Originally Posted by David198502 (Post 439859)

yeah, sorry blackdog, but i cant agree with your optimism either...

Originally Posted by philip.ed (Post 439905)

Please could someone post a video of the new tracers? I'm dying to see them in action.

Originally Posted by philip.ed (Post 439824)

You mention graphical improvement BD, but many features seem to get worse in this department: the lighting, the cockpits, now the autogen...

...it adds up to the point where it feels it is two steps back. If the game engine can't currently handle such graphics, they shouldn't have been so optimistic in the first place.

Originally Posted by Jaws2002 (Post 439906)

After the very obvious results, of the last year of "fixes", what he posted there is not optimism. It's blind fanatism. :)

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt (Post 439912)

Let's get some stability/performance and fix the gameplay elements (aircraft systems, AI, radio commands) so we can fly, then we have all the time in the world to tweak how the light reflects off of a canopy, shall we now? ;)

Originally Posted by Jaws2002 (Post 439908)

Someone posted a video yesterday:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Hq0LntQQU8

Originally Posted by ATAG_Bliss (Post 439645)

-netcode is still untouched / laggy/warping with 40+ players / AI fly sideways / Ships fly in the air / Ships don't sink sometimes.

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt (Post 439912)

So you are saying that if it doesn't work it should be changed? I agree 100%. The problem is that people have been shown the high end of the graphical spectrum and will not agree to getting reduced graphics for performance.

I'm not going to argue that the graphics engine was not in need of optimization, because clearly it was and it's apparent that FPS could be boosted further. However, that doesn't mean there is not an upper limit of what can be achieved based on existing hardware. If that limit is reached then the only solution is to lower settings until better hardware comes along.

I think the best solution is to have more comprehensive and well explained detail settings. This way people can judge for themselves what they want to run with and adjust based on their hardware and wallets.



I could argue the same about the crowd that is never pleased with anything.

My take on things is very simple.

1) There are a lot of things that need fixing.

2) Some things are getting fixed and some new issues pop up.

3) Overall, on my modest PC, things have been improving with each patch.

The bottom line is that there's a limit on what can be achieved, based on hardware, the size and budget of the dev team, etc.

We can either accept it and start focusing on some of the gameplay elements to get a sim that is actually stable and fun to fly, or spend another 6 months debating about graphics, squiggly tracers and the colour of grass.

Essentially, this is a game about bombers and intercepting fighters. Well, it took a year and a half to get a working autopilot on the Ju88, a very minor change programming-wise (just copy paste the working code from the He111) but huge in terms of gameplay impact, because everyone was screaming their lungs off about a host of other issues that, when seen under the scope of the sim's setting, are secondary. I don't mean stability and performance, i mean the pages upon pages arguing about mattes of stylistic and visual preferences.

Being a moderator doesn't mean i can't be critical of the dev team. They are humans and they have made mistakes. But for me, their biggest mistake all along has been that they listened too much to the ones who shout the loudest and then are never pleased, so they shout some more, driving the development in endless circles of focusing on secondary features.

Let's get some stability/performance and fix the gameplay elements (aircraft systems, AI, radio commands) so we can fly, then we have all the time in the world to tweak how the light reflects off of a canopy, shall we now? ;)