the failure of clod is a failure of US ALL

[SlipBall]

Hood, I'd love to know your system spec's

[Hood]

Originally Posted by SlipBall

Hood, I'd love to know your system spec's

From memory as it was bought for CLODs release and that was 20
months ago.

I7 3.06 oc to 4.50
Sabertooth mobo
6gb über RAM
Asus Xonar D2X sound card
120gb SSD
1tb 2nd drive
Gigabyte 580GTX 3Gb Black Edition - might be Gainward and can't check as I'm away from home at the mo.
Dell 24" Ultrasharp monitor.
Win 7 64
Corsair modular PSU 1000w

The graphics card was an upgrade about a year ago to try and get CLOD playable at more than cartoon graphics.

Dont forget that there's more to a games playability and enjoyability than fps alone.

Hood

[SlipBall]

^
very doable

[Sailor Malan]

A Lot of RoF folks did their best to discredit Clod and still do. Sadly they a lot of they ae the people with **** computers, which sadly we have here as well. The devs had to downgrade this sim to work on **** pc,s instead of fixing it to work on new high end pc,s. It does not hold well for the future of flight sims if we keep lowering the developement of hardware/software to suit the few crap
pc owners who play these games

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by Sailor Malan

It does not hold well for the future of flight sims if we keep lowering the developement of hardware/software to suit the few crap
pc owners who play these games

unfortunately, the noisy minority (by their sheer harrasment factor, and use of plants/ sock-puppets) appear to be the majority

[startrekmike]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Bliss

Hood,

What I find amusing is all the people coming out of the wood work to promote and constantly talk about BoS on this, the clod forum, when they never had anything good to say about clod. Many people posting now are posting more in this forum in the last couple weeks than they have the entire time clod was out. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out their agenda or what appears to be yours.

I bought ROF the day it was released and suffered through many more horrendous problems than I ever did with cliffs. People always like to compare a game that's been out for years compares to one at release. Clod even in its 1.5 year mark blows ROF away on almost every category that's important to me in a sim. People have only just begun to figure out all what is possible, especially with the coding.

Also, this isn't a popularity contest. I don't understand why people always feel the need to think someone's opinions is those of an entire group. My opinions are based on my experience which is exactly why you'll find that many players that started with ROF are no longer playing it. It runs great, looks decent, and now has many aircraft. But if the sim is never intended to simulate the war around the reasons the planes are there in the 1st place, I like many il2 fans, will lose interest quickly. When I see any of this possible with ROF, I'll believe their BoS might be anything more than just a redskinned ROF.

Given they have a year to completely make a WWII sim from scratch, one would expect the game engine will be almost identical (which the Devs already stated). It's not about the terms people like yourself like to label people, its about what people like myself want to see. If you think I'm gonna spend another $300 for the empty limited world of the ROF engine, I'm not.

If its free, ill download it and take one like at the mission builder and if there's only 30 objects in it (compared to 1000's in IL2) without the ability to place then where ever you want, without the ability to code, without the ability to populate a map with more than 300 static objects, etc, I will uninstall it. People are allowed to have opinions. Mine just so happen to be supported with facts.

I think you will be pleasantly surprised if you go in the editor and check out the channel map, a fair bit more than 300 hundred objects to be sure.

Not trying to rag on you, we have already had our discussions about this but I think that many here are basing their opinion on ROF on how it was when it was released, the fact of the matter is that it runs very well now, the proper airplanes have trim, we have a couple of really good maps (I know, I know, it looks "cartoon" but it serves it's purpose to me I suppose), it is far from arcade, in fact, it probably has a better flight model and engine model than many here are willing to give it credit for, just because the airplanes are simple does not mean the game engine is.

This thread is just going to continue down the road of hate on both sides, regardless, I would love it if some of the ROF haters on here would just take a few steps back and give the sim a try, not saying you have to, but it might help clear up a few misconceptions that I see on here (not saying they are from you, just, in general).

