BETA PATCH v.1.08.18956 - August 3, 2012

[Winger]

We all want accurate flight model. Both types were a match except spit had lower radius turn, its wing load is lower so that's normal.
There's no point arguing the sim shall have balanced forces, they have to be accurate to history and we have to do the rest.

So 109 would substantially loose the advantage on climb and dive speed but they can do negative G and dive steeply which Spit cannot follow without a half roll first.

That's how it has to be until better german side aircrafts are available. The 109F was not matched because it had very much improved aerydynamic.

Any other discuss has no point, IL-2 has always been a sim and hence need to be realistic. Only FM are wrong currently, and I'm not sure either about the 109 characteristics.

You dont have to tell me that. I know you allies want a plane that wins automatically. Steep dive and spits that have enginecutout. Sorry if i only LOL on this one. At the beginning the enginecutout was modeled correctly. What happened? Allies side started to whine bigtime and now we have an engine cutout. But one that doesnt at all influence the dogfightingcapability of the spitfires. This enginecutout as we have it now is a plain joke.

Winger

[Winger]

Winger seems to think that unless he wins every single fight on co-e then the flight model must be porked. His loss.

Thats what all you allielovers ALWAYS start to scream when someone talks for the germans.
Getting old.

Winger

[Osprey]

ACG run both factions, we presently have 3 RAF squadrons and 1 Luftwaffe squadron. The difference with our Axis pilots to you is that they know what the real situation is with these FM's, so we never have arguments on this, we have discussions but we understand what the pros and cons of each type were. You don't.
Now what you need to do is do a small amount of research, just a tiny bit, and then make a comparison in game in the Spitfire. You'll soon find how poor it is compared with what it is supposed to be (And yes I know there are faults with the 109 too but they are far fewer).

If you are too lazy to do that then my crew will happily help you, sincerely, we will because tbh mate you don't know what you are talking about and it's really grating having to read this kind of ignorance so frequently.

[Robo.]

So if he does his job right its nothing but fine that you cant reach him. The other way around with a spit starting at higher energy level the 109 would have been smoked in seconds if he didnt run.

I see what you're trying to say with initial advantage / disadvantage here, but you obviously don't fly the RAF planes. If you would, you'd probably never write anything like that. ;)

On the other hand, I remember having a few fights with you and you always happened to quit in rage complaining about the FMs. Why was that, then? :-P

[Winger]

I see what you're trying to say with initial advantage / disadvantage here, but you obviously don't fly the RAF planes. If you would, you'd probably never write anything like that. ;)

On the other hand, I remember having a few fights with you and you always happened to quit in rage complaining about the FMs. Why was that, then? :-P

Thats BS!

Winger

[reflected]

Winger will surely have a witty remark, but is it normal that I fly the Spit at2600 rpm an half throttle rads fully open and the temp is still rising?

Also, it would be nice to have the gun belting working in the plane menu finally.

Performance wise the new beta is the best so far, well done!

[jf1981]

You dont have to tell me that. I know you allies want a plane that wins automatically.

I claim aircrafts in accordance with their real performance. K5054, the prototype of Spitfire, was fit with a fixed pitch propeller. It once did a level speed performance of 350 mph, that is an IAS close from 280 mph at 17'000 ft.
Later on, the production Spit did 290 mph at sea level and about 350 at 17'000 (TAS).

I claim all aircrafts to have their correct performance, today, open to the gate in a spit, you get 250 mph and above 240, it will increase very slowly. I don't know about 109 but all aircrafts are concerned with this, they should all have correct performances, I know that the Italian one has also much less than it should, it was said to match the Spitfire even more than a 109, and it's currently not good at all in flight.[/quote]

Steep dive and spits that have enginecutout. Sorry if i only LOL on this one. At the beginning the enginecutout was modeled correctly. What happened? Allies side started to whine bigtime and now we have an engine cutout. But one that doesnt at all influence the dogfighting capability of the spitfires. This enginecutout as we have it now is a plain joke.

