Final Poll for CLOD?

[furbs]

Given it is what it is until the sequel, i thought i would have a final poll on what you would score CLOD out of 10.

Would be interesting to see if the score changes, the last poll scored CLOD at about a 5.5 average.

[furbs]

As a online player i gave it a 7.

[JG52Krupi]

8 purely from online :D having a lot of fun.

[SlipBall]

I am high man:-P...@9

[Bloblast]

If you include the Desastersoft add ons I'll go for 9.

[=Kike=]

8 for me.
It's possible for me to play at Il2 Clod with similar perfomance that Il2 1946 (similar or the same perfomance I can say...offline and online) with a good screen resolution and with Il2 Clod graphics aspect (better than Il2 1946), but we have some issues in this moment (like aircraft visibility and others issues, or issues with the mirrors...). I don't know if FM is good or not (I'm a player, not a real pilot)
If this simulator had been published with this performance from the begining.....
So for me it's a excellent patch, great!!

[Von Crapenhauser]

8 out of ten for me.
I play mostly offline campagnes could be better and coms dont work,
otherwise very happy.
cant wait for the sequal/sequals.;)

[raaaid]

hey zero its missing i got many of those in college though i put it a 7

[Von Crapenhauser]

;)8 for me.
It's possible for me to play at Il2 Clod with similar perfomance that Il2 1946 (similar or the same perfomance I can say...offline and online) with a good screen resolution and with Il2 Clod graphics aspect (better than Il2 1946), but we have some issues in this moment (like aircraft visibility and others issues, or issues with the mirrors...). I don't know if FM is good or not (I'm a player, not a real pilot)
If this simulator had been published with this performance from the begining.....
So for me it's a excellent patch, great!!

I have pilots licence and FM is ok,if the spitfire and Hurricanes spin a little easy maybe.
I have no probs with visibility,maybe just a prob online??;)

[SQB]

6/10. Very low, I know. But here's why: I'm a singleplayer person.

Broken AI for spitfires, they rarely (if ever) even react to enemy aircraft.

Loadouts don't work... they just don't. The heck!?

Graphical features were taken out, not given to us as options, taken out!

The list goes on!

[=Kike=]

maybe just a prob online??;)

Yes, I think that this problem it's only online.

[Ze-Jamz]

Depends on what angle your coming from...in terms of fun obviously for me presently its the only game i play as a hobby but it has many faults still so Its gets a 6 from me...higher in terms of fun gained playing online but would be less through content/issues/bugs so above average score from me..

[Taff in Exile]

8 from me because of the online battles/missions on ATAG :-D

[ParaB]

Since I'm a flightsim fan I'd give it a 7.

[csThor]

3/10

- no offline part worth the name -3
- massive AI problems -2
- bugs in cockpit instrumentation and use -1
- visibility (LOD) issues -1

I can live with the graphics in general, but the total lack of an offline part is what galls me most.

[JG52Krupi]

Thor have you tried the deastersoft campaigns?

[csThor]

Thor have you tried the deastersoft campaigns?

Yes, but they're not my cup of tea, either. To explain: I prefer campaigns which tell a story, Desastersoft does achievement campaigns. They use success/defeat criteria, I don't like that (storytelling, remember?). Nothing wrong with their way, it just ain't mine. Sadly. :(

[Ze-Jamz]

Yes, but they're not my cup of tea, either. To explain: I prefer campaigns which tell a story, Desastersoft does achievement campaigns. They use success/defeat criteria, I don't like that (storytelling, remember?). Nothing wrong with their way, it just ain't mine. Sadly. :(

Which is also the very reason I didn't bother either..

[smink1701]

I am 100 percent SP so I give the graphics a 10 and gameplay a 5. That's a 7.5 overall which sounds about right. If they can add features, significantly improve AI, FMs and give us a much better GUI and missions, they / we will have a 10 with BOM. :grin:

[Stirwenn]

The poll is about Cliffs not DesasterSoft who gain a 10 !
Online i give a 7, offline a 0 (lack of campaigns, features like comms, etc...). So 4 is well paid for an half job done, the comptent & indifférence.

