One of the underlying principles of CoD was to be the awesome graphics, fit for the future, even for PCs specs that haven't been developed yet (remember Oleg saying that?). There are already suspicions that the graphics are being dumbed down to open up the game to lower spec PCs so I hope you are all ready for major PC upgrades when WoP immersion is created in CoD graphics and you turn it all on.

Its another subject so please don't take the thread OT but I believe it was a major mistake to target XP and third generation Graphics Cards for running CoD with its intended advanced graphics. 1C should have taken a 'new game-console' approach, 'here it is, if you want to play it buy a bl**dy good PC to run it on'.

I've never really bought into the argument that sees COD's current graphical failings as being due to the unavoidable necessity of balancing out its under-the-hood computational complexity with sub-par or toned down graphics.

This view typically categorises COD as being alone in a class of complexity that far surpasses any other game/sim out there. I'm not sure this is true. But the assumption is never really challenged.

It also assumes that the current graphical issues are due to deliberate intent on the part of the developers rather than being down to error and elements being unfinished - ie the same reasons that have produced problems in other areas of the game as well.

I tend to go for the second argument. I don't believe in the 'necessary trade-off' interpretation.

My PC specs outdo yours in every area and in terms of ram and vram...over double..its not our "bl&&&ly" slow pcs....thank you very much..its the game and all its associated "issues".

Well, I'm not an expert by a long way and I hope you and kendo are right which leaves us with kendo's intimation that they don't know what they are doing. The general indications are that the more powerful a PC you have the more chance you have of running it at a reasonable level, as mine does on High settings with the usual suspects of forest and building detail turned down with SSAO and Grass off. Given Oleg's original words on PC specs I don't expect any more than that.

The general idea from Oleg's days was that they were taking us forward into a depth of realism in simulation and graphics that has not been implemented before in flight simulators. We could look forward to life-like presentations of environent etc.. However they seem to be struggling with basic things like clouds, dust etc.. even pop-up buildings. But was it ever possible to do such truly advanced things in graphics, as Oleg trumpeted, with DX9? As far as I can make out, coping with DX9 is one of the things that has caused them to change direction and is holding CoD back. The definition of 'incredible graphics' is very subjective but if I compare CoD with IL-2 '46 there are definite improvements in much of the graphics, map, underlying Flight Modelling, etc., but I don't see a stunning brave new world because it seems they are choking it back. Where are the fantastic cloud formations? Why is dust such a problem? Come to that, where are the large stutter-free formations? Remember these are all supposed to be better than anything ever seen before which implies complex graphics and the kit to run it. Otherwise, why bother to create something to replace IL_2 '46?

The long drawn out attempt to fix things along with the abandoning of some aspects for CoD definitely gives the impression they have bitten off more than they can chew but as far as hardware is concerned what did we really expect we could run this fantastic new world on? And even if they get it right we were led to believe that the graphics possibilites in CoD could not be fully realised on PCs for 'another ten years' (ok, that was said about 5 years ago).

Still, the bottom line is that the slow progress on fixes, the current state of graphics and the eventual CoD omissions are increasingly depressing.

I suspect it was not until they combined all the improved elements of CloD that they realised it could barely be done.
Much more detailed DM because of 303s
Detailed DM needs detailed engine model
Larger packets to transmit DM info
Tens of thousands of Speedtrees
Complex ground equipment and targets needing DM info in packets
More resolved geometries needing to show damage
Therefore more detailed textures

All these things impact on all the others directly, except the Speedtrees, perhaps the biggest mistake.

56RAF_phoenix

Money makes the world go around...;)

My spend on RoF has been far more than on Cliffs of Dover. RoF offered only two aircraft when I bought it. Since then, I've bought almost every aircraft since and other add-ons, including the Channel map. (Not yet released).

If Cliffs of Dover had been initially releases with only a Spitfire and Me 109 flyable with options to purchase the remaining aircraft, would we now have a more advanced sim?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro

In the other side, there are a lot of people that have not purchase any bit of RoF just because that "pay for every tiny thing you want" payment model. Just like me. But I will pay for BoM as soon as it reaches.

Speedtree is an extremely well optimized package. 1C's implementation of the software seems to just be terrible.

Interesting, I assume you know much more about it than me.
They did claim that nobody used more Speedtrees than CloD, hence their implementation had to be different.
I also remember Oleg's comment that one day graphics cards would have enough memory to hold all the textures, which I presume was a lament that they had to write a texture manager - with 3GB only to play with at 32 bits.
I can also see how the typical UDP packet sizes, without fragmentation, could be an incredible driver for the radius-of-influence engine that seems to be there.

56RAF_phoenix

as they said the game had to be rushed on the market
problems are lying way to deep in the code, that's the way it is
the clean rework is the sequel

i really hope it will be a success, because we won't see anything bigger as a wwII project for decades