Simulation or Shoot-em-up?

[DogTailRed2]

I've been a fan of IL2 and waiting for this game for sooo long.
Being playing for about a month and I can't decide if COD is a genuine sim or a glorified Shoot-em-up.
To be a simulation you need to accurately depict the scenario, environment you are trying to model. I can't fly successfully over land due to FPS issues so I air-start over the channel. I'm in an aircraft that doesn't sound or fly like a front line fighter. I'm presented with radio chatter which sounds like a bad rap recording while I watch my AI steam into a bomber formation (with hyper-drive) and expend all their ammo in a single pass. I love the way 1-11's do snap wing overs when attacked. That's if they don't collide with their wingmen that is.
Then it's my turn to try and I find, due to control lag, I'm porpoising all over the sky and at the critical moment when I've actually got the hun in my sights I get the most almighty stutter and then he's gone.
So this is why, to me, COD is a Shoot-em-up because more and more I'm just setting up scenarios where I can fur-ball for a bit of fun rather than trying to immerse myself in an epic battle. In fact, sad though I say it, I'm flying COD less and less.
COD has no immersion or atmosphere. The Battle of Britain sim it aint.

[Old_Canuck]

I've been a fan of IL2 and waiting for this game for sooo long.
Being playing for about a month and I can't decide if COD is a genuine sim or a glorified Shoot-em-up.
To be a simulation you need to accurately depict the scenario, environment you are trying to model. I can't fly successfully over land due to FPS issues so I air-start over the channel. I'm in an aircraft that doesn't sound or fly like a front line fighter. I'm presented with radio chatter which sounds like a bad rap recording while I watch my AI steam into a bomber formation (with hyper-drive) and expend all their ammo in a single pass. I love the way 1-11's do snap wing overs when attacked. That's if they don't collide with their wingmen that is.
Then it's my turn to try and I find, due to control lag, I'm porpoising all over the sky and at the critical moment when I've actually got the hun in my sights I get the most almighty stutter and then he's gone.
So this is why, to me, COD is a Shoot-em-up because more and more I'm just setting up scenarios where I can fur-ball for a bit of fun rather than trying to immerse myself in an epic battle. In fact, sad though I say it, I'm flying COD less and less.
COD has no immersion or atmosphere. The Battle of Britain sim it aint.


Seems to me that a lot of folks are enjoying the sim nonetheless. Like IL-2 it might take awhile for hardware functionalility to catch up to software capabilities. Based on what others are saying, I'm still planning to download it when it's available in Canada.

[machoo]

It would be good if they had a dynamic campaign mod , with even the chance of winning being German.

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

whilst enjoying the new stuff,the immersion factor is missing for me too.hopefully it may be the fans who give us that if MG cant.

I really appreciate the guys who do all this modding and have the knowledge to improve things, a big thanks to them.

And Bearcat,still waiting for that gem of a Nuggets guide:)

[Chivas]

I've been a fan of IL2 and waiting for this game for sooo long.
Being playing for about a month and I can't decide if COD is a genuine sim or a glorified Shoot-em-up.
To be a simulation you need to accurately depict the scenario, environment you are trying to model. I can't fly successfully over land due to FPS issues so I air-start over the channel. I'm in an aircraft that doesn't sound or fly like a front line fighter. I'm presented with radio chatter which sounds like a bad rap recording while I watch my AI steam into a bomber formation (with hyper-drive) and expend all their ammo in a single pass. I love the way 1-11's do snap wing overs when attacked. That's if they don't collide with their wingmen that is.
Then it's my turn to try and I find, due to control lag, I'm porpoising all over the sky and at the critical moment when I've actually got the hun in my sights I get the most almighty stutter and then he's gone.
So this is why, to me, COD is a Shoot-em-up because more and more I'm just setting up scenarios where I can fur-ball for a bit of fun rather than trying to immerse myself in an epic battle. In fact, sad though I say it, I'm flying COD less and less.
COD has no immersion or atmosphere. The Battle of Britain sim it aint.

Your right the sim was definitely released too soon. There is still a strong likelihood now that COD has a influx of cash that the developers will improve the sim in all areas, but it will take alot of work from the devs and alot of patience on are part. In the mean time I fly the sim to learn the CEM idiosyncrasies. My system is relatively highend and I have no problems flying and fighting over London with decent frames.

[Heliocon]

Seems to me that a lot of folks are enjoying the sim nonetheless. Like IL-2 it might take awhile for hardware functionalility to catch up to software capabilities. Based on what others are saying, I'm still planning to download it when it's available in Canada.

You got it the wrong way around.

[Ataros]

Control lag is due to low fps. I used to have it before recent official patch and due to poorly set up game.

As soon as I set up the game properly to run smooth 35+ fps over land and created some quick missions in FMB with bombers over land it became extremely immersive.

AI has issues. That is why I never include AI single-engined fighters in my missions. I prefer to create online missions and include only 110 and Bullfighters in them as AI to allow human players fly 109 and Spits. Much more fun this way ))

[robtek]

I believe he wanted to say: when software and hardware are harmonized.

[jibo]

this game is also a great simulator for trolls craving for cheap shots

[addman]

You got it the wrong way around.

+1 to that!

[meplay]

You got it the wrong way around.

I know what he means....and its true, did you have the hardware for the first il2 when it came out? If you did, you are lucky and maybe rich? hehe

[Rattlehead]

I've been a fan of IL2 and waiting for this game for sooo long.
Being playing for about a month and I can't decide if COD is a genuine sim or a glorified Shoot-em-up.
To be a simulation you need to accurately depict the scenario, environment you are trying to model. I can't fly successfully over land due to FPS issues so I air-start over the channel. I'm in an aircraft that doesn't sound or fly like a front line fighter. I'm presented with radio chatter which sounds like a bad rap recording while I watch my AI steam into a bomber formation (with hyper-drive) and expend all their ammo in a single pass. I love the way 1-11's do snap wing overs when attacked. That's if they don't collide with their wingmen that is.
Then it's my turn to try and I find, due to control lag, I'm porpoising all over the sky and at the critical moment when I've actually got the hun in my sights I get the most almighty stutter and then he's gone.
So this is why, to me, COD is a Shoot-em-up because more and more I'm just setting up scenarios where I can fur-ball for a bit of fun rather than trying to immerse myself in an epic battle. In fact, sad though I say it, I'm flying COD less and less.
COD has no immersion or atmosphere. The Battle of Britain sim it aint.

So basically it's because of poor performance that you're not enjoying it? I can very much understand where you're coming from if that's the case.

However, there are many people that are enjoying good performance with this sim (and yes, it's very much a sim) and are having a lot of fun with it too.
Okay, the dodgy AI can get annoying smetimes and the lack of comms is an issue, but to me when I'm up there flying, I'm as immersed as I've ever been in a sim.

Even over London, higher up, it's playable for me and I certainly don't have a monster rig.
Just the other day I set up a mission where I had to take off and intercept 20 Dorniers bombing the city, complete with dozens of flak batteries defending the city, and although there were several moments where the game stuttered badly and the frames rates dropped well below 30, overall I had a lot of fun playing the mission.
Now fair enough, it wasn't really an accurate depiction of a real bombing raid over London since the bomber formations were much larger normally, but still. In time hopefully that number will change from 20 to 100 bombers, plus escorts, via a combination of more efficient game code and better hardware.

If the performance issues are sorted out, I think you will change your opinion.

Just out of interest, what are your system specs and settings?

[robtek]

I really don't understand why people, which have issues with CoD, almost always have to promote another game??
Especially if those other games already had (and mostly needed) some time to ripen to their actual state.
It is like comparing a prototype racecar to a Taxi.
It will also have the same outcome should they race against in a few months. :-D

[Rattlehead]

The two games should be able to be compared, especially as the large team on CoD and expense should mean it is far far better than RoF but it isnt.

The team, according to Luthier himself in a PC Gamer interview, is anything but large.
By modern standards, it's tiny - 22 people. I think it's incredible that an undertaking as exhaustive as this was created by such a small development team.

I've read a lot of your posts nats and I fully understand where you're coming from. It's not anything like what you expected and that's fair enough. Maybe like you say it's better in your case (and other people experiencing huge problems) to come back in a few weeks/months and see how things have developed.

