Game is Unplayable
 

Obviously removed all the epilepsey filter - still no SLI despite Luthier saying it was the filter that was killing it.

Disabled SLI improved framerates a little, but FPS is still unplayable even on medium settings, getting between 8-25FPS.

Hardly a low end PC, check out my specs.

and your settings ?

From experiance very few games have sli/xfire support at release, luthier has stared in the FAQ that they are already working on a solution and trying to find out what has stopped it working in the first place.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=19819

Just turn off your sli for the moment.

ive been flying around for the last 24 hours, works just fine for me on medium settings for an i5, 4gb RAM, GTX275.

i've flown through the campaigns with little trouble.

your claim is laughable, I have the game and i just finished terrorising sunderlands in a 109, watching those smoke trails from the 20mm carve into them.

yes there are some problems to be ironed out, as was fully expected.

I work around them and am quietly confident the updates will address them in turn.

frankly, the thread title is plainly stupid. You sound like a spoilt child.

Summary?

HUSH TROLL !

TAKE YOUR NONSENSE AND BEGONE !

I also have the game playable at a slightly more modest spec than yours, Tree. As luthier said the only ones I needed to lower to get the game to a playable fps were Forest and Building Amount. How much VRAM do the two GTX285s have each?

Spoilt child... well here´s another one complaining. The truth is that game was not ready for release. Performance wise it really isn´t what a finished product should look like. To me it seems like some kind of alpha-version. Sure it runs somewhat and doesn´t CTD all the time, but...that´s not enough. It stutters, frames rates skip back and forth and the game generally doesn´t look so good. Yes, it is a simulator. Yes, it is demanding for the CPU. But then, so is DCS A-10C and it works, smoothly.

And before you start questoning my settings and rig: It doesn´t matter what settings you use, it won´t fix the fundamental problems that this game has at the moment. It doesn´t perform, even remotely, like a finshed product should. You might gain a couple of FPS if you tweaked the hell out of config. files, but that´s not the point. The point is: You shouldn´t be tweaking! I didn´t pay 50 € to become a alpha-tester.


Please, test your products before final release.


Oh, and the rig is:

Phenom X4 II 965 BE (3,4Ghz)
5 GB RAM
GTX 570
Win 7 64 bit

My buddie is using a 285 too and has similar problems (he has 4 core 3.4GHz i7 and 6GB RAM).

It could be the VRAM. His card has 1GB, my GTX570 has 1.28GB and CoD is using every bit of mine. Of course it's faster too and my i7 is at 4GHz but neither of our CPUs are taxed more than around 60-70% on Core1, 30% core 2, 10-15% cores 3 & 4. My fps is 50-60 over water, 30-50 over land, on High settings with Grass off and Forest and Buildings at Medium (1680x 1050). So, probably the GPU.

But Luthier says there is still work to do on that.

Well I have similar specs to Tree (except half the memory and my card is a 4870x2) and my preformance is the same. This does not matter if I have it on everything low or high, I still get the same FPS.

How much VRAM do you have ?
 

Yesterday the sim was unplayable for me. I tried everything with all settings at very low. My fps were between 1 and 22 with additional stuttering.

Today I found the hint, that 1 GB of VRAM is not enough for 1920*1200 for this sim. After going back to 1280*800 i could fly the first time: fps is now average at 35 and the stutter is almost gone.

So that is the major point everybody with "unplayable" conditions should check IMHO.

This is a performance related thread, its not the playground thread for naughty little tarts, go and pull someone else's pigtails you muppet.

if they could fix AA 1280x800 may look a little better but at the moment using a lower res with no AA looks really really bad.

I do not have the game, yet. I do plan to purchase it when it becomes available in the U.S. And I do want the CD version with the "Gold" or "Classic" or whatever it is called box. Reading all the comments, though, of problems in frame rates, detail issues, and the suggestions of how to fix by getting into the various program files, etc. does cause me to hesitate. I have been stuck with poor performing games and sims like many others and it is a frustrating, to say the least, event. One I don't wish to experience very often. I do think that the Maddox Team is one of the best and for that reason, I still will buy this game. BUT...I am no computer wizard and really do not dare to go into the config or other files to tweak anything. My experiences in doing so never seem to have happy endings. So...since they are working on the fixes right now, and the US version is not due out until April 19, does it seem logical to expect that many of these problems will be fixed by then and it will be "safe" to buy it then?

Since I gave up any hope of flying at resolutions 3072x and with three monitors without SLI support
I tried easier settings: Window mode 800x600 (my game does not allow for window 1024x768,
if anybody can give me a tip on how to fix this I would be eternaly gratefull (conf.ini change to 1024x768 end with a black screen))
=> SOLVED! I had to change the resolution of my desktop to 3840x1024 and then, in the game,
I was offered the option of windowed 1024x768 :-)

It looks like a very playable game on WinXP and DX9

unlimited fps (422fps)
http://www.stoimenos.com/temp/1_422fps.JPG

Graphics are still amazing
http://www.stoimenos.com/temp/1_Window800.JPG

Inside the cockpit constant 130fps
http://www.stoimenos.com/temp/1_pass.JPG

The sun effects are magnificent, when the sun hits the
front window you are completely blind (here sun is on the side)
http://www.stoimenos.com/temp/1_sun.JPG

These are my settings
http://www.stoimenos.com/temp/1_Window800settings.JPG

This is good enough for me, especialy if I manage to get it 1024x768
while waiting for the SLI to be ready.

