Some new official info from ubi forums

[David603]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

Not even going to read the whole thread - 21 bombers? That is utterly pathetic. Seriously, and the whole cpu bs is also, it doesnt take cpu power to have a damage model unless it is being damaged, otherwise there isnt any calcs. AI aswell, and bombers fly in formation so the ai for them I would imagine is less intensive also.

But come on 21? Whats the point of making it for really crap machines that will not be around in a year anyway? Will this be change able in the scripted mission?

Yes, it is changeable. You open the missions in the mission builder and add more planes. If you can't do this yourself, someone will doubtless release a version of the scripted campaign with more aircraft within days of launch.

The number of aircraft in the official campaign is almost certainly an attempt to make sure that if someone has a computer that fits the specifications on the box, they will actually be able to play through the game they paid for, instead of being limited to puttering around in the QMB with a handful of aircraft.

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by David603

Yes, it is changeable. You open the missions in the mission builder and add more planes. If you can't do this yourself, someone will doubtless release a version of the scripted campaign with more aircraft within days of launch.

The number of aircraft in the official campaign is almost certainly an attempt to make sure that if someone has a computer that fits the specifications on the box, they will actually be able to play through the game they paid for, instead of being limited to puttering around in the QMB with a handful of aircraft.

Totally understandable, scalibility is a must (until end of last year I was running a core 2 duo 5 year old comp). This is the problem: 1. You develope a game for a wide audience, and you develope it with a timeline in mind, this means you dont make the gave to the lowest common denominator say 25% of the market in 2010 when it will be released mid 2011 and be continously worked on for years. You target the mid range which is the quad market (now the majority holder for cores at over 35% I believe).
Now irrespective of that, we keep hearing about this "cpu cap", where is this coming from? Says who? Did the devs specifically say CPU power is the problem? Why does this game or IL2 have problems with CPU when much much more complex games (interms of cpu function) can do far more than this game does on the same CPU?
Over that all the stutering and problems we have seen are due to GPU/Ram over land and such, nothing ever to indicate it was "cpu based".

So due to this they should develope the campaign for the mid range market, because in a few months time/1 year the current mid will be the low...

[David603]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

So due to this they should develope the campaign for the mid range market, because in a few months time/1 year the current mid will be the low...

There's no reason why the team can't add more campaigns or an expanded version of the current one in a patch later down the line.

Of course, if a dynamic campaign is added at some point, then the devs will be able to re-evaluate how many aircraft can be put up, or maybe follow the suggestions here and add an option for players to set the maximum number of aircraft.

Given a functional mission builder and there being no limit hard coded into the sim, initial unit numbers are probably one of the least important parts of scalability.

[The Kraken]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

Now irrespective of that, we keep hearing about this "cpu cap", where is this coming from? Says who? Did the devs specifically say CPU power is the problem? Why does this game or IL2 have problems with CPU when much much more complex games (interms of cpu function) can do far more than this game does on the same CPU?

Sorry, but you're comparing apples and peanuts. If you really can't see the different requirements of a game engine for a strategy game like the TW series and what's needed for a flight sim, then why even bother. Superficial observations like "they have 56.000 AI units at once" are hardly useful for that. Although flight sims do of course suffer from their small market niche in the sense that due to the small budgets, far less development time can be spent on optimizing various aspects or playing around with the latest GPU gizmos. That should be obvious, especially as all sims since 15 suffer from that. But it's only part of the equation.

So due to this they should develope the campaign for the mid range market, because in a few months time/1 year the current mid will be the low...

And how would that help the anyone with minimum spec systems who want to play the game now, and not in a year when they might buy a new computer?

[SEE]

Originally Posted by The Kraken

And how would that help the anyone with minimum spec systems who want to play the game now, and not in a year when they might buy a new computer?

+1

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by The Kraken

Sorry, but you're comparing apples and peanuts. If you really can't see the different requirements of a game engine for a strategy game like the TW series and what's needed for a flight sim, then why even bother. Superficial observations like "they have 56.000 AI units at once" are hardly useful for that. Although flight sims do of course suffer from their small market niche in the sense that due to the small budgets, far less development time can be spent on optimizing various aspects or playing around with the latest GPU gizmos. That should be obvious, especially as all sims since 15 suffer from that. But it's only part of the equation.



And how would that help the anyone with minimum spec systems who want to play the game now, and not in a year when they might buy a new computer?

Wait, what? Ok before I start its apples and oranges, get your metaphores right...
1. Did I say they have the same requirments? I was specifically talking about CPU usage by software, and that currently there should not be a CPU bottleneck, its GPU. So then you put words in my mouth by saying I cannot recognise the difference, what is this drawn on? What did I say that is incorrect? Seriously, go to school and learn how to uses something called a "thesis" in your argument, then use evidence to support the "thesis".
My observation is very useful because in order to have all these units on the field, you need to not only run the AI that controls the armies, but indvidual pathfinding for soldiers and units which is one of, if not the most intensive CPU based operation that is EVER done in gaming. Not only is there 56k but they are on a surface all the time, so they are not flying around in the air where there are very few "obstacles".

But I love how suddenly out of the blue you jump from CPU's to GPU's when you said I was incorrect about CPU's, fail to say why I am wrong in any way, then completely jump topics and ramble without a point about GPU's...

Also as they are a small team of course they dont have the rescources of bigger devs, but if they cant optimize that IS NOT a hardware bottleneck, thats crappy programming/optimization and therefore all arguments about how they are trying to scale the game down to the lowest comps are invalid because they could "optimize" the engine and therefore would not need as much downscaling.

