Patch road map ?

[jf1981]

Hi all,

I would like to have the word of the devs in terms of when they will finally plan the patch that deals with
- main graphic performances issues
- aircraft performances

Please ?

It's now completely unfair, just for example, we had tonight an online campaign and as a hurricane pilot, I've just had three major issues :

First off, I burned the egine for climbing at 2800 rpm and was later told more than 2400 will cook the engine

Respawn.

Second, It took so long time to get at 17'000 ft only to find I can't exceed 120 mph IAS, I checked in the archives, the Hurricane Mk.I made IAS 230 at 15'000 and climbed to 30'000.

Shot down by 109 apparently dive zooming with a lot of energy on the all of us, Hurricane.

Finally, I had once more the usual 1 frame per second whenever there was many aircrafts around me.



It's not possible to drive any campaign in those conditions, and further and finally, it is a long time since we last had the information that developpers were aware of our problems.

So nearly a year and a half passed its existence, is there a will from the development to finally make the game perform correctly ?

It's playable as low flying short distances dogfight, Spit IIa versus 109, lower than 8000 ft, and not too much players around.

Passed that situation, nothing good much possible, that is an historical battle.

It is more than ever time to let us know what is happening. Each patch comes with problems to deal with.
We have seen much improvements in the first weeks, and as soon as it reached some quite stable and about correct performance, it just stopped to be really improved but it's not yet, in my opinion, where it should have been before even being realeased ready for public.

But we're - some of us - great fans of IL-2 and we desperately expect the right patch.

Please do something about it and keep us informed.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Hi all,
Hiya!

I would like to have the word of the devs in terms of when they will finally plan the patch that deals with
- main graphic performances issues
- aircraft performances

Please ?

It's now completely unfair, just for example, we had tonight an online campaign and as a hurricane pilot, I've just had three major issues :

First off, I burned the egine for climbing at 2800 rpm and was later told more than 2400 will cook the engine

Respawn.

Second, It took so long time to get at 17'000 ft only to find I can't exceed 120 mph IAS, I checked in the archives, the Hurricane Mk.I made IAS 230 at 15'000 and climbed to 30'000.
Really? What was your climb speed and radiator settings during the climb?

I recently did a Hurri ROC test and it took me about ~10min to get to ~17kft where as the real world data I was using as a comp said it should only take about ~7min, see attached

[jf1981]

Hiya!


Really? What was your climb speed and radiator settings during the climb?

That's for latest patch and Hurricane octane grade 100.

I first tried the full revs for climbing that is 2800, but at about 10'000 ft, it started to quit.
Radiator fully opened, should'nt impair the performances on climb at 140 IAS, anyway the additional drag is not currently modelled.

I had to keep revs at 2400 or engines would quit after a while.

[FFCW_Urizen]

Pretty much everyone in 64 had those framedrops. I pretty much had to break more on guesswork than on actual need for it, result: i got heavily wounded, my engine got shot up and i had to bail. At least a few in 501 had the same problems. Now i know my system isn´t state of the art, but i´m running nearly everything on low to very low, except for model details and plane textures, which are at high. never had any problems, never, even in major furballs!

really killed the night.

S!

[jf1981]

Roger Urizen, I managed to catch on your group but a 109 just passed diving on me but soon got shots on me.

[Chivas]

This stability/performance beta patch obviously concentrates on game performance issues without which there would no point to any further patches. If this patch ends up being successful, then they will probably concentrate on a gameplay patch, which should concentrate on FM, AI, DM, FMB issues, and probably throw in some further optimizations. These fixes should clear the way for a Sequel release.

[Sutts]

Hi all,

I would like to have the word of the devs in terms of when they will finally plan the patch that deals with
- main graphic performances issues
- aircraft performances

Please ?

It's now completely unfair, just for example, we had tonight an online campaign and as a hurricane pilot, I've just had three major issues :

First off, I burned the egine for climbing at 2800 rpm and was later told more than 2400 will cook the engine

Respawn.

Second, It took so long time to get at 17'000 ft only to find I can't exceed 120 mph IAS, I checked in the archives, the Hurricane Mk.I made IAS 230 at 15'000 and climbed to 30'000.

Shot down by 109 apparently dive zooming with a lot of energy on the all of us, Hurricane.

Finally, I had once more the usual 1 frame per second whenever there was many aircrafts around me.



It's not possible to drive any campaign in those conditions, and further and finally, it is a long time since we last had the information that developpers were aware of our problems.

