DX9 / XP discussion
 

- hope its lesson learned and you keep DX9 out of the Sequel.

AI being worked on its good news, lots of threads on bugtracker to guide you.

Not my fault! i did not create this mess!

FS~Phat edit: (NOTED! your not in trouble it was a relevant comment that deserved to be heard and discussed, just not 15 pages of it in the Friday update thread!)

release it without DX9, i don't use it since 2008 or before, as many others, DX9ers can wait for a bit more as is their problem not willing to update their hardware.

Hurray for DX9!!! Pirated Operating System users unite!!

They stated on the box they have to support it for legal reasons. Wish they didnt(as most of us) as im dx10 too

Thanks b6 have a good weekend urselfs.

We have told about it in the past. We'll support DX9.

why dont release another beta version without DX9 now, and the official one with it included very soon in 3months...?

They need to beta/alpha test the DX9 version too before official release I am sure.

What has that got to do with piracy?

Thanks for the update BS... got to agree with David's suggestion though. I am really beginning to develop an uncontrollable dislike for XP users. :D

Windows XP is one of the most pirated pieces of software out there, Luffe. The vast majority of XP systems out there, it is reckoned, are dodgy.... even ones that came with PCs bought from "reputable" hardware salesmen.

Test the DX9 is one of the main tasks in the next beta.

I see.. no Radio Comms.. again!!! BlackSix, can you please ask Luthier about an answer regarding the status and his intentions regarding the Radio Comms?!!

At least there will be some work on AI (but I'll hve to see it first, before believing it) :)

And an advice: dump the DX9 (and 32 bits) support altogether, at least starting with BoM!

Hah, yes true. I'd imagine that pirating gamers/simmers would have the latest dodgy OS anyway, though.

Thanks for the update B6.
This is looking good and forward!

The community just need to be a little bit more patient and we have our sweet patch out =).

This story repeats everywhere about the DX9 Lol.
For people more connected with hardware and software, a game being DX9 or DX10 doesn't matter much because we know what it's needed to do, to fix the game. For some people software and hardware it's just a complete brainstorm.
But even if they sell the game only for DX10+ there are hundreds of IL-2 players that would buy the game without checking the compatibility, neither understanding why it doesn't run, and they would easily complain because the game doesn't work by unknown reason, than searching how to fix the game. Instead of having people on this forum complaining the game is quite unstable they would be all around complaining the game doesn't even run and they have been scammed.
Plus that there are still people that don't want to update their hardware nor have a compatible OS with DX10+, besides that it takes a good amount of money.
I got a DX11 graphic card but I /support the effort of Maddox team in the DX9 compatibility.
(lol here we got another post about DX9 xD)

Don't get me wrong guys, I want that patch so badly as you all.

Good Weekend guys!

And a very short reply.. 86 DX9! ;)

but release the patch without it, most of the user aren't DX9ers, that part of the players can keep waiting for a bit more, but is unfair keep up us all waiting for and outdated tech for a few that doesn't want to update systems

That's the problem though.... and I know people will cry "Elitism" but I'm inclined to say "Tough". lol

I was saying to someone the other day that I long for an England of cucumber sandwiches, cricket on the lawn and biplanes... how I wasn't made for these times. I have to be grown up about it, though, or I'll go mad. (or madder. lol) Those days are gone forever.... and if they weren't I wouldn't even have the internet, let alone DX10... or Cliffs of Dover. lol

The PC market is in a constant state of evolution and, whilst I accept what BS has said with regards to 1C stating it would have DX9 support and so, quite rightfully, they must provide it..... We can't look to the future if we spend all our time being held back by those who cling to the past.

All that said... I'm still optimistic but I am getting impatient..... and I think all of us who are getting impatient have a right to be that way.

XXXX... how many times will we go over this...

Recommended to give up the DX9 supportEfforts to support DX11

Recommended to give up the DX9 support

Efforts to support DX11

Why don't you just drop dx9 support already? Its 2012 for gods sake, if you are still on a strictly dx9 enabled graphics card then its seriously time to upgrade. Is there something I'm missing here that makes dx9 an integral part of the games support?

o god i am laughing, you are rigth, 2 Things, 1 The DX9 its almos OBSOLETE, and the second 2,
Where in the world we are going to run the game decently whit a DX9 system?

Devs, you are talking about 1gb and good hadware, and why are you investing in old tecnhologies?

Because it's listed in the requirements? When they released the game with DX9 they created a fait accompli that now forces them to support it.

yes its they task, but , they can send us a update only for DX10/11, so they can continue to invest in DX9, and, when its complete, they can use our logs for the patch and mixit it whit te global patch for dx9 or something..

Obviously not as we are waiting on the patch still.

Thx B6 for this update again but....

How many times we will hear "soon" or "very soon"? Very soon it means for me in Sunday or Saturday, not more than next Friday.
For me this news from Today isnt very good for Us, fans of the new IL-2. Still no patch, no details ect.
DX9?
Why? How many users here has a signature with Windows XP and old g.cards? 5-10%? You wrote to us - we are "near ready" but we work on DX9. So 90% of CoD users must wait for small part of users of XP or its a only reason to put again "we work on..." and "very soon..".