[Skoshi Tiger]

I thoroughly enjoying the detail and immersion thats been given to us in COD. The ongoing support by the developers is fantastic. Each patch is giving me better performance. I haven't had so much gaming fun and enjoyment since Pacific Fighters was released and I got into the IL2 series.

Other sims have a lot of merit like ROF and DCS:A10, but the enjoyment from something like A10 is completely different for me. A10 satisfies the procedure side of things and I'm happy if I can successfully get a LBG on target. ROF is fun and immersive. I love the WWI historic side of things, but since I've got COD the only time I've started up ROF has been to look for new patches.

Maybe if COD should have been released like A10 as a pre-purchase and access as a beta there would less of these annoying arguments from the holier-than-thou pontificating crowd. Who knows or cares?
COD is a really great sim with heaps of potential; I think it’s great just to be on the ride!

[usr]

And most importantly everytime I play I get my sense of belief ruined by something - either its the rubbish scenery over London, or the extremely short view distance of ground objects, or the lolly pop trees, or the cruise engine bug, or the stutters whenever anyone first shoots at a bomber, or the rubbishy looking Channel sea (since when has the Channel been reflective), or the complete lack of radio commands. You just cant do ANYTHING in the game at the moment without meeting bugs and unfinished bits and pieces.

"Sense of belief getting ruined by some technical problem or another" is a very important point. I'm fully on your side with the general concept. This is exactly what is happening to me and probably most others too.

But keep in mind that even the old IL-2 also had lots of potential immersion breakers, even after a decade of ripening. E.g. AI breaking at 400m, light-speed gun sound propagation that made it possible to dodge supersonic bullets by ear and so on, the list could be continued for pages. It did not keep us from loving the sim. Why?

The all-important difference here: we also had many years for adjusting to those shortcomings, for developing blind spots and basically accepting those details as genuine parts of our "virtual reality". Now when something new comes along, we still won't notice immersion breakers a lot if they happen to be the same ones, but if they are different ones they, sadly, will stand out prominently.


PS: you say you did not own RoF until a few weeks ago - well, i've bought it on the day of the european release, and after few days i was happy to write the money off rather as a donation to the flight sim cause than as an actual purchase. It felt exactly as you are describing CoD now, a collection of immersion breakers with serious lack of game wrapped around a core made of technical problems. I've heard it's supposed to be much better now, but i did not really bother anymore. I guess the nats-RoF relationship was being very lucky by skipping over the rough phase :) (on a related note: the pay-by-plane model is totally unattractive to me: if they'd group them into consistent scenario packs, even with the same average price per plane, my willingness to sink more money would be much larger)

[Blackdog_kt]

So, the summary of the thread goes a little bit something like this:
a) it's not a sim because we can't get two hundred bombers on screen with playable frame rates, not currently at least

b) comparison to another product that was a total mess on release as well.

No offence to anybody, but if RoF managed to get where it is today with a bunch of fundamental flaws built-in by design (like the 2km visibility bubble and the inability to track a big enough number of units), i have no worries that CoD will get where it needs to go.

I've seen youtube vids with 1000 aircraft in the air at the same time. This doesn't mean you can do it on a dual core with an on-board GPU, it means that the engine lacks limits and as we get better hardware the amount of things we can see will increase.

As for what is a sim and what isn't, it depends on how you define it. It seems like a lot of people expected realism by numbers of units and visuals alone (which we all know are the most taxing combination on a PC), they got skirmishes and now they claim CoD is not a sim.

Well, i was expecting the focus to be on flying and operating the aircraft, so in that sense it's very much a sim to me.

It might not be an exact recreation of the BoB, but it's a very good recreation of certain aircraft that flew during that time and some scenarios they would be employed in.

I might not have 1000-bomber raids just yet, but on an individual, per-aircraft level the amount of detail is much higher than anything that came before it.
In that sense, i prefer to fly a correctly modeled bomber, have my current system capped with 40 of them and then add more as i get better hardware in the future, rather than getting the ability to have 200 bombers on the current build by simplifying the aircraft systems and damage model. Getting a nice 3d-model without all the other stuff to let me run a lot of them on screen would do nothing for the long run, because it would just be a "shell" of an aircraft without any character.

In other words, i prefer running a scaled down version of increased realism, rather than a 1:1 scale version of decreased realism.

I don't see why people are surprised really. It's always been like this. I remember when i got my first ever IL2 version back in 2001, the attention to aircraft detail was so much better than anything else before it but it brought my system to its knees. I couldn't run missions with more than a couple dozen aircraft for the initial 1-2 years of IL2's life.

What i did was fire up European Air War when i wanted some massive battles and fire up IL2 when i wanted attention to detail, until i got to a point where i could run IL2 with an adequate amount of aircraft, then i stopped flying the older sim.

I don't see how anyone can expect CoD to have the content of an already running 10-year series, while at the same time being easy to run on mid-range PCs at increased detail levels (not only visual detail) on a massive scale. These things take time and if you can't have everything at once, you pick and choose what makes more sense in the long run.

I'm just glad they decided to focus on the inner workings of aircraft and built an engine that's geared around that and future expandability. Graphics can be made prettier 5 years down the line by swapping a couple of textures with higher resolution ones, but rewritting the damage model from scratch at a a later point in time (where there will possibly be extra aircraft modeled) is a much more massive undertaking.

[jojimbo]

lets be patient, luthier and his team are working round the clock and once we middleware simers can play reasonably well on medium (which still loks really good btw) we will start to get some good user campaigns going.
cant wait for an epic scale BoB realistic campaign like the old cfs1 days.

would be interesting to have the ability to mod the terrain though, i would rather a photorealistic terrain texture with nothing on it, than laggy trees and houses, just have eye candy for the airbase.

[Chivas]

I cant see much more effort being put into COD to be honest..i mean even after 6 years of effort and it was still released broken and bugged to a somewhat hoodwinked market, the amount of work needed to fix ALL the broken bits will take a lot more of that effort and money..i doubt 1C will invest much more time and cash trying to fix this sim...for all we know after its release to the USA market the Devs may just quietly leave it at that and move on counting their losses and turning their attention to other things with less hassle...after all thats what it appears has happened with Oleg so whos to say the whole team wont follow!.....am not saying that will happen and i hope it wont, but you never know...my confidence rating for 1C at the moment isn't very high to be honest..i cant see them wasting what little revenue they may receive on COD sales updating and patching it over the next year or so..and it wont be fixed in the next few months...its just not feasible looking at all the issues...and i don't just mean smooth and reasonable FPS....

The whole sim is lacking any coherent structure with so many quirky innuendos and strange mis matches in consistency and major bugs its a miracle they have got away with releasing it in the state it is to be honest.. I remember Il-2 and it was never as bad as COD on release!

If the plan was to drop support for COD, there would have been a world wide same day release, where they took the money and run. They certainly wouldn't have done an Eastern release with all the bad publicity that caused, then worked 24/7 for months for the western release. The plan is still to support and add on to the series for years. The early release just enfused the project with much need cash to continue work. The devs and publishers have certainly taken a serious publicity hit, but I suspect most in the community understand the process and have enough foresight to see the product improved for many years.

[BigPickle]

I feel the 'No' immersion factor too, i think that will improve tenfold if they let users sound mod with the SDK.
I think small things like wind when opening the canopy, and having weather will create a much more immersive flying environment. I'm just pissed that i bought this thinking it was in there cos i was told it was, now i have to be patient and forgiving and wait. I'm still shocked about the lies that were told in all honesty.

[1.JaVA_Platypus]

I've been a fan of IL2 and waiting for this game for sooo long.
Being playing for about a month and I can't decide if COD is a genuine sim or a glorified Shoot-em-up.
To be a simulation you need to accurately depict the scenario, environment you are trying to model. I can't fly successfully over land due to FPS issues so I air-start over the channel. I'm in an aircraft that doesn't sound or fly like a front line fighter. I'm presented with radio chatter which sounds like a bad rap recording while I watch my AI steam into a bomber formation (with hyp...

I suggest you lower your visual settings and/or upgrade graphics card, RAM and processor. COD is very very playable. But it needs a lot of tuning from the user. It is not a standard FPS that you can just jump in and shoot around.

[GnigruH]

COD is very very playable. But it needs a lot of tuning from the user. It is not a standard FPS that you can just jump in and shoot around.
And that's one of the reasons it's going to fail. I know it's not a console game, but the amount of user tweaking it needs atm will not increase its popularity.