Winger

You are right, I am not sure, but I guess it went from too sensitive to not enough, on a neg G, however you have to remember that before, just pushing a little bit, even at zero G for one split of a seconf, it had the engine cut instantly.

We had also very good performances in Spitfire, I think the climb rate in IIa was too high by about 50%, and when they updated that, it went from an extreme to another.

If you allow me to tell you, it's necessary to know a little bit more about what we are talking for actual performances are completely unbalanced and at that time, the Spit was a tremendous aicraft, it took the development of 109F and 190 to overcome the Spit II and even Mk V, only much later did the British come with the new variant of Spit which matched the latest fighter with the Mk IX.

Mark I and II were very good oponents to 109, they were taken by surprise, or often, the 109 had then to dive away.

It would have no sense to tune aircrafts with performances that have no relationship with reality.

PS Maybe you're not familiar with mph, the spitfire is missing more or less 60 km/h in level flight top speed at SL and approx 70 km/h at 5000 m alt.

[IvanK]

You dont have to tell me that. I know you allies want a plane that wins automatically. Steep dive and spits that have enginecutout. Sorry if i only LOL on this one. At the beginning the enginecutout was modeled correctly. What happened? Allies side started to whine bigtime and now we have an engine cutout. But one that doesnt at all influence the dogfightingcapability of the spitfires. This enginecutout as we have it now is a plain joke.

Winger

I fly primarily Luftwaffe. However your statement about the -ve G cut is incorrect. It was proven by in game flight test that the -ve G cut was occurring at 0.9G (that is a reduction of 0.1G ... barely nothing).

Documentation from RAE flight tests was provided. This documentation was quite specific in that -ve G cut out commenced at +0.1G (That is a a reduction of 0.9G from 1G flight .... a reasonable push). So what we now have is more correct. This has all been posted before but here is the documentation once again:

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/NegGonset2.jpg

[camber]

Hmmm, your example is a fight where you started at a disadvantage and didn't get shot down but couldn't kill the other guy.

That's a really bad example if you're trying to illustrate how bad it is for RAF pilots.

Hello Doggles,

You are absolutely right. I was just intrigued by Winger's example of a 109 pilot perceiving himself in a fair "balanced" fight continually stall turning onto the Spit but not getting hits due to Spit manouvreability, but with the Spit secretly cursing and feeling hard done by below because there is no way to break his defensive position without immediately being in a worse defensive position.

Besides the speed problems with all planes and RAF glass engine which are well documented, I am suspicious of the 109 current (seemly unchanged in latest beta patch) ability to use initial zoom from level to often get into an unassailable position from co-E and even slight disadvantage. But this is rather a secondary characteristic to things like level speeds, I'm not sure how historical data could tell us if this was possible or unlikely. And I might be flying badly. I'm not saying the situation can't be fun either.

If I am seen in the bounce on a good 109 pilot, I find that he just needs to turn away, a little dive if it looks like I might get into guns range, then rapid climb which I cannot follow even at "engine explode in 1 min" settings. Perhaps this is really what 109s could do in 1v1s at all alts, the wide range of anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise to me though.

Of course the really frustated bounces are when he DOESN'T see you and you come screaming in behind but don't quite make guns range before your speeds equal and he draws away flying straight and level for England :)

Cheers, camber

[jimbop]

[QUOTE=IvanK;454021]I fly primarily Luftwaffe. However your statement about the -ve G cut is incorrect. It was proven by in game flight test that the -ve G cut was occurring at 0.9G (that is a reduction of 0.1G ... barely nothing).

Documentation from RAE flight tests was provided. This documentation was quite specific in that -ve G cut out commenced at +0.1G (That is a a reduction of 0.9G from 1G flight .... a reasonable push). So what we now have is more correct. This has all been posted before but here is the documentation once again:

[cut]

Interesting, thanks IvanK. At least red (and purple) pilots were taught how to roll over into a dive! There was very little margin for negative G as you point out.

