While I agree that Maddox may have made some wrong choices regarding graphics development (IE, cloud & water should have been concentrated more vs the diminishing returns on certain nitpicking details), but given that they are such a small team with finite resources and given niche market share of DX11(http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey), not shooting for DX11 is understandable and wise. Even Crysis 2 is DX10 upon release!

It's wrong to assume that the engine will be antiquated upon release because it doesn't support DX11 - it's only a rendering path. You don't need to replace the whole engine (FM, DM, atmosphere modeling & resources management, blah blah blah) just to get DX11.

DX11 is within the engine...Oleg comfirmed that . Just not enough "stable" f/x yet to exploit in a flight sim of this magnitude.
And just because you don't see every single parameter listed as "tweakable" doen't mean that it is not there...
Some visual features are more "hungry" than others and could simply be included within different settings levels....In other words, Oleg could have decided to keep it simple....

Salute !

Actually it's only DX9 ;) And it's not just Crysis 2 - just ask Dragon Age 2 players about the horrible DX11 implementation, or take a look at Shogun 2 which will also deliver DX11 only after release through a patch ("2-4 weeks" :)), and it's pretty clear that no developer is willing to invest too much in what is still a niche technology. Even if they're developing PC exclusive titles.

Looks like Oleg is in good company with concentrating on outdated technology :-P

There's something like a glitch that doesn't look right in the clip. When the Beaufighter attacks, there are what look like glowing gasses dropping away. Not likely I'll be seeing it when I game, but just wondering what they are or were meant to be and if it needs fixing.

Your the one posting misinformation. the game engine isn't antiquated. DX 11 can be used by the COD engine but the API is unstable. Calling a brand new game engine antiquated is total BS.

ROFLOL - WIN!

I love your logic, Tree: Eat xxxx, thousands of flies can't be wrong!


LOL - sorry, but two people posting the same non-sense doesn't form a "common sense".

Chivas, calm down kiddy - you already tried to argue in the other graphics thread (horribly because you didnt have an argument) and failed, dont do it again.

DX11 is not in the release version, full stop. Unless you can run it in DX11 its not DX11, that does not mean it wont feature DX11 in the future but for now it does not. If I make a new game with DX8 is it brand new because I just released it? No its not, use your brain.

My statement was solely a response to the post saying that the game would be so advanced upon release that it would be impossibly to max out and that its built for pcs years from now. That is completely incorrect for the release version as of now.

You lot are like 12 year old kids. Can't you accept that certain people have certain opinions? Unless you have nothing better to do with you lives, stop wasting your time arguing, please, it's getting really boring now.

Well yes and no. The reason the clouds and water are behind is because the tech that would allow them to really push clouds and water graphics are dx10/dx11. Dx11 for direct compute (physics), and differed lighting along with other lighting and particle effects that are in dx10 (but much improved in dx11), which could greatly reduce the burden on rendering these elements.

DX11 is not a niche market, there was a huge thread/argument about this last year and I made a prediction back then about market share and cards, which was that by 2011 win7 64bit would be the primary OS and that dx11 card market share would skyrocket at the end of 2010 and for the first half of 2011. Months after and even now, steam 100% backs this up and at the current rate in 6 months dx11 may even be the majority (by % increase last month out of the 15 cards that had the strongest % growth in market share, 14 of them were DX11 and represent probably around roughly 8%+ growth for dx11 card market share last month alone).

DX11 isnt only a rendering path, it has alot more to it which makes it far better then dx10, alot of that is it is made to work in sync with multicore cpus/multi threaded apps. It has a new shader model which gives alot of new features (shader model 5, dx9 = shader model 2).

Also crysis is consolised to hell and back, thats why it has no dx11 on release, in its video settings there are 3 options, gamer - advanced - hardcore and there are litrally no descriptions of even what each setting has in it... The tutorial uses console gamepad button instructions etc etc. Also the engine looks worse then the original crysis did.

Yikes, where to start? Well DA2 dx11 is stuffed because its a console title and it was tacked onto the end, kinda like metro. Crysis 2 is the same, except that the original crysis looks better and that is years old.

As for Shogun, as I was very active in their forums pre release helping the tech admins, the dx11 was a really big push on their part to add, they commited a huge amount of their rescources to the dx11, so you statement about committing is very off. Now the reason they pulled it was because of optimization and performance issues because they added DX11 onto the ETW/NTW Warscape engine which was originally at release dx9 focused (and single threaded). In any case they have added dx11 which was a huge job and they had to re-write parts of the engine, thats why they screwed up horribly and there is no AA in the game for dx9 or dx10 because it intefers with the lighting / shadow effects. In 2 weeks when they patch in DX11 it will have MSAAx8 and DX10.1 will have MSAAx4.

So the statement is alittle offbase, and win7/dx11 is the new xp/dx9. There is a huge jump underway. Much of it was held back because consoles are only dx9.0 and since they have made a huge chunk of market share many games are multiplatform resulting in poor use of dx11. The only real exception is TW but like said they are using a modified version of Warscape which was released 2 years ago but was in production from like 2005/2006.

I am procrastinating, dont take away my favourite passtime :rolleyes:

-Also the point made about the graphics options is valid. It all could be worked into their general settings, but that would mean big jumps from dx9 - dx10 because if you cant tweak shadow and lighting settings/features that means you have a big performance gap which is bad...
But its worse that it doesnt have the setting their at all...

lol, I like that im going to use it myself. :grin:

Helecon, are you and Tree related?????????????

Cant be, my nose is not that big.

Your still wrong and still posting misinformation. The game engine isn't antiquated because it delayed using an unstable API.

Antiquated?

