Except GPL was getting 8-9/10 reviews and was finished on release. Big difference. And yes I've played GPL. CoD has a long way to go to change the bad reviews its been getting. I think it will, but it is a ways out yet.

I think the review is fair and subtly highlights the main problem: too many people being used to the previous IL2 series' highly polished state in its final stages and expecting simply an IL2 with better graphics and sounds.

I'm not saying the release was perfect (far from it), but besides the host of valid issues the rest of the angst comes from a mentality that says "i don't want to upgrade but i don't want to scale the graphics down either, and i certainly don't want to read up on how to make it work, i just want to jump in the cockpit right away and everything should be flawless from then on".

There are valid complaints about the title (which are getting attention and issues are worked on) and non-valid ones that fit the second description. I still remember that poll about texture sizes and most of the people complaining about low FPS were running original size textures (go figure), not to mention mistaking perfectly realistic features for bugs in more than one cases :-P

Personally, i'm glad they decided to make a departure from previous norms even if that meant some things that are taken for granted must take longer to include. This is how innovation happens. The only other way is to have a much bigger supply of cash to hire more people, which we know doesn't apply to our case ;)

I agree mostly. Not convinced that the performance issues are all due to cutting edge software yet (I actually run it fairly well, but it runs worse than any other sim or games). I don't see CoD as being that much more comlex or better than DCS A-10, at this time, to warrant the performance difference. Perhaps it will be, but not now. Time will tell on that one. I think a lot of people exaggerate how bad CoD is and some exaggerate how good it is.:P Neither are correct.;)