When you get a game which you have to prepare by yourself to be playable for about few hours every time a patch is released, it's not because devs think you're an intelligent person and you can handle it.
It means the game is poor.

[Heliocon]

I know what he means....and its true, did you have the hardware for the first il2 when it came out? If you did, you are lucky and maybe rich? hehe

People have the hardware right now for a game even more intensive then cod. Its just horrible programming optimization that screws the game up, and even after that with building pop and such it doesnt even deliver.

[JG14_Jagr]

I've been a fan of IL2 and waiting for this game for sooo long.
Being playing for about a month and I can't decide if COD is a genuine sim or a glorified Shoot-em-up.
To be a simulation you need to accurately depict the scenario, environment you are trying to model. I can't fly successfully over land due to FPS issues so I air-start over the channel. I'm in an aircraft that doesn't sound or fly like a front line fighter. I'm presented with radio chatter which sounds like a bad rap recording while I watch my AI steam into a bomber formation (with hyper-drive) and expend all their ammo in a single pass. I love the way 1-11's do snap wing overs when attacked. That's if they don't collide with their wingmen that is.
Then it's my turn to try and I find, due to control lag, I'm porpoising all over the sky and at the critical moment when I've actually got the hun in my sights I get the most almighty stutter and then he's gone.
So this is why, to me, COD is a Shoot-em-up because more and more I'm just setting up scenarios where I can fur-ball for a bit of fun rather than trying to immerse myself in an epic battle. In fact, sad though I say it, I'm flying COD less and less.
COD has no immersion or atmosphere. The Battle of Britain sim it aint.

Put your system Specs in your Signature under User CP.

I fly the Hurricane Bomber Intercept Mission quite a bit as a fps benchmark. When I first started using it I wcould not believe that all the AI was swooping in on the bombers and I was barely able to close on them..

Then I learned how touse CEM and properly adjust the PITCH on my Hurricane and now I get there first.. He111's are pretty damned maneuverable, I've not seen the snap roll..but I've seen a lot of avoidence measures and a fair number of collisions.. I lit up the cockpit of an He111 then the ghost plane flew into another He111..on replay the crew was dead.. I thought that was pretty cool..

Watch the BoB movie and watch the Hispano He111's when they maneuver...they are fairly sprightly.. remember they are similar to a B25 or B26 rather than a B17 or B24.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Jagr, the AI seems to have just the same AI routines as IL-2 had. The AI wobbles it's ailerons, rudder moving like a paddle, flap fighting, they suddenly just ignore you and fly straight, barrel roll evasions, outclimb tactics etc.

The bombers dogfight and collide like idiots. The power of their defence was a formation and they flew relatively steady. I can go fly in the middle of them without fear of getting even half seriously damaged. I flew under a bomber Do17Z at about 5m below the gunner and he MISSED! Shot his bullets to the sky as he tracked another plane, not mine.

The list of AI goes on. I just call it Appalling Idiocy as it is now. I like CoD, but as for now it is a test bed for patches. Not gonna go online before issues have been tackled. Remaining hopeful, but I think the US release will be the point where we can see what is gonna happen. A few weeks to go and really hope Luthier's gang will get it patched up before that.

[baronWastelan]

Here's what I posted on Amazon.com:

By twin_dragon

Fun:5.0 out of 5 stars

I have the Russian version since April 8, 2011. Currently I'm on patch 14413. I'm also a fan of FSX since Feb 2008. Today I started a flight in FSX, looked at the ground, the roads, the sea (DX10), and as good as it is after years of tuning and tweaking, I started to feel sick because of how fake it looks compared to Cliffs of Dover.

This new flight sim is in its infancy, and is barely half complete. But what you get cannot be beat in the realm of WWII flight sims. Yes there's Rise of Flight which is brilliant for the era it depicts, but it's like watching autocross (WWI) compared to the Le Mans 24 (WWII).

To put it bluntly, there's nothing else available in 2011 if you want an advanced complex simulator for WWII era combat. The details of the damage models are so elaborate, it will almost make your eyes water at the thought that so many little details can be updated in real-time. Sheet aluminum, torn and deformed by shells and bullets, will cast shadows, and holes reveal all the components inside: oxygen tanks, engines, oil tanks, frame, etc. Your engine must be operated within published limits at all times, or there will be consequences. Gone are the days when you get an "overheat" message pop up, which lets you know to open your radiator, so your engine instantly cools and is like brand new. You need to continuously monitor all the gauges, especially in the British aircraft. The engine model is so precise, you can cook one exhaust valve from running boost too high for a minute, and see a difference in the color of the exhaust flames in one bank of cylinders as a result! The details of the clickable cockpits are already well known, and they are truly photo-realistic down to control rods and chains that rotate when controls are operated.

There are new mission features that are only just beginning to be explored. The Full Mission Builder (FMB) works nearly identically to the FMB in modded Il-2 1946. It is extremely easy to set up attack waypoints, for example.

In conclusion, if you're interested in a game that you can jump into and play for 8 - 10 hours, then toss aside and forget, then Cliffs of Dover is not for you. If you want the most detailed flight simulator of WWII era aircraft on earth, with many years of unlimited experiences ahead, then you should not miss out on Cliffs of Dover.

http://www.amazon.com/2-Sturmovik-Cliffs-Dover-Pc/product-reviews/B004L5SJ4Y/ref=sr_1_1_cm_cr_acr_pop_hist_5?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addFiveStar&qid=1304807149&sr=1-1

[BadAim]

I've been a fan of IL2 and waiting for this game for sooo long.
Being playing for about a month and I can't decide if COD is a genuine sim or a glorified Shoot-em-up.
To be a simulation you need to accurately depict the scenario, environment you are trying to model. I can't fly successfully over land due to FPS issues so I air-start over the channel. I'm in an aircraft that doesn't sound or fly like a front line fighter. I'm presented with radio chatter which sounds like a bad rap recording while I watch my AI steam into a bomber formation (with hyper-drive) and expend all their ammo in a single pass. I love the way 1-11's do snap wing overs when attacked. That's if they don't collide with their wingmen that is.
Then it's my turn to try and I find, due to control lag, I'm porpoising all over the sky and at the critical moment when I've actually got the hun in my sights I get the most almighty stutter and then he's gone.
So this is why, to me, COD is a Shoot-em-up because more and more I'm just setting up scenarios where I can fur-ball for a bit of fun rather than trying to immerse myself in an epic battle. In fact, sad though I say it, I'm flying COD less and less.
COD has no immersion or atmosphere. The Battle of Britain sim it aint.

You wouldn't know a simulator if it bit you on the backside. Flightsim fan you ain't.

I will now not read any more of these stupid troll threads, because they just waste everyone's time to no good purpose.

[JG14_Jagr]

The bombers dogfight and collide like idiots. The power of their defence was a formation and they flew relatively steady. I can go fly in the middle of them without fear of getting even half seriously damaged.

The LW bombers were armed with rifle caliber low cyclic rate MG's with small magazines.. in the words of several JU88 pilots they gave them the guns more for morale than for effect.. The B17's and the USAF worked on boxed formations with overlapping fields of fire.. the LW bombers main defense was designed to be SPEED. 111's of 88's under attack were not going to fly level..they didnt have the defensive firepower to prevent a guy from camping on their tail and ripping them apart..

[Kongo-Otto]

You wouldn't know a simulator if it bit you on the backside. Flightsim fan you ain't.

I will now not read any more of these stupid troll threads, because they just waste everyone's time to no good purpose.

Well said Sir!

Sometimes i think, when Jesus himself would again walk over the water, a few posters in this forum would say "Look at that guy, he can't swim!"

[ATAG_Doc]

The plan is still to support and add on to the series for years.

Exactly. It's not nor ever was intended to be a released finished single download product. It will be followed up with later theaters of the air campaigns as it is developed.

If you own a copy you can look at aircraft menus and see the years 1940 through 1952 and there are place holders for 8 engines and all that comes with having that many. Many many controls.

