Is CoD going to be patched to a 'final state' ?

[Stublerone]

@jf1981 and to the whole com: In graphic issues, please never compare it to the actual fps games, because it is like comparing a truck with a race car.

I hope you know, that a new fps game is getting smaller and smaller viewing distances to get the graphics managed. Viewing distance = always fps killer. And we are talking about distances 100 times more than in crysis. Just to add that fact to your comparison.
Games with high viewing ranges and large areas nowadays uses streaming engines, which are still not as sufficient than normal engines. I dont know any game with large areas and imressive details, graphics and viewing range combined in a fully satisfying performance. It is simply very difficult.

To you question: Never! -» also because there will be always new features, which will requested and which will cause new relations between the features -» new bugs and new fixing!
I will be glad to get a stable version for everyone and with corrected flight models and many possibilities for the com to generate fun!

[6S.Tamat]

Originally Posted by Stublerone

@jf1981 and to the whole com: In graphic issues, please never compare it to the actual fps games, because it is like comparing a truck with a race car.

I hope you know, that a new fps game is getting smaller and smaller viewing distances to get the graphics managed. Viewing distance = always fps killer. And we are talking about distances 100 times more than in crysis. Just to add that fact to your comparison.
Games with high viewing ranges and large areas nowadays uses streaming engines, which are still not as sufficient than normal engines. I dont know any game with large areas and imressive details, graphics and viewing range combined in a fully satisfying performance. It is simply very difficult.

actually the fps killer is not the distance, is the amount of polygons rendered. a space simulation can be very fast, also if the galaxy is far far away.

[Redroach]

Originally Posted by 6S.Tamat

actually the fps killer is not the distance, is the amount of polygons rendered. a space simulation can be very fast, also if the galaxy is far far away.

Ah, that was A long time ago...
*scnr*

[6S.Tamat]

Originally Posted by Redroach

Ah, that was A long time ago...
*scnr*

;D ahhhh good times!

[Force10]

At this point, COD has just made us all alpha testers for the BOM engine. All this attempted patching is just for the next project since it will be using the same engine. Better simulating the Battle of Britain will be up to the modders if a SDK ever comes out.

[Tone71]

Originally Posted by Force10

At this point, COD has just made us all alpha testers for the BOM engine. All this attempted patching is just for the next project since it will be using the same engine. Better simulating the Battle of Britain will be up to the modders if a SDK ever comes out.

I agree. It was a kick in the teeth when I heard they were working on BOM, considering the state CloD is in AND we're going to have to shell out again to play what CloD should have been in the first place.
As much as I loved IL-2, I won't be falling into the IL2, Forgotten Battles, Ace expansion, Pacific fighters, IL-2 1946... trap again.

[skarden]

How many times does the division of labor for a software development company have to be explained before it sinks into peoples heads, it has been explained at least a dozen bloody times and people still pull the "oh I can't believe that their working on BOM when COD is........blah blah blah"