I honestly dont care if you are offended or not.

Lets all agree that this game need loads of improvement or their competition will make this game forgotten as the biggest aviation sim fiasko in gaming history...
And that is a shame since I have played Il2 for a few hours a week since 2001 and would love to support 1C.

agreed

Would the critics of Cliffs of Dover prefer that it didn't exist?

In some ways yes, maybe.

(This isn't totally facile and stirring, before some of you run with it as a red flag).

On the one hand it is an attempt to keep the 'detailed' ww2 air combat genre going. But because it was the only game trying to do so in this way, and because it had a famous older brother, then expectations were higher. And were raised by the devs/publishers (whatever is said).

But of course, it also half-realised, badly implemented, poorly sustained, and has a killed a lot of the momentum and goodwill created by the first one, to the point where you have to ask yourself if they would have been better off killing it off before release.

It wouldn't have attracted so much debate and polarising if it had been half-decent.

So 'yes' isn't as facetious as it sounds. Also, the investors and bean-counters might well have a different view of the company and its products, notwithstanding allt he personnel changes and apparent revolving-door staff policy, to say nothing of the sheer ineptitude in many areas - which are ongoing.

In fact, it's all done a great deal of harm in lots of ways, some of it probably quite long term. God only knows of what inesvters/publishers and devs sitting on the side-lines have thought. Has it attracted many of them to the idea of new Titles/publishing models...?

Ben

In the current state, I couldnt care less..
Im waiting for it to look like a 2011 generation game before i come back to it.

To me it looks like very old already. Planes look beautiful but landscape and effects and explosions etc etc are better in il21946 HFSX6.0...

I have to admit that with the latest patch it looks alot niceer with that yellow square around the distance landscape gone at high alt. But honestly thats the least you would expect from game released in 2011.
Ill be back when

.When trees stop flickering,
.shadows stop flickering
.when FMs are correct
.Hit effects look real
.Radiators create drag
.Open canopies create drag.
.We have overcast weather or just the option of some cloud layers
.Radio commands work
.AI has been tweaked
.Net code is fixed so ATAG can have more than 50 players online.
.Stutter is gone (although my 3gb GTX580 might be the issue here)

Not only is radiator drag modelled, it's the basis to the whole overheating problem in the Spitfire 1a 100 octane, Spitfire 2a, and by extension, the Hurricane MK 1 100 octane.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...2&postcount=64

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...2&postcount=72

Agree 100%

I'll settle for the first three and working AA. But after over a year of no joy and the latest long period of silence, I'm not anticipating it to even get to that compromised point. Sorry, wish it were otherwise.

"Hit effects look real?"

What should they look like?

If CoD did not exist we would never ever get a sequel to il2, they needed the money. Imho that's why it was released in such a bad state, it was that or nothing at all I would rather have a buggy game than a few images of what could have been. I have been there before with nexus 2 the Jupiter incident it's not fun :(

So, if they fix everything on that list except "open canopies create drag", you're not coming back? That's pretty funny.

I'll settle for the first three and AA. And I'm not even asking for clouds fix LOL.

And no if they don't fix just one on my list.... I'm out. Not too much to ask I don't think.

Okay so this was the original post.

Weather effects:

2m and 05 Seconds........now that's a thick overcast...that is not a layer of see-through blobs that pop-up everywhere...that's a thick solid layer of cloud!

4m and 59 Seconds.....Diving through that solid layer of overcast to see what is beneath the clouds. I have never seen an overcast sky portrayed this well in any flight sim.

and yes Weather/rain/clouds is part of the main simulation experience I would expect from any flight simulation as it could make the difference between losing a chasing enemy or not seeing them at-all.

Weather needs to be this good if not in CloD then at-least the Sequel?!

Hi Mystic.

I have always enjoyed Your work (flight-sim videos and more). That game, You just showed us, is super immersive, and I have it for the same reason. Arcade or not, it has the best ground & sky graphics ever seen in any flight sim.
To me, CloD seems no where near finished (nor even half finished) and it seems to me, to be a mere halfhearted attemt to update the original il-2 game. And having followed this games development and progression (CloD that is) for almost 7 years now, the missing immersion factors (the game already being outdated by lesser games) in fact sadness me...

DK-nme

Did you completely miss the part where they said they were working on dynamic weather? They obviously understand the importance. However, that does not mean that it's possible at the moment. It may not even be possible for BoM. That does not mean that they don't want to include it.

By the way, Wings of Puke could have the best clouds ever rendered and it would still suck.

Ad infinitum ;)

Jeez David, you sound like a young child in the playground, this is a discussion about weather effects, there is no 'right' or 'wrong', take a step back and have another look at your post.

But it is possible in "Wings of Puke" to quote you. Should I refer to this as "Crap of Dover"? I think not. That would lower myself to your level of immaturity on the point.