As technology improves as it is already is improving exponentially the updates that will continue to follow even major ones with the newer / later years added it, probably require upgrades to my hardware. This is the nature of the beast. People ask for it and they got it. I am pretty sure I will follow their lead because I don't want to miss one episode.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Jagr, I know about the Allied bombing things etc. The Hurricane and Spitfire were armed with rifle caliber as well. At that time it was believed that they would be enough and you have to remember that He111 or Ju88 were developed against fighters of that time their plans were introduced..in 1930's with Gladiators etc. The rapid development of more modern planes caused them to be obsolete in speed/defense department when Spitfire/Hurricane came out.

But you could not park behind one for ages and not expect to stay without being hit. In CoD you can, kind of gone from IL-2's extreme of sniper gunners to CoD's blind idiots behind the guns. In EAW you could engage bomber formations with proper tactics and survive, but if parked behind you were dead or damaged. In B17 II also applied, used head-on attacks to kill B17's with minimal damage on me.

CoD has the potential and is being patched, hopefully a lot before US release, so the future looks not so bad. But until then I am off to other games like World Of Tanks etc. as they simply just run fine and are fun. CoD will be when ready.

[ATAG_Bliss]

nats,

The only thing I can guess is that you are new to the IL2 series. The great campaigns of old IL2 were produced by the community. The great campaigns of IL2COD will be produced by the community.

As far as immersing you into BOB, the FMB is there to recreate any situation you want. Unlike ROF, you are not stranded with small object and aircraft limitations in a mission. This is one of the few, if only, game engines in a flight sim that is only grounded by the hardware you run. For all criticism you give to IL2COD, especially talking about the immersion of feeling like you are part of the war, it's amazing that you praise ROF as much as you do, because the last thing you can do in ROF is simulate being part of WWI. Just take a quick stroll to the trenches (NML) and you'll find them empty. If the only thing you did in a ROF mission was fill the trenches up with the same number of AAA that was historically there, and didn't add one other object to the mission besides the plane you are flying, the mission wouldn't even load. This is regardless of your hardware.

That is much more of a concern to me (the game engine) than it's current un-optimized state, bugs, or FM that will get fixed in IL2COD. We've been waiting for 2 years (ever since the purchase of planes in ROF) for an FM fix for many of the planes. Instead of fixing the planes we have paid for they keep creating add on's and new planes to sell. I'm sorry, but that is complete crap IMO. These guys will actually have the game fixed, long before they try to sell you something.

The dead horse has been beatin to death. It's quite clear this sim was released or forced out the door early. But it's also quite clear that it is being supported and will get better. As I've stated before, as far as immersion and sim engines go the possibilities for IL2COD, will be endless.

It's also quite clear you never played ROF at launch. 4 planes, a master browser that crashed every 5 minutes, coop only mode that you were lucky to get 5 minutes of flying in before you crashed or got disconnected back to desktop, all of this while waiting 20 minutes in the 1st place just to be able to fly.

I do like ROF as a combat sim, but as a WWI sim, it's far from it.

[Langnasen]

nats,

The only thing I can guess is that you are new to the IL2 series. The great campaigns of old IL2 were produced by the community. The great campaigns of IL2COD will be produced by the community.

As far as immersing you into BOB, the FMB is there to recreate any situation you want. Unlike ROF, you are not stranded with small object and aircraft limitations in a mission. This is one of the few, if only, game engines in a flight sim that is only grounded by the hardware you run. For all criticism you give to IL2COD, especially talking about the immersion of feeling like you are part of the war, it's amazing that you praise ROF as much as you do, because the last thing you can do in ROF is simulate being part of WWI. Just take a quick stroll to the trenches (NML) and you'll find them empty. If the only thing you did in a ROF mission was fill the trenches up with the same number of AAA that was historically there, and didn't add one other object to the mission besides the plane you are flying, the mission wouldn't even load. This is regardless of your hardware.

That is much more of a concern to me (the game engine) than it's current un-optimized state, bugs, or FM that will get fixed in IL2COD. We've been waiting for 2 years (ever since the purchase of planes in ROF) for an FM fix for many of the planes. Instead of fixing the planes we have paid for they keep creating add on's and new planes to sell. I'm sorry, but that is complete crap IMO. These guys will actually have the game fixed, long before they try to sell you something.

The dead horse has been beatin to death. It's quite clear this sim was released or forced out the door early. But it's also quite clear that it is being supported and will get better. As I've stated before, as far as immersion and sim engines go the possibilities for IL2COD, will be endless.

It's also quite clear you never played ROF at launch. 4 planes, a master browser that crashed every 5 minutes, coop only mode that you were lucky to get 5 minutes of flying in before you crashed or got disconnected back to desktop, all of this while waiting 20 minutes in the 1st place just to be able to fly.

I do like ROF as a combat sim, but as a WWI sim, it's far from it.

Well said on RoF.

Not sure CoD is fixable, no matter how much time/energy/devotion the devs commit, but we'll see.

[Orpheus]

That wasnt a troll post it was a genuine post with problems in the game expressed quite clearly. I feel the same. You obviously just want a simulator that represents a few BOB planes. I want a game that immerses me in the BOB not a dull simulator that represents planes to the nth degree and allows you to play a few dogfights. There have been loads of games like that down before and they were all boring to me (IL2 included). I thought this game was going to immerse me in the BOB and have a great campaign mode. It doesnt.

There are obviously two types of people on this forum - those who want a simulator and those who want a great game. We are not at opposed ends of the spectrum. It would be a better place if there was a bit of understanding here about peoples problems. If you dont want to read it then dont - no one is forcing you.


Quoting this dude for epic truth. Glossing over people's legitimate problems doesn't help anyone, and the current state of the game is pretty appalling, all told. A lot of us are disappointed in many of the same things as nats; I find the too-bright landscape, the pop-in, the myriad little immersion breakers and the poor campaigns a big let down, and we all know how the performance has been.

Doesn't mean we don't want things to improve - just that we expected better, and people of that opinion deserve to be heard just as much as the series-fanboys. Doesn't matter whether we're hardcore sim-heads or just want dogfights, we're all here for the same reasons: to have fun flying planes.

[ChocsAway]

S!

Jagr, the AI seems to have just the same AI routines as IL-2 had. The AI wobbles it's ailerons, rudder moving like a paddle, flap fighting, they suddenly just ignore you and fly straight, barrel roll evasions, outclimb tactics etc.

The bombers dogfight and collide like idiots. The power of their defence was a formation and they flew relatively steady. I can go fly in the middle of them without fear of getting even half seriously damaged. I flew under a bomber Do17Z at about 5m below the gunner and he MISSED! Shot his bullets to the sky as he tracked another plane, not mine.

The list of AI goes on. I just call it Appalling Idiocy as it is now. I like CoD, but as for now it is a test bed for patches. Not gonna go online before issues have been tackled. Remaining hopeful, but I think the US release will be the point where we can see what is gonna happen. A few weeks to go and really hope Luthier's gang will get it patched up before that.

Totally agree with you here. The AI is nothing short of a joke and the biggest immersion killer IMO. ME109s rolling faster than an F16. Friendly AI queing up and stealing kills. Enemy planes not bothering to evade when you pump bursts of fire into them repeatedly plus all of the above.

My biggest concern is that as others have mentioned, and that is that Clod will be abandoned by the devs once the USA version has been released. It needs a lot of work and some pretty huge patches to make the sim playable and more immersive. I hope we get that as there's lots to like about Clod already and I've spent many hours on it even in the broken state it is clearly in, but with so much potential it would be a real shame to see it fail.

[DogTailRed2]

I suggest you lower your visual settings and/or upgrade graphics card, RAM and processor. COD is very very playable. But it needs a lot of tuning from the user. It is not a standard FPS that you can just jump in and shoot around.

Many thanks to everyone for making this an interesting and lively thread.
My system is a reasonably decent set-up.

Quad core 2.33. 4 gb RAM. GTS 250 1gb RAM. 500gb RAID 0 striped discs for speed. Win 7 64bit.

While I appreciate that is not state of the art it should be able to cope with the basics the sim has to offer. My sliders are set at medium settings. If I go much lower then I just end up with IL2 in quality.

