The DT gentlemen have a very valid point here.

Many of the new, high poly visual effects, particulary explosions and fires, are pretty big frame rate killers. When you have several players online attacking an airfield, for example, the drop in frame rates is totally unacceptable, yet the mostly offliners who make these things have no clue what their pretty explosion effects are doing online, as they never fly there and never check their frame rates.

I realize that for the offline majority of modders and mod players this is not an issue, a stutter or ten is of no consequence, but online it is death.

Protos,don't try to make a point when you're not prepared with the situation,ok?
First I want to point out that I (as some other DT members) were on the both sides of the fence.
Anyhow,I can tell you that 70% of the subjects that are still using mods,are less then 16 year old.I don't have anything against the youngsters (I'm 19),but they don't know what is quality and what isn't,in the game industry.So they're happy with everything they get.

The ungrateful to mods left quickly IL-2 and the gaming at all,just when the mods came up.Why?'Cause they're mature,and respect the official devs.
I don't know about you but as many others (who aren't here now),I'm around this hood for a long time and I can tell you that 80% of the dedicated IL-2 gamers are long gone.Most of them are now playing RO.

Please stop these non-senses.Noone is holding DT back!
DT is simply following the tech.specs,created by lots of programmers/coders/3D modelers/3rd party modelers and many other people who worked for years over the IL-2's official development.

Now,Protos,in order to make the said above clear to you,I'll try to generally explain you what official game development term means.

The main idea of the game development is to keep the 3D models with reasonable (meaning to keep the model with as low polygon level as possible,without damaging the model's appearing) amount of polygons,so there will be more physical and memory space for effects,and other cookies.
Take for example Crytek 2 engine.FYI it's the engine,powering Crysis game sequel.Anyhow,even there with that powerful new engine,the team that developed Crysis was still keeping strict laws on the polygon level,otherwise there wouldn't have been those nice big explosions,great graphics,large world,physics and so on,that I bet a lot of people here enjoyed.
I don't think you have noticed that the weapons in crysis were "low poly",right?
All this wouldn't 've been possible if the Crysis team was thinking the same way as some/most of your beloved modders do.
Don't doubt in my words.Many other games (actually all) were created in the same way.The creator of the maps,3D models and textures of HL-2 and the rest of the sequel,was/is a Bulgarian.I personally have spoken to him about this type of things and it is true,believe it or not.

The key to develop a game is the following of strict rules,and not doing whatever you like to.

With thus said,I hope that the problem with the "low poly" jargon is settled up,and that It's not about "poly count",but simply about following the tech specs for the particular game engine. ;)

Clearly I hit a nerve.

Take a breath my boy and don't take yourself so seriously. Save your strength for the ladies.

** I think you might have been all of 9-10 years old when I started flying this game ;)

2 cents...

Beeing a part of the J8A project (not modelling though) I can assure you that hi poly count equal better quality is pure nonsense (balance of course). My dear friend Mr Haddock's work, who is a professional Art Director and head modeller in the gaming industry for some major titles for many many years, on the J8 is evidence enough. I even recall a long vivid conversation with him after the first specs of SOW were presented and his immediate reaction was "Why this high polycount"?
Zorin's work is indeed impressive, not only the actual models but more so all that research to be true to history. I am indeed hoping he will listen to TD team.

Still I can only refer to Haddock's professional insight. Not beeing a modeler (as some others who have commented this issue) I leave this topic for further discussion between those who actually know what they are talking about.

No..It's just you,your ignorance and your pure arrogance.

LOL @ your pain

It looks that the errors in the explosive power of different bombs are not an issue here. Nevertheless they should be easy to identify and correct. For instance, recently someone who poke into the code said that the Russian bombs have twice the damage radius of other countries' ones.
My experience is that a Japanese 250 kg bomb falling few metres from a tank doesn't destroy it. I cannot believe it.
DT what is your opinion on that?

Regards'
insuber

@Bulgarian: I appreciate your explanation, it is very interesting to learn these kind of "behind the scene" logics.

Keep up the good work,
Insuber

that's right with lots of weapons, if you don't have a direct hit, they will not even scratch the paint..

also with bombs on submereged submarines, even a direct hit does little..

Please let us concentrate on how to improve the quality of original IL2. Most of my squadmates prefer an official enhancement pack over a user-made MOD pack. The fact is that there are still quite a few players playing unmodded IL2 on Hyperlobby. If TD clears all the old bugs and injects new features into the game, I will be more than thankful. Once can still get quite a lot fun from current version.

One of my many requests to TD is please fix the high altitude (over 8000m) performance of German planes. Most of them can not execute a level flight without using elevator trims. And the engines of late-war 109s tend to overheat very quickily at that height even with MW-50 disengaged.