You know, in ten years of playing IL2 I've never reaslised that :(

But still, double negative switches are just wrong and confusing.

"- right turn is not really different from left turn on hurricane. Opposite for Bf-109 E3 - its almost dont do right turn"


:confused::confused::confused:

Bf-109s don't have aileron trim. So the torque has a big influence.

Oh, and the Bf-109 was maybe flown by a rookie who can't handle with the torque ;)

Didn't see the blue and red dots? There's way more planes in there!

Of course there is torque, but almost not able to turn to the right is ridiculous, but we'll see when the game is out.

1 plane on screen....anyway...lets hope its just the GPU.

That's because it wasn't like that in Il2 - the "no omission of deactivated difficulty setting absence"-style labels drove me mad too ;) Having "tick = more difficult" as a common rule should be quite easier to handle now.

Some random observations (it's getting hard to digest anything new from those videos we've seen):

The individual AI attributes were mentioned before but it's nice to see the complete list now (here) - sure looks interesting.

Other things I've noticed were the flames without smoke in one video (some more variety compared to Il2), the Il2-like "orderly ejection" from spiralling planes (mostly RAF so I guess they maintain a proper queue at the exit hatch :-P) and the tracers working really well from the cockpit view. Not so sure about the cannon smoke - looks good from behind but the individual puffs when watched from the side are not so great. No big deal though.

And still some visual bugs (the white line on the sea) which are hopefully a side effect of the poor graphics card.

Some text messages (as far as they are readable) show "shared kills" when a plane goes down, so it looks like the game tracks all previous hits and doesn't just count the final attacker. Could be interesting for the MP people.

Anything I missed? ;)

What on earth does anthropomorphic control do?

+1 Look at a real Spit on air shows compared to what you can do in IL2... Sure - they don't fly them that hard but they definitely look "heavy" as opposed to an IL2 Spit doing three blistering fast successive snap rolls and then bam - straight ahead... That is my major complaint in IL2 - the planes feel too light (like an SU-26 ;))

i think if they could make the screen go blured as if your having trouble looking out of the corner of your eye it would be better, as if it is more like using peripheral vision.

According to Wiki, anthropomorphic means the attribution of human characteristics to things that are non-human, so I'm guessing its something to do with the AI.

Wow.

7 Minutes with mostly dogfight-scenes and not a single allied plane even took a hit :rolleyes:

But the graphics are nice - thanks for sharing!

:D

Excellent find Kosach! Thank you:grin:

Please tell me that's not the engine sound at 6:00.

I can't wait to look out of those cockpits with Track IR..... especially the Defiant. Beauteous! There's some real nice video in there. Thanks for posting.


Is the progressive weathering effect on the airplanes still in the cards for CoD? Those models are great looking, but I'd like to see a bit of that feature in an update.

Things look quite nice on theses vids, except the tracers, which, from time to time look too much like lasers (I've been AA gunner on 20mm, I never saw such tracers ; best rendition I've seen until now for this is a recent IL-2 I just forgot the name).

Btw, looking at this vid...

http://kanobu.ru/video/id191912/

... can someone tell me why so many videos are made with a wide camera focale which deforms the perspectives and transform the aircrafts like bananas. I I get for instance for a publication aircraft photos made this way, they go directly to the dustbin (a wide angle is only used for created some special effects on peculiar views, not for all-around photography).

Question to the guys who played the demo : are there gamma and luminosity settings directly within the game setup ???

Lots of vids from that Ukranian site, thanks for the linke.

Only noted a 109-E3 and E3/B on the selection menu for a low level quick dogfight.

Wow this videos are great!!!I love the smoke trails.

From a screen shot of the computer's profile at the Kiev thing:

Intel Core i5 750 @2.67Ghz 2.67Ghz

4Gb 2.97Gb usable

32 bit OS

Ati Radeon HD? 5670

Windows experience rating 5.9

Maybe the 32 bit exe can only adress 2 GB and so the ca. 3 GB usable RAM were not a help.

Lol so they were using a 32 bit os?And some people at SimQ still complain that some scenes are choppy.No wonder why:rolleyes:

If it doesn't run on 32 bit operating systems I will be very upset as I have Vista32.

Thanks, the start of that video we've seen before, but some is new video!!!!

+1

MM I saw that too Cliffs of dover on steam they must have a beta now for writing to their GUI. and for DLC.

Is it just me, or are those videos uploaded by amateurs way more interesting then all official videos combined.

They should just make one simple highres ingame video of a dogfight with plane A vs. plane B.

