Cliffs of Dover Is The Best. But Some Of You Don't Appreciate It.

[MB_Avro_UK]

Hi all,

The title says it all. But I will add the following.

The problem is that many of us do not have systems that can manage the demands of Cliffs of Dover. That is NOT the developer's fault.

Yes, there are some teething problems, but nothing in comparison to the vast complexity of this production.

I have difficulty flying at low level over land. That is because my system is not powerful enough. So, I fly over the sea or over land at 7k meters. Problem solved!

Today, I flew along the south coast of England from Dover towards the West. I know this area quite well. The ground detail and accuracy is AMAZING! And just as important, I felt as though I was flying in an aircraft. I have never flown a WW2 fighter but I have a light aircraft (GA) pilot's qualification and also flew professionally in Royal Navy aircraft.

The summer haze over the Channel is magnificently represented.

This simulator is the future and it's here now.

And I use the word simulator and not game.


Here's my specs:

Windows 7 64 bit
AMD Phenon 9500 Quad Core
8 Gb RAM
Nvidia GeForce 9800 GT

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Blah, Blah, turn you damn fanboyism off.

It's definately the devs fault that the engine doesn't make use of the full hardware power, even if there's plenty.

[recoilfx]

I appreciate Cliffs of Dover, but I won't give a free pass on the devs for releasing an alpha game. I am sure you think CloD is the best, but you are super minority here.

This kind of fanboy post is just as annoying as end of the world hater posts.

[ICDP]

I have 2X HD6970 2GB GPUs and they can't be used because the devs cannot get it working.

I have a quad core CPU and CoD is not taking full advantage of it. Yes multi CPU support is improving but still not as good as it should be.

I have an FFB joystick (G940) and the devs elected not to have FFB support.

Each of these is considered close to top of the range as far as current hardware is concerned. Yet CoD doesn't take advantage of it. So I'm sorry but MANY of us DO have systems that can handle CoD but it still doesn't use them to their fullest.

Frankly, I am sick of hearing people tell me it is your poor system that's the problem. You must be kidding when you say it is our fault for not flying over the sea or at 7,000 metres when you go over land... erm what if I want to take-off and land?

Have we really reached the stage were CoD apologists are now telling us to fly high to avoid low FPS. It's a hypothetical question, no need to answer.

Accurate? It's beautiful, but accurate? In general terms maybe, but where are the south-coast piers? Where is Pevensey Castle? Where's the Observatory? Where's the White Man of Wilmington? All significant navigational features, all missing. And I'll have missed many others I know nothing about.

Stonehenge is there though, unless it was somebody having a laugh with a bogus screenie.

[MB_Avro_UK]

Hi all,

I'm not a fanboy. I speak my mind.

Would you have preferred that this sim had not been released?

Such negative replies. You can't see the piers? Well,well, my my! End of civilisation as we know it.

Look at the positives and to the future. And if you think you can produce something better...go ahead and do it.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Originally Posted by MB_Avro_UK

Would you have preferred that this sim had not been released?

Definately not in this status.

[Bricks]

Originally Posted by Hecke

Definately not in this status.

Well said.

The problem is that many of us do not have systems that can manage the demands of Cliffs of Dover. That is NOT the developer's fault.

The problem is, that the code is not polished. That has nothing to do with nay-sayers or whining. It's a fact. And I have strong doubts that this is the fault of the customers. So if it's not the customers and not the developers, maybe some Gremlins wrecked the code so they had to release it with 50% of the features disabled because they are not working correctly?

[Baron]

Originally Posted by Hecke

Definately not in this status.

And then there would be whining about it not being released soon enough.


Conveniently forgotten the countless threads demanding every minute little detail have we.


And no, he is not a super minority.


Except how it is or move on, freeking simple really.

[lighthaze]

I like CoD. I really do like it. But as playing at the moment is a bit frustrating (not only due to performance issues, but also due to the relatively unstable multiplayer and the virtually non-existant quick missions) I took the chance to finally buy RoF. Never had the chance before as my system is relatively new (half a year). Furthermore I got my TrackIR just last week and I really didnt want to play RoF without it.

Well, as I said. I really do and want to like CoD but the comparison to RoF ist just hurtful. I do know that Rise of flight hat its problems in the beginning but at least it feels like a game. I am pretty sure that the programmers of CoD had a reason for using these windows popups and stuff but it just feel cheap in a way. RoFs UI is just so much more intuitve and well designed it's almost unbearable. Not to mention the existance of a good quick mission editior, tutorials and so forth.

For example: When I first heard of the possibility to configure the ammo belts in CoD I imagined some nice designed menu where you drag and drop beautiful drawed bullets in a cool animated ammo belt. What did we get? A simple, boring menu. The funny thing is, even the functional menu of the former Il2 games are so much superior to what we have now. I just don't get it.

I really am quite sure that CoD is a diamond in the rought but it just doesn't feel like a game at the moment. It's more a cluster of ugly windows and menus which (admittedly) lead to a great simulation with a great damage model and flying immersion. I have bought CoD and hope that this investment will pay off eventually but I also think that there is no use in persuading myself that the game is great when it clearly is not. At least at the moment and in its current state.