Feldgrün Posted May 21 Share Posted May 21 As I've said before, this game's decline wasn't the lack of realistic visuals or VR, but the gameplay. Fix the AI and interface and this could be a hit again despite numerous negative first impressions. 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enceladus Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 New WIP Lancaster images: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/88572-aircraft-update-tf-65-lancaster/#comment-1318649 4 Quote Author of Liars in the Cockpit? The near crash of TWA flight 841 and The Deepest Pit of Hell: the forgotten tragedy of TWA flight 800 (1964) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysticpuma Posted June 10 Author Share Posted June 10 From Buzzsaw: "Hello All The Lancaster Mk B.I is coming along well. Work on the external is finished, damage model and cockpit underway. As mentioned in previous posts, the aircraft will the centerpiece of the TF 6.5 mini DLC which will use the DIEPPE map and which will include a number of new models of existing aircraft types, including heavy fighters and bombers. Module will also include features such as on board radar systems and other electronic systems related to the night environment. This will be the first of a number of aircraft updates" 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachariasX Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 (edited) Of all the things this game needs, new content is distant last. It‘s like continuously adding wheels to a car that still has not a working engine installed. Edited June 11 by ZachariasX 4 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trooper117 Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 Just be thankful that somebody in the combat flight sim world is endeavouring to make one... and lets not have the assassination squad that constantly brings the game down moving over to this forum and spoils it for people that enjoy what they have. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skelthos Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 4 hours ago, Trooper117 said: Just be thankful that somebody in the combat flight sim world is endeavouring to make one. I believe the issue is that many people do not understand that it is not necessarily the same teams or people working on both. The team working on the models are not the same people working on VR implementation or flight models or whatever else the complaint of the week is. The people working on the models are most likely not even qualified to work on the other aspects. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enceladus Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 5 hours ago, Trooper117 said: Just be thankful that somebody in the combat flight sim world is endeavouring to make one... and lets not have the assassination squad that constantly brings the game down moving over to this forum and spoils it for people that enjoy what they have. Agree 100%. Without all of TFS' hardwork we would not have a properly depicted North Africa in a combat sim nor would we be getting flyable heavy bombers. Except for low fidelity sims we've never gotten these places and planes. The GBs guys go for where they can make the most profits and their products have to sell to audiences beyond simply those who frequently follow forum updates. More people know about the Allied advance into Europe and D-Day, and the respective planes than the Siege of Tobruk. With the exception of the Australian community, most people probably wouldn't know about that therefore they can make more profits by doing the above two. I like many others practically knew nothing about the North African theater from 1940-42 until Desert Wings came out. These guys are meeting flight simmer demands by giving us flyable heavy bombers whereas the largest flyable bomber in GBs is the He-111 with the only heavy bomber coming being an AI B-29 for Korea (if they ditched making the WACO and Ta-152 and briefly stepped away from the new project, we could probably have a flyable B-25). Given the fact that the MTO including Sicily is just not in the GBs' guys interest then it goes to show that we wouldn't be getting any MTO installments without TFS (I never bought their reasoning for not doing Sicily when Rome and Naples wouldn't be required. That sounded more of an excuse to that they just don't want to do Sicily). I'm pretty excited for follow up installments and aircraft of the Dover series. 2 Quote Author of Liars in the Cockpit? The near crash of TWA flight 841 and The Deepest Pit of Hell: the forgotten tragedy of TWA flight 800 (1964) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 Whilst the Lancaster update may have caused a few eye rolls given I think some were expecting news on 6.0 and its assets, I dont think having an ambition in reaching for the Heavies is a bad move. Every Sim needs its niche or USP. That said, the sim will ultimayely live or die by its SP buy in and for that, there is much work to the core that also still needs to be improved. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachariasX Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 9 hours ago, Trooper117 said: Just be thankful that somebody in the combat flight sim world is endeavouring to make one... and lets not have the assassination squad that constantly brings the game down moving over to this forum and spoils it for people that enjoy what they have. I am not assassinating anything. I am just somewhat amazed by TFs priorities. CloD is about as far behind me as StarWars in the age of Acolyte, hence I am rather relaxed regarding their annoncements. There was indeed a time where I hoped the project would die, because it might well block niches for other devs to make a sim for. There was even hope 1C would go there but times are a-changing in many ways. Still, I cannot help my amazement reading about certain news about it. You know, so far, heavies (other than rendered as thingies to shoot at) are rather far outside the scope of any combat sim to date. Only back in the days, where a playpen was rendered like a ten year old draws a landscape, there in SWOTL (aww.. memories…) I could fly missions to Regensburg and back to East Anglia *in an hour* and thought fondly of that. But if we rivet counters want it how it worked back then, we essentially have a semi unplayable gameplay. So far it was really A2A simulations with their B-17 for FSX that made the only real flyable heavy in any sim that resembles the real thing in operating it. Mission time is one thing, but you need a decent playpen (a globe) that has has an area of interest manyfold the size of a Rhineland map and most of all, heavies are complex planes. Then you have the navigation and aiming systems without you cannot fly missions. None of all these parts have ever been brought together in a single sim. I agree that you can use a Jumbo Jet to fly from Newark to JFK, but that wouldn‘t really capture intended use of the plane. Same as daylight bombing by dead reckoning (or in game GPS) on Dieppe doesn’t capture the real use of the Lancaster. CloD features a ridiculously limited playpen, technically and conceptually, that does nowhere near provide for the actual use of the airplane. In this sense, I think of a Lancaster in CloD as much as if someone put one in Roblox. This brings me back to my amazement of the priorities TF seems to have. As it stands now, CloD barely works for just most simplistic of all gameplay modes and represents the trailing end of the industry. Now they come up with content that would require a game with a larger scope than all other combat sims? Or is it really harder to program a game interface than come up with the simulation and rendering of a four engined bomber? Then again, maybe you are right and I should be grateful. Major e longinquo reverentia. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skelthos Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 3 hours ago, ZachariasX said: Or is it really harder to program a game interface than come up with the simulation and rendering of a four engined bomber? Interface design is its own discipline, just because someone can model an airplane, or code the underlying engine logic, does not mean that person is competent in interface design or implementation. There are books and college-level courses that cover nothing but UI design, and UI designers' salaries can be well into 6 figures. How the original base game was coded can also affect how easy it is to change. Depending on the engine used and the underlying code, you could be looking at re-writing a very substantial amount of the base code for the game to change it without causing an avalanche of other issues. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachariasX Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 4 hours ago, Skelthos said: Interface design is its own discipline, just because someone can model an airplane, or code the underlying engine logic, does not mean that person is competent in interface design or implementation. There are books and college-level courses that cover nothing but UI design, and UI designers' salaries can be well into 6 figures. How the original base game was coded can also affect how easy it is to change. Depending on the engine used and the underlying code, you could be looking at re-writing a very substantial amount of the base code for the game to change it without causing an avalanche of other issues. In all fairness, when they made that decision, leaving easy to manage code for volunteers was certainly not on the original devs minds. Now, I understand that there are toolkits for making an UI, where you are one keystroke away from depreciation (as it happened) and then you are stuck with it. (You can get Adobe‘d in so many ways…) As you say, there seems no volunteer being available for that kind of work, because (of course) programmers that essentially work for free like to to things they, well, like. And this is obviously making aircraft. Anyway, I bought all of the TF stuff and hoped for the best. I guess I was optimistic. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 19 hours ago, Trooper117 said: Just be thankful that somebody in the combat flight sim world is endeavouring to make one... and lets not have the assassination squad that constantly brings the game down moving over to this forum and spoils it for people that enjoy what they have. The elephant in the room in terms of a Lanc in a combat sim is the DCS Lancaster mod project. Which is already cooking nicely. The Elephant in that room of course is DCS WW2 which isnt. If both come to fruition then its great for players and they will have a choice dependent on their particular "wants". The issue remains however that, at its core, CloD, like every other combat sim is about a tactical war, not a strategic one. Heavies are an interesting bolt on but are, at best, a sideshow given the limitations in map size, historic airfields and historic targets missing from all sims. At least for the forseeable. They could prove to be an interesting attraction for some and, even as somethng AI to shoot at or escort add considerably to what the imagination of a mission maker can do. Its an aspiraction that is wise to be considered for sure. Aircraft sets however are not really Clod's weakness and will not be Clod's saviour on their own. I think some of us would appreciate news other than aircraft pictures. News showng progress in the core but thats just us and hopefully we will get some soon. Like you have always said Trooper, there's plenty else to do than get ones knickers in a twist about stuff we cant change. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feldgrün Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 I'm not sure how many are in the TFS team, but it appears that they may now be the only ones playing this game: 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feathered_IV Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 That was what I had been thinking for quite some time. CloD is essentially a private game for the developers and their mates. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysticpuma Posted June 24 Author Share Posted June 24 From Buzzsaw: The FW-190A external and damage model is complete. We hope to start import into the inhouse Alpha version of the game soon. We are not showing cockpit images in this update, but it is also well underway. Skins are being created... these images include work in progress skins... details will be corrected or improved. There will be a large number of game included skin options appropriate the time period of the TF 6.0 module Images do not include in game lighting/shadowing and other effects which would add to realism and quality. Please note... when you look at the surface damage... and you see the internals... you are not looking at a painted on decal... you are looking through a hole in the surface at the actual 3D internals. So if you change your viewing angle, what you see through the hole will change. Without the in game lighting and shadows, that might not be readily apparent... but is the case. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enceladus Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 The DM of this game is superb! 😀 5 1 Quote Author of Liars in the Cockpit? The near crash of TWA flight 841 and The Deepest Pit of Hell: the forgotten tragedy of TWA flight 800 (1964) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feldgrün Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 On 6/24/2024 at 5:44 PM, Enceladus said: The DM of this game is superb! 😀 Truly the best I've seen, including surface from a damaged wing flapping in the wind. I hope Combat Pilot can do this as well. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysticpuma Posted July 2 Author Share Posted July 2 (edited) A new update from Buzzsaw: Hello All The Morane MS.406 External model is now complete and in queue for importing into the game.As mentioned previously, it is unlikely the cockpit of this model will be finished for TF 6.0, so initially it will not be flyable. But the addition will allow a better population of missions in the Spring 1940 era... and 109 jockeys will have another target. Eventually, as mentioned, after we add the enlarged Western Europe map, we would like to create a blitzkrieg 1940 DLC... which the Morane would be a part of. Some other aircraft we are considering for such a project, some of which might appear in earlier DLC's as additions. Martin Model 167 Maryland LeO 451 (AI) Potez 630 (AI) Curtiss Hawk-75/P-36 Fairey Battle Hurricane Mk I (fixed pitch prop 87 octane Belgian model) Fokker D.XXI Fokker G.I (AI) Fokker T.V (AI) Junkers Ju-52 (AI) Bf-109D Dornier-17z and/or Dornier 215b (existing AI aircraft made flyable) Hs-123 (flyable??) https://i.ibb.co/26YkB0B/3.png https://i.ibb.co/Lp8wqV4/4.png https://i.ibb.co/Qj85nBS/5.png https://i.ibb.co/m63Qb7T/7.png https://i.ibb.co/3yfKSqw/8.png https://i.ibb.co/L1KVkQM/9.png https://i.ibb.co/QHsX5dL/10.png https://i.ibb.co/b1t1GGp/11.png https://i.ibb.co/J7s2r4V/12.png https://i.ibb.co/6HSCp0p/13.png https://i.ibb.co/YL8khTV/14.png https://i.ibb.co/vYMtkn3/15.png https://i.ibb.co/cXTfGt0/16.png https://i.ibb.co/RYP0fbm/17.png https://i.ibb.co/z7X5JkV/18.png https://i.ibb.co/GdyPcP7/19.png https://i.ibb.co/S3G8bzX/21.png https://i.ibb.co/ft767H1/Internal.png https://i.ibb.co/T2Kmbvz/Internal2.png https://i.ibb.co/C74wsLG/Internal-Hitboxes-wip.png We expect to have an update on the B-17 in July. Edited July 2 by Mysticpuma 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysticpuma Posted July 2 Author Share Posted July 2 Followed by: Another update about Map sizes in regard to the area that would need to be covered for the Fortresses and Focke Wulfs expansion: "As mentioned by other posters, creating larger maps is not impossible ... it is just at present the game code limits us to approx. 