If id like to have simulator with support of DX9 I can take shortcut of IL-2 1946 from my desktop and no problem with my nerves, bugs ect.

Sorry for this, but the last OFFICIAL patch was in OCTOBER 2011. Till now not any official update. Its a wrong way. Please show us progress of Your TEAM. Give us this next alpha/beta/charlie patch + official patch and work on DX9 till the end of the Year for 5-10% users of CoD, no problem with this.
You have 350 small bugs in Bugtracker. Just one its support DX9...
Wrong way for me.

In the first way we need:
1/better AI
2/FM/CEM/Avionics (improve as in bugtracker)
3/clouds like before alpha 1.06 but with good fps (molecular problem)
4/smokes with good fps (molecular problem)
5/less stuttering near the ground (like in alpha 1.06 + better)
6-349/.... bugs from 2bugtracker.com/projects/cod
350/ DX9.

I hope the next update give to us next beta patch and in one month we will have officiall Steam patch. In October will be One Year from the last update.

Please change Your priority and I hope this "very soon" means less than:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/202612/lolz/two_weeks.gif

Have a good weekend too!

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...2/facepalm.jpg

For the 100th time... IL2:Cod said there product would be compatable to DX9... They are upholding their promise... Get it? :rolleyes:

Stop arguing, we all want the patch, and it seems that going to take, and a while, so here, for me, not going back to buy another IL2 If They do not release the patch, but I claim the patch for the product I bought because I honestly spent for something that is not what I was purchasing aka (the box told me another thing , etc), not to go further, something unfinished.

Interestingly enough the box also stated they supported DX9... just saying ;)

didn't know the box was the final authority on DX9?

Very true.... I think the biggest problem, though, is that 1C are then faced with a choice:

They can say "Sorry... we made a massive mistake! Printing error!" and then face the fireworks.

Or.

They can disappoint an enormous amount of players, face the possibility that anyone who may still be considering purchasing CloD will say "I didn't buy the latest technology to waste my time on this!" and not buy it at all...etc...etc...

I know which one I would choose.

When have the system specs ever been 100% honest on the box of PC games? (Let's be honest with ourselves here!)

Any game, no matter how stable, has at least a few posts on their forum from, understandably, disgruntled people who bought a piece of software that stated they should be able to run it and yet what they really got was a slide show or, worse, didn't even get past the install stage because their systems were just too old..... but the majority will sing its praises because the majority, with the up to date hardware, are having a great time all the time.

You could even refund the poor guys who insist on sticking with DX9! Can't afford it? Think.... if the news was out that CloD is fixed and is the most amazing simulator ever created in the history of mankind... that's a ton of cash heading your way from a whole load of DX10/11 users out there. :D

Just sayin' :D

Its not, but it is the final authority on what they have to support for this release... and now look you guys made B6 face plam lol....

Their may be a language barrier, but the face palm is universal :D

The Dx9 support, will it be mandatory for upgrades beyond IL-2 CoD too?

I'd suggest it would as it would be on the same engine... I'm just hoping and praying to every single one of the gods that this DX9 issue is actually fixed, and therefore not an issue, before any later additions are released. The team have promised to fix this game before releasing anything else in the series so.... let's hope they stick to that. lol

If I was a gambling man, I'd say DX9 support wont be listed on the box of the next release :)

I wonder if it is wise to keep the large majority of users waiting in order to satisfy the small minority who still uses DX9 ... :confused:

Dear Moderators,

Can we have a separate thread where people can ask why they are supporting DX9 and where we can continue to reply each time?

Thanks

We all get why they are doing DX9. The thing is, it was on the box a year ago and it hasn't been working for a year, so whats the big rush to do it now? Unless there is a lawsuit from some DX9 guy, can't they just back burner it until they fix important stuff? Something tells me that someone who can't afford a DX10 card, can't afford a lawyer to make an issue out of it either.

I would guess this DX9 "because it says so on the box" fiasco is just another stall tactic and gets everyone to focus their anger on "those pesky DX9 folks" instead of 1C.

I would guess that the plan is to make this patch an official release one day, in order to make it official it probably has to fix the game for all supported platforms. DX9 was excluded from the initial Alpha and the small update to that, I suppose they decided that they needed to get DX9 in there now to get some testing data on it as well... that is just a guess of course.

Also, people in the eastern European countries and Russia are in general not able to shell out roughly 4 months worth of salary for the latest high-end or even mid-end rig. They are the biggest market for the IL-2 series even though a lot of people on this board seems to think otherwise. Please, try to use your minds sometimes, it might help you to better understand things. Also, there is the "DX9 on the box" issue.

To be more clear: I do not say to stop the DX9 patch. It should come as it should have been there from the start.

What is irritating though is that they don't separate the two things.

They could issue the patch minus DX9 as soon as they are ready and continue to work on the DX9 issue for another patch before BoM.

