This IMO, is part of the problem. Competition is a good thing for customers more often than not. When there is no competition, customers usually get more of a "minimum" effort in a lot of ways because they have fewer options.

There is no competition because no major company is willing to develop complex sims that are far to expensive to make, in a genre far to small to make any serious money. Microsoft, Rowan, etc etc have left the building, The A2A Simulations have left the work to the mod team, have dropped development of sims and have concentrated on making aircraft for FSX. Gaijin is making combatsim light. Studio 777's ROF is barely making enough profit to stay solvent. Its highly doubtful that a major company will come along unless they have a ready built game engine that can easily be converted to a complex WW2 aircombat sim. The only people stupid enough to make these sims are enthusiasts and they are hard to find with the knowledge and cash need to develop one, like Oleg Maddox.

Oleg Maddox didn't run away with the code, he just couldn't get the job done in the time required, and knowing his perfectionism, there is no way he wanted the sim released this unfinished. He either stepped back and gave Luthier the helm or he was forced back, by the investors.

These sims are so complex the setbacks grow exponentially.

I think the issue is as presented by Luthier.
Just tried for to much. And instead of the absolute shame and loss to all of us of them walking away from it, they have come up with a mechanism to keep the thing going forward and give us the chance of having a growing game to play for years to come.

I look forward to supporting it.

+1

LOL very funny

How can they not be solvent if "RoF is celebrating its inclusion in the Top 100 PC Games of All Time by PC Gamer magazine." (From Jason's Youtube account that I subscribe)

If the case is they are barely solvent and RoF is in the top 100 PC games of ALL time, then what does that say about the market for flight sims? Something to think about?

I've been saying this for a few years prior to the release of CoD. We are in a renaissance in the FS community. I'm beginning to wonder with the high cost and low profit incurred while developing a flight sim, will we be experiencing an extinction of our hobby?

almost certainly....but if we give it a chance we can have at least 1 good one for the next 10 years

Well to be fair, being included in a Top 100 list doesn't mean it's a commercial success. Look at Bioshock, number 34 on that list, it was a critical darling but didn't sell very well on the PC. The middle market of gaming is almost dead, a market which flightsims belongs to. Triple A titles and indie games are the only ones profitable and a lot is owed to development costs. Imagine if MG made an Angry Birds clone, minimal R&D and maximum profit, times has changed and the economic monster doesn't care about our itsy bitsy little flightsim hobby. If it's not profitable, it will die, playforfree seems to be the way to go in order to attract new audiences, you give people a little taste and if they like it they may have the rest of the dish.

P.S All IMO and a bit off-topic...saaweee! :)

Yes OT.....but at least it's been relatively civilised

ROFL, excellent one Hiro, thanks, I needed that bit of laugh! :)

Gents, I have a problem wih "sit tight and wait", not because I am impatient but because I do not have the feeling that the internal processes at 1c are working towards the right solution.
Obviously, "Who am I to judge on 1c's internal processes, I have no idea what is going on there": I am just a paying customer!
Before getting this discussion to new levels of flaming hell, the only point I want to make is that we are giving feedback on the various bugs for over three months now (since 17.Oct.2011; http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=27168 v1.05.15950 PATCH BUG THREAD ) and I have hardly seen anything coming back from 1c!
Neither on the level of completion (of the bugs) nor on the level of bugs worked upon.
The only reason I buy this sim is because:
a) it is WWII (otherwise I would be flying DCS A-10 which I own but, do not fly)
b) it is difficult (complex)
c) it is precise (as near to the "real thing")
d) (needless to mention, but I do) multiplayer
While the overall result is worthwhile seeing, the "precision" part still needs work. And 1c's defiance to put in place a transparent process of how they are progressing fixing the technical and flight model bugs is a "mortal sin" for me (as a "paying customer").

It is nice to see "colorful pictures" of an I-16, last time we were shown a preety picture of an IL2 (surprised we did not see anything new about that one this time), a nice 3D screenshot of the game and last a boy playing the "balalaika" but, looking at the future is one thing; I am more interested to see what is done to fix the existing!

