Announcement of the game "IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Stalingrad"

[kendo65]

Slipball, as someone who was in from Day 1 I don't recognise the picture you keep painting of a near-perfect initial release that was ruined unnecessarily by the devs making pointless and unwanted changes.

The game at release had huge problems.

There were big complaints right from the start about FM.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by kendo65

Slipball, as someone who was in from Day 1 I don't recognise the picture you keep painting of a near-perfect initial release that was ruined unnecessarily by the devs making pointless and unwanted changes.

The game at release had huge problems.

There were big complaints right from the start about FM.

yeah, not sure where this perfect game on release stuff is coming from myself, lol.

[SlipBall]

well certainly neither one is trouble free, the earlier release I find more enjoyable...tons of bugs but still lots of immersion for my tastes

[vranac]

Originally Posted by kendo65

Slipball, as someone who was in from Day 1 I don't recognise the picture you keep painting of a near-perfect initial release that was ruined unnecessarily by the devs making pointless and unwanted changes.

The game at release had huge problems.

There were big complaints right from the start about FM.

Of course it had problems for you, trying to run sim with two generations old gfx card. I concluded that from your sig.
If you had midrange card from 4xx or 5xx series you would see the difference.

[Les]

I still think Cliffs Of Dover should have had a 'Perfect' graphic mode like the original IL-2 series.

There were lots of people who happily played the original series without even trying to play with 'Perfect' settings, and it took years sometimes for hardware to come out that was capable of pushing some of the effects in 'Perfect' mode. But at least people knew what the deal was, and the game still looked alright in 'Normal' mode.

I think 'Cliffs Of Dover' just wasn't scalable enough in the same way. The hardware on release (CPU and GPU) wasn't powerful enough to brute force good frame-rates at the best settings when there was a lot of action happening, but turning settings down quickly made the game look substandard.

As I remember it, they did optimize the graphics engine bit by bit, partially by removing some effects. Then eventually they basically re-wrote the whole thing altogether. But after that they never put back in some of the effects they'd removed along the way. And that's what we were left with.

Pretty sure they never changed the flight model to make landing easier, but they did stop the needles in the control panel instruments from fluttering, which was most noticeable when landing. I think they might have toned down the overall cockpit shaking as well, which might have made landing seem easier at least. And of course the positive G engine cut-out was toned down, which might also have made landing easier in some cases.

As someone who had a decent system and was willing to play the game within it's limits, I too think the game was more immersive in its earlier form and have lots of good memories of flying around in it. Don't want to dwell on it though.

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by Les

I still think Cliffs Of Dover should have had a 'Perfect' graphic mode like the original IL-2 series.

There were lots of people who happily played the original series without even trying to play with 'Perfect' settings, and it took years sometimes for hardware to come out that was capable of pushing some of the effects in 'Perfect' mode. But at least people knew what the deal was, and the game still looked alright in 'Normal' mode.

I think 'Cliffs Of Dover' just wasn't scalable enough in the same way. The hardware on release (CPU and GPU) wasn't powerful enough to brute force good frame-rates at the best settings when there was a lot of action happening, but turning settings down quickly made the game look substandard.

As I remember it, they did optimize the graphics engine bit by bit, partially by removing some effects. Then eventually they basically re-wrote the whole thing altogether. But after that they never put back in some of the effects they'd removed along the way. And that's what we were left with.

Pretty sure they never changed the flight model to make landing easier, but they did stop the needles in the control panel instruments from fluttering, which was most noticeable when landing. I think they might have toned down the overall cockpit shaking as well, which might have made landing seem easier at least. And of course the positive G engine cut-out was toned down, which might also have made landing easier in some cases.

As someone who had a decent system and was willing to play the game within it's limits, I too think the game was more immersive in its earlier form and have lots of good memories of flying around in it. Don't want to dwell on it though.

I don't want to dwell either but being a off-liner I really have a lot of fun with the game. I think that the FM was changed a bit though, most noticeable to me on take-off/landings and acceleration in the E3...

I think I see some very immersive qualities in BOS and I'm looking forward to checking it out.

https://vimeo.com/81538285
in case some don't remember the immersive cockpit feel of clod

[arthursmedley]

Originally Posted by SlipBall

being a off-liner I really have a lot of fun with the game.

If Team Fusion manage to get a.i. radio commands working then I'd be right up for some of the off-line campaigns out there.

SlipBall, you used to fly online in IL2 1946 occasionally, no? You really want to make time to try it in CoD. Its epic!!!!

[arthursmedley]

Ooops! Dunno how I've managed to post 'em like that but I hope you get where I'm coming from. Online - especially with some guys on t/s - is an absolute hoot!

Atag server, Team Fusion patch.

[Feathered_IV]

Great screens AS! Love that one of the close-in Hurricane.

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by vranac

Of course it had problems for you, trying to run sim with two generations old gfx card. I concluded that from your sig.
If you had midrange card from 4xx or 5xx series you would see the difference.

Possibly a fair point...but the story behind that:

A month before COD's release I spent £600 upgrading my PC (new CPU, MB, RAM) and buying new joystick, throttle and rudder pedals.

As what I thought was going to be a strictly temporary measure I decided to hold off on updating the graphics card until the game came out to see how the GTX260 faired (there was huge speculation before release about how demanding the game would be - lots of speculation - no real evidence)

I was SO disappointed (shocked actually!) about the state of the game that I could never justify to myself spending anything more to run a game I didn't like at higher frame rates. And at that point even those with up to date video cards were not having wonderful experiences.

Haven't been doing much gaming at all recently so the 260 is still there - but obviously well due for an upgrade.