This hardly costs more effort on their side but at least all others could play with a decent patch. It would hardly delay the DX9 availability for the few who still use DX9.

And sorry: I do not buy that Eastern Europeans tend to lag behind in computer hardware. My guess is that it is rather the other way round :)

Here is the irony. Name one, ONE dx9 specific graphics card that can properly run CoD? So were going to end up with support for something that no one is going to use. Unless there is a very minor crowd of people who seem to prefer running in dx9 mode on dx10/11 video cards for perhaps minor preformance improvements that should be taken care of in the upcoming patches anyway, who on earth will actually use dx9 ever again on this game? Not to say there is anything wrong with dx9, but more specifically again, there are no video cards that are dx9 specific that can smoothly run CoD, and there never will be.

This is very true.... but then we are back to 1C being at fault in a very big way! If Russia is in such financial dire straits (I don't doubt that.. I know it is.) that they can't afford to splash cash on DX10/11 systems and Russia is the biggest fanbase.... then we are faced, yet again, with a development company who, at least appear, to not have a clue what they are doing and a majority (Albeit a different 'majority' from the Western DX10/11 one) who are getting...erm.. excreted upon from a great height. Not good. Not good at all.

I think they really should take the gamble and release a DX10/11 patch and work on the DX9 whilst us guys are flying around happy as larry.... it would, at the very least, remove some of the tension and, perhaps, save the dev team from a few strokes or aneurysms on the way. lol (Especially poor Blacksix! lol)

I can think of at least one software developer, who shall go unmentioned, who are praised for their series of strategic war games who have managed to get away with not really fixing two.. yes TWO.. of their titles whatsoever. :D I just pray they don't "fix" their latest one as that works just dandy. LOL

Yep! And the funny thing is... in a lot of games with DX11 and DX9 support, running it in DX11 will actually give much better performance all round so the benefits of running it in DX9 are, essentially, illusory.

I won't pretend I know, or even begin to understand, why that actually is. :D

Looks like someone has been drinking the 1C kool-aid! Umm.....no. First of all, you can get a card that supports DX10 for $30 dollars. These people that you think can't run it because of the video card DX9 deal, your saying that they have a dual core or quad core set up for the other requirements? If they do, then I think they can afford $30 for a DX10 card, if they can't afford that, then they have way bigger problems in life other than not being able to play COD. Some folks need to use their head before typing the first thing that pops in.

Technically, COD works in DX9 mode now. I tried it awhile ago when I was benchmarking and testing. It doesn't work well, but it will launch and play, so they have already made the box requirements. The box doesn't say "Optimized for DX9 with silky smooth performance" so they are in the clear. Don't believe the hype.

Good point. I remember screaming with rage when I bought a certain RTS with lots and lots of units (Give a clue: They foolishly released it for Xbox as well... two minutes into the game, your console overheats and your house burns down. LOL) a few years back.... Chugfest! Could I get any joy? Nope... why? Because the system specs just said I could run it. They didn't say they would run it with silky smooth performance. Finally got to play it about two years later. Was it worth it? Yep! Sadly the sequel sucked though. :D

The problem with your point is: Did the box say it would run with silky smooth performance in DX10? :D

Yous guys gotta remember there's probably a requirement from Ubisoft to maintain a compatibility with the box-listed systems. Ubisoft and 1C probably have a contract somewhere that details a lot of money moving around, along with a standard that must be kept compliant. Although it sounds silly to us, a work order/contract is a work order/contract, and must be fulfilled to maintain a proper business relationship...especially with a new title looming in the distance.

That being said, I agree it was a poor business choice to postpone the alpha/beta (whatever this upcoming patch is) as for legal/professional purposes, these patches are strictly for testing. In no way shape or form is the consumer, DX9 user or otherwise, forced to use these patches for any aspect of gameplay. Hell, any consumer wouldn't even know about a patch unless they went out and sought it themselves...and truthfully, anyone that is not into PC gaming enough to NOT keep up with current hardware probably isn't the type that is perusing developer forums waiting for alpha/beta patches and probably doesn't even know there is a public development cycle.

Even if they did know and attempt to participate in betas, the law is on 1C's side against any lawsuits or whatever simply because this participation is volunteer only. Common sense dictates 1C should have utilized that fact and released a patch today, but obviously there is more going on behind the scenes.

+ 1

ohh ... so there instabilities on DX9 in the last build :(

Unexpected problem then ... Hope it will get sorted soon, if is better for SOW have a properly DX9 support i´ll wait and beta test it then, keep the good work :)

For me it's obvious. All this dx9 talking from 1c is for one reason, to buy time.
They seem to have so big problems they can't admit.
Just my personal opinion.

+1 Spot on. Most will refuse to believe it though.

"Technically, COD works in DX9 mode now. I tried it awhile ago when I was benchmarking and testing. It doesn't work well, but it will launch and play, so they have already made the box requirements. The box doesn't say "Optimized for DX9 with silky smooth performance" so they are in the clear. Don't believe the hype." Well said Force10.