[SlipBall]

Desastersoft...Would it not be very hard to adjust their missions, rewrite the briefs and so have your story...the hard work is already there with the populated environment

[Winger]

8 Points. Loads of fun!

[Kwiatek]

6/10

As a online player i see some improvement since relased game but for me it is still unfinished and too many things not fixed expecially the most important for me:

- planes visibility - very poor, planes disaapering with FOV changing even at close distance

- FM and performacne - poor high alts performacne for all planes, Merlin engine problems (RPMs jerking at some alts), not accurate performacne of planes comparing to RL data and test

- too many stutters during online playing ( beta RC 2 was much better)

So still not too much sense to play for me and probably im backig to ROF and wait for BOM

[JG52Krupi]

I have yet to see planes dissappear!!!

[Das Attorney]

5 out of 10.

Feels like only half a game, therefore half marks. The stuff it gets right is really good, tempered by incomplete/missing features. I wanted to score higher but in it's unfinished state, I couldn't honestly give it more than that.

[Borsch]

CLod is not finished, it will not stay "what it is". No rating for me.

[csThor]

Desastersoft...Would it not be very hard to adjust their missions, rewrite the briefs and so have your story...the hard work is already there with the populated environment

Sorry for OT, I promise it'll be my last sojourn there. ;)

Economical considerations. They're not making much of a gain with their products, but they don't want to invest more than they get, either. That's essentially the reason why you shouldn't expect big changes in their general system. As for someone editing their missions ... you'd have to have an understanding of scripting, which I lack completely. Maybe I'll try my hand at making some single missions when I can find some poor sod who codes my ideas. But more is pretty much impossible. ;)

[ChocsAway]

4 out of 10 as an offline player.

Lower than that though without the contributions of Heinkill and Desastersoft re content.

[tintifaxl]

Same here 4/10. Even with the Desastersoft campaigns. Too many bugs affecting offline and coop play. For me that's not enough to continue flying CloD.

[CWMV]

Same here 4/10. Even with the Desastersoft campaigns. Too many bugs affecting offline and coop play. For me that's not enough to continue flying CloD.

Agreed.
4/10 for me.

[Jugdriver]

7 out of 10 from me. Still having a blast online but there are just a few to many important omissions to make it rank higher IMO.

JD
AKA_MattE

[planespotter]

3. From me sorry but I cant help compare what was got with what they promised an I hoped for.

[JG26_EZ]

4.0

Way too many loose ends.

Ghost trees, lack of coop GUI, launcher crashes, black skins if cache isn't cleared, etc.,.


-----
----
---
--

[Extreme_One]

... you'd have to have an understanding of scripting, which I lack completely. Maybe I'll try my hand at making some single missions when I can find some poor sod who codes my ideas...

Exactly why I never got into mission building for CLOD. And I really wanted to.

The Mission Builder is great but I just don't have the time to learn how to script.

BTW I scored a 6.

Offline pilot here and overall I find the game to be too aggravating to really get into.

Missed opportunity; if only they'd had another year of development time.

[ems9]

8 for me. I got a PC that has some specs bellow the required, and the game runs with a fair FPS, anyways I'm not able to play online atm due my specs (it just freezes), but there is no blame because I'm bellow of the specs.

For me, having a general idea of the resources the maddox team had, doing what they did, was a big achievement. For more blame and winning some members did and the stupid reviewers from the outside world of flight sim, that don't understand a thing, this game is awesome. And now with the hardest part done (the game engine) working quite smoothly, it will not take 7 years so see new games. But just a few years to see much more than many people expected.

From me, like all the times I did, maddox team, you got my respect.

[jimbop]

5. It's good fun online when you do exactly what you known works but falls apart otherwise. From an external review point of view it is not strong.

I loaded up a SP cross country mission. Couldn't change loadouts. Selected ground start, started in the air. Landed and the grass appeared 10ft away in chunks. Pressed escape to get back to the menu and landed on the desktop. Pressed escape again and back in the aircraft... And so on.

[icarus]

I gave it a 6 because the graphics are still unfinished and the SP play is so bad.

Not sure how anyone could vote 10 or 1 for that matter. Sarcasm votes I guess.:grin:

[foxl]

I gave it 5.

The lack of clouds ruins the game for me, they only appear close to you aircraft and they are the same as in old IL-2 just small puffs of cotton. Without clouds and some weather effect there is no flight sim experience.

