la personne qui s'en occupait n'est plus là, on recolle les morceaux...)

Les arbres collisionnables? non, pas sur la carte de la Manche, il y en a de trop!

Météo? non, pas pour COD, mais pour la suite oui.

Amélioration/ nouveaux sons? oui

Control de la DCA? non, pour la suite oui

Problème de visibilité des contacts? : oui

Régler le pb des rétro? oui, dans le dernier patch

Pb de vision des hangars par les bombardiers à plus de 3000m: ils sont au courant (donc?...)

Correction IA? : il est pire à déboguer que le pb graphique (donc???)

Voila, c'est tout ;)
"Les chiens aboient, la caravane passe..."

Taeht Dewoht
Pilote Confirmé
Pilote Confirmé
Messages : 3210
Inscription : 02 janvier 2008

#25

Message par Taeht Dewoht »

Merci pour la synthèse...
Répondre

Revenir à « IL-2 Cliffs of Dover »