Up on the screen I could read FPS:37 avg:29 max:71 at the 1:27 and that's just over the water...it seems interesting to me.

I think within a year people may be able to run it maxed out without problem

Anyone knows the hardware?

Its been posted a few times I guess.Core i5 750? @2.7ghz 4gb of ram radeon 5670 and 32 bit os.

yep, I saw the specs here.
But interesting is the frame rate they are getting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVJ9JnURPh8

Well if those pc's were running the game at an "ok" frame rate, I guess that is a huge improvement.So far the game seems to be really optimized to run on average computers.

here a good video
with some Bomber records


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sxbC...layer_embedded

Nice!!

Very, very promising. I can't wait to get my hands on this bad boy. I think I'll just slap a $150 quad core in my existing rig, it should run this fine. By the time they get the dynamic weather running, I should be able to afford a significant upgrade. I'm not really worried about the FPS at all, I'm sure 1200MB of frame buffer will do it, if it moves at all with 512.

At 11:02 the tail of that bomber is not properly modeled :mrgreen:

I almost feel drowned.

Wow the end of that last video makes me feel reassured about how the game will run on my system. Seems that the frame rate choppiness over land is due to an underpowered video card for those settings. thanks for posting it.

Doubt it. That's CPU loading due to all the object updating (buildings mostly).

The more CPU MHz the better here. Luckily there seems to be enough options to dial down to acceptable framerates but don't expect to set a high object visibility range and get 60fps on even a good CPU I'm guessing.

Oh I have no illusions of being able to run this on high settings, but I also can now see that I will be able to run it at least moderately well even if it is at low settings.

i like the messeerschmitt cannon and machineguns smoke.
http://i970.photobucket.com/albums/a...hoff/smok1.jpg
http://i970.photobucket.com/albums/a...choff/smok.jpg
but i dont see so much smoke in the hurris or spits

is good to see that problem of the scrach letter are fixed. and the reflections on the water, and the sun, grreeeat!
http://i970.photobucket.com/albums/a...ff/fiatg50.jpg
i want to see a entire video without music. since takeoff to landing.
8GBRAM will be recognized?:rolleyes:

Those smoke trails sure put a smile on my face.

Well Ilya said somewhere that the executable sits at below 1.8Gb normally so whether it recognizes it or not is not that important I guess ;) That also makes the 32/64-bit exe discussion rather stale too...

I suppose your are just being sarcastic but otherwise - you mean that the cause for bad frame rate on those machines equipped with one of the lousiest GPU:s available on the market today (costs like $70) is the fact they run on a 32-bit OS? As the exe uses less than 2 Gb what would they gain? Less stuttering? How? If question one was positive - forgive me :)

EDIT: If the exe never go above 2Gb in memory usage I would be pissed to know they spent time compiling a 64-bit while important stuff is lacking ;)

If you look at the majority of Igromir and this event's videos you can see that the average fps is above 30 but it gets choppy because of lag spikes.I assume that has to do with not enough memory to load all the textures popping up.Of course that gpu is inferior to a decent card at this date but the average fps is quite good for that rig.All in all I think that the game is using the given resources effectively.

correct me if im wrong but would an older CPU say a q6600, q8xxx or 9xxx, thats been OC'ed to 3.2 or higher be faster than a newer i5 cpu at stock speed?

im trying to gauge what to expect out of the slightly older CPUs

Clock speed is not everything.Different generations of different chips have different internal architectures.Even with the same generation there are different steppings.Some have more internal cache at different levels.Some are tied to different busses.Some have the memory controller built on the die.Whether or not the ram and cpu can run at a 1:1 ratio.It is more a function of how much work the cpu can do per clock.

In the old days AMD used to beat the pants off Intel even though the Intel chips were clocked faster.The AMDs could do a lot more work per cycle and thus run at a lower speed.(less heat)

so translation is.... no.....?

Ranking List Quadcore
Dualcore


Page to compare Proccesors (german)

The good news for those of us who have waited to upgrade is that the new Sandybridge procs are the baddest CPUs in the land, and the top of the line (the 2600k) is only just over $300. The bad news is they're still hard to get. I'm going to try to wait for the 6 or 8 core versions, if my machine will run COD satisfactorily. Good things come to those who wait.

No collision model with trees?! Not even a single, skinny little collision box in the middle where the trunk is? That's dissapointing.

I think some trees are just "sprites".They have no mass.Some trees are "objects" and if you hit them you will know it.

It could also be a dm setting or the pilot is set to the invincible toggle.

