Game is Unplayable

[andmcq]

The game is, for 90% of people, unplayable. Just because a very small portion of a very small community (the Sim based one) can play it doesn't mean that the game is playable...

This game will be fantastic, but atm for all intents and purposes it is unplayable.

[bongodriver]

Where do folks get all these statistics from?

[etzi]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Where do folks get all these statistics from?

Look @ amazon.de

http://www.amazon.de/IL-2-Sturmovik-...1908780&sr=8-1

Almost all reviewers, even those who gave 3 stars and more can not play the game at this time.

[norulz]

Game is pretty unplayable even on low settings where it looks far worse than "modernized" IL2 that could look great with self shadowing and curved turns in roads and rail-tracks.

This attitude is very bad for progress if devs get "offended" by people giving them the feedback they feel.

and yes... the picture is cartoonish. sorry to tell that colors in IL2 Birds of pray are more realistic... but that is my opinion. Maybe the devs are a bit color blind or something... nothing wrong with that either... but that is the result.

P.S. C2D @3GHz, 4GB RAM GT460, playing only maxed up settings (I don't want tweaks that make the game look really bad for FPS... I get offended myself by this approach).

And another thing... this whole "new from ground up engine" thing. It looks like "new dinner" by same cook. I don't think he doesn't try to be original and cook something new... but if it is all what he knows to do... chances are it will get to make same food like before.

And that is honest feed-back from a paying customer that expects improvement.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by norulz

P.S. C2D @3GHz, 4GB RAM GT460, playing only maxed up settings (I don't want tweaks that make the game look really bad for FPS... I get offended myself by this approach).

turn grass off, building amount to low and forest to low... simple

[bongodriver]

PS: Hard to believe, that you are a real commercial pilot. With this stubborn attitude, you had got kicked out of the company's qualifications tests of the German Lufthansa.

Yes it's a well known fact that the most important quality to being a pilot is mindless conformity, you are absolutely right, I would never qualify for Lufthansa or British airways, they have a strict policy, you must have a high education etc, I didn't have the best education, I just relied on my own stubborn dedication to finally end up where I am.

Look I am willing to appologize if I am becoming a bit insulting, I am the first to admit I get somewhat animated in any heated debate, some call it 'hot headed', but criticism as you call it is becoming petty and not constructive, people are bloating the forums with the same drivel, this will hurt the sim's development because people will be put off, the whole issue is being dealt with and it is being worked on fast, can you not at least agree with that? but in the short space of time it is taking the devs to work on the fix, there are people hell bent on slandering it.....making sure the world knows to saty away.......result, this sim dies and we are all left with arguing wether we prefer v 4.09 v4.10 0r v4.11 of il2.

[etzi]

That's all true what you said, but the buyers have just expected more on release. Me too.

Nevertheless, I believe that CoD is going to be a brilliant simulation through the upcoming patches.

[klem]

Originally Posted by norulz

.....................

P.S. C2D @3GHz, 4GB RAM GT460, playing only maxed up settings (I don't want tweaks that make the game look really bad for FPS... I get offended myself by this approach)....................

norulz, have you forgotten that Oleg said a long time ago that you would need a PC that runs IL-2 VERY WELL to run CoD at low settings. If you expect your PC to run CoD on Max settings you are deluding yourself. It won't.

I would suggest that you might get Medium settings out of your rig but perhaps not even that.

Example, I am fortunate enough to have had the money to buy a new rig recently. Its an i7 950@4GHz, 6Gb DDR3 RAM, EVGA GTX570 superclocked. I can run High settings with just Forest and Buildings turned down to Medium, AAx4 and AFx16. I get 35-50 fps over land (around Tangmere) and 45-60 fps over water. Just occasionally it drops to 25fps on a busy airfield. I didn't note the fps but in a 12xSpit vs 8x109 dogfight over water I didn't notice any stuttering etc. I also hosted this for 5 players, the rest remaining as AI, no problems my end although various rigs produced lower results, eg down to 25fps over water and lower over land, but everyone found it playable. Also see attached from the campaign.