I fail to see why you are so blinkered by this 'Simulation' where others are actually achieving what this should easily be capable of?

Why the need to dismiss a piece of software that has actually made use of it's developer's talents and actually created an immersive environment?

David I just don't understand your need to be antagonistic when a point is raised that you disagree with?

Surely someone with any degree of ability would reply in a more mature way?

Why not just say that you installed "Wings of prey" but just didn't like it....and leave it at that? Instead of you go with the inane, immature rant about a pice of software that actually works...at full resolution on low-end systems and has working weather effects?

Nope, here goes David again hijacking the thread so that rather than actually have an opinion on THE EFFECTS mentioned we have to have David's moral high ground that "how dare we compare any effects in any other game to what we have in Cliffs of Dover (see I used the correct name out of respect...it was easy to do you know!) as they must surely be inferior!"

Sorry David....head out of the sand time please.

This thread is about what you actually see in the video. Not the game....the effect! A layer of opaque cloud that you can fly above and below....total immersion!

MP

So what? Wings of Puke is an arcade game running on postage stamp sized maps. Modelling weather on a small map requires considerably different resources from a map that covers a large section of France and England. That seems like it should be pretty obvious.

There was nothing antagonistic about my response. You complained about the weather. I explained that they obviously also considered it to be an important feature. How is that antagonistic?

I think I'll be reinstalling this game, it works. I cant' deal at the moment with the zoom flicker on Clod in dog fights...fix one thing, break another, Clod has been out so long its ridiculous that its still in this state.

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

+1, seeing the big picture.

I have experience with implementing SpeedTree-- indeed.

CloD may be far up there in terms of speedtrees visible at any time-- but not markedly more than say, WWII Online, or even games such as ArmA which use their own proprietary tree & vegetation rendering software.

It is also worth noting that most trees visible in the gameworld at any given moment are instanced 2D Impostors, which have a much smaller impact on performance.

While SpeedTree's do have a performance impact at the levels implemented in CloD-- they should not be the source of performance issues.

Similar video (this one with a P-51). Just look at the terrain and environment. Thick clouds, great lighting on them, buildings with no 'popcorn' textures...

War Thunder:

http://youtu.be/mAkyZ1IFX74

Mysticpuma have you seen this game, awesome graphics!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-k2F...layer_embedded

Now its not all about the graphics is it...

So true.

WT is superior to that arcade game in graphics and every other way. WT is not as good as a finished CoD will be, but it is miles better than that kids toy.

The problem with COD is it's taken far to long to get of the ground. We are 18+ months on and there is still talk about getting the game running stable before they can move onto other fixes :rolleyes:.

Make the game stable after all this time I hear people cry.. Your having a laugh aren't you? WELL AREN'T YOU? All I can say is if it's taken this amount of time to get it running stable, then how longs it going to be before they fix the massive list of bugs they still have? I'll be an old man before this is finished at this rate.

And yet you're still here...

Yes, I agree 18 months is a long period of time for what they have achieved since release. At least they have made some progress. But it is discouraging that it is taking sooooo long. I think it is still possible to fix this thing, but it is getting harder to keep that faith with such incremental steps and such long periods of time.

+1 its quite clear that only a skeleton crew are now maintaining COD, we know what the rest are up to :|

Skyrim?

I don't live in this forum like you David, I visit to see if there's a patch available. I know you live in this forum because you seem to have an answer to everyone that posts a negative comment, I always see you in there arguing the toss. Have you ever thought about becoming a politician?

Yes, you do appear to live in this forum. And you whine constantly, but you are still here. If you want to show the devs that there are consequences for the long time it is taking them to fix the game, leave. That'll teach 'em...

I think you need to take a look at the amount of posts you've made before telling someone else they live in here :grin:

You may think I whine, but I say it as it is. I come here to talk about the state of play from time to time and not to argue the toss with people like you do. God only knows what you'll do when you have nobody to argue with.

18 months - quite a long time. About the time it takes to get a fully-fledged add-on to market. Or a revised graphics run-time and weather/terrain effects, plus a dynamic campaign and weather system, and maybe an extra plane or two, possibly a theatre.

...or how about a Readme for a beta patch?

The thread subject was minimum expectations. I think we have been hovering around minimum expectations for quite a long time. More hovering than a helicopter or Vtol sim.

The sense of determined fantasy and unreality at least now seems to be giving way to a general grudging acceptance of the facts, which is progress of a sort. Soit's not all bad. Hopefully now that various ailments are so apparent, the code-doctors can start the treatment. the quesion is, do they amputate, or try and save what is there? Hence at the moment, minimum expectations....

The Ignore button, now my friend (how many people can it hold?)

