Frame rate is king
 

Key measures by which I will judge the game are:
1. Frame rate
2. Flight models
3. Damage models
4. Graphics (assuming at least a slight improvement over IL-2)
5. Sound (I suppose it has to be on this list in this forum!)

In that order. FPS is king for me; I just can’t stand freezes or stutters in any game since it completely kills immersion. I realise that the other measures are critical to the game’s success but none of the other issues would actually stop me playing since I am assuming that they will be at least as good as IL-2 (which I still have zero problem playing).

How about for you? Which is your most important measure of success? Or have I forgotten about something?

1. Frame rate
Damage models
Flight models
4. Graphics

Gameplay priority

1. AI
2. Historical accurate number planes in sky
3. Flight model
4. Frame rate
5. Sound
6. Graphics
7. Damage model

To me the top ones priorities:

1. Online play
0. Historical accuracy

Good one - I was thinking mostly of online play but I guess 1 & 2 are important for that too.

1. Immersion
2. Everything else

1. Having the game published
2. Developers support for the next year to solve bugs, with regular patches
3. Developers team survival for many years, to expand the series
5. Open game architecture to allow third party and community add-ons
4. All the rest will come (fps, DM etc.)

Cheers,
Insuber

Yep, fully agree with your other post. Having it published now, bugs and all, is the best chance for CoD to be a proper successor for IL-2. Looking forward to it.

1. Flight Models (meaning - is this a simulator or just a "game"?)
2. Multiply
3. Historical Accuracy
4. Damage Models
5. Immersion
6. AI
7. Sounds
8. Graphics
9. Frame rates

Yes, that's what Flight Model means to me anyway. Can you explain why FPS is bottom of your list? E.g. what use is photo-realistic graphics if you only get 10 FPS and can't play that way?

sound like you guys are going to get dissapointed then.

Even if this is true initially it will be patched and then be much better than IL-2. I prefer this to it never coming out at all.

Whats the point in having a great flight model if it's a slide show. You are all wrong if you don't pick FPS as first. FPS is the most important.

if you care so much about frames per second then you require first a machine capable of delivering them, and a willingness to use settings that don't bring the rig to it's knees screaming for mercy.

i do laugh at people who want to play this at maximum settings right out of the box.

not gonna happen.

Spot on. +1

FPS in CLOD is an issue no matter what setting are applied.

Frame rate is king not only for a flight sim, but for any 'action' video game, it's obvious.
Low and unpredictable fr makes game unplayable, no matter how good it could be.

Decent and constant frame rate is so cruical that it's impossible for me to imagine how they could overlook this issue.


Either they fix it soon, or this game will be the biggest fail in the history of industry.


BTW, while we are at it, they could also fix planes flying happily without their wings.

About frame rate:

http://66.196.80.202/babelfish/trans...d1#post1573025

Frame rate above 30 on medium is what is mandatory for me.

Sorry 1C, I won`t buy a game I can`t run.

I agree that framerate is important, I find stutters rather annoying. However, framerate increases almost always come with further development and better hardware. It's something that will evolve and change.

If on the other hand the engine is very limited from the beginning in order to ensure high famerate, like say, Wings of Prey, It is not likely that the game will improve significantly with further development.

So, looking long term, framerate is not important since it is a very solvable issue.

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."

Exactly, i can't really put FPS alone on top of everything else. The extra gameplay mechanics and tons of little details are also very important for me and probably a big part of the processing load (like defensive gun rotation being dependent on airflow/slipstream and yes, it says so in the manual) and will be the icing on the cake, along with the new multiplayer options.

I won't be happy to run this at a visual quality lower than my IL2 installation but as long as i can count on them to patch and optimize it i will, because i'm surely not giving up on the first chance to experience a more realistic operating pilot workload in a WW2 combat sim: i'll turn everything to low and focus on learning to fly the first few weeks.

In other words

...i wouldn't say it's not important, but yes, given time it's much easier to solve than having to rework all the flight models, damage calculations and systems modeling, especially after a couple of expansions when the flyables will be much more.

All i want initially is a steady 30 FPS on medium-low settings after the first couple of patches, everything above that is just a bonus.

This is a game about flying aircraft, so i'm glad they focused on modeling that first and foremost. The rest will come with time and i have no problem waiting for it, as long as there's the ability (financial,etc) and commitment to work on and improve the other aspects, along with the hardware advances we'll see in the future.

On the other hand, i'm not going to judge anyone for feeling otherwise. I disliked some things about RoF too, the popular feeling and priorities among its fans were much different than mine, i didn't buy it, end of story.

I'm not going to spend time forcing people to swallow my opinions and to be honest, the "buy it now or the genre dies" mindset is not only polarizing the community, it's also getting people with doubts mad enough in order to stick to their guns and really not buy it. ;)

My level headed assessment is that

a) the game will be excellent given some time and some support, fixing the show-stopping issues and letting the new groundbreaking features come to light, but

b) it definitely needs some major fixing, it's not wrong to admit so and it's definitely not making the patches come any faster if i threaten people that it will fail if they don't buy it in its current, admittedly problematic state.

Some people are fine with being testers and some not, some people like a few features enough that they'll sacrifice other things in order to experience them and some won't. I say let each one decide for themselves, it will all even out in the long run ;)

FPS is king, otherwise we would just stare at a picture, or play a smooth game of shooting red and blue squares flying around.

There has to be a balance between graphics and performance, unfortunetly atm we seem to be lacking both to an extent :(

Great answer.I'll take the liberty to add number 6 to your list, if you agree:
support by the players to the development team.
I don't know if the folks here are aware that for most of people,we are a bunch of grown-ups playing with little planes in a stupid videogames.
We are nerds or freaks,you name it.
What I'm trying to say is: only us care about this game,about flying simulations.
Without us CoD and the entire genre will die,period.
Nobody will drop a tear if CoD fails,just us.
So,please,I beg you,show some support,don't shoot on our own feet.

I forgot to add,the only reason for me to came here all this years is because this is the only place I know where I can find people who understand and share my silly passion...
Once more,show you support!

Wait till you guys get stutters when playing online. Everything is in real time , you will be screwed.