Friday Update, January 27, 2012

Originally Posted by Bewolf

If you can't, sell your copy and leave.

Sell it to ... ?

Salute !

[Drum_tastic]

Originally Posted by Ataros

You and other complainers must have a different game version than this guy has. This is real online gameplay footage on ATAG server that proves that the game is in a playable condition with recent patches installed via Steam (unless you have a pirated version).
http://www.youtube.com/user/Semashko27/videos
If someone states the opposite please proved a proof as solid and evident as this one.

However I think the devs deserve criticism because they did not implement an issue tracking system yet as discussed here http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=24106
BlackSix, could you please ask Ilya if he can talk to 1cpublishing.eu admins to install such a system on this site and provide forum users rights to report and vote for bugs, issues and proposals there. Redmine and Bugzilla have voting capabilities and are free IIRC. This system will make life much easier for Ilya on the one hand and will prevent forgetting about not working features like COOPs on the other hand.

PS. Those who experience online launcher crash please try this solution http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=124

Doubt I would have paid £50 for a pirated version mate, so maybe pay a little more attention to what you are reading.

Also my post wasn't a complaint - wake up!

[pupo162]

Originally Posted by Ataros

You and other complainers must have a different game version than this guy has. This is real online gameplay footage on ATAG server that proves that the game is in a playable condition with recent patches installed via Steam (unless you have a pirated version).
http://www.youtube.com/user/Semashko27/videos
If someone states the opposite please proved a proof as solid and evident as this one.
[/url]

Are you kidding me? those videos have some preatty bad stutteting. not as bad as mine, but enough to be considered "bad gameplay". i was expecting that kind of stutteirng in a mid/low range pc like mine. not in a top gen pc like mr X has.

[recoilfx]

I notice that ATI cards choke more on the stutterers. I had a 6950 at 1920x1080 and the micro-stutters were very noticeable when flying low.

When I switched to 570gtx I am mostly @ >60fps (Everything high, textures orignal, building details low, vsync on, full screen on, SSAO off) and I don't have stutters what so ever. Other than the particle animations (dust & clouds), everything is super smooth.

Of course, once I go 2560x1440, the stutters come back.

[Ataros]

Originally Posted by pupo162

Are you kidding me? those videos have some preatty bad stutteting. not as bad as mine, but enough to be considered "bad gameplay". i was expecting that kind of stutteirng in a mid/low range pc like mine. not in a top gen pc like mr X has.

No kidding. These videos prove that the game is in a playable condition unlike some others say. He would not play online 4-6 days a week if the game would not be playable.

"Not in a playable condition" and "stutteting enough to be considered "bad gameplay"" are different things aren't they?

Then even if it is a "bad gameplay" for you at the same time it is not a "bad gameplay" for 2000+ people listed on the ATAG statistics page http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/content.php
All these people are not forced or paid to play there and do so only because they have "good gameplay" and therefore not shelved the game.

These are 2 links to some factual proof. People who emotionally complain here do not need any facts they need to share emotions to feel better. I can perfectly understand their frustration and feeling pity if their PC can handle only 2+ years old RoF and ArmA2 (speaking of sims) or low-detail/low-visibility distance/small maps BF3 which is console oriented in the 1st place. But I can not understand why they are too lazy to optimise their systems (or upgrade if absolutely necessary - 2.6GHz is no go btw) to go online and have the same fun now while the devs are slowly working on patches.

However I just had an idea why it happens. I guess the "old men" from Il-2 time became too mature to go through all this system optimisation, etc. which they did 10 years ago (I was flying in 16bit(!) colour 1024x960 with mip-map and texture settings on low in drivers to get 25-35 fps lol. Anyone remembers that there was 16bit colour setting in Il-2 instead of normal 32bit? ) The younger audience is not prepared to put any effort into their system often too as they got used to consoles. They will never know how much fun it was to make MSFS run without stutters 10 or 7 years ago form a RAM-Drive )) Tweaking was always needed with sims: Warbirds, MSFS, Il-2, ArmA1, ArmA2, RoF on release date, etc., etc., and the reason is usually a huge visibility distance multiplied by details level.

I hope moderators will continue their good job of separating facts from emotions and lies. The latest is prohibited by forum rules btw

[pupo162]

Originally Posted by Ataros

No kidding. These videos prove that the game is in a playable condition unlike some others say. He would not play online 4-6 days a week if the game would not be playable.

"Not in a playable condition" and "stutteting enough to be considered "bad gameplay"" are different things aren't they?

Then even if it is a "bad gameplay" for you at the same time it is not a "bad gameplay" for 2000+ people listed on the ATAG statistics page http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/content.php
All these people are not forced or paid to play there and do so only because they have "good gameplay" and therefore not shelved the game.

These are 2 links to some factual proof. People who emotionally complain here do not need any facts they need to share emotions to feel better. I can perfectly understand their frustration and feeling pity if their PC can handle only 2+ years old RoF and ArmA2 (speaking of sims) or low-detail/low-visibility distance/small maps BF3 which is console oriented in the 1st place. But I can not understand why they are too lazy to optimise their systems (or upgrade if absolutely necessary - 2.6GHz is no go btw) to go online and have the same fun now while the devs are slowly working on patches.