Excellent game, one step ahead of IL2FB and I am sure we will spend years of discussions with it!
...and 000s of dollars on new graphics cards as we go... :-D

Sadly i cant play the game at all, i have misplaced and corrupted textures everywhere, its a total dogs dinner. its a real shame as the game looks brilliant but for these technical issues. I do accept that win xp and dx9 may be to blame, as the problems i have seen to only be suffered by people on xp. i would like to get win 7 but am unsure if the game is supported on win 7 64bit

Current specs:
Win Xp Mce SP2
AMD Athlon X2 7750 BE @ 2.7 Ghz
3.25Gb (4Gb installed, thanks win xp) DDR2 800Mhz
GTX 460

It would be very helpful if people that CAN play this game would mention how much RAM their gfx card has. It seems 1GB is not enough?

My specs are below,I can play it quite nicely on my 4850 1 GB card. Yes,I have fps drops, but it is in no way unplayable.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...er/Bounced.jpg

I agree...turning down the resolution would be one of the first things I try. Personally I still get high quality graphics in other games when the resolution is lowered if I turn up AA and AF.

Well, the fact that u didnt mention ANY settings in your "observation" tells me that u in fact aint interested in fixing whatever problem u might have. Your just interested in taking another dump and saying "i told u so"...even when your wrong.

Big surprise there

Im getting an average of 35 fps in 6 vs 6 DF with a "lesser" machine than yours with everything on medium, not that it would intrest u. So clearly u are doing something wrong.

Unplayable here too at lowest settings.

I don't really think that playing in a tiny window on the middle of your desktop is a reasonable solution.

Anyway my new GFX card is arriving soon so I hope to have better luck.

Current system: Q6600 @ 2.6Ghz, 4Gb DDR2 800Mhz, GTS 8800 512Mb - New card is a HD 5870 1Gb so I hope to at least be able to play the game at low/med settings.

/me crosses fingers..

I know tree is the last person to trust/care about for the vast majority of you what he is saying is true. There are major performance issues with certain cards and processors, I seem to have both with the i7 and a 4870x2. I get low fps no matter what detail settings I choose or what config file adjustments I make.

I can't read. *edit*

i will be curious to see how this plays on a c2d at 3.2ghz, 4 gig ram and a gtx280...

So now, I managed to get the 1024x768 window to work, the results look good and the fps, too:

WinXP and DX9 mode (Yeaah I know, old habits die hard...)

A significant decrease from the 433fps at 800x600 mode, now only 270fps! (I think I will survive the hit...)
http://www.stoimenos.com/temp/CoD/2_270fps.JPG

Same picture with cockpit on, now "only" 162fps (mirror off) Notice the change of color of the sea due to

the cockpit
http://www.stoimenos.com/temp/CoD/2_...kpit162fps.JPG

Still the graphics quality is excellent!
http://www.stoimenos.com/temp/CoD/2_Window1024.JPG

In dogfight, constant 130fps
http://www.stoimenos.com/temp/CoD/2_pass.JPG

The sun effects are magnificent, when the sun hits the front window you are completely blind
(on the side)
http://www.stoimenos.com/temp/CoD/2_sun.JPG

Also when the sun reflects on the front thick window from the rear, you also become blind
http://www.stoimenos.com/temp/CoD/2_sun2.JPG

These are my settings
http://www.stoimenos.com/temp/CoD/2_...24settings.JPG

Intercepting many bombers, the stuttering problems are gone (I had 2(two)fps flying 3072x768 before the

patch)
http://www.stoimenos.com/temp/CoD/B_1.JPG

88fps inside the cockpit
http://www.stoimenos.com/temp/CoD/B_2.JPG

130fps without cockpit - the thick armoured front glass makes a big difference (who needs a propeller?)
http://www.stoimenos.com/temp/CoD/B_3.JPG

120fps external view
http://www.stoimenos.com/temp/CoD/B_4.JPG

This is good enough for me, while waiting for SLI to get ready and the things Kalimba mentioned
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...=20055&page=12

game code out the box is beyond poor , fail

need a great patch to fix this.

I must say Im rather dissapointed as well. I played all IL-2 sturmoviks ever since the first one got released and thought that this one couldn't be that bad, even after reading how lots of people suffer from problems.

I was wrong I'm sad to say. Pretty much everything about this game feels rushed. The very basic looking menus (sloppy would be a better word), lack of intro or movies, no dynamic campaign etc, reuse of the same basic music theme I can overlook. But the performance and total lack of any optimization can't in my opinion. In order for this game to run the settings have to be tuned down so much that when flying over land it actually manages to look worse then the first IL-2 that was released like what, 12 years ago? This on a quad core with 8 gigs of ram and a 8800 GTX (sure not the latest model but still a card that runs pretty much any new game fine on high or max settings)

I really really hope 1C games manages to fix this because I'm afraid they might otherwise be killing their own license. I for one cannot possibly recommend anyone to spend 50 Euros on this product and I feel kind of robbed myself right now.

Mind me, I always loved 1C and the money isn't the biggest issue, it's more the nasty taste running this game leaves in your mouth. The feeling you are playing a pre-alpha release.

Anyway, those were my two cents. I sincerely hope patches will be released very very soon or otherwise all CoD buyers will get a free copy of the next IL-2 game in order to compensate.

Peace out.

P.S. I hear people talking about a patch. I downloaded the game through steam and it is version 1.00.13820 , is this the latest version or am I missing something?

Why are you using such a naff resolution when you are getting those framerates? Kick it up to at lest 1280x1024 or 1680x1050 if you've widescreen.

A few 1680x1050 piccies here. Nothing special, just as they came in High settings but with Forest and Buildings set down to Medium. Taken from Sortie 2 of the Campaign, total 5 kills so far, 1 Do17 and 4 Stukas plus several damaged. :)

Also a couple of air shots, Spitfire MkIIa and some 109s just to show how nice they look.

