Announcement of the game "IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Stalingrad"

[CWMV]

Ya it always ran fine for me, but soooooo many bugs.
But BoS ruins and looks perfect, by all accounts it's shaping up to be the perfect sim except for the utter boredom.

[klem]

Originally Posted by CWMV

Ya it always ran fine for me, but soooooo many bugs.
But BoS ruins and looks perfect, by all accounts it's shaping up to be the perfect sim except for the utter boredom.

Sorry to hear BoS 'ruins'

btw that old 'banned' quote is way out of date at June 2012 and in itself very boring.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by vranac

Man, you're talking about gfx card from 2007. Even that gtx260 is two times faster than 8800gt.
And you're wrong, two of my friends were flying at the release. One had cheap AMD x2 and 9600gt 512MB (~15% slower than 8800gt) and he was flying online and shooting down planes, on low settings and 1300 res of course.

I am wrong... so you were in my house and looking over my shoulder..? I never said I had an 8800.. I had a 9800GTX actually.. on an Fx-60 processor.. and I could not run it upon release.. It was a slideshow. I said that a person with a high end 8800 .. a card that was a little less powerful than mine should have been able to at least run it.. The exact same rig runs it today... after all the TF work.. That is my entire point. My other point was .. had CoD been as scalable as it is now upon release it probably would have garnered more support as opposed to all the bad press it got. All that bad press was not just cheap schmucks who refused to upgrade their rigs.. Just because you and a few hundred others out of the thousands who bought it could run it on your PCs does not mean that it was flawless upon release and that the problems that people had were figments of their imaginations or manifestations of their tightwad nature..

Originally Posted by SlipBall

You are wasting your time my friend, it will fail on the mindless. Bearcat is a prime example of what is wrong in our genre. People who don't want to see these sims get too beautiful or complicated, because then an up-grade would have to be done to their rig. And so a great studio has folded, and reputations have been tarnished and even destroyed. The game was a masterpiece on release with bugs that would have been corrected in time, but should have been corrected only for strong PC's.(Oleg might have taken that route, we will never know) llya, the chopped up game that is out there today, is nothing but a sad remnant.

Originally Posted by vranac

Yes I know that mate, but I just can't stand when some people write stuff thats not true.

vranac: See the above post. You were not in my house on my rig trying to get the dadblamed sim to run so you have no cause to call me a liar.

Slip: That was totally uncalled for.. and Alpha, I am sorry but I have to respond to this post.

If this is what you think then you obviously know absolutely nothing about me based on the post you just made so you really need to get your facts straight before you go shooting off at the mouth about things you know nothing about. CoD was a piece of crap on the outset.. otherwise it would have sold much better and the people who did drop their cash for it and felt burned would not be such a large group of folks.. As I have said across multiple forums over the past year or so from M4T to SHQ, IL2 and even here.. even in this very thread.. it is better now than it has ever been as far as being playable by the masses.. Your attitude and the way that you and many who think like you do resort to insulting people who have or have had issues with CoD in the past is also just as detrimental to the success of the sim as it's buggy release and truth be told that very same attitude makes a lot of folks just wave CoD off to this very day and also keeps them away from here. Even though the sim runs much better by all accounts .. even if it isn't as whatever the heck it is you guys keep complaining about is missing from the sim since it was "stripped down" it looks pretty d@mned good to me.. and as I said the same rig that could not run it in 2011 regardless to settings now runs it decently enough to at least see some of what it is about. That should have been the case from day one. The fact that you guys keep jumping on this nonsensical rewriting of the history train in spite of the fact that 98% of the folks who may have had issues in the beginning, and complained about it, regardless to how tactless they may have complained back then, now say it is great .. tells me that you guys just want to argue and be rude and insulting to all those fools who obviously were not as smart or adept as you were or your handful of friends who managed to see CoD for the masterpiece it was upon release..

Ya right..

Neither of you know anything about me and my wallet or what I do and have done in the past to support this genre so I would appreciate if you would keep your misinformed opinions about me and my character to yourself. CoD is a great piece of kit now.. I hope that TF can get whatever they need to continue doing what they do and add more in the way of planes and maps etc... but I hope that you and people who think like you do really take a step back from this chest thumping BS thing you guys do.. because it is getting old and tired and totally uncalled for.

Originally Posted by SlipBall

BOS is very good for entry level, so I think the more new pilots the better for the genre.

Hahahahaha...


De Nile .. it's not just a river in Egypt... Have you actually flown BoS? I wonder with that statement..

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

Ok quit the personal stuff and keep it on track .
Thanks

~!S!~ Out............

[vranac]

Well, I don't know you but I can conclude something from your writing. You had ancient PC when CloD came out. You read forums, Oleg stated many times that the new sim will be very demanding. What have you expected with 4-5 years old PC (CPU 6 years) ?
But I prefer to believe to my friends whom I helped to set up the game.