[bornflying79]

Ive never flown a spit in real life, but I am a corporate pilot and have flown a gravity fed- non inverted fuel pump aircraft: a stock Cessna 172 into zero G's just for fun. Does the engine quit instantly? Of course not, fuel remains in the carburetor long enough for a few seconds of zero or negative G's.

I haven't even played this game yet (waiting on a real, final, playable release) but thats my 2 cents on the issue.

[DairyAir]

I have never flown a Spit in real life either.:cool:
I Flew solo in a C-172 for the first time in 1959. I fly on.
I have flown a fair number of carburetor fed, piston engined aeroplanes.

In my experience.
Pushing the aircraft's nose down moderately should not cause the engine to immediately quit.
Airspeed should not be immediately, and drastically reduced, apparently directly related to RPM.
Mass and Momentum, should serve to keep things moving along.

In my humble opinion Eh! :)

[SiThSpAwN]

Pushing the aircraft's nose down moderately should not cause the engine to immediately quit.

You are quite right, it shouldnt, which is why it was fixed in later version of the Birtish fighters. But this is a factual known issue with these planes due to the lack of direct fuel injection, which when put into negative g's cause the fuel to be forced out of carb.

Now whether this effect in game is too much or too little is something I have no clue on judging.....

[SiThSpAwN]

Where is Miss Shilling's orifice when you need it ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Shilling%27s_orifice

[IvanK]

Miss Schiiling didn't have an orifice at the time of BOB :)

[Bokononist]

You are quite right, it shouldnt, which is why it was fixed in later version of the Birtish fighters. But this is a factual known issue with these planes due to the lack of direct fuel injection, which when put into negative g's cause the fuel to be forced out of carb.

Now whether this effect in game is too much or too little is something I have no clue on judging.....

Dairy.air is well aware that it is a factual issue, which is why he is using real life facts (he flies a cessna with a carburreter fed engine) to suggest that the negative g cutout is not modelled correctly.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Miss Schiiling didn't have an orifice at the time of BOB :)


Oh I bet she did!!!

:D:D

[Osprey]

It was introduced during the BoB afaik.

[Flanker35M]

S!

And how about this? "Miss Shilling with a small team travelled around the countryside in early 1941 fitting the restrictors, giving priority to front-line units. By March 1941 the device had been installed throughout RAF Fighter Command."

[OverVolts]

I noticed a performance increase in this patch, and also the allies plane rear view mirrors are finally fixed to not cause the FPS dips.

[flyingblind]

They also seem to be off by default when you start a mission. But they are still a chocolate teapot for seeing what is behind you.

[DairyAir]

Precisely.

I.M.H.O.
As indicated in several charts of the time period.
The cut-out should not occur until the aircraft reaches -.9G.
Not as it is now, where the slightest nose down, causes an instant cut-out.
Accompanied by an equally unrealistic airspeed drop. Mass and Momentum of the Aircraft damp this Airspeed loss down considerably in real life.

2 cents Eh!:)

Dairy.air is well aware that it is a factual issue, which is why he is using real life facts (he flies a cessna with a carburreter fed engine) to suggest that the negative g cutout is not modelled correctly.

[IvanK]

Precisely.

I.M.H.O.
As indicated in several charts of the time period.
The cut-out should not occur until the aircraft reaches -.9G.
Not as it is now, where the slightest nose down, causes an instant cut-out.
Accompanied by an equally unrealistic airspeed drop. Mass and Momentum of the Aircraft damp this Airspeed loss down considerably in real life.

2 cents Eh!:)

As posted the Actual documented figure is Neg G effects commence at +0.1G that is a 0.9G decrement from 1G flight. What we NOW have in Ver 1.08 is pretty close to the mark.

If you are not running Ver 1.08 you will be seeing the Old value that was way to sensitive.