Easiest setting for the show.After all you could see all the "we are here" arrows.

A tree doesn't need to have mass to have a collision box at its center. Even if they were just 2D sprites they could easily have a region in the middle that causes damage when you pass through it. I'm just hoping that we get something a little better than in IL-2, where we had 2 types of trees:

1.) the common intangible type that you could fly straight through
2.) the less common trees in and near towns, which caused you to detonate when flying close to them

What we need is to have some Deltawood trees with collision boxes sprinkled around in all the forests.

Then you would be flying low whipping through the trees thinking you have got it made.And them BOOM.You hit a Deltawood tree and explode.

I'm sure Oleg said that tree collisions were turned off at the IgroMir show.

Look at the difficulty setting screens,it looks like everything was turned off,so people could fly the planes around easily.
I would guess a lot of us will install the game,turn every difficulty setting on,and then wonder why we can't even get off the ground without turning into a burning wreck.
The thought that all this is only a few weeks away makes me feel like a little kid again,waiting for Christmas!

I really hope COD will be a used by ex. Anandtech when they review new hardware, then we will see when the pros using latest high-end hardware to benchmark.

Well said!

Too true !

sound on :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5EqS...layer_embedded

Wow Nice find T-JETTer!

Looks good, but please god don't let that be in game sound of a Merlin engine..lol!

Well it does sound better than IL-2 right?Though the mg fire sounded weird.The explosion looks good for me.

wauu cool video, but why no radio voice?

Why not? It will sound very different to a human than what you can hear from in cockpit recordings usually shot by "camera on shoulder".

The external sounds I am interested the most.

Btw. - even when passing a formation of bombers there was no sound of enemy bombers to be heard. Nice. :cool:

Video was shot in very low resolution, could of been IL2 to be honest, the sounds were dissappointing.

Well, I'm glad you did not celebrate you 1000:th post with bitterness like this ;) One to go - make a positive one! Come on - we know you have it deep inside you! ;)

Could have been Il-2??You should be a comedian.

I disagree that the sounds were disappointing, the proof will be the external sounds as Thor said - in cockpit sounds ... well, I've never been in one, so I'll take this.

It certainly does not sound like IL2 ;)

1+;)

Well, if the stuttering is caused by loading of textures that they really would like to load but can't in a 32-bit OS you are naturally correct!

As it is now I had a rather interesting experience last night where I installed a dual boot setup at my rig to be able to run Rise of Flight on XP 32-bit instead of Windows 7 x64. This was all on the recommendation of Jason himself as he meant that RoF runs better on XP than W7 x64 if you have dual core system. Tried it and RoF is a new game to me. No stuttering at all that I had before and definately higher fps. The real benefit was the lack of stuttering that plagues RoF on some dual core systems when running W7 x64.

For games using less than 2 Gb (97%?) XP32 is really the fastest gaming OS - unfortunately there is no Dx10 and 11... The cause is probably the more direct access to the hardware that you have in XP without a lot of stabilizing hardware abstraction layers... A 64-bit OS is really not any faster than a 32 bit system - you just get access to more memory. Than of course Windows 7 is more optimised for multi threaded applications - but as seen in the case of RoF it messes up the threading they use at least compared to XP. For quad core CPU:s it seems to run fine on x64 though!

I don't think I have seen any test where Windows 7 x64 really beats XP-32 if you run Dx9 (hard to do higher in XP ;))

Having said this - Windows 7 is naturally a heck of a better OS in general!

About those laser-like tracers...
 

This is the closest examples I could find from real guncams "laser-like"
tracers...I know these are not Spit or Hurri ammos, but still....
I would say that what we have seen so far from COD:

They are a bit to large and long ... and to even...
When the are further away, they could look more like a dot and seem to "float"...
They could have a bit of faint smoketrail...
Starts at 0:40

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhreZ...FB77791AB3E74B

Salute !

Have you seen the posted videos?The smoke trails shown looked very good.Let me see if I can find that video showing them.

Yes, yes my friend ! I have seen them ! Thanks !They are indeed perfect !:grin:

I was refering to those looking like "lasers"...Probably the smaller calibers...
Those without any smoke that we have been shown in updates... And in the latest video "with sound" posted here....

Salute !

As I said before, I think that video was recorded some time before the Kiev event or maybe it had the smoke trails turned off.I would be happy if the next friday update consisted about a few in-game videos using the current build with Ilya and Oleg explaining them.Its quite sad that we get to see those details like the trails through those videos and not by our devs here.

