Waste of money
 

man o man what a waste of money ......new patch still rubbish .

sound horrible , frame rate jumps up and down , colors on the ground are a joke .

its 1 big joke if you ask me . :evil:

Download one of the many sound mods available,we do not need to listen to bad sounds anymore offline,so you can't wine about the sounds.

As for performance you need to optimise your system better,believe me the game is running fine for most of us.

There are still problems with this sim yes,but it is flyable now,so there's no excuse if you have'nt optimised your rig for this sim.

But the terrible 3 blue lines are gone, there cant be anything wrong with this gamee now, :rolleyes:

I find it pretty boring but i'm more into racing simulators. Nothing better then 'iRacing' , but the game itself runs well. I havent installed any sound mods. Might look at that now.

Sim air racing should be right up your alley then.

http://www.simairracing.com/



For now it seem though its still IL2 1946 they use.

Waste of money! Come on! Get real! For each dollar you've spent on buying the game some of you guys have posted at least 3 "I've been ripped off" threads!

Now that's what I call value for money! ;)

Now even taking in all the bugs and all, in my opinion it's been the best $50.00 I've spent!

Maybe it's time you started looking for alternatives, rather than wasting your lives here!

Cheers!

F"(K Off with these threads! Find a better WWII Fight Sim....hmm didnt find uh

Yeah!

Find a better WWII flightsim! Or a cheaper WW1 sim ;)

I dont understand how anyone can feed this troll????

we're hoping it will explode if we keep feeding it

No it's not!

I did a mistake trying to help this guy in the past. Some people just do not want to do anything to make the game running on their system. It is more rewarding for them just to feel pity for themselves in public. They definitely need a manly hug or what do you call it in English.

Come on man, clear your cache (as in "drink your coffee") and try again...:rolleyes:

Actually if we put it too a vote i would have to go with IL2 1946 with the UP 3.0 and Wide screen support Mods, as far as the best all around WWII flight sim today :)

Just discovered this mod lately waiting for CLOD to catch up and i must say it has brought this 1946 back to life for me and i find myself spending 5 plus hours a pop doing mission after mission again like the good old days :)

Cheers

What widescreen mods? There is only this "Ecran wide" mod that makes user interface widescreen, but for actual gameplay there is still only (very buggy) San's FOV changer. Because even with Ecran wide mod, the actual gameplay (not menus) chops off the top and bottom of the 4:3 picture, not adds to it at the sides.

Hmmm... for IL2FB ???

No, real three times more view than normal.
But for this it is better to have 4:3 monitors ;)

Example, 3-4 years ago, 3072x768 resolution (left view 1024x768 + centre view 1024x768 + right view 1024x768)
You need to turn the left and right monitors to an angle towards you in order to have a realistic feeling (in the photo they are straitened up in order to take the picture).
http://www.stoimenos.com/temp/TripleHead2Go_01.JPG

and you have an amazing field of view (look to the right)
http://www.stoimenos.com/temp/perfect8800.jpg

I sincerely hope that Luthier will manage to give us 3renders view in CoD soon, otherwise this will be the reason for me to drop this game...

But I have no reason to complain with CoD (except the stupid head restriction in gunsight mode in the Bf109 which made me switch to Spitfires
after seven years flying for the "Dark side"), my SLI works fine and I have around 70fps at 3072x resolution, sound works fine (yes I know,
many complain about it but I never lost it), graphics and damage model are awesome and the rest, is patience.
"Patience" means waiting for the next generations of GPUs to come out so that I can have some power to play this game in high settings.
Do not dream about code optimizations, the game is huge and it requires ressources! If you want to see what t really can do, go to to Tuckie's post
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=24093
and download the 1080HD version of his video (it is 340Mb ;) ) and watch to the end to get a taste of the graphics detail this game has! AWESOME!


So coming back to the initial post, 50bucks is a waste of money, I am sure it is for you (after the thousand bucks you paid for your hardware).
You are not worth to own the game and I believe it should be forbidden to sell this game to people like you because you lack understanding
and appreciation for the things you have and have no idea for the work people have to do in order for you to enjoy what you get.
I am even surprised that you put your time to overclock your CPU to 3702MHz or probably you had someone else do it for you...

~S~

it doesn't feel good ... and yea i am winning because if this is the new standard i would say take a look to Rise of flight .

a good example how it can work with nice graphics good sound and excellent environment .


i am just disappointed that's all .