WRT to Dates. The Schiling orifice didnt come into service until Post BOB. The graphic below comes from the UK National Archives document AVIA 13/234. The image is the first page of this file and is a covering minute to the file. As you can see its dated 21St Feb 1941. This document is the source document with measured G onset values of the cut as well. As can be seen even in the covering minute the values of +0.1 ---> 0g is quoted. This has all been debated (and proven) in numerous debates on this forum over the last 12 months.
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/Negminute.jpg

[DairyAir]

I stand corrected. :oops:

IvanK is correct, Ver. 1.08, does in fact feel pretty good. :cool:


As posted the Actual documented figure is Neg G effects commence at +0.1G that is a 0.9G decrement from 1G flight. What we NOW have in Ver 1.08 is pretty close to the mark.

If you are not running Ver 1.08 you will be seeing the Old value that was way to sensitive.

WRT to Dates. The Schiling orifice didnt come into service until Post BOB. The graphic below comes from the UK National Archives document AVIA 13/234. The image is the first page of this file and is a covering minute to the file. As you can see its dated 21St Feb 1941. This document is the source document with measured G onset values of the cut as well. As can be seen even in the covering minute the values of +0.1 ---> 0g is quoted. This has all been debated (and proven) in numerous debates on this forum over the last 12 months.
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/Negminute.jpg

[Outlaw]

(As far as i know we still cant assign vital functions to keys, can we? Isnt working for me at least ).

I have not changed my key/stick mappings since the initial US release and I can control everything required for CEM without the mouse.

--Outlaw.

[Baron]

I have not changed my key/stick mappings since the initial US release and I can control everything required for CEM without the mouse.

--Outlaw.


Finally got it to work to. I have no idea why it hasn't worked before.

Makes flying and df`ing at the same time a whole lot easier let me tell you. :-D

[4./JG53_Task]

Can anyone help me with this issue. I can not find a solution after trying everything anywhere.

I just bought/downloaded the game on steam, verified the game cache, THEN unrar'ed the beta patch folder 'parts' into my main CoD root folder and overwrote anything that it asked me to.

Now when I try and start the game, either normally and also tried running it as administrator, the launcher spits out an error saying "Launcher.exe has stopped responding" and the game simply doesn't start.

I followed the instructions exactly, my flight buddies did the same thing with no issues, but I'm having some f'ing bad luck here.

[Anders_And]

Can anyone help me with this issue. I can not find a solution after trying everything anywhere.

I just bought/downloaded the game on steam, verified the game cache, THEN unrar'ed the beta patch folder 'parts' into my main CoD root folder and overwrote anything that it asked me to.

Now when I try and start the game, either normally and also tried running it as administrator, the launcher spits out an error saying "Launcher.exe has stopped responding" and the game simply doesn't start.

I followed the instructions exactly, my flight buddies did the same thing with no issues, but I'm having some f'ing bad luck here.

I might be wrong so might want to confirm this. Start by reverting back to a clean install in steam..
Once back there, instead of using winrar, use the program 7-zip or winzip indtead. I think this is a known bug when using the the wrong unziping program. Dont ask me why...

[Rangi]

Task did you start the game once and ran a mission before installing the beta patch? There seems to be some 'things' it needs to do first. i had launcher crashes until i:
verify game
start clod and start a mission
delete cache
unpack beta patch (i also had a corrupted file at one stage when downloading from airwarfare)
good to go.
hope this helps

[JG26_EZ]

Once back there, instead of using winrar, use the program 7-zip or winzip indtead. I think this is a known bug when using the the wrong unziping program. Dont ask me why...


The above advice is wrong from what I have heard. Should be the other way around.. Don't use winzip

[ietk]

Just got the game steam updated to version 1.05.15950, downloaded de beta patch 1.08.18956 and followed these instructions

For those who are still asking how to install the patch correctly, I will quote what B6 said on other thread:

If you do the integrity check, you will go back to the last official version (before all the recent betas).

If you uninstall everything, download and reinstall, it will also get you to the latest official version.