We know there are improvements to be made which will help us all but I detect that some people are expecting too much of their current PCs. And yes I know there are anomalies where people with apparently the same or very simialr rigs get different results but as the game is the constant the difference must lie in their rigs or their PC/Game settings. I also haven't seen much in the way of truly objective results: Rig, Settings, fps under specific conditions.

A test track would be a good reference and we could do with a 'Benchmarks' Sticky under 'Performance threads' where people could post

EDIT: I just found a thread
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=19990
It still needs a reference benchmark like the IL-2 Black Death Track though.

System Spec
System settings (resolution etc)
Game Settings
Track used
fps results.

Heavily moderated of course and NO-ONE trolling or polluting it with opinions etc. Just plain benchmarks.

[JG52Uther]

Took me about 5 years before I had the technology available to run il2 on perfect with everything maxed out.
I expect nothing different here.As it is,CoD is running nicely on my poor old computer,and even if I went out and bought a top of the range system today,I wouldn't expect it to run CoD on max.

[RocketDog]

Originally Posted by klem

We know there are improvements to be made which will help us all but I detect that some people are expecting too much of their current PCs.

I think the killer problem that's winding people up (me included) is that other games seem able to produce the same sort of graphics quality as CloD on mid-range hardware, but at very much higher frame rates. For example, I have RoF on my i7 920 @ 3.8 HGz, 6GB RAM, GTX285 PC and it runs very smoothly. To get CloD to run at all I have to turn down so many graphics options that it looks very, very poor by comparison. It's OK over the sea, but the terrain is particularly disappointing with a massive performance hit even to get it looking like FS9. Basically, RoF knocks the spots off it.

Now it may be that there is something special going on in CloD that drags FPS down. However, I don't believe this to be the case. Some posters have claimed it's the advanced FM etc that drags down performance. But it can't be, because the CPU load from CloD is actually very light with most of the grunt of a quad-core CPU going unused. I think it's actually just very poor software design, and Luthier's post saying that they anticipate getting much better FPS out of future patches suggests that 1C themselves know that there are serious problems with it in its released state. But the name change from BoB to CloD suggests that 1C know they have little hope of delivering large aerial battles over land. Hardly an encouraging sign.

If it is just badly coded, and they can make the CPU lift some of the load off the GPU, then maybe it's recoverable as a worthwhile product. However, if people find that they need a top-end rig to even make it playable at all (rather than just to enable all the bells and whistles) then it's doomed. Negative reviews and word of mouth will kill it stone dead.

There's also a serious concern that even if it can be made to reach playable frame rates with decent graphics quality, the thing is still buggy as heck and will need a lot of work to become a decent product. There are already a number of idiotic design decisions made in the game that really need to be fixed. The acid green landscapes are deeply unattractive and look nothing like I see when I fly over England. How could they get that so wrong? The aircraft engine sounds are terrible - where is the growl of a Merlin? The QMB-type thingy it counterintuitive and seems designed to produced Bf 110s with RAF roundels etc. I have no idea why they went with what they have now rather than re-use the IL-2 QMB, or copy RoF's neat alternative. Why did they spend all that time modelling tanks we will never see in great detail when the landscape looks so poor? I could go on, but it's just dispiriting.

Overall, I have found CloD to be a serious disappointment. Perhaps because I had expected so much. It certainly does make me wonder exactly what they were up to all those years since what we have finally received is manifestly such a rushed job. RoF survived a rocky launch because they hadn't built up player expectations and because it was actually pretty playable from day 1 but just lacked content. CloD doesn't have that advantage. Unfortunately, the closest parallel to CloD so far is the ill-fated Silent Hunter 5. I really, really hope that ubi don't walk away from it after two patches as they did with SH5 and that it all comes right in the end. But so far it's not clear which way it will go. I have my fingers crossed.

Ho Hum.