As said before, I will buy the sequels anyway, I always buy one or two of them so, no need to worry about me ;) This is the only way to ensure that 1c has a constant stream of revenue, I respect it (as said, I am a paying customer) and I see nothing bad in it.
The only thing that makes me sad is that on average I invest 1000-1500 USD every year on PC hardware but only 40-50 USD on 1c. So 1c gets the most of the "heat" but in reality the guys who profit most from 1c's work is the hardware PC industry... :(

To those who may want to jump in on the moto "I paid for a working game" I will say, we got more than that, we got a unique simulation, probably too unique for the existing hardware generation. Anyway 1c does not charge us again for fixing the current game.

~S~

I agree, it's crazy how little we have to pay for the software in comparison.

In terms of progress....I'm also looking forward to them tweaking the FM, CEM etc. as that is my thing. I know they are working on FM fixes but my guess is that the massive graphics rewrite is absorbing much of the effort and they are wanting to nail that one before focussing more on the things that matter to me.

I hope after this next patch we can start seeing a lot of loose ends being tied up by the team, making a more polished product.

I would say this falls under the heading of 'playability'. It is the lack of 'playability' and 'it doesn't feel like the Battle of Britain' that is keeping some of my friends away.

Yes, CoD is playable and I am really enjoying it because there is just enough available to keep my love of virtual 'flying' and 'combat opportunities' engaged but the kind of campaign Blackdog_kt is describing will bring a lot more palyability and 'feel' to what is at present a workable but slightly flat combat simulation.

An interesting angle is that Microsoft haven't left the building but they have redecorated substantially. Read this while you consider why 1C are having so much trouble with CoD ...
http://flyawaysimulation.com/news/43...osoft-studios/
You will see that MS are targetting the 'Gamesters', including their addiction to game pads or playing with a mouse so no 'simmimg' investment would be required. It seems it will have a limited free environment/terrain and planeset all of which can be added to by purchasing and with a gaming style of 'rewards' if they use the Windows Live aspect and there will be 'missions'. I suspect the Flight Models will be very good, probably with 'easy/gamer' settings and I expect they will be successful in selling it as a 'game' that is simple to install and run and it may even draw 'gamers' into our ranks of 'simmers'.

Now many CoD players may not want that 'gaming' style of play but 1C seem to have been positioning themselves for the gaming market with, as Oleg explained, a switch from OpenGL to DirectX for porting across to other platforms. That is, in the opinion of a number of posters here, what threw a large spanner into the works and accounts for 'why doesn't it look like it did in Oleg's early previews?' which were perhaps rendered in OpenGL.

So, MS's primary market looks to be the Gamer not the Flight Simmer, hopefully ensuring a financial success, whilst 1C appear to be doing it the other way around by catering to its established 'simming' market before moving to game patforms.

I am from China

很关心IL2 COD，

有几个问题想问下，

first :什么时间出 IL2 COD的服务器版？

second: IL2COD下一个版本应该是 64位。

lanling 请使用在线翻译
Online translation:
Very concerned about the IL2 COD, there are several questions to ask next, first: what time of IL2 COD server version? second: IL2COD the next version should be 64.

Yes agree...I remember Oleg talking of this utopia, where knocking out a generator, or a rail line and all the associated ramifications...that's game play!!:grin:

Try to think for others too, for a change. Most ppl have various performance issues (usually when effects are near, more planes in dogfight etc.). Including me. You have very powerfull rig and not all of us can afford that (latest quad cores and SLI systems with latest GPUs). OK my rig is pretty decent (i7920 OC to 3.5Ghz, GTX470 TF2 OC to 800 Mhz on core, 6GB DDR3 working at app. 1333Mhz.) but stil have very noticable fps drops (slowdowns) when effects are near (dust, explosions, fire from my engine etc.). Yes, Ive been a beta tester, have a long history dealing with games and software optimisations and I did everything I could to optimise and speed up my PC. I gained smoother game after that but like I said its still very slow on some occasions. And I dont want to play this sim on low to med video settings (just to gain more speed) because then its not CLOD but some outdated sim. I suppose most folks ("ofliners" and "onliners") have even less powerful rigs than mine. Im not saying I cant play this sim but the optimisation of the core engine should be their main task. For now. Later they can deal with FM fixes. Im all for that. With time ppl will upgrade their rigs and with upcoming optimisation of the core we all should be able to play this without (big) issues.

I am from Chinese

I am concerned about the next version of IL2 COD.

Efforts to improve the next version to the following questions.