So, they do the same thing, but the integrity check takes less time. I prefer the integrity check

My checklist:


1) Verify integrity of local files (to get back to last official version)


2) Go to your documents\1c softclub\IL-2 sturmovik cliffs of dover folder and
go into the cache folder. Delete everything in there
(the game will rebuild it based on the new version next time you run the sim).


3) Extract the beta patch in the game folder
(c:\whatever_you_named_it\steam\steamapps\common\I L-2 sturmovik cliffs of dover) and let it overwrite anything it wants to overwrite


4) Run the sim one to force it to rebuild the cache.


5) Start a free flight quick mission to force it to add anything else it
might need in the cache.


6) Exit the sim.


7) Restart the sim.

Now you can test your frame rates with a clean install of the latest beta,
as well as a correct cache folder for your version. If you skip
steps 5,6,7 you might see that initially you get worse performance,
because the game might still be adding files to the cache. However,
the next time you start it, it will be better and you will get the true
performance.

After doing all of that the version number on the bottom right (red letters) keep showing version 1.05.15950, I wonder if I'm doing something wrong...a little help here please, thanks.

[Propblast_1]

had the same proplem till I used 7-Zip to extract the beta .

7-zip is a free download, do an internet search for it if you do not have it.

[GF_Mastiff]

Just got the game steam updated to version 1.05.15950, downloaded de beta patch 1.08.18956 and followed these instructions



After doing all of that the version number on the bottom right (red letters) keep showing version 1.05.15950, I wonder if I'm doing something wrong...a little help here please, thanks.

well for starters are you on steam? if so you may be replacing the beta files with the official latest release when you do an integrity check.
turn off cloud update and and steam update for cliffs.

[benson]

The last but one Beta patch slowed my game right down so I was hoping for better from this one but no, my Fraps took a definite nosedive.

[JG52Uther]

Did you follow the instructions in the first post? It might help if you didn't.

[benson]

I did JG52Uther to the letter. I'm not too bothered though. The game runs well enough on my old setup and I'm enjoying it but thanks for the suggestion anyway.

[ietk]

well for starters are you on steam? if so you may be replacing the beta files with the official latest release when you do an integrity check.
turn off cloud update and and steam update for cliffs.

I'm running the steam version of the game, frustation is all way up there now, I did turn off cloud and auto update for the game, did integrity check, cleared cache folder, extracted the patch allowed overwrite, ran the sim and flew a quick mission, exited the game and restarted only to find out I am still running version 1.05.15950, I see the version at the beggining of the game, can anyone tell me how to properly install this patch? because it is not working for me, any help will be really appreciated, thanks.

[michel91]

I dont know if this is the origin of your problem, but if you are under Windows 7, you may have a problem of write protection of program files when you extract the patch, depending on the tool.
To avoid that kind of trouble, I extract the patch in a temporary directory (in my case on D: disk, reserved to data) and I just use the copy facility of Windows 7 to copy the files from the temporary directory to the Steam game folder, allowing to overwrite files if necessary. I do the copy in an administrator user account.
I prefer that kind of approach because you are sure of the way copy function handle write protection, which is not always true with other tools.

[ietk]

Well, well, well I found the problem and it was me! I was extracting the patch on the documents folder and not on the steam, no words......, but I already had 5 CTD running 1.08 while I never had one on 1.05, doing a clean installation and patch to see if it solves the problem.

[Holkham]

Where and how did you download the folder, Please advise, thankyou.

