Weather/Terrain effects. Surely this is the minimum we expect for CloD or the Sequel

[Mysticpuma]

It's difficult to sit on the wall here because we can all see that CloD has potential. Reading the latest posts though it appears that CloD will only be fixed as best they can, as the Sequel is now the priority. There is to be no more development for CloD, what you have is what you'll get...other than fixes to broken bits.

Graphically I have always been irritated by IL2: 1946 and CloD due to the draw distances or should I say management of draw distances.

I hate the fact buildings appear like popcorn even when settings are tweaked through the full-range from low to high amounts and similar on texture settings. I don;t know why this hasn't or can't be fixed as there is nothing worse than flying low over the deck only to see the landscape 'literally' being drawn in front of you.

The promise of Weather, new clouds....effectively atmosphere that immerses you in the environment you are flying in, effectively destroys the illusion of Britain. Weather in Britain can be miserable with days being lost to rain.

The British campaign should at-least have had the Hurricane or Spitfire sat on a runway as rain falls and a low overcast hangs overhead.

The Aircraft takes off, breaks through the overcast into sunlight and a blanket of cloud is laid out below making retreating enemy easy to spot.

Dogfights ensue, dancing above and below the cloud cover....this is BoB??

The least we should expect is this (link below)

Now I know many will bleat...Arcade! So-what? I am not talking about gameplay...I'm talking GRAPHICS!!!

I'm all for the detail we get in the aircraft, I'm all for the attention to detail of the 'fixed' FM and DM...they are incredible, that's what CloD (sorry IL2) is renowned for. Please make CloD as accurate as that.

However just throw away the landscape, terrain and cloud models. Give us atmosphere. Give us rain, cloud layers...give us immersion!

This weather is the least we should expect of CloD and anyone who says that this weather and cloud detail is 'rubbish' in this video, really is a Fanboy of Fanboy's!

I don't want pop up, I don't want pop up clouds, ground, buildings, trees...I just want a basic, simple level of weather that this 'Arcade' game creates easily and successfully:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJF_oPrvNtU&feature=relmfu

MP

[pupaxx]

I totally agree with u!!!
Waiting for better times...patiently

[skouras]

in sequel im pretty sure that they will do the best
the question is what is going to happen with the CLOD

[smink1701]

Hit the nail on the head my friend. CLoD is like a beautiful women to look at but not a brain in her pretty head. Great to play with for a short time but you quikly grow board. I really hope they can fix but I have my doubts.

CLoD...a stupid person; blockhead; dolt.

[David Hayward]

I was so immersed by Wings of Puke that I removed it from my hard drive after playing with it for only a couple hours.

[kendo65]

The plan is to get the weather working for the sequel, and as COD will be merge-able with the next instalment the weather (and other improvements + updates to the engine) will be usable in COD too.

So, we'll get it, but it's going to be a waiting game.

I'll also speculate that when they introduce cloudy/overcast, stormy, etc conditions that they will have to tweak and 'recalibrate' the lighting settings - and this should mean that the current slightly over-dulled, pastel effect for COD's perpetually bright sunny skies will be redone and improved as well.

And as the Russian Front will have both winter and summer conditions they will also have to re-work and fine-tune the current always-high icing settings for clouds. So no more icing up flying through British summer clouds.

In fact, since coming to terms with the probability that most of what I want will be supplied in the sequel I have been enjoying a near-Buddhist state of contemplative tranquillity regarding the current state of COD and no longer care about Beta and Steam patches. ;)

[Mysticpuma]

I was so immersed by Wings of Puke that I removed it from my hard drive after playing with it for only a couple hours.

Shame you never experienced the Graphics and weather effects shown in the video above. These would be a GREAT addition to the authentic immersion in the (allow me to beat you to it) SUPERIOR CloD) ;)

Sometimes an Ostrich has to raise it's head above the sand to actually see that there are other options available?

Thanks for not laying an egg David!

MP

(Queue usual rebuttle, thread going down the David Hayward route of no-one dare have an opinion other than his and getting another thread closed!) Please watch this thread closely admins and allow others to have an opinion.

[Mysticpuma]

Now answering your point David.

When was the last-time you took a simulated aircraft through a cloud-cover that is shown in the video? It's an opaque layer of cloud. A fight could be going on below it or above it but you don't know unless you fly through it. There are no tracers visible, there are no see-through points...it's an immersive 3D world where a player can use the weather to their advantage.

I appreciate you didn't like WoP, I can't make you like it. It is Arcade, but it also has a much better representation of terrain, lighting, no obvious pop-up....and it has cloud and weather effects.

You don't like it. I get it. You have said many times.

Now, regarding the weather conditions and Graphics on the ground....CloD could learn a lot!

MP

[JG52Krupi]

So you can state your opinion and he can't?

I am sure that the MG team could make an awesome landscape if they only had a 1km square area to work with :rolleyes:

[David Hayward]

Shame you never experienced the Graphics and weather effects shown in the video above.

I did experience them. I still removed the game from my computer.

[SiThSpAwN]

While I tend to agree that more could and should be done with weather in CloD and future titles, I still have to remind people that map area does play a large part of what can be done with reasonable quality. This isnt an excuse for the devs, but comparing games that dont render the same square mileage probably isnt fair (not to mention other things going on under the hood)... now here is a really crappy ILS landing by me in A-10... these graphics are somewhat dated by what we have in CloD... but you get the idea right... weather shouldnt be given up on, but they also are not just something they can plunk in...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mRsrPLO7BQ

SO in closing... I sorta agree... but not quite :)

[David Hayward]

The dev team said that they were working on dynamic weather, so they obviously realize that it's something that people want. Apparently it's not possible now on a map that is much larger than anything you will see on Wings of Puke.. Why is that so difficult for some people to believe?

[Feathered_IV]

I am sure that the MG team could make an awesome landscape if they only had a 1km square area to work with :rolleyes:

Clod has some very small maps too. They look terrible.

[JG52Krupi]

Clod has some very small maps too. They look terrible.

Yes but... I.. They.. I will will get my coat...!

Good point :|

[Feathered_IV]

;)

[Chivas]

I'm quite sure the developer is well aware of the cloud and weather problem. The development had a guy working full time on the clouds and weather and they fired him for obvious reasons. Hopefully they have found someone with more expertise to carry on.

The terrain also needs work, but I think the community can fix this if and when the tools are released. I believe they are also reworking the water. BUT for any of this to happen they desperately need to fix enough of the performance, stability, and game play issues of the game engine to make the Sequel successful. If the game engine is finally fixed and the Sequel sells, then the development will have time to breath, and just work on features, aircraft, cockpits, and maps. The unfinished game engine has had the development teetering on disaster for sometime and they obviously aren't out of the woods yet.

[zapatista]

Yes but... I.. They.. I will will get my coat...!

Good point :|

dont let the depressed ones confuse you with their tales of doom :)

on that one "small map in CoD" occasion the same advanced game and grafix engine in CoD just has to briefly model a small geographic area. its not as if it can suddenly scale down magically and that suddenly frees up the resources to add game console style eye candy and dumbs down the FM and DM etc..

its like saying a fiat 500 and a Ferrari should cost the same because both on one occasion are driving at the same slow speed :)

point being, for CoD/BoM the same gfx and game engine in other settings has to model the highly detailed aircraft models, FM, DM, and a huge map with large formations of aircraft and complex ground unit activity, AND you (we) want a high level of detail when on the ground or flying at low altitude (rather then the cartoon visuals of WoP). there simply isnt enough pc resources for this on mid level systems, it even strugles on high end pc's in 2012 (eg having to turn of dynamic weather etc).

[Bob_Marley]

Rise of flight has nice clouds.:grin:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-TCTDHO7Nw

[Skoshi Tiger]

[QUOTE=Bob_Marley;458836]Rise of flight has nice clouds.:grin:

[QUOTE]

But they can't fix their trees!

[Feathered_IV]

I hope they take a second look at their trees later too. Seeing the new water, I remain hopeful. It would be good to see some bump mapping on the landscape too. Clod has an edge over RoF in that respect.

[JG52Krupi]

I hope they take a second look at their trees later too. Seeing the new water, I remain hopeful. It would be good to see some bump mapping on the landscape too. Clod has an edge over RoF in that respect.

Yea but you hav... Hang on did you just say something positive about clod!!!

Argghh the sky is falling!!!

[Bob_Marley]

[QUOTE=Bob_Marley;458836]Rise of flight has nice clouds.:grin:

[QUOTE]

But they can't fix their trees!

Whats wrong with the trees in ROF?

[Bob_Marley]

I hope they take a second look at their trees later too. Seeing the new water, I remain hopeful. It would be good to see some bump mapping on the landscape too. Clod has an edge over RoF in that respect.

ROF is way ahead of CLOD. :!:

[svanen]

I remember I was so impressed with an early video of CloD showing some clouds and the effect of the sun shining on the top of the cloud. I found the video at 1:12 - 1:14, it made my jaw drop....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQbCIT-aMnY

[Continu0]

WOW! That´s really amazing!

[ATAG_Dutch]

Well, if the release candidate looks like that vid I'll be happy. The summer of 1940 had it's bad days, but it was generally speaking a better summer than we usually experience. This one's been crap so far. :(

[JG52Krupi]

ROF is way ahead of CLOD. :!:

How so, up close rof looks better but from the air the fields look very flat and washed out in rof while in cold the look 3D.