I'll tell you one analogy. I started playing il2 online with old and slow PC and it was almost unplayable. So I decided to upgrade. Some Athlon AMD CPU from good batch and OC'ed it to 2.1 GHz, very fast for that time (Intel was faster but AMD was better in games then). I bought midrange GPU 6600 also chosen model which could run on frequencies like 6600gt.
That was decent midrange PC of that time. And you know what, when I joined populated server 50-60 pilots with some flak around I got clap, clap, clap... 15 fps.
And that was 4-5 years after the release of il2. Only release of dual core CPU's solved that.
On the other hand with CloD I upgraded before the release with fast CPU and midrange GPU and had no problems at all. There were bugs, but most of those affected mission makers. I have nice collection of tracks from that spring summer.

You're right about that CloD sold badly. My opinion is that there is no more than few 10.000 flight sim fans out there and 1C expectations was huge.

Do you think BoS will sell 200.000 copies ? I really doubt that.
That number is from Loft.
They'll be lucky if they hit 50.000.

[Bearcat]

I don't think 50k is unreachable.. and just touching on CoD ... the fact that I can play it now on the same "ancient" rig if I wanted to tells me what I heed to know. TF is doing some great stuff and the only thing I wonder is why the people who produced the sim and had all the marbles could not do that by 2012.

[vranac]

You didn't understand, everything under 200.000 is a disaster.

CloD was optimized by MG in official patches.Try last official patch. While TF is doing a great job and optimized particle effects,explosion effects,clouds...

MG team was working on a sequel which we would have been playing already (alpha was expected Q1 2013) on advanced engine.That was priority for them and like Ilya said, fixing CloD would not bring any income. However they patched CloD regularly.

http://s58.photobucket.com/user/rest...?sort=3&page=1


We got modded RoF WW2 instead which is a step back in every aspect.
I expected FM to be good at least but it won't. FM is final for LaGG and 109 and LaGG manual is very detailed for every flight regime with exact figures and behavior of the aircraft in specific situations. And in BoS it's waaay off.

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by vranac

I'll tell you one analogy. I started playing il2 online with old and slow PC and it was almost unplayable. So I decided to upgrade. Some Athlon AMD CPU from good batch and OC'ed it to 2.1 GHz, very fast for that time (Intel was faster but AMD was better in games then). I bought midrange GPU 6600 also chosen model which could run on frequencies like 6600gt.
That was decent midrange PC of that time. And you know what, when I joined populated server 50-60 pilots with some flak around I got clap, clap, clap... 15 fps.
And that was 4-5 years after the release of il2. Only release of dual core CPU's solved that.

You spent your money wrong. I had an Athlon 1GHz (not overclocked) and a Geforce 2 GTS (a £300 card in 2000 ad) and IL*2 ran fine, offline as I always play, but fine up to Forgotten Battles. For Pacific Fighters I went up to a Althlon 64 3000, and a Radeon X800, and again, no problems whatever. You want to game with a crap GPU you will have to put up with crap framerates.

On the other hand with CloD I upgraded before the release with fast CPU and midrange GPU and had no problems at all.

Oleg listened to the people who thought cheap GPUs were the answer. It was a mistake.

There were bugs, but most of those affected mission makers. I have nice collection of tracks from that spring summer.

You're right about that CloD sold badly. My opinion is that there is no more than few 10.000 flight sim fans out there and 1C expectations was huge.

Do you think BoS will sell 200.000 copies ? I really doubt that.
That number is from Loft.
They'll be lucky if they hit 50.000.

I dunno. I think that there are a lot of potential fans, but it will depend on what shows up, what the DRM is like (I have no problem with copy protection, but tell me I have limited installs and crap like that, and I won't play. I won't "pirate" but I won't pay either, and "freeware" with pay for everything after the install? not for me).

[vranac]

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

You spent your money wrong. I had an Athlon 1GHz (not overclocked) and a Geforce 2 GTS (a £300 card in 2000 ad) and IL*2 ran fine, offline as I always play, but fine up to Forgotten Battles. For Pacific Fighters I went up to a Althlon 64 3000, and a Radeon X800, and again, no problems whatever. You want to game with a crap GPU you will have to put up with crap framerates.

I was talking about online gameplay. Il2 was always running much better on nvidia cards because ATI drivers was always bad with OpenGL. And you couldn't use Water=4 (new water) IIRC.

Oleg listened to the people who thought cheap GPUs were the answer. It was a mistake.

Really don't know what you mean with this statement.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by vranac

You didn't understand, everything under 200.000 is a disaster.
CloD was optimized by MG in official patches.Try last official patch. While TF is doing a great job and optimized particle effects,explosion effects,clouds...
MG team was working on a sequel which we would have been playing already (alpha was expected Q1 2013) on advanced engine.That was priority for them and like Ilya said, fixing CloD would not bring any income. However they patched CloD regularly.

We got modded RoF WW2 instead which is a step back in every aspect.
I expected FM to be good at least but it won't. FM is final for LaGG and 109 and LaGG manual is very detailed for every flight regime with exact figures and behavior of the aircraft in specific situations. And in BoS it's waaay off.