So nearly a year and a half passed its existence, is there a will from the development to finally make the game perform correctly ?

It's playable as low flying short distances dogfight, Spit IIa versus 109, lower than 8000 ft, and not too much players around.

Passed that situation, nothing good much possible, that is an historical battle.

It is more than ever time to let us know what is happening. Each patch comes with problems to deal with.
We have seen much improvements in the first weeks, and as soon as it reached some quite stable and about correct performance, it just stopped to be really improved but it's not yet, in my opinion, where it should have been before even being realeased ready for public.

But we're - some of us - great fans of IL-2 and we desperately expect the right patch.

Please do something about it and keep us informed.


I would have thought your boost setting was a more important factor in cooking the engine than your RPM. With a constant speed prop you could maintain 2800 RPM while using excessive boost - that would surely fry your engine. Would be good to know the full picture - boost / mixture settings and speed, oil and coolant temps during the climb.

[jf1981]

I would have thought your boost setting was a more important factor in cooking the engine than your RPM. With a constant speed prop you could maintain 2800 RPM while using excessive boost - that would surely fry your engine. Would be good to know the full picture - boost / mixture settings and speed, oil and coolant temps during the climb.

That's what I'd expect however the boost is regulated and kept below 6 1/4. There should be no danger of continuously running at that boost if revs are kept below 2850 which shall be the max continuous revs.

That's about what you find for the Merlin II engine. I prefer to run at 2600 because the sound is more comfortable.

Danger on engine lifetime comes from overboost when it's available and max revs, however the engine should handle it, only resulting in shorter maintenance and ultimately lifetime, but that's currently beyond Cliffs of Dover.

[FS~Phat]

Boost and maybe mixture settings may be the culprit.
I havent flown the Hurri in the latest patch but the spit requires careful attention to RPM, Boost, Mixture and Prop Pitch to manage RPM/Boost, or it will fail after about 10mins of abuse.

In particular I now have to manage mixture which I havent had to do before the patch. The Hurri maybe different but just something to consider.

[jf1981]

Boost and maybe mixture settings may be the culprit.
I havent flown the Hurri in the latest patch but the spit requires careful attention to RPM, Boost, Mixture and Prop Pitch to manage RPM/Boost, or it will fail after about 10mins of abuse.

In particular I now have to manage mixture which I havent had to do before the patch. The Hurri maybe different but just something to consider.

Yes, to be considered.
If it's modelled right, mixtures pulled back is rich, then it shall be ok. And when pushing away, the engine's rough under many conditions.

I've also learned that it should'nt be the case since they are normally auto rich and auto lean so lean shall work better in theory.

[robtek]

In the patch notes it was said that the boost gauges aren't displaying the correct values.
Maybe you overboosted without realizing it.

[Sutts]

That's what I'd expect however the boost is regulated and kept below 6 1/4. There should be no danger of continuously running at that boost if revs are kept below 2850 which shall be the max continuous revs.

That's about what you find for the Merlin II engine. I prefer to run at 2600 because the sound is more comfortable.

Danger on engine lifetime comes from overboost when it's available and max revs, however the engine should handle it, only resulting in shorter maintenance and ultimately lifetime, but that's currently beyond Cliffs of Dover.

Yes, doesn't sound like you were abusing the engine. Perhaps the cooling model is at fault and the engine is simply running hotter than it would in reality at the climb power setting. In the game it only seems to take a few seconds of over temp to screw the engine up.

Perhaps next time you try it you could watch the oil and water temps carefully and record any excessive temps that occur during the climb. A recorded track would be even better.

Cheers

[IvanK]

"I've also learned that it should'nt be the case since they are normally auto rich and auto lean so lean shall work better in theory."

Not really Auto lean is really only of use for cruising and has Max boost limitations associated with its use.

Currently in game if run Boost cut out you need to push the mixture lever forward to AUTO lean to get smooth engine operation. This is of course totally wrong and should result in engine issues pretty darn quick.

SPIT MKII Boost limitation in Auto lean is +4/2650 100 Octane or 2.25/2650 at 87 Octane.

Spit MKI Boost Limitation in Auto Lean is +2.25/2600 87 Octane.

Unless you are really interested in best fuel consumption then Auto Rich is all you should really need.

[jf1981]

In the patch notes it was said that the boost gauges aren't displaying the correct values.
Maybe you overboosted without realizing it.

