Next patch info

[JG27CaptStubing]

Originally Posted by timej31

God it's killing me...Oh OK what did you expect?

Everyone sounds like a used car salesmen. This doesn't have this and its beta and it sucks however I have this 1990 toyota that has this ashtray. Find a car today that includes an ashtray. YOU CAN'T FIND IT! This is why you need this and you look so good in it.

Hmmm you should catch up with the conversation... We were talking about comparing Graphics of COD and IL2. I simply stated the difference between the two games as it stands now doesn't warrent some of the praise I've seen on these boards. It runs like poop at the moment and I certainly hope they continue to improve things hence why I bought it.

[VO101_Tom]

DCS A-10 great game, bacause of avionics, and cocpit interior... but the landscape... I hate the satelite images. Looks good from 10k, but ugly as sh*t in low flight

[Blackdog_kt]

For me it's not about the graphics so much. The aircraft are better looking than IL2, the terrain depends on time of day but i don't mind it that much because it does have multiple times the objects IL2 had. I run mostly medium settings on two year old hardware and it plays fine in any case.

What does it for me is operating the aircraft.
Flying IL2 after flying CoD is like having a co-pilot in the 109 squeezed behind the cockpit, making sure i don't have to do a bunch of stuff that needed to be done, or at the very least hold my hand through it and mitigate any possible negative consequences from my mishandling. And after sampling what little CoD currently has to offer, that is a giant step back for me.

I want the aircraft modeling to reflect some of the individual quirks and nuances of each type, compared to that IL2 currently feels like some accurate numbers (FM) strapped onto a 3d model and not a complete piece of wartime machinery.

There's no feel for what lurks under the hood and how it might come back to bite me in the behind if i'm not careful with it, the workload is highly diminished to the benefit of situational awareness and improved ability to focus on maneuvering and the pretty artificial CEM limitations combined with the small maps make it possible to run around at top performance all day long (reduced fuel and almost constant WEP use).

This doesn't just completely skew tactical considerations and limitations further away from reality, it also influences immersion because there's no feel of having a complex machine around you.

Don't get me wrong, i loved IL2 and have every single title since 2001, but after giving CoD a try it doesn't do much for me anymore.

For me it's the CEM, the detailed autopilots and bombsights, the ability and requirement to properly balance my fuel load in a twin engined aircraft and so on. I wanted IL2 with a bit of FSX thrown in and i got it, so i'm perfectly happy. In other words, it's a matter of taste and priorities.

[Frequent_Flyer]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

For me it's not about the graphics so much. The aircraft are better looking than IL2, the terrain depends on time of day but i don't mind it that much because it does have multiple times the objects IL2 had. I run mostly medium settings on two year old hardware and it plays fine in any case.

What does it for me is operating the aircraft.
Flying IL2 after flying CoD is like having a co-pilot in the 109 squeezed behind the cockpit, making sure i don't have to do a bunch of stuff that needed to be done, or at the very least hold my hand through it and mitigate any possible negative consequences from my mishandling. And after sampling what little CoD currently has to offer, that is a giant step back for me.

I want the aircraft modeling to reflect some of the individual quirks and nuances of each type, compared to that IL2 currently feels like some accurate numbers (FM) strapped onto a 3d model and not a complete piece of wartime machinery.

There's no feel for what lurks under the hood and how it might come back to bite me in the behind if i'm not careful with it, the workload is highly diminished to the benefit of situational awareness and improved ability to focus on maneuvering and the pretty artificial CEM limitations combined with the small maps make it possible to run around at top performance all day long (reduced fuel and almost constant WEP use).

This doesn't just completely skew tactical considerations and limitations further away from reality, it also influences immersion because there's no feel of having a complex machine around you.

Don't get me wrong, i loved IL2 and have every single title since 2001, but after giving CoD a try it doesn't do much for me anymore.

For me it's the CEM, the detailed autopilots and bombsights, the ability and requirement to properly balance my fuel load in a twin engined aircraft and so on. I wanted IL2 with a bit of FSX thrown in and i got it, so i'm perfectly happy. In other words, it's a matter of taste and priorities.