Its not all bad news.

That would be great if I could figure out how to get AA and AF setting to make any difference.

Lol Urufu, things are bad when the community helper needs help!

:-P

Its a joke we have to turn down res to get decent fps.
CoD is the only game I can't run on my monitor's native res (1920*1200).
Even ARMAII has no problems with that.

Look at the amount of buildings and trees in FSX with 6158x1080res:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUSRV_tihR4

Really hoping they can fix this...fps is extremely important in sims...

Unplayable at moment for me to.
With everything bar the plane itself set to low or very low I am getting 5-15 fps over water, and maybe 10 over land. And get the jerking slide show stutter. So it is not even smooth enough to fight in.

I don't have the most modern system (overdue an upgrade for sure) but it not that bad - it plays ROF and DCS A-10 fine.
I expected to have to drop stuff down quite a few pegs, but this bad even at very low is a bit of a kicker.
Looks like I'll be back to ROF till the patches come.

Quad Q6600 2.40GHz, 4Gb RAM, 2x NVidia 9600 GT SLI

Unplayable here as well...
i7 Sandy Bridge (2,2ghz)
8gb DDR3 1333mhz
Raedon 5750 1gb DDR5
Intel SSD /w TRIM

Funny thing is that I don't really seem to get a big enough "performance drop" from Very Low settings to Very High..

Very low over land = maybe 10 FPS
Very high (everything maxed out) = around 5ish FPS...

Unplayable for me too. Also there seems no difference between low - high settings. No problems in any other games, including FSX and DCS A-10C.
Latest drivers ect.

i950@ 4,2 Ghz, 6 Gb 1600 cas 6, nVidia GTX280

Out of interest,what keyboard buttons are you pressing to give you this fps reading?

I have'nt checked before now as my game is running really well but I'd still like to check what fps I'm getting,thanks.

Open console window (default Shift + TAB) and use "fps START SHOW" (without the quotation marks and using caps for the "START SHOW" part.

Ive tried everything I can, the best I can achieve is to dogfight over the see in quick missions, anything else is not possible, even the quick missions stutter.

There are also problems trying to set up controls, mulitplayer is just, er well broken. The game doesn't remember what skins you have selected, FMB only has one time of day. The AI is the worst AI I have ever seen in any game. The terrain even on the highest settings does not look as good as IL2. How on earth the dev's can claim that this game was beta tested is beyond me.
Ive thrown in the towel and asked Steam for a refund on the grounds that the game is not fit for purpose. Back to good old Il2 for me. Have fun chaps and good luck.

S! Tree

Have you checked "View -> Mission Parameters"? Plenty of different "times of day" there LOL!

Does this mean we don't have to hear your rants on the CoD boards anymore? If so, good luck to you too!:grin:

Unfortunatley for all of us my 'rants' as you call them came to fruition. Good luck to you too. S!

How can you judge the game if it's unplayable?

That doesn't make any sense to me, I think it looks great, miles better than IL2.

Good luck Steve. Try and enjoy IL2 for a few months before coming here to see how everyone's doing, you might then come back to a game that's ready.

It is horrible feedback at official Ubi forums:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t...8981073819/p/1

They are almost ready to report Ubi to police for fraud commited at market... with unfinished product.

Just hope that "fanboys security" of this forum who did not allow anybody to analyse "Friday updates" are reading this...

Apart from this forum, CoD has had a pretty severe pounding in the FlightSim community. I don't regret buying it and will occaisonally launch it for 1 v 1 over the Channel to get used to the various CEM/Weapons loadout features.

I'm OK with that and prepared to wait for the fixes but I feel sorry for the people with far better spec machines than I have who cannot even launch it and have only marginally better performance.

I have shelved it until there is SLI support. Sick of turning crossfire on and off all the time.

I think it looks beautiful. It's just not playable. I hope they sort it out and quick.

Thanks SacaSoh I appreciate you're help fella.

Considering we had 2 or so weeks of reviews from the Russian sim community I thought most people would have gone into the purchace fairly well informed about the issues. Performance has improved a lot with the recent patches. You have bought the sim, haven't you? What sort of spec computer do you have?

My modest rig plays the sim at a reasonable frame rate with most settings (except trees) at medium (Running at 1680*1050).

The difference between PC games and consoles is that there is so many different peices of hardware out there for PC that the developers just can't make one ideal configuration. It's been that way since PC games were invented.

If you bother to look around you may be able to find a way improve your frame rate. There are some very smart and helpful people on these forums. If you bother to stick around you will find that out!

Cheers!

I disagree with you about the truth, so you find our posts idiotic. Whatever.

Actually I would, if I was buying a tv that was better than any other tv I'd ever seen, and manufactured by a manufacturer that made my last tv and supported it so much that it was the best tv of all time.

I didn't get this game home to find out it wasn't finished, I knew it wouldn't be, because they made it clear.

+1.

Spot on.

BobTuck.

The point is that a new game can only be tested on whatever machines are available to the programmers, I can't believe people can't appreciate that simple fact, and if you have spent any ammount of time around computers you will know that each machine has its own quirks despite being of similar specs, so what...you want the dev teams to test on every conceivable variation of hardware first?......then we'd all end up bitching that the game isn't being released soon enough.....oh wait! that's already happened, like from the first moment SOW/COD was announced there are litteraly enough posts on untold number of flight sim forums 'when will it be released?' like that annoying kid in the car 'are we there yet?'

The TV analogy isn't quite the same thig is it, a TV doesn't have to cope with the random combination of hardware, it's just a TV.