:(

[NedLynch]

5 for me.

single player here

-no dcg
-radio commands


That's it, I never really felt that all the fixes were so incredibly necessary.
Performance wise the game always ran just fine for me, I liked the graphics mostly, FM/DM were ok.
Yes a lot of things needed improving and improvements were made to great effect, I will not deny the devs my respect for their dedication.
But my biggest gripe has always been the lack of single player content, especially a dynamic campaign, so people can actually fly and have unrepetitive fun, despite all the other things that needed fixing.

[Jaws2002]

I give it a 4.

Very disapointed on the last year and a half.:(

[Ribbs67]

I gave it a 7 purely for online play. It could have been an 8- 9. with some fmb and ai commandd bugs squashed .. too bad they couldnt get it accomplished.. :(

[ElAurens]

I didn't vote, but a 6 or a 7 as I am totally online and it is fun now.

Not nearly enough content to justify anything higher though.

In truth the very limited scope of the historical scenario of the Battle of Britain has a lot to do with some of the limitations that would keep me from rating it higher, even with it's current technical issues.

Basically, there are no Allied "fighter/bombers" (attack aircraft). Which while historically correct for the depicted scenario, makes for a very limited focus for us Allied pilots. And severely limits the extent of what can be done to extend the "repeat playability" of CloD. I'm no Bader or Hartmann, so endless dogfighting is getting old. I want to blow stuff up, and currently there is no way for me as an Allied pilot to do that effectively. And sorry, the Blenheim is not an acceptable substitute.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Salute

Successes:

1) Plane control systems are closest modelling of flight in WWII era Fighters we have seen yet in a Combat Flight Sim. Systems for Pitch, boost, rpm, cooling systems, etc. all innovative and generally pretty accurate by this last patch. Personally, I love flying these planes and the challenge they provide. I just drool at the thought of flying a P-47 in a Sim with this engine, with its supercharger, turbocharger, and very complex systems.
2) Good representation of BoB aircraft available, both flyable and non-flyable.
3) Nice map, coverage of Battle area is good, accuracy of terrain and objects/buildings is reasonably high.
4) Graphics generally very good, can be run at high resolutions with good systems.
5) Ballistics and weapons systems generally handled in a innovative and accurate way.

Failures:

1) Game does not provide the player with what its promotion promised, ie. the environment of the Battle of Britain. Impossible to replicate 300 plane raids on London, the game engine cannot handle it. In fact with the lack of Ships available in the object list, it is impossible to even replicate the Battle of the Convoys, with its smaller raids and lesser number of combatants.
2) Medium Altitude combat, ie. 20,000 ft, the typical bomb altitude for the Kampfgeschewader of Heinkels, Dorniers and Junkers which attacked Britain is basically unplayable, aircraft do not perform to historical standards, and the altitudes which saw combat between 109 escort and Spitfires covering the Hurricanes attacking the bombers, ie. 30,000 ft might as well be a trip to the moon.
3) Many aircraft with inaccurate Flight Models, from both sides.
4) The Visibility system, which was promised to be groundbreaking, has more bugs than IL-2, spotting of enemy aircraft is too easy at longer ranges, and too difficult at short range. 'Disappearing' LoD's at approx. 1000 meters are the bane of flyers. Players have to turn down their graphical settings to fly effectively in combat. This defeats the purpose of all the eye candy built into the system.
5) After a year and a half, serious bugs and omissions remain. For example, trees with no collision model, leading to players using them as cover, 'flying below the trees', and other players eliminating trees from their settings, so they can see the players using the tree cheat.

A badly flawed masterpiece? A limited success?

You tell me.

[GOA_Potenz]

I made a quick review of this poll and we just get out of the vote now a rate of

6.5 out of 10

So in the end this an average product from what we were promised from devs as the ultimate Flight Sim, a product of that quality should reach a 9-9.5 out of 10 with no problems.

Just 1 point gained since last costumers review.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Voted 6. Too long development compared to the outcome. Dev team broke things that did work in IL-2 instead of just refining them, like comms etc. I REALLY hope they've learned their lesson for sequel to make it a success.

[furbs]

I made a quick review of this poll and we just get out of the vote now a rate of

6.5 out of 10

So in the end this an average product from what we were promised from devs as the ultimate Flight Sim, a product of that quality should reach a 9-9.5 out of 10 with no problems.

Just 1 point gained since last costumers review.

I think 6.5 is a fair score, all we can hope for now is they have learned the lessons from the last few years and apply them to the sequel.

One of the main lessons is to have some sort of COOP system that uses all the bells and whistles of the new FMB, with the simple ease of use of the old system.