I completely agree, the simulation of flying a WW II combat aircraft is much more historically accurate experience in COD. The complex damage modelling is also light years ahead of IL-2 1946, and is as important to me as the CEM.

It is a refresing change not to have the rear gunner of a EA put a round into raditor while his aircraft alternates between cart wheels and barrel rolls, and never losing any speed in the process. The maps in IL-2 look like your flying over various colors of felt, no comparision to COD.

[CWMV]

Comparing stock IL2 '46 to CoD is just a little bit silly, why not compare it to something like UP3 or HSFX?
Maps-UP/HSFX win. The maps are huge, highly detailed, and don't look like the countryside has been irradiated. Not to mention that at this point there are maps for just about everywhere you would want to go.
Aircraft-Easy win for UP3/HSFX. There are sooooooo many aircraft of high quality that one can add it boggles the mind, and with the 3d done by the likes of japancat the external models rival CoD, at least in my eyes.
Effects-I haven't seen much to impress me over the work of the Cinema effects pack or HG&P's effects packages.
DM-Easily CoD. Still kinda cartoony in '46.
FM-Such an easy win for UP3/HSFX. In these you can actually fly the aircraft against real world war time evaluations and they are dang close, at least with the 109's. I'm sure there are some that are off but when your talking about hundreds and hundreds of aircraft Christ, there will be exceptions.

And in the end it comes down to one thing for me-CoD just feels like a shell of a game. Its got nothing more than great 3d models. Its like the great looking blonde with assets in all the right places, but dumb as a box of rocks. Shell be fun for a few days, but after that, eh, whats the point?

needless to say Ill be sticking with UP3.
Besides who wants to play the same 6 month period of the war over, and over, and over again?

[LoBiSoMeM]

Originally Posted by CWMV

Comparing stock IL2 '46 to CoD is just a little bit silly, why not compare it to something like UP3 or HSFX?
Maps-UP/HSFX win. The maps are huge, highly detailed, and don't look like the countryside has been irradiated. Not to mention that at this point there are maps for just about everywhere you would want to go.
Aircraft-Easy win for UP3/HSFX. There are sooooooo many aircraft of high quality that one can add it boggles the mind, and with the 3d done by the likes of japancat the external models rival CoD, at least in my eyes.
Effects-I haven't seen much to impress me over the work of the Cinema effects pack or HG&P's effects packages.
DM-Easily CoD. Still kinda cartoony in '46.
FM-Such an easy win for UP3/HSFX. In these you can actually fly the aircraft against real world war time evaluations and they are dang close, at least with the 109's. I'm sure there are some that are off but when your talking about hundreds and hundreds of aircraft Christ, there will be exceptions.

And in the end it comes down to one thing for me-CoD just feels like a shell of a game. Its got nothing more than great 3d models. Its like the great looking blonde with assets in all the right places, but dumb as a box of rocks. Shell be fun for a few days, but after that, eh, whats the point?

needless to say Ill be sticking with UP3.
Besides who wants to play the same 6 month period of the war over, and over, and over again?

Another sick one.

People like so much their 109s uber in some mod that became blind.

Too much stupidity for me to handle.

[Cdr84]

Must be a lot of Silent Hunter 5 fans here.

I for one am tired of waiting years for a sim to come out, buying it, and then waiting months, years, or never for it to work properly.

This is what is killing sims.

Silent Hunter 5 torpedoed WWII sub sims for the foreseeable future. CloD most likely has done the same for WWII flight sims.

Time will tell.

