Stable Patch or Features/Content Poll

[FS~Phat]

Title says it all.
What do you want?

[Wutz]

Well what use are new features if essentials of the game are not working yet properly? Just more fuel for complaints?
New features is like saddeling a horse from the rear.

[FlyingShark]

Stable patch first for me. Don't get me wrong, I am eagerly lookin forward to more features but let's get the sim stable first please. We already have some great improvement but there's still work to be done.

~S~

[Plt Off JRB Meaker]

Stable patch first for me. Don't get me wrong, I am eagerly lookin forward to more features but let's get the sim stable first please. We already have some great improvement but there's still work to be done.

~S~

+100 %

If they can't get the sim stable for the majority,they're always going to go around in circles,it is IMO imperative they get to 1st base first.

I am also looking forward to what the future will bring with COD,but there are still way too many faults with this yet that need attention before the addition of more content.

I know this is not the thread to start listing them all but if they can't get the radio commands to work,then I for one will find it difficult to get enthused about any future content at all.You still can't inform you're wingmen/group to do anything!!,this fundamental flaw needs to be addressed quickly,like the next patch......hope you're taking note Luthier.;)

[Dano]

I'd like a rollback option so I can get my lost ~20% fps back thanks.

[JG14_Jagr]

I think the game has started to turn an important corner.. the stability fixes are something they will continue to devte resources to. Along with that, improving the implementation of certain things (SLI/XFire etc.) But I think that a small but growing portion of the resources should to moved to other areas like Flight Models/Performance, The GUI, The Sound System. I think those 3 features are going to move up the priority list now that the performance and stability is reaching a workable level for most people. I've been one of the lucky few to have had good stability and performance all along, but not everyone shares that.

[JG14_Jagr]

I'd like a rollback option so I can get my lost ~20% fps back thanks.

Dano, your system should run the game well.. is your 2500K running at stock speeds? If so, start reading up on OC'ing.. you should be at a nice safe 4.1/4.2 Gig easily with that even with a good air cooler..

http://www.overclock.net/intel-cpus/913294-step-step-overclocking-2500k-lamas.html

[Dano]

Dano, your system should run the game well.. is your 2500K running at stock speeds? If so, start reading up on OC'ing.. you should be at a nice safe 4.1/4.2 Gig easily with that even with a good air cooler..

http://www.overclock.net/intel-cpus/913294-step-step-overclocking-2500k-lamas.html

What does overclocking have to do with the 20% performance drop that the last beta and retail patch caused?

[Rattlehead]

For me the (official) patches have been rock solid so far...no crashes, no missing sound, none of that. I have had one CTD with the latest patch and that's been it.

So I voted for more content. A bit selfish, I know.

[Ze-Jamz]

personally my performance now is OK but as a whole community wise

Performance/stability
FM corrections
Added content

[Fragal]

Being selfish and voting for more content too , latest patch has solved the majority of issues for me happily flying online quite well now.

[Redroach]

I can't vote because the option that should receive at least 95% of the votes is not there: "both."

[Sauf]

Being selfish and voting for more content too , latest patch has solved the majority of issues for me happily flying online quite well now.

+1

[Ali Fish]

I can't vote because the option that should receive at least 95% of the votes is not there: "both."

what he said ! +1

[Blackdog_kt]

personally my performance now is OK but as a whole community wise

Performance/stability
FM corrections
Added content

Pretty much runs ok for me too, on a two year old PC no less, but i'll go along and agree with this, even adding a couple more:

1) Performance/stability

2) FM/DM corrections if and where they are needed

3) Gameplay related issues like the gyrocompass on the Ju88 or the inconsistent control logic between different aircraft: should our controllers correspond to a function of the in-cockpit controller (enrich mixture) or a position (mixture lever forward, whatever that means for the plane you're flying)?
Currently it's one way in some aircraft (eg, the in the G50 you move the throttle forward for more power and the in-cockpit animated throttle moves back like it was in the real fighter, the game controller corresponds to a function/effect) and the other way in others (the mixture lever on all RAF aircraft is reversed and we have to use it the same way, in this case mixtur commands correspond to the lever positions and depending on how these levers are set-up in the aircraft we get the final effect). It's also completely mixed up in some, like the Tiger Moth and the DH-prop Hurricane.

4) Amended Documentation to teach people what to do with those gameplay features.
There's a bunch of stuff that people cry "bug/broken/etc" about, which are actually realistic limitations of the aircraft and intentional features.

True, people bring all their IL2:1946 gaming habits and expect the new thing to work the same, but we can't really blame them when documentation doesn't go a bit more in depth on the main points of interest that generate most of the confusion.