[Bob_Marley]

How so, up close rof looks better but from the air the fields look very flat and washed out in rof while in cold the look 3D.

Because its finished and well polished and the future looks bright.

[JG52Krupi]

Example...

http://www.wingsofhonour.com/riseofflight/img_riseoflight_screenshot_neoqb_20090826-1227_0002_Aerostat_2560x1600x24b.jpg

http://s5.postimage.org/pgdmgsw53/shot_20120512_223645.png (http://postimage.org/image/4jhec4y43/full/)

[Bob_Marley]

Well my ROF looks better than that pic try to use the Anti-Aliasing settings it will get rid of the jaggies. :!:

[David Hayward]

I think they both look great.

[JG52Krupi]

Yes they do.

And the rof pic was a random one from the web

[Feathered_IV]

Looks like a fairly early version with low landscape settings. It looks significantly different now, but still needs some clod style bumps maps to give a better feeling of depth.

[SiThSpAwN]

Clod has some very small maps too. They look terrible.

Well the graphics are global over all maps, they have to perform well on the largest, so you end up with the same thing for the smallest. If they only had small maps that would be a different story.

[SiThSpAwN]

The dev team said that they were working on dynamic weather, so they obviously realize that it's something that people want. Apparently it's not possible now on a map that is much larger than anything you will see on Wings of Puke.. Why is that so difficult for some people to believe?

If it makes anyone feel better, Dynamic weather in DCS games is a resource hog as well, and a real knock on FPS.

[airmalik]

Great weather effects in the original post. The water over canopy seems a bit overdone but still pretty good. What stood out most for me was the smoke and fire from the burning buildings. Most realistic smoke I've seen in a flight sim. It doesn't just rise straight up from the fire but appears to be roiling as it goes up. Also isn't a uniform thickness and has patches of thick smoke breaking away from the column. Very nice.

[Chivas]

ROF looks much better on my PC than that pic, but I still don't find the terrain believable. Although the latest ROF video of the float plane taking off and landing on water is amazing. COD terrain is OK, but it should get much better, when the community can fine tune it, and replace some of the trees with hedgerows etc.

[150GCT_Veltro]

Looks like a fairly early version with low landscape settings. It looks significantly different now, but still needs some clod style bumps maps to give a better feeling of depth.

Is an early version with low setting. However i agree about the bumps mapping feature for RoF.

About CoD and the weather-landscape problem, we can only hope in the sequel and yes.....in the RoF Channel.

The CoD's Channel with those textures and without weather is no more no less than nothing. Terrible if not horrible.

[esmiol]

stop compare ROF and CLOD.

it is two different sim. not the same era.

personally i find that ROF is not better than CLOD but i don't care about WW1 sim... then i don't care ROF.

please people here...speak about same sims to compare... take il2, CLOD, BOB. but not ROF.

[JG52Krupi]

In terms of graphics you can compare them.

In terms of gameplay they are different due to there settings.

[Matt255]

Well, regarding that ROF screenshot, it definately doesn't represent highest quality settings. Looks like it's even set to low landscape (which you definately don't need to set, if you can run CloD...).

However, the terrain in ROF looks more generic and very flat at longer distances. Especially at the horizon it looks a little off. Worst thing however, are the trenches, roads, railroads etc. They just look sticked on top of the normal landscape (which they practically are) and make the engine look older than it is.

I prefer the CloD landscape, because it seems more unique and less generic, but it's still far from perfect. The colors still look funny and i could live with a bit less bump mapping. Also while the water looks very well from high altitude, it seriously suffers when you fly low. I think ROF has the edge (only at low altitude though), even without the new 3d water of the coming update.

As for the future looking bright etc., i don't think that's true for either ROF or CloD...

[furbs]

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/7124/new3uh.jpg
By furbs9999 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/furbs9999) at 2011-07-31

http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/8195/day5g.jpg
By furbs9999 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/furbs9999) at 2011-07-31

And not a landscape, but something else missing from CLOD...

http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/8981/new5fx.jpg
By furbs9999 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/furbs9999) at 2011-07-31

[Bob_Marley]

Beautiful SE5a pic it looks so crisp. :)

[Cobra8472]

Map size, while presenting a set of initial challenges, is not a large problem in this day and age.

Streaming, instancing, etc etc solves the performance issue completely.

The best clouds I have seen implemented in a current game are most likely the ones present in ArmA 3.

I believe they use a middleware which I cannot recall the name of now-- alas all cloud solutions based on real-world light scattering shader tech look quite alike.

http://www.arma3.com/full/wp-content/gallery/imagery/arma3_screenshot_1107_025.jpg

http://img.youtube.com/vi/I0untAgEncI/0.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DOvMJkppCvo/TkuhEbmthXI/AAAAAAAAKO8/12rl1QJ02-A/s1600/gamestar_arma3_2_4.jpg

[kendo65]

How so, up close rof looks better but from the air the fields look very flat and washed out in rof while in cold the look 3D.

There is actually a way to increase the saturation setting in ROF which can improve things for those finding it too washed out.

You need to edit the startup.cfg file located in Rise of Flight / Data.

Change the saturation setting from the default of 0.75000 to whatever floats your boat (mine is currently at 0.81500).

http://i1199.photobucket.com/albums/aa461/kendo651/ROF/2012_3_10__23_11_14.jpg

Also, I'm no expert on this but the ROF manual says:

Shader Quality. This setting affects the appearance of certain graphical effects such as the appearance of the water, lighting and ground. You can choose from Low, Medium, High and Maximum. When you choose maximum the ground will have a special texture applied to it to look bumpy and this is called Parallax Mapping. Parallax mapping is triggered when you fly close to the ground

So is Parallax Mapping the same as Bump Mapping?

[JG52Krupi]

This is parallax mapping..

http://www.wingsofhonour.com/news/2010/img_riseofflight_screenshot_777studios_20101112_00 02_parallax-mapping-2_1280x800x24b.jpg

Like I said ROF is nicer when close to the ground, above it I prefer cod.

[Cobra8472]

There is actually a way to increase the saturation setting in ROF which can improve things for those finding it too washed out.

You need to edit the startup.cfg file located in Rise of Flight / Data.

Change the saturation setting from the default of 0.75000 to whatever floats your boat (mine is currently at 0.81500).

Also, I'm no expert on this but the ROF manual says:

Shader Quality. This setting affects the appearance of certain graphical effects such as the appearance of the water, lighting and ground. You can choose from Low, Medium, High and Maximum. When you choose maximum the ground will have a special texture applied to it to look bumpy and this is called Parallax Mapping. Parallax mapping is triggered when you fly close to the ground

So is Parallax Mapping the same as Bump Mapping?

Parallax Mapping is a more advanced shader technique than bump mapping, but in laymans terms-- they serve the same purpose.

A proper parallax shader gives real feeling of depth, even if the render perspective is close to the surface, whereas normal/bump maps are lacking in this area. Parallax shaders are also these days expanded to tesselate and properly offset a surface:

http://www.abload.de/img/1n93h.jpg

[JG52Krupi]

At the end of the day both games look amazing, but RoF has more polish due to being out for longer.

http://www.wingsofhonour.com/news/2011/img_riseofflight_screenshot_777Studios_20110212-0008_DFW-C5_1280x800x32b.jpg

http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/ac58/MB_Avro_UK/shot_20120720_214012.jpg

[JG52Krupi]

This is what parrallax mapping looks like in RoF

http://riseofflight.com/SharedResources/Blog/posts/2012_04_06/1.jpg

[Anders_And]

[QUOTE=Bob_Marley;458836]Rise of flight has nice clouds.:grin:

[QUOTE]

But they can't fix their trees!

Ill have the ROF trees any day over CLOD trees!!

[JG52Krupi]

If they can sort out that damn flicking and add tree collisions CoDs would be superior but as it stands RoF trees are better.

[Bob_Marley]

[QUOTE=Skoshi Tiger;458837][QUOTE=Bob_Marley;458836]Rise of flight has nice clouds.:grin:



Ill have the ROF trees any day over CLOD trees!!