I have to disagree with you on that one Trggaaar, the dev's didn't make it clear at all, in fact they did the reverse, they continued to ignore any requests to show in game footage, they showed video's that are not possible for anyone to replicate, and they made no annoucment before the Russian release that the game was broken. After release they then put the blame on Ubisoft for the Epilepsy filter that they also claimed was stopping SLI working, they quickly retracted the Ubisoft blame shortly afterwards and implied that the patch would fix SLI, obviously it doesn't. Add to that all the other issues it is more than clear that the Dev's fully understood that they were releasing a product that was not fit for purpose, in 2011 I believe that to be unacceptable.

let's ask this one then, if having spent the money bothers you so much, considering it has been released for all of 4 days, perhaps anyone wanting to make sure they were purchasing a flawless and perfect product would wait untill some good reviews were available to help with the decision, just like when buying a TV, given that everyone has included in the general complaining that this seems to be the way all games are released (with early bugs) then why are you so surprised???? I suggest you have no one else to blame but yourselves for not being astute enough to wait a few months/years for the game to have received it's ultimate patch (because we all know the final patch fixes everything for everyone) and as an added bonus the cost may have come down by the too.

We can argue about the details of what they said and when, but for simplicity let's face the fact that most people discussing this on this forum are not in Russia, and knew that there were problems before they bought the game. You simply cannot say that you bought the game outside of Russia and expected it to run without a problem. We knew about the epilepsy filter problem before it was released over here.

Can you post a link to where they actually said it was Ubisoft's fault? Because they said that they had to add the filter because the game failed Ubisoft's tests, but they didn't say that was Ubisoft's fault. I'm not sure where it went wrong with SLi - don't forget the epilepsy problem is not limited to the filter, they had already done other work to the sim to fix the epilepsy problem. But presumably they'll get SLi working.

If they were to say that this is the game, final version, never to be touched again, I would agree with you that it is not fit for purpose. The game clearly needs more work. As it is at the moment, I think it's pretty close to being playable for most people, with a few tweeks here and there, and a couple of patches in the nest few weeks. Remember that this hasn't even been released in the US yet.

In 2011, if you are only interested in games that work as they should from the moment they are released, I suggest you forget buying comabt flight sims. What decent combat flight sim worked like a dream from the moment it was released? IL2 didn't. RoF didn't.

You didn't even expect this to be released before 2013. Now that you know the game isn't good enough for you, why don't you just fight for a refund and leave this forum? What are you doing here, just enjoying the arguement? Surely you have better things to do. I'm here because I think this game will be great, and I want to learn how to get it to work well on my system and watch it develop. Would I prefer it to work as it should out of the box - yes, of course. How many developers in the world can offer that (in a ground-breaking combat flight sim)... none.

To be perfectly honest with you, if Oleg had said 5 years ago that they needed money to develop the sequel to IL2, and they were looking for people to prepay £30 for their copy 5 years in advance, I'd have paid. I don't really have any spare money at the moment, but you need to put it into perspecting. I've spent thousands of hours flying IL2, for the cost of a couple of meals out (ie, IL2 wasn't 1 release) which is great value in my eyes. So I've paid my £30, and even if it takes another year to get it working well, that's £30 well spent for me.

I'm sure that both sides of the argument would claim the other just isn't 'getting it'

point is the complaining is getting tiresome, it's NOT constructive, making a bug report IS constructive, but accusing UBI, 1C etc of daylight robbery is petty, fine delete the game from your hard drive.....don't buy any UBI products ever again etc etc, yes perhaps I am a sad 'fanboi' and am unable to listen to the reasoned arguments of the complainers, but I too bought a game I don't feel is fully playable yet but I can deal with it and live with the consequences of my own actions.

Feel free to correct me If i am wrong, but after the problems that were highlighted via the Russian forums the blame was put squarely at the feet of the Epilepsy Filter, this once removed was supposed to fix the game and it was announced that the patch would be available to European market at the time of download, there was no mention about multi core not functioning correctly, no mention of multiplayer issues, no mention of graphical anomalies, no mention that SLI had never been tested, no mention of no 64bit support, No mention that you could fly through Tree's, No mention of FM and ballistic problems, and no mention that aircraft could fly about with a wing missing. The list of smaller unmentionables is even longer. I am not saying that this game is worthless, if it gets fixed it will be a massive step forward in terms of aircraft models and damage models, but to release the product in its current state surely has the potential to cause such a backlash against the Dev's that it will do far more harm than good, you only have to look at other forums to see that the backlash as already started. I really cannot imagine what politics were involved in releasing this product but they sure as hell misjudged the mood of the flight sim community.

Yeah because the flight sim community is awash with choice after all, can barely move for high fidelity simulators being released every five seconds, I feel sorry for those console gamers......if flight sims keep getting released at this rate then console games will loose out on funding for development and be consigned to the history books.....

Honestly Tree, hand on heart, you are wrong:
1) From the start, it was possible to play the Russian version with the epilepsy filter off, and even then everyone knew the game wasn't smooth and without issues.
2) The development team said they'd spent the last 3 months trying to sort out the epilepsy issue, and hadn't been working on optimising the game as they had expected to.

All of this information was available before the game was released outside of Russia, because people on this forum were playing the game. Show us the posts where those people said there were no (or even only a few) issues with the game.

Well that's the thing - the game has taken longer in development than the team expected, and presumably cost more, and they don't know how much they'd get back. So presumably they needed to release the game to get some money for it to continue. Is that ideal - obviously not. But this is the reality for a game like this.

It's just too early 4 days after release to be writing it off. It would be more interesting to know what it will be like in 2 or 3 months. Presumably you'd be delighted if it was in a good state to play in 3 months time?