[fruitbat]

I think 6.5 is a fair score, all we can hope for now is they have learned from the last few years and apply it to the sequel.

One of the main lessons is to have some sort of COOP system that uses all the bells and whistles of the new FMB, with the simple ease of use of the old system.

agreed 100%

At least it is a fun game now though.

[MadTommy]

Only play online.. 7 from me.

It would get 9 if the online population was bigger & if the code could cope with 100+ player servers.

[Insuber]

I gave a 7 only because of the total lack of competitors in this segment, apart from a 12 years old game called Il2 ...

But ...

Fulfilment of the expectations: 4
Respect of schedule: 0
FM of planes: 2 (think only to the 6500 m of plafond for 109, the near impossibility to do hammerheads, the lack of dynamic stall ...)
Online playability: 6
Squad online playability: 3
DM of planes: 4 (after the last patch, it was 6 before)
GUI: 4
Game manuals and reference: 1
FMB: 3 (you need a master in computer science to build a mission)
Community support and dedication: 9 (think only to the bugtracker created by users ...)

... and today I am in a good mood ...

[r0bc]

Wow 7 maybe but Luther wouldn't even give this a 8 - 9 or 10.

[Chivas]

Its been a rough ride, but if the announcement doesn't totally change the direction of the development, the Channel Map will only get better. The devs and community will be adding new content, improving features, adding features, new aircraft, and new theaters for years.

Even if the announcement includes an MMO, it doesn't necessarily mean the demise of the existing development. With work the game engine should be more than capable of doing both. The developer supplies the game engine, most of the aircraft and theaters, FMB's, SDK's, and the talented among us could build the missions, campaigns, etc.

[studiox19]

I think, sadly, now if it was released in it's current form, it might achieve some great peer reviews, possibly scoring in the late 80s or early 90s out of 100. The problem is, it's difficult to regain all those potential customers put off by initial really bad reviews . . . . . . . .

[furbs]

Well, more people are coming back for the online fighting.
We need people to start flying the online campaigns next, as the quake low level stuff will only keep peoples interest for so long.

[Chivas]

I think, sadly, now if it was released in it's current form, it might achieve some great peer reviews, possibly scoring in the late 80s or early 90s out of 100. The problem is, it's difficult to regain all those potential customers put off by initial really bad reviews . . . . . . . .

This is the beauty of having a series of sequels with different names. If the next sequel is a success the rating of the previous Sequel will be forgotten, and most of the previous Sequels features will be updated as a bonus.

[klem]

8 from me because........

For:
I play exclusively on line and it is very playable (within the limits of my rig).
I don't have to build the missions (thank you ATAG, 5./Jg27).
FMs 'feel' has moved forward since IL-2 '46.
I generallly like the environment we have been given (terrain, misting, etc).

Against:
A/C performances are still not right but at least the RAF planes can fight back now.
Map is still mickey mouse in these days of near-photographic accuracy and historical data on airfields etc.
The FMB could be a LOT friendlier for complex mission building. I would like to try it again but its an up-hill battle.

And I acknowledge the black hole in the ground that is offline play (so many people trying to play offline missions can't all be wrong) and the XP/DX9 debacle.

So I am voting from a very narrow selfish viewpoiint, otherwise it would have been a 5 because of all the other issues that don't affect me.

[GloDark7]

4 out of 10. It would have been a 3 but for the good memories of IL-2.

Reasons. The purported brand new engine was the old IL-2 engine wearing a different hat. Fantasy pre-release videos. 'Weekend at Bernie's III' at the Moscow launch starring an animated Oleg Maddox signing copies (Elvis had already left the building). Buggier than an alpha at launch after so many years in development. Epilepsy filter nonsense and other excuses that followed. The rest is history.

Glo

[RickRuski]

5/10 from me, what kills the score from my perspective at the moment is the length of time it has taken to get to this point.

(1) Until Sli/ Xfire is finally resolved through Nvidia/Amd it's still not finished.

(2) Lack of a decent QMB. Why has it been made this way? A QMB should be just that and not have to be done through the full mission builder then transfered.

The majority of players would be off line players, so we need a decent QMB, for that alone 2/10.