Like many of the other owners of CloD, I upgraded my V card from a DX 9/10 card to a DX11. I went from a 8800GT to a 465GTX a couple of months before the game release. After 10 months of trying to get the 465GTX to work with this game, I then upgraded again to a 570GTX 2.5 gig Vram and still no joy with this game.

Like many other owners of this game, I have no interest in backwards compatibility. Also, like many others, I have spent in excess of $1,000.00 in upgrades to try to make it run, decently.

My patience grows "thin" with the cryptic/Cyrillic updates.

Looks like the one reason. From more than half a year not official patch just only promises and one alpha.
How many programmers of 1C works for improve of CoD? 1 for half a working day?

Not very funny.... :(

DX9 support is critical for the MMO.

Thx, so here is the reason - first step for Battle of Moscow? Forget about CoD users? :rolleyes:

esa es la principal razon para volver a DX9, hay mas gente con antiguos ordenandores que con nuevos, si se exije muchos requisitos tecnicos para volar un MMO no tendrán el suficiente tirón y ganaran menos dinero, que si se hace con DX9, ya que habrá mas gente que lo tenga y necesitaran menos requisitos.

Siento no ponerlo en ingles, pero el google translator tiene mas bugs que el clod, y eso ya es decir.

The back of the DVD box does say DX 9.

However it also says "play it on Ubi.com" and "This game is protected by digital rights management TAGES".

I have not heard any lawsuits about those missing items.

I have not seen any other retail game that had such a hard time with DX9.

Do you know how you can tell when even the whiners are tried of whining about the same old thing?

Easy..

Just watch for the point where they turn on each other and begin eating their own!

qft!

Could we please have a locked official announcment\development update thread and people who wish can then vent their spleen elsewhere.

Since the final patch will have DX9 support, it also has to be beta tested. So, why make two different patches, instead of making one for both DX versions and then using the spare time to fix other things: radio comms, AI, FMs, etc? ;)

I really do want that patch and i hope they'll give the bombers some love now that we have a thread collecting bug reports about them, but i prefer to get a proper patch instead of band-aid fixes.

What i also don't get is how the same "it says so on the box so i want acceptable FPS" crowd is now going around telling people that "it doesn't matter what it says on the box". Pure hilarity.

In truth, if we decide the system requirements on the box don't mean anything, then they should not bother with fixing anything at all...not only DX9, but anything else. It says such and such card and above on the box, doesn't it? That includes all the DX10 and DX11 cards, right? :-P

However, we want them to fix it. And that means delivering everything of what was advertised, including DX9 support. ;)


I'm seriously contemplating it to be honest. There's a bunch of encouraging stuff in this update and all we get again is focusing on the ONE thing that is not as likeable.

It's not completely off-topic yet because DX9 is mentioned in the update. However, if it moves to detailed specifications on DX versions and DX user statistics, i'm definitely creating a new thread and moving all related posts there. I'll check again tomorrow and see how things are going in that regard.

Also, if certain people don't calm down soon, expect the post to be temporarily locked for clean-up and removal of posts that only serve the purpose of deliberately irritating each other.

This is not everyone's personal "let me vent my frustrations thread". If anybody wants such a thread create one in the pilot's lounge and knock your socks off (all can have their say as long as it's respectful to others and in the appropriate forum section), but don't drag this one through the mud or i'll do the same to your posting privileges. I think i'm making this as clear as can be.

I'm not sure what ya mean there Ace. My opinion hasn't wavered. I couldn't help noticing your turncoat ways below...


LOL! What a hypocrite. Now even he can't deny the devs BS so he has to attack others as a compensation mechanism.

LOL Yep. I really, really wish it didn't say DX9 on the box but people saying it doesn't matter what is on the box is walking on pretty dangerous ground. :D

What most people seem to have forgotten is that the latest beta patch we are currently running does NOT support DX9.

Or maby its already been mentioned.

Would those people who have DX9 PCs please upgrade and save us all from this silly fiasco. Thank you.

The 15% are holding up 100% of the players. Nice.

DX9 Pirated Operating System users got this title stalled.

You just have to wait.

The positive part of going subscription based is we can cancel while we wait.

Thanks B6 for the update!

Thanks for the devs for working on this.


why DX9? Well regardless of why's they just have to do it. That's that.

It's like years ago one had at least 10 different WW 2 air sims and today we have ½ . The ½ is because if you add up DSC P-51, Il-2 1946, this game, as each ww2 sim has major deal breaker issues (outdated, no campaign, one ww2 aircraft to fly, etc) .

So one can bitch, cry, scream or moan wishing they had 10 ww2 sims to pick from, but only waiting will change that. Nothing they can do will hurry this along. Such is with this game and its fixing.

You will have a right to bitch, cry, scream, or moan if the devs just up and left or this iteration of IL-2 series was cancelled.