Yeah me too plus you break things when you fly into them. :rolleyes:

[Anders_And]

At the end of the day both games look amazing, but RoF has more polish due to being out for longer.

http://www.wingsofhonour.com/news/2011/img_riseofflight_screenshot_777Studios_20110212-0008_DFW-C5_1280x800x32b.jpg

http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/ac58/MB_Avro_UK/shot_20120720_214012.jpg

Oh my God, the trees in CLOD really look bad... Way too bright(should be dark green) and they shimmer and you can fly through them...
In general, trees are the darkest part of a landscape, not the other way around...
Examples

http://www.history.org.uk/resources/general_news_348.html

http://www.google.com/imgres?start=0&num=10&hl=en&biw=1920&bih=979&tbm=isch&tbnid=DzQtUfBSopFxpM:&imgrefurl=http://dianemagras.wordpress.com/tag/english-countryside/&docid=m7ZwZw4Bne55PM&imgurl=http://dianemagras.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/englishcountryside.jpg&w=640&h=480&ei=JARJUL_9IeH80QWvi4CoBA&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=280&sig=115382561114015741994&page=1&tbnh=143&tbnw=239&ndsp=44&ved=1t:429,r:40,s:0,i:68&tx=86&ty=68

http://www.google.com/imgres?start=44&num=10&hl=en&biw=1920&bih=979&tbm=isch&tbnid=bI7z7CxKCZi7sM:&imgrefurl=http://robintilbrook.blogspot.com/2012/03/new-city-in-england-why.html&docid=83MVbb_W7ZS1XM&imgurl=http://www.easytravelgroup.co.uk/public/forum/uploads//pasquale/dubai-london/English-countryside-view-from-PLane6.jpg&w=400&h=300&ei=PARJUNfGIubP0QXm3IC4Ag&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=318&sig=115382561114015741994&page=2&tbnh=144&tbnw=192&ndsp=48&ved=1t:429,r:16,s:44,i:132&tx=119&ty=52

http://www.google.com/imgres?start=44&num=10&hl=en&biw=1920&bih=979&tbm=isch&tbnid=---D04RSLNHRvM:&imgrefurl=http://m.fark.com/comments/6641567/Everyone-in-gritty-Gila-Bend-AZ-fan-belt-capital-of-world-excited-to-receive-monster-visit-from-Prince-Harry-in-town-for-Apache-helicopter-training&docid=R-bfr8rFm3PI_M&imgurl=http://files.sharenator.com/English_Countryside_England-s640x480-185249.jpg&w=640&h=480&ei=SwRJUKDqPISZ0QXc8IC4Dw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=1620&vpy=329&dur=460&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=154&ty=113&sig=115382561114015741994&page=2&tbnh=146&tbnw=201&ndsp=48&ved=1t:429,r:47,s:44,i:229
CLOD landscape looks like Simpson landsape...

[JG52Krupi]

Oh my God, the trees in CLOD really look bad... Way too bright(should be dark green) and they shimmer and you can fly through them any day... CLOD landscape looks like Simpson landsape...

So i take it you have never flown in an aircraft?

Nice to see you have edited your post to show just how wrong you were LOL

[JG52Krupi]

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b109/christao17/Bangkok%20July%202005/G25FarmingtownoutsideNRT.jpg

http://urtravelogues.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/1.jpg

[Continu0]

Oh my God, the trees in CLOD really look bad... Way too bright(should be dark green) and they shimmer and you can fly through them...
In general, trees are the darkest part of a landscape, not the other way around...
Examples



Jep, Trees are way to bright now. When being close, they are okay but on distance they are way way to bright.

Strange enough I sometimes have different tree-colors in mulitplayer than in singleplayer...???:confused:

(darker in MP)

[Bob_Marley]

At the end of the day both games look amazing, but RoF has more polish due to being out for longer.

http://www.wingsofhonour.com/news/2011/img_riseofflight_screenshot_777Studios_20110212-0008_DFW-C5_1280x800x32b.jpg

http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/ac58/MB_Avro_UK/shot_20120720_214012.jpg

Wish they would of made the sunderland a flyable. :(

[Anders_And]

So i take it you have never flown in an aircraft?

Nice to see you have edited your post to show just how wrong you were LOL

Krupi I work as an arline pilot and spend on average 5-6h a day in the sky so calm down...

[Anders_And]

Jep, Trees are way to bright now. When being close, they are okay but on distance they are way way to bright.

Strange enough I sometimes have different tree-colors in mulitplayer than in singleplayer...???:confused:

(darker in MP)

Trees look ok in game when around 16:00 and later because shadows make the trees look darker...
Around 12:00 the game colours are terrible!

[Arthur Ricane]

Why don't they do the same thing that Bohemia Interactive did for Arma 3? They bought a system of dynamic procedural clouds and it looks amazing, look at the screenshots of Arma 3!!

http://www.arma3.com/full/wp-content/gallery/imagery/arma3_screenshot_1107_026.jpg

http://www.arma3.com/full/wp-content/gallery/imagery/arma3_screenshot_e3_01_camp.jpg

http://www.arma3.com/full/wp-content/gallery/imagery/arma3_screenshot_1108_10.jpg

http://www.arma3.com/full/wp-content/gallery/imagery/arma3_screenshot_1107_025.jpg

It isn't their system, they had to pay for it but it is worth it. Maddox can use several people to work on a new cloud system for a long time. And time costs money. In case of buying this cloud system, they would only spend money but not the time. So, it would logically be profitable! Who shares my opinion??

[ACE-OF-ACES]

It isn't their system, they had to pay for it but it is worth it.
Too bad Bohemia can not find someone to buy a flight model from! ;)

[Anders_And]

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b109/christao17/Bangkok%20July%202005/G25FarmingtownoutsideNRT.jpg

http://urtravelogues.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/1.jpg

I dont understand you Krupi. First you claim that I im wrong and then you post pictures where you prove that Im right.... (In both your photos the trees are the darkest psrt of the landscape). Just as I said they should..

[Arthur Ricane]

ACE-OF-ACES: yes I know... I didn't want to praise Arma by my post or compare whole games. It was just an example how to make nice clouds for a game!

[ACE-OF-ACES]

ACE-OF-ACES: yes I know... I didn't want to praise Arma by my post or compare whole games. It was just an example how to make nice clouds for a game!
Roger that bud!

I love the ARMA stuff! Most realistic FPS out IMHO

I only wish they would put a little more effort into the flight models.. Than it would be an all in one game IMHO

Who knows, I hear they put more effort into them in ARMA3, but they also said that when moving from ARMA to ARAM2 ;)

On the note of secenry

There does seem to be a price to pay for all that ARMA detail

In that the world size is typically pretty small (see IF44) and thus the view distances are limited.. Not a big deal when walking or driving around.. But when it comes to flying, it can suck. Take IF44 (ARMA 2 engine) you can fly across the WHOLE WORLD in about 20 seconds.. Even faster in ARMA with jets! So there is a balance that needs to be considered.. When you look at how BIG the CoD world is.. I would take the level of detail CoD offers now over ARMA if it ment CoD would have to reduce the size of the world to ARAM sizes to use that secenry engine ARMA is using

[wildone_106]

I totally agree 1000000000000000% in this day and age with the horsepower we have available theres no reason not to have WEATHER and ATMOSPHERE in their next simulation. My gawd they had it in games back in early 2000's...and so far Gaijin have been kicking 1C's ass its not even funny.


Now answering your point David.

When was the last-time you took a simulated aircraft through a cloud-cover that is shown in the video? It's an opaque layer of cloud. A fight could be going on below it or above it but you don't know unless you fly through it. There are no tracers visible, there are no see-through points...it's an immersive 3D world where a player can use the weather to their advantage.

I appreciate you didn't like WoP, I can't make you like it. It is Arcade, but it also has a much better representation of terrain, lighting, no obvious pop-up....and it has cloud and weather effects.

You don't like it. I get it. You have said many times.

Now, regarding the weather conditions and Graphics on the ground....CloD could learn a lot!

MP

[JG52Krupi]

I dont understand you Krupi. First you claim that I im wrong and then you post pictures where you prove that Im right.... (In both your photos the trees are the darkest psrt of the landscape). Just as I said they should..

It was more about your landscape comment... obviously..

[Lexicon]

It was more about your landscape comment... obviously..

Talking about landscape...found this today...Dont ask about FM and DM, realism,
historical blabla...

but there are getting close to something here...;)

enjoy if youve never seen it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFSPfq2SlUk

L

[Anders_And]

It was more about your landscape comment... obviously..

Well done Krupi!! You managed to to find landscape pictures!!! That might be considered an achievement where you live, so very good!!!
Now everyone, take a look at hese photos eand we can all see thst the treelines should be alot darker than we have in Clod. Will do alot for the landscape.
Not sure if 1c is working on trees for CLOd anymore but i guess not...

[pupaxx]

Hi Krupi, thanks for posting the picts, this confirms what I hate most in Clod landscape... the myriad of isolated trees visible from 30 miles. The pattern of real timberline is more similar to aggregate bushes.
Cheers

[Arthur Ricane]

Talking about landscape...found this today...Dont ask about FM and DM, realism,
historical blabla...

but there are getting close to something here...;)

enjoy if youve never seen it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFSPfq2SlUk

L

Talking about landscape and weather at all... does this game have a day and night cycle with changing weather? I don't know, just inform me. Of course, there are games that look amazing - they have totally photorealistic landscapes and clouds, like Battlefield 3 and other titles. But, trust me - I work 4 years in games development. The maps in this games look so great because they're static and not changing - no weather changes, no sun cycle. In this case it is much easier to make the environment looking perfect. But in case of day cycles and changing weather, it is incredibly difficult to make the environment look good at all conditions. You notice that the environment looks great at noon - but then you move the sun to sunset and change the weather - and everything looks strange, trees are too bright/dark, water does some funny stuff... it is a nightmare for a developer

[Anders_And]

Hi Krupi, thanks for posting the picts, this confirms what I hate most in Clod landscape... the myriad of isolated trees visible from 30 miles. The pattern of real timberline is more similar to aggregate bushes.
Cheers

This was exactly my point in the previous posts as well... ;)

[David198502]

the OP is correct in my view.
having working weather is cruical for a flight sim
but looking at the current clouds, how they look, and how they affect performance, although there are only a few fluffy balls, doesnt make me believe that 1c is capable of achieving this soon.

it wouldnt be that hard to believe, if they were at least working correctly.
BUT CLOUDS ARE NOT EVEN WORKING.they are not visible the same way for each player, and sometimes they are completely invisible for one player while they are there for another.(dont try to hide in clouds, they might not existing for your pursuer)

yesterday, we flew on atag, clouds of course still enabled, and they cause really bad performance.then suddenly over manston, the whole cloud layer disappeared in a split second for the whole squad.a few minutes later, another cloud layer appeared as fast beneath us above Lympne.

unfortunately, they fired the person who worked on the clouds.
unfortunately, they fired the person who worked on water.
unfortunately, they fired the person called Oleg.

in the current situation, i dont believe in working weather in the sequel.
in the current situation, i dont even believe in a sequel.
in the current situation, i dont believe a word they say, until i see it.