You are going really enjoy antiquated. Oops, and the DX11 whiners, along with the weather, cloud, and other think up anything and everything whiners will too.

The BOB COD is a done deal. Patch whiners will start the day it releases of course.

But at this point, we have to admit that what we have seen so far from COD are really bits and pieces...Even the video was made at medium settings with many features turned off...from a Beta version...
And it is very possible that the control pannels are also from a Beta version excluding many "hidden" features available in future updates...
And yes Oleg implemented some DX11 features but was disapointed by the results...So he's holding back for now...
To conclude my taughts, I would say that we are soooooooooooooo speculating about sooooooooooooo many aspects of COD that , though it is interesting to see how some of us forsee this project, as the maker of this video said, we will probably all be very happy with COD at release, and even more happier in few months from now...

SAlute !

slightly less rare sense?

so go with steam version, or is it diferent on steam for canada as well? I will use steam because here in the czech rep. its also april for dvd version.and steam has march release.

Do the people who think this game is going to be disappointing have any suggestions for better WW2 flight sims? I already removed Wings of Prey from my machine, so that isn't an option.

Im not complaining, I am simply stating the facts as the devs have said themselves, and to say the game pushes the limits of tech and such when it will be released this month is a lie. Thats all I said, its a lie because it uses an outdated engine. That doesnt mean it will look bad, just that it will not be fully up to date graphics, and therefore to say it is the best thing since sliced bread and has the best graphics possible is simply not true.

Well, apart from the graphics, the flight dynamics, the AI, the airplane models, the mission builder, the lighting, the ground models... - what has Oleg ever done for us!?

Chivas you need to learn when to shut it, i have never seen a actual point in any of your posts, all you do is whine about others criticisms (yes you whine because there is nearly no substance to what you post, if you actually addressed issues then it would not be a whine).

What exactly did I say that is "misinformation"? My statement about it being "antiquated" while maybe alittle strong was in opposition to a statement saying that it will push the limits of computer technolocy etc, which is untrue. You seem like a person who need to go to school, you never make a distinction between facts and subjective opinions, also please for the love of god actually reference what statement you are refering to when you post, what was I wrong about, that a game that comes out running on an outdated graphics engine is not "pushing the envelope"?

@nearmiss, well I dont know what you are trying to say there, but I also remember you adamently telling me/people that "the only use for tesselation the devs will use is for the planes wheels" (paraphrased) along with other nugets. Again I never said its going to be bad or a disaster, just that its not what others claim it to be.

So we have the record straight:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...795#post233795
http://translate.google.de/translate...ews%2F&act=url

He never did it for us, he did it to make money. Thats how a buisness works, they make software to sell to customers in exchange for money which they use to live their lives. If he gave us all a copy for free that would be doing it for us.

When someone complains about windows do you rattle off a list of windows features and say - what has bill gates ever done for us!?

It's ok, you don't get my pop culture reference, no prob.

Steam for Canada is still April 19.

Heliocon,

You seem to be getting overly wound up about this.

Oleg did not make DirectX 11, it's a Microsoft product. He does not have any control over it. Oleg has stated that in the development of CoD that DirectX 11 is unstable. All he can do is submit a bug report and inform them of the issues experienced and leave it up to Microsoft to fix up their mess.

In a consumer application like this, stability is the key issue to most people. Just look at the Beta process over at DCS or ROF, (who also by the way dropped DirectX 11 development until it becomes more stable!).

Moaning and complaining and calling people liars is just not conducive to a happy community and frankly life is just too short.

If you don’t think we’ll get value for money and an up to date product, find a Combat Flight Sim that suits your needs. There must be plenty of DirectX 11 ones out there.

Cheers!

Dude learn to fricken read, thats what forums are for. Go back a few pages and find the post I originaly responded to, or do I have to link that also because your too lazy to read before replying?

We are in the first half of 2011, the game is releasing in 2 weeks, with DX11 market share still <6%. So if Maddox really pushed for DX11, they are sacrificing their time for that 6% instead of the remaining 94%. This is the same exact reason why Crysis 2 got scaled back, they got burned for pushing too hard on the first one. I'd have to disagree with you on Crysis 2 looking worse than the first one, but let's at least agree to disagree on that one.

Also, how will DX11 sky rocket? The rate of change is more or less linear, from 0-5%. If anything, history indicates most changes are linear, not exponential according to the steam graphs.

Sandy Bridge is not DX11, Llano won't be out till end of this year, Ivy bridge next year - all the mainstream DX11 parts will need time for uptake too.

Also, I have not heard of a single game released/being released that's heavily based on DirectCompute. The development started 5 years ago, reality will not have allowed this to happen.

What's important is that the engine is built to be scalable - that's what future proofing is, and if that's the case, I'd agree with Maddox' assessment that this is THE next-gen engine. DirectCompute, tessalation, shaders can be added when the return of investment seems solid.

Having DX11 currently on CloD will not make it better - from the released screenshots and videos, this game suffers from polish and optimization. Having one more item on the list will further deteriorate the quality of this game.

Unfortunately we have to accept the realities of our flight sim niche market. We don't have 300 men team working on a single game. Beggars can't be choosers.

Just for the record here about your post:
1. Your numbers I guess you pulled out of your backside, which makes it super funny when you say dx11<6% because you have absolutely no idea do you? Feb data, highest % share of market graphics card used is ATi Radeon 5770, with a 7.22% market share and a +0.5% share increase from Jan->Feb which meanes this one single card alone is higher then your claim for total dx11 cards. Following is 5850 with 4.48% share and then 460GTX with 4.6% share. So that means those three cards alone make up about 16%-17% of the market share... = FAIL
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/directx/

2. I dont care if you diagree or not, crysis 2 engine is worse than crysis 1 in the majority of areas. It doesnt matter what your opinion is, go youtube the comparisons. You can wish away the fact that they reduced the draw distances, or changed and removed lighting features in the game.