+1

I don't really care about the current state of the game, given I and many others can fly it without much trouble. Basically it works on reasonable PCs. The things that are wrong are the tip of the product iceberg when you think about the amount if work that goes into a product like this.

It isn't right yet, its a shame but that's how it is. Was it released at £35 on purpose? I expected to pay £50 plus. Maybe money was the issue.

I would rather have it now the way it is now than wait another year. I am happy to report bugs and speed up the 'testing' effort if that's the way some people see it.

As some guys have said, where are you going to get a another new combat sim of the calibre this undoubtedly will be? It's overdue and buggy but if it wasn't available at all (like say MG went out of business for lack of money) where would you go for your next good combat sim? IL-2 is ok, with or without mods, but its dated and the FMs needed improving.

So, yes, its not right yet but if that bothers you, return it or turn it off until its better. If it cost you £35/$50 and you are saving for or buying a new rig then the game price is neither here nor there. In any case its a cheap investment for what it is going to be.

We get the message, now please stop bloating the threads that are trying to be constructive by dragging up the same old complaints. At least try to be constructive.

1+

If we pay the 50 for it and it's not done.... so what

I'd pay the 50 just to participate and beta test it as long as it we have the developers attention.

We'll end up getting more of what we really want.

Afterall, the bar has been set very darned high to start from the developer. ---- maybe too high.

We have a release candidate of the BOB COD, and by darned I'm happy about it.

I'm already reading some good feedback, and it will get better.

NO sirs, I'm so glad we have a release and we don't have to read another year of groans and whines about a release date, when will it go gold,etc.

I'm not buying all the junk talk

Besides all these ufinished elements of game... there are some elements that will hardly be finished or improved.

Development team are simply not gifted to create landscape textures and visuals... basically it is hardly improved from Fogotten Battles time.

As game becomes available in Western Europe - it is more obvious that landscape is not at 2011 level... and simply doesn't look like Britain.
Also it seems very cartoonish (Flaming cliffs 2 or A-10 have more realistic landscapes...)

Contrary to that, there are many, many - very talented moders who made gorgeous looking maps for Il2-1946 and if we take a look at 20 best maps for Il2-1946 - none of them is made by official team.

Why is that army of amateur artists ignored by Oleg ?
Is there any chance that developers would give them support to improve existing textures or produce new maps ?

Bold statement, what exactly do you imply will not be improved?

by this insult to the devs one can assume you are a highly talented programmer? what is your portfolio I'd love to see some of your marvellous work

what, you mean DCS A-10, that game which was released as a beta, and Flaming cliffs 2, wasn't that a sequel to LOMAC (notorious for being a slideshow)
I'd love to play the version of forgotten battles you are playing, but from what I have seen ClOD kicks it's head in and rapes it's mother, it's a shame it won't be moddable.......just like IL2 wasn't meant to be moddable.

ahahahhahahahaaaaaahhaaaahahhahahahhahhahahhaahahh haaaahhahaahahahhhaahhahahahhahahahahahhahahahahah ahhaahhahahhhhahahhaaaaaahahahahahaahaha....

..phew, lemme just catch my... my brea...

...ahahhahahahahhahahhahhahahhahahhahhahahhahahhah ahahaaaaahahahaaahahahhahahhahhahahhahhahahhahhaha ahahhahhahhahaahahhaa...

...wow ok... I think I got that out. Yeah I would looove to see the futuristic moon-people version of FB that you possess.

There is a saying that fits this topic, i believe:

(be positive and) Fly with the Eagles, or scratch with the chickens! :-D

What insult ? This is business mate, selling professional product for money... and right of client is to judge the product that is offered.

The only insult here is - insult to Il-2 worldwide community that was lured to prepay unplayable product (Are you reading any other related forums except this one ? )

( To advertise your "new generation combat flight sim" without Force Feedback - that is insult.)

Regarding myself, I am not professional programmer - so why should I present my creations ?

If people say that of Toyota cars have technical problem - does it mean that they all make cars themselves ?
If You say in supermarket that egg is not good, does it mean that You are laying eggs ?

Talking about work, I would suggest to You to examine 10-20 latest map works at www.sas1946.com... made "in free time by amateur creators" and compare them to map versions of "professional full time employed team".

Being genius for combat flight mechanics and not for a land visuals - it is life fact, not an insult...

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.

Took me about 5 years before I had the technology available to run il2 on perfect with everything maxed out.
I expect nothing different here.As it is,CoD is running nicely on my poor old computer,and even if I went out and bought a top of the range system today,I wouldn't expect it to run CoD on max.

Yes it's a well known fact that the most important quality to being a pilot is mindless conformity, you are absolutely right, I would never qualify for Lufthansa or British airways, they have a strict policy, you must have a high education etc, I didn't have the best education, I just relied on my own stubborn dedication to finally end up where I am.

Look I am willing to appologize if I am becoming a bit insulting, I am the first to admit I get somewhat animated in any heated debate, some call it 'hot headed', but criticism as you call it is becoming petty and not constructive, people are bloating the forums with the same drivel, this will hurt the sim's development because people will be put off, the whole issue is being dealt with and it is being worked on fast, can you not at least agree with that? but in the short space of time it is taking the devs to work on the fix, there are people hell bent on slandering it.....making sure the world knows to saty away.......result, this sim dies and we are all left with arguing wether we prefer v 4.09 v4.10 0r v4.11 of il2.

Agreed.
Everyone is entitled to vent their frustrations for a while...after all there are some serious issues with the game as we're all aware, but ultimately we need to get over the disappointment and contribute as a community as best we can.
I believe in this sim and I believe the game will be everything we hoped it would be, given time.