I started up rof to check out the Bristol fighter and I was surprised at how bland the landscape looks compared to cod. And I like rof but graphically I think cod has the edge, sounds and performance is a different matter though :D :(

This is a joke right? Comparing CLODs ugly neon landscape (which lacks proper AA btw) with that of ROF?

Mate you clearly need your eyes testing everyone talks about how pastel coloured the ground is, your the only one that has mentioned a neon landscape.

Maybe he overdid his custom colors in VGA settings and doesn`t even know it.

Personally I prefer RoF's landscape, currently. CoD's looks almost washed out or something, can't quite put my finger on it. Both games are/will be awesome in my opinion.

http://i.imgur.com/XnG04.jpg

...

http://i.imgur.com/5JYmb.jpg

well in my opinion, cod has a more complex landscape, but it doesnt look better than rof in my eyes.if cod would get the colours correct and the placment of trees, then it would be far superiour to rof graphics wise.only my 2cents.

Didn't you say after your third or fourth "I was ripped off" thread that you were going to shelve the game and leave? You should live up to your words matey!

My guess is you're disappointed because you probably didn't see what RoF was two years ago.

You have every right to complain, just do it in an interesting way that might be useful to others as well and you'll get a more positive reaction. It's the distinction between spending some time on testing the sim and coming up with bugs and possible workarounds, or saying "i'm done with this game" and stopping there: the first one can actually solve something or be useful to another player, the second is only useful to the person venting and as such, boring to the rest and doesn't get much sympathy. ;)

No offence meant really, i'm just calling it as i see it: if you really get a kick out of exposing flaws in the sim then what better way than give a detailed list of what's wrong (aka properly formatted bug reports telling people what's wrong, how to replicate it and any possible short-term fix), put some time into it.

I can understand the initial outburst of frustration because the release was rushed and not handled well but frankly, a good number of months post release repetitive generic comments on issues that are by now common knowledge, to the tune of "fix the sounds/aa/etc", fail to make me take a real interest anymore. It's like background noise at this point and tends to fly below the radar for the most part.

It's known, if it can be fixed it will, there's nothing to do but wait. I think it's better to try and come up with something less known and more interesting and it's that kind of posts that can maintain a healthy interest level.

I mean, i find it funny that the majority of people focus so much on presentation issues, valid as they are, when there's a bunch of issues having a direct effect on gameplay that tend to fly directly over the heads of the majority here.

Just compare the amount of complaints about AA with the amount of complaints about the errors and bugs present in almost every flyable bomber or the inconsistent controls logic employed across different aircraft and you'll see what i mean.

More people take offence to a non-antialiased aerial in external view than the fact that it's almost impossible to drop bombs in a realistic manner from any bomber other than the He-111 in a sim that is supposed to be about a primarily bombing campaign. Who bothers with historical accuracy in those aspects of the sim that directly pertain to portraying the key points of that campaign though, when the aerials look jaggy and the grass is a bit too green?


I think the community by and large suffers from the same thing the developer team is blamed for: a lack of sense of priority. In the end we're all even :grin:

you know i just don't have that woow feel i did have when IL-2 was released .

you know i tried and i tried and give this game a chance but every time when i take of from the ground ore when i do a DF over see i am disappointed and i don't know exactly why .

also Multiplayer ...its hard to find a server .

guys perhaps i expect to much .

Talking in therms of game engine, I had higher expectation about the new IL-2 title. I really don't care so much about game content in the release, but I was really upset with first release, with performance issues, major problems with FMB, MP huge instability...

But now? Now I can join MP sessions and have fun. And I can create a lot of missions to have fun in FMB, and all that with good performance, like in IL-2 1946 two years ago, and with amazing visuals, better FM/DM, etc:

[youtube]2CzsqBwA0II[/youtube]

I don't regreat the investment made in the software itself and hardware to run this sim. I really enjoy it now.

its time for you to wake up, you hypnotised die hard fan ;-)....

You wasted your money on this sim?

lovely ROF landscape, hope COD can be like it one day minus the big butterfly of course.