400 km X 400 km. But with programming work, we can re-write the code to allow a larger map. Just how long that will take our programmers is unclear... but certainly not an insurmountable task. There should not be any significant performance hit on the player with a larger map.... the game only draws graphically what is within a certain range... beyond that the map and its contents are just numbers. The real work in building a new map will be in populating that huge new space with the appropriate roads, bridges, towns, cities, airfields, buildings, etc. Which is why our map department is always looking for new people to assist them. What skills are required? Basically a good knowledge of the Full Mission Builder... with a decent Photoshop knowledge a bonus. The fastest way for you to see your dream of flying from England to Berlin in a B-17 or Lancaster come true would be to join TF and contribute as a member of the map team 800 X 800 km Map would be approximately like this: To include Berlin would require a 1000 X 1000 km map. Any map would be a HUGE undertaking... which is why we are looking for more people to join TF to help with these types of projects." Map builder SCG_Schneemann then said: "It's not a human map thing, but I believe it is coded in the game as roughly 400km X 400km. We're trying to see how to make it 600km square or 800km square, for all the reasons you suggest. It would be nice to have a North Africa map for instance, instead of the three originally planned maps. And it will open up the Low Countries and in to Germany. The good news, as far as I remember when we discussed it last, is that we can import map blocks, so it should be an addition/combination of maps instead of a total redraw." 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feathered_IV Posted July 4 Share Posted July 4 Have they made any progress with their trees? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Posted July 4 Share Posted July 4 33 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said: Have they made any progress with their trees? I think the last word was about work on the shaders for the trees but I could be wrong 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feathered_IV Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 The most recent mention of speedtree that I saw said there was “no timeline” which made me curious of the implications for the B-17 module that they announced would be released this year. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enceladus Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 More info from Buzzsaw “ Current schedule: TF 6.0 Fortresses and Focke-Wulfs - Dieppe - major DLC. Uses 400 X 400 km Dieppe map (revised and updated 1941-1942 Channel map) TF 6.5 nightbombing 1940-1942 mini DLC (title not officially announced yet, uses above Dieppe map) TF 7.0 Western Desert 1942 major DLC (partner to TOBRUK, title not officially announced yet, would use 400 X 400 km Egypt map currently ingame Alpha in development) TF 8.0 Malta and Sicily 1940-43 DLC (title not officially announced yet, would use 400 X 400 km Malta/Sicily map currently ingame Alpha in development) TF 9.0 USAAF Strategic Bombing Campaign January 1943 - May 1944 (would use the expanded Western Europe map which has been discussed) No definite schedule after TF 9.0... except that once the TF 9.0 map is in place, we could then move on to a Blitzkrieg DLC, or a Bomber Command over the Reich DLC, or an Ardennes DLC, or a Market Garden DLC, or a Rhine Crossing DLC. Theoretically we could also do a Normandy 1944 invasion DLC with a slightly expanded version of the current Channel/Dieppe maps... but in fact the Normandy invasion was such an ENORMOUS operation... with tens of thousands of ships/aircraft/vehicles packed into a small area, even CLIFFS with its ability to handle large numbers of AI objects, would be seriously challenged to portray such a DLC realistically. What we could do is something like an 'Operation Cobra' or 'Operation Goodwood'... which would be set after the invasion... easier to portray in missions without the huge numbers of moving ships/landing craft being present as they were on D-Day.” 2 Quote Author of Liars in the Cockpit? The near crash of TWA flight 841 and The Deepest Pit of Hell: the forgotten tragedy of TWA flight 800 (1964) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 15 hours ago, Feathered_IV said: The most recent mention of speedtree that I saw said there was “no timeline” which made me curious of the implications for the B-17 module that they announced would be released this year. I dont think the B17 was built out of trees so it should be fine! 🙂 Im quite preapred for Dieppe to launch without the visual update or VR at this stage but the December date is still some months away so I remain hopeful. I think the narrative on the VU is that its not part of any DLC, until it is, and even then it isnt if its not ready for the relaease of the DLC. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kestrel79 Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 They are really good at announcing content...but we still have been waiting for a release of one of them for a long time. I know it's an all volunteer group and it will take time, that's fine I'll be patient. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.