I think the tracer needs to drop. Although they may look like them, tracers were not lasers, and from leaving the barrel there would be some kind of bullet-drop in place. I haven't seen this in any of the videos shown yet.
They only gave a rough estimate of where the bullets would go. I'm sure some of the team behind the BoB2 patches researched this to get the tracers accurate enough for BoB2.

Must be disappointing for you to have nothing to moan about on the weekend....

I hear you , but remember that Oleg and Luthier have already stated that those
"laser-like" tracers were very accurate and were not to be altered...
Their symetry and ballistics were discussed in a couple of friday's updates...
But I still haven't find anything from real ww2 guncam that would be close to those we have seen so far in COD....
In the other hand, the glimpse we got regarding the ones with smoketrails look awsome...Larger caliber I presume...

Salute !

I think we need to assume that realistic gunnery was disabled, given that it was in IL2 since release I'd be amazed if it wasn't in CoD.

That would indeed be a reasonnable assumption...;)
We just want to see it !!! :grin:

Salute !

They do drop. You can see in some of the past videos the cannon fuse going off at about 1000 yards and blowing up well in front and below the EA. This feature was already in IL2, there's no way they'd leave it out of this one.

I dont understand the huge difference in the behaviour of the two airplanes. Hurricane had no aileron trimm. So, there was no torque? :) There was no air resistance of propeller-blade? (The "no turn" of the turn, or yaw rate mean anyway? :) )

But u right, we will see...

:) core I5-650, 4GB DDR3 1600, AMD Radeon 6870. win7 x64. dx10 render. 4x AAA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K94NQ...layer_embedded

Yes, i think the realistic gunnery setting is a reasonable assumption for my query, so thanks ;)
very nice video too, although I hope we won't see the same vertical towers of smoke from crashed A/C.

That crash in the end looks a whole lot more realistic than il2. Fps over land looked good as well.

Here's the quote from Luthier again:

"CoD usually sits at around 1.8 Gigs in the memory. I don't think I've ever seen it go anywhere near 3 gigs."
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...971#post220971

So, that could mean it goes over 2Gig some times, but not hugely over 2!?

Philip_Ed - noticed the 'Realistic Gunnery' option in the realism settings in one of the videos posted at Sukhoi, so pretty sure it was just switched off in some vids. Though I'm sure in some other vid I've seen the bullets drop.

Regarding the pilot head position in Spits - Oleg said quite long time back that they were working on animations for the pilots but that they were having problems with them clipping through the fuselage at times. I assume the pilot animation is still turned off until they get it sorted - probably what is causing the unnatural frozen looking pilots.

Thanks Kendo. Safed me quite some money wich i can spend on a stick extension now:)

Winger

Well, I am no expert, :rolleyes: but dont we have to add to the COD ram needs , the OS ram usage ? That would mean a total close to 3 Gig for the system to run ?

Just wondering...

Salute !

Wow, I have no idea how a B109 sound in the cockpit, but damn does that video sound nice. Makes very good use of my sub, and the biaural quality of the sound is awesome.

ahh nice sounds...and explosion at the end look so real....fantastic

If this video is also done on the crap rigs at that show I am really impressed!

I have not heard a DB601 from inside the cockpit but I really like the "prop sound" we can here in this clip... One fact I sure know about from IRL experience is that aircraft engines don't sound that "cool" from inside - it's more of a "sound mat" in a way that it is here.

I agree Mazex, but most planes I've been in do not have some 1000HP and no restriction on what sound they may produce, this sound to me seems really great, and taking into account that this is not actual "historical correct" sound, it's a damn good job they did.

That is very possibly the best video yet.
Very nice.
Excuse me if I link to it from the UBI forums.
Thanks for posting.

Bf 109 G-2 in flight cocpit video (from 6:45). I think DB 601 close just like this :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tluzb...eature=related

From the uploader:
"core I5-650, 4GB DDR3 1600, AMD Radeon 6870. win7 x64. dx10 render. 4x AA" Things are looking good so far performance-wise :D

Best friday update ever! :D

nope its not...

the show was an i5-750 2gig RAM and a 5670 graphics card and running on win7 32bit...

this was i5-650 4gigs RAM and a 6870 on win7 64bit... bit of a difference for sure.

Yep...And the good news is : i7 2600 is only $300 and 25 % faster than the i5 650...!
And the 6970 is $150 more than a 6850, but also 20 % faster....And memory is quite cheap now...
That means it is possible to have a very efficient machine to run COD at a
decent price...;)

Salute !