It's not just the FPS that is an issue for me. It's the feel of the sim. It just doesn't feel like i'm being immersed into a 1940 Battle of Britain environment. There are some really nice touches to the sim. The stream of oil from a bombers damaged engine. Impact hit flashes from cannon shells. The spiral trail of rounds. Actually hitting a 109 and seeing coolant from his rads.
What's missing is that scramble from a recognisable RAF BOB period airfield. Listening to the controller vectoring towards the bandits (which should be something like "Tophat Leader this is Pinetree control. I have some trade for you over Maidstone. 20+ bandits at Angels 15"). Not "Red 1 attacking bombers, attacking bombers, attacking bombers. I'm out of ammo!" (try 2 second bursts old AI chap).
There's not even any stirring music as you engage the enemy and those splash screens are decidedly eastern front in look and feel. What's with all the Panzers anyway. We weren't invaded and as for the Beaufighter, why?

When I fly FSX with the A2A Spitfire. 3 pumps on the primer. Firing the coffman starter and waiting for temps to rise, or checking the trolly acc is attached. Listening to the Merlin engine purring away. Pushing the throttle forward and hearing a Merlin growl. Opening the canopy, hearing the whistle as I crack it open, then the wind rushing around the canopy when I push it back. Looking down on an accurate depiction of England. Not needing maps as I can see landmarks and other features. Flying the circuit at Duxford. Hearing the steam vent popping because I overheated her again. Buzzing the tower at Alderney and hearing the gulls flying past. I feel immersion and I don't even have anything to shoot at.

When I fly COD over a stuttery unrecognisable sudo English landscape to do battle with a gaggle of, very nicely rendered, 6+ Stukas, in my Yak50 (well, that's what it sounds like and not very good at that). Opening the throttle wide and then wondering if i'm actually accelerating at all. Then having to wait for umpteen patches to get me to a level that probably still doesn't match the other sims out there. It grates when I've been told this will be the sim to end all sims. The new bench mark we have all been waiting for. 8 years. That's a lot of waiting.

Something else I would like to challenge is the concept that what will really make this sim a big hit are all the modders out there waiting to provide me with campaigns, fixes, patches and all the other stuff to fix the sim. I was expecting some of that to be included off the shelf. Anyway shouldn't the modders happen after a sim is released and has been played out. After all this sim isn't free-ware. If the community was needed to make this sim a hit then why didn't the programmers realise this, drop design of some of the content and focus on the environment. Give us a superb and brilliant framework to work with.

IL2 was a hit when I installed the demo. It was a hit when I bought the original, and the updates. Was an even bigger hit after all the fans produced updates to it. I just feel cod is design flawed. Has two many hang-ups from the original (menu system, simple formations, eastern block sounds) and two many missing elements from the original (lead in movies, music, playability).

To go back to my original premiss. That's why I see this as being just a game. A great game potentially with the ability for mass fur-balls on-line. A great game of mods and add-ons. But it's not going to be an accurate depiction of the Battle of Britain. No watching the fuel gauges for the 109's. No feeling of being outnumbered for the Spitfires. No scrambles or climb to battle and being bounced for the Hurri's. No late evening patrols in murky weather and trying to find base.

No Polish `flying circus` shouting "Repeat please" over the RT.

Regards,

Dog.

[TacKY]

I do like ROF as a combat sim, but as a WWI sim, it's far from it.

That's what it is suppose to be.... It never said that it was a WWI sim. At the moment, ROF is better. We aren't talking about two years ago but now. IL 2 is simply a buggy, horrible game and unless something changes soon then it is going to stay that way. And dont even start on that "Hurr Durr our computers can't handle its complexity Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerp" It's the Devs job to to make it work correctly not ours.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Oh, I guess I got it all wrong then. According to your wonderful knowledge, I guess they released the bombers to dogfight? Just gonna go out on a limb here and say, that the reason they have a bomb load, is to bomb ground targets (maybe even simulate bombing some of the stuff that was in WWI they historically bombed). Who'd a thought they were released to fight with each other.

Thanks for clearing that up. The "deerping and Hurr Durr" really helped your cause as well.

[TacKY]

Oh, I guess I got it all wrong then. According to your wonderful knowledge, I guess they released the bombers to dogfight? Just gonna go out on a limb here and say, that the reason they have a bomb load, is to bomb ground targets (maybe even simulate bombing some of the stuff that was in WWI they historically bombed). Who'd a thought they were released to fight with each other.

Thanks for clearing that up. The "deerping and Hurr Durr" really helped your cause as well.

Because they dont have boats, trains, vehicles, stationary targets, hangers.... oh wait. You're trying to take a cheap shot at ROF because of COD shortcomings. THe game isnt even close to simulating WWII. I might as well stop right here since its only to going to turn into a monotonous COD vs ROF thread. As is, ROF is better then COD. Have fun with COD if you think otherwise but until the devs get some useful AI and a dynamic campaign, it wont change my view.

[ATAG_Bliss]

I'm not trying to take a cheap shot at anything. But for people like you or nats that are going to come here and try to compare a sim that was released and patched numerous times in over 2 years time to a sim that hasn't even been fully released yet, is laughable at best.

IL2COD short comings, the faults/bugs in it's current state will get fixed. ROF has a bunch of catching up to do to even come close to reaching the game engine or the potential of IL2COD. And you can basically recreate the BOB on the ground or in the air with the FMB. So you are wrong and obviously unknowledgable.

[robtek]

Many thanks to everyone for making this an interesting and lively thread.
My system is a reasonably decent set-up......

>>>>That is, imho, your first and most important misconception.

Quad core 2.33. 4 gb RAM. GTS 250 1gb RAM. 500gb RAID 0 striped discs for speed. Win 7 64bit.

>>>>>>That was "decent" in 2009.

While I appreciate that is not state of the art it should be able to cope with the basics the sim has to offer. My sliders are set at medium settings. If I go much lower then I just end up with IL2 in quality..........

>>>>>>The devs mentioned before release that CoD would run on actual high-end
>>>>>> systems in med settings. It does much better!

........There's not even any stirring music as you engage the enemy and those splash screens are decidedly eastern front in look and feel. ...........

>>>>>>This is no Playstation game.

........When I fly FSX with the A2A Spitfire. 3 pumps on the primer. Firing the coffman starter and waiting for temps to rise, or checking the trolly acc is attached.......

>>>>>>OM didn't want to make a "procedure-sim", though i would like this also.

........ Looking down on an accurate depiction of England........

>>>>> Compared with some google-earth - shots, we have that already.


.........When I fly COD over a stuttery unrecognisable sudo English landscape to do battle with a gaggle of, very nicely rendered, 6+ Stukas, in my Yak50 (well, that's what it sounds like and not very good at that)..........

>>>>>>stuttery -> see my first remark, sound could be better.though.

........ Opening the throttle wide and then wondering if i'm actually accelerating at all........

>>>>>>There are Instruments, you know.


......But it's not going to be an accurate depiction of the Battle of Britain. No watching the fuel gauges for the 109's. No feeling of being outnumbered for the Spitfires. No scrambles or climb to battle and being bounced for the Hurri's. No late evening patrols in murky weather and trying to find base

No Polish `flying circus` shouting "Repeat please" over the RT..........

>>>>>>How can you possibly know that? Timemachine? This sim isn't finished yet!



Regards,

Dog.

I just had to comment.

regards

robtek

[Blackdog_kt]

That's what it is suppose to be.... It never said that it was a WWI sim. At the moment, ROF is better. We aren't talking about two years ago but now. IL 2 is simply a buggy, horrible game and unless something changes soon then it is going to stay that way. And dont even start on that "Hurr Durr our computers can't handle its complexity Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerp" It's the Devs job to to make it work correctly not ours.

I have no problem with people having an opinion different to mine and i could certainly sympathize with your point of view if you had taken some care to apply the same standards of judgment to both sims.

It seems that too many people expect CoD to be an all-encompassing battle of Britain simulator, but RoF you say is not supposed to model WWI and only needs to focus on the aircraft. Oh really? So why shouldn't CoD be allowed to do the same?

A two year old sim that focuses on a conflict with a more or less completely static frontline on a single map (plus seasonal texture variations) can't give you the complete WWI experience of a single year of that conflict, due to a severely limited choice of units to use as "actors" in recreating those WWI scenarios and this is just what's common knowledge and a direct consequence of its subject matter (less complicated aircraft, weapons, systems, etc). I'm not even mentioning the design complaints and limited engine capabilities reported by people who actually have the sim.