First: I hope that is 64-bit

Second: To improve the number of video game screen

Third: To optimize the graphics for example: NVIDIA AMD

Fourth: to give up now version IL2COD

The next version of IL2 COD can be independent of the current version of IL2 cod

The current version of IL2 COD model can be completely moved to the next version

Because these modeling has been very mature friends.

Including injury, ballistic

Nope, wish I did though. I'm in the same boat as you Tvrdi and have to run at 1280 (or something like that) on mainly low settings.

I have an i7 920 2.66Ghz but only 2GB memory and an ancient GeForce GTS 250 1GB card - and running XP too.

I think you misunderstand me....I definitely support them fixing the core performance issues with the graphics rewrite - it will benefit me a great deal I hope. I was just pointing out that the big list of outstanding issues that they appear to be ignoring is probably due to them wanting to get the core fixed first.

Oleg is still with us...
 

Hey I saw such 3D models of planes here before.....

Man... it is just not possible, mkay? Nobody knows what really happened prior to Oleg farewell, but something HAPPENED, and since that time all screenshots look different and result is what you got. It looks like all new things were deleted and poor Luthier had to start over with empty table and unfeasible deadlines and incompetent workforce.

But... not my problem anymore. Reading it here just because of nostalgy, and just to see the SIGNS again, even here, how everything is going to hell...

One more thing to react...

Someone pointed out that WWI planes are so primitive that it is possible to simulate them better and quickly, and WW2 planes are so complicated with their CEM and other stuff, that it takes years...

What about DCS A-10? If your argument is correct, we should not be able to fly it, because it would be still in development... (MG spent already 7 years on WW2). Based on your argument, I would expect simulator of A-10 around 2035...

Ahh I think I mistaken u with some other guy...TBH Im at 1920x1200 (was at 1680x1050 before)...Like I said game runs fine on my system as long as theres no effects near or sometimes when the more planes are in low level dogfight...or when memory "leaks"....

The game seems to run the same on my XP 64 bit vs. my W7, so I think you can move W7 to the bottom of your to do list. In your case getting a 2 gb card would give the most immediate benefit, followed by cpu then the memory...but the 2gb card may be enough for you to be content for awhile:grin:

TBH particle effects have always had a hit on most systems for most games, my modest machine runs everything I have well on max but it will slow down when smoke effects and dust etc are there.

Im not talking about minot slow down. It becomes a slideshow as soon as I look into the ball of fire or into the dust.....Sometimes it gets a bit slower (spec. over cities or when more planes are near)....memory issue? CPU core utilization? I hope the game will utilize all the CPU cores and memory as it should so well see some smoother gameplay...

OK, see ya.

No worries mate.

Thanks SlipBall....I'll definitely be getting a new card soon but I'm hoping for a bit of a price fall when the new models come out.

My XP is 32 bit so I might still benefit from a windows upgrade.

I won't be spending much before the patch comes out though.

Cheers.

I am from Chinese

IL2 COD 下一个版本 battle of moscow

必须是64位

battle of moscow 必须与现在的IL2 COD的版本不兼容

现在版的IL2 COD的建模、损伤、弹道 可移到64位

的新版本中。

不应该有问题。

IL2 COD next version of the battle of moscow

Must be 64-bit

battle of moscow must now IL2 COD version is not compatible

Current version of the IL2 COD modeling, damage, trajectory can move to 64-bit

The new version.

There should be no problem.

中止.....我们知道

沒有我不知道中國，谷歌翻譯是非常� �用的

Blackdog,

Your post regarding what you wanted in a dynamic campaign concerning airfield fuel supplies prompted me to check the ROYAL AIR FORCE WAR MANUAL, AIR PUBLICATION 1301 for the period; part II covers organisation and administration. It covers many things, including policy to be followed for reserves of supplies (inc fuel) and ammunition. Chapter XV states:

"The main reserves of supplies and ammunition are held in depots. Owing to the bulky nature of supplies and the vulnerable nature of ammunition and fuel, only a limited amount of these commodities is held by units. A definite amount of supplies and ammunition is normally in transit between depots and units, and this may be regarded as a further reserve. In principle, in addition to the complete or partly expended day's requirements held at units, there will be two day's full supplies in transit beween the railhead and the unit. This two day's supply may in certain cercumstances be kept on wheels or may be dumped at a convenient place."

