![]() |
|
IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover Latest instalment in the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik series from award-winning developer Maddox Games. |
View Poll Results: Do you use or intend to use DirectX 9? | |||
No I do not and I don`t think it should be supported at this stage anymore |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
254 | 90.07% |
Yes I do and will do so in the future |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
28 | 9.93% |
Voters: 282. You may not vote on this poll |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I voted as well and It just got words in my mouth.
There is no way back, they said they gonna support DX9, doesn't matter how much the community rage. They got to do it. Now about releasing a DX9 patch or a DX10+ patch, I bet that is not such a linear procedure. And by this time I bet they have already half of their work done, so we just need to be a little more patient, and wait for the patch to get released. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Bad voting options. One option should be: "I don't indulge in collective idiocy and though I won't use DX9, I understand that it was supported at release and therefore, it has to be further supported until at least up to the release of the addon".
Though I don't use DX9, I voted for it because of the stated reason. Now stop that billshat and wait out the few days until the patch is released; in a proper state and not in some fikked up this-and-that-only version. Goddarnitt, I could fly the thing relatively stutter-free since release and still, I had to cope with you guys, sporting some super-awkward hardware configuration while insisting upon running CoD in maximum graphics setting, raising hell about it, about green grass and "unrealistic propeller discs" (lol³). Now that you've stumbled over some half-useful graphics hardware, you're pushing the boundaries of idiocy even further. I'm sick of it... The sad part is that the devs were actually listening to those exact points, while delaying very, very essential parts about the simulation like AI radio commands, flight models, et cetera, et cetera, pp. and so on, which could have been easily fixed in a heartbeat or two. This was the most epic case of failure on the part of the devs and the most stupid things uttered from that so-caled "community" I've ever encountered since firing up my first connection to the internet in 1995... Last edited by Redroach; 06-18-2012 at 12:49 PM. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The shop should have 7% of the developers or the developers time working on supporting DX9. Unless there's something really compelling that suggest otherwise.
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
93.61% vs 6.39 says all...
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
This poll says nothing.
It means nothing. It was a troll post from the start.
__________________
![]() Personally speaking, the P-40 could contend on an equal footing with all the types of Messerschmitts, almost to the end of 1943. ~Nikolay Gerasimovitch Golodnikov |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Not really. It's easily seen as a choice for the voter for DX9 or not. And DX9 is getting crushed. There are not any words that can describe the lopsidedness of this vote.
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
How about 'irrelevant'?
__________________
MoBo: Asus Sabertooth X58. CPU: Intel i7 950 Quad Core 3.06Ghz overclocked to 3.80Ghz. RAM: 12 GB Corsair DDR3 (1600).
GPU: XFX 6970 2GB. PSU: 1000W Corsair. SSD: 128 GB. HDD:1 TB SATA 2. OS: Win 7 Home Premium 64bit. Case: Antec Three Hundred. Monitor: 24" Samsung. Head tracking: TrackIR 5. Sore neck: See previous. ![]() |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
__________________
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
What about the 1,924 views this poll has currently had? That gives 208 "no" votes, 15 "yes" votes, and 1701 "can't be bothered to vote in this pointless poll" votes...
__________________
MoBo: Asus Sabertooth X58. CPU: Intel i7 950 Quad Core 3.06Ghz overclocked to 3.80Ghz. RAM: 12 GB Corsair DDR3 (1600).
GPU: XFX 6970 2GB. PSU: 1000W Corsair. SSD: 128 GB. HDD:1 TB SATA 2. OS: Win 7 Home Premium 64bit. Case: Antec Three Hundred. Monitor: 24" Samsung. Head tracking: TrackIR 5. Sore neck: See previous. ![]() |
![]() |
|
|