BoS is not a modded RoF and it has nothing to do with CoD and the reality of the matter is that had 1CMG been smart they would have kept the Storm of War name and released CoD as the first of many on the improved engine closer to it's scheduled release time with the idea of expanding it as it went along just like IL2. They didn't have to have all the extra stuff that they had in there initially. 2048 skins with alpha layers, shadows, more detailed CEM, DM & FM and more features in the QMB & MB would have been enough initially. They did not need to have the full level of fidelity that they put into the sim because it only complicated things.. They had no real competition. They had a ready made fan base of rabid fans who had been waiting 5 years and a legacy gateway sim in IL2 and the name of IL2 and 1CMG. At the time CoD was released there was nothing even on the horizon that could really compete with IL2 much.. much less CoD. Sure there were some sims that did some things better.. but to this day there is no sim that does all that IL2 does as well as it does it proportionally to itself.. (I hope I am making sense to you .. I understand what I am saying but.. )

I don't know numbers and all that and I do understand what you mean about the numbers.. as far as sales go.. but I do know flight sims and what makes a good one and I guarantee you that had they been more practical and less ambitious in the short term they would have made out a lot better in the long term. The initial failure of CoD and even the presence of BoS is solely the result of poor management decisions at 1CMG.

I also am pretty certain that as much as some want to dismiss BoS as a not ready for prime time, entry level modded RoF .. it will be much more than that and it will be around for a long time. It will have a good FM.. a good DM and it will be thoroughly enjoyable and do what CoD had the opportunity and should have done 3+ years ago. Whether or not DCS WWII takes things to an even higher level remains to be seen.. It can.. it all depends on how the shoe is made as to whether or not it will be a comfy fit. We shall surely see.. but all those dismissing BoS especially if they haven't even flown it have no basis in reality for their opinions. We will know the deal before summer ...

[vranac]

You can write your expectations as long as you like but I can tell you even if you're moderator on BoS forum you're completely uninformed.

What is modded il2 or any other game ? You make new 3D model ( or take one somebody else made like BoS devs did) new textures, new effects and put them into a existing engine.
Can you tell me the difference between that and what 1CGS is doing please ?

BoS doesn't have anything to do with il2 shturmmovik except marketing.
You got to have vision to make a great sim. To make something better than others.
You're talking about rabid fans, which ones? Those who want new super sim and don't want to upgrade their PC to run it ?
Bad management that you're talking about it's only 1C bad management. They decide how many people they'll hire. FYI few of those guys, main programmers wrote some stuff about development at sukhoi. Here is one and you'll see a lot of familiar names there.

Originally Posted by MG_Dimas

Yes there was a budget. Just last year, initially allotted to rework Ila in CloD, I had to make a new FM, new AI, a new strategy for the network and re-negotiation. Well,that had planned the people responsible for the project. The rest of the guys had a similar loading. And if you need to do something a lot of very small forces in a short time, then nothing but a very large pile of .. can not happen - it's the law.
Assessed my capabilities, I knew I could handle only one of these tasks. I chose the new AI. I thoroughly zarefaktoril it. Other tasks decided in the minimum.

I do not go away from MG but from SHG [ gaming i think]. Because stopped getting satisfaction from what I do. In FM WT since Ila there are several deep methodological problems, the cause of which I, frankly, is still not entirely clear. First of all - this is some perestabilizatsiya to yaw and the consequences thereof. But it's nuances of fairly high order, understandable only to specialists.

That took data on the Mustang is easily explained. Americans are very well measured and documented their planes. All data are freely available on the Internet. There are blowing data and polars, and speed and weight, and even moments of inertia. Aircraft from other countries is not as well documented. Apparently,that wasn't important for them then.

http://translate.googleusercontent.c...PQ#post1733029

Just to inform you that FM is finished and final according to Han.

Originally Posted by Han

Posted 26 December 2013 - 17:56

I look then straight festival militant ignorance ... LaGG FM is final, this is how it should fly. The higher the speed the greater the overload at the same angle of attack = less "drawdown".

Go practical aerodynamics that if read on what some aircraft before notifying ITALICS in what neither belmesa do not understand ...

Just sort of a fairy ...

http://translate.googleusercontent.c...DA#entry115012

And when some guys with knowledge in aerodynamics asked why LaGG don't fly according to manual but waaay off like I said they got this as an answer.

Originally Posted by Han

And one more thing - we spent tremendous amount of effort that would create the most realistic FM, spend more stolkozhe on what would prove to freaks from sukhoi that it's actually realistic - do not intend, and do not have time for this, even if we wanted to.
We need to do a return and instruments, for example, it is more important to meet than complexes of a few nerds who can not even communicate normally.
Is that right?

And those nerds seems to actually know some aerodynamics.
http://translate.googleusercontent.c...DYvGiTKvL_WbVQ

Yes, great FM you just have to trust them on that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKE-qeEO8EM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SveBPF6AN0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BguS-PzFuz4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI70E5BccYY