[SharpeXB]

After experiencing DCS: P-51D I give the IL-2 flight and aircraft models a 4. They just feel game-like in comparison. The bar has been raised.
The GUI and commands/ menu system in CloD get a 2. It's like they were designed by someone who has never seen a flight sim. There are basic commands missing and absurdly illogical ones like the zoom feature that uses the mouse and button combo.
The game graphics get an 8 or 9 and the level of detail on the ground is astonishing. There's still a funny color palette and lack of weather. But the map is the best part of the sim. Also I give a 10 to how well it runs after the patch. For how well it looks it runs so smooth it's fantastic.
The mission design included with the game gets a 5. All air starts or ground starts with the engine running is so arcade.
Desastersoft I must try and it might be the whole redeeming feature.

[DefiantMk1]

Between 6 and 7 is about right, hoping the announcement includes a big change with 1C and not just developer wise as they need to make money to be able to reinvest in the product.

Had an unexpected crash last night, but that aside I'd like to see more content added and more planes flyable, not silly ones like the Su-26. I'd even pay for a Wellington/Defiant as DLC...

The role of Bomber Command is undervalued for sure and sometimes flightsims help educate as well as entertain.

Would I get BOM? Perhaps, but I don't want to see Clod left abandoned as they have the basis of something to expand upon and improve overtime.

[GF_Mastiff]

I give it a 3 to many problems with AA, FXAA, and any API enhancements where a big miss.

Textures on aircraft still disappearing at a distance, become invisible.

objects shadows still seen through the ground, and through cockpits.

horizon lines if you in "Oye Plage" and landing you can see the horizon through the cockpit.

at night lights visible through the cockpit,

Shadows not working,

Vac still not working,

ammo load outs not working for single player,

No Co-Op missions,

mission builder is for someone that can code in C++ simple,

all in all, needs work..

[icarus]

6.5 average seems about right.

[Stoli151]

No official dynamic campaigns, AI pilots stink. Why can't we get AI pilots on the level of 1946 with the 4.11 patch? Graphics are awesome, damage model is cool, except collisions seem off. My score 6. Give me some AI pilots that aren't blind and a dynamic campaign on the level of Lowengrin's, new score 10. Online is the only place the game is enjoyable because online is the only place I get shot down. I find myself loading up 1946 to get a challenge offline(but then I start missing the pretty graphics of CLoD),please 1C give me the best of both one day soon!

[Plt Off JRB Meaker]

8 from me,I was really impressed at what had been fixed at the last update,the F/M's especially,no more grass in the hangars,no more weird colours in the cockpits,the clouds are back,the shadows look great,yeah it's starting to look good...........finally:)

[CWMV]

Except a too slow 109 and gunsite that's lit by a 1 million candle power lamp.

[He111]

Broken AI, other bugs, stopped me from giving it higher than 7

.

[too-cool]

I'm sorry I just can't give it more than a 1 and that's only because there is no Zero. This game has been a nightmare since it's release and false promises.

[tk471138]

8 for me.
It's possible for me to play at Il2 Clod with similar perfomance that Il2 1946 (similar or the same perfomance I can say...offline and online) with a good screen resolution and with Il2 Clod graphics aspect (better than Il2 1946), but we have some issues in this moment (like aircraft visibility and others issues, or issues with the mirrors...). I don't know if FM is good or not (I'm a player, not a real pilot)
If this simulator had been published with this performance from the begining.....
So for me it's a excellent patch, great!!


wow that really got me thinking...imagine....they could have spent time making more planes flyable or even more planes and other models...i mean i was looking to play for england the other night and was STUNNED and disappointed that i was limited to basically spitfire and hurricane and Blenheim..i never gave that much thought before was always trying German side but when i found only three planes playable for the british i almost didnt believe it, i double checked and triple checked (i checked again just now)


anyways with that said i give it an 8 much of that has to do with the fact that the devs did their part and making the game playable, which the effort in and of it self is worthy of praise the fact that they did deliver is meaningful and should not go unnoticed. but the game is cool and if they can improve on this in the coming releases which they will we will have a fantastic final product...the one thing we do have control over however that is key to the success of the game is to not alienate the devs especially when they deliver or at least make a meaningful effort at doing so...

[GOA_Potenz]

honestly who is giving 10's and 9's to CloD i can understand who gave a 8's based on online gaming and having fun, but 9's and 10's doesn't you think is way too much???

Just wondering...
who gave those numbers be welcome to say why that rating.