[JG52Krupi]

And ppl wonder why the devs don't listen to ppl on this forum. This is a ww2 flight simulator not a landscape sim.

so let me guess RoF landscape is amazing in comparison yeah?

[Tree_UK]

And ppl wonder why the devs don't listen to ppl on this forum. This is a ww2 flight simulator not a landscape sim.

so let me guess RoF landscape is amazing in comparison yeah?

Well I agree to a certain extent. I could happily wait to have the dynamic weather fixed and the tree collision etc, if the rest of the game ran smoothly and was fully functional. The dev's have had many attempts and spent much time on trying to fix the particle/smoke slow down issues with little success, building pop ups, flickering trees and clouds have suffered the same fate, now credit it to them for trying but the results have been poor and have disilusioned many here. Maybe its time to have a quick look at the GUI, Coop's and netcode -fixing these issues could bring many people back to this game.

[Anders_And]

And ppl wonder why the devs don't listen to ppl on this forum. This is a ww2 flight simulator not a landscape sim.

so let me guess RoF landscape is amazing in comparison yeah?

With that kind of argument, graphic would not have developed at all the last 10 years...

Face the facts, its 2012 and if a game developer cant get even the most basic colours right, then of course people will complain!

ROF does alot of things ALOT better, but im more a ww2 fan so i would like these things in CLOD as well of course... One thing beeing the trees...

[David198502]

And ppl wonder why the devs don't listen to ppl on this forum. This is a ww2 flight simulator not a landscape sim.

so let me guess RoF landscape is amazing in comparison yeah?

you say it...we are talking about a flight simulator here....dont you think that clouds and functioning weather are major features in a flight sim, which add a lot to immersion and realism?

[Anders_And]

you say it...we are talking about a flight simulator here....dont you think that clouds and functioning weather are major features in a flight sim, which add a lot to immersion and realism?

+1

[JG52Krupi]

Yes of course but you have but for crying out loud be realistic I am pissed off that we don't have even half the stuff that they said we would I am pissed off that we don't get much communication but I also have the sense/maturity to realise that constantly bitching about things does not lead to them being fixed and if any of the constant moaners here think that they are IN ANY WAY HELPING YOU MY FRIEND ARE IN DENIAL.

Some seriously bad stuff has happened to MG over the past few years and we can either moan or we can offer support and constructive criticism.

I cannot wait to get some decent weather I cannot wait to have more ships to bomb and I am pissed off with the quite frankly terrible FM of both the 109 and spit but I know however slowly they are working they are still WORKING on them and that is all that matters.

So you can be either part of the problem or part of the solution, for every person that want something new/promised added there is someone who wants the game to run smoother.

It's up to you to decide if you want to be helpful or be a hindrance!

[ATAG_Dutch]

So you can be either part of the problem or part of the solution, for every person that want something new/promised added there is someone who wants the game to run smoother.

It's up to you to decide if you want to be helpful or be a hindrance!

Wise words Krupi, +1.

[David198502]

well i tried to be part of the solution for a long time.
but somehow that didnt work out.
i still try to be part of the solution, but didnt you realise, that it doesnt matter anyway.

its not our fault that the game is in its current state, and we all have no influence at all to improve it, if the devs dont listen.

you are sick of the moaning of some members on this board...well others are sick about the devs comms,politics,decisions.
both sides wont change anything.

Edit:beeing realistic?is it really too much to ask for working clouds in a flight sim?i dont even speak of dynamic ones....but in 1946 it worked.its working in every other flight sim...even those arcade ones that soo many hate here.

[150GCT_Veltro]

Krupi, 18 months with still nothing fixed and/or improved is really too much. This game is a total mess all around. To many years before, too many months now....with nothing if not some nice models and cockpits. We disagree about everything on this forum, how can we hope this CoD could never be the new IL2? Do you understand this at least?

They are using you as betasters for a engine that is a total mess and without any intention to fix - developed - improved CoD, if not in the "sequel", but be sure we'll never have THE Battle of Britain because there is no interest at all from developers to improve it. They care less than nothing about the BoB.

The BoB without clouds and a static weather is simple ridiculous, and this is non acceptable at all considering that IL2, 11 years ago, did it better......

...but, you know it: "we'll fix it in the sequel".

I really hope that this total mess that is called CoD could be trashed as soon as possibile. We'll give them a chance for the ETO.

[David198502]

Yes of course but you have but for crying out loud be realistic I am pissed off that we don't have even half the stuff that they said we would I am pissed off that we don't get much communication but I also have the sense/maturity to realise that constantly bitching about things does not lead to them being fixed and if any of the constant moaners here think that they are IN ANY WAY HELPING YOU MY FRIEND ARE IN DENIAL.

Some seriously bad stuff has happened to MG over the past few years and we can either moan or we can offer support and constructive criticism.

I cannot wait to get some decent weather I cannot wait to have more ships to bomb and I am pissed off with the quite frankly terrible FM of both the 109 and spit but I know however slowly they are working they are still WORKING on them and that is all that matters.

So you can be either part of the problem or part of the solution, for every person that want something new/promised added there is someone who wants the game to run smoother.

It's up to you to decide if you want to be helpful or be a hindrance!

btw, im not your friend, and if you think you changed a tad with your attitude the last 1,5years, than you are in denial. :grin:

[JG52Krupi]

Tell that to the ATAG and JG27 guys they are constantly improving the game in there own way.

Hats off to Wolf and colander and the others who they work with S!

[David198502]

thats true, but that has nothing to do with your argument in the first place.

[JG52Krupi]

thats true, but that has nothing to do with your argument in the first place.

?

[Skoshi Tiger]

18 months with still nothing fixed and/or improved

You can't be serious? The beta patches have been a major improvement. Just count the number of crash threads since the last beta. Stability had to be one of the major points that was consistently brought up. It's all but vanished.

[David198502]

look Krupi, i didnt say anything about atag or any other squads beeing not productive and good for the community...
but even the atag guys with their extremely powerfull server are very restricted in their possibilities because of so many problems the game has.

i did say, that YOU(not atag) wont change anything with critizising critical posts on this forum, just like i wont change anything when i critizise missing game features or bugs.because you are definitely not changing my opinion, while i and others are obviously ignored by the devs.
simple.

[JG52Krupi]

Thanks for entirely proving my point

If no ones at the door why continue knocking! Your just pissing off the neighbours

[David198502]

same could be said about you :)
lets just agree to disagree.i dont think its unrealistic to ask for working weather and you do...

[Allons!]

The plan is to get the weather working for the sequel, and as COD will be merge-able with the next instalment the weather (and other improvements + updates to the engine) will be usable in COD too.

I bet 20,- € that they wont get the weather fixed in the sequel without new and bigger problems and i severely doubt that CoD with its /(%$§ engine will be mixable with the great new engine everybody there is talking about.. but we will see.. :)

[David198502]

....im the bookie :)

[JG52Krupi]

same could be said about you :)
lets just agree to disagree.i dont think its unrealistic to ask for working weather and you do...

Well I am not the one asking for the next game to be free...

Oh see that I can things up as well, clever!!

[David198502]

Well I am not the one asking for the next game to be free...

Oh see that I can things up as well, clever!!

???????????????
and who is?
Edit:if you really want to take this further, PM me and lets not hijack this thread...maybe ill answer :)

[JG52Krupi]

Please point out the post I made telling you to stop asking for weather!

I said constructive criticism was the way to go not screaming at the devs..

Making stuff up, a typical sign of someone who knows they are wrong, runaway before you embarrass yourself further

[David198502]

and i say, the way you critizise doesnt matter at all for the devs.it shouldnt at least as they are professionals, and should only focuse on the point made in the critic no matter how loud someone shouts and in what manner as long as the complainer has a valid point.

over and out :)

[adonys]

just release the damn code, and we will do it by ourselves!

[Anders_And]

Please point out the post I made telling you to stop asking for weather!

I said constructive criticism was the way to go not screaming at the devs..

Making stuff up, a typical sign of someone who knows they are wrong, runaway before you embarrass yourself further

Krupi I dont know what youre on, but calm down!!
A few posts up you said you were mature.. To me you sound more like a 14 year old... Now just calm down and accept that not all people share your opinion.

Some animals put their head in the sand, not wanting to see a problem, just like political correct media, others bring the issue up for discussion. And as annoying as that might for the "ostrich media" or people who dont want to hear things that can tear their values apart, it still has to mentioned and discussed!

[kendo65]

I bet 20,- € that they wont get the weather fixed in the sequel without new and bigger problems and i severely doubt that CoD with its /(%$§ engine will be mixable with the great new engine everybody there is talking about.. but we will see.. :)

They are changing the engine now, right in front of our eyes, with each beta patch, so the process is already underway.

I'm not sure I'm ready to take you up on the bet though...:)...there will need to be tremendous work done to get the originally-planned dynamic weather system optimised enough to be playable without sending fps crashing through the floor again.

Add in the planned MMO and improvements to the net code required for that and it looks like a very tall order.

