![]() |
#191
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
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. |
#192
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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? |
#193
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
People like so much their 109s uber in some mod that became blind. Too much stupidity for me to handle. |
#194
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#195
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
![]() |
#196
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
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 |
#197
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#198
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Don't forget that a lot of them are probably trying to play on max settings and start to cry when it crashes
![]()
__________________
![]() 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. |
#199
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#200
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. ![]() |
![]() |
|
|