Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover

IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover Latest instalment in the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik series from award-winning developer Maddox Games.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 09-14-2011, 05:27 PM
Blackdog_kt Blackdog_kt is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,715
Default

I like their products but i think expecting that kind of quality in a survey sim is an unfair comparison: buying just one of their planes + the accusim pack (no terrain/environment and no DM, just the planes and their systems modeling) costs about as much as CoD.

That's how they can afford to do it. I'm not saying it's bad, they're very good and i've had the pleasure of flying some of their add-ons on a friend's PC, it's just that i find the comparison a bit too "apples and oranges" for my taste.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-14-2011, 06:39 PM
Ze-Jamz Ze-Jamz is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: On your six!!
Posts: 2,302
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt View Post
I like their products but i think expecting that kind of quality in a survey sim is an unfair comparison: buying just one of their planes + the accusim pack (no terrain/environment and no DM, just the planes and their systems modeling) costs about as much as CoD.

That's how they can afford to do it. I'm not saying it's bad, they're very good and i've had the pleasure of flying some of their add-ons on a friend's PC, it's just that i find the comparison a bit too "apples and oranges" for my taste.
Agreed..

There shouldnt be or cant be any comparison between that and CoD..

As BD said, they can solely concentrate on the Model, they dont have to worry about anything else ingame and yes they get paid for it...quite well in fact
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-14-2011, 09:47 PM
klem's Avatar
klem klem is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt View Post
I like their products but i think expecting that kind of quality in a survey sim is an unfair comparison: buying just one of their planes + the accusim pack (no terrain/environment and no DM, just the planes and their systems modeling) costs about as much as CoD.

That's how they can afford to do it. I'm not saying it's bad, they're very good and i've had the pleasure of flying some of their add-ons on a friend's PC, it's just that i find the comparison a bit too "apples and oranges" for my taste.
It wasn't really a comparison, it was a "wouldn't it be nice". Can't really expect that much dev for all the planes that are or will be in CoD.

It is impressive. I have the Spit I and II, they fly beautifully. Looking forward to the P51D very much.
__________________
klem
56 Squadron RAF "Firebirds"
http://firebirds.2ndtaf.org.uk/



ASUS Sabertooth X58 /i7 950 @ 4GHz / 6Gb DDR3 1600 CAS8 / EVGA GTX570 GPU 1.28Gb superclocked / Crucial 128Gb SSD SATA III 6Gb/s, 355Mb-215Mb Read-Write / 850W PSU
Windows 7 64 bit Home Premium / Samsung 22" 226BW @ 1680 x 1050 / TrackIR4 with TrackIR5 software / Saitek X52 Pro & Rudders
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-14-2011, 09:50 PM
Ze-Jamz Ze-Jamz is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: On your six!!
Posts: 2,302
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by klem View Post
It wasn't really a comparison, it was a "wouldn't it be nice". Can't really expect that much dev for all the planes that are or will be in CoD.

It is impressive. I have the Spit I and II, they fly beautifully. Looking forward to the P51D very much.
Klem..

Whats the main differences between those and what we have in game here..? more complex CEM or...???
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-14-2011, 10:17 PM
klem's Avatar
klem klem is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ze-Jamz View Post
Klem..

Whats the main differences between those and what we have in game here..? more complex CEM or...???
I think its fair to say the FM is more accurate - well I am assuming that from the research and supporting professionals that looked at it - and yes the engine management requires a little more care but you get used to it for just flying around. I know Kwiatek had a difference of opinion about the SpitII (I think) but there was also some discussion about precisely which mark and at what period it was meant to be modelled as. The Merlin negative G cutout seems very benign compared with ours, it requires a firm and sustained pushover not just a nudge of the stick. An overheat also delivers coolant venting and therefore loss of coolant. Many of the engine startup features are available in CoD like mags on, fuel on, mixture setting, engine start and also hand pumping when cold although CoD doesn't seem to need it.