Yes but apparently ok on Hurricane, anyway the boost is part of a factory setting and I don't think one can over boost unles using the boost cutout.

Up to 6 1/4 (6,25) it's the rated (the gate). Should be allowed continuously except that it may impact on the engine's lifetime, thought I don't think it should fail during the flight really.
That is at < 2850 rpm.

Nevertheless I usually fly at lower rpm. Surely enough speed and rad fully opened + temeprature checks should be done, but when I failed the engine, I do not recall it was too warm.

[jf1981]

Yes, doesn't sound like you were abusing the engine. Perhaps the cooling model is at fault and the engine is simply running hotter than it would in reality at the climb power setting. In the game it only seems to take a few seconds of over temp to screw the engine up.

Perhaps next time you try it you could watch the oil and water temps carefully and record any excessive temps that occur during the climb. A recorded track would be even better.

Cheers

I really think the real aircraft handles its nominal climb boost and revs up to the top, that is 2850 rpm 6 1/4 boost up to 30'000 ft, and we're still far from that.

Should be cross checked, but in my mind, it should handle that.

But I really think that's side effects from inadvertant engine and flight model changes. They are not documented anywhere that I know and one has to try to see what is working and what is not.
I used to read the historical manual, but what you find does'nt essentially apply to CoD.

[jf1981]

"I've also learned that it should'nt be the case [...] Unless you are really interested in best fuel consumption then Auto Rich is all you should really need.

I am indeed. When we do fly some historical battels, most of us are falling down due to lack of fuel or lack of lifting surfaces ;) generally.

[FFCW_Urizen]

AFAIK jf, the Merlin can handle 6.25 lbs/3000rpm only for 30 mins, before issues occur. However, as it is now, you are lucky if you can go 2800rpms without cooking your engine and that is in level flight.

[FS~Phat]

Ive found if you apply a bit of common sense and watch your temperatures you can get by. Ive run with boostcut and water temp up to 120c and oil to 97c for about a couple minutes without failure but water needs to be mostly under 110c and oil 95c to avoid damage. With temps properly managed I have run boostcut continuously for 30mins without any noticeable damage.

[Redroach]

Though I am not really into in-depth-knowledge of engine limitations, I do agree that current performances are a bit shaky at best.
Before the current beta patch my guideline was "2600rpm with full boost (sans c/o) for continuous operation" (*) for both the SpitMkIa100oct and the Hurri100oct. But now, even that is no more guarantee... you really seem to be forced to tone it down to about 2400-2500rpm in order to maintain reasonable oil/cooling temperatures.

(*) The spit Mk I manual even says that somewhere, if I remember correctly - but the other limits, like the cut-out limit of 5 min. or the rpm limit of 3000 for i-dont-remember-how-long-exactly were always way off imo.

[Blackdog_kt]

Yes, to be considered.
If it's modelled right, mixtures pulled back is rich, then it shall be ok. And when pushing away, the engine's rough under many conditions.

I've also learned that it should'nt be the case since they are normally auto rich and auto lean so lean shall work better in theory.

Actually, even with semi automatic mixture it's advised to use auto-rich whenever using high power settings. That depends on the aircraft and doesn't only mean WEP/boost cut out. It could also mean any boost above +5.

I don't know what the real aircraft used and how it's modeled in the sim, but from flying various A2A add-ons on a friends's FSX installation and after reading various manuals of real aircraft, it's pretty clear that high power needs rich mixture.

I think it's because it helps cool the engine and prevents detonation. I think detonation is improper fuel burning through pre-ingition, which damages the piston rods because they are out of alignment at the time of ignition, but i'm not entirely sure.

Generally speaking and as a safety measure, only use auto-lean for cruise. Cruise means the specified engine settings, not simply flying straight and level at whatever boost we want, it could be as low as +1 boost. Take-off, climb and combat should be done on rich, as well as fast cruise.

I don't know the limits for the Merlin (Spits and Hurris) but just as an example, let me give you the Mercury engine limits from the Blenheim pilot's handbook. The engine can do +5 at full throttle and +9 with the boost cut-out activated.

Nevertheless, anything above +1.5 requires auto-rich:
economy cruise is +1.5 at auto-lean
fast cruise is +3.5 at auto-rich.

In other words, just because there is spare power it doesn't mean it's sustainable at all times and conditions. That being said, i agree that some of the in-game limits are currently off the mark.