From this, it would appear that as one would expect, fuel and other supplies are constantly being delivered by trucks and tankers, not necessarily in convoy. I suspect that the location of a tanker on the road or the location of a "convenient place" will rarely be known in advance by the enemy.

The publication is very interesting and covers many things, including reserves of aircraft in the field and reserves of engines in the field and even such things as pay and claiming marriage allowance. On a sober note, it also covers how graves are to be prepared and marked and states that "the burial of the enemy's dead and the marking of their graves will be carried out in the exactly the same way as for our own troops, a seperate cemetery or plot in a cemetery being used."

As for a dynamic campaign for CloD, I think it should not be made too complicated.

Happy landings,

Talisman

I meant that Microsoft has left the aircombat sim market. I've been following Microsoft Flight and it does sound interesting, but its of little interest to the combat flight sim market. I suppose if the tools are there it could be combat modded, but that never really happened to any of the previous FS sims.

Part of Oleg Maddox original plan was to have the new IL-2 series more accessible to modders and the flight sim market in general. They hoped to take some of the general aviation market. This still appears to be the case if and when they have time to finish and release the SDK and more community tools, ie, the Map making tool. Atleast it shouldn't be to hard to convert from an aircombat sim to general aviation sim if the game engine is capable of providing the necessary feartures.

True Chivas. It was more a comment on the way the game market has gone, how MS have moved away from the strictly aviation-geek-build-my-cockpit market to the gamers and how 1C seem to have recognised that market change when they were well down the development road of OpenGL CoD. That could have led them into a large hole and loss of the quality they had forecast using OpenGL. I think it wasn't a case of someone stealing the code but rather the jump to DirectX would explain the sudden drop off between forecast product and what was delivered. But even so, I'm only surmising.


btw I understand there will be no SDK for Flight, it will remain firmly under the control of MS. I wonder.... with it's SDK could CoD/SoW/whatever be stretched across to the civil world of aviation and take over where FSX left off? Now there's a thought.

I agree and was disappointed when i heard that the sim was going to use DX, as I prefered the quality of Open GL. I presume DX is a better medium for the market. MS Flight not providing an SDK is good news for the new IL-2 series, to gain market share inroads in the civilian aviation market.

Just to through a spanner in the works, I saw over a SimHQ forums a P-51 was added to Eagle Dynamic's A-10 simulator. Don't know if it's in a patch or a mod, I can't access SimHQ forum from work.

Are they also going to take a stab at the WW2 genre?

S!

The P-51D is part of the Flying Legends series they are doing for DCS. Not affecting the main work with modern jets etc. but a private venture by some members as I read it. Will include other planes too, but no types announced yet I think.

I really don't understand switching to DX for "porting" ability considering OpenGL IS cross platform (ms,mac,linux)

"As John Carmack said when asked if Rage was a DirectX game, "It’s still OpenGL, although we obviously use a D3D-ish API [on the Xbox 360], and CG on the PS3. It’s interesting how little of the technology cares what API you’re using and what generation of the technology you’re on. You’ve got a small handful of files that care about what API they’re on, and millions of lines of code that are agnostic to the platform that they’re on." If you can hit every platform using OpenGL, why shoot yourself in the foot by relying on DirectX?"

MG would have been better off continuing with the OpenGL for the initial release and then taken there time/testing a switch to DX later IF needed.

S!

S!

And the latest OpenGL is not the same IL-2(original) used :D I think it goes now around 4.2 or something.

Ah so this is an official project of sorts ... interesting :cool:

I wonder if SpeedTree is a DX app only. There were probably many reasons for the switch to DX, and wonder if this could have been one of them.

It would be nice if they could eventually build a WW2 aircombat sim, but I wouldn't hold my breath. They are probably knee deep working with their own genre, and don't have enough interest in going into WW2 scenarios, but maybe very interested third parties could go that route if they could get access the game engine code.

