Well I'm loving it

[Kikuchiyo]

I'm not sure that people that are getting acceptable performance is the minority. It's always going to be those with issues that will be posting the most. I can't say for sure, but I know with my squadmates that do have the game it seems to be about a 60/40 split with good vs bad performance. Still not ideal by any means, but it will continue to get better of that I am fairly confident.

[NikToo]

Put me on the liking it side as well. I had to fiddle with the settings a bit to get the judder down, and it gets a bit choppy with a lot flying around, but I'm sure they'll fix it. Thrashing it down the cliffs of Dover at sunset, feeling great.

Things I'd like to see improved though:
-Interface: could be a bit more thematic?
-Music: sounds like the old IL-2 trumpet.
-Control settings: I have to reload mine every time, odd...

I'm sure we'll see some great strides over the coming months. Having waited three years for this I'll put up with some issues. Now bring on the Mediterranean campaign!

[jimbop]

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

I'm not sure that people that are getting acceptable performance is the minority. It's always going to be those with issues that will be posting the most. I can't say for sure, but I know with my squadmates that do have the game it seems to be about a 60/40 split with good vs bad performance. Still not ideal by any means, but it will continue to get better of that I am fairly confident.

I think it has a lot to do with perception as well. Performance is in the eye of the beholder, perhaps! Some rate 25 fps as adequate, others don't. Comment on game performance is not objective in many cases.

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by wildone_106

Now create a custom quick mission to fly as a spit against a bunch of stuka's..oh wait..you cant do that either.

Do you have the game?

You can do that easily. Pick a basic quick mission, eg, bomber intercept over London. Change your fighter to a Spit, change the enemy bomber to a JU87, and choose the numbers. Just went 2 against 9 and it went fine. fps dropped at times, and if I could fly my Spit I'd notice it more, but I'm having trouble flying as it is. First tests were with clickable cockpit on, so I'm trying with that off. I've got AA at 4x, and res = 1680 x 1050, so I'll now try with reduced resolution.

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

I can't say for sure, but I know with my squadmates that do have the game it seems to be about a 60/40 split with good vs bad performance. Still not ideal by any means, but it will continue to get better of that I am fairly confident.

No it's definitely not ideal, but was anyone expecting that it would run smoothly on very high settings from day one? Obviously not, and I appreciate that some people aren't getting anything decent yet, but there are posts that say the game is a complete fail, not close to ready to be sold yet etc, and my opinion is different, so I thought I'd add it for some balance.

Originally Posted by jimbop

I think it has a lot to do with perception as well. Performance is in the eye of the beholder, perhaps! Some rate 25 fps as adequate, others don't.

25 fps is unlikely to give the smooth gameplay that I'll require, but 25 fps right now is an ok start. By the time I can fly one of these things my PC will be obsolete anyway.

[No601_Swallow]

Tanner, you're a whiner.

FPS is only half the story at the moment with this beauty. You have no idea.

Edit: Apologies for the name-calling. I'm just annoyed.

[Kikuchiyo]

Why do people keep trying to compare Cliffs of Dover with a console FPS?! That is a terrible comparison. It's a game designed for consoles. It is nothing special by any means. Cliffs of Dover is a very complex combat flight simulator.

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by Tanner

You people make me laugh. Fairly decent PC? You have a high end CPU that was the top SKU before Sandy Bridge, 6 gigs of RAM, and the best card AMD offers with 2 gigs of GDDR5. Fairly decent??!!!

Yes it's a high end PC. But then the game is just out, not yet fully optimised, and I'm running it set to Very High settings. The fact is that a game like this is very very demanding and while the dev team would like it to work on lower PCs too, the reality is that not only is an accurate flight sim very demanding, but we want this sim to be great still in 5 or 10 years time, when my PC will be obsolete.

If we wanted this game to run smoothly at max settings on slower PCs, they'd have had to make sacrifices in graphics or flight/damage modelling etc, and I'd rather they didn't. Hopefully people with lower spec'd machines will be able to reduce certain settings, tweak a bit, and with a couple of patches have a great sim that will be ready to get even better when they next upgrade theiur PC.

And you are only getting 30 fps? And performance is OK?

Yes, as I said the game isn't fully optimised yet, and I haven't tweaked the settings at all.

Trying running Crysis 2 with that rig and tell me if performance is, duh, ok.

Crysis has nothing to do with it, it's so far from comparable I don't know where to start. Let's try a fairer comparison - how does this compare with another flight sim that has the detail and complexity of this one - no wait, there isn't one is there. And there won't be one next year will there.

[Kikuchiyo]

Originally Posted by Tanner

Also Crysis 2, the FPS in question, is a PC game that was ported to consoles, and it is the standard by which a PC is judged for graphics.

You are confusing Crysis 2 with Crysis. Everything I've read up on with Crysis 2 is in many ways it looks worse than Crysis, and it is optimized for consoles which means it doesn't use any more memory or processing power than the 360 can handle. What's more is FPS have (you seemed to miss this when I said it a few dozen other times) nowhere near the size map(s) or hard number crunching calculations that Cliffs of Dover does. Your argument is remedial at best.

[NikToo]

Come on, people... How can you compare this with Crysis? A flagship title with some major backing behind it versus an enthusiast-only niche game like this? Crysis 2 probably cost millions to develop and had some serious resource behind it. You can't compare the two. If you have a problem with Crysis, does the lead designer answer your questions? Will they be adding free models and updates for the next ten years? Probably a big fat NO on either question.

In this day and age where "DLC" is the main watchword for the gaming industry and actually getting something FREE is almost unheard of, Luthier has already said there will be FREE extra planes to fly. Do you get that with Crysis? Quite frankly, if 1C wanted to charge for a major flyables update, then fine by me. And if 1C had pushed the release back to the summer to fix the issues, how much extra whining would there have been? Luthier has already said this morning that they are fixing things, so lay off it and take a breather.