What we can blame them for is not searching the forum for previous answers and not ever testing anything for themselves, this is appropriate and acceptable :-P

5) Extra content


There's no real reason to have extra content before the current content works as intended. The majority of players can't manage a radial engined aircraft or level bomb yet or change skins or save loadouts, etc etc....if they could, they would be busy enough enjoying what's there and this would buy the devs the needed time to work on more content.

Let's fix and document what's needed to have the complete list of currently available aircraft operating in they way they should be, then we can start adding more stuff. ;)

[carguy_]

The poll is flawed, since the idea is to bring both to the table simultaneously.

Besides that, since the 2nd official patch, most of the PCs seem to run the game fine. I know I didn`t get more than two CDTs in a 12 hour CoD usage. We need the additional content. First should be multiplayer scene to recreate the IL2 coops, then maybe we should get some ships to sink and then maybe new planes.

[ATAG_Dutch]

I can't vote because the option that should receive at least 95% of the votes is not there: "both."

Agreed, although if there was an option for total bug elimination, I'd go for that.

Sound bugs, stripes of land in the water bugs, stripes of water in the land bugs, props hidden by clouds bugs, big mauve rectangle in the landscape bugs, clouds and their shadows flickering annoyingly bugs, grass poking through your wing bugs, white dots from vehicle locations showing through your plane bugs, and bugs , bugs, bugs etc.

Oh, and an option to hide info boxes without deleting them altogether, because I did this and even if I reconfigure them all and save, they don't reappear on relaunching the game. But then I could've missed something.:grin:

[nearmiss]

There are disabled features in COD that can be enabled as the patches for a workable COD are released as well. So any poll response really doesn't make any information of value to anyone.

In other words, the poll has no value... sorry bout that.

[JG53Frankyboy]

well, IF all the already included content would work or could be used properly, we would have a hell of a game..................long way to go !

[Wolf_Rider]

strip it down and put it on go jacks

1. fix the body
2. paint the thing
3. fix the suspension
4. fix the engine
5. fix the drive train
6. fix the steering

then

6. fix the interior

after that

7. run her with pride


everything in order chaps... there's a lot to be fixed

[Redroach]

4) Amended Documentation to teach people what to do with those gameplay features.
There's a bunch of stuff that people cry "bug/broken/etc" about, which are actually realistic limitations of the aircraft and intentional features.

True, people bring all their IL2:1946 gaming habits and expect the new thing to work the same, but we can't really blame them when documentation doesn't go a bit more in depth on the main points of interest that generate most of the confusion.

What we can blame them for is not searching the forum for previous answers and not ever testing anything for themselves, this is appropriate and acceptable :-P

I agree on that. While there probably should be an aircraft basics manual, as one was included in Il-2 1946 (there are only a few planes in CoD, though; maybe some wise member of the community could provide one, like Corsican Corsair did with 1946 :cool: ), I've given up hope on a mature community as well.
So, additional info would be a plus; one could imagine that half of the "bug!!!!!11" - threads would be gone with plane specialities/limitations being explained somewhere.
On the other hand, it seems that maybe half of the community isn't willing/unable to read those things up, even when consolidated in such a manner, and head straight for the forums->create new thread - route. :twisted:

[Longbone]

Well what use are new features if essentials of the game are not working yet properly? Just more fuel for complaints?
New features is like saddeling a horse from the rear.

+ 100%
and make the sound stable please or is this a new feature ? :-)

[Blackdog_kt]

On the other hand, it seems that maybe half of the community isn't willing/unable to read those things up, even when consolidated in such a manner, and head straight for the forums->create new thread - route. :twisted:

Well, that's certainly part of the problem, but improved documentation will solve it: if the information is provided (heck, even put a link to it on the main menu in the game interface, or have something like an in-game "encyclopedia") we can all start replying with "RTFM" :grin:

[Formula88]

Game runs great for me and I have NEVER had the sound issue so many complain about. I vote for extra content since I'm a selfish person who only wants a p-47 or 51 in multiplayer.:cool:

[Space Communist]

The patch is already stable. PEBKAC.

[JG14_Jagr]

What does overclocking have to do with the 20% performance drop that the last beta and retail patch caused?

Because if you go from 120 fps to 95 fps its not really that big a concern if stability and content were added..

I love the people who think that IL2 1946 frame rates are what the Devs should be aiming for.. Really? Really? I get 360 fps at 1920X1200 in IL2 1946 now.. "Its NOT the same game engine.. get over it.."

[jimbop]

Depends what you mean by stable. For me this includes getting features which are not yet functioning working properly (i.e. loadouts).

