Cliffs of Dover Is The Best. But Some Of You Don't Appreciate It.

[carguy_]

Originally Posted by Blue Scorpion

Except Oleg has nothing to do with this anymore, and what's more, people so conveniently forget, when IL2 was first released it was the only title in their stable, it was their only bread and butter, so they continued to work and polish with Oleg driving for perfection.

Oleg is gone........ so?

That is no longer the case, they have grown, and have many projects now, all deserving attention, and the original driving force has left the building along with Elvis. There are no guarantees whatsoever this title will get the same level or longevity of attention as IL2 , indeed there are many factors against that happening now.

There is no reason you should be constantly banging your head against the wall screaming that this won`t be as good as the IL2 Sturmovik. Luthier has been behind things AFAIK since Aces Expansion Pack so he qualifies as "the driving force". If you negate the potential of this title being any good in the future, just leave. Simple. You aren`t changing anyone`s opinion anyway.

People keep talking, banging on and on, saying it will be great in a year, or two; but in truth, they do not have a damn clue what level of support this title is likely to get. Moreover, the incessant droning about its rosy future, is just as annoying as those complaining, because the product as it stands TODAY is a broken mess, and Luthier and co have our money in their pockets now, today, not two years from now.

As of TODAY, I have spent a total of 40€ to play this game. That is all I payed for giving those folks some slack. Payed for their jobs and payed them to work in the future. Now those who have stayed with IL2 since 2001 have every right and proof to say that the game will be great, in some time. Meanwhile, those complaining are doing just that - complaining. You must be quite a sad person to get a spazmatic cry over 40€.

Everyone posting about how grand it will all be when fixed and branding everyone who disagrees is a "hater" or "troll" and claiming they should not post, should take a long hard look in that mirror. You are expressing an opinion, but would deny others the right to express theirs, simply because they disagree with you; and that my friends, makes you one and all, a bunch of hypocrites'; a beast, far worse than those who quite rightly complain about something they have paid for not working as advertised.

Constructive criticism is always welcome. Your post is just another example of a person who needs to get a life, because obviously he doesn`t have anything else to do in his sad existance other than to sit in front of a pc.
I understand your life is shaterred.

[Baron]

Originally Posted by SNAFU

I second that, but only because I am looking for a disctraction from work...

I refrained from buying CoD until last Sunday, because I did not want to support UBI, which I thoutht to be the driving factor for the situation we are in. Finally I bought it via Steam, because I want to support simulation software developent generally. I also installed it, set all setting on max and tested a littel. London was flyable with around 25 FPS in low altitudes. LeHavre wasn´t, down to 12 FPS. Over sea I got 160+FPS (i know meaningless). Above 2000m the landscape looks messed up on highest settings, no joy. I don´t mention the stutters I had even with 80FPS indicated by FRAPS. What surprised me, was that my CPU workload never was higher than 25%, well, RAM was not visable touched (I7 2600 at stock 3,4GHz/1333MHz 8GB RAM/ ATI 6950-2GB). I don´t mind that, I was expecting this, so what? But I will not waste my time with CTDs, tinkering my system, just to get frustrated by random bugs of an faulty products. That`s the job of testers.

So, I would have even give the team 100 Euro or more, if they would have frankly said something like: " Hey folks. We faced some problems, we didn´t expect, we made mistakes in management and some wrong decisions, but we learnt a lot and at the end of the day, we didn´t meet our objective and the market is unforgiving. We would like to finish the programm, but we ran out of money. We give you access to the alpha-Version for a donation of 100€..."

But the way they choose to go, is unprofessional IMHO and not really satisfying. I have doubts, as the ones raised by Blue Scorpion.

I donated, bought a lizence for the product and hope they will continue support and overcome their problems in their management, in their software and their product. But I am not that naive to suppose that their success is granted. I will check again in 6 months or a year.

But now back to RoF...

No offence, but refusing to tinker with your system, hardware and software wise and then blame CoD development team for boching the job is, well, misplaced to say the least.