3. I love how oyu bring sandybridge in here, you do realise thats a CPU not a GPU? Really... thats sad, your making yourself look very silly. In fact, dont ever post about computer hardware again for your own sake because not only are you confused about what is and is not related to DX11, but you dont even seem to know what Direct X is...
Also incase you have completely fooled/confused yourself and you are thinking about the onboard gpus for SB cpus, they hold less then a 1% market share and will not gain any share in desktops. No one wants a onboard gpu for gaming, the target market is laptops and low end pcs. But no components are DX11 other then GPUs, so = fail

4. A game being heavily based on directcompute? Really.... after 4 fails without a win do you get to call in a failstrike? o.0
Do you even know what direct compute is? How would you base a game off it? Maybe its because you can base a game on direct compute and that is never what it was designed for?

5. Yes they can be added, I never said they cant. When they are added and integrated and running well then it will be a cutting edge next gen engine. But currently at release it is not, and thats the reality of the situation as you put it.

This forum seems to love cognitive dissonance: This game will have the best graphics ever in pc history, it is pushing the envelope and is SO good no ones computer can max it out!- Stop whinning, there a 20 person dev team, how can you expect them to implement new cutting edge tech and features when they have a shoestring budget???

-Also its rather stupid to just look at the graphs like you did then make silly statements, because if you looked carefully/critically you would of noticed that its on a scale from May 2009 - May 2010 for gpus and 2008-2010 for cpus.
-Also the DX11 features I mentioned make the devs work easier not harder, thats part of the reason dx11 is good.

I'm going to go ahead and agree with this. The percentage of people with DX11 capable cards among the total gamer demographic is still somewhat small to warrant delaying the game a further 3 months or so just to implement DX11 support.

I mean, if Steam's surveys say so (ie, people who usually play more GPU-intensive games than the rest of us) it certainly is not something that's so widespread yet that would be seen as a terrible oversight. It's almost 95% of the people in that survey that don't have a DX11 capable GPU, most of them won't even bat an eyelid if a title doesn't support DX11 because they can't use it anyway, unless they are planning to upgrade very soon that is.

In any case, let's assume an optimistic 20% will have DX11 capable GPUs during the next 3 months and showing signs of further growth...that would be a good point to really start working on it. Until then, i'm happy they stayed focused on how the aircraft are flown and operated. Sure, this is subjective and it's only my opinion, it's just brought about by the simple fact that CoD still is a simulator game about WWII aircraft and not a tech-demo for using the biggest amount of current day technology and APIs.

Unless DX11 support can somehow take a substantial part of the processing load off of the CPU, i don't really see a major advantage. I think it can (at least that's what google translator seemed to mean when i read that German interview), but this opens the can of worms that stands at the center of the issue: we can't have people flying with different FM/DM and different fidelity in physics, depending on their GPUs.

This means that even if DX11 can transfer some of the CPU's load to the GPU, we'll still have to wait until almost everyone has a DX11 GPU before off-loading critical modules of the sim there. Until then, even when it's supported by the sim it will most probably be used for stuff that's optional and as such, non critical: visual detail settings, maybe a revamped sound engine and so on, but not for crunching the math that drives the core of the sim because that would mean forcing people with older equipment into a lower difficulty bracket by default. I'm not saying it won't happen at some point (having the GPU calculating FM/DM parameters), if the new series has as long a life as the previous one it will certainly be done...probably by the time that DX11 cards are as common as DX9/10 cards are today.

Heliocon, if CoD isn't going to be the best WW2 flight sim out there, what is? I want the best.

So, what was this thread about? :roll:

I never said it wasnt going to be. But you would know that if you could read...

@luke - not much, it is about the fact that the majority of the this forum are technically inept or do not know how to read and scroll back a few pages to find the original post that I responded to, and what my post actually said. So they jump on the bandwagon late without a clue and wrongly fill in the blanks themselves with assumptions.

@blackdog - stop making stupid assumptions, they are wrong. Dont just believe what he says because he says it, go look at the link. He doesnt know what he is talking about. As of February 2011, I just went through the top 1/3 of the list of GPUs by market share and tallied up all the dx11 gpus which currently according to my calculator = 30.06% of total market share (+- 2% margin of error if you want to be technical). I would also like to say I was wrong about the intel gpus as it has a 1.6% market share but it is down .12% since last month.
-again, out of the 15 fastest growing cards in % market share, 14 of them are DX11 cards, which is the only of the segment that is growing because currently both dx10 and dx9 are losing market share rapidly.

In any case your optimistic number of 20% 3 months from now is obviously not accurate because right now its at 30%... fail again :(

Also DX11 runs many tasks more efficiently then dx10 but it also helps alot with multithreaded processes interms of removing bottlenecks with allocating rescources and syncing etc. Personally I dont know enough of the specific details of how the delegation works though to go into detail.

Some here seem to think they are always "right" and enjoy telling everyone else that they are "wrong" with insults.

Ok...Lets say that the engine has the potential and scalabilty to eventually push the limits of top gear...It is not outdated, it is in its "basic" state...

But then put everything in context here:
Look at the video made out of Beta, played with average gear, medium settings and shadows off..... some shots are already photorealistic...not all, but some are...

Now...Take COD at release as a more tweaked developpement stage: full detail, full AA, full anything that is available now, and then...120 aircrafts over London with explosions and smoke...So ?..Yes..In its actual state and in that context, this COD engine will put ANY 2011 super-computer (:rolleyes:) to its knees...Even if the code is ultra-optimized...
That is why, for a while, until much faster rigs become affordable, the engine does'nt need to be so much more hi-tech to be graphically photorealistic...And that is why it was built to be upgradable....
And remember, Oleg did put DX11 features in COD, but they were to unstable and he decided to remove those features for the moment...

