The Crystal Ball

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

Comparing your system specs to theirs is good, but may not be conclusive. Go to technical forums and discuss your issues there. You might resolve some things by posting config files.

And remember the hardware is only half of the PC.. You can have two identical PCs hardware wise, but a slightly different software config and wa-la a poor running game! What with all the OS options, windows updates, video and audio drivers these days I am not suprised that some people with high end hardware are having 'issues' while at the same time people with two year old PCs are having little to no 'issues'

[addman]

There are better looking and more complex games out there running better/stable on more humble hardware...just saying.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by addman

There are better looking

Words like 'looks' are subjective and personal.. But I do agree most 'other' games out there focus more on the eye candy.. Why? Because eye candy is about all they got going for them..

Hence what I said when I said Flight sims are not your run of the mill eye candy game that only requires a good vid card

Originally Posted by addman

and more complex games out there

Also subjective.. depends on your definition of 'complex'.. By my def I disagree with you, and here is one example.. AI.. Which do you think is more complex..

1) A fps bot waiting for a 'trigger' to start shooting at you from behind a wall
2) A flightsim bot pilot that has to maneuver his plane into position before shooting at you

For me it is the #2

Which is why I disagree with your statement.. With regards to games other than flight sims

Originally Posted by addman

running better/stable on more humble hardware...just saying.

Words like 'better' and 'stable' are also subjective.. As with all things in life the devil is in the details.. Loftie statements like yours say more about you and your expectations than CoD IMHO

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

Just more proof that the PC is more than likly at the root of most peoples problems.

The PC is at the root of everyones problem, there is no other machine to play the game on. Its pleasing to know that the odd one or two are able to play this game, but ive not seen any of you online other than Skoshi. The game is still broken, to disagree with that makes you look dumb. If it wasn't broken they wouldn't be fixing it.

[Insuber]

I see El often on ATAG, Tree sometimes and some others. But maybe many don't use the same nick, and others are on a very far time zone.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Crane

The PC is at the root of everyones problem, there is no other machine to play the game on.

Is what I and many others are saying.. Welcome to the club!

Originally Posted by Crane

Its pleasing to know that the odd one or two are able to play this game,

Oh no.. many more that one or two.. There are dozens of posts by members here stating they have no problems.. And when you factor in the FACT that typically people who seek out game forums are those who are having problems.. You will understand why it only 'seems' there are more people having problems than not

Originally Posted by Crane

but ive not seen any of you online other than Skoshi.

Well keep in mind that there is NO STEAM REQUIREMENT that your Steam online handle must match your 1C forum handle

Originally Posted by Crane

The game is still broken, to disagree with that makes you look dumb.

Well than it is a good thing that no one thus far has said there are NO BUGS in Cod

Originally Posted by Crane

If it wasn't broken they wouldn't be fixing it.

Depends on which game and developer your referring too..

Take SH5 for example.. Many bugs but the game developer has stop all support on the game..

Where as 1C has a track record of supporting its games far beyond what most would consider reasonable..

Granted 1C may not fix the bugs fast enough for some of the X-GEN sound byte att span types out there..

But not too many developers cater to those types anyway.. Other than the occasional fart sound phone app developer

[nearmiss]

Originally Posted by Crane

The PC is at the root of everyones problem, there is no other machine to play the game on. Its pleasing to know that the odd one or two are able to play this game, but ive not seen any of you online other than Skoshi. The game is still broken, to disagree with that makes you look dumb. If it wasn't broken they wouldn't be fixing it.

Many people that fly online do not use the same login User ID on forums.

That can create some very fierce arguments. LOL

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by Crane

The PC is at the root of everyones problem, there is no other machine to play the game on. Its pleasing to know that the odd one or two are able to play this game, but ive not seen any of you online other than Skoshi. The game is still broken, to disagree with that makes you look dumb. If it wasn't broken they wouldn't be fixing it.

The sim is certainly not as broken as all your posts suggest. Its was definitely released before it was finished, but I've never had a stability problem with sim on my system even with the first release candidate. Online the sim is better than the original series, but offline the AI and Commands etc still need alot of work. The sim will never be finished, as it will be a workinprogress for atleast the next ten years, as they add theaters, bug fixes, and features that will apply to all theaters including COD. I believe many people having stability problems should look at the condition and speed of their own systems, as well as the developers working hard optimizing the sim as best they can.

[ElAurens]

I'm the same EL everywhere...



And it's interesting that when I'm on comms with some of the guys that have had very "vocal" disagreements with me on the forum, it's all good.

As to my machine and how it runs the game.

1. Given it's age and specification I had no illusions about running the game at full chat. The fact that I can come close says more about the state of the sim than the state of my hardware.

2. I do have some performance issues, Be Sure. But none that I did not expect in the first place. Offline I can fly over London with only mild stutters, but I can fly through any bridge my Hurri will fit in with smooth contol because the stutters are not that bad. Online, if I'm over Lympne and 9 BR.20s show up with 4 or 5 109s and a fur ball breaks out and flak is all around and the bombs from the Fiats are exploding on the field, then it's a slide show, however, folks with far higher spec machines than mine are having the same issue, so again, I'm not in a twist over it. Any other time all is just fine. 18K to 20K feet with the games amazing view distance and wonderful views from up there is just fine by me.

Dogfights against small numbers of aircraft down low over Manston, not an issue.

You see Gents, it's all about expectation. My expectations are fairly realistic, given my computer, and past experience with playing the original IL2 10 years ago.

So I'm happy at this point.

Sure it could be better, but it can always be better, and it will be better in the future.

[addman]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

Words like 'looks' are subjective and personal.. But I do agree most 'other' games out there focus more on the eye candy.. Why? Because eye candy is about all they got going for them..

Hence what I said when I said Flight sims are not your run of the mill eye candy game that only requires a good vid card


Also subjective.. depends on your definition of 'complex'.. By my def I disagree with you, and here is one example.. AI.. Which do you think is more complex..

1) A fps bot waiting for a 'trigger' to start shooting at you from behind a wall
2) A flightsim bot pilot that has to maneuver his plane into position before shooting at you

For me it is the #2

Which is why I disagree with your statement.. With regards to games other than flight sims


Words like 'better' and 'stable' are also subjective.. As with all things in life the devil is in the details.. Loftie statements like yours say more about you and your expectations than CoD IMHO

Ok, maybe I need to be more clear, there are games that are more technically impressive than CloD which runs fine on non-nuclear rigs. A games artistically esthetics is subjective, polygon numbers and physics effects are not. I'm talking about PC horsepower and it's relation to games performance. I know CloD will be better with time, especially soon when MG have "replaced" the porked engine it's got now.

Thing that bugs me is that some people try to excuse the game all the time with the "your rig is not powerful enough for CloD" attitude. I have 8 gigs of RAM in my computer, does CloD use that much? no, not until it's 64-bit. I have a quad core CPU that handles ANY game out there without any hick-ups but CloD struggles, not because it's got super advanced A.I or physics (float planes that can't land on water, Blenheims that dogfights you with F-16 maneuvering, suicide wingmen so on so fourth...) but because it's a poorly made game engine.

Ask yourself, why are they overhauling the game engine?