Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES (Post 369017)

When I read Chivas post.. I got the impression he was making a reference to the new CoD graphics engine..

That being it is killing alot of PCs today..

But with time the advancement of the PC hardware will make this a none issue.

As was the case with IL-2, when it orginally came out some 10 years ago, its graphics eninge was killing the standard PC of that time, but 10 years later what with all the PC hardware advancement even a cheap PC with a cheap video card can run IL-2 smoothly.

The analogy being, 3 to 4 years from now you will not see anyone complaning about poor FPS in CoD and it's sequals.

Originally Posted by addman (Post 369009)

I feel this is a very common misconception around here, the misconception that "with time, technology of high spec PC's will allow this and that and so on and so fourth". The problem in this day and age is that smaller game developers are having a harder and harder time to cope, making advanced PC/video games whilst lacking the mighty funding from publishers such as EA or Activision as an example. Yes, there are enormous possibilities for game developers right now but it also requires more manpower and funding behind them.

I think this might be one of the reasons why CloD was rushed the way it was. You just have to look in the control settings menu in CloD to realize the ambition that Oleg and his team had but alas, when the mighty dollar speaks, everybody has to obey. I bet it's actually easier to create something solid in a limited environment where choices are fewer then having too many options/ideas and leaving most of them half-baked. CloD is lacking focus, it's sprouting out in every direction, it doesn't have a foot-hold or a solid foundation to grow from yet but hopefully that will be rectified in the not so distant future.

You can't keep developing for the next generation and the next generation in mind only. You have to think about what you want to achieve, what you want to create first then you look which technology can help you achieve these goals, not the other way around. That's what happened to Duke Nukem Forever, they kept replacing game engines for like 12 years! and when it finally was released it barely looked like a DirectX 9 game and the game itself (the important stuff) was total and utter crap, I played the demo...unfortunately.

To the point, new technology is a good thing but it doesn't guarantee a good game.

Originally Posted by Peril (Post 369004)

For what it's worth I agree on the DM choices being made.

There is realism, and then there is 'sensationalism!' The latter is what game developers create to sell more games to kids (wow factor). FPS games for example, how many shots does it take to kill someone 'realistically'.

Planes don't fly apart because they exceed VNE on a single occasion, not unless it has a fault anyway. This kind of damage is more accumulative than instantaneous. Any high amount of G that would instantly break a plane up would likely kill the pilot first anyway.

Realism doesn't traditionally sell games/sims, lets hope they have a big enough market to stick to this hard line. In the end it's always about the money for a commercial enterprise to survive.

Originally Posted by Insuber (Post 369127)

I understand Luthier's point that the g stress discussion is often inconclusive and tends to degenerate, but it should not be the excuse to do nothing. I believe that g stress damage is under modeled in CloD, and this gives undue advantages in some situations, namely to 109's strafing Hawkinge ;-).
It is true that in general the frame damage is cumulative, and in the current gameplay you "create" a brand new plane at every flight, thus "repairing" any previous airframe damage.
But in some cases the Vne or g damages are immediate and traumatic and lead to the loss of vital parts, such as ailerons and elevators, or even wings. I have not yet experienced one single damage of this kind in CloD, after 150+ h in the 109 and 50+ in red planes, sometimes with deep and long dives, very hard pullouts and all, apart from one single time on a Hurricane (I lost an aileron after a VERY deep dive).
And apart from hard pullouts after a sharp dive, instant damages can arise from normal pullouts followed by a roll or turn, or hard maneuvers on a full loaded plane (fuel+bombs). Have someone seen them yet?

To avoid discussions on this thread I will open another one, but as a starter you may want to read this thread, and in particular the US Navy case studies about the "G Hogs", at the bottom of page 1.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/pol...ire-22553.html

Cheers,
Insuber

Originally Posted by superman (Post 368970)

Simple maths

The more it looks like real world the more things you will find that are different.

When it starts to look almost real, the number of differences are nearing infinity and so also the potential things to complain about.


The problem a lot of people have is not with the game, it is that they are getting older an don´t have the imagination they had a few years back.

I think I remember a time when just playing with a toy plane was
"totally immersive"

Originally Posted by Caveman (Post 369158)

+1 so true... I remember being "immersed" in Microsoft sopwith camel addition to a very early version of flight simulator. I played for hours on a IMB PC Junior ~1983 with a keyboard and thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread... Can't understand the people that complain...

Originally Posted by bongodriver (Post 369168)

it's because they like complaining...I'm sure one of them will be along soon complaining about your criticism of them....I hope you are familiar with the term 'fanboi' because they throw that one around a hell of alot, it's also something to do with them having to spend a few bucks on a game and now their children will have to starve for a year.

Originally Posted by Feuerfalke (Post 369167)

Really nice.

But I won't buy any sequel/addon/Payware-Patch unless the basic game I already payed for is fixed.