So yea i run the wide screen mod to get the menu to look rite at 1920x1080 and then i manually adjust the in game res by setting it on my Conf.ini. Below is just the Window portion but it works perfectly just make sure you mark enable re-size to 1 or it will always switch back to native. and also when you have it set like this and working don't change any settings in the graphics section of the menu in game or it will again revert you back to the older res settings for some reason it overrides :)

Cheers

[window]
width=1920
height=1080
ColourBits=32
DepthBits=24
StencilBits=8
ChangeScreenRes=1
FullScreen=1
DrawIfNotFocused=0
EnableResize=1
EnableClose=1
SaveAspect=0
Use3Renders=0

i would have to agree with you sir i also believe that while CLOD has better potential and ROF might be at its maximum potential at this point for the engine (dont really know that just assuming) but for me its more about the ability to run ROF completely maxed out graphics wise on my machine with full AA and all the trimmings and have the game run Smooth as silk even with a sky full of multi-players.

CLOD can look better in sections of the flying I.E. in the cockpit, and over the water and such but with my machine listed below I have to start making some pretty big graphics sacrifices in order to keep the game running as smoothly and then it loses its edge for me since in order to keep the same performance I have to cripple its graphics edge.

Being that I am no programer of video games I have no idea if this is just something that will improve over time or if it is just a sign that i built too slow a computer for what this game really should be running on. I guess time will tell. if its the later though I will not be able to help my disappointment because I am in a pretty good spot money wise these days and i was able to buy what i thought would at least be in the above average category of boxes and still i have to go below medium settings for most of the really cool stuff to keep the game running perfectly smooth with no stuttering.

Cheers :)

It might look good for some, but for me it flickers and the ground shadows look awful.

The ground textures throughout London in Clod are not impressive, whereas the textures in Verdun in ROF look nice. They need work in Clod especially with shadows on. The buildings also pop in and out even the close range ones. It kills any immersion I can get.

CloD wins out in some things, but landscape is not one of them.
Cockpits, Water and Damage models only. Otherwise ROF wins out as it should be because they are two years down the track of their release.

CloD can get there one day if the developer is as dedicated, maybe end of next year CloD will be great. But lots of patches needed.

Having said this, ROF digital nature engine is still in progress even at this great stage. The engine is still improving.

For example the water coming to ROF sometime in the future:

http://riseofflight.com/SharedResour...sion1020/8.jpg

http://riseofflight.com/SharedResour...sion1020/1.jpg

http://riseofflight.com/SharedResour...sion1020/3.jpg

Anyone remember when BOB SOW was mentioned, how it would kick in the pants over ROF graphics wise.

Now ROF is the preferred over CLOD's graphics.


CLOD is not a waste. Each person plunking down money and crying that CLOD's a waste of time is at fault for choosing to buy it. It's up to you to educate yourself what is a good buy and what is not.

Yes the devs and publisher get rocks in their socks for doing a lame release. But in the end, its the buyer who has control of their money.

Early adopters always take that risk, and well if you're willing to take that risk you know if you lose, its part of it . . .


Give this a year or two, and the pendulum will swing and people will say, "Remember when ROF graphics was on par with CLOD, but now they've (CLOD's devs) have come a long way . . ."

I'll wait, which is better, because when 8 cores are the norm the quads will be cheaper . . . well one can say with 16 cores . . . and cheap 8's . . .

Re your graphics topic,I read recently that CLOD is supposed to be getting an even better water graphic,with water that you can see through or something.

I hope so, I really hope it will be great one day.

I want a good WW2 sim, and IL-2 is too dated for me to pickup now

it is realy funny, how fanboys jump at first sign of criticism...it seems that you little boys are spending more time on this forum than in on the sim itself.

It is really funny how whiners jump at the first sign of something positive, it seems those little boys are spending more time being unhappy with the fact that other people are able to have fun than trying to improve their own situation.

See what i did there? Generalizations and sweeping statements are a double-edged sword and they are rarely representative of the majority of posters. But you probably only wanted to get a response and you got one, so i guess your goal is accomplished. Cheers :-P

Wow, Dog thats unlike you...Guess were all showing signs of frustration

Look at my system please. I have mp sound bug, low FPS, freez and game crash during online flight. Yes, i have latest drivers and patch. I am just about to leave this sim.

Online flight now, with or without bugs, is just airquake. We need more time to proper MP missions development.

Wait a litte bit more and explore FMB and SP.

They jump nearly as fast as the whiners, but not quite it seems;) most here arent fanboys they are assisting others with problems, maybe it's time to grow up a little?