Heck it would be a neat marketing trick, just say its going away, and the scandal hits hard as a bullet to your chest. Then rest. 2 years later this awesome WW2 sim comes out with legendary aspects and modeling . . .


---


DX9 isn't easy to fix. It's legacy code, friggin WIndows XP SP1

Why? New code to legacy code can work, but there is a limit. And legacy code, updated for new, that can only be taken so far.


Case in point was the millennium / Y2K. They didn't expect the code to be used for 2000, as they figured it'd be replaced. Then when 1999 rolls around and there isn't a replacement . . .

It's like getting a P-51 and keeping the design / layout and loading out for modern warfare. Sure you can give it the radar, the electronics, the turbo prop, the 20mm vulcan thru the nose, missiles, some stealth, new materials. And it'd make a great fighter.

But for CAS, the A-10 does it better, for AS, the F-15 can still beat it, for GA, the F-16 or Strike Eagle can smoke it. Its design puts limits on what it can do.

Its design can only be carried to far.

But the airforce is better off simply spec' ing a new fighter (F-22) or new jet for X purpose.

Same with coding and software. Why mucky muck with code that people left years ago?


I'll bet that when Oleg was here, the game we saw that was touted as 1946's sequel was coded for DX9. Afterwards that engine and code wasn't used for some unknown reason.

Then when they rushed with this new stuff (engine, broken-ness, code, and architecture yeah its a word, Americans can invent any English word :grin: )
and this is the alpha stuff we're dealing with, that didn't have DX 9 support.

Why? Because the new one works with DX11 because in 2011 / KONY 2012 its Windows 7. Roll back to XP, Uganda be kidding me. Kenya see the similarities between Win 7 and Vista? Because of that DX 10 (which is for Vista) is easier to reach.

And rolling dat sh** back takes time and a skillfull programming. Hence the time it's taking for this DX 9


And the time its taking for this game. Coding is less difficult and less error prone if properly designed, tested, and released.

Fixing nightmare code, is well, anycase its hard to fix and run a recompiler with Mr. Krueger on your tail (this game)

and fixing a walk in the park code with 300 of your buddies and 50 odd so top notch project managers, well let's just say even the dog has it easy with the robot that cleans up after it like all star teams the giants in the gaming business command. ( Blizzard or the conglomerations for MOW:COD or Arma ).




and for those complaining that B6's Frieday updates aren't real updates (no I am not pointing out the dark humor frieday updates, non english mothertrucker do you team speak it? ironic because the game isn't update post attempt at some degree of humor because I am pointing out the generality of some of the many that complain about the updates)

well one of the community's biggest pet peeves was lack of communication. Then more sane / level headed minds said that weekly telling us the patch is beyond the horizon would only induce more complaints.

Well to those complaining about Frieday updates, well you people get a big 'I Told You So' award.

Keep up the Friday updates B6. . .

That's really a non-issue because to install the beta patch you would have to do it manually, and understand why it's a beta and not official. The average Steam user that isn't a staple at these forums is still running the last official patch that does work somewhat in DX9.

I was only referring to the debate about "they MUST support DX9 cuz the box says so", if its a beta release they don't. They can hold of the DX9 support as long as they care to as long as its not an official/steam patch release. There is absolutely nothing that indicates that this patch is going to be a official release right of the bat.

I might have missed something though.

Al those " i want, i want, i want...." posts would be funny if the wouldn't communicate the disrespect of those posters towards the less fortunate which are stuck with Windows XP for various reasons.

Sad as this is, its a mirror of the western meritocracy.

I dunno what this has to do with the meritocracy (which I personally prefer over mediocricy any time) so please elaborate.

I also suggest that you put away your computer, do not use tab water and only feed on one meal per day because there are people on this planet that cannot afford a computer nor have running water. Some even have difficulties to feed on one meal per day ... *rolleyes*

Ta! ..

DX9 !! ppppttttttt!!! if people still rely on that, give them a free copy of 1946! (and dump da b....) :grin:

I'm more than willing to chipin for more AI fixes, proper 1946 mission recorder etc

.

They probably all ready own it. Come to think of it many people running XP probably upgraded to vista, then decide to go back to XP for their gaming environment.

If you really are so keen why don't chip in and buy them a copy of Windows 7 or maybe just wait while the developers fullfill their obligation to support their customers.

Thanks for the update B6.

I also understand the frustration about the DX9 support, and largely agree with all the commentators. However, I wonder if these purchasers of the game - albeit justified in bitching from time to time - consider the legal ramifications to 1C if they simply stopped any DX9 development? Right or wrong, the game was sold as being compatible with DX9 - and that's a legal, binding contract - as far as I understand it - so there really isn't much choice in the matter - DX9 support has to be provided. But we die-hard flight - sim customers do have a valid bone of contention with DX9 support, in that we all know that DX9 is long dead, and it is unreasonable that the justified satisfaction of the majority should be deferred for not just the minority, but for pseudo economic reasons as well.

So can I make suggestion? Accepting that DX9 development should continue, is it not possible for 2 versions of the game to be developed; the first being the one for DX10/11+ (the main development), the second (of lower priority) for DX9 ?

