Fresh stuff from sukhoi.ru (Discussion)

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

Originally Posted by Force10

Yeah....it has nothing to do with the fact that COD is broken at all. Or that the release that all the review sites received was an embarrassment to the flight sim genre and forced all the major reviewers to totally pan the game. Nope...it's because people disagreed with Ace that the game should be serviceable more than a year after release...yeah...yeah...that's it.

First of all Force10, CoD isn’t broke, it never was.

Rise of Flight had to weather the same crap from reviewers we have never flown with sporting outdated hardware and forum flyers hell bent on its demise.

After almost 2 years it came in to its own despite the haters.

CoD, like any other combat flight sim early in development had/has and will continue to have bugs as well as needed optimizations.

Now for the combat flight sim history lesson...

Il2 in 2001 did not have contemporary hardware at the time that was able to max the sim and il2 circa 2001 sported fps in the 20s on a $2k pc at release.

That’s because it was designed with future hardware in mind (sound familiar?).

What was different for Il2 in 2001 was a direct competitor with huge pockets that it obviously was superior to (Microsoft’s cfs2/ and later cfs3)

What Il2 had in 2001 was a bucket full of bugs and potential, what it did not have was a "IL2 is broke fan club"

[Force10]

Originally Posted by ATAG_MajorBorris

First of all Force10, CoD isn’t broke, it never was.

Rise of Flight had to weather the same crap from reviewers we have never flown with sporting outdated hardware and forum flyers hell bent on its demise.

After almost 2 years it came in to its own despite the haters.

CoD, like any other combat flight sim early in development had/has and will continue to have bugs as well as needed optimizations.

Now for the combat flight sim history lesson...

Il2 in 2001 did not have contemporary hardware at the time that was able to max the sim and il2 circa 2001 sported fps in the 20s on a $2k pc at release.

That’s because it was designed with future hardware in mind (sound familiar?).

What was different for Il2 in 2001 was a direct competitor with huge pockets that it obviously was superior to (Microsoft’s cfs2/ and later cfs3)

What Il2 had in 2001 was a bucket full of bugs and potential, what it did not have was a "IL2 is broke fan club"

Your lessons are...ummm...wrong

Average score for IL-2 in 2001 = 9.2 It had bugs but it was a solid offering. I will be the first to agree that steep system requirements arent the devs fault or problem.

COD has way more issues to worry about than steep requirements and just a few bugs. It runs smooth on my machine but the AI,FM,DM, radio commands blah blah blah make it unplayable.


Did you say "early in developement"? 8 years is early in developement? MUWAHAHAHA! That was a good one...side splitter for sure.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by ATAG_MajorBorris

First of all Force10, CoD isn’t broke, it never was.

Rise of Flight had to weather the same crap from reviewers we have never flown with sporting outdated hardware and forum flyers hell bent on its demise.

After almost 2 years it came in to its own despite the haters.

CoD, like any other combat flight sim early in development had/has and will continue to have bugs as well as needed optimizations.

Now for the combat flight sim history lesson...

Il2 in 2001 did not have contemporary hardware at the time that was able to max the sim and il2 circa 2001 sported fps in the 20s on a $2k pc at release.

That’s because it was designed with future hardware in mind (sound familiar?).

What was different for Il2 in 2001 was a direct competitor with huge pockets that it obviously was superior to (Microsoft’s cfs2/ and later cfs3)

What Il2 had in 2001 was a bucket full of bugs and potential, what it did not have was a "IL2 is broke fan club"

+1

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Force10

Did you say "early in developement"? 8 years is early in developement? MUWAHAHAHA! That was a good one...side splitter for sure.

What you and your convently forget is that during that so called 8 years of CoD developement 1C was also working on IL2 sequals and patches..

Which means the CoD development was NOT a 100% effort.

In software circles, that I work in/with, we are allways working on the next thing while we are working on the current thing.

But not until we switch to the next thing are we able to devote 100% effort to it

SAVVY?

[Feathered_IV]

At least we know for certain why they are so hot to implement DX9.
I doubt that the sort of people who were making this decision would have given any thought to the 40-50 vitriol fuelled regulars here. If they wanted some real market research they'd more likely approach the three million odd WoT players and ask them if they'd like an Il-2 MMO...

Anyway, all their plans will need to hinge on them fixing the Clod engine and optimizing the crap out of it.

[SEE]

Hey guys, I only have 1946 and CloD with no experience of other games so what exactly is MMO? It seems to have caused some concerns that I do not understand, could someone please explain.

[Jugdriver]

Massive Multiplayer Online

Lots of people playing on a single server (there would be more than one server) that you pay a monthly fee to access.

JD
AKA_MattE

[JG52Krupi]

Also, they normally suffer a quick demise. There are very few that have lasted longer than two/three years

[5./JG27.Farber]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

Also, they normally suffer a quick demise. There are very few that have lasted longer than two/three years

Except the dreaded World of warcraft... Imagine games are a drug. To us, Il2 is like a wine or whatever you find stimulating. WoW is Crystal meth... With the stigma of the the people use it and all...

[SEE]

Thanks Jugdriver, I understand some of the posts now....

I personally wouldn't be interested in any MMO gaming title but I guess it is more profitable and returns a consistent cashflow if it has a large user base.