Two years on it seems that RoF still gets a pass for being developed by an upstart team, while all the judgmental attitude is reserved for the IL2 series. It's fine by me to have strict and high standards, as long as you apply them equally to all games you review and at similar points during their life. If you want to compare CoD with RoF, compare them at release. CoD has more flyables, more AI units and more stuff to do because the subject matter is more complex by nature, yet it's cheaper to own and improve on and with less restrictions on how you can play your game.
Does the much touted dynamic campaign of RoF work in offline mode? I don't think it does, in fact the only thing you can do offline is fly single missions and scripted campaigns which is (ding ding ding!) exactly what CoD has and with a more or less comparable amount of flyables but most importantly, a much more varied selection of AI units and the ability to use a lot of them in a mission to help enrich the scenarios we want to recreate.

I'm not telling you not to like it, i have been tempted to give it a go myself on various occasions. However, the way they develop and grow that sim is completely incompatible to what i expect from a simulation while on the other hand, the IL2 and CoD approach is much more suited to my taste-->long story short, it's a matter of taste too.

What i'm trying to say is that today's RoF is nothing like the early days, but if we go by that line of reason that says "the only thing that matters is a comparison in the present", then RoF must have been pretty awful too in its early days because IL2 was so much more complete, optimized, hassle-free and with tons of content.

As you can see, this school of thought only serves to create a skewed perspective, is not fair to any of the games/sims reviewed under such a "rule system" and completely denies any possibility of innovation in the genre. Why? Because if we compare sims with such a mind-set the older one will always win and there will be no room for anything new.

RoF was worse than CoD upon release (not to mention the original IL2) so if people had compared it to IL2 the same way you now compare it to CoD, the verdict would be that it didn't have the right to even exist. And if people thought like that, it wouldn't have improved to become the much better sim that it is today. See where this is getting?

All this is like taking a look at a litter of newborn puppies, deciding they are useless and opting to drown them in a pond instead of letting them grow, only because you can't go hunting with them just yet :-P

[Zoom2136]

Seems to me that a lot of folks are enjoying the sim nonetheless. Like IL-2 it might take awhile for hardware functionalility to catch up to software capabilities. Based on what others are saying, I'm still planning to download it when it's available in Canada.

It's already available, just get it online from Just Flight, that's what I did.

[Zoom2136]

The bombers dogfight and collide like idiots. The power of their defence was a formation and they flew relatively steady. I can go fly in the middle of them without fear of getting even half seriously damaged. I flew under a bomber Do17Z at about 5m below the gunner and he MISSED! Shot his bullets to the sky as he tracked another plane, not mine.

Well I guess it's an improvement over the original iL2 where bomber could snipe you arrss from 1k true 4 layers of clouds...

BTW, you may have been lucky than that gunner got tunnel vison... ;)

[Khamsin]

It just doesn't feel like i'm being immersed into a 1940 Battle of Britain environment.


There's not even any stirring music as you engage the enemy

Hmmmmmm

[robtek]

Yes Khamsin,
i also got the idea that he wanted to replay the movie :-D :-D
But then there should be HA112 and no Bf109 and there should be CASA 2-111 instead of HE111.
Oh, and od course all the Bf110 and Ju88A1 and Do-17 /215 are too much.
No stopping now, the tiger moth, the defiant, the blenheim, the Beaufighter and the Wellington have to go also.
So many resources wasted. sic!

[Heliocon]

Many thanks to everyone for making this an interesting and lively thread.
My system is a reasonably decent set-up.

Quad core 2.33. 4 gb RAM. GTS 250 1gb RAM. 500gb RAID 0 striped discs for speed. Win 7 64bit.

While I appreciate that is not state of the art it should be able to cope with the basics the sim has to offer. My sliders are set at medium settings. If I go much lower then I just end up with IL2 in quality.

It's not just the FPS that is an issue for me. It's the feel of the sim. It just doesn't feel like i'm being immersed into a 1940 Battle of Britain environment. There are some really nice touches to the sim. The stream of oil from a bombers damaged engine. Impact hit flashes from cannon shells. The spiral trail of rounds. Actually hitting a 109 and seeing coolant from his rads.
What's missing is that scramble from a recognisable RAF BOB period airfield. Listening to the controller vectoring towards the bandits (which should be something like "Tophat Leader this is Pinetree control. I have some trade for you over Maidstone. 20+ bandits at Angels 15"). Not "Red 1 attacking bombers, attacking bombers, attacking bombers. I'm out of ammo!" (try 2 second bursts old AI chap).
There's not even any stirring music as you engage the enemy and those splash screens are decidedly eastern front in look and feel. What's with all the Panzers anyway. We weren't invaded and as for the Beaufighter, why?

When I fly FSX with the A2A Spitfire. 3 pumps on the primer. Firing the coffman starter and waiting for temps to rise, or checking the trolly acc is attached. Listening to the Merlin engine purring away. Pushing the throttle forward and hearing a Merlin growl. Opening the canopy, hearing the whistle as I crack it open, then the wind rushing around the canopy when I push it back. Looking down on an accurate depiction of England. Not needing maps as I can see landmarks and other features. Flying the circuit at Duxford. Hearing the steam vent popping because I overheated her again. Buzzing the tower at Alderney and hearing the gulls flying past. I feel immersion and I don't even have anything to shoot at.

When I fly COD over a stuttery unrecognisable sudo English landscape to do battle with a gaggle of, very nicely rendered, 6+ Stukas, in my Yak50 (well, that's what it sounds like and not very good at that). Opening the throttle wide and then wondering if i'm actually accelerating at all. Then having to wait for umpteen patches to get me to a level that probably still doesn't match the other sims out there. It grates when I've been told this will be the sim to end all sims. The new bench mark we have all been waiting for. 8 years. That's a lot of waiting.

Something else I would like to challenge is the concept that what will really make this sim a big hit are all the modders out there waiting to provide me with campaigns, fixes, patches and all the other stuff to fix the sim. I was expecting some of that to be included off the shelf. Anyway shouldn't the modders happen after a sim is released and has been played out. After all this sim isn't free-ware. If the community was needed to make this sim a hit then why didn't the programmers realise this, drop design of some of the content and focus on the environment. Give us a superb and brilliant framework to work with.

IL2 was a hit when I installed the demo. It was a hit when I bought the original, and the updates. Was an even bigger hit after all the fans produced updates to it. I just feel cod is design flawed. Has two many hang-ups from the original (menu system, simple formations, eastern block sounds) and two many missing elements from the original (lead in movies, music, playability).

To go back to my original premiss. That's why I see this as being just a game. A great game potentially with the ability for mass fur-balls on-line. A great game of mods and add-ons. But it's not going to be an accurate depiction of the Battle of Britain. No watching the fuel gauges for the 109's. No feeling of being outnumbered for the Spitfires. No scrambles or climb to battle and being bounced for the Hurri's. No late evening patrols in murky weather and trying to find base.

No Polish `flying circus` shouting "Repeat please" over the RT.

Regards,

Dog.

Your gpu is pathetic, your ram is borderline too - That setups is in the range of budget gaming machine, which use better gpus than yours.

[TacKY]

I'm not trying to take a cheap shot at anything. But for people like you or nats that are going to come here and try to compare a sim that was released and patched numerous times in over 2 years time to a sim that hasn't even been fully released yet, is laughable at best.

IL2COD short comings, the faults/bugs in it's current state will get fixed. ROF has a bunch of catching up to do to even come close to reaching the game engine or the potential of IL2COD. And you can basically recreate the BOB on the ground or in the air with the FMB. So you are wrong and obviously unknowledgable.

Im comparing them in their current states now. Not what COD could be. You're obviously biased towards COD where I couldnt give a **** since if COD was better then I would say so. ROF has everything it needs to "recreate WWI" except for infantry combat and comprehensive tank battles. COD, at the moment, is sterile and lackluster. Its funny cause everything that even insinuates something against COD is met with hostility. Lrn2internet.

So you are wrong and obviously unknowledgable since you're trying to say that ROF will never reach the "POTENTIAL trolololol" of COD. The only potential I see is the discarded area of Ubisoft's big failed games lounge unless something is done soon and not in two years. Imma leave this here since it validates everything. Amidoinitrite?

I have simply given my opinion on the matter and you simply want to start some bull shit. Maybe I should wait for a couple years before I get the game that they actually meant to make which is a horrible strategy since they have publishers.