SAlute !

i am in disagree with the beaufighter. that is a 1941 nightfighter. Battle of Britain is 1940 and daybombers, without radars.
Blitz is in 1941... but in 1941 you have cannons spitfires and 12 machineguns hurris. and E7

GREAT question....and astute observation!

The thread was originally about the Week's wonderful COD Update from Oleg!

Sheesh!!!....This place is getting worse than the old UBI ZOO in the early IL-2 days, years ago!

Meanwhile, to get back on track (hopefully):

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=19318

Just because the the developer delayed DX11 doesn't mean that the game engine wasn't designed to use the DX11 API. Having the DX 11 API delayed also doesn't mean the new COD engine will be antiquated for years to come. And your best response is name calling.

<i>I never said it wasnt going to be. But you would know that if you could read...</i>

If it isn't going to be the best, what is the point of all your whining? If some other really great sim is using dx11, then I could understand. But they aren't. If CoD is the best, that puts it at the cutting edge. Why are you whining?

1.) You are right, it was from 2010. I didn't see the finer print. However, you did make a mistake, the page you linked is the count of all DX10/DX11 cards. The actual percentage since February is over here: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/?platform=pc. Adding all the values at DirectX11(Vista/W7 + DX11 GPU) system section will net you 17% - for all DX11 parts.

2.) We don't have to get into this, I personally think Crysis 2 look great and they made great improvements on the both the art direction and optimization.

3.) You missed my point. I brought up Sandy Bridge because it has competent a GPU for the masses. Even if it were DX11 ready, it would not make a tent for for DX market share, which you btw, agreed with me.

4.) Are your serious? You were referring to using part of DX11 for computation heavy tasks, so I WAS talking about games UTILIZING directcompute for their prominent engine features (for CloD, that'd be physics, and weather(?)), other engines, I don't know, but you are welcome to correct me.

5.) This is the NEXT GEN flight sim engine. Please point out a comparable flight sim engine that's released/being released in the next 6 months (or a year). I have never believed one bit that this engine has the best graphics in video games (I don't remember Oleg saying that), but it does have the best graphics we have seen for flight sims. It has its short comings - crappy clouds and water as I have pointed out earlier, but over all, everything else is leaves the competitions in the dust.

DX11 is easier to develop on, but you'd be insane to not develop for DX10 too. So in the long run, DX11 will still cost development time.

The question remains, is 17.1% of market share at the time of release justify developers maintain two different rendering paths plus different physics engines? Seeing how Maddox is strapped for cash (Oleg had mentioned that CloD was supposed to be released by BoB anniversary last year due to financial issues), aiming for DX10 is the wise choice.

And no, it does not mean that it's antiquated. If this is antiquated, then show us a comparable flight sim engine.

Ref the update video.. Looks just great and will be a joy to play. Can't wait!

I admire your passion for proving that CoD will be out of date upon release and that anyone else doesn't know what the hell they're talking about except you and are therefore insult-worthy.

But could we wrap this up and move on to other things as I doubt that this subject will ever resolve itself on it's own momentum.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

One thing I haven't got an answer to from anyone is that were WW2 bombers configurable on releasing their bomb load? Delay between release and how many were released on one pickle?

TBH good post. I missed the stat page you used from steam, I was viewing it through the client (although I am sure it has the options in it) and never used specific windows/that page before. thanks for posting that, good info.

As for sandybridge people who use those gpus probably wont be gaming though.

As for direct compute, maybe it was the wording but to me it came off as you saying it was equivalent to DX or something similar (which I assumed you were thinking). Direct compute is meant for particle physics mainly (so smoke/water/fog/clouds etc), as far as plane physics its unusual but yes they said they would use it. But when you said game "based" on direct compute that lead me to believe that what you were saying was different then what you intended to say. Yes it is the best upcoming flightsim engine, so my wording (antiquated) may not of been the most appropriate to use. What I was making and argument about was that it is not bleeding edge tech at release (just because its the only flight sim to do this doesnt make it bleeding edge tech...). I think it is a bad argument to make when people have to say - it lags horribly and the devs can only put it on medium settings (which tbh dont look that good) and therefore since we cant max it out, it must be amazing!

Glad we cleared that up, and thank you for the clarifications - which if people make an argument based on sound reasoning and evidence for their points I am fine with (being wrong), what gets on my nerves is people like Chivas trolling posts with general insults without substance and that makes me a bit jumpy on the trigger in my replies.

"which if people make an argument based on sound reasoning and evidence for their points I am fine with (being wrong), what gets on my nerves is people like Chivas trolling posts with general insults without substance and that makes me a bit jumpy on the trigger in my replies." heliocon

General insults, LMFAO, you should try reading your own posts. While your at it try using sound reasoning and evidence before you declare COD antiquated for years to come. I'd say you have a 5% chance of being right.

You know, there are other limits that DX11 to push. Just because DX11 may or may not be included does not mean that the sim does not push technical limits. Accusing people of being liars is rather bad form.

COD is first and foremost a flight sim. When Oleg mentioned "the limits of tech", he meant the limit how close to real life the sim could simulate FM, DM, engine management, human factors... Eye-candy only comes in second place IMO. Of course eye candy is a big thumb up, but it alone doesn't make a good sim.
Just compare IL-2 on one side with excellent simulation-part but somewhat second rate graphics, and HAWX on the other side with unparallel graphics but crappy FM. One is for people who love flying, one is for people who love being an ace without spending weeks and months to learn how to fly straight.