However I just had an idea why it happens. I guess the "old men" from Il-2 time became too mature to go through all this system optimisation, etc. which they did 10 years ago (I was flying in 16bit(!) colour 1024x960 with mip-map and texture settings on low in drivers to get 25-35 fps lol. Anyone remembers that there was 16bit colour setting in Il-2 instead of normal 32bit? ) The younger audience is not prepared to put any effort into their system often too as they got used to consoles. They will never know how much fun it was to make MSFS run without stutters 10 or 7 years ago form a RAM-Drive )) Tweaking was always needed with sims: Warbirds, MSFS, Il-2, ArmA1, ArmA2, RoF on release date, etc., etc., and the reason is usually a huge visibility distance multiplied by details level.

I hope moderators will continue their good job of separating facts from emotions and lies. The latest is prohibited by forum rules btw

to end discussion on that matter, i had a friend who asked me this christmas to make him a pc. he ended up buying a 2500k 8 gb ddr3 16000hz and one 560Ti, in exchange i was given the right to de-virginize his hard drive with il-2 COD. tha pathetic performance who came form that pc. wich for me high budget, pretty much left very clear that the problem is not on my pc. On the other hand bf3 " a game made for consoles" actually was pretty playable, guess what both have in common? they both say in the box that these pc should work.

[Dano]

Originally Posted by pupo162

to end discussion on that matter, i had a friend who asked me this christmas to make him a pc. he ended up buying a 2500k 8 gb ddr3 16000hz and one 560Ti, in exchange i was given the right to de-virginize his hard drive with il-2 COD. tha pathetic performance who came form that pc. wich for me high budget, pretty much left very clear that the problem is not on my pc. On the other hand bf3 " a game made for consoles" actually was pretty playable, guess what both have in common? they both say in the box that these pc should work.

Funny, my system seems to play it quite well.

[pupo162]

Originally Posted by Dano

Funny, my system seems to play it quite well.

im pretty sure even the motherboard he has his the same as yours. FPS wise it was good, over 50. but the stuttering rendered it unplayable. every time you clsoed in a plane the game stuttered.

[Ataros]

Originally Posted by pupo162

to end discussion on that matter, i had a friend who asked me this christmas to make him a pc. he ended up buying a 2500k 8 gb ddr3 16000hz and one 560Ti, in exchange i was given the right to de-virginize his hard drive with il-2 COD. tha pathetic performance who came form that pc. wich for me high budget, pretty much left very clear that the problem is not on my pc. On the other hand bf3 " a game made for consoles" actually was pretty playable, guess what both have in common? they both say in the box that these pc should work.

Well, if this is the case than the game will never 'work' for you as it will never work for Tvrdi, Furbs, Tree and a few others.

I think that this game is not for everyone. E.g. I gave up on MSFS when could not figure out all the controls settings and make it work without stutters. It is fine. And it was my own choice.

Due to its complexity this diamond will never be 100% polished. It would be naive to expect it. Games that do not have this much ambitions in complexity and details (e.g. BF3, WoT, World of Planes) may better suit players who are not prepared to put efforts into fine-tuning, testing, tweaking, etc. Buying a new PC is not everything I am happy with 35-45 fps, no stutters on my ancient HD4890-2gb. You can not seriously demand more from this card/game combination now.

CloD is 2013 game pushed by someone to be published to early and will run just fine without extensive tweaking on 2013 hardware.

BTW. The box was published by UBI. You can ask them on their forums why their marketing people always put those system requirements on boxes: min - just to start the game and make screenshots, recommended - to play offline only @20 fps with low-med setings. Marketing has nothing to do with development. This is developers forums, not UBI.

[klem]

Originally Posted by pupo162

to end discussion on that matter, i had a friend who asked me this christmas to make him a pc. he ended up buying a 2500k 8 gb ddr3 16000hz and one 560Ti, in exchange i was given the right to de-virginize his hard drive with il-2 COD. tha pathetic performance who came form that pc. wich for me high budget, pretty much left very clear that the problem is not on my pc. On the other hand bf3 " a game made for consoles" actually was pretty playable, guess what both have in common? they both say in the box that these pc should work.

Hopefully a constructive post.....

That rig should run it just fine. Some background, I expect the 560Ti is a 1Gb card which is about minimum for this game but should run it ok at Medium settings with possibly a few downward tweaks in some areas. Please don't quote minimum specs from the box because we know at this time they don't deliver much if at all and as far as very high settings are concerned 1C declared a long time ago it would be a very high/futuristic spec PC that could run it all out. Also bear in mind that medium settings in this game compare very well wth the old IL-2.

Presumably you ensured that any antivirus was set to 'allow', e.g. not scan, files from the game folders when they were opened. And any other 'utilities' that would interfere with gameplay were stopped or set to 'allow' gameplay. Things like Windows/other update facilities turned off, etc.

So, what antivirus/firewall is he running and how is it set to accommodate gaming?

You don't give three vital pieces of information:-

Screen resolution
Detailed Game settings
Nvidia control panel settings used in the game (either default or for Launcher.exe if you created a game profile for it)

These would be helpful.