Ben

I have about 56 posts per month since joining. You have almost 70. :-P

+ 1

This is an engine and these guys are artists; this is was we were waiting for from CoD.

Also this one is great.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwbm6...layer_embedded

Why....they don't buy this engine or make a joint venture instead of waste their time in this poor code, called CoD?

Graphic is not all, we know, but CoD what's is? Physic? FM? DM? What?

And just a point as-well. GLOdarks video was captured and created with an ati 4850. This is what can be achieved with proper coding in graphics.

I agree that 1c should buy the graphics engine back and then add the cem and updated (dear god please update) fm/dm and ai.

MP

It's also a great example of what can be done with an arcade game, a fact to which you seem to be completely oblivious.

The WT beta I am testing has a sim mode and while not as good as CoD, its pretty good. Its roughly Il-2 1946 quality with better graphics. When CoD is fixed it will be better all round for sure. But right now its not fixed and the graphics need work.

CoD graphics are probably never going to reach arcade quality.

I believe if the new IL-2 survives, it will also have a arcade mode, and a more significant sim mode. But the most important factor will be the IL-2 communities ability to mod/fine tune almost every aspect of the series, including improving terrain, missions/campaigns, etc. In the mean time I will probably log some fun hours with WT.

LOL They will be better than WT when they are fixed.

+1

Nothing wrong with arcade mode as long as there is a descent sim mode.

Looking at the examples I posted....that's a real pity as it's something they could at-least aim for

So I am right that you have lived in these forums longer then me. You have been in here since 2010 :-P. I don't think I will get to beat your score of over 1,127 posts lol.

Note, I added a post on to make it 1,127 because I'm sure you will respond.

That's not what you said. You said that I "live here", not that I've been here longer. Although, I can understand why you'd try to move the goalposts after I showed that you currently post here significantly more than I do.

In any case, why are you still here? Aren't you supposed to be showing 1C that failure has consequences (beyond the annoying noise that is your whining)?

War Thunder graphics and art are MUCH BETTER yhan IL-2:Cliffs of Dover graphics and art.

Simples as that. Arcade, sim, whatsoever...

;)

I thought War Thunder was supposed to be free? I just looked here and it says it's 49.99$ for the starter kit? So it's not free after all? Or am I missing something?

http://yuplay.com/story.php?title=Wa...ic-Starter-Kit

It's relevant? We are talking just about graphics and effects visual and performance. It's not free, of course! :grin:

SOW actually aimed for much more, they were striving for photo-realistic terrain, but it killed frames enough they had to subscribe to Speedtree, and many other frame saving effects. That said this shouldn't always be the case. The game engine was designed to be able to subtract and add features as the computers and sim optimizations improved. One of the first things we will probably see is more advanced water, and maybe someday even the river banks they talked about years ago. At any rate between the mod community and the developers there should be a constant stream of feature updates, if they can ever get the game engine running properly.

I know this is from way back on Page 11, but I think it might have been better had CLOD never existed. (hear me out first before you grab the torches, this is only my opinion)

Cliffs of Dover was hyped as the next great WWII combat sim by Oleg Maddox. The guy made IL2, and it's been the gold standard for the last decade. Everyone who might have considered making an actual WWII air combat simulation (a realistic flight sim) stood back and said, "Oleg is making one, no use us doing the same as nobody is going to buy ours since his is going to be the only one anyone plays for the next ten years.

So (follow with me), maybe CLOD stopped other capable studios from even trying to make a realistic WWII flight sim, instead turning to more "arcade-ish" ones or making a game for another genre. So CLOD, just by existing, could have hindered the WWII flight sim market in that it scared off other similar games as they assumed they could never compete with CLOD.

Also. . .

Since CLOD was made, and has done very, very badly sales wise ( estimated to be around 20,000 copies sold ) other game publishers might now be saying, one of the two. . .

1. "See, this market is dead, and they are never going to make back their money. This game has possibly killed a studio, and might have crippled a publisher. There isn't a market for realistic flight sims, so we shouldn't even bother trying!"

or they might say...

2. "See, I told you that realistic WWII flight sims are too time consuming, difficult and expensive to make. Even Oleg's studio couldn't make a modern one and they made IL-freaking-2 for gods sake! There is no way we could ever make one in a decade if they couldn't even do it in 6 years with millions of dollars! Nope, we're not going to ever try that!"

This is just me playing devil's advocate, but it would be interesting to see if any other studios were planning a new WWII flight sim some time around 2004-5, and then abandoned the idea.

not bad poiny, but see the bright side. it is selling more this year than the last :)

btw that page is strange, it says that il2 46 selled 10k.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo

lol

VGChartz does not track digital distribution. For a game on steam and that has had lots of sales online this is a pretty useless estimate. 1c themselves have said that digital distribution makes up far more than retail (see interviews with CVG for instance).