Its been a rough ride, but if the announcement doesn't totally change the direction of the development, the Channel Map will only get better. The devs and community will be adding new content, improving features, adding features, new aircraft, and new theaters for years.

Even if the announcement includes an MMO, it doesn't necessarily mean the demise of the existing development. With work the game engine should be more than capable of doing both. The developer supplies the game engine, most of the aircraft and theaters, FMB's, SDK's, and the talented among us could build the missions, campaigns, etc.

I think, sadly, now if it was released in it's current form, it might achieve some great peer reviews, possibly scoring in the late 80s or early 90s out of 100. The problem is, it's difficult to regain all those potential customers put off by initial really bad reviews . . . . . . . .

Well, more people are coming back for the online fighting.
We need people to start flying the online campaigns next, as the quake low level stuff will only keep peoples interest for so long.

This is the beauty of having a series of sequels with different names. If the next sequel is a success the rating of the previous Sequel will be forgotten, and most of the previous Sequels features will be updated as a bonus.

8 from me because........

For:
I play exclusively on line and it is very playable (within the limits of my rig).
I don't have to build the missions (thank you ATAG, 5./Jg27).
FMs 'feel' has moved forward since IL-2 '46.
I generallly like the environment we have been given (terrain, misting, etc).

Against:
A/C performances are still not right but at least the RAF planes can fight back now.
Map is still mickey mouse in these days of near-photographic accuracy and historical data on airfields etc.
The FMB could be a LOT friendlier for complex mission building. I would like to try it again but its an up-hill battle.

And I acknowledge the black hole in the ground that is offline play (so many people trying to play offline missions can't all be wrong) and the XP/DX9 debacle.

So I am voting from a very narrow selfish viewpoiint, otherwise it would have been a 5 because of all the other issues that don't affect me.

4 out of 10. It would have been a 3 but for the good memories of IL-2.

Reasons. The purported brand new engine was the old IL-2 engine wearing a different hat. Fantasy pre-release videos. 'Weekend at Bernie's III' at the Moscow launch starring an animated Oleg Maddox signing copies (Elvis had already left the building). Buggier than an alpha at launch after so many years in development. Epilepsy filter nonsense and other excuses that followed. The rest is history.

Glo

5/10 from me, what kills the score from my perspective at the moment is the length of time it has taken to get to this point.

(1) Until Sli/ Xfire is finally resolved through Nvidia/Amd it's still not finished.

(2) Lack of a decent QMB. Why has it been made this way? A QMB should be just that and not have to be done through the full mission builder then transfered.

The majority of players would be off line players, so we need a decent QMB, for that alone 2/10.

After experiencing DCS: P-51D I give the IL-2 flight and aircraft models a 4. They just feel game-like in comparison. The bar has been raised.
The GUI and commands/ menu system in CloD get a 2. It's like they were designed by someone who has never seen a flight sim. There are basic commands missing and absurdly illogical ones like the zoom feature that uses the mouse and button combo.
The game graphics get an 8 or 9 and the level of detail on the ground is astonishing. There's still a funny color palette and lack of weather. But the map is the best part of the sim. Also I give a 10 to how well it runs after the patch. For how well it looks it runs so smooth it's fantastic.
The mission design included with the game gets a 5. All air starts or ground starts with the engine running is so arcade.
Desastersoft I must try and it might be the whole redeeming feature.

Between 6 and 7 is about right, hoping the announcement includes a big change with 1C and not just developer wise as they need to make money to be able to reinvest in the product.

Had an unexpected crash last night, but that aside I'd like to see more content added and more planes flyable, not silly ones like the Su-26. I'd even pay for a Wellington/Defiant as DLC...

The role of Bomber Command is undervalued for sure and sometimes flightsims help educate as well as entertain.

Would I get BOM? Perhaps, but I don't want to see Clod left abandoned as they have the basis of something to expand upon and improve overtime.

I give it a 3 to many problems with AA, FXAA, and any API enhancements where a big miss.

Textures on aircraft still disappearing at a distance, become invisible.

objects shadows still seen through the ground, and through cockpits.

horizon lines if you in "Oye Plage" and landing you can see the horizon through the cockpit.

at night lights visible through the cockpit,

Shadows not working,

Vac still not working,

ammo load outs not working for single player,

No Co-Op missions,

mission builder is for someone that can code in C++ simple,

all in all, needs work..