It's not an ideal situation as things stand, but we cannot change the situation. We can only try to contribute and try to help make things better in the long run, for everybody.

That's all true what you said, but the buyers have just expected more on release. Me too.

Nevertheless, I believe that CoD is going to be a brilliant simulation through the upcoming patches.

That's the problem really, too many people expect but don't anticipate, it's a simple life skill, but everyone acts like spoiled children, crying because they wanted the shiny thing with bells on but didn't get it 'immediately'.

It makes no sense to try to convert the users here.

Many of the buyers are also mainstream users, do not forget it. They expect a game that works.

I think the killer problem that's winding people up (me included) is that other games seem able to produce the same sort of graphics quality as CloD on mid-range hardware, but at very much higher frame rates. For example, I have RoF on my i7 920 @ 3.8 HGz, 6GB RAM, GTX285 PC and it runs very smoothly. To get CloD to run at all I have to turn down so many graphics options that it looks very, very poor by comparison. It's OK over the sea, but the terrain is particularly disappointing with a massive performance hit even to get it looking like FS9. Basically, RoF knocks the spots off it.

Now it may be that there is something special going on in CloD that drags FPS down. However, I don't believe this to be the case. Some posters have claimed it's the advanced FM etc that drags down performance. But it can't be, because the CPU load from CloD is actually very light with most of the grunt of a quad-core CPU going unused. I think it's actually just very poor software design, and Luthier's post saying that they anticipate getting much better FPS out of future patches suggests that 1C themselves know that there are serious problems with it in its released state. But the name change from BoB to CloD suggests that 1C know they have little hope of delivering large aerial battles over land. Hardly an encouraging sign.

If it is just badly coded, and they can make the CPU lift some of the load off the GPU, then maybe it's recoverable as a worthwhile product. However, if people find that they need a top-end rig to even make it playable at all (rather than just to enable all the bells and whistles) then it's doomed. Negative reviews and word of mouth will kill it stone dead.

There's also a serious concern that even if it can be made to reach playable frame rates with decent graphics quality, the thing is still buggy as heck and will need a lot of work to become a decent product. There are already a number of idiotic design decisions made in the game that really need to be fixed. The acid green landscapes are deeply unattractive and look nothing like I see when I fly over England. How could they get that so wrong? The aircraft engine sounds are terrible - where is the growl of a Merlin? The QMB-type thingy it counterintuitive and seems designed to produced Bf 110s with RAF roundels etc. I have no idea why they went with what they have now rather than re-use the IL-2 QMB, or copy RoF's neat alternative. Why did they spend all that time modelling tanks we will never see in great detail when the landscape looks so poor? I could go on, but it's just dispiriting.

Overall, I have found CloD to be a serious disappointment. Perhaps because I had expected so much. It certainly does make me wonder exactly what they were up to all those years since what we have finally received is manifestly such a rushed job. RoF survived a rocky launch because they hadn't built up player expectations and because it was actually pretty playable from day 1 but just lacked content. CloD doesn't have that advantage. Unfortunately, the closest parallel to CloD so far is the ill-fated Silent Hunter 5. I really, really hope that ubi don't walk away from it after two patches as they did with SH5 and that it all comes right in the end. But so far it's not clear which way it will go. I have my fingers crossed.

Ho Hum.

I dont want to convert anyone really, I am just trying my hardest to counter all the unreasonable aspects of the complaining.

buyers?....users? I wasn't aware of a difference, I bought the game (buyer) with the intention of using it (user), I also expect a game that works it's just I have the ability to realise it will eventually work.

Simply this, the resources to research this sim are blatantly obvious and within reach of everyone with a brain and at least 1 finger, assuming your money is your most precious resource and it is truly. then why was nobody able to do a bit of research before buying, it's a lot less effort that writing slanderous posts condemning this sim.

I added my personal consideration: even if it worked (and surely CoD will work, it is only a matter of time: patches and PC upgrades will come for most of us).... do you like graphics?

IMHO CoD does not seem a 2011 game: cockpit is great, as well as planes details, but the general impression is not great (i.e.WoP or DCS are significantly better)... It could be "ok" 15-25 FPS, but I like to be impressed when I enter in the cockpit...

they will have no choice if the sales are affected by all this type of criticism....thanks!

Well, I dislike the title of this thread and did not want to post here but, I see the discussion is going on.

There has been a big misunderstanding: This was never meant to be a game, this is a very hard core simulation.

You need to have been flying a few yeas IL2FB at full real levels and knowing the IL2FB conf.ini by heart in order to dare to load this "game" on your hard disk.

So how did such a hard core simulation become something which anybody can buy of the self and offload his frustration later, I do not understand.
Apparently, the original IL2 and subsequent versions sold approx 650.000 units in Russia and another 600.000 in the rest of the world
(numbers are not equal to users, I have 8 of the IL2FB and two of CoD but it still gives a good idea of the community).
This is a big community of hard core sim players and a market big enough to create a specialised "game" for.
Some 15years ago, I was looking at a Silicon Graphics Workstation demonstrating a flight simulator and had promised myself to buy one of these things one day.
Of course I didn't the price tag was USD$ 500.000 those days. So, I am happy I can pay 30-40-50 USD and have this game on my PC.

Somebody was kind enough (thanks!) to post a video of the complexity of getting an airplane off the ground in real settings.
This is what I am concened about and not how much is the impact on my fps when the windmills are turning in high resolutions or if many chimneys pop up smoke:

(I have problems to shoe the Youtube link, look at Sven's post in the thread below)
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=20466

As far as eye candy is concerned, there is a lot and everybody's hardware has extreme limitations.
You need to use GPU-Z to see how much the RAM of your GPUis used and you will know your limits (at least befor the next patch arrives).

