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

[Zoom2136]

Originally Posted by Chivas

The publishers and developers arn't stupid people and would not have released COD in the state it was in unless it was abolutely necessary. They new full well the respose would initially be bad. Now hopefully enough funds have been raised to secure further work on the series. This is actually a good thing for us, we may initially get a faulty product, but we now could have a product that will be continually added too and improved upon, instead of a development company that shuts down before the game is released.

Complainers that do so in a constructive manor are a great asset to the community, but there are more than a few that drive away new customers of the genre, which we all could ill afford. The only positive thing they do is provide entertainment, and keep the forums lively, while we still have a genre to participate in.

Amen brother!!!

As Chivas said constructive critisim is a great thing, just pilling in the negative comments helps nothing. We all know that Oleg as a veru good reputation. He will deliver. They propbably just needed the cash to do so.

I really hope that the new addons (maps/plane/ships/ground object pack) are made available for a price, not givenaway for free. IMHO it is a small price to pay to assure the continuity of this genre. I know I would pay $30-$50 US for an expension pack.

This way maybe we will have drivable tanks, ships, subs, etc... This would be the BOMB

[SacaSoh]

Originally Posted by Zoom2136

I really hope that the new addons (maps/plane/ships/ground object pack) are made available for a price, not givenaway for free. IMHO it is a small price to pay to assure the continuity of this genre. I know I would pay $30-$50 US for an expension pack.

This way maybe we will have drivable tanks, ships, subs, etc... This would be the BOMB

Let they finish the core game first before your drop your pants and offer your money.

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by 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.

Your GPU sucks, but you also have no idea what you are talking about. Others with better systems are having serious problems that should not be there in the first place. Now they will likely improve many of these things over time, but it is currently NOT due to hardware, but to lack of optimization/planning.

[Feathered_IV]

I have no issue with the developers over the current performance. I appreciate that optimization is underway and it does not effect my opinion of the title, despite having a lower end machine.

What I do find clouds my opinion if the "sim" is the lack of content to enable anything more than a shallow BoB-lite skirmish generator.

No warships, one merchant and a handful of lifeboats means the Channel Offensive phase is beyond reach. Pacific Fighters looks flush with ships by comparison.

One RAF voice actor for the entire group of nations involved. Sounds like he's drawing words out of a hat too.

No radar. Some arcade approximation will give you a stilted position of a nearby enemy, but for a meaningful intercept vector, height or number of contacts... Forget it.

Crew members are just decoration.

Viable Bomber numbers are barely up to a diversionary raid, let alone anything approaching the Battle of Britain in any real sense.

Never mind current performance. It's the crushing lack of HISTORICAL content, not Technical content that has already made me loose interest.

[mungee]

Originally Posted by Chivas

The publishers and developers arn't stupid people and would not have released COD in the state it was in unless it was abolutely necessary. They new full well the respose would initially be bad. Now hopefully enough funds have been raised to secure further work on the series. This is actually a good thing for us, we may initially get a faulty product, but we now could have a product that will be continually added too and improved upon, instead of a development company that shuts down before the game is released.

Complainers that do so in a constructive manor are a great asset to the community, but there are more than a few that drive away new customers of the genre, which we all could ill afford. The only positive thing they do is provide entertainment, and keep the forums lively, while we still have a genre to participate in.

I agree 100% with Chivas' comments. I think that this sim has ENORMOUS potential and, for all of our sakes, it must be supported and the developers/publishers must be ENCOURAGED to keep improving/refining it!

[Hooves]

Originally Posted by Hecke

Were we told that we buy a game in pre-beta status?
How could we know that officially announced features are not on the game?

You would even buy a piece of crap and tell others to shut up.

AGAIN.. (how many times I have to explain this to some tarts??) NO ONE forced you to buy when it released. I didnt, I read reviews, watched videos, read the forums. Then I decided (knowing how IL2 had developed in the past) that this would be a good time to buy and enjoy the game. NOT ONE PERSON FORCED YOU TO BUY THIS GAME AT RELEASE!!!!!!!!

get over yourself.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Salute

From all the whining going on here, you'd think they'd lost their homes and been bankrupted, instead of spending $45 on an incomplete product.

The whiners here should relax. This game is full of problems, it does need a lot of work, but anyone who does not see the potential is a fool.

I have a I7 2600k, running at 4.3ghz and a GTX-570 and the game runs flawlessly for me in all conditions. Others who don't have as good a system are having problems, but the game is being optimized continually.

When you have a good system like mine, the game is truly spectacular.

More of a concern to me are the following issues:

1) Flight model lacks tailplane effects on takeoff; while stall turns, humpties and tailslides can definitely be done, they're nowhere near as 'crisp' as they ought to be. The spin entries are every bit as odd as they were in IL2. (that is from a real pilot's evaluation)

2) Performance and equipment of the 109's, Spitfires and Hurricanes are not modelled at all correctly, in particular speeds and climbs are low, some aircraft have either the wrong props or poor fuel mixture modelling, and the aircraft universally suffer from a lack of performance over 10,000 ft, and backfiring due to lack of modelling of the altitude compensation in the carburetion or fuel injection systems.