Well Flanker mentioned that is was a third party developing the add on, so I would assume ED would have very little involvement in it, they would just need to give their approval for it to use their engine I would assume. I can't access ED / SimHQ sites from work, is there any official announcement about this add on?

exactemundo !!

that is exactly the type of technical feature many other il2 old timers here are interested in, and it is incomprehensible they havnt given us access to at least some of these new features, even if it was initially with a basic interface at first and (with a list of the new features/options), so we know what is possible to access and control.

remember oleg's AA gun screenshots with the different ammo type boxes next to it ? at that time (some years ago), he indicated that when certain amo type ran out for the gun, it couldnt fire that type anymore (presumably till resupplied). Additionally the complex AA setup, with an interacting multiple component system involving search light, radar, gun crew, and ammo type available, so that if one element failed, or was destroyed by the enemy (like search light or radar element), it made the AA gun emplacement less effective, or put it out of action completely. Now THAT is what I call progress ! and it is what is needed to lift SoW out of the il2 airquake domain.

similarly discussions took place over the years with the SoW devellopers about what should happen when airfield munitions or fuels stores were destroyed (or runways damaged), and the way that should affect performance of that airfield and its ability to refuels and rearm aircraft landing there. once an airfield like that was made non operational, except for still allowing emergency landing of damaged or low on fuel aircraft, [b]it would/should take a certain amount of time for new supplies to arrive [/b (which is possible to copy fairly exactly from historical events, in the same way that restoring a damaged landing strip can determined).

AND those supplies had to arrive by road or rail normally (only very few came by air except some exceptional circumstances, like Stalingrad or Berlin). this again can be simulated fairly accurately, by having AI truck convoys of a particular size traveling at regular intervals on the road system from point A to point B, and having similar rail supply trains. targeting those in the game would then block the supplies from arriving at destination (for the time you keep being able to find and destroy them) when means the airfield they are designed for stays out of action or only operates partially. additionally, in certain map situations you might be able to cut rail and road bridges, or other parts of the transport network, with a similar result (again having work teams rebuilding those at a given time rate, and unless you keep destroying them regularly they become operational again). as a reminder, Mig Alley, the Korean war sim from 10 years ago already had a significant amount of those features built in, and it was one of the main reasons it stood out from other sims of the same era.

from oleg we know a lot of this, and even significantly more, is built into BoB/SoW, to not have some type of interface for it and no documentation for it is incomprehensible and a major flaw in 1C’s and luthiers management approach. it would set the sim apart from many other products right now, and it would make current users/customers much more tolerant of some of the major flaws they have to put up within the last year (and yes we are happy the project wasn’t canned, and if the buggy release was the only alternative to survival of the series let it be so)

this same AI interface should also provide details on how to control AI activity from road vehicles, rail network, and shipping (including AI bomber and fighter formations being tasked from point A to attack point B etc). ie rather then have some random train travel from A to B as me have now (or having a few people try and edit ini files with a hit and miss approach), we know this can/could be configured by some dedicated mission/campaign interface giving access in great detail for road/rail/sea/air elements active on a map. to have some basic instructions and information on these type of features is essential to keep the frustrated and shrinking fan base interested.

since most of those features are already built in, imo it should only take one or 2 programmers a couple of weeks to provide the documentation and a basic interface for it (even if some of those features are incomplete at this stage, many of them should already be available)

imo for luthier priorities right now should be
1) finish rebuild of gfx engine to get required gameplay performance and improved visual look of environment (he is doing this, but only 1 or 2 programmers are working on it i b suspect)
2) fix major FM DM problems that are know to be an isue right now, and fix distant object visibility problem (for aircraft and ground objects)
3) provide information and means to control ground/rail/airfield/aircraft resources, with implementation of some of these complex "roll on" effects once one element or important object of an airfield or other part of the map (like bridge or railway line) is damaged. Additionally, allow for basic AI routines to be created for vehicles on roads and at airfields, so the maps start to come alive. similarly allow scripting of ground military vehicle actions, eg have vehicle types ABC move to objective XYZ while having predetermined interaction modes with "object" they encounter (engage enemy, avoid enemy, capture objective etc)
4) correct some major scenery errors, and make england look like england rather then some generic map
5) provide full dynamic campaign engine for 24/7 online/ofline gameplay (with partially scripted unfolding events, as we know was olegs choice), so some of the events that historically made BoB so unique can be recreated, having for ex multiple waves of large bomber formations targeting specific objectives etc
only after that can there be talk of doing anything for BoM (other then maybe having some unemployed modelers work on some new objects if there is nothing else for them to do right now).

the only thing CoD is good for right now, is a limited type of airquake in a very buggy gameplay setting, while trying to move around in a virual world in an underperforming gfx engine, its a far cry from what was intended or anticipated, so they need to fix some of these issues SOON !