[Seeker]

I'm not trying to take a cheap shot at anything. But for people like you or nats that are going to come here and try to compare a sim that was released and patched numerous times in over 2 years time to a sim that hasn't even been fully released yet, is laughable at best.
.

Not fully released?

I sure as hell paid full price.

As far as I'm aware, ROF took a dam sight less then 8 years development plus a alpha release plus god alone knows how many patches it's going to take before I don't feel I was defrauded out of my money.

Yes, I'm aware it's only 30 bucks. I'd be bloody annoyed if the bar man short changed me a couple of quid even if the beer was drinkable. When he short changes me AND serves cat's piss then ....

But still, if you like the taste.

[TacKY]

Not fully released?

I sure as hell paid full price.

As far as I'm aware, ROF took a dam sight less then 8 years development plus a alpha release plus god alone knows how many patches it's going to take before I don't feel I was defrauded out of my money.

Yes, I'm aware it's only 30 bucks. I'd be bloody annoyed if the bar man short changed me a couple of quid even if the beer was drinkable. When he short changes me AND serves cat's piss then ....

But still, if you like the taste.


P O T E N T I A L

On these forums, you never talk about the current state of the game. Only its P O T E N T I A L.

Also, he is trying to say that it will magically get better once it is released in the US. They can have their delusions.

[Chivas]

The sim should never have been released this year, but its better COD was released now, than never, which was the only other option. Yes people are unhappy paying full price for an unfinished game, but it wasn't a total waste of money as it will allow time for the game to be finished. You'll just have to have a little patience with your wine, or find another restaurant. :)

[TacKY]

They could of released it as an Alpha for a reduced price but then they would of had to drop the publisher. It would of been received better since people know that it is just a rudimentary shell of what the game will be.

[Chivas]

It wouldn't have been possible to drop the publisher. The developer would have no where near enough money to pay off the publisher, whose supported COD for the last 6 plus years.

[Heliocon]

It wouldn't have been possible to drop the publisher. The developer would have no where near enough money to pay off the publisher, whose supported COD for the last 6 plus years.

Bad financing - they should of had it as a closed beta, pre ordering/buying lets you into it. Why? Because it would of negated/de-toothed the horrible reviews the game is now stuck with.

But as that is the logical thing to do - they didnt do it...

[ATAG_Bliss]

Im comparing them in their current states now. Not what COD could be. You're obviously biased towards COD where I couldnt give a **** since if COD was better then I would say so. ROF has everything it needs to "recreate WWI" except for infantry combat and comprehensive tank battles. COD, at the moment, is sterile and lackluster. Its funny cause everything that even insinuates something against COD is met with hostility. Lrn2internet.

So you are wrong and obviously unknowledgable since you're trying to say that ROF will never reach the "POTENTIAL trolololol" of COD. The only potential I see is the discarded area of Ubisoft's big failed games lounge unless something is done soon and not in two years. Imma leave this here since it validates everything. Amidoinitrite?

I have simply given my opinion on the matter and you simply want to start some bull shit. Maybe I should wait for a couple years before I get the game that they actually meant to make which is a horrible strategy since they have publishers.

Of course I'm biased towards COD. It already allows you to recreate the war you are flying in. ROF can't even come close to simulating being in WWI. You have over 100 troops in a mission, it won't even load. You have over 50 human players on a server it will crash. As someone who's been running a ROF server for over a year and someone who was a beta tester for ROF for a year, I'm fully well aware of the pathetic object and aircraft limitations that ROF has.

COD doesn't have them. There's several videos of people having over 1000 planes in a mission already in COD. That's a wet dream for ROF. So again, you've proven yourself to be unknowledgeable and wrong again.

I suggest everyone that was a mission builder for IL2-46 to go ahead and download the free demo for ROF. Go ahead and make a mission like you would for 46 and try to see what happens when you load it. Nothing! That's right. It won't even load.

IL2COD has 10x the amount of objects in the FMB than ROF's ME as well. But the coolest thing is, in IL2COD you can actually use them in a mission.

Now before you go on a tirade again with such words as "deeerrrrp, Amidoinrite, Hurr Derr" or any other stuff that really show your maturity level, may I suggest you "Grow Up!"

Judging by your posts here, where the second one was met with a ban threat for promoting ROF. And judging by your own words stating that you don't even own the game. Here's a hint for you, ROF has their own forums. Go ahead and tell all the people there, how good it is.

Not fully released?

I sure as hell paid full price.

As far as I'm aware, ROF took a dam sight less then 8 years development plus a alpha release plus god alone knows how many patches it's going to take before I don't feel I was defrauded out of my money.

Yes, I'm aware it's only 30 bucks. I'd be bloody annoyed if the bar man short changed me a couple of quid even if the beer was drinkable. When he short changes me AND serves cat's piss then ....

But still, if you like the taste.

Strange. I guess the version I bought from Steam that still has a release date of May 25th must be a lie!

P O T E N T I A L

On these forums, you never talk about the current state of the game. Only its P O T E N T I A L.

Also, he is trying to say that it will magically get better once it is released in the US. They can have their delusions.

The current state of the game has problems and issues. Noone is denying that. But what people like you don't seem to understand is that in 3 weeks time the sim has gone from 5FPS for virtually everyone to many enjoying playable frame rates and enjoyment. I'd say that's pretty good for 3 weeks. I wonder what will happen in another 3 weeks?

"But hey guys, this game sucks ass, it's bad and will never get fixed" We obviously won't get the support that the old IL2 got with 10 years worth of updates, support, improvements, and patches. No way. It won't happen. They are magically gonna stop supporting it because some troll on the forums said so. Laughable argument is laughable.

[RocketDog]

But having a large number of objects in a mission is not much use if the AI that drives the aircraft is terrible, there's no proper campaign, the FMs are dubious and the whole thing takes place in a comical flourescent lime-green vision of England. The number of people who will play big missions on line is far too small to support the game. CloD will stand or fall by the single-player aspect. Now, you're going to say that this will all be fixed because original IL2 was. But times are different in the PC game world from how they were ten years ago.

[ATAG_Bliss]

The AI appear to be pretty close to those of the old IL2. I would much rather have them cheat than be sitting there like a meandering easy target to shoot down. The more difficult the merrier in my opinion.

The best campaigns for IL2 were made by the community. In IL2COD this will be the same. And talking about SP you can recreate any mission you want with the FMB. If you'd do a search there's already been several people release campaigns they've already made just for the SP community. And the lime-green vision of England you are seeing depends on the time of day you are flying. Change your monitor/VC colors if you don't like the settings.

And yes, it will be fixed like the old one was. If you haven't noticed, the old one (the most successful sim of all time) is still being patched, supported, and improved today. The whole IL2 series is a WIP. Virtually every single friday update said WIP. Guess what? That's how the IL2 series is. And in 10 years, IL2COD will still be around with, more than likely, several complete theaters of war released.

[ZaltysZ]

But times are different in the PC game world from how they were ten years ago.

No, not really as there is no competition. They can take their time fixing, because even if people stop playing CoD now, they will return to it as there won't probably be anything, what could take its place (at least, not very soon).

As of now, it is a mess.

I'm fully well aware of the pathetic object and aircraft limitations that ROF has. COD doesn't have them. There's several videos of people having over 1000 planes in a mission already in COD. That's a wet dream for ROF.

On other hand, RoF AI has to be tweaked for not killing its own plane, in CoD AI has (it seems) to be tweaked for concealing that its plane has different FM. Don't you think that "1000 of planes" is possible because of this? I am not saying that is bad (in fact, it is good thing for large scale combat), but this comes not without loosing something.

[ATAG_Bliss]

On other hand, RoF AI has to be tweaked for not killing its own plane, in CoD AI has (it seems) to be tweaked for concealing that its plane has different FM. Don't you think that "1000 of planes" is possible because of this? I am not saying that is bad (in fact, it is good thing for large scale combat), but this comes not without loosing something.

You can take all the AI completely out of a mission and the spawnable ground targets and player planes limitations are the same. So no, I don't think it has anything to do with it. The server ( or your own machine in SP) handles the AI calculations (FM). So technically speaking, the better the hardware the more AI planes should be allowed in a mission. In ROF your hardware does not matter as once the limit is hit, (albeit a very small number) the mission will crash, not load, or the master browser stats will disappear.