The advantage would be that this would remove the requirement for a single piece of software to satisfy 2 disparate operating systems. You could even limit the amount of DX9 support on the latter version, having as a simple objective, crash-free, reliable operation, based on an earlier version of the FM/DM etc., and simply let it die a death. After all, even XP systems will eventually become truly obsolete in the East, and as a business model, it seems fairly odd why 1C would want to waste funds in developing complex software for an outdated OS - that the vast majority of the customer-base has already moved away from. These guys' gripes are valid; we are still waiting for the promised land but are expected to wait further because of a mistaken promise that 1C made i.e. DX9 support.

It is all very well arguing that 2 versions will not work because of the complexity in maintaining the 2 versions, but you need to balance against that, the additional software complexity required to support DX9, 10 & 11 AND NOT UNDERMINE either! Since you have taken the decision to consider the DX9 question further, can I ask that you consider this approach as well?

Cheers,

Marx

I always thought CLOD barely worked in DX9(very low FPS and stutters) and had been that way since release?

Wrong, I can see both sides of the coin. People like you and Force10 are so stuck in your tunnel vision you couldn't find you're way out of it even though there is only one direction to choose. It's fascinating to see you guys duke it out though, from a strictly anthropological viewpoint.

Personally I think it is not doable for a small team like MG. Also it should pose no big problem for the software as such (other games manage to have both at the same time).

I do not mind either that they finally go to implement some sort of DX9 compatibility. What I mind is that they keep the majority of the users unnecessarily waiting by insisting to publish this in one big package.

I think what they need to do is:

1. Release the final patch for DX10/11 users as soon as it is ready and later release a patch that adds DX9 compatibility.

2. Focuse on the stability of the code for DX9 users only. Doesn't need to have the greatest performance or eye candy as DX9 is only mentioned as minimum requirement for running the game, not for enjoying the game to its full potential.

Agreed. A DX10 only patch would satisfy most of the customers, the DX9 could follow later.

Marx - Microsoft stopped support for older versions of Windows, and issued new Office file formats not compatible with older Office versions. MG could call the patch "CloD 2012" or whatever and they're done with the legal aspects. Not a problem really for software houses.


In reality, as B6 explained, there is still a base of users with Windows XP out there, especially in Russia.

Cheers!

Look, I don't want to get into a bitching match about this, I just wanted to suggest a possible way forward - which by the way, is basically what you seem to be agreeing with!

;-)

Marx

Hi - thanks for your thoughts on my suggestion. Yes, I realise MS have made some serious detours with various releases of Op Systems & Office, but that's a different kettle of fish. MG are involved in satisfying an initial contract of sale; MS merely were changing their product appearance in future releases after (to be fair) resolving all (as far as I can see) major issues with their supported products.

'Not really a problem for software houses'. Hmmm.......... I presume you
don't work in one?

Not wishing to preach, but as a software developer myself, I was trying to put in my 2p's worth from a point of knowledge. This software is highly complex and is made much more so by having to satisfy a bag load of requirements that might (and I emphasise 'might') be best handled in a separate version. It's just a thought - I'm sure in reality, the issues are more complex than any of us realise. ;-)

Marx

All this bitching about DX9 is irrelevant as far as a BETA patch is concerned. It's just the fan-boys looking to slam the whiners, yet these fan boys are happily using a BETA patch which, currently, can't be used by DX9 users!

All 1C need do is release the patch for everyone not on DX9, and then release the combined BETA when DX9 is read for testing.

The ambiguity would highlight problems that the development team aren't letting on about. And whilst I usually think it's pretty low to accuse the team of withholding information, the amount of time they have failed to make their targets due to 'minor issues' would highlight they are incapable of spotting their brief spurts of rain from their tsunamis.

Take a few minutes to read the Russian forums on the DX9 issue. You will find that they are expressing exactly the same sentiments regarding the inclusion of DX9 in which this forum is venting. No difference!

Without empirical data on the Eastern Block usage of computers and operating systems - and the percentage of those that fly CLOD - your comment is just opinion not fact.

The DX9 on the box is however, a legal issue that needs to be dealt with. How it is being dealt with does not appear deemed to be acceptable to either the Western or Eastern countries CLOD forums.

In my opinion, I think that the devs. have reasoned this out and have to select the process that they, with all the information and planning that they have (and we do NOT) are driving the process the best that they can from their perspective.

Just using my mind as you put it. :)

Put off releasing the DX9 patch????? The way I see it last patch significantly improved the game for us DX10 users. DX9er's have been waiting a long time for their promised improvements. Guys this is their time, and from what B6 says, DX10 users should see significant improvements as well.

Get a grip peeps!

I agree.

It seems like you are half-right, half-wrong:

1) Yes, a test, non-mandatory patch can skip a feature or two and focus on what it wants to test.
2) The final patch however cannot and must work towards the inclusion of all features stated/advertised.
3) These feature too have to be tested before release, with a test patch of their own.

