Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover

IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover Latest instalment in the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik series from award-winning developer Maddox Games.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #191  
Old 06-15-2011, 01:44 AM
Frequent_Flyer's Avatar
Frequent_Flyer Frequent_Flyer is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Chicago, IL-US
Posts: 166
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 06-15-2011, 02:08 AM
CWMV's Avatar
CWMV CWMV is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 758
Default

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?
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 06-15-2011, 02:50 AM
LoBiSoMeM LoBiSoMeM is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 963
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CWMV View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 06-15-2011, 04:06 AM
Cdr84 Cdr84 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 17
Default

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

Last edited by Cdr84; 06-15-2011 at 04:11 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 06-15-2011, 06:30 AM
MadBlaster MadBlaster is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 666
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 06-15-2011, 07:00 AM
klem's Avatar
klem klem is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cdr84 View Post
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
Yes, time will tell.

Get off the fanboy wagons guys, this isn't a competition. I know there's a genuine and strong feeling for IL-2 and the mods have taken it way beyond what MG were prepared to allow - I liked the mods very much and was fed up with the simulation restrictions of the outdated version 4.xx - but at its heart CoD is a better simulation.

Anyone who hasn't flown CoD just isn't in a position to appreciate what it has and will become when the bugs have been sorted.

Anyone who has flown it and can see past the bugs will know that as a flight combat sim it is ahead of IL-2 - as you'd expect ten years down the line even with the mods - its just that its easy to be put off by all the bugs and I can sympathise with that. No it isn't fully ready yet, yes it's still not much more than beta, but there is an undeniable difference between the two simulations. Perhaps its only experienced at its potential best at 'full switch' settings as that is where some of the best features lie.

Of course it's a limited planeset and map options. There is only one planeset and only one serious map because this is just the first of many theatres and periods. In that respect its like IL-2 when it first came out. It's pointless to compare the scope of IL_2 with CoD.

Madblaster, no-one is saying IL_2 isn't a good sim or that it doesn't have CEM but there is more to the CoD CEM than just testing the mags etc.. It takes IL-2's CEM a stage further as it has more of an impact on combat than IL-2's CEM which is much more forgiving. The thing that keeps you in the air is your engine. It is a big consideration for a combat pilot but one that can be managed with practice and many of us don't want to macro away the experience. IL_2 has everything you say but a key phrase of yours is "if pilots choose to ignore it, they do get penalized". They get penalised in CoD too but much sooner and under a few more possibilities than in IL-2.

The combat experience is different, I think Blackdog_kt has nailed the basics in his last post. If CoD isn't what you want then let it go, fly IL-2.
__________________
klem
56 Squadron RAF "Firebirds"
http://firebirds.2ndtaf.org.uk/



ASUS Sabertooth X58 /i7 950 @ 4GHz / 6Gb DDR3 1600 CAS8 / EVGA GTX570 GPU 1.28Gb superclocked / Crucial 128Gb SSD SATA III 6Gb/s, 355Mb-215Mb Read-Write / 850W PSU
Windows 7 64 bit Home Premium / Samsung 22" 226BW @ 1680 x 1050 / TrackIR4 with TrackIR5 software / Saitek X52 Pro & Rudders
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 06-15-2011, 08:23 AM
LoBiSoMeM LoBiSoMeM is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 963
Default

The most anoying thing about this sick bunch blaming CloD is the simple fact that the new sim is just the new release, the evolution, of their beloved IL-2 series...

Why this people are so proud of IL-2 1946 modded and talk a lot of crap of IL-2 1946 "vanilla" and CloD?

I spend just about 200 euros to enjoy CloD and wait for BF3. A new 1GB Dx11 VGA.

What I really can see here is a bunch of lazy people or people with dated hardware that STILL talking crap.
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 06-15-2011, 08:32 AM
JG52Krupi's Avatar
JG52Krupi JG52Krupi is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,128
Default

Don't forget that a lot of them are probably trying to play on max settings and start to cry when it crashes sad times
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by SiThSpAwN View Post
Its a glass half full/half empty scenario, we all know the problems, we all know what needs to be fixed it just some people focus on the water they have and some focus on the water that isnt there....
Gigabyte X58A-UD5 | Intel i7 930 | Corsair H70 | ATI 5970 | 6GB Kingston DDR3 | Intel 160GB G2 | Win 7 Ultimate 64 Bit |
MONITOR: Acer S243HL.
CASE: Thermaltake LEVEL 10.
INPUTS: KG13 Warthog, Saitek Pedals, Track IR 4.
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 06-15-2011, 09:24 AM
LLv26_Mikko LLv26_Mikko is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 8
Default

I think so that most people that have bought their rig like 1-2 years ago expected that COD runs smoothly on max settings. That just is not anyway posible. My old rig core2 duo 2.4Ghz whit 8G DDR2 was able to run smoothly medium settings -forest low -building ammount low. My old rig was 3 years old so i bought a new one.

Now i have:
Core i7 2600k 3,4Ghz
8GB DDR3 1600Mhz
Gainward GeForce GTX560 Ti Panthom 2GB
Asus P8P67

Now COD runs MAX settings whit AVG fps around 40.
I dropped building detail to medium (cant see any different when airborne)
Also i dropped forest to Medium (cant see any different when airborne)
After this modification to MAX settings i get AVG fps around 50. Depending on the ammount of AC at close range.

I tested my rig Whit MAX settings and whit total number of 125 planes in combat in radius of 3X3km and then fps avg dropped unplayable. Did same test whit 70 planes and it was playable only that AVG fps dropped to around 30.

Whit my old rig 30 planes was absolute limit whit medium settings.
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 06-15-2011, 09:56 AM
MadBlaster MadBlaster is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 666
Default

Guys, we aren't morons. I have CLoD. Cdr has CLoD. I think Stubing probably has the game. We all play at WoP Spit/109 for long time. I spent a bunch of time mapping out my controls for CLoD, writing macros for it and I tweaked my settings on my low end system enough to where I could dogfight with 109 just fine. I expected to be buying a new computer when CLoD came out. But the problem is all these "bugs" or just bad design/implementation totally unrelated to CEM/DM. So much so that it overshadows greatly the new CEM and DM models imho.

The question is do you want to spend the next year beta testing CLoD or do you want to spend your time playing upcoming UP 3.0? If you don't have the hardware, why invest in top end hardware for a beta CLoD game and then have that hardware obsolete by the time CLoD is polished a year from now? If you do have the hardware now, why waste your time on a beta game that may or may not ever be completed? At least we have reasonable assurance that UP 3.0 will rock. Vanilla, DT patches and community mods all rolled into one. You get the sounds, the maps...everything. Why not play that for now? We paid money for CLoD to be a complete game. They need to fix it. But it's been like 6 years and Oleg is gone. We're just being realistic I think. Hope to see you at spit/109 when they get 3.0 running.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.