Maybe you shoud refrain from using vulgar language in a forum that is 13+.

After rereading the posts basically I think you need to follow your own advice and base your arguments on sound reasoning and evidence for your points.

In several posts I have given you the opportunity to name a Combat Flight Sim that uses DirectX 11 and all those 'current edge' technologies that you read about. You haven't been able to put even one forward and yet you continue to call people liars and resort to swear words. Come on, that's just plain childish!

Matter how loudly you say the same thing over and over agin you will not change other peoples opinions unless you can back up your statements with fact.

Oleg originally said that he was going to use DirectX 11, then as its stability didn't go as planned (as with the two other recent cutting edge Combat Flight Sims ) he told us about the problems and gave us the ammended plan, and you call him a liar, I say that he is being honest.

Back to the topic at hand.

Cheers!

+1

Before someone else says it, I'm wondering what he's doing on a forum that's 13+.;)

I think a lot of you are missing the point of what heliocon is saying here, but that wouldn't be a first. Regarding DX11 Ubisoft are still advertising the game as being DX11 so someone is certainly telling pork pies.

Oleg explained why they didn't implement DX11 support yet.

If CloD would have bugged DX11 support at release, the same people who now complain that CloD won't have DX11 at release, would be the first to complain that they implemented DX11 support that doesn't work properly.

I honestly don't see the problem, better have "inferior" DX10 support now and look forward to refined DX11 features in the future.

If you really need DX11, then wait until they implemented it and play something else instead.

I now see (after reading a bit further) why Tinus was unable to answer the questions below as it appears there must be some NDA in place :(

"Firstly, Tinus, well done on getting the job. They couldn't have asked for a better movie-maker.

If Tinus gets a chance to answer I wonder if you could say whether there have been any improvements in the cameras? The angles all look pretty similar to me, so I hope that there are still some more to come?

The smoke effects are excellent on the ship, as is the wake trail left from above, although I still see the bog standard IL2 foamy effect from low-down looking at the back of the ship.

I will of-course be buying this, as we know it will be updated and patched over the following years, but apart from HDR lighting, better cockpit models and damage modelling, I don't see anything that makes me go "Wow, that is the next evolution!"

I was thoroughly disappointed to see the usual plane breaking in half effect shown on bombers and Stuka. I had hoped for maybe more 'stress' points where breaks could occur, so that's a bit gutting

Tracer has been covered in many threads. If it's accurate, it's accurate, but I still want to see decaying smoke trails with them?

It would have been nice to see ground detonation of bombs, a train being strafed, etc,etc, but I did notice that there were certain frame-rate issues as the Spitfires flew over the town/city? Was that your PC Tinus? If so, what was it's specification?

I wonder too if when boats get hit/struck, they will leave Oil slicks or debris in the water, maybe by changing the colour of the wake we have seen already?

I think I set my sights far too high when I think of the years this has been in development, but I also have to take on board where we are now, Un-Modded or Modded, with the current IL2 and look forward to seeing what the future updates bring? Especially RAF Coastal Command on Boat/U-Boat hunting duties!

Roll on the 25th and I'll be buying it......just not as excitedly (yet) as I had hoped.

Cheers, MP "

Again your completely missing the point, Its not just about how the game will look, If DX11 had been implemented into the game successfully it would allow the game to run a hell of a lot better, features would most likely not have been dropped and Oleg wouldn't have had to spend so much time 'optimising' in order to get a playable FPS. Why do you think that the dev's are going to revisit the DX11 problem, it simply because it will most likely allow them to implement all those features that they first impressed us with in early interviews.

No i didn't.

Where did i say that.

Close to 100% speculation and this could only probably be correct, if DX11 features would work flawlessly already, which like Oleg said a short while ago, is not even the case right now.

Exactly what i said in my previous post. That's exactly the reason why they plan to implement DX11.

Does this justify delaying the release even further (probably to a time DX12 knocks at the door), no i don't think so. Definately not from their point-of-view, being the small developer team they are.

Just ignore this rabble David. CoD will be the best WWII flight sim out there...there really isn't any competition that comes anywhere close. Oleg has never let us down before and he won't this time. It's not just a business for him - he shares our passion.

Bombers like the Lanc and Halifax were very configurable in this respect so I assume most other allied types developed around the same time had similar features.

In terms of BoB era bombers I'm not sure. I saw a time team documentary recently where they dug up a BoB He111 and they pulled out a box with a clockwork mechanism with dials that enabled bomb release delay to be set for different racks.

I think most of this discussion on DX11 falls under the heading 'What if?' (or less charitably: 'crying over spilt milk')

We know that they planned to include DX11 just as they planned to include dynamic weather and a dynamic campaign.

And just as for those features they were essentially defeated by time constraints.

So, while DX11 will be a worthwhile addition (both visually and performance wise) when it happens, for now there is not much point arguing about it.

Regarding Tree's point about Ubi still advertising DX11 - that just underlines what a shambles Ubi are - and the generally bad communication between devs, publishers, buying public - Oleg still thinks the game is releasing everywhere on the 25th apparently!!!

Lastly - Blackdog made the point that Steam statistics on DX11 cards may not be representative of their wider use. I'll also point out that a percentage of people with DX11 cards will not be able to run DX11 games because they're still using XP.

With some peoples reasoning in here and other "expert" sites its entirely Olegs fault we cant run DX11 when using windows XP. Its Olegs job to FIX it or this game will be/allredy is a bust.

Several known games has left DX11 for now because its unstable, the ones using it is dam near unplayable (Metro 2033 anyone) Does that change anything? No, its still Olegs and teams fault for releasing an outdated product.