3) Not enough ships to model the 'Convoy' phase of the battle, which is really the only stage which can be flown now with large numbers of aircraft.

4) Game really does need reflections modelled. We saw reflections in a series of promo videos, but I have a feeling they were eliminated in this foolish waste of effort on the epilepsy issue. Reflections were a key factor in WWII combat, the glint of sun off a canopy or shiny piece of metal were often the means by which enemy aircraft were spotted. Rise of Flight does this quite well and CoD needs to re-introduce this.

Even with all these problems, the game clearly has a depth which is not matched by any others out there. I fly RISE OF FLIGHT, and while that game currently has a flight model closer to the real thing, its damage model, and graphics do not come near the immersiveness of CoD. RoF also does not have anywhere near as complete an aircraft set as CoD, RoF went for the money and produced nearly all the Scouts to sell to those who want quick gratification, but the game completely lacks the two seaters which were present in large numbers and which are an absolute necessity for a decent online war. Realistic campaigns are impossible in RoF either online or offline. That is not the case in CoD, with the planeset available right now I could design a Night 'Barge Bombing' campaign for the RAF, a 1941 daylight, 'Rodeo' campaign for the RAF, a late '40 'Jabo' campaign for the Germans, a 'Night Blitz' 1940-41 campaign for the Luftwaffe, or any number of others. (except the convoys WE NEED AN RN DESTROYER!!!)

In any case, the original poster of this thread is partially right. CoD will be the best, even if it isn't now.

[Rather peeved]

Originally Posted by 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.

mate - the problem isn't your system, it's the game code. i have a very new high end system and it still runs terribly. I can run Arma 2 and Rise of Flight maxed out no probs, but this thing runs horribly.

I think and hope they will work it out eventually by re-writing massive slabs of code, but people should be made aware that simply spending their hard earned money to upgrade hardware will not make much difference to get this running properly.

wait for new patches before spending more money on hardware.

[jibo]

everybody see the potential of this game, that's why there is so much people knocking at the door
btw every passing day without a working MP is hurting the community badly ^^

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

Salute

From all the whining going on here, you'd think they'd lost their homes and been bankrupted, instead of spending $45 on an incomplete product.

The whiners here should relax. This game is full of problems, it does need a lot of work, but anyone who does not see the potential is a fool.

I have a I7 2600k, running at 4.3ghz and a GTX-570 and the game runs flawlessly for me in all conditions. Others who don't have as good a system are having problems, but the game is being optimized continually.

When you have a good system like mine, the game is truly spectacular.

More of a concern to me are the following issues:

1) Flight model lacks tailplane effects on takeoff; while stall turns, humpties and tailslides can definitely be done, they're nowhere near as 'crisp' as they ought to be. The spin entries are every bit as odd as they were in IL2. (that is from a real pilot's evaluation)

2) Performance and equipment of the 109's, Spitfires and Hurricanes are not modelled at all correctly, in particular speeds and climbs are low, some aircraft have either the wrong props or poor fuel mixture modelling, and the aircraft universally suffer from a lack of performance over 10,000 ft, and backfiring due to lack of modelling of the altitude compensation in the carburetion or fuel injection systems.

3) Not enough ships to model the 'Convoy' phase of the battle, which is really the only stage which can be flown now with large numbers of aircraft.

4) Game really does need reflections modelled. We saw reflections in a series of promo videos, but I have a feeling they were eliminated in this foolish waste of effort on the epilepsy issue. Reflections were a key factor in WWII combat, the glint of sun off a canopy or shiny piece of metal were often the means by which enemy aircraft were spotted. Rise of Flight does this quite well and CoD needs to re-introduce this.

Even with all these problems, the game clearly has a depth which is not matched by any others out there. I fly RISE OF FLIGHT, and while that game currently has a flight model closer to the real thing, its damage model, and graphics do not come near the immersiveness of CoD. RoF also does not have anywhere near as complete an aircraft set as CoD, RoF went for the money and produced nearly all the Scouts to sell to those who want quick gratification, but the game completely lacks the two seaters which were present in large numbers and which are an absolute necessity for a decent online war. Realistic campaigns are impossible in RoF either online or offline. That is not the case in CoD, with the planeset available right now I could design a Night 'Barge Bombing' campaign for the RAF, a 1941 daylight, 'Rodeo' campaign for the RAF, a late '40 'Jabo' campaign for the Germans, a 'Night Blitz' 1940-41 campaign for the Luftwaffe, or any number of others. (except the convoys WE NEED AN RN DESTROYER!!!)

In any case, the original poster of this thread is partially right. CoD will be the best, even if it isn't now.

Can you fly with 50-100 aircraft over london with mid range graphics settings and no stuttering/fps over 25? If not then you are not telling the truth.