|
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
08-11-2011, 02:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
IL-2 Sturmovik 1946 Vs Cliffs of Dover.
In spite of the release of Dover Cliffs of IL-2 Sturmovik 1946 is now currently the most 'used and played on the web.
according to my estimation Oleg Maddox has failed because the project Cliffs of Dover 'did not get the same results of IL-2 1946. Today most people play more 'in 1946 that IL-2 Sturmovik IL-2 Cliffs of Dover. IL-2 Sturmovik 1946 definitely has a wide range of aircraft of World War II can be used to 'still be expanded and improved. what are your thoughts? 
|
|
#4
08-11-2011, 08:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On a slightly different angle, IL-2 Sturmovik 1946 focuses on the aircraft used throughout the entire war, including some experimental aircraft that never got off the ground.
Cliffs of Dover on the other hand, is focused on the types used during the relatively short timeframe May - October 1940, give or take a couple of months. Hence, it only replicates the aircraft used in that timeframe, the Battle of Britain (and quite well I might add  ).Then of course there is the huge increase in computing power that is required to run the new game smoothly. Just about all they've kept from the old IL-2 is a few of the engine sounds, rather disappointingly as I was looking forward to the roar of a Rolls-Royce Merlin. Everything else - flight model, damage model, scenery, water effects - has been started from scratch and made to optimise visual enjoyment (even to the extent that they were required by law to apply the anti-epilepsy filter, which I hope has been rectified). So really, there is simply no comparison. My suggestion is, wait until the U.S. release, by then the bugs will be ironed out. Games are typically designed to succeed in the United States, otherwise they will be doomed to fail. That may be why the Russians got the worst version first, before the rest of the world came pounding on Oleg's door wanting explanations. I myself am really looking forward to this sim, even if no-one can make a Merlin sing... Tally-ho, Scott. 
|
|
#5
08-14-2011, 04:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
When the development of second BoB (nowadays CoD) started in 2007, his men had accumulated about 8 year's experience. In my opinion, the failure of BoB is mainly due to a way too big and impractical ambition. They had spent too much time on things that are not so important for a flight sim, like high-poly ground objects, controllable AAA, waving grass on the ground. They wanted to develop a ground simulation within BoB. When CoD was released, they even failed to make an improved AI system. The AI of CoD is obviously ported from IL2. The FM and DM was also problematic. Let alone the awful sound system and the much inferior GUI. They have lost their initial goal in this self-delusion. They had forgot that they were making a flight simulation game. It is just funny that they even planned to attract third-party developers from FSX with such a semi-finished product. I'm sure Oleg knew all of these very well during the later stage of development. To fulfil his ambitious goal still needs a lot of time. But due to the all-known reason, he decided to deceive us with those Friday updates and promising Q&As to cheat us into pre-purchasing this $49.99 game. Maybe he is a talented flight sim developer. But he failed to live up to the expectation that his fans have laid on him. It's sad but bloodily true. In my humble opinion, in order to achieve the similar success of FB+AEP, CoD still needs 1 year's development for the least. If it goes that far, I will consider buying the game. For now IL2 (stock) is far enough for me to ignore CoD.
__________________
Why do some people tend to take it for granted that others have poorer knowledge background than themselves regarding the argument while they actually don't have a clue who they are arguing with in the first place? 
|
|
#6
08-14-2011, 03:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I suppose you don't have it then? Nothing wrong with it, but since i own a copy let me just say that my experience is far from that.