[cebit]

Only time i personaly get that message is when i have TS activated b efore started the game for some reason.
Need to wait till sit int he pit first before TS is engaged at al. Think might have something to do with the overlay i have activated... i think :)
Good luck to you anyways
Cebit

[Anhedonic93]

Hi

I am tearing my hair out. This is what has happened so far:

Downloaded the game via steam
It worked - I could set controls and play training missions, quick missions, campaign and everything else, but was getting launcher errors and CTD's so...
Downloaded this beta patch and followed instructions to clear cache etc and isntalled....
Game ran, but when I tried to start campaign some of the options were missing- for instance I go to campaign, new, start, fly - then I get loading screen which reaches 100% and boots me to desktop, where as previously there were "loadout" options next to either "Start" or "fly" i cannot remember which, so.....
I uninstalled the game and re-installed totally vanilla and now I can't play it as the issue above is recurring, on ALL missions, training,campaign, free fly and quick, so...
I uninstalled the game, then uninstalled steam, ran CCcleaner to remove any registry entries and reinstalled both programmes and...
The exact same thing is now happening.

It doens't matter how many times I uninstall and reinstall, I now get booted to desktop every time the mission loading screen reaches 100%, and have no "loadout" options where as upon the first, original installation i was able to play, albeit with issues. I cannot find any files after unistalling that are left over that might be affecting a re-install and I've cleaned my registry with two separate PC cleaners (CCclearner and kingsoft PC doctor).

Below is my DXdiag DXdiag. I am in no way blaming the mod as I understand it changes alimited number of files and should disappear entirely once the uninstall process for the game is complete. Please note i am now not trying to use the mod in any way, I'm just trying to install the stock game on my machine.

Please help if you can. I am out of ideas!

Many thanks

[Anhedonic93]

Please note i cannot copy paste my dxdiag as it exceeds the max characters for a post and I cannot attach it as it exceeds the maximum size for a file attachment, which leaves me with a bit of a problem.

Thanks

[Continu0]

Hi

DO NOT install this Beta-Patch. Steam provides you the last official version. So just let steam check your files and clear your cache... Then you should be fine...

Maybe post your system-specs... (Hardware, Operating System, etc.)

[Anhedonic93]

Hi

DO NOT install this Beta-Patch. Steam provides you the last official version. So just let steam check your files and clear your cache... Then you should be fine...

Maybe post your system-specs... (Hardware, Operating System, etc.)

Hi

Thanks for this, didn't realise! I am re-installing the game now with a fresh install of steam. I'll post back once it's done and shout if the problem persists. I'm not optimistic though as this is the about the fourth time lol.

Cheers

[Continu0]

Did you clear the Cache? This is very very important!

Delete everything in the folder: C:/ YOU / Documents / 1C Softclub / il2 cliffs of dover/ cache

!!!!!!

[Anhedonic93]

hi

Yes this is what i've done so far:

Before i mistakenly installed this patch I just booted the game as usual and was able to play all missions and configure controls to my joystick no probs. Looked stunniing, bit of lag from what i hear that's not new, so played with settings until my machine was relatively happy.
Installed patch - BAD! oops.
CRASH ON MISSION LOAD AT 100%
Unistalled game
Reinstalled game
CRASH ON MISSION LOAD AT 100%
Veryify files-came back no prob
Clear cache
Start game
CRASH ON MISSION LOAD AT 100%
Uninstalled steam, Unistalled game,
Reinstalled steam, reinstalled game.
CRASH ON MISSION LOAD AT 100%
clear cache, boot game
CRASH ON MISSION LOAD AT 100%
uninstall steam, unistall game
run pc cleaner (CCcleaner and PCDoctor)
reinstall steam, reinstall game
CRASH ON MISSION LOAD AT 100%
Pull hair out, hit computer.......

[Troll2k]

What OS?

[Anhedonic93]

xp sp3, which the game says should run it.

I've found a solution anyway. I've uninstalled this POS from my computer. I guess i can go sing for the ten quid it cost me. I'm beginning to understand why steam offered it at this price.

Someone should loose their job for releasing this half baked mess of a game. I got 20mins playtime max on the original install before it crashed to desktop. My graphics card, memory and processor exceed the minimum requirements. I simply cannot afford to purchase windows seven at the moment. I've uninstalled it, along with steam around five times now and simply cannot start ANY mission.

Utter rubbish. But thanks for trying to help!