And given the time taken to get the engine revamp to final Steam release quality, it is difficult not to conclude that something will have to give. :sad:

(I suspect it will be the MMO. Maybe put back to the 2nd sequel...?

They have been just too damned ambitious with this whole thing. Putting off driveable tanks and MMO until the basics are done is surely the most sensible choice.)

[JG52Krupi]

Oh I am so offended... :rolleyes:

Yes some ppl bury there heads in the sand and others behave like babies and throw there toys out the pram. Me! Well I'm stuck in the middle between these two idiotic groups who both think they are correct.

As I said I am not happy with the games state but I am far less happy with how the "community" is taking it. A small struggiling company making a not so profitable highly complex piece of software under constant criticism, what a great working environment!

[kendo65]

...

... others bring the issue up for discussion. And as annoying as that might for the "ostrich media" or people who dont want to hear things that can tear their values apart, it still has to mentioned and discussed!

That's how I see it. It's not about whinging or wishing ill on the devs.

It's an 'elephant in the room' issue. Not commenting on or acknowledging the disappointments of the last year and a half is just unrealistic imo.

But it should be balanced too. Think most of the comment in this thread has been,

[Anders_And]

Oh I am so offended...

Yes some ppl bury there heads in the sand and others behave like babies and throw there toys out the pram. Me! Well I'm stuck in the middle between these two idiotic groups who both think they are correct.

As I said I am not happy with the games state but I am far less happy with how the "community" is taking it. A small struggiling company making a not so profitable highly complex piece of software under constant criticism, what a great working environment!

I honestly dont care if you are offended or not.

Lets all agree that this game need loads of improvement or their competition will make this game forgotten as the biggest aviation sim fiasko in gaming history...
And that is a shame since I have played Il2 for a few hours a week since 2001 and would love to support 1C.

[David198502]

agreed

[MB_Avro_UK]

Would the critics of Cliffs of Dover prefer that it didn't exist?

[Falstaff]

In some ways yes, maybe.

(This isn't totally facile and stirring, before some of you run with it as a red flag).

On the one hand it is an attempt to keep the 'detailed' ww2 air combat genre going. But because it was the only game trying to do so in this way, and because it had a famous older brother, then expectations were higher. And were raised by the devs/publishers (whatever is said).

But of course, it also half-realised, badly implemented, poorly sustained, and has a killed a lot of the momentum and goodwill created by the first one, to the point where you have to ask yourself if they would have been better off killing it off before release.

It wouldn't have attracted so much debate and polarising if it had been half-decent.

So 'yes' isn't as facetious as it sounds. Also, the investors and bean-counters might well have a different view of the company and its products, notwithstanding allt he personnel changes and apparent revolving-door staff policy, to say nothing of the sheer ineptitude in many areas - which are ongoing.

In fact, it's all done a great deal of harm in lots of ways, some of it probably quite long term. God only knows of what inesvters/publishers and devs sitting on the side-lines have thought. Has it attracted many of them to the idea of new Titles/publishing models...?

Ben

[Anders_And]

Would the critics of Cliffs of Dover prefer that it didn't exist?

In the current state, I couldnt care less..
Im waiting for it to look like a 2011 generation game before i come back to it.

To me it looks like very old already. Planes look beautiful but landscape and effects and explosions etc etc are better in il21946 HFSX6.0...

I have to admit that with the latest patch it looks alot niceer with that yellow square around the distance landscape gone at high alt. But honestly thats the least you would expect from game released in 2011.
Ill be back when

.When trees stop flickering,
.shadows stop flickering
.when FMs are correct
.Hit effects look real
.Radiators create drag
.Open canopies create drag.
.We have overcast weather or just the option of some cloud layers
.Radio commands work
.AI has been tweaked
.Net code is fixed so ATAG can have more than 50 players online.
.Stutter is gone (although my 3gb GTX580 might be the issue here)

[ATAG_Snapper]

In the current state, I couldnt care less..
Im waiting for it to look like a 2011 generation game before i come back to it.

To me it looks like very old already. Planes look beautiful but landscape and effects and explosions etc etc are better in il21946 HFSX6.0...

I have to admit that with the latest patch it looks alot niceer with that yellow square around the distance landscape gone at high alt. But honestly thats the least you would expect from game released in 2011.
Ill be back when

.When trees stop flickering,
.shadows stop flickering
.when FMs are correct
.Hit effects look real
.Radiators create drag
.Open canopies create drag.
.We have overcast weather or just the option of some cloud layers
.Radio commands work
.AI has been tweaked
.Net code is fixed so ATAG can have more than 50 players online.
.Stutter is gone (although my 3gb GTX580 might be the issue here)

Not only is radiator drag modelled, it's the basis to the whole overheating problem in the Spitfire 1a 100 octane, Spitfire 2a, and by extension, the Hurricane MK 1 100 octane.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=458872&postcount=64

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=458972&postcount=72

[icarus]

In the current state, I couldnt care less..
Im waiting for it to look like a 2011 generation game before i come back to it.

To me it looks like very old already. Planes look beautiful but landscape and effects and explosions etc etc are better in il21946 HFSX6.0...

I have to admit that with the latest patch it looks alot niceer with that yellow square around the distance landscape gone at high alt. But honestly thats the least you would expect from game released in 2011.
Ill be back when

.When trees stop flickering,
.shadows stop flickering
.when FMs are correct
.Hit effects look real
.Radiators create drag
.Open canopies create drag.
.We have overcast weather or just the option of some cloud layers
.Radio commands work
.AI has been tweaked
.Net code is fixed so ATAG can have more than 50 players online.
.Stutter is gone (although my 3gb GTX580 might be the issue here)

Agree 100%

I'll settle for the first three and working AA. But after over a year of no joy and the latest long period of silence, I'm not anticipating it to even get to that compromised point. Sorry, wish it were otherwise.

[JG52Krupi]

"Hit effects look real?"

What should they look like?

[JG52Krupi]

Would the critics of Cliffs of Dover prefer that it didn't exist?

If CoD did not exist we would never ever get a sequel to il2, they needed the money. Imho that's why it was released in such a bad state, it was that or nothing at all I would rather have a buggy game than a few images of what could have been. I have been there before with nexus 2 the Jupiter incident it's not fun :(

[David Hayward]

In the current state, I couldnt care less..
Im waiting for it to look like a 2011 generation game before i come back to it.

To me it looks like very old already. Planes look beautiful but landscape and effects and explosions etc etc are better in il21946 HFSX6.0...

I have to admit that with the latest patch it looks alot niceer with that yellow square around the distance landscape gone at high alt. But honestly thats the least you would expect from game released in 2011.
Ill be back when

.When trees stop flickering,
.shadows stop flickering
.when FMs are correct
.Hit effects look real
.Radiators create drag
.Open canopies create drag.
.We have overcast weather or just the option of some cloud layers
.Radio commands work
.AI has been tweaked
.Net code is fixed so ATAG can have more than 50 players online.
.Stutter is gone (although my 3gb GTX580 might be the issue here)

So, if they fix everything on that list except "open canopies create drag", you're not coming back? That's pretty funny.

[icarus]

So, if they fix everything on that list except "open canopies create drag", you're not coming back? That's pretty funny.

I'll settle for the first three and AA. And I'm not even asking for clouds fix LOL.

And no if they don't fix just one on my list.... I'm out. Not too much to ask I don't think.

[Mysticpuma]

It's difficult to sit on the wall here because we can all see that CloD has potential. Reading the latest posts though it appears that CloD will only be fixed as best they can, as the Sequel is now the priority. There is to be no more development for CloD, what you have is what you'll get...other than fixes to broken bits.

Graphically I have always been irritated by IL2: 1946 and CloD due to the draw distances or should I say management of draw distances.

I hate the fact buildings appear like popcorn even when settings are tweaked through the full-range from low to high amounts and similar on texture settings. I don;t know why this hasn't or can't be fixed as there is nothing worse than flying low over the deck only to see the landscape 'literally' being drawn in front of you.

The promise of Weather, new clouds....effectively atmosphere that immerses you in the environment you are flying in, effectively destroys the illusion of Britain. Weather in Britain can be miserable with days being lost to rain.

The British campaign should at-least have had the Hurricane or Spitfire sat on a runway as rain falls and a low overcast hangs overhead.

The Aircraft takes off, breaks through the overcast into sunlight and a blanket of cloud is laid out below making retreating enemy easy to spot.

Dogfights ensue, dancing above and below the cloud cover....this is BoB??

The least we should expect is this (link below)

Now I know many will bleat...Arcade! So-what? I am not talking about gameplay...I'm talking GRAPHICS!!!

I'm all for the detail we get in the aircraft, I'm all for the attention to detail of the 'fixed' FM and DM...they are incredible, that's what CloD (sorry IL2) is renowned for. Please make CloD as accurate as that.

However just throw away the landscape, terrain and cloud models. Give us atmosphere. Give us rain, cloud layers...give us immersion!

This weather is the least we should expect of CloD and anyone who says that this weather and cloud detail is 'rubbish' in this video, really is a Fanboy of Fanboy's!

I don't want pop up, I don't want pop up clouds, ground, buildings, trees...I just want a basic, simple level of weather that this 'Arcade' game creates easily and successfully:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJF_oPrvNtU&feature=relmfu

MP


Okay so this was the original post.

Weather effects:

2m and 05 Seconds........now that's a thick overcast...that is not a layer of see-through blobs that pop-up everywhere...that's a thick solid layer of cloud!

