Beta Patch-Good/Bad. All discussions here please.

[baffa]

Is the anti eplilepc(s)y back on after the beta patch? Changing the option doesn't do Anything to the fps.

[Achilles97]

Originally Posted by jimbop

I've already posted this question in the beta patch thread but I sense it will get buried pretty quickly in the avalanche of feedback...

Question: should tracks taken pre-patch have performance change post-patch? If so (and I don't see why not) then there is zero FPS change on my rig on a free flight over Dover. Of course, if pre-patch track FPS won't change post-patch then I guess I wasted my time!


pre_vs_post_patch by jimb0p, on Flickr

Wow. Thank you for this information. I appreciate your efforts to test this in a structured manner. I don't even have the game yet but I've been reading this forum for weeks and this information you posted finally gives me some distinct impression of how the game will run on my system.

Thanks!

[Ataros]

Originally Posted by MadTommy

Patch is a step back for me. Improved fps but now i have stuttering i did not have before. 10 - 15 fps increase.. but lots of stuttering. Shame.

Try defragmenting files after each patch.

[Eklund89]

Im really happy. I have got great preformace and now i can hit stuff again when they have fixed the shooting. Im just amazed how great this game is. All haters can go to hell. nobody asked you to buy the game.

[bw_wolverine]

Originally Posted by avioni

edit: wolverine i just read your post.


yes other games may have and do have launch issues but nothing like this. the issues games commonly have are minor bugs that are patched in short time with some exceptions.
buying the game was your choice but you made this choice because you expected a good sim like the IL-2 before this.

Absolutely I bought it based on IL-2 before this. And I'll be upset if it's not worth playing. But to suggest that I should be outraged? If I can't afford to risk $50 on a game that hasn't even been released yet, I have no business doing so. If that $50 is so important to me, I should wait until the game is launched and I have proof that it's going to be worth it.

Advertising is NOT proof. Advertising is biased and everyone should know that and account for it.

Fallout: New Vegas was pretty horribly buggy on launch for the PC, but now it's great. Same with the original Operation Flashpoint.

Releasing games in whatever state of unreadiness is part and parcel of the industry now. Especially for ambitious titles like simulations.

[Hveding]

bw_wolverine:
I'm upset that the game trailers suggested that the game was running perfectly when it was in reality not doing so. But I'm not so out of touch that I think they should have released a trailer full of bugs to be completely honest with people about the current state of the game.

I agree. Why would they launch a PERFECT game trailer, when the game is nothing like perfect at all. Why didnt they just show the people what they are buying...
But when they are in need of money, they tell a big lie just to make a big sale.
Think about this...
You buy a new car and when you trying to start it, it would not do soo. Because the engine missing a lot of parts... Then you'll need to send the car back so they can fix it.. Wait then 3-5 weeks before you can drive xD

[avioni]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

Absolutely I bought it based on IL-2 before this. And I'll be upset if it's not worth playing. But to suggest that I should be outraged? If I can't afford to risk $50 on a game that hasn't even been released yet, I have no business doing so. If that $50 is so important to me, I should wait until the game is launched and I have proof that it's going to be worth it.

Advertising is NOT proof. Advertising is biased and everyone should know that and account for it.

Fallout: New Vegas was pretty horribly buggy on launch for the PC, but now it's great. Same with the original Operation Flashpoint.

Releasing games in whatever state of unreadiness is part and parcel of the industry now. Especially for ambitious titles like simulations.

yes and its very sad that this is becoming more and more common. there is a definitive need for an intermediate entity that controls quality of games, SPECIALLY because PC games cannot be returned. publishers just want to release as much and as fast as possible.
console players are slowly getting affected by this. i know homefront for ps3 is still not playable online. atleast for console games if the game is broken i can go take it back to the store and ask for refund or exchange.

when I preorder yes there is a risk of wasting my money but the risk is of the game being bad like bad gameplay or me not liking it but i always expect to atleast be able to play it.

[bw_wolverine]

Originally Posted by Hveding

I agree. Why would they launch a PERFECT game trailer, when the game is nothing like perfect at all. Why didnt they just show the people what they are buying...
But when they are in need of money, they tell a big lie just to make a big sale.

Continue reading my posts. As a consumer, I'm aware of advertising and what it is intended to do. If I can't risk wasting my money, I should wait until there are reviews. That's why we have things like reviews. To save people their money on products that they don't want/need.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by avioni

there is no haters here, there is only p**sed off people who payd good money for this.

Why did you buy it without checking how well it worked?

[avioni]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

Why did you buy it without checking how well it worked?

i've already anwered that in all my posts.

to make it short. i dont expect any game to be this broken.

im sure the gameplay is awesome or it would not have such fans of it. if it only worked.