As for the computer - if you have a rubish computer why are you gaming then? What entitles you to have a right to be able to play the game with a crap computer? Either upgrade, wait, or dont buy it simple as that. If you cant afford to upgrade a computer, go buy a console...

Its a question of sales, and to get sales they have to target the right market sectors.

[BigC208]

Heliocon, you answer you own question in the last paragraph of you post.

"Its a question of sales, and to get sales they have to target the right market sectors."

The right market sector is the lowest common denominator. The kid playing the game on a hand me down, bought at Best Buy 4 years ago. Upgraded with $150 gpu 2 years ago. If that kid thinks CoD is going to be a slideshow he won't buy it. If he does buy it, and it runs and looks halve decent, 1C has another convert for life. In two or three years he'll upgrade with a, by then cheap, middle of the road computer, turn the eye candy up and play the game as well as you and I on or now expensive high end computers.

Sad for us more fortunate? Jus the way it is. Wish it was different but without that kids $50 you and I will not be playing this game at all. I've got the best I can afford today coming down the pipeline and will probably only be able to use 50% of it's potential with CoD out of the box. That's really my own bad cause I knew that when I ordered it. I'm pretty sure though that I can get it on its knees when making custom missions.

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by BigC208

Heliocon, you answer you own question in the last paragraph of you post.

"Its a question of sales, and to get sales they have to target the right market sectors."

The right market sector is the lowest common denominator. The kid playing the game on a hand me down, bought at Best Buy 4 years ago. Upgraded with $150 gpu 2 years ago. If that kid thinks CoD is going to be a slideshow he won't buy it. If he does buy it, and it runs and looks halve decent, 1C has another convert for life. In two or three years he'll upgrade with a, by then cheap, middle of the road computer, turn the eye candy up and play the game as well as you and I on or now expensive high end computers.

Sad for us more fortunate? Jus the way it is. Wish it was different but without that kids $50 you and I will not be playing this game at all. I've got the best I can afford today coming down the pipeline and will probably only be able to use 50% of it's potential with CoD out of the box. That's really my own bad cause I knew that when I ordered it. I'm pretty sure though that I can get it on its knees when making custom missions.

Right - but I would say COD is aiming for a slightly different market, not many kids play flight sims (compared to say, FPS's). If it is scalable then it will be all good, but scripted missions to me are "not" scalable (usualy ).

Actually I just realised, I am more irritated with peoples excuses of CPU bottlenecks then the actual 21 planes themselves... lol

[vicinity]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

Actually I just realised, I am more irritated with peoples excuses of CPU bottlenecks then the actual 21 planes themselves... lol

I think you vastly underestimate the amount of CPU it takes to create decent physics in a combat flight sim type game such as COD. Think of all the forces that have to be calculated lift, thrust, drag, weight, torque etc. and this isn't one big simple calculation, it is many many calculations that have to be applied to many surfaces and objects continually and will change based on other things such as altitute or damage sustained. Then you have to take into account all the other things that are modelled such as ballistics and other ground based objects.

The difference with a RTS game is that your units will not have any physics at all to compute. Each unit is a list of numbers which go through a relatively basic calculation to determine which number is bigger i.e. who wins. The reason RTS games are CPU intensive is because of the large numbers of units possible. Path-finding is indeed CPU intensive but do you think that there is no path-finding in COD? Path-finding in 3d space is exponetially more CPU intensive than on a single plane.

The point being that yes, both types of games are CPU intensive but for very different reasons. As others have said larger formations will be possible but this is a product, and you sell a product to as many customers as possible - it doesn't mean the game has been coded badly or they are trying to dumb the game down to remove all your fun.

Besides, as others have said if your computer can handle it there'll be plenty of big formation missions built by the community. Goodluck shooting down 20+ bombers when they come along.

[The Kraken]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

Wait, what? Ok before I start its apples and oranges, get your metaphores right...
1. Did I say they have the same requirments? I was specifically talking about CPU usage by software, and that currently there should not be a CPU bottleneck, its GPU. So then you put words in my mouth by saying I cannot recognise the difference, what is this drawn on? What did I say that is incorrect? Seriously, go to school and learn how to uses something called a "thesis" in your argument, then use evidence to support the "thesis".
My observation is very useful because in order to have all these units on the field, you need to not only run the AI that controls the armies, but indvidual pathfinding for soldiers and units which is one of, if not the most intensive CPU based operation that is EVER done in gaming. Not only is there 56k but they are on a surface all the time, so they are not flying around in the air where there are very few "obstacles".

But I love how suddenly out of the blue you jump from CPU's to GPU's when you said I was incorrect about CPU's, fail to say why I am wrong in any way, then completely jump topics and ramble without a point about GPU's...

Also as they are a small team of course they dont have the rescources of bigger devs, but if they cant optimize that IS NOT a hardware bottleneck, thats crappy programming/optimization and therefore all arguments about how they are trying to scale the game down to the lowest comps are invalid because they could "optimize" the engine and therefore would not need as much downscaling.

As for the computer - if you have a rubish computer why are you gaming then? What entitles you to have a right to be able to play the game with a crap computer? Either upgrade, wait, or dont buy it simple as that. If you cant afford to upgrade a computer, go buy a console...

Its a question of sales, and to get sales they have to target the right market sectors.

Relax, it's only a game after all.