4m and 59 Seconds.....Diving through that solid layer of overcast to see what is beneath the clouds. I have never seen an overcast sky portrayed this well in any flight sim.

and yes Weather/rain/clouds is part of the main simulation experience I would expect from any flight simulation as it could make the difference between losing a chasing enemy or not seeing them at-all.

Weather needs to be this good if not in CloD then at-least the Sequel?!

[DK-nme]

Okay so this was the original post.

Weather effects:

2m and 05 Seconds........now that's a thick overcast...that is not a layer of see-through blobs that pop-up everywhere...that's a thick solid layer of cloud!

4m and 59 Seconds.....Diving through that solid layer of overcast to see what is beneath the clouds. I have never seen an overcast sky portrayed this well in any flight sim.

and yes Weather/rain/clouds is part of the main simulation experience I would expect from any flight simulation as it could make the difference between losing a chasing enemy or not seeing them at-all.

Weather needs to be this good if not in CloD then at-least the Sequel?!

Hi Mystic.

I have always enjoyed Your work (flight-sim videos and more). That game, You just showed us, is super immersive, and I have it for the same reason. Arcade or not, it has the best ground & sky graphics ever seen in any flight sim.
To me, CloD seems no where near finished (nor even half finished) and it seems to me, to be a mere halfhearted attemt to update the original il-2 game. And having followed this games development and progression (CloD that is) for almost 7 years now, the missing immersion factors (the game already being outdated by lesser games) in fact sadness me...

DK-nme

[David Hayward]

Weather needs to be this good if not in CloD then at-least the Sequel?!

Did you completely miss the part where they said they were working on dynamic weather? They obviously understand the importance. However, that does not mean that it's possible at the moment. It may not even be possible for BoM. That does not mean that they don't want to include it.

[David Hayward]

By the way, Wings of Puke could have the best clouds ever rendered and it would still suck.

[Mysticpuma]

Now answering your point David.

When was the last-time you took a simulated aircraft through a cloud-cover that is shown in the video? It's an opaque layer of cloud. A fight could be going on below it or above it but you don't know unless you fly through it. There are no tracers visible, there are no see-through points...it's an immersive 3D world where a player can use the weather to their advantage.

I appreciate you didn't like WoP, I can't make you like it. It is Arcade, but it also has a much better representation of terrain, lighting, no obvious pop-up....and it has cloud and weather effects.

You don't like it. I get it. You have said many times.

Now, regarding the weather conditions and Graphics on the ground....CloD could learn a lot!

MP

Ad infinitum ;)

[Tree_UK]

By the way, Wings of Puke could have the best clouds ever rendered and it would still suck.

Jeez David, you sound like a young child in the playground, this is a discussion about weather effects, there is no 'right' or 'wrong', take a step back and have another look at your post.

[Mysticpuma]

It may not even be possible for BoM. That does not mean that they don't want to include it.

But it is possible in "Wings of Puke" to quote you. Should I refer to this as "Crap of Dover"? I think not. That would lower myself to your level of immaturity on the point.

I fail to see why you are so blinkered by this 'Simulation' where others are actually achieving what this should easily be capable of?

Why the need to dismiss a piece of software that has actually made use of it's developer's talents and actually created an immersive environment?

David I just don't understand your need to be antagonistic when a point is raised that you disagree with?

Surely someone with any degree of ability would reply in a more mature way?

Why not just say that you installed "Wings of prey" but just didn't like it....and leave it at that? Instead of you go with the inane, immature rant about a pice of software that actually works...at full resolution on low-end systems and has working weather effects?

Nope, here goes David again hijacking the thread so that rather than actually have an opinion on THE EFFECTS mentioned we have to have David's moral high ground that "how dare we compare any effects in any other game to what we have in Cliffs of Dover (see I used the correct name out of respect...it was easy to do you know!) as they must surely be inferior!"

Sorry David....head out of the sand time please.

This thread is about what you actually see in the video. Not the game....the effect! A layer of opaque cloud that you can fly above and below....total immersion!

MP

[David Hayward]

But it is possible in "Wings of Puke" to quote you.

So what? Wings of Puke is an arcade game running on postage stamp sized maps. Modelling weather on a small map requires considerably different resources from a map that covers a large section of France and England. That seems like it should be pretty obvious.


David I just don't understand your need to be antagonistic

There was nothing antagonistic about my response. You complained about the weather. I explained that they obviously also considered it to be an important feature. How is that antagonistic?

[priller26]

It's difficult to sit on the wall here because we can all see that CloD has potential. Reading the latest posts though it appears that CloD will only be fixed as best they can, as the Sequel is now the priority. There is to be no more development for CloD, what you have is what you'll get...other than fixes to broken bits.

Graphically I have always been irritated by IL2: 1946 and CloD due to the draw distances or should I say management of draw distances.

I hate the fact buildings appear like popcorn even when settings are tweaked through the full-range from low to high amounts and similar on texture settings. I don;t know why this hasn't or can't be fixed as there is nothing worse than flying low over the deck only to see the landscape 'literally' being drawn in front of you.

The promise of Weather, new clouds....effectively atmosphere that immerses you in the environment you are flying in, effectively destroys the illusion of Britain. Weather in Britain can be miserable with days being lost to rain.

The British campaign should at-least have had the Hurricane or Spitfire sat on a runway as rain falls and a low overcast hangs overhead.

The Aircraft takes off, breaks through the overcast into sunlight and a blanket of cloud is laid out below making retreating enemy easy to spot.

Dogfights ensue, dancing above and below the cloud cover....this is BoB??

The least we should expect is this (link below)

Now I know many will bleat...Arcade! So-what? I am not talking about gameplay...I'm talking GRAPHICS!!!

I'm all for the detail we get in the aircraft, I'm all for the attention to detail of the 'fixed' FM and DM...they are incredible, that's what CloD (sorry IL2) is renowned for. Please make CloD as accurate as that.

However just throw away the landscape, terrain and cloud models. Give us atmosphere. Give us rain, cloud layers...give us immersion!

This weather is the least we should expect of CloD and anyone who says that this weather and cloud detail is 'rubbish' in this video, really is a Fanboy of Fanboy's!

I don't want pop up, I don't want pop up clouds, ground, buildings, trees...I just want a basic, simple level of weather that this 'Arcade' game creates easily and successfully:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJF_oPrvNtU&feature=relmfu

MP


I think I'll be reinstalling this game, it works. I cant' deal at the moment with the zoom flicker on Clod in dog fights...fix one thing, break another, Clod has been out so long its ridiculous that its still in this state.

[klem]

One of the underlying principles of CoD was to be the awesome graphics, fit for the future, even for PCs specs that haven't been developed yet (remember Oleg saying that?). There are already suspicions that the graphics are being dumbed down to open up the game to lower spec PCs so I hope you are all ready for major PC upgrades when WoP immersion is created in CoD graphics and you turn it all on.

Its another subject so please don't take the thread OT but I believe it was a major mistake to target XP and third generation Graphics Cards for running CoD with its intended advanced graphics. 1C should have taken a 'new game-console' approach, 'here it is, if you want to play it buy a bl**dy good PC to run it on'.

[kendo65]

I've never really bought into the argument that sees COD's current graphical failings as being due to the unavoidable necessity of balancing out its under-the-hood computational complexity with sub-par or toned down graphics.

This view typically categorises COD as being alone in a class of complexity that far surpasses any other game/sim out there. I'm not sure this is true. But the assumption is never really challenged.

It also assumes that the current graphical issues are due to deliberate intent on the part of the developers rather than being down to error and elements being unfinished - ie the same reasons that have produced problems in other areas of the game as well.

I tend to go for the second argument. I don't believe in the 'necessary trade-off' interpretation.

[priller26]

One of the underlying principles of CoD was to be the awesome graphics, fit for the future, even for PCs specs that haven't been developed yet (remember Oleg saying that?). There are already suspicions that the graphics are being dumbed down to open up the game to lower spec PCs so I hope you are all ready for major PC upgrades when WoP immersion is created in CoD graphics and you turn it all on.

Its another subject so please don't take the thread OT but I believe it was a major mistake to target XP and third generation Graphics Cards for running CoD with its intended advanced graphics. 1C should have taken a 'new game-console' approach, 'here it is, if you want to play it buy a bl**dy good PC to run it on'.

My PC specs outdo yours in every area and in terms of ram and vram...over double..its not our "bl&&&ly" slow pcs....thank you very much..its the game and all its associated "issues".

[klem]

My PC specs outdo yours in every area and in terms of ram and vram...over double..its not our "bl&&&ly" slow pcs....thank you very much..its the game and all its associated "issues".

Well, I'm not an expert by a long way and I hope you and kendo are right which leaves us with kendo's intimation that they don't know what they are doing. The general indications are that the more powerful a PC you have the more chance you have of running it at a reasonable level, as mine does on High settings with the usual suspects of forest and building detail turned down with SSAO and Grass off. Given Oleg's original words on PC specs I don't expect any more than that.

