Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover

IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover Latest instalment in the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik series from award-winning developer Maddox Games.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-03-2012, 01:11 PM
JG5_emil's Avatar
JG5_emil JG5_emil is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 331
Default

My biggest disappointment is what has been said about Coops.

Also some confusion whether CLOD will benefit from updates in the sequal i.e. improved clouds/water or what ever. Is this going to work like IL2 did?

Other than that I am a bit more impressed after the 2nd set of answers, I don't think the jokes in the first lot were such a good idea as flight simmers are slightly passionate about the subject.

Also fairly impressed with the patch. Still not played online since December last year but I am a little more tempted with the apparent improvements to spotting aircraft and them not vanishing as the dots change to a shape.

Please please think about a way to implement some form of coop other than the dogfight server type we have now.
__________________

Intel Core i5-2500K @ 4.20GHz
Asrock Z68 Extreme4 Z68
Kingston HyperX Genesis Grey 2x4GB DDR3 PC3-1280
Intel 510 ElmCrest SSD 120GB
GeForce GTX 580 3072MB
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-Bit
Corsair HX1050 PSU
Corsair Hydro H80 CPU Cooler
Silverstone Fortress 2
Hazro HZ27WA 27" 2560x1440
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-03-2012, 02:41 PM
Tree_UK
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JG5_emil View Post
My biggest disappointment is what has been said about Coops.

Also some confusion whether CLOD will benefit from updates in the sequal i.e. improved clouds/water or what ever. Is this going to work like IL2 did?

Other than that I am a bit more impressed after the 2nd set of answers, I don't think the jokes in the first lot were such a good idea as flight simmers are slightly passionate about the subject.

Also fairly impressed with the patch. Still not played online since December last year but I am a little more tempted with the apparent improvements to spotting aircraft and them not vanishing as the dots change to a shape.

Please please think about a way to implement some form of coop other than the dogfight server type we have now.
I understand why Luthier is not wanting to address the coop issue, if he fixes it for us then there is a good chance we could get online wars happening again, this may interfere with his plans for an MMO later which could be a potential cash cow for him.
Reply With Quote Received Infraction
  #3  
Old 10-02-2012, 10:42 AM
VO101_Tom's Avatar
VO101_Tom VO101_Tom is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chivas View Post
I hope WarThunder does give the new IL-2 series some competition
...

You seriously expect any competition from an arcade MMO game, that can be played with mouse and keyboard? Are you kidding me?
__________________
| AFBs of CloD 2[/URL] |www.pumaszallas.hu

i7 7700K 4.8GHz, 32GB Ram 3GHz, MSI GTX 1070 8GB, 27' 1920x1080, W10/64, TrackIR 4Pro, G940
Cliffs of Dover Bugtracker site: share and vote issues here
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-02-2012, 10:55 AM
JG52Krupi's Avatar
JG52Krupi JG52Krupi is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,128
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VO101_Tom View Post

You seriously expect any competition from an arcade MMO game, that can be played with mouse and keyboard? Are you kidding me?
Exactly

Not sure if it's true but I hear that you can't belly land in warthunder as you just blow up and from the videos the damage model makes vanilla 1946 look good!!
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by SiThSpAwN View Post
Its a glass half full/half empty scenario, we all know the problems, we all know what needs to be fixed it just some people focus on the water they have and some focus on the water that isnt there....
Gigabyte X58A-UD5 | Intel i7 930 | Corsair H70 | ATI 5970 | 6GB Kingston DDR3 | Intel 160GB G2 | Win 7 Ultimate 64 Bit |
MONITOR: Acer S243HL.
CASE: Thermaltake LEVEL 10.
INPUTS: KG13 Warthog, Saitek Pedals, Track IR 4.

Last edited by JG52Krupi; 10-02-2012 at 11:50 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-02-2012, 11:28 AM
VO101_Tom's Avatar
VO101_Tom VO101_Tom is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JG52Krupi View Post
Exactly

Not sure if it's true but I her that you can't belly land in warthunder as you just blow up and from the videos the damage model makes vanilla 1946 look good!!
I saw video with external view, external crosshairs, and the Spit shot down both wing of He 111 with one burst... "detailed and complex damage system."... suuuure
__________________
| AFBs of CloD 2[/URL] |www.pumaszallas.hu

i7 7700K 4.8GHz, 32GB Ram 3GHz, MSI GTX 1070 8GB, 27' 1920x1080, W10/64, TrackIR 4Pro, G940
Cliffs of Dover Bugtracker site: share and vote issues here
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-02-2012, 02:18 PM
JG52Uther's Avatar
JG52Uther JG52Uther is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,358
Default

Come on guys, please don't turn this in to a discussion thread.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-02-2012, 11:07 AM
Stublerone Stublerone is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 250
Default

Lol, Still don't know, why this warthunder is still mentioned. It is not comparable, you do not have the viewing distances, the lod, the behaviour of invironment. So it is not relevant to learn anything from warthunder, except perhaps some effects, when they run better. But how to evaluate, if the game runs in atotally different kind of genre with totally different goal? I bet, that due to its lack of details in every aspect, I will be able to run it at 60fps easily. It is a console game. Please do not compare complicated games with easy programmed games, which could be made with some web designers doing a different profession just for fun.