The sound and graphics engine is due for replacement by the end of August. Getting rid of these big tasks it will then be easier for them time-wise to focus on individual bugs. As for the AI, it's also being redone. I agree it was released early but that's exactly what a lot of the community was asking, eg "please give us an early version so we can fool around with it while you patch it to completion". I think it will be fine within 3-6 months and an adequately completed sim. For the FM and DM now, the FM is better than IL2 but not entirely accurate: it has more parameters to take care of, but some of them need tweaking. As for the DM, it's not problematic at all and it's the best i've ever seen in any flight sim. Along with the new features like improved CEM, this makes it impossible for me to go back to IL2. I've been flying IL2 since the demo and the very first release version back in 2001, i switched to a AAA mods installation, then switched over to Ultrapack 2.01 version. I too thought i'll be splitting my time between CoD and IL2 but i was wrong. After flying CoD, IL2 feels like a toy to me and that's saying something when the "toy" was not really a toy but a highly realistic combat sim. It's not that IL2 was bad, it was excellent, it's just that CoD feels so much better in some aspects that i just can't go back. I haven't even started IL2 ever since i got CoD, not once, and i stopped following its progress altogether: i still pop in the forum here regularly to check on what's new but i don't install new patches or mod packs anymore. I might take a look at radars and night fighters when TD releases that, but the added complexities of CoD in terms of each aircraft's systems are so beyond the IL2 engine that after experiencing them IL2 feels artificial and "gamey". As for development, IL2 was 4-5 years in development before any announcements were made in 1999 (Oleg's words, not mine).
|
|
#7
08-14-2011, 04:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
That's what I mean by bumper cars vs go karts. I've seen the same step-up process many times before with occasional big steps. Dinnerman's F/A-18 for the Amiga, the Dynamix Aces series, Red Baron 2/3 and then IL-2 being a few of those for me. And every one required better hardware than the ones they made look arcade.
|
|
#8
08-14-2011, 05:11 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I am looking forward to getting an insider's opinion one day as to what really happened with the CLIFFS release. Perhaps we will have the opportunity to read interviews with Oleg Maddox and others in the know.
The developers were ambitious and I admire that. I would prefer to bite off more than I can chew every now and then rather than to live a life of mediocrity. Last edited by secretone; 08-14-2011 at 05:17 PM.
|
|
#9
08-15-2011, 05:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I feel absolutely, 100% the exact same way. IL2 is still incredible, but after the tasting the depth of CoD, I can't go back. I just can't do it... The fidelity of the aircraft (and the environment) is an order of magnitude above the original. It's not just a little better, it's like night and day. It is the next evolution of IL2, and is the sim I will be dedicating my free time to from here on out. 
|
|
#10
08-15-2011, 05:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Wait. So after going on a rant about how CoD is a "failure", you admit that you don't even own the game? Dude. Come on... What can you possibly be basing your opinion on? I've been lurking on these forums for ages, and this is the first thread where I was like, "I gotta say something", lol. Sorry to call you out like this, and I'm certainly not bashing you or anything, but I see tons of people talking like this about the game and it just irks the crap out of me. You really need to play the game and sink a few hours into it before you can develop an opinion on whether or not it is a failure, man. The game is incredible, albeit with some pretty big issues for right now. I most certainly do not consider CoD a "failure". Not even remotely. Yes it needs work, which it will definitely receive, going off the team's previous track record. I don't understand some people's over the top reactions to this game's current state. It is absolutely, 100% playable, right now at this very moment, and will only get better with time. What is the issue? Is it that the game costs $49.99? If that is the reason, then I just don't understand. That is a BARGAIN! Going out to a movie here in the US costs over 10 dollars now. Hell new DVDs are in the 20s. Those entertain you for an hour or two, tops. Hell I'm pretty certain you spent more than that on your flight stick alone, unless you're using a cheapy . I've bought FSX payware that costs as much as this game, and those are 1 aircraft. This is a WHOLE game... This wasn't all directed at you, man, just people in general who have the same attitude about this game. Give it a go, an I think you'll be singing a different tune. If you even remotely enjoy WWII flight swimming, and I'm pretty sure you do, I don't see how you could NOT enjoy the hell out of it, and isn't that what this is really all about? Enjoying these incredible flight sims for what they are, and becoming utterly immersed in the experience?
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