The general idea from Oleg's days was that they were taking us forward into a depth of realism in simulation and graphics that has not been implemented before in flight simulators. We could look forward to life-like presentations of environent etc.. However they seem to be struggling with basic things like clouds, dust etc.. even pop-up buildings. But was it ever possible to do such truly advanced things in graphics, as Oleg trumpeted, with DX9? As far as I can make out, coping with DX9 is one of the things that has caused them to change direction and is holding CoD back. The definition of 'incredible graphics' is very subjective but if I compare CoD with IL-2 '46 there are definite improvements in much of the graphics, map, underlying Flight Modelling, etc., but I don't see a stunning brave new world because it seems they are choking it back. Where are the fantastic cloud formations? Why is dust such a problem? Come to that, where are the large stutter-free formations? Remember these are all supposed to be better than anything ever seen before which implies complex graphics and the kit to run it. Otherwise, why bother to create something to replace IL_2 '46?

The long drawn out attempt to fix things along with the abandoning of some aspects for CoD definitely gives the impression they have bitten off more than they can chew but as far as hardware is concerned what did we really expect we could run this fantastic new world on? And even if they get it right we were led to believe that the graphics possibilites in CoD could not be fully realised on PCs for 'another ten years' (ok, that was said about 5 years ago).

Still, the bottom line is that the slow progress on fixes, the current state of graphics and the eventual CoD omissions are increasingly depressing.

[phoenix1963]

I suspect it was not until they combined all the improved elements of CloD that they realised it could barely be done.
Much more detailed DM because of 303s
Detailed DM needs detailed engine model
Larger packets to transmit DM info
Tens of thousands of Speedtrees
Complex ground equipment and targets needing DM info in packets
More resolved geometries needing to show damage
Therefore more detailed textures

All these things impact on all the others directly, except the Speedtrees, perhaps the biggest mistake.

56RAF_phoenix

[MB_Avro_UK]

Money makes the world go around...;)

My spend on RoF has been far more than on Cliffs of Dover. RoF offered only two aircraft when I bought it. Since then, I've bought almost every aircraft since and other add-ons, including the Channel map. (Not yet released).

If Cliffs of Dover had been initially releases with only a Spitfire and Me 109 flyable with options to purchase the remaining aircraft, would we now have a more advanced sim?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro

[Ailantd]

Money makes the world go around...;)

My spend on RoF has been far more than on Cliffs of Dover. RoF offered only two aircraft when I bought it. Since then, I've bought almost every aircraft since and other add-ons, including the Channel map. (Not yet released).

If Cliffs of Dover had been initially releases with only a Spitfire and Me 109 flyable with options to purchase the remaining aircraft, would we now have a more advanced sim?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro

In the other side, there are a lot of people that have not purchase any bit of RoF just because that "pay for every tiny thing you want" payment model. Just like me. But I will pay for BoM as soon as it reaches.

[Cobra8472]

I suspect it was not until they combined all the improved elements of CloD that they realised it could barely be done.
Much more detailed DM because of 303s
Detailed DM needs detailed engine model
Larger packets to transmit DM info
Tens of thousands of Speedtrees
Complex ground equipment and targets needing DM info in packets
More resolved geometries needing to show damage
Therefore more detailed textures

All these things impact on all the others directly, except the Speedtrees, perhaps the biggest mistake.

56RAF_phoenix

Speedtree is an extremely well optimized package. 1C's implementation of the software seems to just be terrible.

[phoenix1963]

Speedtree is an extremely well optimized package. 1C's implementation of the software seems to just be terrible.
Interesting, I assume you know much more about it than me.
They did claim that nobody used more Speedtrees than CloD, hence their implementation had to be different.
I also remember Oleg's comment that one day graphics cards would have enough memory to hold all the textures, which I presume was a lament that they had to write a texture manager - with 3GB only to play with at 32 bits.
I can also see how the typical UDP packet sizes, without fragmentation, could be an incredible driver for the radius-of-influence engine that seems to be there.

56RAF_phoenix

[jibo]

as they said the game had to be rushed on the market
problems are lying way to deep in the code, that's the way it is
the clean rework is the sequel

i really hope it will be a success, because we won't see anything bigger as a wwII project for decades

[JG52Krupi]

as they said the game had to be rushed on the market
problems are lying way to deep in the code, that's the way it is
the clean rework is the sequel

i really hope it will be a success, because we won't see anything bigger as a wwII project for decades

+1, seeing the big picture.

[Cobra8472]

Interesting, I assume you know much more about it than me.
They did claim that nobody used more Speedtrees than CloD, hence their implementation had to be different.
I also remember Oleg's comment that one day graphics cards would have enough memory to hold all the textures, which I presume was a lament that they had to write a texture manager - with 3GB only to play with at 32 bits.
I can also see how the typical UDP packet sizes, without fragmentation, could be an incredible driver for the radius-of-influence engine that seems to be there.

56RAF_phoenix

I have experience with implementing SpeedTree-- indeed.

CloD may be far up there in terms of speedtrees visible at any time-- but not markedly more than say, WWII Online, or even games such as ArmA which use their own proprietary tree & vegetation rendering software.

It is also worth noting that most trees visible in the gameworld at any given moment are instanced 2D Impostors, which have a much smaller impact on performance.

While SpeedTree's do have a performance impact at the levels implemented in CloD-- they should not be the source of performance issues.

[Mysticpuma]

Similar video (this one with a P-51). Just look at the terrain and environment. Thick clouds, great lighting on them, buildings with no 'popcorn' textures...

War Thunder:

http://youtu.be/mAkyZ1IFX74

[JG52Krupi]

Mysticpuma have you seen this game, awesome graphics!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-k2FXIMwh8&feature=player_embedded

Now its not all about the graphics is it...

[icarus]

Mysticpuma have you seen this game, awesome graphics!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-k2FXIMwh8&feature=player_embedded

Now its not all about the graphics is it...

So true.

WT is superior to that arcade game in graphics and every other way. WT is not as good as a finished CoD will be, but it is miles better than that kids toy.

[PotNoodles]

The problem with COD is it's taken far to long to get of the ground. We are 18+ months on and there is still talk about getting the game running stable before they can move onto other fixes :rolleyes:.

Make the game stable after all this time I hear people cry.. Your having a laugh aren't you? WELL AREN'T YOU? All I can say is if it's taken this amount of time to get it running stable, then how longs it going to be before they fix the massive list of bugs they still have? I'll be an old man before this is finished at this rate.

[David Hayward]

The problem with COD is it's taken far to long to get of the ground. We are 18+ months on and there is still talk about getting the game running stable before they can move onto other fixes :rolleyes:.

Make the game stable after all this time I hear people cry.. Your having a laugh aren't you? WELL AREN'T YOU? All I can say is if it's taken this amount of time to get it running stable, then how longs it going to be before they fix the massive list of bugs they still have? I'll be an old man before this is finished at this rate.

And yet you're still here...

[icarus]

The problem with COD is it's taken far to long to get of the ground. We are 18+ months on and there is still talk about getting the game running stable before they can move onto other fixes :rolleyes:.

Make the game stable after all this time I hear people cry.. Your having a laugh aren't you? WELL AREN'T YOU? All I can say is if it's taken this amount of time to get it running stable, then how longs it going to be before they fix the massive list of bugs they still have? I'll be an old man before this is finished at this rate.

Yes, I agree 18 months is a long period of time for what they have achieved since release. At least they have made some progress. But it is discouraging that it is taking sooooo long. I think it is still possible to fix this thing, but it is getting harder to keep that faith with such incremental steps and such long periods of time.

[JG52Krupi]

Yes, I agree 18 months is a long period of time for what they have achieved since release. At least they have made some progress. But it is discouraging that it is taking sooooo long. I think it is still possible to fix this thing, but it is getting harder to keep that faith with such incremental steps and such long periods of time.

+1 its quite clear that only a skeleton crew are now maintaining COD, we know what the rest are up to :|

[Feathered_IV]

Skyrim?

[PotNoodles]

And yet you're still here...

I don't live in this forum like you David, I visit to see if there's a patch available. I know you live in this forum because you seem to have an answer to everyone that posts a negative comment, I always see you in there arguing the toss. Have you ever thought about becoming a politician?

[David Hayward]

I don't live in this forum like you David, I visit to see if there's a patch available. I know you live in this forum because you seem to have an answer to everyone that posts a negative comment, I always see you in there arguing the toss. Have you ever thought about becoming a politician?

Yes, you do appear to live in this forum. And you whine constantly, but you are still here. If you want to show the devs that there are consequences for the long time it is taking them to fix the game, leave. That'll teach 'em...

[PotNoodles]

Yes, you do appear to live in this forum. And you whine constantly, but you are still here. If you want to show the devs that there are consequences for the long time it is taking them to fix the game, leave. That'll teach 'em...

I think you need to take a look at the amount of posts you've made before telling someone else they live in here :grin:

You may think I whine, but I say it as it is. I come here to talk about the state of play from time to time and not to argue the toss with people like you do. God only knows what you'll do when you have nobody to argue with.

[Falstaff]

18 months - quite a long time. About the time it takes to get a fully-fledged add-on to market. Or a revised graphics run-time and weather/terrain effects, plus a dynamic campaign and weather system, and maybe an extra plane or two, possibly a theatre.

...or how about a Readme for a beta patch?

The thread subject was minimum expectations. I think we have been hovering around minimum expectations for quite a long time. More hovering than a helicopter or Vtol sim.

The sense of determined fantasy and unreality at least now seems to be giving way to a general grudging acceptance of the facts, which is progress of a sort. Soit's not all bad. Hopefully now that various ailments are so apparent, the code-doctors can start the treatment. the quesion is, do they amputate, or try and save what is there? Hence at the moment, minimum expectations....