Sorry, but this is total fail to ever compare it. It is like comparing world of tanks with tiger vs t34. And its like asking, why tiger vs t34 needs more resources, although wot has better graphics (by the way: wot is fun sometimes, but the new reworked engine is a big szep back, although all the casual gamers do not see it technically).

Please leave warthunder, console il2 games and world of warplanes out of this sim forum, as they are a totally other world.

Last edited by Stublerone; 10-02-2012 at 11:11 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-02-2012, 02:47 PM
tintifaxl tintifaxl is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 387
Default

...

Last edited by tintifaxl; 10-02-2012 at 02:48 PM. Reason: off topic
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-02-2012, 03:16 PM
David198502's Avatar
David198502 David198502 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Austria
Posts: 1,536
Default

Would it be possible to hand out information on how to handle each aircraft the proper way?
after 1,5 years, there is still too much confusion about the different types of planes, and how they perform the best way,and how to get the most out of them.
For example every month there is another thread about the prop pitch management of the 109, and even among the experienced 109pilots there doesnt seem to be a consensus on whats the best way...
for example: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34328
there is historical information around in the net and in books, but we dont know whats implemented in game, what works best, and how it is intended to work...


Luthier:"Our goal has always been that the actual aircraft flight manuals should be used with Cliffs of Dover. If that’s not the case, the only people that know the guts well enough to write a flight manual are our aircraft programmers – and in that very case their efforts are better spent bringing the performance in line with the actual flight manuals.
In other words, there’s never a situation where writing a flight manual for Cliffs of Dover is a good idea."

with all due respect, trying to flight according to the flight manuals of the 109 youll have no chance at all online against other 109s...i just tried it today.
your FMs are way off the flight manual, and according to other people, thats not only the case with the 109 but for all the RAF planes as well.

trying to get the most out of a 109 according to the flight manual in regards of prop pitch settings and rpm, will in fact make you very slow in your game and not at all competetive...
__________________

Last edited by David198502; 10-02-2012 at 03:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-02-2012, 04:27 PM
klem's Avatar
klem klem is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David198502 View Post
Would it be possible to hand out information on how to handle each aircraft the proper way?.........................

Luthier:"Our goal has always been that the actual aircraft flight manuals should be used with Cliffs of Dover. If that’s not the case, the only people that know the guts well enough to write a flight manual are our aircraft programmers – and in that very case their efforts are better spent bringing the performance in line with the actual flight manuals.
In other words, there’s never a situation where writing a flight manual for Cliffs of Dover is a good idea."

with all due respect, trying to flight according to the flight manuals of the 109 youll have no chance at all online against other 109s...i just tried it today.
your FMs are way off the flight manual, and according to other people, thats not only the case with the 109 but for all the RAF planes as well.


trying to get the most out of a 109 according to the flight manual in regards of prop pitch settings and rpm, will in fact make you very slow in your game and not at all competetive...
Isn't this the point, the FMs are too far off?

Luthier has said 'Absolutely' to putting more effort into getting the CoD FMs right if we demonstrate they are wrong. That is where our effort should be and his efforts will follow.

Even if you get the best info on how to fly "the CoD 109" properly it will still not be right if the FM isn't brought into line with the flight manual.

Someone needs to fly the 109 against historical data and give him the results. Most people are just complaining the FMs are not right and posting a few words about it ("its too slow at SL", "it doesn't deliver 1.3ata at x metres altitude") but not proving the point effectively so who is Luthier to believe when member A just says one thing and member B says something different? Fly the tests and give him the data from his own FMs. You can do this by hand, making notes etc as you fly (tricky!) or use something like I use here:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...6&postcount=10

And yes, it does take some time and effort whichever way you do it. But why should Luthier listen to any beta tester who doesn't return proper test results?
__________________
klem
56 Squadron RAF "Firebirds"
http://firebirds.2ndtaf.org.uk/



ASUS Sabertooth X58 /i7 950 @ 4GHz / 6Gb DDR3 1600 CAS8 / EVGA GTX570 GPU 1.28Gb superclocked / Crucial 128Gb SSD SATA III 6Gb/s, 355Mb-215Mb Read-Write / 850W PSU
Windows 7 64 bit Home Premium / Samsung 22" 226BW @ 1680 x 1050 / TrackIR4 with TrackIR5 software / Saitek X52 Pro & Rudders
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.