Dont u know.

I just see a lot of people fixed on the idea that the 'game' as released is some kind of endpoint - when the truth is that it's just the start. The most recent update has left me with an inkling of how great and long-lasting the new IL-2 series will be.

I haven't missed the point. He thinks that not implementing DX11 will make CoD so soul-crushingly disappointing that it will reach back in time and also make IL-2 less enjoyable to play. Am I close?

Why is it that there are several people here who are bullying and giving others a hard time?
If we were all having this conversation face to face, things would be much different I assure you.
Those bullies would be generally much more polite and much more careful to choose their words.

The sky is falling... or is it me.

Regardless, the deed is done. Whining and questionable chit chat isn't going to change a thing. Hooray! Hooray! the BOB COD is days away.

I remember looking at those shorelines with the movement of the surf several years back. We were all excited at the news, and that has been five or more years ago.

Give me and everyone else a break.

Rejoice, we are getting an updated WW2 air combat flight simulator. Oleg hasn't taken the easy route to the console and dumped on PC users.

Wings of Prey isn't bad, it just isn't an IL2 or COD quality product. What if Oleg had decided to build console appps only in the future. I say our genre of simulation game would be a thing of the past, unless you want to fly jets.

Oleg is very competent and has excellent techie staff members. The COD will be the benchmark sim upon release (as is) and it will progress beyond that.

Come on get happy, we are going to have a ton of enjoyment with the COD.

I can just visualize taking off from Biggin Hill with a team of rowdies to take on the Luftwaffe over dover.

10 days left, and counting !!! My one-oh-niner will rip apart your spitfeuer Nearmiss !!! I just can't wait that moment mate !!!

^well said nearmiss...

and in the spirit of getting happy, I thought id share this...

the other day whilst reading all these threads about technical "issues/non-issues" and "release date madness" I paused to think about the game on a whole... and I realized something.

For the first time I will fly the planes in the game just to purely fly them... I've never done that with the old IL2 or any of the expansions. I've always had to have a combat mission set up... the act of just flying was never really enough... But this game I feel will be so detailed and have so much character with each plane that I will surely find myself just "taking one up" and enjoy the view and the experience.

just like the vid a couple weeks back... a tigermoth in the evening sky... i cant wait.:)

I have a feeling this game will mean more to me than IL2 ever did.

I've always enjoyed the offline game the most. I can't tell you how many times I would play the scenario through in outside views, in AI mode just to watch the combat action I'd setup in a mission.

This kind of enjoyment will take a quantum leap with all the great visuals and new FMB tools.

I feel bad for the Brits who buy this game. Imagine the disappointment when they take their Spit for a ride over their house and realize that Oleg didn't get the colour (sp?) right? I would be crushed.

Dowding would be proud of you:grin:

My thoughts exactly! I've never gone scenery surfing in IL-2 but I'm sure I will do a lot of that with CloD. Take-off from somewhere in France and navigate to an airfield as far on the outer edge as possible.

25th or 31st.. god knows, but it's close mates, it's close!

Id just be interested to see if its even there at all... my grandparents had a house about 2-3 miles south east of Biggin hill... surprisingly enough i didn't find out about this interesting fact until about a year ago!

My mom was like oh yeah "we used to hear the hurricane and spitfire fly around every year for the memorial flight... unmistakable engine sound".....

And my Fathers parents lived in Sevenoaks not that much further away!

UGH so jealous!:evil:

Has anyone heard of Canon, Captain Farrel, Foobar ect. Who cares what the stock skins look like. I'm sure in a few weeks we will have a load of new custom ones to pick from.

It will be great to see some proper weathered planes, the weathering built into CLOD is very basic.

Depends on the bomber and the bomb-sight controls i'd guess. It was possible to set delay between bombs or drop them all in a single salvo in B-17s and other aircraft using the Norden bombsight, i don't know how it works with the ones we'll get in CoD however.


Until you manage to reply to people who don't share your opinion in a manner that doesn't include the words "stupid", "idiot" or other similar ones, the most valid reply you will be receiving in the near future if you keep this up is people telling you "haha, you're still not getting it yet" because you are getting on their nerves. Just lighten up a little bit. :-P

I don't necessarily disagree with what you post because i don't go about searching for DX11 GPU market shares. Which is the crux of the matter really, the vast majority of potential customers doesn't share your care for this to the extent that you do. For most of us here it's about the aircraft first and foremost. It's all fine and dandy to have your opinion, just realize that it won't be shared by everyone and you won't convince anybody by calling them names, it's more likely to have the exact opposite effect.

All we've been saying is this:

...to which you respond with "don't be an idiot making assumptions". Then, someone comes along and corrects the data you based your assessment of our supposed idiocy on, a correction which you accepted. Ergo, self-contradiction comedy.
Do yourself and all of us a favor favor, press the "preview post" once in a while and read what you are about to post before actually submitting it, it will help make you a more likeable person overall ;)


I don't disagree that DX11 will bring some performance gains to the table. On the other hand, it doesn't make sense to base the entire game on a technology that's neither stable nor used by the majority of potential customers. Imagine this:

"Hey guys, we finally have dynamic weather and a dynamic campaign, but only the 5/10/20% of you that have DX11 GPUs will be able to use it"

First of all, it doesn't make sense from a marketing standpoint. Second, queue whinning about how "they failed to implement proper multi-core CPU support, if it needs a DX11 GPU so much it must be true!" :-P

All we are saying is that it makes sense from a financial standpoint to work on something that can be used by the majority of potential customers first, before getting to work on something that's not used by the majority yet. Adding those features as DX11-only would only serve to divide the community into playing two different games on the same engine. The way things are with the global economy, a lot of us have seen our disposable income decrease. I'm not getting a DX11 card until i can get something really good for under 180 Euros, many people are also thinking along similar lines and let's not forget that this game is also marketed to Russia, where wages might be even lower. It just doesn't make sense to only produce stuff for the minority that has the latest and greatest, they're going to wait until everyone else can catch up, that's all ;)

How great would it have been if they could have waved to you as you flew over in glorious DX11-rendered pixels? Now they probably won't even leave their low-fps digital house.