To answer the title "This game is unplayable" yes, I believe you are right if you do not know how to open the conf.ini or do not know how to tune your graphics cards and PC
or have not being flying flight simulations in full real settings for a couple of years then, this game is not what you should be buying.
I do not want to step on anybody's toes here, it just that we need to be objective, this is not an easy game to load on your PC and play with it!
There have been a lot of games which had excellent graphics and were easy to setup and play (I recall my excellent experience with one of these Call of Duty 4 or 5 etc).
THIS ONE IS NOT

If on the other side, you know how to open the conf.ini, know how to tune your graphics cards and PC and have being flying flight simulations in full real settings
for a couple of years then, this game rocks and here is the proof below:

Finaly after three days of hard work testing the new setup under Win7 I noticed following interesting things
probably worthwhile sharing.

Yes, it is playable but your GPU must have lot's of memory!
Back in Christmas when I was buying my new GTX-570 with 1280Mb RAM I though the Nvidia guys had gone crazy.
I am happy now I kept that thought to myself.

Win7-64bit is a must, otherwise in WinXP you will be stuck to run the game at 640x480 kai 800x600 resolution (maybe also 1024x768 )

Sorry the photos are big because my desktop has 3840x1024 resolution (three monitors) and the game runs in the middle window at 1280x1024.
At the far right are the interesting stats on CPU and GPU workload:

#1 The game appears to be using nicely many CPUs, I have Process Affinity=6 (using cores 1+2 out of the four 0,1,2,3)
the system runs very smoothly and total CPU usage is 30% (whereas WinXP had only 13%).
So, thanks to Win7-64 the CPU doubled, this is good news! :-)
It is a bit surprising though as it conflicts with the statement that the game poorly support multiple-cores.
You will see that the CPU usage is very evenly spread around the four cores, I am also surprised myself.

#2 The less good news is the consumption of GPU memory. The freeware GPU-Z is an excellent way to monitor this in real time.
Here GPU-Z shows the results of the first GTX-570 (the second being idle).
The most important is in the middle of the GPU-Z window, the Memory Used
Above the sea, 1280x1024 Memory Used is 959Mb RAM :excl:
Above land, 1128Mb RAM :excl: :excl:
MY GPU has 1280Gb RAM so it can still run smoothly but if the GPU has less then problems will start and you will have
to lower the resolution or the quality (grass, roads, shadows, etc, etc).

Mission 1, bombers intercept with 12 airplanes in the air
http://www.stoimenos.com/temp/CoD/Co..._1280x1024.JPG

Quick mission over land with 6 airplanes
http://www.stoimenos.com/temp/CoD/Co...280x1024_b.JPG


I must underline that I am more interesting in flying dogfight than enjoying eye-candy;
The new game has endless capabilities in graphics and it is definitively very heavy for most graphics cards available today
(at least until the next patch arrives) but I do not care that much; if I wanted nice graphics I could have been flying MS FSX four years earlier...
What I find very annoying on the other side though is the unconfirmed information that AI can see through thick clouds
(they had promised us they would fix this in the IL2FB days, it will be a major issue if they did not) -
I can not confirm as I have not tested it yet myself - too busy trimming my rig.

Using GPU-Z you can easily check whether you reached the limits of your system, watching Memory Used and Memory Controller load.
I hope this helps somebody, especialy those who start frustrated "my resolution is 1600x... the game is unplayable" types of threads

~S~

resolution: 1280x1024
anti aliasing: 0x (I get very bad errors when I try to raise AA)
Epilepsy: Off
Model: high
building: very low
land:medium
forest: off
effects:high
damage decals:high
buildings:low
land shading: low
grass: on
shadows: on
roads: on
__________________________________________________ ___________
Look also at my post at
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...t=19777&page=3
for the performance on 800x and 1024x under WinXP.

Also look at Skinny's post http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=20438



Sorry for being too long but, we should get a bit more mature dealing with this and all new buyers
who did not know where they were stepping into the hard core simulation field have my full sympathy!


~S~

You don't need a Core 2 Duo at 3GHz 4GB of RAM (which IL2 cannot even address) nor a GT460 tu run IL2 at absolute best settings.

This is a screenshot at low settings (and poor FPS) from the wonder CloD, tell me... you rather play IL-2 1946 or this... you give it a name.

http://i52.tinypic.com/2uek9d1.jpg


If you say I should expect under 30FPS for that garbage quality at my rig because IL-2 that looks 1000 times better runs OK on it... you loose me as debate partner.


P.S> This level of quality should had not existed in CloD... it's simply shameful. period!

No, I'm not reading other foruns, I'm playing the game. I thought it was running on my PC pretty nicely, but if what you say is true, and that people on another forum say it's unplayable, well I guess I must be mistaken.

That really is a quite remarkable shade of green :rolleyes:.

I don't have RoF, but I understand that it ran poorly when it was released.

Are you trying to be witty? You're not are you - you're suggesting that the change in name is because the developers couldn't get the game as optimised as they'd hoped. Wow, even for this forum that's some imagination you have. It's still called Battle if Britain in Russia isn't it? Maybe they can have battles over land but we can't.

This game does indeed become playable with some tweaking.

If you don't mind abandoning your monitors native resolution, discarding anti-ailiasing and disabling half the terrain detail.

Yep, playable, but ugly as a bag of spanners...

Tree tried and tried to suport this game, but in the end
 

he had to accept that the game, despite his best efforts has issues.