[Continu0]

xp sp3, which the game says should run it.

I've found a solution anyway. I've uninstalled this POS from my computer. I guess i can go sing for the ten quid it cost me. I'm beginning to understand why steam offered it at this price.

Someone should loose their job for releasing this half baked mess of a game. I got 20mins playtime max on the original install before it crashed to desktop. My graphics card, memory and processor exceed the minimum requirements. I simply cannot afford to purchase windows seven at the moment. I've uninstalled it, along with steam around five times now and simply cannot start ANY mission.

Utter rubbish. But thanks for trying to help!

I can understand your frustration, believe me.
But you should also believe me that if the game is running, it is a lot of fun!
So, I recomment giving it another try, at the latest if you ar getting windows 7!

(and get win 7 64bit!!!! 32 sucks!)

[Anhedonic93]

After much diggin around I've found a way to give some information from the .dmp files that the game creates when it crashes.

Does anyone here know how to read these things? It looks as though there's a problem with the core.dll.

This dump file has an exception of interest stored in it.
The stored exception information can be accessed via .ecxr.
(524.744): Access violation - code c0000005 (first/second chance not available)
eax=3af60000 ebx=297f98c8 ecx=00000007 edx=7c90eb94 esi=297f98a0 edi=297f98f8
eip=7c90eb94 esp=19f0dc84 ebp=19f0dc94 iopl=0 nv up ei pl zr na pe nc
cs=001b ss=0023 ds=0023 es=0023 fs=003b gs=0000 efl=00000246
*** ERROR: Symbol file could not be found. Defaulted to export symbols for ntdll.dll -
ntdll!RtlAnsiStringToUnicodeString+0x59:
7c90eb94 c3 ret

And after doing !analyze -v:

FAULTING_IP:
core!Cube::Restore+1dcd5
06a56cd5 8b4b04 mov ecx,dword ptr [ebx+4]

EXCEPTION_RECORD: ffffffff -- (.exr 0xffffffffffffffff)
ExceptionAddress: 06a56cd5 (core!Cube::Restore+0x0001dcd5)
ExceptionCode: c0000005 (Access violation)
ExceptionFlags: 00000000
NumberParameters: 2
Parameter[0]: 00000000
Parameter[1]: 00000004
Attempt to read from address 00000004

PROCESS_NAME: Launcher.exe

ADDITIONAL_DEBUG_TEXT:
Use '!findthebuild' command to search for the target build information.
If the build information is available, run '!findthebuild -s ; .reload' to set symbol path and load symbols.

MODULE_NAME: core

FAULTING_MODULE: 7c900000 ntdll

DEBUG_FLR_IMAGE_TIMESTAMP: 507eb270

ERROR_CODE: (NTSTATUS) 0xc0000005 - The instruction at "0x%08lx" referenced memory at "0x%08lx". The memory could not be "%s".

EXCEPTION_CODE: (NTSTATUS) 0xc0000005 - The instruction at "0x%08lx" referenced memory at "0x%08lx". The memory could not be "%s".

EXCEPTION_PARAMETER1: 00000000

EXCEPTION_PARAMETER2: 00000004

READ_ADDRESS: 00000004

FOLLOWUP_IP:
core!Cube::Restore+1dcd5
06a56cd5 8b4b04 mov ecx,dword ptr [ebx+4]

FAULTING_THREAD: 00000744

BUGCHECK_STR: APPLICATION_FAULT_NULL_CLASS_PTR_DEREFERENCE_INVAL ID_POINTER_READ_WRONG_SYMBOLS

PRIMARY_PROBLEM_CLASS: NULL_CLASS_PTR_DEREFERENCE

DEFAULT_BUCKET_ID: NULL_CLASS_PTR_DEREFERENCE

IP_ON_HEAP: 3f800000

FRAME_ONE_INVALID: 1

LAST_CONTROL_TRANSFER: from 3f800000 to 06a56cd5

STACK_TEXT:
WARNING: Stack unwind information not available. Following frames may be wrong.
19f0ede4 3f800000 00000780 00000438 00000000 core!Cube::Restore+0x1dcd5
19f0ede8 00000000 00000438 00000000 00000000 0x3f800000