HA they wont even be on the map, as I will undoubtedly have to put "Building amount" to "low" in the settings :razz:

+1 Biggs

We should have a challenge. Who can get furthest into Britain before running out of fuel or to make it harder who can get furthest and back to land.

Fly to London and whomever can make most circles around Big Ben and back wins. :)

If they get the feeling of flight as close as RoF we're indeed in for a treat. For some it will be a rude awakening though. Flying full real in Il2 was hard at first. In CoD it could be pretty hard for a flight sim novice to just get a plane of the ground, let alone fight with it in full real. I'm just going to start with the Tiger Moth and see how that does in basic flight manouvres, then a Hurricane and Spitfire. I'll keep the 109 in the hanger untill I get a good feel for the inflight behaviour of the sim. Hate crashing on landing time and time again.

I think some of the critics that we have here among us have forgotten about the joys of a nice dawn patrol in a well simulated enviroment. Realize, it's 2011, being ticked off because you're not getting the award winning simulator of the year 2021 is silly. Someone here had pics of one of the 1991 sim that I really enjoyed then. Chuck Yeagers Air Combat. I stood in awe in a computer store watching that demo for 20 minutes on a 486@ 66mhz. I Would've never enjoyed that game had I known at that time what Il2 would look like in 2001. CoD has me giddy like that again, to the point that I'll buy whatever it takes to run it properly. Watch CoD get released, read the reviews and comments on the forum. Make up your own mind and pull the trigger, or don't, if you're not happy with what's offered.

Despite whatever might be "wrong", according to a few very vocal forum members, this is going to be the premier kick *ss WW2 flight simulator for some time to come.

If this is the update and discussion thread why isnt Oleg discussing with us? Wasnt that the point also??

Has any of the real aces ever played il2, and commented on it?

LOL are you out of your mind?

Go back though the responses and think how you would answer the nonsense?

BOB COD has been released. Oleg is working on patches. There won't be anything coming from this forums that will help him until many users have BOB COD running.

He should answer some reasonable questions and tell all the whiners to go pound sand!!!

:-P Depending which date is correct we should find out in 3 - 4 days

Or he could tell all his diciples who only cheer and clap, 'thanks for nothing'!

Well said. I'm with you here, I simply don't care that it may not look photorealistic - for me, it looks sooooo damn good. Plus all the new FM and DM and AI goodness
I wish those people who say it doesn't look better than WoP could see what I see with my eyes.

Tree, have you heard that Biggs is going to have to kill his grandparents if he wants to play this game? I'm beginning to see your side on this.

Tell me Tree..How much money have you invested in COD ?
What is there for all of us to lose ? What can go wrong with COD ?
When I read posts like yours and Heliocon, I keep wondering if you are secret investors afraid of loosing money in this venture...
What could be negative about this game ? You don't even need to buy it...
Just wait and see the world wide reaction and then you'll decide ...
No need to be sarcastic about those who feel that we are VERY lucky to have Oleg building us the best flightsim ever...

Salute !

Are there any chances that the next patch includes the new meteo effects ?

And as BoB is released, we should start to see some vids on youtube, it should help to wait to get the box.

For the love of god... FIRST
Quote:
"Originally Posted by choctaw111
By design, the game will be able to take advantage of the latest technology for years to come...so if you have a current rig, the sim will always look great.
Tree, if you have said some things to praise Oleg's newest creation, I haven't seen it.
If you like Cliffs of Dover so much, why are you so negative?
I have said from the beginning that Oleg will surpass my wildest imagination and from what I have seen over the years I seem to be spot on.
This is only gaging from the short video cliffs and numerous photos.
I can't imagine what goodies are in store once we have an opportunity to mess around with it. "

This post from choc was against tree, I responded to this post or more specifically this statement: "By design, the game will take advantage of the latest technology for years to come" I said upon release that is NOT true, because the latest tech is dx11 which is not in the release version.

In reply I posted:
"Its a lie, it is not able to take advantage of the latest tech OR EVEN CURRENT TECH. Why? Because DX11 has been available for coming up to two years now and its not ingame (and devs would of known about it/be able to get info before the general public). Now I am not saying that they wont add it in (which they said they are going to do), but if you run it dx9 thats very dated, dx10 is also getting long in the tooth.

Point is on release the game's engine will be antiquated upon release, it may look good, but its foolish to call (and a lie) to say it will be able to harness all the tools for years to come since it cant even use hardware and software from coming up to two years ago!"

While that may of been alittle strong, its the truth, and I picked the word antiquated specifically because of the statement that the game will take advantage of all the newest hardware and software (which it wont).

Seriously this boards nuts, WHEN did I EVER say that there was another flight sim better or comparable to COD? I never said that, but because people on this board are to lazy to actually read they would know what I was arguing about in the first place before people dragged the discussion down by saying I was whinning because of no DX11. I was not doing anything of the sort, I was just saying that it did NOT use the most modern hardware and software. So when you say I am whinning about lack of dx11 on release date - that is wrong.


