Friday Update, January 27, 2012

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by Codex

Ah so this is an official project of sorts ... interesting

It would be nice if they could eventually build a WW2 aircombat sim, but I wouldn't hold my breath. They are probably knee deep working with their own genre, and don't have enough interest in going into WW2 scenarios, but maybe very interested third parties could go that route if they could get access the game engine code.

[Codex]

Originally Posted by Chivas

It would be nice if they could eventually build a WW2 aircombat sim, but I wouldn't hold my breath. They are probably knee deep working with their own genre, and don't have enough interest in going into WW2 scenarios, but maybe very interested third parties could go that route if they could get access the game engine code.

Well Flanker mentioned that is was a third party developing the add on, so I would assume ED would have very little involvement in it, they would just need to give their approval for it to use their engine I would assume. I can't access ED / SimHQ sites from work, is there any official announcement about this add on?

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

.......I want to work on a project for a dynamic campaign some point during this year. I want the mission script to check if my airfield has enough fuel, then top up my tanks and remove that from the airfield's total. When i come back and land i want the remaining fuel to be added to the total. [b]When the airfield is low on fuel, either due to attacks or normal use, i want it to trigger an AI convoy that will bring fuel from the fuel dump to the airfield. If the convoy is attacked and destroyed then sooner or later it's no fuel for you mr. player, spawn at a different airfield.[\b]
In other words, i want to make a supply system that will make what you do online matter. And the engine gives me the tools to do it. So, you can understand how much of a shame it is that these tools are undocumented because through all these months apart from the valid performance and stability complaints, .....

exactemundo !!

that is exactly the type of technical feature many other il2 old timers here are interested in, and it is incomprehensible they havnt given us access to at least some of these new features, even if it was initially with a basic interface at first and (with a list of the new features/options), so we know what is possible to access and control.

remember oleg's AA gun screenshots with the different ammo type boxes next to it ? at that time (some years ago), he indicated that when certain amo type ran out for the gun, it couldnt fire that type anymore (presumably till resupplied). Additionally the complex AA setup, with an interacting multiple component system involving search light, radar, gun crew, and ammo type available, so that if one element failed, or was destroyed by the enemy (like search light or radar element), it made the AA gun emplacement less effective, or put it out of action completely. Now THAT is what I call progress ! and it is what is needed to lift SoW out of the il2 airquake domain.

similarly discussions took place over the years with the SoW devellopers about what should happen when airfield munitions or fuels stores were destroyed (or runways damaged), and the way that should affect performance of that airfield and its ability to refuels and rearm aircraft landing there. once an airfield like that was made non operational, except for still allowing emergency landing of damaged or low on fuel aircraft, [b]it would/should take a certain amount of time for new supplies to arrive [/b (which is possible to copy fairly exactly from historical events, in the same way that restoring a damaged landing strip can determined).

AND those supplies had to arrive by road or rail normally (only very few came by air except some exceptional circumstances, like Stalingrad or Berlin). this again can be simulated fairly accurately, by having AI truck convoys of a particular size traveling at regular intervals on the road system from point A to point B, and having similar rail supply trains. targeting those in the game would then block the supplies from arriving at destination (for the time you keep being able to find and destroy them) when means the airfield they are designed for stays out of action or only operates partially. additionally, in certain map situations you might be able to cut rail and road bridges, or other parts of the transport network, with a similar result (again having work teams rebuilding those at a given time rate, and unless you keep destroying them regularly they become operational again). as a reminder, Mig Alley, the Korean war sim from 10 years ago already had a significant amount of those features built in, and it was one of the main reasons it stood out from other sims of the same era.

from oleg we know a lot of this, and even significantly more, is built into BoB/SoW, to not have some type of interface for it and no documentation for it is incomprehensible and a major flaw in 1C’s and luthiers management approach. it would set the sim apart from many other products right now, and it would make current users/customers much more tolerant of some of the major flaws they have to put up within the last year (and yes we are happy the project wasn’t canned, and if the buggy release was the only alternative to survival of the series let it be so)

this same AI interface should also provide details on how to control AI activity from road vehicles, rail network, and shipping (including AI bomber and fighter formations being tasked from point A to attack point B etc). ie rather then have some random train travel from A to B as me have now (or having a few people try and edit ini files with a hit and miss approach), we know this can/could be configured by some dedicated mission/campaign interface giving access in great detail for road/rail/sea/air elements active on a map. to have some basic instructions and information on these type of features is essential to keep the frustrated and shrinking fan base interested.