Potz

[Ploughman]

6/10 for me. Playing off line there's very little content, it's a bit of a desert to be fair, on the other hand I recognise that CloD's got a lot of depth at its core and is quite enjoyable just as a aircraft study sim. Nice.

[=Kike=]

With Il2 Clod, in my opinion, I have 3 """problems""":

- I Know that I purchased one simulator in beta state. (+one year ago)
- I have patience
- I try to be objetive

I'm a player of Il2 1946. I play in full real servers without engine management, with trees lie or with invisible and real trees, doing with my aircraft impossible maneuvers in the reality. I dont know if my Bf109 in Il2 1946 flight like reality, without worrying about the oil pressure, water temperature, the propeller pitch, the RPM or any plane management.
About IA...for me is the same, easy IA in Il2 1946 and Il2 Clod, in veteran mode or ace mode or easy mode....(Remember, >for me<)

About RoF...I have only 2 A/C. If I want more planes, $$$..pay
About DCS Black Shark...I have only one helo!! and very very complicate to play. Do you want planes? (like A10)...$$$$..pay

And in either case, in this simulators I have only one map.

Not my intention to compare this simulator with RoF or Black Shark o Il2 1946, only I try to say that we don't have a perfect simulator in any case, and I think that Il2 Clod is the first step to have a excelent sequel about WWII air combats...and...Is it possible one tank combat? Will be possible AAA position? or take my jeep and go from Calais till other city?

For me Il2 1946 isn't a 10 simulator...For me Il2 1946 isn't a real simulator, is one arcade/simulator.
If I wanted a simulator as real as many people want ... I would become a real pilot and not a PC player

remember, is only my opinion...and sry for my English ;) (And I know that the community with all comments about problems, is the best tool to improve the simulator)

[studiox19]

Hi Potz,

Yeah, i gave it a 10 - more of a 91 out of 100 though - so maybe a 9. i just think that if the game was released as it is now, after all the patches, i think we would all be pretty impressed. Admittedly, getting to here has been a rough ride and, in it's initial state, i would have given it 5/10. I think average pro reviews would now give it 85 - 95 out of 100 easily.

But hey, that's just my opinion . . . . . .

I'd like to hear from those who have now given it a 1 or 2 as well . . . . . .

[ATAG_Colander]

I think it would be more accurate to create 2 polls. One for online and one for offline.

I have the feeling the offline poll would give a smaller average than the online one.

[GOA_Potenz]

Hi Potz,

Yeah, i gave it a 10 - more of a 91 out of 100 though - so maybe a 9. i just think that if the game was released as it is now, after all the patches, i think we would all be pretty impressed. Admittedly, getting to here has been a rough ride and, in it's initial state, i would have given it 5/10. I think average pro reviews would now give it 85 - 95 out of 100 easily.

But hey, that's just my opinion . . . . . .

I'd like to hear from those who have now given it a 1 or 2 as well . . . . . .

first thanks for answer my question

I gave 6 out 10 cause, the lack of features, now we only have one game mode, online multiplayer dogfights, and the most good thing about 1946 was left it out and is Coop mode, also we have no dynamic campaign those rest so much point regarding game modes

Also what the devs advertised before release was not acomplished in many ways

the lack of AA rest a lot of points too.

I can keep going on and on but most of the flaws where already covered in this forums

and most important is the stop in supporting the tittle from devs

the first pro review gave the game just a 4.5 really bad for the reputation of the company, and after a year in my opinion just rise 1.5 points from that initial release.

Potz

[Falstaff]

Yes, to be realistic you need an online and offline poll.

Then you need to need to allow for the concerted 'Let's pm round and bump this and show them who is boss silly-high-score' campaign' and work back from there (and allow for Atag etc) and you may end up nearer the mark.

Equally, allow for the personal vendettas and negative campaigns, and you would probably end up with a 5/6. Hey, who needs history anyway....

[klem]

Well, at the risk of being called a fanboy for not completely condemning CoD I'd say that with 50% of the voters giving 7 to 8 it looks like it's "not great, disappointing in too many areas, but just about acceptable given the history.... and the fact that its not going anywhere else in a hurry".

I suppose 1C can take something from that. Let's hope they've learned the lesson and don't release the sequel until its absolutely ready.

Maybe we need another poll:
"Would you like to be a fully participating and serious member of a Sequel alpha/beta test team". And maybe with some clearly defined test tasks so we don't just get a pile of unsubstantiated 'opinion'.

I can dream.....