New Discovery…this game is glorious!
 

OK, it takes some time and some tweaks, but this game is glorious and IMHO nothing else comes close. Best of all…it will get better and better. The graphics are almost photo quality and if some very talented individual can create worthy gun and engine sound mods, we are golden for the next five to 10 years.

That's nice.

So true!

most of the people that say this game is "Glorious" have what i would regard as Uber/High end machines.
I can assure you, for people with lower end machines it is most certainly not glorious. My friend who has a 3.7 Ghz dual core CPU cannot run the game at all due to a whopping high of 6 FPS.

I hope (& he does) that this latest patch will bring the game up to speed with its required specs so everyone who has bought it can actually play it.

+1

Believe me, I have 3ghz dual core, 8gb of RAM and 9800 gt 1gb VRAM (not the most powerful of computers today), and it is quite playable for me with some stuff on high and some on medium/low. All that with latest patch and Kegetys mods.

I know it's a dangerously revolutionary thought, but maybe an uber machine is needed to run this game on high/highest settings? I'd suggest your friend lower his to get better fps. Insane, I know, but it just might work...

There's a surprising amount of FPS gain if you go into CCC and turn everything off apart from 2x AA.
Turn off all 'allow application to decide' settings, and turn off AA in the game.
Mine's an i7 860 @ 2.8ghz, 6 gig ram and a 5770, so not 'uber'. I now get 20-25fps on Very High graphic settings, once I'm off the ground and away from all the grass!

My brother has a Core2 Duo E6850 @ 3.5ghz, 4 gig ram and a 4670, and gets 15fps over the sea on medium settings. Not good, but playable (just). His processor is only running at 30% capacity with the game running.
Give it a bit of time and a few patches and we'll all be raving about it.

The OP is correct, the game is absolutely Glorious.

Well most new games of the flight sim genre require a high end PC for the maximum settings, I have an I7 920 with a 8800gt 512k and 3gb ram running winxp and although I need ground details on low I can run the plane and damage settings on high and it runs at about 25 - 30 fps...will be upgrading soon though.

No warships, one merchant ship, mannequins for crew members, bad voice acting and an inadequate single player experience. The discerning customer would say it has potential, but has a long, long way to go yet.

You should overclock your cpu,mate of mine has a i7 930 also and he got it to 4.1

So how do i Turn off all 'allow application to decide' settings,do i put it on override,or enhance?

I have to agree with you there. But also have to say that I've experienced easily the best dogfights of my virtual pilot career with CloD. When the core is fantastic, I trust that more content will come soon and for me it's just icing to the cake that already tastes delicious.

It already looks gorgeous, flies great, the dogfights are intense and mastering full real requires real skills. Now just finetune the performance, add a bit of more content, high quality community sound mod and it'll be epic!

Would have been interesting to see the bug tracker and the QA meetings when they handed out the golden copy. :-P

Right click on CCC icon and go through each of the 3D settings there is the easiest.
I'm at work now and can't remember exactly how many there are.

I don't remember seeing override or enhance when accessed this way, but you may have a different version.
Mine's the latest version downloaded from steam last week.
:)

Yes it is. I was very disappointed during the first week but now I am really enjoying it.

She's a diamond in the rough.

I'd agree if the radio commands would actually work. And the radio audio wasn't totally FUBAR'ed on my system. And if the loadout screen would actually work as intended. And if the quick mission generator would be totally overhauled. And the kill markings worked. And if the campaigns weren't such an utter disappointment. And if the autopilot would actually allow using the bombsights. And if dropping a bomb on a fuel storage container wouldn't level half a city. And if the sim had a decent weather system that didn't look like Il2 10 years ago. And if the tracks would actually work without freezing the sim. Or playing back wrong. And if it supported force feedback. And if it offered a least a handful of naval vessels. And had more options for grafics and realism settings. And actually had a decent documentation for every aircraft. And performance would improve to the point where I could actually enjoy the sim on my core i5 4GHZ system with 8 GB RAM and a GTX 470.

Oh, then it would be totally glorious.

Right now, it's merely nice. At least for me.

and TrackIR almost completely useless right now, glorious indeed

I have TrackIR 5 and have had no issues since the very first start up.

It definitely is buggy,I have it too and it 'pop's almost constantly when Im just trying to aim straight ahead, I press F12 to reset and has no effect, it doesn't seem to wanna let me look all the way behind me too, it just stops turning. It worked fine out of the box with DCS A10 and other sims, here it just doesn't seem to work well at all

Try setting speed to 1 and smooth to 75. It's perfect for me on those settings with default curves.

Oh BS, I have a Core2Duo E8400 at 3Ghz and I can run it well at 1680 x 1050 on high.

6fps - I take it you and your friend must be running 3DFX Voodoo GPU's??

Try something within the last year or 2.

I dont care what you think mate. Although he does have the same CPU as you I think, High? High what? i smell something right there.