Imagine if the devs could have concentrated on what matters in this game instead of all the "that lorry drivers hat was introduced in 1944!"
and
London bridge was this colour in 1940 not that colour
and
that shade of green has never existed in england!
and
that kind of tree doesn't grow beside river's


LOL

The engine has issues. It is obviously a big disappointment for the devs, for Oleg, for all of us.

But for Tree its heaven!
HEAVEN
HEAVEN ON A STICK WITH BUTTER

THE GAME HAS ISSUES!
tree tried to save us, to fix the game, but he couldn't do it because we just didn't love tree enough. lol

heh...

+1

Working yourselves into a corner, are you?

Go do the IL2 with TD upgrades... very excellent. The BOB COD will be a quantum leap better.

335 Grathos nailed it above.

Think of it like this, it is not a gamers game. Configuration and setup has always been an issue with IL2, why should BOB COD be any different. All of us, that have been with IL2 know. It is what we expect. Many of us has stated as much. The issues may persist for a month or more after initial release. All the users with their hot systems, and not so hot systems will have to tweak their systems for best use of BOB COD.

Just getting the key commands, setup with HOTAS is time consuming and mostly trial and error. You can literally spend several days trying to get the HOTAS setup, and then it can vary between Online and Offline play. LOL

It is the nature of the beast. If you must have plug n play, you need to be console player.

Calling BOB COD a game really doesn't describe it, except to say it is sold as one. The elements of what most gamers look for in a game don't exist.

I recall many times I've been involved in air combat. The action and immersion were so real my heart was actually pounding like my life was in peril.
I have never been affected like that by any game and certainly not a console game.

Excellent News on this post (first post of second page):
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...t=20472&page=2


+1, unforgetable experience


Jumping on the subject of this thread but with Good in mind, since you mentioned the HOTAS ordeal, the easiest way is to directly edit your confuser.ini (if you have not done it already, of course) It is a two-way process:
#1. Open a backup confuser.ini from now on "original.confuser"
Record your joysticks' (I have three) keystrokes on a neutral location (in my case, it is the change player commands or something like that, by default it is the keystrokes ALT-1, ALT-2, ALT-3, ALT-4. Exit the game so that everything is written on the confuser.ini from now on "confuser"
In "original.confuser" you can text search for ALT-1. Now you know where your new keystrokes will be saved in the confuser
Create a list of the names of your joysticks' keys.

#2. Open confuser and manually edit (add) the keystrokes to the functions you want.
The nice thing is that you can keep the old keystrokes AND ADD the new keystrokes as well. It is like the old IL2FB that could accept two different keys for the same command; I was very annoyed when I could not do the same in CoD (until I realised that the New command kept the old keystrokes and created an additional). And I was very happy when I saw I could do it directly on the confuser.ini :-)

~S~

I was trying to make the point that High settings appear to need a realy good PC, well GPU at least, after you said:

"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)."

I meant that if you want to insist on Max settings and not try say Medium I think you'll be disappointed. I don't expect that on mine although I hope MG will improve things for all of us. btw that low level of detail (I haven't tried it) was presumably to accommodate the older PCs (the basic spec AMD3800+ etc) so that more people could play it rather than be left out.

However, if you are not even getting 30fps from Low settings with that screenshot there's clearly something wrong because I have friends with similar CPU and older 512Mb GPUs that get better performance than that. How about the settings in your Nvidia control panel, are they demanding high AA / AF in Default mode (I don't think there's a profile for CoD yet). Just some thoughts.

You might want to look at the CPU and GPU loading to see if there's a clue there plus all the usual IL-2 stuff about background services etc.

Tree, where do you get your info from?? I am running 64bit and unsupported GFX card Nvidia 8600gt (according to box) and i can run game, sure the frame rate is not good but like most ppl here you can see the potential and we are prepared to wait

@Klem

I get even 40FPS in that shot but to what purpose? The game looks like...

If you make the game to look a bit better in some aspects than IL2 1946 it gets utterly unplayable.

Yesterday I was chatting with a squad mate that lives in UK and he said: "I have I7 @ over 3GHz, 12GB of ram, a GT580 combined with a gt460, win 7 64, etc... and besides getting low FPS (around 30) at max settings (1920x1080) I get continuous and annoying stutters and when I get over London is finished... game over... under 10FPS." His satisfaction was in negative numbers...

This is really disturbing...I have i7920@3.5Ghz, MSI Twin Frozr2 GTX470 (OC to 750 Mhz on core) and 6GIGS of RAM, x-fi gamer, Win7 64bit....and even on med with low trees and buildings I have barely playable COD. With one plane in the air. Over sea. Sometimes its almost slide show.
Putting aside that game is released unoptimised....Will they EVER optimise this sim? Or this wil be an epic fail?

On top of everything AA is not working, sound of MG guns is too loud, external sounds are IL2 stock sounds of BF109.......is this april fools?

Weird,its running much better than that for me Tvrdi. Have you looked at all the optimisation threads here for tips on how to tweak your computer?

TBH I did what I know from my experience with sims and as beta tester....Will try to find something....is there a config.ini optimisation guide?

I had also the too loud mgs problem. Set your sound setting to binaural...that will work...otherwise same performance problems here

tnx Janpitor....

btw, Rise Of Flight, which had simmilar performance/optimisation problems at the release is now optimised pretty well (apart from some graphic glitches)...so thers a hope for COD....

Nope,

i have RoF since release. It was never run as bad as Cliffs of Dover upon release (no stuttering, multi-CPU support from the start and so on).

I am patient and give CoD time, but nevertheless I am a little pessimistic.

for you....for others and for me....was different..