View Single Post
Old 02-18-13, 03:50 PM   #71
StarTrekMike
Navy Dude
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Made in Vermont
Posts: 178
Downloads: 137
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Julhelm View Post
The problem with contemporary sims is that they require far too much work over too much time to be profitable. The CloD team themselves have stated that a single cockpit took more than one year to make. Does that sound like a profitable business model to anyone? There's a reason the Stalingrad sim will revert back to Il-2:1946 level of detail cockpits.
The CloD team was horribly mismanaged (funny how Ubi was also involved in that) and work that should have taken far less time was dragged out by many poor choices.

If you actually follow the Stalingrad development, they are expanding on the original IL-2 1946 formula while not making promises they can't keep, add on to that the inclusion of 777 (a company that is noted for delivering a great product with Rise of flight) and you have a recipe for success that should have been done with CloD.

One need only look at Eagle Dynamics to see that a good cockpit need not take a year.

So, in short, CloD is a terrible example of the usual flight sim production but a fantastic example of how little Ubi cares for the simulation market.
__________________
I think we lost em...hey whats that pinging sound?
StarTrekMike is offline   Reply With Quote