![]() |
|
IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover Latest instalment in the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik series from award-winning developer Maddox Games. |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
S!
Zapatista. It is still the man behind the stick pushing the plane to it's limits. Not everyone is capable for any reason(insert here) to fly a plane to the documented numbers no matter how. That is a fact. If you really want a game with plane speeds set in stone then try Aces High. Not a single plane goes a notch faster than documented values, nor climbs or turns better. All is hardcoded. Because AH and CoD are GAMES and there will always be complaint/debate/whinery on them as they are just a representation of something, not the real deal. Not a single game models systems EXACTLY as they work in real life as there are too many variables included. We get an average or estimate only that can be handled by our hardware. You say 100oct gives 15% more speed. Looking at curves yes it does at 12lbs power setting, but this is not the 100% time setting you use. How much does the speed increase at NORMAL parameters, the real 100% power setting from 87oct for example? Spitfire at 6,25lbs on 100 or 87oct vs Bf109E at WEP or 1.31ata? Should be clear to distinguish emergency/overboost from normal parameters that can be used at all times, not only for a limited time. By all means please make the game historically accurate within it's inevitable constraits of being a game, but do not expect down to last digit accuracy. If we can get something within let's say 5-15km/h I am more than happy as you can lose the same speed with inproper trim or power/mixture/whatever setting. What is more important that the FM itself is good enough to being able to handle more complex things in a reasonably resource friendly way. I remember Oleg saying at beginning of CoD announcements: You want more fidelity on things. Sure you will get that but do not expect it to be easy on the hardware. Remember that? So I think devs are having a hard time tweaking this game to be both playable and accurate enough. I think you can agree on that. This is not the copy/paste FM original IL-2 had ![]() So let's just hope the patch addresses right things and the rest we can test and report for further tweaking. Until then we should at least try refrain from mud sling contests ![]() |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hmm, I am worried as the next MP guy about how ATAG will make a MP server post-patch that is balanced enough for both red and blue to want to populate it. When I fly there is rarely more than 10 people on, I tried flying around 20 000 feet on red, I listened to educational podcasts at the same time to compensate for the problem I never saw anyone else up there. Ever.
But just to add to the angst, aren't beta patches optional? Last time you could download the betas and still fly online alongside the unpatched. So a red with the beta will be enjoying the increased FPS but gazing jealously at the unpatched uber-retro-Hurricane dancing above him. Blues will be freaked out wondering what kind of Hurricane just appeared co-alt ![]() Perhaps to get some kind of playable (I know, dirty word for co-opers ![]() camber Last edited by camber; 04-25-2012 at 10:47 AM. Reason: too many g*****d smileys |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Welcome to the server! ![]() The server population fluctuates quite dramatically over the twenty-four hours. Subjectively, for me it's better in the early hours as that's when many of the ATAG chaps from across the pond log-on, there's often fifty-plus on at that hour. I often share your experience of lonely flights when there's twenty-odd on and teamspeak is quiet. I could go and find trouble low down but my skill-level demands defensive tactics and a height advantage if I am to survive. ATAG typically runs the Beta patch as soon as its possible and you will need the same release version to join. It would provide hilarity and angst in equal measures if not. ![]() Your scenario made me smile, as likely a scenario as any that would lead to the feared outcome post the beta patch ![]() I can understand why people, including me, like to play a simulation as close to the generally understood historical facts. Which, as the battle was so closely fought, would perhaps provide the all important gameplay balance (although accurate depiction of the strategy and tactics that produced the outcome is unlikely). You rightly observe it is essential that balance is somehow provided by Cliff of Dover, if it is to succeed as a multiplayer game. I have to remember its only a Beta patch. Cheers |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I don't wish to take anything away from ATAG here but it's not the only server, and the missions aren't historically based (unless that has very recently changed). I like ATAG for what it offers when I'm in that type of mood but (no fault of theirs I am sure) it turns into a warpfest when 40-50+ get online - It would be nice if the love was shared about a bit to the other servers, quiet a few of which run historical missions with historical bases and offer something different.
@ATAG, this really is not an insult to your server or the work gone into it, but rather an observation (although OT) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On a positive note, if the patch brings the RAF fighters into their correct relative performance characteristics then that will at least address a major flaw with what we currently have in CloD. What remains after is the relative performance between the axis and allied ac. That will be determined after release.
Whether any glaring issues will be addressed at some point in the future is uncertain but Servers can at least help balance the 'play'. It may well be that the Spit2a, after revisions, is actually closer to the historical FM of the Spit Mk1a and thus server admins may remove any restrictions. Some of the AI Axis Bomber groups can be set to fly at higher altitudes, and escorts will thus be engaging interceptors at altitudes where the FM is 'less questionable'. I agree with Wolverine, whatever the changes, in terms of MP - both player and server admins will have to adapt to what we are given irrespective of the correct historical facts - that is not their fault but something imposed upon them.
__________________
MP ATAG_EvangelusE AMD A8 5600K Quad Core 3.6 Ghz - Win 7 64 - 8Gb Ram - GTX660ti 2Gb VRAM - FreeTrack - X52 - Asus 23' Monitor. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Hurricane I has of course a problem ... a Hurricane II (sequel??) would solve it. *historical cleared or not ... DB601 WEP is not historical as well Of course all this would be sad from a historical point of view, as 25%-50%-100% (depending on believe) of the Spitfire would have to be Mk. II, which is of course much exaggerated. Last edited by 41Sqn_Banks; 04-25-2012 at 12:32 PM. |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|