[JG14_Jagr]

I can't vote because the option that should receive at least 95% of the votes is not there: "both."

Not really. Based on previous polls, 90% of the people are getting stability, and performance. 10% of the people are having issues but are obviously the vocal minority. Its not abnormal, if I don't have problems I'm less inclined to log in to say what ISN'T happening while if I have an issue I look for the solution online. The people who have had performance AND stability all along want to see content and FM work done.

[Redroach]

Yes really. By now, I'm somehow fed up with beta-testing and, judging by the current pace of fixing things, then fixing the two things the fix caused, then....; it'll be at least another year, emphasis on "at least", that all the major bugs and flaws in the FMs are sorted out - and I won't even talk about minor things like the MIDI(!) menu music playing its single(!) MIDI(!) track at random.
So imo, if the sinking ship is to be re-floated, they should kick out their developers who can't code/confuse left vs. right A-S-A-P, hire new guys wo CAN code, work up the botched codebase and get things going ffs!
So, if the game isn't gonna be awesome in record time, both in terms of bugfixing/FM fixing AND content, they can play big-scale domino with their shiny Battle of Moscow Add-on packagings, as far as I am concerned.

[Dano]

Because if you go from 120 fps to 95 fps its not really that big a concern if stability and content were added..

Assume much? I went from 53fps average to 44fps average and gained a load of stutter, again, what will overclocking do to help that? More to the point how will overclocking help Luthier and his team know that the patch caused a significant drop in performance for some people?

I love the people who think that IL2 1946 frame rates are what the Devs should be aiming for.. Really? Really? I get 360 fps at 1920X1200 in IL2 1946 now.. "Its NOT the same game engine.. get over it.."

I love people who assume incorrectly and then spout off as if they've been offended.

The fact of the matter is that the last beta and retail patch crippled performance on my system, I'd like that resolved before additional content, overclocking is something that should not be needed to return my system back to pre-patch performace levels.

[FS~Phat]

Voted Stable patch..but in all honesty this is an obvious requirement!.....pretty stupid and pointless poll if u ask me!...

Yes of course CLOD needs stability..it needs decent smooth fps with no stutter..it needs lots of fixing and stability for the basic code/engine...thats a basic requirement for any game!

But it ALSO needs proper sounds, a real proper Campaign mode!..., better terrain, better clouds, better AI, better AA, better weather, in fact apart from the nice Virtual cockpits it really needs better everything!.....so what is the point of this poll?....you should have done a huge mult option/answer poll instead of the two obvious options....

This Poll is pointless!...you may as well have a poll on what do you think is most important or needed to make a good cup of coffee...


A/water....

or

B/milk, coffee, cream & sugar

I voted A/ water cos without it you cant even begin to make a coffee!

That coffee poll is just about as useful as your poll! :rolleyes:

Not really pointless mate. Im interested in seeing how many people think the games is running OK that just want more content or features activated vs those that want it more stable because they are having problems.

The point is that Luthier will look at this and hopefully realise that the majority of users just want stability above all else and the team will hopefully put all efforts into making it stable before doing things like they did over last couple patches. Things like change lighting models, reenable propellers and the like.

These sorts of things being done in HOTFIX's is not a great idea, as this latest one has proven.. It breaks things while fixing others.

I understand its hard in development because you have different teams (or maybe persons in their case) working on different areas and potentially on different code branches that eventually get merged for integration testing.

The point is that if you introduce something new to something your trying to fix and you have different code branches (which is likely in this case) you are nearly always going to break something at the same time that your fixing something.. one step forward... two steps back. Sound familiar?

Its a trade off for cost vs function vs speed to market. In this case the product is out and they have recovered some costs with an incomplete game. Its time to stop stuffing around and just focus on performance and stability first. For me the stability has gotten worse since the initial release and maximum performance of the game engine has gone up and down massively as has the overall smoothness of the game.

[Redroach]

Maybe we should repeat it... a 'stable patch' is a frickin' matter of course! A patch which does nothing is perfectly stable. Professional programmers get paid for providing patches which don't f*** up your system/game in 2 other places. There is no point, as col123 said.
It seems like you got used to 1C/maddox's current modus operandi, but really, it should work a lot smoother - 1C is not a good measure right now, sad as it is.
To say it again, for good measure: Patches are the things which make programs more stable, not less. That's completely clear in the first place. Starting patches should fix some bugs left over from beta testing; subsequent ones are nomally provided to introduce new content (that could be buggy as well, so a small part will remain bug-fixing). Read: Stability comes along with new stuff. - maybe a little bit ahed, but still... I haven't seen a pure bug-fixing patch for a long time.