[jf1981]

Actually, even with semi automatic mixture it's advised to use auto-rich whenever using high power settings. [...]
In other words, just because there is spare power it doesn't mean it's sustainable at all times and conditions. That being said, i agree that some of the in-game limits are currently off the mark.

Yes, all tests made in auto-rich. High power on auto-lean at one's own risks in principle, and soon or later damaging the engine in most cases.

[jf1981]

There is no plan we can get from BlackSix or dev team ?

It's ready when it's ready was not a so good answer.

[5./JG27.Farber]

Yes but apparently ok on Hurricane, anyway the boost is part of a factory setting and I don't think one can over boost unles using the boost cutout.




Where does it say its scaled correctly in the Hurricane, I thought it was all red fighters?

Please note that the general performance of the British aircraft is much closer to desired envelope, but the information shown on the Boost gauge is scaled incorrectly at the moment. - B6

If you fly the 109 at full throttle for a long time, (over 1.3 Ata), you can ruin the engine even though all the tempretures are normal. ;)

[SiThSpAwN]

There is no plan we can get from BlackSix or dev team ?

It's ready when it's ready was not a so good answer.

I thought, some time ago, B6 stated that graphics would be first, the graphics engine, then they would focus on FMs, but I am not sure where they are at, I would imagine they have a schedule in place, but not sure if they are secure in sharing it, timelines tend to get taken as promises on the interwebs... devs are better off not saying anything really, but it would be nice to hear what they think needs fixed still...

[jf1981]

Where does it say its scaled correctly in the Hurricane, I thought it was all red fighters? Yes it was said so, but the Spitfire gets far over the max, hurri seems to work fine.

No way to be informed on my first question ? Wait, wait until it's finished ... ?

[vranac]

If you fly the 109 at full throttle for a long time, (over 1.3 Ata), you can ruin the engine even though all the tempretures are normal. ;)

Strange, that never happened to me, even with constant WEP if revs are in the safe range.
Is that in the new beta?

[Chivas]

There is no plan we can get from BlackSix or dev team ?

It's ready when it's ready was not a so good answer.

The obvious plan for COD is fix the stability/performance issues. There is no point in fixing game play issues , or releasing a Sequel, until people can play the sim without crashing.

So what are the developers doing? Well they are building beta patches to fix the Stability/Performance issues, with a few gameplay fixes thrown in.

The next obvious plan would be to fix the game play issues. There is no point in releasing a Sequel unless the game play issues are fixed. We should see a few more beta patches concentrating on gameplay fixes with a few optimizations thrown in.

At some point, if these patches fix the performance and a number of gameplay issues the devs/publishers may feel comfortable enough that their customers might actually buy the Sequel. Its possible if they are under considerable financial duress, they could release the Sequel before all the gameplay issues are fixed. Then continue to fix the gameplay issues with patches as they continue to develop the rest of the series.

Its impossible to give a date, it will "always" be a "ready when its ready" situation. The good news is COD will always evolve with new features as you merge each Sequel, or add mod content. That said the development could shut down tomorrow. The developers are probably on pins and needles half expecting a pink slip any day.

[jf1981]

I do not agree, we have to know what's happennig, that's where it should have been no more than 2 weeks after release, if it ever should have been released with those kind of issues we see now, thanks to internet patching is so easy.

[Chivas]

I do not agree, we have to know what's happennig, that's where it should have been no more than 2 weeks after release, if it ever should have been released with those kind of issues we see now, thanks to internet patching is so easy.

Not sure what you mean by "internet patching is so easy", but I doubt the developer/publisher would want to garner so much bad publicity by releasing an unfinished sim unless there were no other choice. Anyway the plan was to build a series of sequels which appears to be still the case with the constant release of the Sequels screenshots. An MMO is of little consequence as it can easily be developed from the work done on the game engine and content provided by COD and its Sequels. COD and the game engine were released unfinished and are still unfinished, so its impossible to give a definitive answer to anything until they know exactly what the game engine is capable of providing. The June statement was probably delayed because the game engine is still not fixed and in flux. I doubt they know at this time whether or not the development will continue, and it hinges on the success of the stability/performance patch and the capabilities of the game engine. You will have to wait for any definitive plan which should be clearer after the success or failure of the official patch. The future is looking slightly brighter with the largely positive comments from the community on the latest beta patch.

[jf1981]

Hi,

No idea when a patch could be available yet ? It's long wait.