Cdr

[JG27CaptStubing]

Originally Posted by CWMV

Comparing stock IL2 '46 to CoD is just a little bit silly, why not compare it to something like UP3 or HSFX?
Maps-UP/HSFX win. The maps are huge, highly detailed, and don't look like the countryside has been irradiated. Not to mention that at this point there are maps for just about everywhere you would want to go.
Aircraft-Easy win for UP3/HSFX. There are sooooooo many aircraft of high quality that one can add it boggles the mind, and with the 3d done by the likes of japancat the external models rival CoD, at least in my eyes.
Effects-I haven't seen much to impress me over the work of the Cinema effects pack or HG&P's effects packages.
DM-Easily CoD. Still kinda cartoony in '46.
FM-Such an easy win for UP3/HSFX. In these you can actually fly the aircraft against real world war time evaluations and they are dang close, at least with the 109's. I'm sure there are some that are off but when your talking about hundreds and hundreds of aircraft Christ, there will be exceptions.

And in the end it comes down to one thing for me-CoD just feels like a shell of a game. Its got nothing more than great 3d models. Its like the great looking blonde with assets in all the right places, but dumb as a box of rocks. Shell be fun for a few days, but after that, eh, whats the point?

needless to say Ill be sticking with UP3.
Besides who wants to play the same 6 month period of the war over, and over, and over again?

Bingo! +1

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

What does it for me is operating the aircraft.
Flying IL2 after flying CoD is like having a co-pilot in the 109 squeezed behind the cockpit, making sure i don't have to do a bunch of stuff that needed to be done, or at the very least hold my hand through it and mitigate any possible negative consequences from my mishandling. And after sampling what little CoD currently has to offer, that is a giant step back for me.

I want the aircraft modeling to reflect some of the individual quirks and nuances of each type, compared to that IL2 currently feels like some accurate numbers (FM) strapped onto a 3d model and not a complete piece of wartime machinery.

There's no feel for what lurks under the hood and how it might come back to bite me in the behind if i'm not careful with it, the workload is highly diminished to the benefit of situational awareness and improved ability to focus on maneuvering and the pretty artificial CEM limitations combined with the small maps make it possible to run around at top performance all day long (reduced fuel and almost constant WEP use).

This doesn't just completely skew tactical considerations and limitations further away from reality, it also influences immersion because there's no feel of having a complex machine around you.

Don't get me wrong, i loved IL2 and have every single title since 2001, but after giving CoD a try it doesn't do much for me anymore.

For me it's the CEM, the detailed autopilots and bombsights, the ability and requirement to properly balance my fuel load in a twin engined aircraft and so on. I wanted IL2 with a bit of FSX thrown in and i got it, so i'm perfectly happy. In other words, it's a matter of taste and priorities.

I have to chuckle at this because I know you have made the CEM realism point many times as the basis for your enjoyment of CLoD and I think to try and win people over? Testing the mags, pumping the fuel pump...for me it's a novelty. Something I can easily macro control away. Then the CLoD 109 becomes pretty simple. I mainly fly online. So I want to get in the game, not spend my time doing this imaginary stuff. Also, I have to disagree about your simplified take on 1946 modeling. Overheating is modeled. If WEP is on, it gets hotter faster and you lose power until eventually your engine blows. If you enter a dogfight hot engine, you are going to take a performance hit. And different WEPs (e.g., mw50) are modeled differently. The rads affect speed, but they also affect drag. And there are also times when you want to use manual over auto prop pitch for better acceleration. I guess what I am saying is that the workload potential is there in 1946 and if pilots choose to ignore it, they do get penalized. It's not as "simple" a model as it appears. It's probably true that many have been able to make kills by getting away with bad practice, and in this sense, I would agree that CLoD as the potential to be the better test of piloting skill. But I think it will be a long while for me. The DT and Mod patches have added a lot to this game and the flight model is realistic enough to prevent me from spending $1000 to enjoy CLoD's added realism.

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by JG27CaptStubing

...

The game is already released in USA? I ask it, because what you write, it experience (you were flying with cod), or you looked at videos on the youtube, or only you saw a couple of screenshots on google?

For who there is anything experience with the game, and understands it what happens why in the cockpit, it does not say one like that, that the il-2 better. Absurdity, if you look at the CEM only, nothing else, there are light-years between the two games then. In the il-2, one thing better: 300 flyable planes. That's it. (yey yes, cod has many bugs now, but its temporary)