So in closing, the only reason 1000 planes is possible, is because - unlike in ROF, your hardware determines the amount of planes and/or objects and not the game engine.

[Rattlehead]

Here's a hint for you, ROF has their own forums. Go ahead and tell all the people there, how good it is.



Precisely.
But alas it seems some people are more interested in whining about CoD than actually playing these other sims.

[ocococ]

If the plan was to drop support for COD, there would have been a world wide same day release, where they took the money and run. They certainly wouldn't have done an Eastern release with all the bad publicity that caused, then worked 24/7 for months for the western release. The plan is still to support and add on to the series for years. The early release just enfused the project with much need cash to continue work. The devs and publishers have certainly taken a serious publicity hit, but I suspect most in the community understand the process and have enough foresight to see the product improved for many years.

We all wish for that, but you have to admit there is no guarantee.

CoD was not the first flight simulator of Maddox Games as they already had a multi-year experience in developing IL-2.

So it is not fair to compare the 2 games from their release as many do.

You can somewhat forgive newly formed dev-teams like 777 now or Eagle Dynamics (in the old LockOn era) for "rookie" early mistakes, but you wouldn't expect that pre-alpha quality software from the best sim developers in the world.


I wish I will be wrong, but the (very basic) issues that are fixed in the recent patches indicate a stalled development without a bright future in sight. I see it like they all originate from a max of 2 persons working full-time. Probably a programmer and a tester.

Time will tell...

[TacKY]

Syn, I never said I was making an argument nor have I promoted rof. In fact the game is still nothing compared to the old il 2. I also do have cod so if I want to say it is bad then I can say so because that is what a forum is for. The only thing laughable here is you not knowing what trolling means and your attempt to justify selling an alpha for $44. I didn't come here to get insulted for stating my opinion on the state of the game. I didn't get this game for it's potential just like I didn't get rof for it's potential but I'll gladly wait since I got the game anyway. Either accept it or throw around your argument to someone that cares enough. This is really ******* stupid since you obviously haven't played rof and heavily biased towards cod. It's like trying to tell a christian there is no god (which there isn't). Protip to myself: never post an opinion that isn't in favor of cod on the European 1c forums.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Clearly, you are even incapable of reading comprehension.

It's nice to see you waved the white flag though.

Thanks for posting and showing you care (errr, don't care lol)..

Bye now!

[TacKY]

White flag? I merely don't want to keep on looking at these forums. YOu seem to can't comPrehend that someone doesn't like cod and all it's mediocrity. The only person that can't comprehend simple English is you seeing as you have taken a simple statement about rof and taken it two pages. Let me clarify since you may have a tough time reading. Rof is better than cod IMO. Cwutididthar. It's crazy when you add IMO.

[ATAG_Bliss]

You must have foot in mouth disease. 1st you go out and type a paragraph stating that ROF is better on the home of the forums for IL2. And then have the audacity to say you weren't wanting to get into an argument? Clearly you're not very smart and after being told by several people, including me why ROF will not hold a candle to this sim by some very valid points, the only thing you can say is that you don't care enough to argue and now you don't care enough to look at these forums? Yet you DO care because you are arguing and posting on these forums.

You are one big oxymoron.

Congrats!

Btw, thanks again for showing you don't care! :)

[TacKY]

I typed a paragraph that said what I thought about the game. I was tired of people trying to bring down rof because of cod shortcomings. You guys seemingly aren't smart because you are fighting with a ghost. I think rof is better only because of its stability and wilsons dynamic campaign. I agree on some points of you guys but the whole waiting for the actual game argument is absurd. My bd if you took my first statement the wrong way. Cod can be a good game bit waiting two years isn't really acceptable.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Where in any of my posts say anything about bringing ROF down? based on COD's shortcomings? Oh that's right! I didn't say that! I brought ROF down based upon it's OWN shortcomings!

Again, the reading comprehension with you isn't very good.

[DogTailRed2]

Your gpu is pathetic, your ram is borderline too - That setups is in the range of budget gaming machine, which use better gpus than yours.

It plays ROF and FSX (with lots of nice add-ons and enhancements) very well.

[TacKY]

Syn, I wasn't talking about you lol. I meant over the past couPle of weeks. Nothing wrong with my reading.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Oh, so who were you referring to? Can you provide some links to the posts? I read this forums regularly and haven't seen what you are talking about.

(Foot in mouth here we go!)

[TacKY]

Damn, I should go back and look up all threads since the game released that said something bad about rof.... It's not foot in mouth. It's. Too much work to prove a point on the Internet. I'll refer yOu to the only thread I remember since I rarely come here. "777 should take over cod". The op of that thread is dumb for the copypasta though. Have fun in all the "rof is bad" goodness.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Again you really need to learn how to read and digest information properly. The question wasn't based upon who said anything bad, it was on who said bringing ROF down based on COD's shortcomings. That thread was trying to say 777 should be making a WWII sim. And of course, in these forums, it was halted pretty quick. (about 7 times from the same poster)

That still doesn't answer the question I asked because that thread had nothing to do with the original point. So I'm still waiting on "all the threads" in the past 2 weeks that have done this.

With your amazing reading ability and the comprehension of, I would think you could actually answer the question.

Maybe you can respond and bring the other foot in your mouth as well.

[TacKY]

I'm not talking about what you said. It may it hurt your god complex but since the beginning I was talking about people talking bad about rof not anything you said but I guess you can't comprehend what I said. It must be hard for you. I'm not going back and searching all the threads I've seen on simhq and here. I gave you a thread where I saw people bashing rof and 777. It wouldn't be any use since you can't seem to read and it will only end up in use both making fun of each other.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Ok.

So here's a recap so your tiny brain can understand.

So in the beginning - 1st, this is what you said: "I was tired of people trying to bring down rof because of cod shortcomings."

I responded with saying that I brought ROF down because of it's OWN shortcomings. And asked to tell me where I said anything based upon IL2COD's shortcomings.

Then you responded by saying you weren't referring to me. But you've seen plenty of it go on in the past 2 weeks.

Then I asked who you were referring to.

Then you came back and said I can't be bothered to look up the posts. But you did remember one thread (that had nothing to do with bringing ROF down based on COD's faults) Instead that thread was about 777 making a WWII sim. Please try and keep up.

This is where this post of mine comes in:

Congrats on putting the other foot in your mouth. Not only can you not remember what you typed just hours before, you have just proven that you are a complete and utter imbecile.

And I don't know where you get "god complex" from, the fact that you are posting idiotic things that you can't back up your claim with, just proves that not only do you not have the slightest intelligence but you also have hardly any sort of reading comprehension skills. You don't even know what you typed just minutes before.

It's no wonder you try to use words like "Deeeeerrrrp, ucwatididthar, and Hur Dur". That must be an excellent interpretation of what's going on between your ears.

Now before you post again, PLEASE try to read and follow through this time. I can only hope English isn't your 1st language.

[TacKY]

TL:DR

The only thing we learned was that English is incomprehnesible to the both of us and that cod is a broken game. Maybe if I had actually read through most of your posts....

Post game recap:
English: no
Ruskie: ja
4chan: ya
Internet: ...

When is the next patch coming out

[whatnot]

That was a good old fashioned forum fight ladies and gentlemen!

But unfortunately that's it folks! The winner is Bliss by TKO! :)

[TacKY]

We are fighting?

[ATAG_Bliss]

We are fighting?

Enjoy your lifetime vacation!

[TacKY]

I really need one. It sucks living in Antarctica. Maybe I'll vacation in Japan. I need to learn how to swim better.

[GnigruH]

we are fighting? I thought for second syn was too busy getting his colon ruptured by luthiers dick while circle jerking around a broken game sold as new.
lol
Don't talk like that about these holy men!

[kimosabi]

[QUOTE=TacKY;280704]We are fighting? IQUOTE]

http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/2/27874/600107-oh_you_super.jpg

[Heliocon]

It plays ROF and FSX (with lots of nice add-ons and enhancements) very well.

Sorry - my comment sounds alot ruder/dismissive then I wanted it to be (I was just being blunt). Remeber ROF is DX9 game and is very limited in its CPU core use as well as advanced lighting. Point is that gpu does not cut it anymore, despite it running ROF well, the reality is just that you need to upgrade to a more modern gpu even if its low range like a 460gtx.