|
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover Latest instalment in the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik series from award-winning developer Maddox Games. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
03-03-2012, 03:13 PM
|
|||||
|
|||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That explains a lot about your current and past statements!! Allow me to explain why your comparsion is in error 1) Apparently you are un-aware of the fact that RoF is a DX9 program.. And that the DX9 API has been around for some time now, which means there are a lot of experienced DX9 programers to choose from and thus easier to program the game. Where as CoD is a DX10 program that uses the DX11 API.. The DX11 API is new, and very different from previous DX APIs, thus the DX11 API is not as well understood as DX9, mater of fact Microsoft is still working out some of the bugs in it, which all means there are less experienced DX11 programers to choose from and thus harder to programer the game. 2) Apparently you are un-aware and or don't remember what RoF was like when it first came out.. RoF like CoD was not a bugless sim when it was released back in 2009.. It took Neoqb years to get RoF into the state it is today.. And during that time Neoqb gout bought out by 777 studios! So, imho it is disingenuous of you to compare CoD which has been out for less than a year to a game that has been out for nearly 3 years. And try to remember that RoF has a near constant cash flow due to charging for add ones!! Where as CoD does not! Currently the only CoD can generate more development money is to produce a sequel/addon or find someone willing to invest in the product. Which explains why CoD is allready working on a sequal So now that you are up to speed on RoF I hope you can understand why RoF works so well on lower end systems.. i.e. RoF has had more time and more money to optimize the code and RoF is still a DX9 game thus unless they upgrade to the DX11 API you will never see the DX11 features in RoF that we are soon to see in CoD.. Now 1C could have done the same as Neoqb.. It would have been easier to do.. But as we are now seeing.. 1C has had a much bigger vision for this game engine than Neoqb had for RoF
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on. Last edited by ACE-OF-ACES; 03-03-2012 at 03:49 PM. 
|
|
#2
03-03-2012, 04:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Why is so hard for you to admit what devs admit...its a bad, bad code...period Last edited by Tvrdi; 03-03-2012 at 04:52 PM.
|
|
#3
03-03-2012, 05:02 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on.
|
|
#4
03-03-2012, 06:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
See here: And don't go into bad code. Of course there's people that like different things and your mileage on certain things may vary, but there's isn't a flight sim out there that has the game engine close to anything like IL2 (new or old). You couldn't place couple 100 big objects in a row in a mission in a row in ROF and fly it, (actually the mission probably wouldn't even load - it would error out) let alone fly it smoothly. Now this isn't to say that there are some obvious performance problems with cliffs as it stands right now. But as a fiddler in the FMB, I can go to town and click away and build w/e I want and the game doesn't care. I think squirrel (when screwing around testing this) placed 20,000 3d trenches along England, (basically until his finger got tired) then flew next to them in amazement. The point is, once the performance is all sorted, what you are left with is a game engine similar to the old IL2 - which is unsurpassed by any other sim ever made. It's sad to some (not me) that these guys don't really work on the SP campaigns or any of that jazz, but it's because if you want one they'll give you all the tools to make it however complex and immersive you like. That's why you can code anything into a mission that's part of MS's NET framework, amongst a million other possibilities. As a fiddler or a person that gets into the "guts" of these games, there's literally no comparison. Not at all. It's similar to walking into a house that's gorgeous with all this fancy furniture, then finding out while you can walk around, you can't touch anything. Where as IL2COD is like walking into an unorganized messy house, then realizing that you can do w/e you want in there. The 1st scenario is all bright and flashy at 1st, but then you realize just how limited you are in the scope of things. While the 2nd, your imagination is the limit. Ask anyone is ROF, and I mean anyone, to try and make a map like this to race online. Then, if you take the time to place just 1/10 of the amount of objects and see what happens when you load the mission, you'll see just where I'm coming from. This is a map someone hosts from their home pc btw. This isn't SP. And btw, every single thing you see in the map besides the water is an object in the FMB. (not the grey ground texture though) Anything from the mountains, the ramps, to well, everything is there to play with and do w/e you like. Take a gander at the ME in ROF and you'll probably go. ..."oh" With that said, ROF is good at what is does. It's a nice dog fight simulator, but without the ability to even have a trench as an object in it's mission editor (kinda a big thing in WWI wouldn't you think?) or the ability to place more than a couple hundred objects in a MP mission without the mission going kaput, that's all it will ever be. In IL2, the sky is the limit, once the base engine is all sorted. So please do watch and read. This type of stuff is exactly why I stand in line with my pom poms eagerly awaiting for what's next. Last edited by ATAG_Bliss; 03-03-2012 at 06:10 PM.
|
|
#5
03-03-2012, 09:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The truth is you can never have cheap, immediate and quality (including high resolution and sim detail level) solution. You always have to pay more, to wait more or to compromise on quality (resolution) or play more simple arcade games like BF3. It is up to you to decide if you want to take responsibility for your PC performance. It is easier to blame others of cause but it would not increase FPS for you unlike one of above compromises. Let's wait for the new weather and see. I bet you will not be able to run it in 1920x1200. The devs are struggling to make the game work on mainstream resolutions which are fullHD now I believe but not higher.
|
|
#6
03-03-2012, 08:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
MAC
|
|
#7
03-03-2012, 09:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
With my old overclocked 5970 i got 3dmark 2011 8800points, with overclocked 7970 i got 8900points, so no difference there but in Clod that is different game now, not stutteringfest anymore. Constant 60fps with vsync, ok not maybe on rooftops on London. Happy Clod player here now, i just love it now, really nice to fly at evening and look at those exhaustpipes from cockpit.
|
|
#8
03-03-2012, 09:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
realtimerecording, sry no CEM there now, back in the game for long time  Actually my first game to test with new GPU And believe me it looked really much better on my monitor than that poorquality video When i record then my FPS is constant 30FPS.Kankkis Last edited by Kankkis; 03-03-2012 at 11:08 AM.
|
|
#9
03-05-2012, 03:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#10
03-05-2012, 08:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
S!
Codex..you will not regret it! This 7970HD munches games for snack and seems AMD already has a refresh ready when Kepler comes. Good times for us. And fanboism is of no use, both brands do not give a rats booty for brown nosing..all they want is our hard earned money 
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