In your particular case the issue that prevents you from playing is too high resolution multiplied by a low-end PC (budget video card and a dual core processor). Your system would run it OK @ 1400x900 resolution. No patch will fix it and I can explain why:

My experience with sims like Warbirds, Il-2, several versions of MSFS, ArmA1, 2, RoF, etc. gave me a good lesson: do not buy a high resolution monitor if you do not want to buy the most expensive video card on the market every year. I flew Warbirds in 800x600 оn 15', then IL2 on 17' in 2001 @ 1024x800x16bit, 2002 @ 1150x960x16bit and only since 2003 @ 1280x1024x32bit (changed several processors and video cards in the process). With shooters like Call of Duty, BF2,3 or Wings of Prey resolution can be set as much as 2 times higher because they are "optimised" which means visibility distance and details level are reduced (compare CloD to BF3 for instance). Sims are different in nature (and by definition) as their purpose is to have IRL visibility distance and IRL details level. It is just absolutely not logical to expect sims to be optimised in the same way as other genres are. The most challenging sims for me to run smoothly was MSFS and then RoF (on a single core CPU back then) btw.

The above lessons were very painful because I wanted higher FPS but did not want to pay for it buying a new video card every year. Having learned the lessons I bought 1680x1050 monitor for CloD because I new it would be as demanding as any other sim I know. Now I know that every sequel will raise requirements higher and higher as soon as they are published every year or so.

@ 1680x1050 the game is very playable on my very old system i7-860@3.8 (2 years old) - HD4890 (3 generations old). Landscape, forest, buildings @ low, other @ med-high with some driver & system fine-tuning.

I do not expect much performance increase from the upcoming patch. It will be not more than 10% for some systems and switching just one graphics setting up will take it away.

You will be able to run 1920 x 1200 with max settings only when SLI is working and you have 2x 580-3GB vram set up I am afraid. But SLI technology is very unreliable in sims and if it works in one patch it may not work in the next patch as RoF example shows for instance. I do not recommend going this way.

If you definitely need a huge screen now, the most cost efficient solution is to purchase a big 2nd hand CRT monitor or a projector and run it at about 1400x900 or 1680x1050 resolution max.

It is not possible to have a quick, cheap and quality(high-res) solution at the same time in real life. There is always a trade-off in real life. You have to sacrifice 1 or 2 factors to have another:

1) wait till 2013 hardware (time),
2) buy every new top video card that enters the market (cost),
3) reduce resolution and/or settings (quality).

You can have it quick, cheap and high quality at the same time only in children fairy tales.

PS. Mr.X whose videos show that the game is very playable in its current state has the same 2 year-old processor as I have and a 2-3 years old gtx480. Perhaps he plays with lower settings than he records videos and his res is reasonable 1920x1080. http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=29379

Recently I migrated from 1680x1050 to 1920x1200. CLOD STILL runs fine (well, not perfect, as Im used to in other games and sims but smooth enough for my taste anyway) as long as theres no effects near (fire or dust etc)....sometimes its a bit slower when more planes are in dogfight, low over cities....but the slideshow starts when the effects are near as I already said.....

Oh if they succeed in optimizing the core engine then everybody (spec. guy with "newer quads and decent GPUs") should notice a rather big difference in perfromance....textures, landscape and AA settings should have more impact on performance than difference in resolution (at least if its not so big difference)....

my system:
i7920 OC 3.5Ghz
GTX470 TF2 (custom coolers) 800Mhz OC on core (should outperform slightly both 480 and 570 on stock speeds)
6GB of DD3 working at app. 1333Mhz
Dell U2412M (1920x1200, low input lag e-IPS panel)
X-FI Gamer
TiR5

My understanding based on what I read in Technical section here and in Benchmark thread @sukhoi http://translate.google.com/translat...hp%3Ft%3D68723 is that resolution is the biggest factor influencing performance compared to any other setting. I think res influence is not linear but exponential.

Also res has a highest hit on video memory I believe.

E.g. single gtx580 can run CloD almost maxed out (maybe 1 setting not maxed out) at 1920x1080. But @1920x1200 2-3 settings will need to be reduced to avoid slideshow when effects are near. Older cards can not handle new shader versions (special effects) as good as new ones.

Dual cores with gtx8800 can run it on res not higher than 1280x960.

Could you include your system specs into your signature please to avoid misunderstanding in the future?

