Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover

IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover Latest instalment in the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik series from award-winning developer Maddox Games.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-08-2011, 06:35 PM
robtek's Avatar
robtek robtek is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,819
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DogTailRed2 View Post
Many thanks to everyone for making this an interesting and lively thread.
My system is a reasonably decent set-up......

>>>>That is, imho, your first and most important misconception.

Quad core 2.33. 4 gb RAM. GTS 250 1gb RAM. 500gb RAID 0 striped discs for speed. Win 7 64bit.

>>>>>>That was "decent" in 2009.

While I appreciate that is not state of the art it should be able to cope with the basics the sim has to offer. My sliders are set at medium settings. If I go much lower then I just end up with IL2 in quality..........

>>>>>>The devs mentioned before release that CoD would run on actual high-end
>>>>>> systems in med settings. It does much better!

........There's not even any stirring music as you engage the enemy and those splash screens are decidedly eastern front in look and feel. ...........

>>>>>>This is no Playstation game.

........When I fly FSX with the A2A Spitfire. 3 pumps on the primer. Firing the coffman starter and waiting for temps to rise, or checking the trolly acc is attached.......

>>>>>>OM didn't want to make a "procedure-sim", though i would like this also.

........ Looking down on an accurate depiction of England........

>>>>> Compared with some google-earth - shots, we have that already.


.........When I fly COD over a stuttery unrecognisable sudo English landscape to do battle with a gaggle of, very nicely rendered, 6+ Stukas, in my Yak50 (well, that's what it sounds like and not very good at that)..........

>>>>>>stuttery -> see my first remark, sound could be better.though.

........ Opening the throttle wide and then wondering if i'm actually accelerating at all........

>>>>>>There are Instruments, you know.


......But it's not going to be an accurate depiction of the Battle of Britain. No watching the fuel gauges for the 109's. No feeling of being outnumbered for the Spitfires. No scrambles or climb to battle and being bounced for the Hurri's. No late evening patrols in murky weather and trying to find base

No Polish `flying circus` shouting "Repeat please" over the RT..........

>>>>>>How can you possibly know that? Timemachine? This sim isn't finished yet!



Regards,

Dog.
I just had to comment.

regards

robtek
__________________
Win 7/64 Ult.; Phenom II X6 1100T; ASUS Crosshair IV; 16 GB DDR3/1600 Corsair; ASUS EAH6950/2GB; Logitech G940 & the usual suspects
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-08-2011, 08:04 PM
Blackdog_kt Blackdog_kt is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TacKY View Post
That's what it is suppose to be.... It never said that it was a WWI sim. At the moment, ROF is better. We aren't talking about two years ago but now. IL 2 is simply a buggy, horrible game and unless something changes soon then it is going to stay that way. And dont even start on that "Hurr Durr our computers can't handle its complexity Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerp" It's the Devs job to to make it work correctly not ours.
I have no problem with people having an opinion different to mine and i could certainly sympathize with your point of view if you had taken some care to apply the same standards of judgment to both sims.

It seems that too many people expect CoD to be an all-encompassing battle of Britain simulator, but RoF you say is not supposed to model WWI and only needs to focus on the aircraft. Oh really? So why shouldn't CoD be allowed to do the same?

A two year old sim that focuses on a conflict with a more or less completely static frontline on a single map (plus seasonal texture variations) can't give you the complete WWI experience of a single year of that conflict, due to a severely limited choice of units to use as "actors" in recreating those WWI scenarios and this is just what's common knowledge and a direct consequence of its subject matter (less complicated aircraft, weapons, systems, etc). I'm not even mentioning the design complaints and limited engine capabilities reported by people who actually have the sim.

Two years on it seems that RoF still gets a pass for being developed by an upstart team, while all the judgmental attitude is reserved for the IL2 series. It's fine by me to have strict and high standards, as long as you apply them equally to all games you review and at similar points during their life. If you want to compare CoD with RoF, compare them at release. CoD has more flyables, more AI units and more stuff to do because the subject matter is more complex by nature, yet it's cheaper to own and improve on and with less restrictions on how you can play your game.
Does the much touted dynamic campaign of RoF work in offline mode? I don't think it does, in fact the only thing you can do offline is fly single missions and scripted campaigns which is (ding ding ding!) exactly what CoD has and with a more or less comparable amount of flyables but most importantly, a much more varied selection of AI units and the ability to use a lot of them in a mission to help enrich the scenarios we want to recreate.

I'm not telling you not to like it, i have been tempted to give it a go myself on various occasions. However, the way they develop and grow that sim is completely incompatible to what i expect from a simulation while on the other hand, the IL2 and CoD approach is much more suited to my taste-->long story short, it's a matter of taste too.

What i'm trying to say is that today's RoF is nothing like the early days, but if we go by that line of reason that says "the only thing that matters is a comparison in the present", then RoF must have been pretty awful too in its early days because IL2 was so much more complete, optimized, hassle-free and with tons of content.

As you can see, this school of thought only serves to create a skewed perspective, is not fair to any of the games/sims reviewed under such a "rule system" and completely denies any possibility of innovation in the genre. Why? Because if we compare sims with such a mind-set the older one will always win and there will be no room for anything new.

RoF was worse than CoD upon release (not to mention the original IL2) so if people had compared it to IL2 the same way you now compare it to CoD, the verdict would be that it didn't have the right to even exist. And if people thought like that, it wouldn't have improved to become the much better sim that it is today. See where this is getting?

All this is like taking a look at a litter of newborn puppies, deciding they are useless and opting to drown them in a pond instead of letting them grow, only because you can't go hunting with them just yet
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.