Il-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover: Patch 1.00.14072 -ARIL 15

[242Sqn_Chap]

I also had missing buildings (In Ming's London Track.)

This seems to have corrected it:-

Deleted everything in the
Documents/1C Softclub/ il-2 sturmovik cliffs of dover/Cache folder except the shaders folder (but deleted everything in it.)

Then it took a bit of time for the buildings to re-apear.
(I am guessing that the PC has to recreate new files based upon the new settings that are available and as you fly over the relevant area's .)

Now the Buildings are back.

-----------
Please make the Mechanical/ Electric gauges a difficulty option. I Loved this (and the original alcohol compasses).
I can understand that some people don't.

But If its a difficulty option called something like 'Advanced Instrumentation' . everybody wins !

[SDT_GrayFox]

Amazeing work Hudge step forward . I can fly just like in old Sturmovik only sutters just a little over the london but it will be better and better with patches. And almost everything on high except land shadeing and trees and land details. buildings on very high.

My rig: Core 2 wuad q6000 , 8800gt ASUS , 2gb ram , Asus p5kc motherboard.

[SEE]

Many thanks Luthier, I have only tried a few single mssion sessions.

Minimal Specs - Dual Core - Win7 64bit - GTS250 (512Mb) - 4Gb RAM

Massive increase in FPS with no exaggerated drop/increase in fps when looking forwards and sideways in Cockpit View. Even more with 'weather set to clear.

No Screen tearing and much smoother panning with Headtracking.

Many thanks for reworking the gauge needles which are now stable.

For the first time I have been able to set Model/Effects to high and try some of the single missions that have large numbers of ac......


Absolutely brilliant and a completely different product to the one I bought a couple of weeks ago.........only glitch so far (if it is a glitch!) is a brief closure of the game window to desktop when exiting a mission and I think its crashed....but of course it hasn't!

[Vengeanze]

Originally Posted by Fliegenpilz

I've got a HUGE improvement in FPS!!

The game now runs smoothly with almost everything set on one higher setting AND going to native screen resolution - and still having about 5 FPS more than before!! This sim looks absolutely breathtaking, no game I have seen before (and especially no sim) looks as real as this one!

Here are my specs:
4gb Ram
ATI HD5650 (yes, a laptop!)
i540m @ 2,53 ghz

-THANK YOU!!- to Luthier, Oleg and team, I really, really have the deapest respect of you guys!

Same laptop that I'm getting so plz what's your avg frames over water and over land?

[6S.Maraz]

I have a low-end system (windows XP, Intel Core 2 E8500 3.16 GHz, 3GN RAM, Nvidia GT 260 1GB), I got a small improvement in FPS, but visual rendering is really awful and new artifacts in landscape have appeared.
Now I see gray lines in land and sea, that weren't there in previous patch.
As before, I still see jagged coast and river sides, really awful.





With my low end system, I do not expect much, but at least I hoped to see the same landscape detail as in IL-2 Sturmovik. Instead now it is much worse and slower.

Will some better support be added for Windows XP and DX9 ??? Now game is unplayable even at minimum settings...

Thanks
Maraz

[Russkly]

Didn't really understand what stutters were until they were largely removed, so well done for that!

Comments:

• I am still getting reboots with this patch as reported in separate thread (apologies if this is nothing to do with the performance issues that the patch is intending to address, but no other game has caused this drmamtic problem).
• There is now a bewildering array of options settings. Whilst this is great, and many will love the ability to perform design of experiment with FRAPS, etc. to find the best combination, some of us basic users might benefit from an auto-detect feature to find the 'best' settings for our systems. I know there are basic low, medium and high video options, but these are not configured for individual systems. Is this feasible, because it's an options minefield out there already!
• I don't get the tachometer deal - if you're up for CEM (and I presume you must be to bother looking at the instruments), then what's wrong with jumpy instruments, if that's how they were in real life?

Hope you don't spend all weekend looking at this user feedback, Luthier, and thanks for all the post-launch work that you and the team have done and are doing.

R

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by ICDP

Yes, I have reverted back to the official non beta version.

This patch left me unable to change video details, and gave me a massive FPS hit.

Originally Posted by ICDP

Same here, the reason most are reporting massive FPS OMG great patch is because most of the buildings are removed.

It's obviously disappointing you've had poor results, it would be good to find out why so the devs can fix it. But why are you saying the improved FPS is because buildings have been removed when that is not your experience? Your experience is that FPS has got worse.

[FliegerAas]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

Yes, to many changes are made because some people "feel" that it is not right. Sad

Give us back the complicated compass, real negative g cut out limits and mechanic gauges!!!

+1 (at least as an option) if this wasn't just sarcasm on luthiers side.




Edit: quoting is buggy on this forum ... o_O

[Oldschool61]

Originally Posted by Dano

1280 by 800.

What land details, low,med, high??? Looks good for that resolution. If others with high end systems lowered there resolution to near there they would be able to play with ALL settings maxed most likely.

Originally Posted by tranquillity

first of all thanks to the dev team for your hard work
really appreciate it!



That is also my opinion:
Whereas it is really amazing that you listen so much to your community, i also think you should provide the sim how you, as dev team want it to be.
If you wanted to have mechanical tachometers, and researched and implemeted them properly, you should leave them untouched, just because some ppl complain is no reason to provide us with electrical ones if there were none present at that time.
Same as with the emergency gear air chamber:
Just let it be how you researched and implemeted it, because that is the way how it behaves(or how it can be simulated in the most realistic way).
I mean why do you care if some folks are pissed because their gear failed..

Give this gorgeous simulation that finish, that it deserves as a realistic ww2 air combat sim and successor to il2.
Don't make it easy because some complain. Not when you yourself researched and are confident that your work is "representational" of these old machines.

In fact, you should not listen to me now, too
but i mean you sure get the point.
(look at the colour saturation discussion. The majority wants it how you as devs made it. They just want it finished. If a tachometer bounces, because mechanical tachometers do bounce, it bounces. No need to change it )

kind regards,
tranq:-p

+1.0e10000000000


Please, PLEEEAAAAZE, don't dump down realism just because some want to fly props as if they were on rails. If you want to offer those people not willing to make an effort give them additional realism settings where they can turn off cut outs and mechanical gauges but please don't deprive us realism lovers of your fabulous work on realistic planes.