SYMBOL_STACK_INDEX: 0

SYMBOL_NAME: core!Cube::Restore+1dcd5

FOLLOWUP_NAME: MachineOwner

IMAGE_NAME: core.dll

STACK_COMMAND: ~29s; .ecxr ; kb

BUCKET_ID: WRONG_SYMBOLS

WATSON_IBUCKET: -1082237635

WATSON_IBUCKETTABLE: 1

FAILURE_BUCKET_ID: NULL_CLASS_PTR_DEREFERENCE_c0000005_core.dll!Cube: :Restore

WATSON_STAGEONE_URL: http://watson.microsoft.com/StageOne/Launcher_exe/1_0_0_0/4d6e3d08/core_dll/0_0_0_0/507eb270/c0000005/000e6cd5.htm?Retriage=1

Followup: MachineOwner

[Continu0]

Hi there!

Glad you give it another chance. I think you are going a little bit far with the dump-file. No one i know has ever looked at them, so I guess we can´t help you with that.

First of all: Yes, Cliffs of Dover is a buggy game. Everyone in the community knows that it was released way to early, and even the developers themselfes are aware of that and are not happy with it. We don´t have an official statement, but the community suspects, that it was a management-decision to release the game that early. The Developers itself for sure knew in what state the game was at it´s release.
So... shit happens, no one can change that now... But:

Concerning your problem:

1. Can you please confirm that you deleted the cache after reinstalling the game? Again, this is very important! If you don´t do this, you probably will never get the game running...!

2. I suggest you try this or anything similiar for windows XP. it is from another forum member:

"Hey Guys, Got 2 things worked like a charm, no stutters , no slide show for ati an nvidea users .

Win7 USERS , Go into control panel to Programs an Features Go into Microsoft. NET Framework 4 Client Profile. double click on it , An repair it , After repair it will ask restart do it .

Then go to C PROGRAM FILES X86 , Then Steam Then Steamapps, Then common . il-2 sturmovik cliffs of dover Then redist Then go into DirectX Folder , Scroll down til you see When you see DXSETUP Double click on it , an run it!!

For they guys that did this , THE CHEERING SECTION IS OUT, All of us had the same results. NO SLIDE SHOW NOT A STUTTER. Even with 3 spits an 7 or 8 109s at 1000 feet above the the 3 base close together north of the French point ( our normal slide show, Repeated 3 times , Stayed hard on 60 fps an high 75 my vsync on all setting high an original , For the first time since i bought this game , it was amazing!!! If this helps tell others ( for me an several others who did this ) All i can say is WOW !!!"

If this doesn´t help, I fear that i have no other ideas that might help you...

Good luck!

[ATAG_Colander]

It's something related to the video mode. After 100% it changes the resolution etc.

Try looking at your video config in the game, maybe you have a wrong resolution or you have window mode enabled (or something).

Also, since you installed the beta by mistake, I would competely remove the 1C folder from "my documents" so no ini file remains with a possible wrong config on it.

[Continu0]

Also, if you are using an ATI-Graphics card, delete the ubisoft-logo-film in the begining. It´s called logo.wmv and you can find it in the game-files...

[Anhedonic93]

Thanks so much peeps.

Short of re-installing windows, i did everything to flatten my pc- restore to last monday, verify windows files, error checked both partitions and de-fragged, cleared registry and defraged registry. Now i am going to re-install steam and the game and see if I have any luck. I had a suspicion that the game or steam was referencing a corrupt file or registry entry that was not being uninstalled along with the rest of the game, which was making each re-install attempt a futile endeavour. We shall see. In the meantime i got hold of 1946 and am in the process of applying mods and stuff until I can get the other one to work!