He's up to 10fps with this latest beta patch, but he still cant play properly yet. He has a reasonable GPU and I game with him on a heavy modded Arma server so i know his system can take it.

I wish I could be like you, a psychic with poor eyesight!

My track ir works good, but i had to set the speed way down (1.3) and the smoothness way up (45). with default curves too. For comparison Arma2 settings 1.8/15.

Try Wings Of Prey. Not exactly a 'sim' but it's not only close. It actually looks better (not to mention performance).

IMO considering performance and graphics WOP has COD firmly beat currently. Thats sad since its a console port, but on my computer it uses atleast 4 cores and is optimized very very well (ran it completely maxed out at 1920x1200 with my older 480 and never had one stutter *ever*).
WOP looses interms of cockpit ligting/quality, but it has better glass effects by far. When trailing a plane leaking oil, you get drops of it all over your windshield and if you trail in a smoke screen for awhile it blinds you, same with your own engine leaking. Also has great water effect when you enter and go through a cloud, with a variety of weather conditions in game.

That being said - COD wins out interms of view distance by far and the terrain looks better at high altitude. However at normal/low altitude WOP beats COD out, no building popup, there are tree collisions etc and the textures look significantly better because COD grass doesnt cut in until you are pretty much on the ground from what I have seen, if it was shown at more of a distance it would help hide the ugly low res textures.

I also think the sound is better (to my ear, and that doesnt mean its more accurate, just that as someone who knows very little aboout what it "should" sound like, I find WOP has better sound). Thats not counting music, which is spectacular in WOP (but then again while audiences overlap, they are not the same niche).

Me happy
 

Glorious? I think that may be over-stating it a bit, at this stage anyway. A 'diamond in the rough' ? That I'd agree with, but definitely less rough than it was a couple of weeks ago. Having some experience with previous flight sims, I expected to be able to run this on 'medium' settings on my system, and have it looking good. Now, thanks to the latest patch I can, so I'm pretty satisfied. A planned 6950 upgrade will no doubt enable higher settings along with greater fps, and who knows what Bulldozer may bring to the party?

The rate of improvement since its release has been impressive, to say the least, although some may argue that its poor original state facilitated this. I hope that the current rate of development continues - a month from now the majority of complaints will be about the curvature of the glass on the instruments, or the texture of the rubber on the undercarriage wheels, or other such important details us avid simmers seem to get so concerned about.

Thanks luthier et al, and keep up the good work. Although there seems to be a number of bugs that still need to be addressed, judging by some posts, I've experienced no CTD's or texture corruption issues (the annoying black lines in the sea, previously eliminated by forcing AF, have gone). Hopefully all will be (mostly) satisfied soon.

I agree, but to take advantage of 4 cores or more they really need to implement DX11. The release state was pretty poor, but they have done well so far, but they need to work more on core infastructure so crazy issues like the building pop up/performance hit doesnt happen in the first place, they also need to add tree damage. How can you track bullet damage but not damage from running into a tree??? wtf???

You know what? If you don't like the game, well, then don't play it. And don't bother us with your poor remarks on it, when you actually don't know anything about it at all!

If you want to have a perfectly realistic sim, in every aspect, then you have to go out - to a place called "real world", you know. Well, actually you'd better stay at home - I don't want to meet you while flying...

And just for clarification: I can run IL-2 CloD on medium-high settings without any tweaks in any form (plain game) on my laptop at decent framerates (15-25fps), which is enough to enjoy a game of this quality. I personally would rate my system as a low to mid-range System (i5-540m@2,56ghz, ATI HD5650, 4gb RAM), something everyone can afford if he/she really wants to.

Ok, now I'm out, just have to let of some steam, sry guys, I won't comment on this thread anymore.

Cliffs of Dover simply is utterly stunning and breathtaking, even in its current state. My words.

Good and stay out, I dont want to have to link you to all the other threads where people like you made stupid comments that I had to debunk. I mean I love the comment saying if I want perfect realism (which I never said I wanted, just some optimization and groundlaying for the future, which I talked about in detail about 5 months or so ago and was confirmed word for word by them in a interview about a month ago) go fly a plane, because getting a pilots liscence and cruising around is obvisouly comparable to flying a ww2 plane in a war right? Seriously dumb argument, I hope your not a commercial pilot.
You have low standards obviously, also a shitty system - maybe you should spend more $ on it instead of a pilots liscence so you actually know what good graphics look like? 15-25fps? Is that a joke, you sound like someone who has never played any other game before, 15fps is stutterfest and completely ruins gameplay. The sweet spot is 25-30 fps, anything lower than 20 is very distracting, at 25 most people wont notice a differance unless it has a fps drop, but if you have a trained eye you can pick out the differance between 25fps and 30fps, above that I cant tell if thats the stable average. Then again alot of people dont know what AA is and dont notice it as a problem, but once you use it and get used to it as soon as you see something without AA it immediately sticks out like a sore thumb.