The Crystal Ball

[robtek]

Originally Posted by Pudfark

Robtek.....do your remarks above apply equally to the link below and it's content?

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=27745

Weell, as those remarks are my opinion, they shurely do, for me.

Btw, have you seen how many claims were proved in this thread?

[JG27CaptStubing]

What an incredible Yawn Fest! Everyone trying to figure out what is happening and some people literally fabricating features to make themselves feel better about the situation... Bottom line is you can only keep a team together so long patching and such before MONEY needs to be made. That ship has sailed a long time ago and now that the product is $12 bucks is very telling.

Like everyone I was looking forward to this title. Too bad it has yet to be delivered.

Sure sure we have a bunch of patches but until some of major items IE Sound Graphics Engine etc are finished this product will remain very limited.

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by JG27CaptStubing

What an incredible Yawn Fest! Everyone trying to figure out what is happening and some people literally fabricating features to make themselves feel better about the situation... Bottom line is you can only keep a team together so long patching and such before MONEY needs to be made. That ship has sailed a long time ago and now that the product is $12 bucks is very telling.

Like everyone I was looking forward to this title. Too bad it has yet to be delivered.

Sure sure we have a bunch of patches but until some of major items IE Sound Graphics Engine etc are finished this product will remain very limited.

I totally agree the sim is unfinished, but the graphics and sound aren't bad, and are still a work in progress. I understand all the problems with off line play, but I actually find missions far more immersive on-line than they ever were with IL-2 1946. Even with all the poor reviews and negative forum posts the development is still working and hiring, so there is still a good possiblility most of the faults will eventually be addressed.

I would hope that people in our very small genre would understand the dilemma, and buy the sim from Steam for 49 bucks, in order that the development had a better chance of surviving. Most of us have enjoyed the original IL-2 for ten years, and the new IL-2 series is the only hope for another ten years of decent WW2 aircombat simming. Or we can teach those B#sturds a lesson for releasing an unfinished product and wait how many years for another developer to do the products we are looking for. Personally I think it will be a very long time as they have become too complicated and expensive to produce.

[Pudfark]

Originally Posted by robtek

Weell, as those remarks are my opinion, they shurely do, for me.

Btw, have you seen how many claims were proved in this thread?

Yeah, I been watching....this DX11 thingy seems interesting...though, I can't see it......yet.

[Icebear]

As for the DX11 discussion I found the following "technical" interview with Oleg Maddon on German PC Games Hardware (sorry for google translation!)

PCGH: What are the graphical highlights of the game? Uses its advanced rendering techniques such as DX11 (shader model 5) FP16 HDR deferred rendering, SSAO or post effects like Tone-mapping, motion blur and depth, etc.?

Oleg Maddox: DX11 is not yet supported in release, yet it is planned to be exploited in future add-on or sequel. In the game engine are many modere (Next Gen) technologies such as FP16 HDR, Deferred Rendering, Screen Space Ambient Occlusion and tone mapping are used. Another special feature is the almost unlimited visibility of more than 1,000 kilometers [note: probably a typo and it's meant 100 km] in clear weather. This is a complex of clouds and weather systems and real-time cloud shadows. Furthermore, there are SFX-shadow, realistic lighting and a 24-hour atmosphere simulation in all altitudes. In addition, the vast game engine supports areas with incredibly detailed landscapes, cities and airports.

Again on DX11. We have a lot of experimenting with the interface and found that the API is still relatively unstable worked. This could be due to the fact that we "cram" more than others did in DX11 games developers. We sometimes had the feeling to push at the other end to a wall and to matters dealt with us that were not ours. Therefore, we set aside the DX11 support, but it's still there, as I write this (note: the interview was conducted in writing). Fans of the series know that we continuously improve our simulations with free add-ons and sequels paid and they can remain confident that we carry the latest technology, accounting, and thus continue to adapt and improve our engine. The basic technology has in fact developed with scalability in mind.

PCGH: Although the sales launch DX11 still not available, you have indeed extended the rendering engine with support for DX10/DX11. How did you proceed?

Oleg Maddox: When programming the engine for Cliffs of Dover, we have no parts of the older IL-2 engine used again. The old engine was still based on Java and C + + code, the new version in C # and C + + programming. It supports OpenGL and DirectX 9 were initially, but OpenGL abandoned and replaced by DX10/DX11. From now on we use almost anything in DX10 and DX10.1 feature on our list and also have a DX11 code in beta, and unfortunately, it is unlikely that may be finalized until the release.

So there you have it, it does not work.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Tree_UK

So there you have it, it does not work.

Sorry, hard to keep up with your flip-flops..

So, first you said it does not work
Next you edited your post and said it does work
Next you said it does not work
Next you said it does work
Now your back to saying it does not work

Wheuuu.. again sorry, hard to keep up with all those changes in less than 20min.. Think Ill wait a few more min to see where you end up on this issue.. Kind of entertaining watching you flip flop!

[Icebear]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

Sorry, hard to keep up with your flip-flops..

So, first you said it does not work
Next you edited your post and said it does work
Next you said it does not work
Next you said it does work
Now your back to saying it does not work

Wheuuu.. again sorry, hard to keep up with all those changes in less than 20min.. Think Ill wait a few more min to see where you end up on this issue.. Kind of entertaining watching you flip flop!

[robtek]

Originally Posted by Icebear

Nobody wanted to know what you look like

[Insuber]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

Sorry, hard to keep up with your flip-flops..

So, first you said it does not work
Next you edited your post and said it does work
Next you said it does not work
Next you said it does work
Now your back to saying it does not work

Wheuuu.. again sorry, hard to keep up with all those changes in less than 20min.. Think Ill wait a few more min to see where you end up on this issue.. Kind of entertaining watching you flip flop!

This reminds me of the old joke of the 2 cops in their car, the driver asks to his colleague to check if the blinker works, the other sticks his head out and says: "now it works, now it doesn't, now it works, now it doesn't, now it works ..." and so on ...

Ehi just smile a little more, mates!