played the game yet?

i don't expect to play rof at all it's highest settings and get great frames, my computer simply isn't up to that. similarly i don't expect to be able to with CoD. but of course, with il2 everything is maxed and it's smooth and fast. you fiddle with the game settings to make it run smoothly. we're not playing on xboxes after all.

settings make a difference to performance, simple as that.
+1
this is absolute gold dust - someone thinking ahead by more than 2 weeks.


ftr
1. fidelity of models - flight, damage, weapon
2. smoothness and consistency of fps
3. good number of planes in the sky
4. graphics
5. sound

I`ve been playing this all day
 

My rig is middle of the road, but according to the published req`d specs should have been capable of playing this.

4gb RAM
3.5ghz quad core Phenom
4870x2
on a 21" CRT at the 1280x?x32 settings.
Win7 64bit

In the game I set everything at mid/low settings and disabled the AA and the grass and road options. This set up gets you ..... plane externals that are not as good as UP2.01 and scanning with ctrl F2 I saw Hurricanes that looked like they`d fell straight out of the original Microsoft WW2 flight sim from 10 years ago, no spinners and as blocky as you`ll ever see. Get anywhere near land and you`ll halve your framerate, get anywhere near a major town or worse a city and you are down to single figures. I did enter the text to disable the Epi filter as well, but there was still no prop in the cockpit view (so i`m unsure if that had any effect).

My FF2 did not force feedback (may be a missed option)
My quad core was only running on one core, this was released on Friday as a cutting edge game but appears to not support multi-cores, dunno??.
And X-Fire not working as well (previously stated as not working I know).

So just what is going on here, I can`t help feeling disappointed and if you could see what i`m playing i`ve no doubt you`d agree. IL2 or IL2 with UP2.01 is currently superior to this, the only saving grace i`ve seen are the cockpits which are superb.


Ps I do play RoF at nearly max settings and I average 40 fps with my rig.

+1

But with this "cummunity" I'm very pessimistic about that happening which is EXTREMELY sad. We finally get the only serious new WWII sim released in years (and for years to come if not the RoF bunch goes WWII). And what happens? Every week a new problem starts a mass psychosis here and half of the "community" threatens to cancel their pre orders... Colors, lack of multi threading, lack of x64 exe, no german campaign (but there was one), Steam, Published by Ubisoft, No dynamic campaign, bad fps due to epilepsy filter (which I really think is a minor reason for the bad fps) etc. Every week a new thread with threats and the facts are in most cases rumors that have been circulated after some vague comments on the Russian forums.

I'm starting to loose hope i the human race after all this crap actually...

So the fps issue is down on the list, huh?
How are you suppose to dogfight with this slide-show going on?
Should I buy the game, shelf it and hope that maybe someday they make it playable?

Yes, I'm disapointed and I have a reason.
They pulled out an unfinished, unplayable game - without a single word of warning.
They appologized after a bunch of ppl bought it and figured out that something is not as it should be.
This is the real crap.

So... all you're playing is Aces of the Pacific these days?

Once frame rate gets above 30 fps, the impact of additional fps diminishes, until you hit around 90fps if you have really good eyes, or 180 if you're using the new 3D systems. 10 fps is low, but given that this is going to be the only game in town for most likely the better part of a decade, we'll be pushing 200fps at 3840x2400 on "Super Perfect +" by the end of its lifetime, and grumbling about how the devs haven't made it prettier.

Nice to see everyone else's ideas.

1) Publishing
2) Fix codes and release in a large patch
3) Everyone's happy
4) Play endlessly
5) If something is wrong: Another patch

Simple as that.

No, for real:
1) *historical* Realism (since it is a sim)
2) Feeling that the creators put in all effort for creating this game
3) *historical* Flight models and landscape recreation
4) Framerate
5) Sound

And then it's time to see some mods, just like 1946 ;)

MugiSNK

Well said.
I really hope 1C and Ubisoft will sit down, and talk about it. 1C just need to have the balls to say: 'Cut the crap, Ubi. Now make this game as it should've been.' No offense. I'm just kinda mad to see such an amazing game turn into a giant, not moving piece of stone. Let's just hope 1C, my favorite game producers, can fix this within couple of weeks.

MugiSNK

Yeah I don't know what the issues are. I'm lost.

+1

And should i spend more $$$ upgrading my "low-end HD6870" because of a bad optimized game?

Umm, if you are into WWII flight sims the answer quite simply is yes. There is nothing else on the market, not even on the horizon. The possibilities inherent in the engine would make spending $50 on even a long-odds gamble the smart thing to do. Considering that the odds are in fact very good indeed, since there is every indication that these issues will be fixed in a matter of weeks, the choice becomes even easier.

I have never been able to understand people that will actually hurt themselves rather than risk feeling cheated. Like they can't even stand the possibility that they might spend money on something that's not "worth" it. They're the kind of people that, if offered a random $20 gift on the condition that some other person gets $30, they would rather that nobody gets anything than have it be "unfair."