PS. To me optimisation of original Il-2 happened by purchasing new hardware in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006. This allowed me to raise resolution and increase FPS. I do not see any reason why it will be different in CloD. Same happened to me in MSFS, RoF, ArmA and other sims. Code optimisation helps a little bit but usually the benefit is quickly taken away by new features introduced in sequels. Miracle will just not happen because it never happened before. Even the devs want it badly and want to believe it possible but it is not.

This. More than anything else. But like I said I didnt notice any signifficant drop of performance migrating from 1680x1050 to 1920x1200. On my system.

I have mostly med settings (textures and plane models on high). "External" AA applied (DX files). On most occasions works fine as soon as thers no effects near (dust and engine fire..explosions).

I did now.

Agree. New and better hardware will always help. But. A bad optimisation of game engine is something which can cause bad performance for most folks. So only guys with super PCs can enjoy in smooth performance. Thats something we dont want, right? Anyway, even for today standards my machine is pretty good and like I said I stilll have problems...

ahh I can not wait

Chinese

新版的IL 2 COD moscow 一定要放弃与老的IL2COD完全不兼容。

新版的IL2 COD MOSCOW 必须是64位的游戏

核心引挚必须重写不能与老的IL2COD一� �。

图像引挚必须要与NVIDIA和AMD密切合作� �

新版的IL2 COD MOSCOW 必须支持 多核CPU

图像引挚必须支持 CrossFire 和 SLI 技术

老的IL2 COD 里面的 飞机建模， 火车建模、弹道、

爆炸效果，可以移入到IL2 COD MOSCOW



New version of IL 2 COD moscow must give up the old IL2COD completely incompatible.

New version of IL2 COD MOSCOW must be 64-bit games

Must rewrite the core engine is deliberately not the same as with the old IL2COD.

Images must be cited loved working closely with NVIDIA and AMD.

New version of IL2 COD MOSCOW must support multi-core CPU

Image engine is deliberately to support CrossFire and SLI technology

Inside the old IL2 COD aircraft modeling, model trains, ballistic,

Explosions, can be moved to the IL2 COD MOSCOW

guys in the white coats....where are you when we need you?

S!

So true Tvrdi ;) But again no hardware will run a bad code no matter how you tweak it. Sometimes it feels that in these days of console porting being THE thing and coder relying on hardware getting stronger is a reason why we get crap codes that are buggy. I can be totally wrong, but why should a sloppy coder bother with optimizing his code when he can think that let the hardware crunch it. I bet not even today with all the high end hardware around their full potential is even used...

+1. Sad but true.

As someone who is coding this really sets me up.
I think you simply cannot compare - 40 years ago you perhaps had the time to tweak and optimize a small piece of code, and working hard you could perhaps achieve a perfect, but very small tool.
The code base of Cod however must be HUGE, most of the work probably gets into just getting all the mess somehow organized, and it would take unimpossible amounts of manpower to do everything perfect. Complexity is the problem,not lazy or sloppy coders.... its just plain insulting to insinuate they would not care because of the available hardware.

Nobody said they are bad programers....but something went wrong (whatever it is) so we have what we have (OK now the sim is better than on release)...not that they had few weeks for coding and 3d models....

There was a time that software coding could really impact performance.. Back in the assembly coding days.. I know I wrote a lot of assemble for a lot of different systems.. Once the higher level languages came out, the performance was very 'compiler' depended, and in a few cases a good assembly programer could write code that had better performance than what the 'compiler' provided.. But these days you would be hard pressed to write assemble code better than a 'compiler' could do it.. And with all the APIs and SDKs at your disposal makes it even harder to write 'bad' code unless the API and/or SDK itself contains 'bad' code. Thus the real issues these days is in how close to the edge of the envelope you want to code at.. As with the Microsoft DX11 API, One of the reasons CoD is defaulted to DX10 feature levels is because there were 'issues' with the DX11 feature levels in the DX11 API at CoD release time.. That is to say 1C was making use of DX11 feature levels in the DX11 API that were not that debugged yet (a Microsoft issue) thus 1C had to wait for Microsoft to fix those issues in the DX11 API before they could make use of those DX 11 feature levels, since that did not happen before CoD release, 1C limited the feature levels to DX10

S!