The Ignore button, now my friend (how many people can it hold?)

Ben

[David Hayward]

I think you need to take a look at the amount of posts you've made before telling someone else they live in here :grin:


I have about 56 posts per month since joining. You have almost 70. :-P

[150GCT_Veltro]

Similar video (this one with a P-51). Just look at the terrain and environment. Thick clouds, great lighting on them, buildings with no 'popcorn' textures...

War Thunder:

http://youtu.be/mAkyZ1IFX74

+ 1

This is an engine and these guys are artists; this is was we were waiting for from CoD.

Also this one is great.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwbm6xSXabM&feature=player_embedded

Why....they don't buy this engine or make a joint venture instead of waste their time in this poor code, called CoD?

Graphic is not all, we know, but CoD what's is? Physic? FM? DM? What?

[Mysticpuma]

And just a point as-well. GLOdarks video was captured and created with an ati 4850. This is what can be achieved with proper coding in graphics.

I agree that 1c should buy the graphics engine back and then add the cem and updated (dear god please update) fm/dm and ai.

MP

[David Hayward]

And just a point as-well. GLOdarks video was captured and created with an ati 4850. This is what can be achieved with proper coding in graphics.

I agree that 1c should buy the graphics engine back and then add the cem and updated (dear god please update) fm/dm and ai.

MP

It's also a great example of what can be done with an arcade game, a fact to which you seem to be completely oblivious.

[icarus]

It's also a great example of what can be done with an arcade game, a fact to which you seem to be completely oblivious.

The WT beta I am testing has a sim mode and while not as good as CoD, its pretty good. Its roughly Il-2 1946 quality with better graphics. When CoD is fixed it will be better all round for sure. But right now its not fixed and the graphics need work.

[David Hayward]

The WT beta I am testing has a sim mode and while not as good as CoD, its pretty good. Its roughly Il-2 1946 quality with better graphics. When CoD is fixed it will be better all round for sure. But right now its not fixed and the graphics need work.

CoD graphics are probably never going to reach arcade quality.

[Chivas]

I believe if the new IL-2 survives, it will also have a arcade mode, and a more significant sim mode. But the most important factor will be the IL-2 communities ability to mod/fine tune almost every aspect of the series, including improving terrain, missions/campaigns, etc. In the mean time I will probably log some fun hours with WT.

[icarus]

CoD graphics are probably never going to reach arcade quality.

LOL They will be better than WT when they are fixed.

[icarus]

I believe if the new IL-2 survives, it will also have a arcade mode, and a more significant sim mode. But the most important factor will be the IL-2 communities ability to mod/fine tune almost every aspect of the series, including improving terrain, missions/campaigns, etc. In the mean time I will probably log some fun hours with WT.

+1

Nothing wrong with arcade mode as long as there is a descent sim mode.

[Mysticpuma]

CoD graphics are probably never going to reach arcade quality.

Looking at the examples I posted....that's a real pity as it's something they could at-least aim for

[PotNoodles]

I have about 56 posts per month since joining. You have almost 70. :-P

So I am right that you have lived in these forums longer then me. You have been in here since 2010 :-P. I don't think I will get to beat your score of over 1,127 posts lol.

Note, I added a post on to make it 1,127 because I'm sure you will respond.

[David Hayward]

So I am right that you have lived in these forums longer then me.

That's not what you said. You said that I "live here", not that I've been here longer. Although, I can understand why you'd try to move the goalposts after I showed that you currently post here significantly more than I do.

In any case, why are you still here? Aren't you supposed to be showing 1C that failure has consequences (beyond the annoying noise that is your whining)?

[LoBiSoMeM]

War Thunder graphics and art are MUCH BETTER yhan IL-2:Cliffs of Dover graphics and art.

Simples as that. Arcade, sim, whatsoever...

;)

[JG52Uther]

David Hayward/Potnoodles take your public spat to pm please and stop wrecking the thread.

[PotNoodles]

War Thunder graphics and art are MUCH BETTER yhan IL-2:Cliffs of Dover graphics and art.

Simples as that. Arcade, sim, whatsoever...

;)

I thought War Thunder was supposed to be free? I just looked here and it says it's 49.99$ for the starter kit? So it's not free after all? Or am I missing something?

http://yuplay.com/story.php?title=War-Thunder_Pacific-Starter-Kit

[LoBiSoMeM]

I thought War Thunder was supposed to be free? I just looked here and it says it's 49.99$ for the starter kit? So it's not free after all? Or am I missing something?

http://yuplay.com/story.php?title=War-Thunder_Pacific-Starter-Kit

It's relevant? We are talking just about graphics and effects visual and performance. It's not free, of course! :grin:

[Chivas]

Looking at the examples I posted....that's a real pity as it's something they could at-least aim for

SOW actually aimed for much more, they were striving for photo-realistic terrain, but it killed frames enough they had to subscribe to Speedtree, and many other frame saving effects. That said this shouldn't always be the case. The game engine was designed to be able to subtract and add features as the computers and sim optimizations improved. One of the first things we will probably see is more advanced water, and maybe someday even the river banks they talked about years ago. At any rate between the mod community and the developers there should be a constant stream of feature updates, if they can ever get the game engine running properly.

[gynoflyer]

Would the critics of Cliffs of Dover prefer that it didn't exist?

I know this is from way back on Page 11, but I think it might have been better had CLOD never existed. (hear me out first before you grab the torches, this is only my opinion)

Cliffs of Dover was hyped as the next great WWII combat sim by Oleg Maddox. The guy made IL2, and it's been the gold standard for the last decade. Everyone who might have considered making an actual WWII air combat simulation (a realistic flight sim) stood back and said, "Oleg is making one, no use us doing the same as nobody is going to buy ours since his is going to be the only one anyone plays for the next ten years.

So (follow with me), maybe CLOD stopped other capable studios from even trying to make a realistic WWII flight sim, instead turning to more "arcade-ish" ones or making a game for another genre. So CLOD, just by existing, could have hindered the WWII flight sim market in that it scared off other similar games as they assumed they could never compete with CLOD.

Also. . .

Since CLOD was made, and has done very, very badly sales wise ( estimated to be around 20,000 copies sold (http://www.vgchartz.com/game/53111/il-2-sturmovik-cliffs-of-dover/) ) other game publishers might now be saying, one of the two. . .

1. "See, this market is dead, and they are never going to make back their money. This game has possibly killed a studio, and might have crippled a publisher. There isn't a market for realistic flight sims, so we shouldn't even bother trying!"

or they might say...

2. "See, I told you that realistic WWII flight sims are too time consuming, difficult and expensive to make. Even Oleg's studio couldn't make a modern one and they made IL-freaking-2 for gods sake! There is no way we could ever make one in a decade if they couldn't even do it in 6 years with millions of dollars! Nope, we're not going to ever try that!"

This is just me playing devil's advocate, but it would be interesting to see if any other studios were planning a new WWII flight sim some time around 2004-5, and then abandoned the idea.

[chantaje]

I know this is from way back on Page 11, but I think it might have been better had CLOD never existed. (hear me out first before you grab the torches, this is only my opinion)

Cliffs of Dover was hyped as the next great WWII combat sim by Oleg Maddox. The guy made IL2, and it's been the gold standard for the last decade. Everyone who might have considered making an actual WWII air combat simulation (a realistic flight sim) stood back and said, "Oleg is making one, no use us doing the same as nobody is going to buy ours since his is going to be the only one anyone plays for the next ten years.

So (follow with me), maybe CLOD stopped other capable studios from even trying to make a realistic WWII flight sim, instead turning to more "arcade-ish" ones or making a game for another genre. So CLOD, just by existing, could have hindered the WWII flight sim market in that it scared off other similar games as they assumed they could never compete with CLOD.

Also. . .

Since CLOD was made, and has done very, very badly sales wise ( estimated to be around 20,000 copies sold (http://www.vgchartz.com/game/53111/il-2-sturmovik-cliffs-of-dover/) ) other game publishers might now be saying, one of the two. . .

1. "See, this market is dead, and they are never going to make back their money. This game has possibly killed a studio, and might have crippled a publisher. There isn't a market for realistic flight sims, so we shouldn't even bother trying!"

or they might say...

2. "See, I told you that realistic WWII flight sims are too time consuming, difficult and expensive to make. Even Oleg's studio couldn't make a modern one and they made IL-freaking-2 for gods sake! There is no way we could ever make one in a decade if they couldn't even do it in 6 years with millions of dollars! Nope, we're not going to ever try that!"

This is just me playing devil's advocate, but it would be interesting to see if any other studios were planning a new WWII flight sim some time around 2004-5, and then abandoned the idea.


not bad poiny, but see the bright side. it is selling more this year than the last :)

btw that page is strange, it says that il2 46 selled 10k.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo

[BRIGGBOY]

not bad poiny, but see the bright side. It is selling more this year than the last :)

btw that page is strange, it says that il2 46 selled 10k.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhpozqzk9qo

lol

[GraveyardJimmy]

Since CLOD was made, and has done very, very badly sales wise ( estimated to be around 20,000 copies sold (http://www.vgchartz.com/game/53111/il-2-sturmovik-cliffs-of-dover/) ) other game publishers might now be saying, one of the two. . .


VGChartz does not track digital distribution. For a game on steam and that has had lots of sales online this is a pretty useless estimate. 1c themselves have said that digital distribution makes up far more than retail (see interviews with CVG for instance).