Your CLOD rating...(before)

[NedLynch]

Giving it a 70.

Good things: fully interactive cockpit, graphics (cockpit, planes, water, sky, suneffects and moving shadows in cockpit, landscape and buildings...hmmmm),
fightmodel, CEM, damage model, best game to work with my Track IR (extremely smooth and responsive), just love flying the planes.

things that need improvement: numerous bugs, optimization (couds cut my fps more than in half), contend/ DCG (extremely important for me)

[Stealth_Eagle]

I gave it a 90 since it runs fairly well on my modest system below (please disregard the question part) but has a good amount of room to improve and so far I have encountered occasional glitches that it has. I currently run everything on high except land quality (something like that) which is medium with average FPS over London in solo flight about 25 with no stutters.

[klem]

Originally Posted by Tree_UK

voted 20, game is very bugged, a few good bits but I voted it down due to the awful development team, i have no trust left in them at all and they deserve to go bust.

Have to disagree with you there Tree.

The poll is about the state of the game as it is now. Our assessment of the team can come from the state of the game after the next big patch at which point we can also give our revised assessment of the game itself. We should separate the two.

My interim assessment of the team, following the previous patches, is reasonable in that they were quick to fix a few things that could be fixed quickly. How well they are getting to grips with the rest will come from the next patch, they are taking their time to work on it. My assessment of their communication style is, as you know, pretty bleak.

How do you assess the game as it stands now?

btw I don't deserve to have them go bust.

[Blackdog_kt]

Giving whatever marks you want is obviously ok (it's a personal opinion), however the posts that go into some detail are more useful than others to the onlookers.

I'm not saying there's unreasonable marks because the whole thing is highly subjective on many areas (for example, i agree with quite a chunk of Bryan 21cag's post, but i gave it a 70 while he gave it a 50), but it would help make things more believable for the rest if posters who deviate strongly from the majority took some time to say why.

What i'm trying to say is, if i see a 10 followed by a one-liner my mental alarm bells tell me "disgruntled customer wanting to raise some waves", just like if i see a 100 that equally lacks explanation makes me thing "knight in shining armor defending his favorite software no matter what": it seems like an emotionally charged judgement, emotions in such a process create bias and make us drift from objectivity in our results and as such, i remain thoroughly unconvinced by them.

It feels like the people who grade and justify their grades as such (ie, in a lacking manner) are primarily trying to get a reaction instead of giving a personal but objective-based judgement.

As for how the marks are chosen, i have a feeling the poll is about the game's current state, not how it was released or the team's managing of communication or the project in general. In other words, the game on an "as is" basis, how do we rank that.

I might be wrong, i don't know, it just seemed to me from how most of the people justified the marks they gave and the talk of having further such polls in the future that they were trying to get "snapshots" of the game's state at different points in development (which means judging the game on its flaws and merits at the current juncture for each such poll), so i went with it. Maybe it would be a good idea to clarify this for future polls.

Other than that, interesting discussion all around and i agree with the people who said things are not exactly terrible. As the poll goes thus far the little bars tell me things are "average towards good", which is a far cry from what we've been hearing by overly negative/positive posters. In other words, it seems we have a reasonable community majority for the most part even if they are not that loud on the forums and seem under-represented at times.

[Bryan21cag]

hmm had to think hard on this question.
For me its really comes down to how this game stacks up against IL2 46, as 46 is in my opinion the only other WWII flight sim that I Still think was better then all the ones that came before it

The things that CLOD has the edge or Potential Edge on
......
1. FM (potential)(This really falls under playability category for me. I just don't feel like the FM is as solid and Especially don't really feel the difference between aircraft that I do with IL2 46. In CLOD it's there but its so subtle that if the cockpit didn't look different I probably would not notice I was in a different plane. Where as in IL2 46 if you removed the cockpit there seems to me to be a whole different feel to every plane that is much more noticeable.

2. DM (already awesome in my opinion with very little tweaking needed)

3. Over all Better Updated Graphics (although I am still not very impressed with how my Mid High machine handles the graphics but I will reserve final judgement on this until after 99% of the optimization is done as I'm hoping for it to improve)

4. Customization (Potential) I.E. Weapons Load out, In Flight Order system, Realism options etc. ALL of these when finished will be Hands down an improvement over IL2 46

5. Interactive cockpit (still kind of gimmicky for me but when i land or before take off it does feel a little more like im in the cockpit when i actually open and close the the hood in a spit or hurri Every once in a while while im flying any flight sim Except ROF for obvious reasons, I get hot while flying and for an instant have the urge to click open the vents until rational thought takes over and pause the game to go turn the fan on lol its the little things i guess lol ) maybe in the future.

Where IL2 46 still has the advantage for me............

1. Offline Content (This has equal weight to me as playability in my opinion and I actually feel that if CLOD was just as playable for me as it is now but with more content I would definitely play it more often)

2. Playability ( The DM goes rite to CLOD but even though the FM will be better in CLOD some day as of now the one in IL2 46 to me feels completely solid and predictable. When I transition from one plane to another I notice all the subtle differences Climb rate, dive rate, turn rate, compressibility factors effect of the weapon kick based on position of the gun and all those things that remind me that I am in a totally different plane not just the look of the cockpit. CLOD still has a ways to go for me in this area but has the potential to be stunning when finished where as IL2 46 is already as good as it is going to get.

3. Sounds (This actually gives IL2 46 an unfair advantage at the moment because while i do think that CLOD stock sounds are better or equal to IL2 46 stock sounds I am using UP 3.0 which in my opinion uses way better sounds both gun and engine then any WWII flight sim I have ever played. (VERY IMMERSIVE). I love the way radials start up and sound with the UP 3 mod especially. Any way Until CLOD is to the point where Modders are making there own templates for theses types of things I suspect the stock sounds when done will be better then IL2 46 but maybe not better then the Modded ones. Again i will reserve final judgement on this for when the re done sounds come out. Maybe they will be phenomenal you never know

That is pretty much how i came to my 50% rating. It just needs to be better at those three major things and for me its no contest to switch over. But when i get the urge to fly (which is after I watch any WWII movie or documentary on TCM or BBC I still jump on Good old IL2 to get my rush

Great Thread by the way I really like some of the detailed descriptions people gave. thought i would add mine

[CWMV]

I gave it what I feel is a very generous 30%
First big hit-Steam. Remove Steam and i would have given it another 20 points.

For me it boils down thus: you have a hollow shell of a combat flight sim, with sounds, FM's, weapon models, campaigns and maps all inferior to UP3 or DBW.

I gave it an extra 10 points because honestly I never had trouble running it. Always got better than 30fps with my old phenom x4 945/GTX 460 setup. But its so bad that I'm not even going to download it on the i7 2600k/gtx 580 rig I just built. I have no reason to. I've never been able to play the game for more than 10 minutes, and after those 10 minutes I always wanted to go to SAS or UP and thank them again for UP and DBW!

[Feuerfalke]

A very friendly 30 of 100.

...after having yet another unbelievable dogfight with 3 AI-109s unable to shake off Wellington bombers from their 6... Even through loopings and barrel rolls, these bombers kept a steady 30m behind the 109s.