S!

Not dumping this game, but instead waiting it to be finally finished. As of now it is a good game engine with mostly nice visuals but sorely lacks content of any kind. The 2 campaigns with the game are a joke, string of non-connected missions that can be played in any way without any effect on the outcome etc.

Sure the mission makers will help with this, but takes time. So that department is covered at some point. Game engine bugs will take a few months at least to get ironed out and so forth. Sure there is progress, but many of the issues should have been non-existent at release, not now after a frantic patch-o-rama.

Not throwing the towel in the ring yet, so to say but instead taking a time out and lurk around to see how the game progresses.

Nah, i just like playing devil's advocate once in a while. It's my experience that certain people don't really understand how their comments are received until they are responded to in kind, so i do it from time to time to help them see why they get hostility in return :-P

I don't mean you in this case, it's just a general thing that can happen to everyone from time to time but some are more prone to it than others.

grow up a little ??? dude this Sim is not ready ...but its ok i check every 3 month,s from now on if its ok .

i leave it on my PC just fore fun ...;-)

Absolute disbelief that you can think this. I love both sims with equal measure but put CLODS cartoons up against the ROF realistic colours of everyday life & totally believable terrain? (ok a terrain where trees don't turn to stare at u :grin:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyBOy1jfM1Y

dont bother mate....hypnotised die hard fans will se CLODs neon (too bright, too vivid, cartoonish) landscape as realistic beautiful land in their fantasy...

As you have repeated it often enough now, now i am shure there IS something wrong with your eyes!
Better see a physician soonest.

What am I supposed to be looking at....?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiTjg7T1ooM

I never said COD was superior I just said that in my OPINION that COD has the edge over ROF.

Another awesome video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o74Z4...eature=related

I like both games... but I don't see you bashing ROF for its faults and it has some.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKspJtIMPH0

Re: "I like both games... but I don't see you bashing ROF for its faults and it has some".


You don't see me bashing ROF because I don't 'bash' games period. Like yourself, I have a great love and respect for both titles & like you, I have a healthy graphical preference of one over the other. I also like to use my own video work to put over a personal opinion.

I made some record tracks of the offline Scrambles 15vs15 in different times of day and I can just tell you - try it. Put 15 vs 15 at 19:45, no clouds... You'll be surprised how sunset light is giving a great immersion and experience.

Problem is, that the very majority of ClOD videos on youtube and elsewhere are made at evenings, where the light is affected by the orange colour of the sunset. Why? Because at noon it just looks awful... Not only videos, but also screenshots... Just look at these screenshots right from the game - no editing at all.. It is taken at scramle time at 19:45.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images...017223601.png/

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images...017300152.png/

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images...017282403.png/

And this are screenshots made on max settings (no super sampling) on a single GTX 570... Everything is smooth, no errors, no nothing disturbing. Just try such scramble, it is just a joy of air combat.

Off topic but in your pictures you have a lever that operates an opening in the top part of wing..what is that?

I noticed it when flying RoF once or maybe just see it in game and wondered

It's a radiator.

http://rides.webshots.com/photo/2952...12442885CwYEFC

You`re barking up the wrong tree. Check your video card color settings because there is no such thing you write about.

BTW anyone did some skirmishes over land at a time of noon with clouds? It is truely something extraordinary.

:D someone doesn't fly full real ;)

Lol...you gunna tell me what it is then??

I dont play it, I've tried the demo twice

As Opitz replied some posts above, it's the lever to open/close the radiator whichi is situated in the upper wing, slightly offset to the right.

Ah ok, didn't see that reply :)

Cheers

Do not forget that different people have different views on what is cartoonish and what is close to photo-realistic. Tastes differ as they say. Thanks God and MG we have different sims for different tastes.

Textures high (not original maximal), landscape shading medium, low forest, buildings and AA. Driver settings set on "quality" instead of "high quality" due to old and slow videocard.
Files are in compressed jpeg, not png.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-k...5-19_00032.jpg

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-g...5-21_00038.jpg

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-s...5-11_00035.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-j...5-06_00001.jpg

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-x...5-06_00002.jpg

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-M...5-06_00003.jpg

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-d...5-06_00006.jpg

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-L...5-03_00019.jpg

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-q...5-03_00018.jpg

TBH, as-much as I like your landscape photographs, I prefer to see the aircraft in action. So flying at 1-2000 feet or racing over the surface at 200mph, I'd rather have a less 'Pop-corn' effect of the terrain exploding into view and divert the rendering or programming to fixing this. Maybe reducing the quality of the Tree and Corn rendering and putting the processing power into making the "bubble around the plane means stuff gets drawn in as you get near it rather than fades/bleeds into view" effect a thing of the past?

