Interestin g (and quite old) article about optimising for multi-core here:

http://techreport.com/articles.x/11237

I'm curious about this because it seems like a key to the games longevity, if it doesn't scale well past 4 cores, then long term increases in performance are going to be hard to come by - clockspeed improvement has ground to a halt, it seems that per-core optimisation of CPUs must be coming more difficult - so future improvements in CPUs will mostly be in number of cores.

You dont know ****, ever make a comment that says something or ****.
I have not seen one cogent counter argument as to why they are bottlenecking the game, IL2 was 10 years ago so dont ** me with that, computers now are hundreds of times more powerful.

Do you really need to be so agressive and offensive to share your ideas?????Wow.

Does he really need to post a comment thats sole purpose is an insult and that does not expresse anything but the said insult?

There was no insult, if you really felt it was one, try to keep the niveau.

Yes, it is changeable. You open the missions in the mission builder and add more planes. If you can't do this yourself, someone will doubtless release a version of the scripted campaign with more aircraft within days of launch.

The number of aircraft in the official campaign is almost certainly an attempt to make sure that if someone has a computer that fits the specifications on the box, they will actually be able to play through the game they paid for, instead of being limited to puttering around in the QMB with a handful of aircraft.

Totally understandable, scalibility is a must (until end of last year I was running a core 2 duo 5 year old comp). This is the problem: 1. You develope a game for a wide audience, and you develope it with a timeline in mind, this means you dont make the gave to the lowest common denominator say 25% of the market in 2010 when it will be released mid 2011 and be continously worked on for years. You target the mid range which is the quad market (now the majority holder for cores at over 35% I believe).
Now irrespective of that, we keep hearing about this "cpu cap", where is this coming from? Says who? Did the devs specifically say CPU power is the problem? Why does this game or IL2 have problems with CPU when much much more complex games (interms of cpu function) can do far more than this game does on the same CPU?
Over that all the stutering and problems we have seen are due to GPU/Ram over land and such, nothing ever to indicate it was "cpu based".

So due to this they should develope the campaign for the mid range market, because in a few months time/1 year the current mid will be the low...

Exactly.

There's no reason why the team can't add more campaigns or an expanded version of the current one in a patch later down the line.

Of course, if a dynamic campaign is added at some point, then the devs will be able to re-evaluate how many aircraft can be put up, or maybe follow the suggestions here and add an option for players to set the maximum number of aircraft.

Given a functional mission builder and there being no limit hard coded into the sim, initial unit numbers are probably one of the least important parts of scalability.

Sorry, but you're comparing apples and peanuts. If you really can't see the different requirements of a game engine for a strategy game like the TW series and what's needed for a flight sim, then why even bother. Superficial observations like "they have 56.000 AI units at once" are hardly useful for that. Although flight sims do of course suffer from their small market niche in the sense that due to the small budgets, far less development time can be spent on optimizing various aspects or playing around with the latest GPU gizmos. That should be obvious, especially as all sims since 15 suffer from that. But it's only part of the equation.

And how would that help the anyone with minimum spec systems who want to play the game now, and not in a year when they might buy a new computer?