Originally Posted by Sailor Malan

A Lot of RoF folks did their best to discredit Clod and still do. Sadly they a lot of they ae the people with **** computers, which sadly we have here as well. The devs had to downgrade this sim to work on **** pc,s instead of fixing it to work on new high end pc,s. It does not hold well for the future of flight sims if we keep lowering the developement of hardware/software to suit the few ****
pc owners who play these games

I joined this forum a couple of months before the announcement of BoS but as a not only a avid CloD fan but also a ROF fan, I don't think that ROF fans are orchestrating some sort of smear campaign against CloD, to be perfectly honest, I think CloD speaks for itself in that regard very well.

You see, I am of mixed feeling about CloD, when I am flying a mission, I generally love it, I like how the cockpit looks, I like the clickable components of it (though I wish it was more complete, like DCS in that regard) and I like the ground textures but when I am not in the pilots seat, dealing with CloD is far from fun.

CloD suffers because it's features are stuck behind a barely functional menu system that heavily restricts quick battle (you need to drag those files into the editor just to change your loadout and set the AI so it does not barrel roll into the ocean so much), a weather system that was removed (a real immersion breaker for me), clouds that don't really do much at all (again, immersion breaker) occasional but severe stuttering that seems to be more about the game engine than my system (only happens in specific spots on the map) and finally, it suffers because it was largely broken when it shipped, it has gotten much better now but it might have been too little, too late.

ROF is not getting this (by the general public at least) because it works out of the box, you download the software and everything is pretty quick and easy to deal with, the aircraft feel diverse and satisfying (as do CloD's), the menu systems provide all the functionality that you would expect (you can set up your quickbattles with the ability to edit your loadout in the process!), the physics feel very satisfying, no other sim gives me such a convincing sensation of flight (though CloD and DCS are close seconds in that regard), and the weapons, CEM and damage model all do a great job and are far more realistic than many on this board are willing to admit.

Look, I am a fan of both but there are two things I hate about this whole situation more than any other, I hate the misinformation and I hate the petty bickering that I would expect on the little league baseball field between two parents that berate each other and the players due to blind pride.

So, lets get some facts straight once and for all, keep in mind, I am a big fan of both CloD and ROF and I play both a great deal.

1.) Both are simulations, neither are arcade, lets just get that stupid myth out of this discussion once and for all, makes me sad to see so many leveling the "arcade" accusation at ROF when it is clearly not, both are sims.

2.) Both ROF and CloD had rough releases, ROF had the benefit of changing management and CloD did not, as a result, ROF is still being supported and CloD is not, neither fan base can change how things went down, all we can do is move on and support whatever sim we like.

3.) CloD's clickable cockpits are not the amazing element that tips the scales in terms of simulation, coming from playing DCS A-10C, CloD's cockpits are pretty but don't really feel that much more functional than ROF's, sure, you can flip a switch or two and move some levers but many of those functions are only really used on the ground, not in combat, ROF can't really do clickables because everything in the cockpit is a lever (aside from the mag switches) and it just would not make much sense to make them clickable when that would just make the sim more clunky, get yourself a throttle quadrant and it would feel just as realistic.

4.) ROF runs well because it is geared to a lower end system, that is not a bad thing and does not limit it in the way that many here seem to think, all this DX9 vs DX10/11 is nonsense and not founded on any facts, still, the fact remains that I have a modest system and I run both CloD and ROF pretty well, suffice it to say, ROF does run smoother 100% of the time whereas CloD tends to chug a bit over cities (not bad, but noticeable). Personally, I don't think ROF looks bad at all considering the spec's they are shooting for, heck, the specs even went up a bit with the release of the channel, object counts went up and they made the water more realistic, the fact is, ROF runs well on a variety of systems, that should always be the goal in software development because if you don't do that and you just cater to the noisy minority that need to justify a $1000+ PC, well, you software will fail because nobody else will want to play it at such reduced visual settings that it looks like a 15 year old game because they don't meet absurd system requirements.

Not every flight sim fan on this board or the ROF board has a heavy duty gaming PC, some of us can't afford them and would still like to enjoy the hobby, ROF scales well and looks good on multiple system configurations, if we are going to act like that is bad, I don't know what to tell you all.

Now, before you all sit here and pick my post apart and say "that sounds antagonistic to the CloD community, I am offended personally!" Keep in mind that I have said it before, I am a big fan of both but I am damn tired of feeling like a second class citizen here just because I like both, you guys are making it seem like you have to pledge your loyalty to one or the other, that is false and everybody knows it.