I appreciate that taking a still image shows off some nice trees and grass, but I want the town below me to either not be rendered or actually appear smoothly rather than pop,pop,pop,pop,pop as it did in the original IL2 (10-year-old technology at-least) than the current way it is/does appear.

I am not living in hope of a quick fix though as there are many, many more pressing fixes to be done. Lets hope Luthier and the team can throw a 'Hail Mary' and get a touchdown for the US release, with an update for Full Screen (not Psudo), FSAA, does AF work?, Multiplayer Sound bug, Launcher.exe crashing, etc, etc..... one lives in hope!

MP

mate, I have a great knowledge/experience with both the software and hardware..also was a beta tester of some sims (ROF is one of them)...I know how to optimise my rig and how to tune all the settings.....collor setings of my video card are ok thanks....tbh ROF is optimised now but still has some bugs related to THAT optimisation (flickering/flashing landscape when instant changing from super wide to max zoom view, over no mans land) but CLOD is ugly (except cockpits which are nice) and unoptimized....external engine sonds are awfull (when you still can hear them online). Im, not telling CLOD will be good one day but this is a big letdown, frustration and disappointment....every sim (even the new and complex sims) should work ok on my i7920@3.5ghz, GTX470@750mhz, 6GB RAM.....dont you think? ROF, Black Shark, Warthog and any other new and complex sim CAN RUN on much slower systems than mine on med to high settings...Is that a case with CLOD? ARMA2 I can run all maxed out and this game is hardware killer....With release I had a slideshow in CLOD...
so the bottom line is:
CLOD pros:
- nice cockpit graphics
- nice looking external models
- cool engine and MG sounds in cockpit
- FM and DM (although it still needs fine tuning)
CLOD cons:
- very very bad optimisation
- awfull external engine sounds (tbh to me it sounds like IL2 stock sounds)
- pretty bad landscape colors (should be less saturated, less bright and vivid, I was onboard prop planes and I know how it should be)
- bad implementation of AA on landscape
- one theatre, few planes, few dull maps = boring online dogfights/missions (ok that would change in the future)

Yes, release slideshow. It`s long after release and it is not slideshow. I don`t think that CloD is anything like the other sims. It is meant for future hardware and as is, it presents RELATIVELY bad performance so it doesn`t surprise me. Your video card is not the best either. If you have only 1GB of Vram it may not nearly be enough. It is still your opinion, because there is big difference in how different ppl see CloD working. I`m fully satisfied given that I have lower end hardware. And the landscape doesn`t come as nearly as ugly as you say it is. It`s good for me. ROF and WOP are better, I agree, but CloD doesn`t exactly leave a bad taste. It`s good.

Excellent cockpit graphics.
Excellent external models.
Ok sounds in cockpit.
Better FM and the best DM ever in a video game.
Good optimisation (far better than thet of IL2)
External sounds....I fly full real so I don`t hear`em.
Good landscape colors.
AA I don`t know.
Theatre of operations .... you surely got here late with that. It`s been criticised like from 2006 when we first heard it was BoB. The more important thing is that we have it covered - fighters but bombers aswell, refueling and rearming, radar technology, sea battles and pilot career. We`re getting there through consistency which 1C shows clearly.

So maybe you should take notice. It is your opinion and certainly not a fact. YOU find it unplayable or whatnot. I and many others are enjoying this sim, which will be better every month.

Wonderfull, absolutely wonderfull but better for a tank sim where grass is more important than clouds.

These shots are really nice. But... as Mysticpuma said - on thing is a static shot on the ground and second is from 2+km altitude having in mind all known problems with FPS, sounds and other bugs... It is just not consistent... Something is really nice, hands down, the cockpits for example, but then you must live with terrible sounds or radio mess, old IL2 AI stupidity etc..