That's what the next patch is probably going to be: finalize and test DX10 optimizations, test DX9 optimizations, test FM changes.

It's still going to be a test patch before it goes final.

I think the misunderstanding comes from the fact that many people treat alpha/beta patches as final ones and expect them to be gameplay changers like the final patch is supposed to be, when in fact they are meant to test the final patches. That means possibly doing things in a couple of different ways on each patch and watching for feedback to decide which is eventually best.

In that sense, saying DX9 users are holding us back is totally untrue. It's not them who are doing it. It's the choice of initial user requirements advertised and published that do so, because these requirements have to be satisfied:implemented, tested, finalised and released.


One would need to effectively create a second game more or less, because you can't have separate versions going final: the game is on Steam, so the same final patch is applied to every installation. I think the approach you describe would end up being more time consuming overall.


I agree with the sequence you describe: optimize for the majority first, then optimize for the minimum requirements. Releasing the updates separately however is not possible because of Steam. If you release a final patch that doesn't support DX9, these people simply can't fly online. If they are among the people who make the mistake of letting Steam auto-update everything without asking, then they can't fly offline either because their game will be updated to a DX10 only patch.

That's what i guess is forcing them to release everything in one package. I'm not usually the "i told you so" guy, but the truth is that when some of us were questioning the inclusion of Steam in the whole deal (back in the day, before release) there were people calling us "crankly old luddites" :-P
Well, what we have right now is an exact case of what i had in mind as a limitation that could be brought about by the steam platform.

With every bit of automation, you lose a bit of flexibility and direct control. That's how it is with all things. This community decided to go with automation, so now we don't have the flexibility for separate DX9 and DX10 final patches. It's as simple as that.

Finally, this:

The game has been semi-playable for me even from the beginning and very playable the last few months and i don't even run top of the line hardware (i7 920 @ 2.6Ghz, Ati 4890 1GB, just 3GB of RAM and win7 64 bit).

There are people who BOUGHT the game (like everyone else here) based on the posted system requirements and haven't been able to fly a quarter of the time i have. These are customers too and they are entitled their frame rates just as much as a guy with a quad SLI setup. Spending one's money on hardware upgrades doesn't entitle one to preferential treatment. Spending it on the game however entitles one to using it. It's as simple as that.

And finally, since they say performance will improve for all, what is the problem with it?



This whole thing is reminding me of the discussion i had in the previous update thread. I was talking about a proposed feature for bombers and someone told me to report in on the bug tracker to get results faster. In other words, report a bug when there is none, just to get my way faster.
I told him that a bug is a mistake in implementing something, when the feature is just a proposition in my head there is no bug.

Otherwise i could go around posting things like "bug 1255643: I want the option of taking the squadron's dog mascot in the plane with me when i fly but i can't. We know for a fact that many squads had a mascot, so what gives? Please implement it ASAP". :-P

Can you all see the difference? Dressing up a request for a new feature as a bug, just because the word "bug" carries more urgency?

Well, that's exactly the problem in this community. Whenever something is about to get fixed, impatience takes over and we end up with band-aid fixes because of community pressure. But the problem with those is that all too often in programming, you will have to go back and re-do them (or have problems in the future) because you didn't account for the big picture when designing your solution.

I say let them properly finish everything so that it finally WORKS. You know, instead of getting a whiff of something we like around the corner and going amok, like "i don't care about other customers who are legitimate users of this software and deserve equal treatment to me, just GIMME NAOOOOOOO" :-P




This i can agree with, for things that are relatively simple to fix.

"Dear community, this week we fix all the bombsight, but only the bombsights".

After a few days "A mini-patch will be up on Steam soon, correcting the reversed prop-pitch controls in the 109 and 110".

Things like that which are easy to isolate and test, of course we could have more frequent updates of.

I think the reason we don't see this is that they've been focused on effectively redoing a big chunk of the game itself (graphics engine) instead of smaller fixes on individual modules.

I get where you are coming from.... but... and it's a big but (Insert Sir Mix-a-lot joke here. :D)....

Let's say I was stinking rich and I chose, for whatever reason, to own a family runabout instead of a sports car. I can say, over and over again, how annoyed I am that all my friends are zipping around at 150mph and yet I can, just about, manage 60mph before I start to hear bits of my engine fall off..... but that was my choice, wasn't it? It would be best if I just either a) accepted responsibility for my choice or b) bit the bullet and bought a Ferrari. What I certainly wouldn't do is expect all my sports car owning mates to drive around at 50mph to make me happy.

As a father I have to make all kinds of difficult budgeting decisions (Well.. not difficult per se as, of course, my son comes first every time.).... I can take him to Legoland or I can take him down the local park and, therefore, actually be able to afford food and nappies for the little chap. I wouldn't expect every other parent on the planet, regardless of their income, to never go to Legoland out of some strange sense of totally unearned loyalty to me. :D

I've only got an HD 6770 and 4gb of ram so I'd just like to state just how disgusted I am with all the people on this forum who are playing with high/very high graphics settings! Shame on you, people! Shame on you! ;)

All the above said... I have read, understood and assimilated your post Blackdog and I do see that DX9 users are not holding us back..... my above post is addressed to the DX9 users who seem to think it is excusable or acceptable for them to do so. :D

Releasing a pre-final patch as release version with DX10+ does not change anything right now to DX9 users. Either they can play it now with all the patches already released or they cannot. They'll have to wait anyhow.