The Accusim add-on to the main Spitfire software adds monitoring of engine wear and other systems like coolant, oil, fuel, coffman starter cartridges and oxygen levels all of which need replenishing after a flight or the position gets caried forward to the next flight. If you don't turn on the oxygen or don't set it for the height and climb too high you pass out. Its aimed at people who want to know what it was like to have to handle all those issues. Some of the guys pride themselves in taking it as far and for as long as they can before an overhaul is necessary. You kind of 'live' with the aircraft but you can of course go to the hangar, get a report and hit 'fix it all for me please' which I have had do do many times TBH I haven't flown it for a while. Kind of spoils me for CoD.

But as some of our guys have said, to take all that on in a combat sim would probably require a Virtual OCU course and mean sticking to the same aircraft most of the time. I think some CoD players may feel/have felt like that when they first tried it out. I think we probably have a good balance in CoD with some of its aircraft handling 'generalisations' (once the FMs get sorted).
__________________
klem
56 Squadron RAF "Firebirds"
http://firebirds.2ndtaf.org.uk/



ASUS Sabertooth X58 /i7 950 @ 4GHz / 6Gb DDR3 1600 CAS8 / EVGA GTX570 GPU 1.28Gb superclocked / Crucial 128Gb SSD SATA III 6Gb/s, 355Mb-215Mb Read-Write / 850W PSU
Windows 7 64 bit Home Premium / Samsung 22" 226BW @ 1680 x 1050 / TrackIR4 with TrackIR5 software / Saitek X52 Pro & Rudders

Last edited by klem; 09-14-2011 at 10:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-14-2011, 11:26 PM
speculum jockey
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It should really be stressed that these aircraft from A2A take a year or more to make. I think they said that the B-17 took two or more to finish.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-15-2011, 12:54 AM
Chivas Chivas is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,769
Default

I haven't bought any extra aircraft for FSX, but its quite likely the CEM is more complex in FSX, but its highly doubtfull the FM is better considering its using FSX code.
__________________
Intel core I7 950 @ 3.8
Asus PT6 Motherboard
6 gigs OCZ DDR3 1600
Asus GTX580 Direct CU II
60gigSSD with only Windows7 64bit, Hotas Peripherals, and COD running on it
500gig HD Dual Boot
Samsung 32"LG 120hz
MSFF2 Joystick
Cougar Throttle
Saitek Pro Rudder pedals
Voice Activation Controls
Track IR 5 ProClip
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-15-2011, 02:47 AM
ATAG_Doc ATAG_Doc is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: A brothel in the Mekong Delta
Posts: 1,546
Default

To me they're completely different animals.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-15-2011, 03:34 AM
louisv's Avatar
louisv louisv is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Montreal
Posts: 287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chivas View Post
I haven't bought any extra aircraft for FSX, but its quite likely the CEM is more complex in FSX, but its highly doubtfull the FM is better considering its using FSX code.
I have both. The CEM is not more complex in A2A's Spitfire, but its probably more precise.

The FM is A2A's.
__________________
EVGA X58 FTW3 motherboard
Intel 980X CPU, not OC'd yet, 3.46 Mhz
Crucial Tracer memory 8-8-8-24 12GB
Crucial M4 256GB SSD, WD Raptor 600 GB hard disk
EVGA GTX580 graphics card
HP ZR24W Monitor 1900 X 1200 24"
Thrustmaster Warthog joystick
Saitek Combat rudder pedals
TrackIr 5
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-15-2011, 12:24 PM
Madfish Madfish is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 423
Default

CEM aside - can FSX really simulate the flight model that great? I haven't been a fan of the civil flight sims and find them boring but the videos I usually see are... questionable. Most of them show flaws especially regarding complex FM e.g. stalls and spins.

So while the buttons and gauges are maybe working better - does the flightmodel really work better as well? E.g. can you do a few test runs and verify climb rate, turn rate etc?


I agree with all who said it's apples and bananas though. A warbird without weapons? Not a warbird to me. I think the damage model is at least equally important. It's like comparing a model plane to an RC one - one may look shiny and have the details but it's not experiencing all aspects of flight / fighting.

I'm not sure if CloD could ever reach that level of detail for individual - after all they don't just make plane models. Maybe they could buy rescources to make it easier but then again - it'd probably mean CloD would end up costing 400$.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.