Geeeez with the bitching! Sure, Clod was promising, the engine management and whatnot. But from the beginning to the last patch, everybody were complaining. Where are we now? Even the developers admitted that it's just not gonna work out! Still people keep 'plaining about BoS. Well tell you what- SIMS don't sell anymore in case you didn't realise. There HAS to be a marketing plan, which in this case means a campaign that speaks volumes to a large audience (russian especially). And the game itself, I have not had the opportunity to try it out yet, as I'm poor:-(. But from what I see, it looks BLOODY good, and judging from RoF point of view, I don't think the physics or damage modelling will suck either. I just want a GOOD, playable WW2 air combat sim. It's been too long. If you want a WW2 plane sim with minimal emphasis on the playability, wait for the Luthier's DCS sim and stfu.

Happy New Year's simmers with hugs and kisses to all! <3

Are you a tough guy away from a keyboard ;)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y19...psfa2dddd4.jpg


Yes but someone with a top flight 8800 should have been able to at least get the sim to run.. I couldn't even get it to run over water.. with one plane.. That was un acceptible and the main reason why CoD failed initially .. even if there were some who ran it with no problems..

+1.. On it's lowest settings it should have looked like IL2 on Medium or High..



LMAO! Kinda strong but ..

BoS is pretty good regardless to what some say and it is an Alpha at 36%.. The current map is tiny when compared to the final map.. and many of the effects are still not there.. BoS also runs on a variety of rigs .. something CoD did not do very well at all when it was released 5 years late I might add which added insult to injury.. Don't forget if yiou recall folks had been waiting for CoD for quite some time. It was that long wait and the expectations that they engendered and the final product that was installed on folks' drives after that wait that was the main cause of the bitterness around CoD.TF has done an AMAZING job in turning CoD into a viable sim .. and frankly IMO a sim that can only be enjoyed by a few hundred folks ... is not a viable sim. CoD as it is now can be enjoyed by just about anyone with a decent rig and it doesn't have to be top of the line. It can even be a few years old.. Today I can run CoD TF 4.0 on my old rig from 2011 ... which I still have. I should have been able to do that in 2011.

This doesn't have to be a my schlong is bigger than yours kind of deal.. Like it or not BoS is going to be fantastic and you (a general you not a specific YOU directed at one person..) can either enjoy it or not .... Hopefully DCS WWII will be on time give or take a month or two at the most and be thoroughly enjoyable.. even if it has bugs, which is to be expected.. I have no doubt that CoD will continue to flourish and even if development stopped dead in it's tracks where it is now there is enough there to make it the best BoB environment to fly in.. and IL2 will probably still be flown for a long time and I doubt that we will ever see it's likes again in any WWII sim in terms of plane set, theater set and pound for pound playability..

I don't understand why folks have to knock one product over another.. or the adherants of one product over another as if they were Mr. Macy ragging Mr. Bloomingdale. It isn't like anyone here created any of these sims. I have supported every one of the above mentioned sims.. because I am a simmer at heart.. and I would like to see them all succeed... but at this point from what I have seen from the teams involved BoS has the best chance to truly succeed IL2. I don't see a lot of theaters coming from the DCS WWII camp.. nor do I see that coming from the CoD camp within the next 24 months which ios nopt to say that both products will not grow and do well.. but I just see BoS covering at least two more theaters or regions of conflict within the same time frame.

BOS is very good for entry level, so I think the more new pilots the better for the genre.

Man, you're talking about gfx card from 2007. Even that gtx260 is two times faster than 8800gt.
And you're wrong, two of my friends were flying at the release. One had cheap AMD x2 and 9600gt 512MB (~15% slower than 8800gt) and he was flying online and shooting down planes, on low settings and 1300 res of course. Second one had gts250 1GB(=9800gt=8800gt) and he was getting 20-30 fps over land low @1920.
Those are pics from one friend that is still flying on 9800gt and he is regular on ATAG, big map, lots of action.

http://www.dodaj.rs/f/Q/dH/2mWERzHV/2013-06-2700003.jpg
http://www.dodaj.rs/f/3Y/13d/1ZD0J79...08-2000001.jpg
http://www.dodaj.rs/f/2k/SM/24NrOR0F...-0522-38re.jpg

Does it look perfect? No, low res textures are noticeable on wings and in cockpit. But that doesn't look bad at all.
Same as in BoS but there are no hi-res textures at all. When I see a screenshot with look on a wing and those poor textures its like someone puts finger in my eye.

And I can imagine how the artist who made those beautiful cockpits of 109 feels when he saw them trashed in BoS.
He even wrote few lines on sukhoi. Sadness.

P.S. sorry for huge ss.

You are wasting your time my friend, it will fail on the mindless. Bearcat is a prime example of what is wrong in our genre. People who don't want to see these sims get too beautiful or complicated, because then an up-grade would have to be done to their rig. And so a great studio has folded, and reputations have been tarnished and even destroyed. The game was a masterpiece on release with bugs that would have been corrected in time, but should have been corrected only for strong PC's.(Oleg might have taken that route, we will never know) llya, the chopped up game that is out there today, is nothing but a sad remnant.

Ok quit the personal stuff and keep it on track .

Thanks

Yes I know that mate, but I just can't stand when some people write stuff thats not true. You can see on one of those screanshots my friend TURK Can he was regularly flying with c2duo and gtx260, he had problems because Clod needs more than two cores and he upgreded graphic card to gtx670 but no joy , CPU power is needed also.

And I agree with you completely, someone wants nice graphics but don't want to upgrade PC.

Why the re-writing of history? I just don't understand. Here's a quote from Luthier;

" We shipped a product that had too many technical issues for us to really focus on finer elements of gameplay. There had never been a point, we're not even there today, where we could sit back, look at the code, and say, hell, what a great foundation, let's build a great game on top of it. "

Here's another;

"Obviously no one here wants to repeat the Cliffs of Dover release fiasco. We really do want to get it right next time."

Or even;

"I can’t even remember anything that was cut per se."

And finally;

"The situation sucks. I see no reason to sugarcoat it with bull. I don't want to go make empty promises or try to prove that black is white. We released a faulty game."

What happened........happened but CoD ain't over yet. Be sure!

Two things:

1)
Not a masterpiece on release, but not broken either. Ran absolutely fine on my machine (i7 3.4, GTX 580 3gig, 8gig ram). I never have understood what happened in the forums on the sims release. Not rational.

2)
Any quotes from Luthier need a pretty big grain of salt.

RedToo.