[jf1981]

From now on, we are planning campaigns, some informations on patch would be welcome to the least.

[FS~Phat]

Just to clear up for you guys, Blacksix has made it pretty clear that there is still work to be done on catching bugs in the new graphics engine as the first priority.
From this one can deduce that it may be some time before we get the next official patch as they want the next patch to fix 99% of the new engine issues before turning to focus on the last remaining CLOD gameplay issues. This means catching as many beta bugs now as possible.

The Following is also still confirmed as being worked on; (in no particular order)
1. FM is constantly being tweaked.
2. clouds: shadows and self-shadows, reflection on water, source light influences
3. Radio Comms
4. AI
5. AA
6. Skin weathering

No guarantee that these will all be perfected until perhaps the sequel but they are currently being worked on.

These are currently the facts. Any more wild speculations and harassment of B6 or the devs will not be tolerated. This goes for both sides of the camps that like to argue. Any overstated comments trolling, whether being on the supporters or detractors side, will be deleted with no further warnings.

You guys that make broad sweeping and unfounded statements about the future of the game are not appreciated.

B6 will providing further information on Monday as stated in the community thread.

The thread will be locked if you can't be respectful and truthful.

[jf1981]

Hi

I'm sorry if this thread was becoming wild that it 's been necessary to clean up, but frankly speaking, it's the first time such long time has passed from the issue and the cleanup of a software.

It's not yet, as I use to say, to a state where it should have been released 'clean'. Surely enough nowaday such complex sims take some weeks or months to get stable.

I'm personally wondering if there is really an interest in working out Cliffs of Dover. I mean thanks for the sequel, but we're waiting for the first opus to be clear and clean, we're barely flying as possible online, but it's far from the interest it's got to have.

Is there an interest from development to make a step ? Just wondering. Has'nt been very much clear yet.

[Chivas]

Hi

I'm sorry if this thread was becoming wild that it 's been necessary to clean up, but frankly speaking, it's the first time such long time has passed from the issue and the cleanup of a software.

It's not yet, as I use to say, to a state where it should have been released 'clean'. Surely enough nowaday such complex sims take some weeks or months to get stable.

I'm personally wondering if there is really an interest in working out Cliffs of Dover. I mean thanks for the sequel, but we're waiting for the first opus to be clear and clean, we're barely flying as possible online, but it's far from the interest it's got to have.

Is there an interest from development to make a step ? Just wondering. Has'nt been very much clear yet.

If the business model stays the same,{there is no guarantee it will}, COD should continue to evolve directly and indirectly, by the developers and modders for many years.

[icarus]

Hi

I'm sorry if this thread was becoming wild that it 's been necessary to clean up, but frankly speaking, it's the first time such long time has passed from the issue and the cleanup of a software.

It's not yet, as I use to say, to a state where it should have been released 'clean'. Surely enough nowaday such complex sims take some weeks or months to get stable.

I'm personally wondering if there is really an interest in working out Cliffs of Dover. I mean thanks for the sequel, but we're waiting for the first opus to be clear and clean, we're barely flying as possible online, but it's far from the interest it's got to have.

Is there an interest from development to make a step ? Just wondering. Has'nt been very much clear yet.

+1

[icarus]

If the business model stays the same,{there is no guarantee it will}, COD should continue to evolve directly and indirectly, by the developers and modders for many years.
Or 1C has walked away from Ubi and CoD. http://bobgamehub.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/sturmovik-battle-for-stalingrad.html

[klem]

Or 1C has walked away from Ubi and CoD. http://bobgamehub.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/sturmovik-battle-for-stalingrad.html

Its a fake
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=457082&postcount=24

[icarus]

Its a fake
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=457082&postcount=24

LOL Too funny.

[jf1981]

Devs, Black six,

Anybody alive ?
No apparent sign.

Thank you

[chantaje]

If the business model stays the same,{there is no guarantee it will}, COD should continue to evolve directly and indirectly, by the developers and modders for many years.

i really hope so. from luthier words the bussines model should stay the same.

No Il-2 product was ever backwards-compatible. You could not take a Pacific Fighters patch and apply it to an Ace Expansion Pack install. You cannot take graphic improvements in 4.12 and install them on top of the original Il-2.

The new line will work the same way. If you own the old product, you'll be able to install a new one on top of it; or you'll be able to get a compilation product like 1946 that includes old content from previous releases.

But once the sequel is released, there obviously won't be any more support for stand-alone CoD.