For ex, Windows 7 Aero is a recourse hog in it self and its common sense to turn it of if u want the maximum out of your system when playing a extreemly demanding game,what ever game it may be.

Blaming the developer for NOT providing u with a "fix" for it is not, however, common sense.


Besides, when people with "uber" pc`s (everyone thinks they have one) have problems and the next guy, with a lesser system isnt having problems (besides the obvious buggs naturally), tell me, where does the problem lies, according to u (and others off course)

[Seeker]

Clod was supposed to better than IL-2, a better game, an improvement.

IL-2's faults were:

Crappy, non immersive, non intuitive interface.
Interface so lacking in development one had to edit game files.
Game files so undocumented, even after ten years, that no one really knows how the .rcu files work (for example) with out a degree from the Unseen University in google operands.
Extremely limited game content (out of the box).
Extremely limited content generator.
Extremely arcane content generator
Crappy 1990's static campaign "generator", that missed over half the flyables.
Clunky in game AI command interface
Clunky AI
Vox so awfull every body used a third party program instead.
Multi play support so awfull every body used a third party program instead.
Clunky Track -ir support
Failure to update with the times (wide scren, font size etc.)
Failure to update difficulty settings (F3, 1980's icons etc.)

Now, every new software, even every new patch, introduces new problems which need addressing. That's understood. But how much of the above has Clod fixed?

There IS a very good sim under all this, I think we're all agreed.

But there's no interface, no documentation for the file hacking we're going to have to do to mack up for the appalling interface and most importantly of all, NO GAME!

We, the IL-2 fliers, can see the potential.

But we're losing flyers fast, new users just won't have a chance and I haven't dared recommend this game to any one I know yet. I've denied having it on two forums I frequent to avoid having to give an absolutely negative review.

They'd better buck up, and fast. Other wise it won't matter how much the fanbois wave their little flags, it'll all be game over.

So no, Avro. I can'tagree with you on this one. So far, this software is not fit for purpose.

[JG53Frankyboy]

Good for you that you enjoy this Software!

I personaly didnt bought it to make sightseeing fly arounds...
And even there would be no performance issues, and there are confirmed by the developers themselves, there is still a loooooong list of bugs and not correct working features.
Not to mention this "manual" , that leaves very important things in this game unmentioned!

And before the IL2 of 2001 is mentioned: 3
Weeks after release i alread had a lot of flown online missions (COOP, that is also not possible in CoD btw) in my flightbook. 3 weeks after CoD there is nothing.Just a flight and weapon testcenter that annoyes me always after a few minutes of use.
As yours , just a pesonal opinion of the current state of this software!

Originally Posted by MB_Avro_UK

Hi all,

The title says it all. But I will add the following.

The problem is that many of us do not have systems that can manage the demands of Cliffs of Dover. That is NOT the developer's fault.

Yes, there are some teething problems, but nothing in comparison to the vast complexity of this production.

I have difficulty flying at low level over land. That is because my system is not powerful enough. So, I fly over the sea or over land at 7k meters. Problem solved!

Today, I flew along the south coast of England from Dover towards the West. I know this area quite well. The ground detail and accuracy is AMAZING! And just as important, I felt as though I was flying in an aircraft. I have never flown a WW2 fighter but I have a light aircraft (GA) pilot's qualification and also flew professionally in Royal Navy aircraft.

The summer haze over the Channel is magnificently represented.

This simulator is the future and it's here now.

And I use the word simulator and not game.


Here's my specs:

Windows 7 64 bit
AMD Phenon 9500 Quad Core
8 Gb RAM
Nvidia GeForce 9800 GT

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

[SNAFU]

Originally Posted by Baron

Oleg have NOT washed his hands and left the building, i couldn't even if he wanted to.

And thats more or less quoted from Luthier.


Besides, everyone assumes Oleg is the only one who knows what he is doing, he havent done all this by him self u know.

That is what we hope, but if you judge by the facts at hand, you have a product which does not meet the requirements and standards as advertised.

Even if the team works it`s butts off in 24/7 shifts (which I do not doubt), it is not granted that the problems will be solved. Time will show, until then it is understandable that some voice doubts and question the faith, which is widely defended by good will but not by facts.