This kind of infighting only hurts the flight sim community at large, both ROF fans and CloD fans seem to be guilty of it and it should really stop because it solves nothing at all.

So, lets just play what we like, and act like adults.

[ATAG_Bliss]

I'm not talking about the static textures that make up a game map. I'm talking about the amount of static objects you can additionally add to a mission.

If the channel map has more than 300 of those, then imagine the 10's of 1000's the clod map does let alone London.

To build scenarios you need to be able to add, create, modify the existing map. And only being able to add 300 objects doesn't cut the mustard for me. And it definitely won't for a WWII sim with a major focus on ground pounding.

[startrekmike]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Bliss

I'm not talking about the static textures that make up a game map. I'm talking about the amount of static objects you can additionally add to a mission.

If the channel map has more than 300 of those, then imagine the 10's of 1000's the clod map does let alone London.

To build scenarios you need to be able to add, create, modify the existing map. And only being able to add 300 objects doesn't cut the mustard for me. And it definitely won't for a WWII sim with a major focus on ground pounding.

I am not talking about objects that are already placed on the map, I am talking about the 3000 plus that you can add, move, modify and change around at well.

I know you probably should not buy the channel map just to check it in the editor but I think you should probably talk to some the mission builders (or those that have messed with the channel map in the editor) before you make such claims.

I don't want this to turn into another fight, I am just saying that you can add 3000+ objects into the editor now and manipulate them at will.

Please note, I only say 3000+ because I don't know the actual limit, it could be more but that is what I saw in the editor myself.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by startrekmike

ROF is not getting this (by the general public at least) because it works out of the box,
Look, I am a fan of both but there are two things I hate about this whole situation more than any other, I hate the misinformation and I hate the petty bickering that I would expect on the little league baseball field between two parents that berate each other and the players due to blind pride.

you left out that RoF was a shocker when it first came out and it came out, many, many years ago now... you're ball

Originally Posted by startrekmike

3.) CloD's clickable cockpits are not the amazing element that tips the scales in terms of simulation,

That's right... a clickable cockpit sets the bar at what a sim should be

Originally Posted by startrekmike

4.) ROF runs well because it is geared to a lower end system, that is not a bad thing and does not limit it in the way that many here seem to think, all this DX9 vs DX10/11 is nonsense and not founded on any facts, still, the fact remains that I have a modest system and I run both CloD and ROF pretty well, suffice it to say, ROF does run smoother 100% of the time whereas CloD tends to chug a bit over cities (not bad, but noticeable).

yep RoF has been out for years and CoD hasn't and CoD was still in the optimisation stage and with a six month old graphics engine...
if it "geared for a low end system", it should run exceptionally well on a high ender. Why doesn't it?

Originally Posted by startrekmike

Personally, I don't think ROF looks bad at all considering the spec's they are shooting for, heck, the specs even went up a bit with the release of the channel, object counts went up and they made the water more realistic, the fact is, ROF runs well on a variety of systems, that should always be the goal in software development because if you don't do that and you just cater to the noisy minority that need to justify a $1000+ PC, well, you software will fail because nobody else will want to play it at such reduced visual settings that it looks like a 15 year old game because they don't meet absurd system requirements.
Not every flight sim fan on this board or the ROF board has a heavy duty gaming PC, some of us can't afford them and would still like to enjoy the hobby, ROF scales well and looks good on multiple system configurations, if we are going to act like that is bad, I don't know what to tell you all.

(When you're writing copy, you have to remember what you wrote previously, so you don't get up in your own vibe how is that sound bug, which has been there for ages and excacerbated by the new map?

[ATAG_Bliss]

There is a sticky with the limitations for mission building right on the ROF website. There's noone adding 3000 objects to a ROF mission in the MP world. Its only a few hundred to give you an idea. I take it you've never built a ROF mission?

Also you can not manipulate objects at will. You can't even raise an object off the ground in ROF (no Z axis). Objects are also coded to certain areas where u can place them in ROF.

For instance if I wanted to draw my name with mine ship destroyers in clod right over the top of an airfield, I can do it. I can bury them in the ground (any object) or have them float like a balloon in clod. The ROF ME doesn't come close to anything in the FMB.