Rubbish rubbish rubbish that's what it is .

i guess over a year ore so it should be finished !!

i still wondering the following thing ......when and who decides to release this game .

i mean you must have some balls to see this game ....and all the micro stutters in combination with that XXXXXX up sound and horrible color on the ground etc etc . and than say: hmmm lets gonna release this .

it must have something to do with the shareholders .....they need money i quess ?

Sound bug is new, the Color is subjective due to personal opinions and monitor setup.

So really it was just the stutters and lack of working content, but yes you are correct they should have polished the game before release that way we don't see the fixes that cause other problems.

It was a messy birth but whose to say that the foal wont grow into a thoroughbred that beats the rest of the competition not that there is any ww2 sims in the race anyway.

http://i994.photobucket.com/albums/a...oobe58/1-1.jpg

Just one more shot from ROF as a reaction to Ataros static shots, just to show how nice and detailed graphics is in it ...

Wow. Beautiful screen grab. The CLOD colours I can live with thanks to the amazing modders out there. It's really the sound & CEM in that order really. I'm a 100% single player user & agree that CLOD has some mighty fine moments but cannot be captured as the sound is so broken & the only sound you hear on a trk record playback is that of your own a/c.

All part of the 'to do' list I know :rolleyes:

Hey everyone!

I totally found the best, most realistic, most great looking WWII flight simulator! And it's on SALE right now! If you don't like CoD, QUICK, GO BUY IT, JOIN THEIR FORUMS!

COMBAT WINGS: BATTLE OF BRITAIN

And did I mention that it doesn't stutter, or has sound bugs? :D

Agree!

Why not blame Hitler about that? Why in hell he didn't bomb other much more interesting location than England?

Really...

The publishers fund the development and decide when it will be released. The sim wasn't ready for release and publishers were no longer willing to fund the project. The publisher had been funding the project for years, but its hard to continue funding if your not sure you will get enough sales to cover costs. Then you have two choices, stop the development, or release it as is and hope there is enough sales to warrant further development. The Eastern sales were strong enough to continue development atleast until the US release. Strong US sales may just get the sim over the hump. The endless "this sim is trash posts" certainly doesn't help sales, and could even help guarantee the early demise of the sim. The sim isn't trash its just unfinished.

The developers certainly want to continue the project as it will support their families for atleast another ten years. It appears the publisher also hopes to continue support as they didn't just do a world wide release on the same day and shut it down.

The problem is Ubi released the game as a finished product when it was an unfinished product. If they had released the game saying it was a beta there would have been less complaining.

AND in the last minute before release they enforced the epilepsy filter, which would have entailed massive changes to the base code of the graphics engine. This requirement should have been known from the start of the project, not the last couple of weeks! :{

Cheers!

Well, i really don't know why it gives so many problems on your rig, but i have a lower-spec PC than yours and everything runs fine on mostly medium settings at 1680x1050. I even lowered a couple of settings (forests and building detail to low) and this allowed me to set land shading to high and building detail to unlimited and i'm only running this:

win7 x64, i7 920 @ 2.7 Ghz, Ati 4890 1Gb and only 3GB of RAM.

It runs well and flies like a dream, seriously. I really don't know why so many people with beefier PCs seem to be having problems.

The most important thing that affects performance at high graphics settings seems to be the amount of VRAM. In other words, don't expect to run everything on high with original size textures on a 1Gb video card. I run medium textures and it's the one single setting that has the biggest effect on performance, allowing me to increase other settings to where it looks much better than IL2 and still flies in a fluid manner.

If i had a faster DX11 GPU with 1GB of VRAM i would still be running medium textures, but this would mean that i would be able to increase other settings to high.

What i care about is "does it look better than the previous one?", not "are the settings maxed out?". As long as it looks good i don't need to have everything on high.

hmmm..... I have the box listed below (two DX11 1G cards btw:P) and even on medium settings its playable but not very pleasurable. Over water it runs like I would want it to run with 50 planes all battling over London but only there.

I know i stated this before in another post but it really takes me out of the game when the only way to make it play silk smooth is to cut its (clears Throat)..... ball bearings off, graphically speaking of coarse :P

Any way I really hope that this is due to lack of crossfire optimization as this would at least mean that I was not looking at an accurate representation of how the game operates in general but just on my machine.

