Stable Patch or Features/Content Poll

[Redroach]

I can't vote because the option that should receive at least 95% of the votes is not there: "both."

Originally Posted by Redroach

I can't vote because the option that should receive at least 95% of the votes is not there: "both."

what he said ! +1

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by Ze-Jamz

personally my performance now is OK but as a whole community wise

Performance/stability
FM corrections
Added content

Pretty much runs ok for me too, on a two year old PC no less, but i'll go along and agree with this, even adding a couple more:

1) Performance/stability

2) FM/DM corrections if and where they are needed

3) Gameplay related issues like the gyrocompass on the Ju88 or the inconsistent control logic between different aircraft: should our controllers correspond to a function of the in-cockpit controller (enrich mixture) or a position (mixture lever forward, whatever that means for the plane you're flying)?
Currently it's one way in some aircraft (eg, the in the G50 you move the throttle forward for more power and the in-cockpit animated throttle moves back like it was in the real fighter, the game controller corresponds to a function/effect) and the other way in others (the mixture lever on all RAF aircraft is reversed and we have to use it the same way, in this case mixtur commands correspond to the lever positions and depending on how these levers are set-up in the aircraft we get the final effect). It's also completely mixed up in some, like the Tiger Moth and the DH-prop Hurricane.

4) Amended Documentation to teach people what to do with those gameplay features.
There's a bunch of stuff that people cry "bug/broken/etc" about, which are actually realistic limitations of the aircraft and intentional features.

True, people bring all their IL2:1946 gaming habits and expect the new thing to work the same, but we can't really blame them when documentation doesn't go a bit more in depth on the main points of interest that generate most of the confusion.

What we can blame them for is not searching the forum for previous answers and not ever testing anything for themselves, this is appropriate and acceptable

5) Extra content


There's no real reason to have extra content before the current content works as intended. The majority of players can't manage a radial engined aircraft or level bomb yet or change skins or save loadouts, etc etc....if they could, they would be busy enough enjoying what's there and this would buy the devs the needed time to work on more content.

Let's fix and document what's needed to have the complete list of currently available aircraft operating in they way they should be, then we can start adding more stuff.

[Redroach]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

4) Amended Documentation to teach people what to do with those gameplay features.
There's a bunch of stuff that people cry "bug/broken/etc" about, which are actually realistic limitations of the aircraft and intentional features.

True, people bring all their IL2:1946 gaming habits and expect the new thing to work the same, but we can't really blame them when documentation doesn't go a bit more in depth on the main points of interest that generate most of the confusion.

What we can blame them for is not searching the forum for previous answers and not ever testing anything for themselves, this is appropriate and acceptable

I agree on that. While there probably should be an aircraft basics manual, as one was included in Il-2 1946 (there are only a few planes in CoD, though; maybe some wise member of the community could provide one, like Corsican Corsair did with 1946 ), I've given up hope on a mature community as well.
So, additional info would be a plus; one could imagine that half of the "bug!!!!!11" - threads would be gone with plane specialities/limitations being explained somewhere.
On the other hand, it seems that maybe half of the community isn't willing/unable to read those things up, even when consolidated in such a manner, and head straight for the forums->create new thread - route.

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by Redroach

On the other hand, it seems that maybe half of the community isn't willing/unable to read those things up, even when consolidated in such a manner, and head straight for the forums->create new thread - route.

Well, that's certainly part of the problem, but improved documentation will solve it: if the information is provided (heck, even put a link to it on the main menu in the game interface, or have something like an in-game "encyclopedia") we can all start replying with "RTFM"

Game runs great for me and I have NEVER had the sound issue so many complain about. I vote for extra content since I'm a selfish person who only wants a p-47 or 51 in multiplayer.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Redroach

I can't vote because the option that should receive at least 95% of the votes is not there: "both."

Agreed, although if there was an option for total bug elimination, I'd go for that.

Sound bugs, stripes of land in the water bugs, stripes of water in the land bugs, props hidden by clouds bugs, big mauve rectangle in the landscape bugs, clouds and their shadows flickering annoyingly bugs, grass poking through your wing bugs, white dots from vehicle locations showing through your plane bugs, and bugs , bugs, bugs etc.

Oh, and an option to hide info boxes without deleting them altogether, because I did this and even if I reconfigure them all and save, they don't reappear on relaunching the game. But then I could've missed something.

[JG14_Jagr]

Originally Posted by Redroach

I can't vote because the option that should receive at least 95% of the votes is not there: "both."

Not really. Based on previous polls, 90% of the people are getting stability, and performance. 10% of the people are having issues but are obviously the vocal minority. Its not abnormal, if I don't have problems I'm less inclined to log in to say what ISN'T happening while if I have an issue I look for the solution online. The people who have had performance AND stability all along want to see content and FM work done.

[Redroach]

Yes really. By now, I'm somehow fed up with beta-testing and, judging by the current pace of fixing things, then fixing the two things the fix caused, then....; it'll be at least another year, emphasis on "at least", that all the major bugs and flaws in the FMs are sorted out - and I won't even talk about minor things like the MIDI(!) menu music playing its single(!) MIDI(!) track at random.
So imo, if the sinking ship is to be re-floated, they should kick out their developers who can't code/confuse left vs. right A-S-A-P, hire new guys wo CAN code, work up the botched codebase and get things going ffs!
So, if the game isn't gonna be awesome in record time, both in terms of bugfixing/FM fixing AND content, they can play big-scale domino with their shiny Battle of Moscow Add-on packagings, as far as I am concerned.