I do agree with this. It is a bit Walt Disney and that is something we should press to be changed in time. It needs to be reduced in colour intensity and improved in general appearance to reduce that cartoon impression.

But that does not make it unplayable.

this one just because you can't play it? are you saying YOU are the entire community? yes I read many different forums.

I know the SAS mod site well, downloaded plenty of stuff from there, more than qualifies me to make my arguments, and I am a modder myself (for a different sim) so I know the work that goes in to making mods, think about it this way 'mate' those map mods would be useless without the actual game to use them in.

The game is, for 90% of people, unplayable. Just because a very small portion of a very small community (the Sim based one) can play it doesn't mean that the game is playable...

This game will be fantastic, but atm for all intents and purposes it is unplayable.

Where do folks get all these statistics from?

Look @ amazon.de

http://www.amazon.de/IL-2-Sturmovik-...1908780&sr=8-1

Almost all reviewers, even those who gave 3 stars and more can not play the game at this time.

Game is pretty unplayable even on low settings where it looks far worse than "modernized" IL2 that could look great with self shadowing and curved turns in roads and rail-tracks.

This attitude is very bad for progress if devs get "offended" by people giving them the feedback they feel.

and yes... the picture is cartoonish. sorry to tell that colors in IL2 Birds of pray are more realistic... but that is my opinion. Maybe the devs are a bit color blind or something... nothing wrong with that either... but that is the result.

P.S. C2D @3GHz, 4GB RAM GT460, playing only maxed up settings (I don't want tweaks that make the game look really bad for FPS... I get offended myself by this approach).

And another thing... this whole "new from ground up engine" thing. It looks like "new dinner" by same cook. I don't think he doesn't try to be original and cook something new... but if it is all what he knows to do... chances are it will get to make same food like before.

And that is honest feed-back from a paying customer that expects improvement.

I can't play it either at this time..........

Just what is you guys want? do you want to kill this sim?......really
so theres been a hiccup with the release.....big deal, it's not a unique story.

of course you are all entitled to feel whatever you want about this, but do you really need to let the world know that badly, yes perhaps I sound like a sycophant...a 'fanboi' etc etc, I just like flight sims and play every single one, and I am not affraid of progress, seriously there are people that are bitching because there is a version 4.11 of IL2, talk about sycophants who are affraid of change.

please, if you don't like this sim, then go away, get your money back, uninstall it and junk talk it all you want to your friend or anyone else who might be remotely interested, some people here are positive despite the problems but we are just labeled sycophants......the game is 5 f**king days old and apparently we are lifelong die hard fans? I want to support progress on this sim on this forum because it is the home forum, why don't you guys go find a jewish forum perhaps, then make a post denying the holocaust.......I have a feeling you will get a few disagreements.

OMG

Once again you can not accept other opinions!

I'm not saying I want my money back. But criticism is welcome!

PS: Hard to believe, that you are a real commercial pilot. With this stubborn attitude, you had got kicked out of the company's qualifications tests of the German Lufthansa.

turn grass off, building amount to low and forest to low... simple

norulz, have you forgotten that Oleg said a long time ago that you would need a PC that runs IL-2 VERY WELL to run CoD at low settings. If you expect your PC to run CoD on Max settings you are deluding yourself. It won't.

I would suggest that you might get Medium settings out of your rig but perhaps not even that.

Example, I am fortunate enough to have had the money to buy a new rig recently. Its an i7 950@4GHz, 6Gb DDR3 RAM, EVGA GTX570 superclocked. I can run High settings with just Forest and Buildings turned down to Medium, AAx4 and AFx16. I get 35-50 fps over land (around Tangmere) and 45-60 fps over water. Just occasionally it drops to 25fps on a busy airfield. I didn't note the fps but in a 12xSpit vs 8x109 dogfight over water I didn't notice any stuttering etc. I also hosted this for 5 players, the rest remaining as AI, no problems my end although various rigs produced lower results, eg down to 25fps over water and lower over land, but everyone found it playable. Also see attached from the campaign.

We know there are improvements to be made which will help us all but I detect that some people are expecting too much of their current PCs. And yes I know there are anomalies where people with apparently the same or very simialr rigs get different results but as the game is the constant the difference must lie in their rigs or their PC/Game settings. I also haven't seen much in the way of truly objective results: Rig, Settings, fps under specific conditions.

A test track would be a good reference and we could do with a 'Benchmarks' Sticky under 'Performance threads' where people could post

EDIT: I just found a thread
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=19990
It still needs a reference benchmark like the IL-2 Black Death Track though.

System Spec
System settings (resolution etc)
Game Settings
Track used
fps results.

Heavily moderated of course and NO-ONE trolling or polluting it with opinions etc. Just plain benchmarks.