Final Poll for CLOD?

[Ribbs67]

I gave it a 7 purely for online play. It could have been an 8- 9. with some fmb and ai commandd bugs squashed .. too bad they couldnt get it accomplished..

[ElAurens]

I didn't vote, but a 6 or a 7 as I am totally online and it is fun now.

Not nearly enough content to justify anything higher though.

In truth the very limited scope of the historical scenario of the Battle of Britain has a lot to do with some of the limitations that would keep me from rating it higher, even with it's current technical issues.

Basically, there are no Allied "fighter/bombers" (attack aircraft). Which while historically correct for the depicted scenario, makes for a very limited focus for us Allied pilots. And severely limits the extent of what can be done to extend the "repeat playability" of CloD. I'm no Bader or Hartmann, so endless dogfighting is getting old. I want to blow stuff up, and currently there is no way for me as an Allied pilot to do that effectively. And sorry, the Blenheim is not an acceptable substitute.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Salute

Successes:

1) Plane control systems are closest modelling of flight in WWII era Fighters we have seen yet in a Combat Flight Sim. Systems for Pitch, boost, rpm, cooling systems, etc. all innovative and generally pretty accurate by this last patch. Personally, I love flying these planes and the challenge they provide. I just drool at the thought of flying a P-47 in a Sim with this engine, with its supercharger, turbocharger, and very complex systems.
2) Good representation of BoB aircraft available, both flyable and non-flyable.
3) Nice map, coverage of Battle area is good, accuracy of terrain and objects/buildings is reasonably high.
4) Graphics generally very good, can be run at high resolutions with good systems.
5) Ballistics and weapons systems generally handled in a innovative and accurate way.

Failures:

1) Game does not provide the player with what its promotion promised, ie. the environment of the Battle of Britain. Impossible to replicate 300 plane raids on London, the game engine cannot handle it. In fact with the lack of Ships available in the object list, it is impossible to even replicate the Battle of the Convoys, with its smaller raids and lesser number of combatants.
2) Medium Altitude combat, ie. 20,000 ft, the typical bomb altitude for the Kampfgeschewader of Heinkels, Dorniers and Junkers which attacked Britain is basically unplayable, aircraft do not perform to historical standards, and the altitudes which saw combat between 109 escort and Spitfires covering the Hurricanes attacking the bombers, ie. 30,000 ft might as well be a trip to the moon.
3) Many aircraft with inaccurate Flight Models, from both sides.
4) The Visibility system, which was promised to be groundbreaking, has more bugs than IL-2, spotting of enemy aircraft is too easy at longer ranges, and too difficult at short range. 'Disappearing' LoD's at approx. 1000 meters are the bane of flyers. Players have to turn down their graphical settings to fly effectively in combat. This defeats the purpose of all the eye candy built into the system.
5) After a year and a half, serious bugs and omissions remain. For example, trees with no collision model, leading to players using them as cover, 'flying below the trees', and other players eliminating trees from their settings, so they can see the players using the tree cheat.

A badly flawed masterpiece? A limited success?

You tell me.

[GOA_Potenz]

I made a quick review of this poll and we just get out of the vote now a rate of

6.5 out of 10

So in the end this an average product from what we were promised from devs as the ultimate Flight Sim, a product of that quality should reach a 9-9.5 out of 10 with no problems.

Just 1 point gained since last costumers review.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Voted 6. Too long development compared to the outcome. Dev team broke things that did work in IL-2 instead of just refining them, like comms etc. I REALLY hope they've learned their lesson for sequel to make it a success.

[furbs]

Originally Posted by GOA_Potenz

I made a quick review of this poll and we just get out of the vote now a rate of

6.5 out of 10

So in the end this an average product from what we were promised from devs as the ultimate Flight Sim, a product of that quality should reach a 9-9.5 out of 10 with no problems.

Just 1 point gained since last costumers review.

I think 6.5 is a fair score, all we can hope for now is they have learned the lessons from the last few years and apply them to the sequel.

One of the main lessons is to have some sort of COOP system that uses all the bells and whistles of the new FMB, with the simple ease of use of the old system.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by furbs

I think 6.5 is a fair score, all we can hope for now is they have learned from the last few years and apply it to the sequel.

One of the main lessons is to have some sort of COOP system that uses all the bells and whistles of the new FMB, with the simple ease of use of the old system.

agreed 100%

At least it is a fun game now though.

[MadTommy]

Only play online.. 7 from me.

It would get 9 if the online population was bigger & if the code could cope with 100+ player servers.

[Insuber]

I gave a 7 only because of the total lack of competitors in this segment, apart from a 12 years old game called Il2 ...

But ...

Fulfilment of the expectations: 4
Respect of schedule: 0
FM of planes: 2 (think only to the 6500 m of plafond for 109, the near impossibility to do hammerheads, the lack of dynamic stall ...)
Online playability: 6
Squad online playability: 3
DM of planes: 4 (after the last patch, it was 6 before)
GUI: 4
Game manuals and reference: 1
FMB: 3 (you need a master in computer science to build a mission)
Community support and dedication: 9 (think only to the bugtracker created by users ...)

... and today I am in a good mood ...

[r0bc]

Wow 7 maybe but Luther wouldn't even give this a 8 - 9 or 10.