Hi ya, Moose. You and Bill are both right.
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
I know there are many definitions of "AE2." I also suspect, strongly from comments here by Matrix management over the years, that a major and perhaps insurmountable roadblock to the idea is intellectual property rights stretching back to Pacific War and GG (and maybe his 3x2 team in the WITP era.) I suspect Symon, given his real life profession, understands this roadblock far better than I ever will. But I have seen in my business life that few contracts can't be re-opened for re-negotiation. Sometimes, no. The holder of rights just is not interested. This can happen in creative fields more than in more mundane. I get that. But GG is still actively involved with Matrix/Slit. with WITW and WITE2. I do not expect he would be interested in any AE2. But he might allow it if conditions were right.
Yes. That is so. But if a credible group, with a cogent and implementable plan, were to approach Matrix, a license for the IP rights could be negotiated. This is just what Henderson Field Designs did to bring you AE. The real problem is opportunity cost. The license fees are prohibitive for anyone wanting a financial reward beyond a bottle of scotch and dinner at Outback.
Henderson Field Designs was a bizarre fluke; a bunch of crazy people, with day jobs, that were willing to invest man-years of time on the project for nothing more than the promise of a free copy of the game upon release. We did have Joe Wilkerson, who provided the credibility to Matrix and the wagon-master whip hand to bring it all together. Without that, AE2 is a fever dream. Econ 101 is great but don’t forget, there’s nine sides to the equation and it only takes one deferral to queer the whole deal.
Such a team wouldn't have to be WWII grognards. They wouldn't be wtiting algorithms or designing new scenarios. They'd be coders, not designers. But really GOOD coders with deep experience in Windows. The AI stuff is the hardest obviously, but again, to do that one doesn't need to understand how main battery turrets in an Iowa-class load. They just need to look at the existing data.
Nope. I personally have 7-9 “things” I believe are necessary to re-do. And I know just how to do them, too. But they all require ripping the existing code out by the roots. And that’s just me. Several other devs have their own “things” that they believe are necessary to re-do; and they all involve ripping the existing code out by the roots. You don’t do them, you won’t get many takers.
[ed] "Gamers" like things like interfaces and such. Simulators could give a crap so long as it's functional; we want adaptive integrity. Taking AE to the next step must involve significant program re-writes. Otherwise it's nothing but a "colorized" classic.