However releasing the patch in two steps would allow those 85% of the users with DX10+ support benefit from the improvements. I cannot see one slight inconvenient for the DX9 users if they have to wait a couple of weeks longer just because the others would not have to wait.

It's not as simple as that. Anyone who's done some mildly advanced project management knows that sometimes branching off is a bad mistake. Especially if it's about core features.

If you look at the quality of bug reports you'll quickly understand why. Even oldtimers are sometimes just posting rubbish like "the game isn't faster for me". Wow, what great detail. I bet that really helped finding the cause.

Personally I don't mind waiting a bit longer. It's a damn small game and I expect longer development cycles. Now that they try to post some updates I'm content with what they do. Based on the extremely low income they have from selling the game I guess we can't expect more anyways.

That said - did any of you think of how they actually monetize the game so they can keep developing? Maybe DX9 support is very much needed for a different project. And yes, delaying or slacking on that front could mean going bankrupt. The few tiny sales to IL-2 freaks DO NOT keep this game alive.

Blackdog, you can appear to be quite condescending at times. This is called wasting ten minutes of your life to regurgitate the poster you were quoting from. At no point did Baron indicate that DX-9 users were holding the patch back. In fact, releasing the DX-10 patch for testing would suggest a beneficial move forward in clamping down DX-10 issues, thus being a positive move forward (especially on the premise that the team's 'minor issues' tend to take weeks to sort out)
The fact that the team already released a Beta patch just for DX-10 users negates any suggestion that the two can't be released (in Beta form) separately.

You're right that all the features will need to be tested together

True, he didn't accuse them of holding us back. Someone else suggested so at a previous point in the thread and there seemed to be such a vibe from that point on. Maybe i should have clarified it better.

Anyway, i was referring to the final patch when i said it's impossible to release it separately depending on DX version. As far as testing ones go, we got a DX10 patch already and now we'll be getting a DX9+DX10 one. From where i'm standing it doesn't seem like DX9 is gobbling up that much of their resources, especially if we take in account that the sim has been semi-playable on DX10 for months, but nearly unplayable on DX9 ever since release.

Another thing to note is that most if not all of the effects in the sim are already coded in DX9. Ammunition impact flashes, hit decals, etc...that's the reason they were disabled in the recent test patch: they are DX9 and the patch was DX10 only.
It's probably cheaper and faster to just optimize them than redo them for a different DX version from scratch.

What i'm trying to say is, not many people think about these things and their ramifications. Complaints are justified in a lot of cases but many don't really take the time to actually see if what they are writing is true or even reasonable, or when they do they don't clearly separate truth, personal speculation and logical deduction, they usually just clump them up altogether in a package of arbitrary, personal truth and expect others to accept it.

That makes it hard to convince others, because honestly the first thing that pops to my mind in such a case is "User X doesn't care enough to present his case, so why should i take it for granted without doubting it? Maybe he's just ranting or maybe he's got something, but i'm not convinced either way."

I'm not referring to you by the way, you're generally a reasonable guy to debate with. I'm referring to the same kind of posts madfish (i think it was him?) describes a few posts up.
Cheers ;)

No, we got a DX10 BETA patch. Not a DX10 release patch ...

IMHO: I, along with others, have asked the dev's to post their computer spec's. We were ignored. This leads me to believe, that their systems are
probably XP operated and DX9 based. Which, would explain some of the problems and speed in repairing them, not to mention the necessity, of having DX9 fully functional. This is just my opinion and I mean no harm or insult to anyone.

If the developers systems were DX 9 based, you would think DX 9 would be working better than DX 10. I highly doubt they're using DX9 based systems. Although I wouldn't doubt there are still a large portion of the Russian market still using DX9 systems.

Very reasonable, Blackdog, and sorry I snapped at you before! :grin:

In regards to your last points, the problem with an internet forum is that the moment you take a line (in many cases people see it as black and white; fanboy against 'whiner') the average person's mentality will be to stick to their guns. You have a computer screen as protection and it's very easy to maintain a level of stubbornness within debate. That's what we see everyday on these forums: unreasonable debate from people that, in real life, would most likely understand your own point of view if you were to partake in direct conversation. The element of 'I'm right, you're wrong' underpins all of these topics, and really it is getting repetitive now.

The ambiguity of the game's future and current standing doesn't help, either.

Bottom line is that if the final patch isn't released within a few weeks, and any exciting news isn't published within a month, I can't see there being much interesting debate at all around here.

Another patch update and this came to mind:

http://www.glutenfreecat.com/wp-cont...s-1024x681.jpg