[Baron]

Originally Posted by SNAFU

That is what we hope, but if you judge by the facts at hand, you have a product which does not meet the requirements and standards as advertised.

Even if the team works it`s butts off in 24/7 shifts (which I do not doubt), it is not granted that the problems will be solved. Time will show, until then it is understandable that some voice doubts and question the faith, which is widely defended by good will but not by facts.

Thruth? I didnt, with my wildest expectations think that i could fly in CoD with all the settings on max more or less, 2 weeks after release.

Hell u couldnt even do that with IL2 1-2 years ago, or even today, depending on your system.

Anyone claiming to run IL2 100% maxed out on a Q6600 and gtx 260 is talking out of his hat. Over a major city, forget it.

Glas half empty vs glas half full

[ParaB]

Originally Posted by Feathered_IV

What I do find clouds my opinion if the "sim" is the lack of content to enable anything more than a shallow BoB-lite skirmish generator.

/This.

[Baron]

Originally Posted by Feathered_IV

Viable Bomber numbers are barely up to a diversionary raid, let alone anything approaching the Battle of Britain in any real sense.

Never mind current performance. It's the crushing lack of HISTORICAL content, not Technical content that has already made me loose interest.

U should check out SimHQ. A couple of people have tested 100+ up to 150+ aircrafts with good framerates.

Think it was either WernerVoss or Sascha.

[synti]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

CoD has it's problems, but no more that DCS:A-10 and ROF when they were initialy let loose on the world.


Cheers

Don´t know about ROF, but DCS A-10 was very functional in its final release form and comparing that to CoDs release is really an insult. Betas of A-10might have sucked like a vacuum, but at least people who paid for beta did know what they were getting themselfs into. Bottom line is; with A-10 final release felt actually like a game you can play, with CoD most of us were fooled into participating for paid beta.

I think this is a point worth of noting, cause both A10 and CoD are extremely accurate and demanding simulators aimed for specific and limited market.

There is also the right way to do these things, and by far the way Eagle Dynamics chose was better. Of course in the ideal world games and sims alike would get published as a totally finished products, with no need for patching whatsoever.

[SNAFU]

Originally Posted by Baron

No offence, but refusing to tinker with your system, hardware and software wise and then blame CoD development team for boching the job is, well, misplaced to say the least.

For ex, Windows 7 Aero is a recourse hog in it self and its common sense to turn it of if u want the maximum out of your system when playing a extreemly demanding game,what ever game it may be.

Blaming the developer for NOT providing u with a "fix" for it is not, however, common sense.


Besides, when people with "uber" pc`s (everyone thinks they have one) have problems and the next guy, with a lesser system isnt having problems (besides the obvious buggs naturally), tell me, where does the problem lies, according to u (and others off course)

I never demanded a fix and didn´t blame anyone for bad performance. I know it would run sufficiently (regarding performance) on my system if I would tinker around. Sorry, if that was the sound. But I avoid this way, because I expect many things to be changed in all ways (FM/DM, CEM, graphic options, ME, menu handling etc) and I will not go through the frustration of my squadmates are going through (I hear on TS), trying to play (not to test) the game. I decided to wait and start, when it gets obvious that the issues were dealt with and settled, so I do not have to change my config every week. That is no problem for me, I can wait one more year after waiting so many.

Many other repeat and repeat, that finally this will be the best sim, that is their opinion and ok for them. But I just wanted to point out that, this is speculation, even if the team keeps on going like they are now, the list is long and the road looks steep. In the last weeks, the team looked like “trying to make a software, which is by is own developed for the state of art hardware, running on 3 years old hardware”. That is not always possible and gives them a hard time. Too many compromises and ears for the crowd are finally messing more up, then settling them. And I simply have no proof available, in which I would trust, that the problems will finally be overcome and wonder why so many praise and praise a product, which was sold as a finished product, and now find themselves in the role of Beta-Testers.

The only thing I would blame is the marketing strategy and the way of puplishing choosen by the team.