Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - Stop hating, and start thinking about the possibilities

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=189)

- - Stop hating, and start thinking about the possibilities (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=19890)

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpeedStreaker (Post 249157)

Hi everyone, new to this forum but long time IL2 player...

OK, I have a very very hard time accepting your argument.

I bought IL2 on the DAY it came out, played campaigns and online almost every week. When the game came out it had performance issues because it required horsepower. Personally, I never noticed ANY improvements on MY rig with patches. None. After upgrading my system it worked fine.

Now, here is my rig:
Quad-Core 9650 at 2.30
4GB
ATI 5790 1GB DDR5

This is not an optimal system BUT with everything turned down low, I get insane stuttering even at 1280x720. I crank everything on HIGH with 1920x1080 and I get the SAME thing, there is litterary NO DIFFERENCE in performance.

So I started experimenting, all settings high and 1920x1080 and deducted settings one by one.

I still get the same experience when I end up on the low end with very low and 1920x1080.

Sorry, there is something fundamentally wrong here when this game simply plays the same on any type of setting on my rig. I guess it is my rig but the fact that I can run games that use much more CPU power like FSX on all settings high in DX10 with max sliders except ground shadows then I guess this game simply does not like my rig. Fine.

My clanmate just built a 3000 dollar rig because he races proffessionally on on-line racing leagues and flyghtsims. He gets the pretty much the same issues that I get:

Buildings popping, terrain popping, stuttering on a SDD harddrive and SLI enabled even tried disabled.

So why is that?

The graphics in this game are not exactly amazing, the effects are, but the buildings, the ground and the grass is not groundbreaking in any way compared to like Rise of Flight.

It used to be that water effects were FPS killers. Now I fly perfectly fine on water but once I hit land it is a sutter and popping nightmare. My clan mate has the same issue.

Lets not entirely forgive somebody for having a game in development for 6 years who have previous experience with sims and is a leading developer in flightsims.

This game is sub par.

I knew that there were issues with this game but I knew that this developer is committed. Now with Olegs exit if you believe that this will be another IL-2 Sturmovik...I would not bet my money it.

Either way, this game has potential but it should simply have been an expansion instead, given that we who love IL-2 series would buy anything related to it. We are a small niche market but we are DEDICATED and ACTIVE.

I felt like they screwed the community with this release. We all watched in awe as this game ran terribly on my rig and on my clanmates super rig and the rest said "Thanks, but no thanks".

I wish I had been on the other end instead of buying something and then expect it to be "ready" in 6 months.

I will not support this type of marketing. You just alienated a clan of 50 people who play IL2 to this day.

Strange then that we've seen people posting good/acceptable performance with lower end systems. Your friends "super system" (with no specs given at all) may not be able to run it because of SLI/xfire, or any number of reasons, but hard to judge by a dollar value of a PC.

It has issues, and no one has argued that at all, and the fact that you've bad mouthed it to your entire squad without apparently going through the readily available tweak guides in this forum is fairly discouraging. My squad has a number of people that already own the game, and some of them (those with "heavy weight") systems started off with more issues than those with lower end systems. As they set config files and turned down settings they found better and better performance until they ended up with a good middle ground of performance to appearance ratio. It seems that the hubris of high end system users was a bigger cause of problems in my squad than with the software.

We all know it has issues, and many of us have seen through 1st, 2nd, and 3rd hand accounts that once most owners get over the power of their systems and start tweaking things they end up with better performance. What's more, for my own curiosity, how did your friend spend 3k on a self built system other than just going to Newegg and buying literally just the most expensive components? Building yourself, and then just buying the first thing listed on Newegg for the highest end components would be ridiculous (also the only way I could achieve the cost you suggested).

That's not a very constructive reply, Kikuchiyo. A computer game is a recreational product. When people spend money to play a game, it is perfectly fine to expect it to work without having to spend hours on it to get some half a$$ performance. Doesn't matter if it's a simulator or w/e, people pays for a product and people expect it to work properly.

This doesn't work properly yet, hence the complaints. Another thing, "acceptable performance" is an entirely subjective matter. Some people are happy with stutters to some extent, others have higher demands, especially at the lowest settings on a pretty much modern computer. Personally I don't think they "screwed" the community with this release but SpeedStreakers complaint is fair, legitimate and applies to 70-80% of the people who bought the game.