But then im left feeling like crap again because i just built this box and will not be building another one any time soon and at this point i may rather eat the cost of the game rather than drop another 700 bucks on a new card that may only give me a marginal performance boost at best.

it is starting to get on my nerves though that i can youtube about a thousand videos these days showing the smoothest running all graphics maxed version of CLOD and not be able to tell if its movie magic or if its actual game play. sigh

here's hoping for a smoother running future :)

Cheers

I am one of the guys who are
1. - Delighted with the game
2. - "reasonably happy" with the performance and features

Let me explain:
The graphics and attention to small detail is incredible. Probably 90% of this detail-depth will go unnoticed for most of us.
The damage model goes well beyond anything we have experienced so far.

On the other side the game is a graphics and performance monster. It eats any HW you will put to it for breakfast and asks for more.
It is my personal opinion (and 20years experience in the flight sim world) that, there is no hardware available today to make this game work properly so I am waiting for a year until the new graphics cards will have double the performance of today's top models and at least 3Gb VRAM so that I can at least enjoy some decent performance. Until then it will be compromises.

Of course some will say that "the game should be more optimised". Guys, forget it, they optimised it as much as they could by removing some things and making the distance radius of detail as small as it could become (that'why so many people complain about the "blocked houses"), do not expect too much "optimisation" more...
AND big kudos goes to kegetys who made theMOD and found the optimisations (which later became part of the graphics menu in the game), without his contribution we would still be playing at 15fps...

So, I have 70-100fps at 3070x resolution (not boasting you can see enough screenshots posted on my SLI thread) and no sound problems at all and I enjoy playing online.

I do agree that pretending that this was a game that would run on a min configuration of WinXP and DX10 was a very overstated idea....

Something else worthwhile bringing to your attention gentlemen is the retail price of the game:
This game costs approx 15.00 Dollars (this is the price you pay for it in Russia)
If anybody tells me that this is a waste of money for this product, I would advice him to a psychiatrist as his system of values has been seriously imbalanced (probably too many bankers' advice).
Why this game costs 50.00 Dollars (or 50.00 Euros) in other countries is interesting and maybe you can deduct who cashes in the difference (50 - 15 = 35)... No need for answers from marketeers thanks!
Still, at 50.00 EUR I would not accept that this game is a waste of money.

The only critisism I would make is that this game did not write: WARNING! You are about to spend hundreds of dollars buying new hardware in order to start playing this game and further hundreds of dollars buying more hardware a few months later!


This is my 2cents, as I said before, there are things I am very unhappy with the game (I can not fly Bf109 because of this stupid head restriction in gunsight mode, I do not have three monitors view) so please do not consider me being a "happy client".
But I am a "grateful flight-sim fan" ;)

~S~

Interesting, double the performance in a year?
Anyway, if this game has even 70% of the features the 2006 trailer says, it darn right should be a resource hog! For example, giving the ground objects moving suspensions is such a feature. I don`t know why in a flightsim, so I think it should be customizable.

Optimised...yes. Well, performance wise it should be. The only complaint could be the stutters over the cities. No matter how low you set the video options, it never fully goes away. Now for the other optimisatnions, it also should get rid of any CDTs, stuff that stops the show (meaning literally - the game craps out). What some console idiots don`t realise is that optimisation doesn`t necesarrily mean running this game full whistle @ FullHD resolutions with todays hardware. Everyone expects their 2 year old mid range PC to run a flight simulation at the same FPS as Dx9 Crysis2.
Naaaah, this game is ahead of its time exactly as the IL2 was. The IL2 started to show signs of age about the year of 2006, when majority of the crowd were starting to run it on perfect video settings. Now what I think is going to happen, is that the more powerful pcs we get, the more complicated features will get "unlocked". It`s all a matter of consistency, and we have a real impact on it through buying the copies. It`s about the only thing we have right now and we`re so close to the ultimate online gameplay. But some poeple unable to run it on their 9600GT feel that CloD should be shot down for that reason.

Now don`t get me wrong. I see the mistakes dex team made. The game was hardly customizable for a pc game, and Kegety, even if I despise illegal modders, DID make a serious contribution. We got much more video options which let even the mid range folks run this game at a satisfying level (I have a 2008 higher mid range PC). Maybe even for this reason alone, nobody should ever negate that the community has always pushed 1C forward one step further.

The min system requirements are always to be ignored. Unless ofcourse you don`t know the drill cuz it`s your very first video game.