Tota, the rant was not directed towards you nor was taking a stance on the state of CoD code when Luthier took over. It is easier to make bloated code than optimize and as you said, time is different.

But again as a coder you learn over the years how to be better etc. I can say I know a sh*tload more of my work now than when I started, routines have developed and knowledge to even evolve current ways of working and work packages are there. This same is applicable to coders as well, they for sure develop ways to do it better..or am I wrong?

And to add to this. We ALL know that Maddox Games had EIGHT years of previous knowhow on making a flight sim, the original IL-2. And there were other work Oleg was involved with but not in the limelight. No lack of knowhow there, right? So can you say CoD is efficiently made if 8 years of knowledge BEFORE starting CoD, which took 7 years to complete, would not teach anything?

I try to say that the team KNEW, and still do, what they were/are doing, had the experience and lessons from previous STILL living project to make CoD. Whatever happened behind the scenes is out of bounds to speculate, but frankly ask yourself this: How could they improve something already made to be even better, how to utilize knowhow from what has been done to make a product that stands head above the rest. Because IMO Luthier and team can not hide behind a curtain of not having experience nor not knowing what they were doing.

Not an attack against CoD dev team, but voicing my opinions. I wish and hope CoD and it's sequels will make it and be THE benchmarks of WW2 and beyond flight sims. Period.

I can mostly agree with your vision of the sim, but let's not move this back into "it's all their fault!" territory ;)

If we are to be honest with ourselves, at least half of the mess is the community's fault too: the people who ask for such features that you and i expect are much less than the people who are mighty upset about graphic issues (and i don't mean valid performance/stability issues, but simply aesthetic issues).

We all remember the fuss about DX11 before release, now we see people speculating about how it might have been better to stay with OpenGL. Well, imagine you are the project manager and have to keep this community happy, it's impossible because everyone has different priorities and some even ask for completely opposite things.

I think that as long as they keep working on it and they have the cash to keep doing it, we will get a sim worthy of the legacy of the previous series.

I wish it wasn't like this, but that's how things go with sims these days: if you don't have military customers to pay for a sim that you can then take the top-secret stuff out and release to the public (like DCS) or sell individual add-ons for high prices (civilian flight sim add-ons and some train sims), you are going to release what you have and hope you have enough money to keep working on it.

I mean, look at RoF. It took 18 months after the release to get it where it is and it's a simpler engine in some aspects (ballistics for all guns are very similar, not so many ammo types, lower object limits per mission, reduced dot visibility ranges, etc), either by restriction or optimization because it can(eg, since the speeds/distances involved are smaller, there is less need for a high air to air spotting distance).

CoD can handle (or at least, it's supposed too) a couple thousand ground objects in a single mission, visibility range needs to be higher, etc, etc, so it's no wonder it's a tough job.

The good thing is that the hard part seems to be behind us. When the next patch is released and performance/stability optimizations are finally complete, we can then start moving onto the stuff that has added gameplay value: fixing the control logic inconsistencies and control bugs in all aircraft and correcting the FMs, so we can start to fly raids of 20 bombers or more online and have some serious fun :grin:

I'm sure quite a few folks wish 1C optimized the code a little better for DX9 since DX11 was off the table for the time being. Right now, running the sim in DX9 performs worse than DX10. It might have helped people with more mid-range hardware fly the sim with better results.

DX9 doesn't mean it runs faster than DX10.

DX10 is the optimized and extended DX9 in the end.

And finally, when you program for the future it's contraproductive to go to the past, you stay with the present and from there on.

I agree with what you're saying Flanker but there is the other side of the coding environment which I call tunnel coding (i.e. tunnel vision). It's the type of coding mindset you can get into when you're so focused on a project for so long that you can (not saying you will) loose the ability to try new ideas and / or direction when coding for the same problem. It's soooo prevalent in the gaming world that you can see it. Case in point CoD's AI, to me it's almost a straight copy and paste from IL-2. Unreal Engine, only now has it got DX10 features, Bethesda's combat system (Skyrim / Fallout), pretty much unchanged since Elders Scrolls came out.

It's a catch 22 as well in terms of trying something new, because trying new ideas means increase development time and costs, and if I were investing in a game I'd be saying "if it ain't broke don't fix it, just improve it". The majority of CoD is a complete departure from the old engine, but there is still a lot of IL-2 1946 in there as well, and it's a monumental task in front in front of Illya and the team.