since most of those features are already built in, imo it should only take one or 2 programmers a couple of weeks to provide the documentation and a basic interface for it (even if some of those features are incomplete at this stage, many of them should already be available)

imo for luthier priorities right now should be
1) finish rebuild of gfx engine to get required gameplay performance and improved visual look of environment (he is doing this, but only 1 or 2 programmers are working on it i b suspect)
2) fix major FM DM problems that are know to be an isue right now, and fix distant object visibility problem (for aircraft and ground objects)
3) provide information and means to control ground/rail/airfield/aircraft resources, with implementation of some of these complex "roll on" effects once one element or important object of an airfield or other part of the map (like bridge or railway line) is damaged. Additionally, allow for basic AI routines to be created for vehicles on roads and at airfields, so the maps start to come alive. similarly allow scripting of ground military vehicle actions, eg have vehicle types ABC move to objective XYZ while having predetermined interaction modes with "object" they encounter (engage enemy, avoid enemy, capture objective etc)
4) correct some major scenery errors, and make england look like england rather then some generic map
5) provide full dynamic campaign engine for 24/7 online/ofline gameplay (with partially scripted unfolding events, as we know was olegs choice), so some of the events that historically made BoB so unique can be recreated, having for ex multiple waves of large bomber formations targeting specific objectives etc
only after that can there be talk of doing anything for BoM (other then maybe having some unemployed modelers work on some new objects if there is nothing else for them to do right now).

the only thing CoD is good for right now, is a limited type of airquake in a very buggy gameplay setting, while trying to move around in a virual world in an underperforming gfx engine, its a far cry from what was intended or anticipated, so they need to fix some of these issues SOON !

[Ataros]

Originally Posted by zapatista

btw, i was GIVEN a russian download version of CoD about 6 months ago (as a thank you for building a friends new pc), and i DELETED it, it was so unplayable on my system (and i dont have weeks to waste to fiddle with it to try and get it to run each time a micro patch is released on steam). i tried it again about 3 months ago (with all the steam updates) and it was still UNPLAYABLE (except if you just fly over water and limit yourself to air quake servers online), even if my pc is mid-range (i5 dual core, 4 gb ram, ati 5770 1 gb card, 27' monitor at 1920 x 1200, hotas, track –ir etc). to get such negative feedback from some of the most ardent and long term oleg supporters (having played il2 since its first demo almost 10 yrs ago) speaks for itself, there is something seriously rotten in denmark ! sure, for people with monster pc's (and there are a few here) they now get reasonable performance over land/cities, but that is the only exception (and they are the main posters of the video's you refer to)

In your particular case the issue that prevents you from playing is too high resolution multiplied by a low-end PC (budget video card and a dual core processor). Your system would run it OK @ 1400x900 resolution. No patch will fix it and I can explain why:

My experience with sims like Warbirds, Il-2, several versions of MSFS, ArmA1, 2, RoF, etc. gave me a good lesson: do not buy a high resolution monitor if you do not want to buy the most expensive video card on the market every year. I flew Warbirds in 800x600 оn 15', then IL2 on 17' in 2001 @ 1024x800x16bit, 2002 @ 1150x960x16bit and only since 2003 @ 1280x1024x32bit (changed several processors and video cards in the process). With shooters like Call of Duty, BF2,3 or Wings of Prey resolution can be set as much as 2 times higher because they are "optimised" which means visibility distance and details level are reduced (compare CloD to BF3 for instance). Sims are different in nature (and by definition) as their purpose is to have IRL visibility distance and IRL details level. It is just absolutely not logical to expect sims to be optimised in the same way as other genres are. The most challenging sims for me to run smoothly was MSFS and then RoF (on a single core CPU back then) btw.

The above lessons were very painful because I wanted higher FPS but did not want to pay for it buying a new video card every year. Having learned the lessons I bought 1680x1050 monitor for CloD because I new it would be as demanding as any other sim I know. Now I know that every sequel will raise requirements higher and higher as soon as they are published every year or so.

@ 1680x1050 the game is very playable on my very old system i7-860@3.8 (2 years old) - HD4890 (3 generations old). Landscape, forest, buildings @ low, other @ med-high with some driver & system fine-tuning.

I do not expect much performance increase from the upcoming patch. It will be not more than 10% for some systems and switching just one graphics setting up will take it away.

You will be able to run 1920 x 1200 with max settings only when SLI is working and you have 2x 580-3GB vram set up I am afraid. But SLI technology is very unreliable in sims and if it works in one patch it may not work in the next patch as RoF example shows for instance. I do not recommend going this way.

If you definitely need a huge screen now, the most cost efficient solution is to purchase a big 2nd hand CRT monitor or a projector and run it at about 1400x900 or 1680x1050 resolution max.

It is not possible to have a quick, cheap and quality(high-res) solution at the same time in real life. There is always a trade-off in real life. You have to sacrifice 1 or 2 factors to have another:

1) wait till 2013 hardware (time),
2) buy every new top video card that enters the market (cost),
3) reduce resolution and/or settings (quality).

You can have it quick, cheap and high quality at the same time only in children fairy tales.

PS. Mr.X whose videos show that the game is very playable in its current state has the same 2 year-old processor as I have and a 2-3 years old gtx480. Perhaps he plays with lower settings than he records videos and his res is reasonable 1920x1080. http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=29379

Originally Posted by Ataros

In your particular case the issue that prevents you from playing is too high resolution multiplied by a low-end PC (budget video card and a dual core processor).

Recently I migrated from 1680x1050 to 1920x1200. CLOD STILL runs fine (well, not perfect, as Im used to in other games and sims but smooth enough for my taste anyway) as long as theres no effects near (fire or dust etc)....sometimes its a bit slower when more planes are in dogfight, low over cities....but the slideshow starts when the effects are near as I already said.....