Trying to raise suspicions about other people's posts is pathetic. Especially when it's pretty much just an after action report.

*edit* Well, I have faith in Luthier and co although I do read the negative feedbacks and compare them to my own negative experiences. In a month(or two weeks, be sure lol) hopefully they will release a patch that resolves the not very impressive resource management of this sim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo (Post 249177)

Hi Kikuchiyo,

I did not badmouth about it. We were all together and compared it on my rig versus the following rig:

Intel Core i7 990x 3,46 GHz
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 (x2) SLI
6GB RAM

It is hard to understand this...

To reiterate, folk are making valid points. They are not just whining for the sake of whining. But, we have bought it, its a dog. I guess it all comes under the heading TBU, "True, but useless". Hardware is not going to make a difference as it stands. Fingers crossed the developers will come to the party.

Let me put this as a example P:

I ordered a brand new ford fiesta in 2009 (2010) model

when i got it there was several software related issues with it, usb not working, no voice control ect ect...

i could have nerd raged and demanded a refund for buying something wich contain stuff that does not work... but i liked the car so much that i decided to wait and see what happened... a few months later the dealer called me and said there was a software update for my car (sounds really wierd in my ears :P) When i got it back everything was sorted and i was as happy with the car as ive ever been...

so if i had refunded the car, and gotten some other car, i would have missed out on all the joy this car has given me so far

there is also the saying: those who wait for something good, does not wait in vein

Quote:

Originally Posted by TeeJay82 (Post 249586)

On the other hand, had you swapped it for another brand, which was even better than the hunk of broken junk you first purchased you could have enjoyed it far more as it did not have any problems, but now you will never know what you may have missed.

Anyone can throw out pointless examples with no relation to the current software, it does not change the fact this release was clearly forced by someone, no way was it ready for commercial release, I have tested alpha candidates in better shape.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue Scorpion (Post 249604)

yep, you have a valid point there, but in the end im satisfied... i dont wanna part with it for another car, same goes for COD
and thats all that matters to me

Guess its called to like/love something... you should try to experiment with this feeling sometime

I undoubtedly apologize for the end of my last post. I got into a bit of a rant there. I guess I can understand how some people would expect a game to work at highest settings if they feel it should be able to handle it. I perhaps read SpeedStreaker's comments as more vitriolic than they actually are, and that is my own fault.

SpeedStreaker, although I understand you have a strong system I would like to know if you went through some of the config.ini tweaks, or if you only did graphical adjustments? Luthier has made a helpful faq in the Technical section that seems to have helped quite a few people including several of my own squadmates. I fully understand that some don't expect to have to go to such lengths for a game, but as I've been playing PC games for quite sometime I've found it tends to be par for the course on all but the most blockbuster titles, still frequent there, especially around launch.

I am genuinely sorry if I offended you. I also hope you and your squad will give this sim a chance after a few more patches.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maxwellbest (Post 249573)

The developers have to come to the party or the party will be over before it has even started. We're at the beginning of a new series. If they can't optimize the game to run properly at mid settings on a top of the line computer it's over. No aditional theatres or long term support. It's that simple.

Joe sixpack that buys this at BestBuy after looking at the screenshots on the box is going to be very angry and bring the game back to the store. If there was a demo right now 99% would not buy it. Just like RoF when it came out. I tried that demo and liked the way things looked but it was unplayable on my machine. Most folks here are dedicated fans and more than a few guys have said they we're pissed they could not get their money back from Steam. We equate Oleg's name with a quality product. For a lot of first time buyers his name will now stand for unfinnished, unplayable, $50 down the drain.

When the game reviewers get their hands on CoD it'll get massacred in it's current state. Not Sim HQ mind you, they'll take the time to fiddle with it untill it runs the best it can be on their machines. The regular reviewers are just going to expect that it runs on a recommended machine right out of the box. It took RoF a year or so to get things working right before I bought it. I hope the CoD team has made the basic code so it can use the latest and greatest hardware.

All the car and other analogies don't compare to CoD. There is no other choice than this game. You can buy another car, toaster or whatever the hell people have come up with on the forum. There is no other WWII sim out right now, or in developement that is pusshing the envelope and has as much potential as CoD has. For the casual gamer it's just a matter of getting their money back. For me it would be a major disappointment. Ending on a positive note, I'm convinced the developement team will make this the simulator it should've been right at release.