@Black - this is what you said "...to which you respond with "don't be an idiot making assumptions". Then, someone comes along and corrects the data you based your assessment of our supposed idiocy on, a correction which you accepted. Ergo, self-contradiction comedy.
Do yourself and all of us a favor favor, press the "preview post" once in a while and read what you are about to post before actually submitting it, it will help make you a more likeable person overall"

Actually if you had botherd to read, he never posted his original source, and infact said that current market share was only 5% or less, without sighting a source. He was completely wrong, as he himself pointed out and upon repost he posted up the 17% number and where he got it from, which was correct. If you are going to make a statement you need to be able to back it up and not just fling mud without actually making a counter argument/thesis etc. As you noticed I posted a number and said where it came from, and included a link, something many on this forum fail to do.

Dont waste your time then, heh?

Really you did? Thats funny, because I never said there was a flight sim that uses that tech, but as usual you cant be botherd to read... What statements did I make that I did not back up with facts that you are refering to?
You need to go and learn what a logical fallacy is, setting up a straw man argument to knock down does not make you right. Because thats all you are doing, and as usual you are either too incompetent or to lazy to read. I actually linked my statistic source, and how I arrived at the numbers I stated.

Infact your post is rediculous, so since no game has (or infact flightsim in its small niche market) has used a specific cutting edge new technology before, it therefore does not work and is not cutting edge tech? Because thats the argument you just made in that post.

Also there is a reason why its called "cutting edge/new tech/next gen" why? Because the first few programs to use the new tech are making next gen engines, once everyone starts using them then its current gen technology...

Apparently CoD will be the best antiquated WW2 flight sim available. Thanks for that insight.

You take the retard cake.

@Chivas- "General insults, LMFAO, you should try reading your own posts. While your at it try using sound reasoning and evidence before you declare COD antiquated for years to come. I'd say you have a 5% chance of being right."
- I never said that, but as usual all you do in your posts is make bs up out of thin air, and when you are proven wrong you dissapear/stop posting. But as usual you decided to be a idiot and respond to a statement I never made (in fact I said that once they release the dx11 stuff in the future it will really give the engine a good life span).

@Bergen- "With some peoples reasoning in here and other "expert" sites its entirely Olegs fault we cant run DX11 when using windows XP. Its Olegs job to FIX it or this game will be/allredy is a bust.

Several known games has left DX11 for now because its unstable, the ones using it is dam near unplayable (Metro 2033 anyone) Does that change anything? No, its still Olegs and teams fault for releasing an outdated product.

Dont u know."
No the problem is in 1. The wording and message that the dev team has presented that conflicts with reality. and 2. That people in here were making statements that were off base with reality. Also Metro was made for consoles and dx11 was tacked on, thats why its a performance hog, but its not "damn near unplayable".

And as everything around WW2 is more or less antiquated by now it fit's the genre like a glove. It should actually run on a punch card mainframe that prints the cockpit view on a silk cloth once a day to keep it real.

But have to give it to Helicon that he's got the most rant and 'I prove you wrong' energy on these forums I've seen for a good while. A lot of the old geezers here have numbed down during the long wait due to their senior medication and don't have the edge and testosterone levels for a good 'in your face' fight like that.

Keep at it! You'll prove everyone else wrong sooner or later.

Well you and I know Tree what a fantastic job those three people do so like I say as soon as some nice skins are available I'm sure I'll never look at any of the stock ones again just like with IL-2

<i>You take the retard cake.</i>

Well, everyone seems to get the point of my posts, while you keep saying "I didn't say that." to people who respond to you. Apparently the brilliant voices in your head are not so easily understood by others.

Do you know, I'm a 47 year old solicitor. I've got three children. I've been fascinated by aviation since I was about 5 years old. It may be even longer because I think one of my first memories is of aircraft circling around above me and my father tells me that we stopped in a lay-by to watch what was presumably the filming of the film "Battle of Britain". I read about aircraft, a lot.
I've played just about every flight sim you can name. When I was a child the closest we came to a flight sim was chasing each other on our bikes.
IL2 was an absolute miracle to me. The images, the pink sunset moving across the instrument panel, all amazing and miles ahead of the "opposition".
In the last year or so, I've been playing Rise of Flight which is as amazing to me as IL2 when it first came out. I've flown PA28s, Chipmunks, a Jodel Robin, a Harvard and Tiger Moths. Any of the people involved in serious flight sims I hold in the highest regard. They'll never make a fortune out of it. The enthusiasm and love of flight which is palpable in the teams which have created Rise of Flight and the IL2 series is a cause of genuine rejoicing to me. I'm not naive and I'm not a simpleton. I'm as critical as the next man. My reaction to this stuff is visceral, it eirher convinces or it doesn't.
Now, what is it that makes some of the negativity here so distasteful? It's not because I want to marry Oleg. It's because someone has devoted his life and huge amounts of effort and (who knows?) has struggled to persuade people, like his publishers, of the commercial viability of flight sims because of a real love for what he does. I've got a reason to admire him and his team. A real reason, not a blind stupidity and I can do without people telling me not to have that admiration or why I should not have it. This stuff is pure gold. It's amazing it exists at all. My critical faculty is impressed and overawed by it.

I think the videos are amazing. Some things are not perfect, but, good grief, this is as near as it gets.

Heliocon, are you ok man ? You wanna a good cold beer ?
:cool:

Hallelujah brother. Unfortunately whenever you have someone putting their heart and soul into something you'll find critics trying to tear it down. For me the negativity is distasteful as it has no basis on fact, just supposition. All that is needed is a bit of patience then objective criticism might carry some weight.

Depends, if its american please only send samuel adams ;)

O btw - when you posted about the engine being a starting point, and not an end point, I totaly agree. Good point and good post so I will toast to that!

Then quote me saying what you said I said... and that means using a forum quote and not paraphrasing, also link it. Thanks.