Originally Posted by Ataros

Your system would run it OK @ 1400x900 resolution. No patch will fix it

Oh if they succeed in optimizing the core engine then everybody (spec. guy with "newer quads and decent GPUs") should notice a rather big difference in perfromance....textures, landscape and AA settings should have more impact on performance than difference in resolution (at least if its not so big difference)....

my system:
i7920 OC 3.5Ghz
GTX470 TF2 (custom coolers) 800Mhz OC on core (should outperform slightly both 480 and 570 on stock speeds)
6GB of DD3 working at app. 1333Mhz
Dell U2412M (1920x1200, low input lag e-IPS panel)
X-FI Gamer
TiR5

[Ataros]

Originally Posted by Tvrdi

Oh if they succeed in optimizing the core engine then everybody (spec. guy with "newer quads and decent GPUs") should notice a rather big difference in perfromance....textures, landscape and AA settings should have more impact on performance than difference in resolution (at least if its not so big difference)....

my system:
i7920 OC 3.5Ghz
GTX470 TF2 (custom coolers) 800Mhz OC on core (should outperform slightly both 480 and 570 on stock speeds)
6GB of DD3 working at app. 1333Mhz
Dell U2412M (1920x1200, low input lag e-IPS panel)
X-FI Gamer
TiR5

My understanding based on what I read in Technical section here and in Benchmark thread @sukhoi http://translate.google.com/translat...hp%3Ft%3D68723 is that resolution is the biggest factor influencing performance compared to any other setting. I think res influence is not linear but exponential.

Also res has a highest hit on video memory I believe.

E.g. single gtx580 can run CloD almost maxed out (maybe 1 setting not maxed out) at 1920x1080. But @1920x1200 2-3 settings will need to be reduced to avoid slideshow when effects are near. Older cards can not handle new shader versions (special effects) as good as new ones.

Dual cores with gtx8800 can run it on res not higher than 1280x960.

Could you include your system specs into your signature please to avoid misunderstanding in the future?

PS. To me optimisation of original Il-2 happened by purchasing new hardware in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006. This allowed me to raise resolution and increase FPS. I do not see any reason why it will be different in CloD. Same happened to me in MSFS, RoF, ArmA and other sims. Code optimisation helps a little bit but usually the benefit is quickly taken away by new features introduced in sequels. Miracle will just not happen because it never happened before. Even the devs want it badly and want to believe it possible but it is not.

Originally Posted by Ataros

Also res has a highest hit on video memory I believe.

This. More than anything else. But like I said I didnt notice any signifficant drop of performance migrating from 1680x1050 to 1920x1200. On my system.

Originally Posted by Ataros

E.g. single gtx580 can run CloD almost maxed out (maybe 1 setting not maxed out) at 1920x1080. But @1920x1200 2-3 settings will need to be reduced to avoid slideshow when effects are near. Older cards can not handle new shader versions (special effects) as good as new ones.

I have mostly med settings (textures and plane models on high). "External" AA applied (DX files). On most occasions works fine as soon as thers no effects near (dust and engine fire..explosions).

Originally Posted by Ataros

Could you include your system specs into your signature please to avoid misunderstanding in the future?

I did now.

Originally Posted by Ataros

PS. To me optimisation of original Il-2 happened by purchasing new hardware in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006. This allowed me to raise resolution and increase FPS. I do not see any reason why it will be different in CloD. Same happened to me in MSFS, RoF, ArmA and other sims. Code optimisation helps a little bit but usually the benefit is quickly taken away by new features introduced in sequels. Miracle will just not happen because it never happened before. Even the devs want it badly and want to believe it possible but it is not.

Agree. New and better hardware will always help. But. A bad optimisation of game engine is something which can cause bad performance for most folks. So only guys with super PCs can enjoy in smooth performance. Thats something we dont want, right? Anyway, even for today standards my machine is pretty good and like I said I stilll have problems...

[Ce'Ke]

ahh I can not wait

[lanling]

Chinese

新版的IL 2 COD moscow 一定要放弃与老的IL2COD完全不兼容。

新版的IL2 COD MOSCOW 必须是64位的游戏

核心引挚必须重写不能与老的IL2COD一� �。

图像引挚必须要与NVIDIA和AMD密切合作� �

新版的IL2 COD MOSCOW 必须支持 多核CPU

图像引挚必须支持 CrossFire 和 SLI 技术

老的IL2 COD 里面的 飞机建模， 火车建模、弹道、

爆炸效果，可以移入到IL2 COD MOSCOW



New version of IL 2 COD moscow must give up the old IL2COD completely incompatible.

New version of IL2 COD MOSCOW must be 64-bit games

Must rewrite the core engine is deliberately not the same as with the old IL2COD.

Images must be cited loved working closely with NVIDIA and AMD.

New version of IL2 COD MOSCOW must support multi-core CPU

Image engine is deliberately to support CrossFire and SLI technology

Inside the old IL2 COD aircraft modeling, model trains, ballistic,

Explosions, can be moved to the IL2 COD MOSCOW

guys in the white coats....where are you when we need you?