Waste of money

[carguy_]

Maybe he overdid his custom colors in VGA settings and doesn`t even know it.

[David198502]

well in my opinion, cod has a more complex landscape, but it doesnt look better than rof in my eyes.if cod would get the colours correct and the placment of trees, then it would be far superiour to rof graphics wise.only my 2cents.

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by Robin2k7

it doesn't feel good ... and yea i am winning because if this is the new standard i would say take a look to Rise of flight .

a good example how it can work with nice graphics good sound and excellent environment .


i am just disappointed that's all .

My guess is you're disappointed because you probably didn't see what RoF was two years ago.

You have every right to complain, just do it in an interesting way that might be useful to others as well and you'll get a more positive reaction. It's the distinction between spending some time on testing the sim and coming up with bugs and possible workarounds, or saying "i'm done with this game" and stopping there: the first one can actually solve something or be useful to another player, the second is only useful to the person venting and as such, boring to the rest and doesn't get much sympathy.

No offence meant really, i'm just calling it as i see it: if you really get a kick out of exposing flaws in the sim then what better way than give a detailed list of what's wrong (aka properly formatted bug reports telling people what's wrong, how to replicate it and any possible short-term fix), put some time into it.

I can understand the initial outburst of frustration because the release was rushed and not handled well but frankly, a good number of months post release repetitive generic comments on issues that are by now common knowledge, to the tune of "fix the sounds/aa/etc", fail to make me take a real interest anymore. It's like background noise at this point and tends to fly below the radar for the most part.

It's known, if it can be fixed it will, there's nothing to do but wait. I think it's better to try and come up with something less known and more interesting and it's that kind of posts that can maintain a healthy interest level.

I mean, i find it funny that the majority of people focus so much on presentation issues, valid as they are, when there's a bunch of issues having a direct effect on gameplay that tend to fly directly over the heads of the majority here.

Just compare the amount of complaints about AA with the amount of complaints about the errors and bugs present in almost every flyable bomber or the inconsistent controls logic employed across different aircraft and you'll see what i mean.

More people take offence to a non-antialiased aerial in external view than the fact that it's almost impossible to drop bombs in a realistic manner from any bomber other than the He-111 in a sim that is supposed to be about a primarily bombing campaign. Who bothers with historical accuracy in those aspects of the sim that directly pertain to portraying the key points of that campaign though, when the aerials look jaggy and the grass is a bit too green?


I think the community by and large suffers from the same thing the developer team is blamed for: a lack of sense of priority. In the end we're all even

[Robin2k7]

you know i just don't have that woow feel i did have when IL-2 was released .

you know i tried and i tried and give this game a chance but every time when i take of from the ground ore when i do a DF over see i am disappointed and i don't know exactly why .

also Multiplayer ...its hard to find a server .

guys perhaps i expect to much .

[LoBiSoMeM]

Originally Posted by Robin2k7

you know i just don't have that woow feel i did have when IL-2 was released .

you know i tried and i tried and give this game a chance but every time when i take of from the ground ore when i do a DF over see i am disappointed and i don't know exactly why .

also Multiplayer ...its hard to find a server .

guys perhaps i expect to much .

Talking in therms of game engine, I had higher expectation about the new IL-2 title. I really don't care so much about game content in the release, but I was really upset with first release, with performance issues, major problems with FMB, MP huge instability...

But now? Now I can join MP sessions and have fun. And I can create a lot of missions to have fun in FMB, and all that with good performance, like in IL-2 1946 two years ago, and with amazing visuals, better FM/DM, etc:



I don't regreat the investment made in the software itself and hardware to run this sim. I really enjoy it now.

[Bryan21cag]

Originally Posted by David198502

well in my opinion, cod has a more complex landscape, but it doesn't look better than rof in my eyes.if cod would get the colors correct and the placement of trees, then it would be far superior to rof graphics wise.only my 2cents.

i would have to agree with you sir i also believe that while CLOD has better potential and ROF might be at its maximum potential at this point for the engine (dont really know that just assuming) but for me its more about the ability to run ROF completely maxed out graphics wise on my machine with full AA and all the trimmings and have the game run Smooth as silk even with a sky full of multi-players.

CLOD can look better in sections of the flying I.E. in the cockpit, and over the water and such but with my machine listed below I have to start making some pretty big graphics sacrifices in order to keep the game running as smoothly and then it loses its edge for me since in order to keep the same performance I have to cripple its graphics edge.

Being that I am no programer of video games I have no idea if this is just something that will improve over time or if it is just a sign that i built too slow a computer for what this game really should be running on. I guess time will tell. if its the later though I will not be able to help my disappointment because I am in a pretty good spot money wise these days and i was able to buy what i thought would at least be in the above average category of boxes and still i have to go below medium settings for most of the really cool stuff to keep the game running perfectly smooth with no stuttering.

Cheers

Originally Posted by carguy_

Maybe he overdid his custom colors in VGA settings and doesn`t even know it.

its time for you to wake up, you hypnotised die hard fan ....

[O_TaipaN]

Originally Posted by carguy_

Maybe he overdid his custom colors in VGA settings and doesn`t even know it.

It might look good for some, but for me it flickers and the ground shadows look awful.

The ground textures throughout London in Clod are not impressive, whereas the textures in Verdun in ROF look nice. They need work in Clod especially with shadows on. The buildings also pop in and out even the close range ones. It kills any immersion I can get.

CloD wins out in some things, but landscape is not one of them.
Cockpits, Water and Damage models only. Otherwise ROF wins out as it should be because they are two years down the track of their release.

CloD can get there one day if the developer is as dedicated, maybe end of next year CloD will be great. But lots of patches needed.

Having said this, ROF digital nature engine is still in progress even at this great stage. The engine is still improving.

For example the water coming to ROF sometime in the future:

[hiro]

Anyone remember when BOB SOW was mentioned, how it would kick in the pants over ROF graphics wise.

Now ROF is the preferred over CLOD's graphics.


CLOD is not a waste. Each person plunking down money and crying that CLOD's a waste of time is at fault for choosing to buy it. It's up to you to educate yourself what is a good buy and what is not.

Yes the devs and publisher get rocks in their socks for doing a lame release. But in the end, its the buyer who has control of their money.

Early adopters always take that risk, and well if you're willing to take that risk you know if you lose, its part of it . . .


Give this a year or two, and the pendulum will swing and people will say, "Remember when ROF graphics was on par with CLOD, but now they've (CLOD's devs) have come a long way . . ."

I'll wait, which is better, because when 8 cores are the norm the quads will be cheaper . . . well one can say with 16 cores . . . and cheap 8's . . .

[Plt Off JRB Meaker]

Re your graphics topic,I read recently that CLOD is supposed to be getting an even better water graphic,with water that you can see through or something.