I got the CE for 42€. The standard version costs here ~ 23€. I have 18 hours of gameplay. That`s almost twice the time of Crysis2 single play campaign and twice of most of the FPS game that cost this money. Probably there will be lots of free stuff coming, not 8$ dlc. Probably the Moscow expansion will come sometime in the next year. Guess how many hours I will have with CloD to that point?

What for? People would still ignore it seeing how they post on these forums. The very sad truth is that many people who bought this game aren`t exactly the type of person suitable for it. It takes money, patience, intelligence, a bit of advanced PC hardware/software knowledge, lots of time. So not many. The good news is that those people who DO manage to stay with IL2 not only play the game, but they keep contributing for the good of all (like uuuuum saaaaay.... creating a free singleplayer campaign?).

Even with optimized crossfire i think that your VRAM is limited to the amount of VRAM on one card only, so i wouldn't suspect the fundamentals to change: reduce the amount of stuff that needs to be loaded into VRAM ( = drop the texture size) and then you can run other options that rely more on GPU "speed" than on VRAM size (like effects/smoke, etc) on higher settings.

I think there's no optimal GPU yet, because the 3GB ones tend to have "slower" memory chips than the 1-2GB GPUs, so there really is nothing to do than drop a few settings a notch and wait.

The CPU and RAM are filled up to the brink with the FM/DM modules, so it's only the amount of VRAM left that is the biggest deciding factor. It seems the only thing that could potentially be optimized a bit better at this stage to give some PCs the ability to run with original sized textures is RAM use, so that instead of loading from the hard drive it could load up the textures in RAM and then shuffle them between RAM and VRAM as needed. It's still not optimal though, just faster.

The optimal would be a GPU with 3GB VRAM that runs faster than the current 3GB VRAM chips. In other words, nothing to do but wait.

As to cutting the sim's balls off in terms of graphics, i don't really see it that way. Don't get me wrong, yes, i'd like to be flying around with everything set to maximum. However i don't need to, because the current medium detail levels are equal or better than IL2's highest settings. In my mind this is not cutting the sim's balls off, it's making a reasonable compromise between performance, eye candy and cash spend on a PC, something which happens in PC gaming in general. ;)

Try Freetrack http://www.free-track.net/english/ or TrackIR. With TrackIR I do not have to use the gunsight mode at all. Just lean a bit left before pressing 'center' button and then when I am back to normal vertical head position I have the gunsight right in front of me.

I think with NewView software you can save your head position as well http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=67864
I did not try it as it is a bit complicated and not necessary with TrackIR.

Memristor technology which is well on its way to production, will tame this beast:grin:

Hopefully the 64-bit .exe and DX11 will be here first.

This game IS brilliant .... if you want a Super Mario-style style approach to the BoB. And yes it is realistic. Or at least as realistic as Mario Karts franchise getting the official license for the next F1 game. :rolleyes:

Sorry. I know (or atleast hope) this guy was joking but just couldn't help it. lol.

Shhh, Hawk. I was hoping it would lure all the haters and sceptics away :) Clearly they're unhappy with this, and at $5 or whatever it is, maybe they can focus on the alternatives instead of being here ;)

How awesome is it firing air2air rockets from a 109 or a spit?:P

[QUOTE=Anvilfolk;304573]Shhh, Hawk. I was hoping it would lure all the haters and sceptics away :) Clearly they're unhappy with this, and at $5 or whatever it is, maybe they can focus on the alternatives instead of being here ;)

LOL. :grin: Phew. You had me worried for a minute. Nice diversionary skills that man. ;)

In 1971, electrical engineering professor Leon Chua proposed a theoretical basic electronics component called a memristor. In 2008, Hewlett Packard brought the memristor out of theory and into the real world. And today, HP announced that they have finally proven that they can build devices that use memristors, instead of the transistors that enable all current computer chips. Since memristors can store and process data simultaneously, stack on top of one another in a 3-D fashion, and function at much smaller sizes than a transistor, this advance could increase the power and memory of computers to nearly unimaginable proportions within only a couple of years.


lets have an air war:grin:

+1

That what I need! :) And in SLI configuration please :-D

Thanks for the heads up...

~S~

Your welcome! a heads up was what I wanted to achieve :grin:

waste my money ..............me too

He has a point and really shouldnt need to 'download a sound mod'
When $50 has passed through the till.

Il2 1946 with Ultrapack 3 RC 4.