homepage Forums Read Only Forums Read Only Forums IL-2: Cliffs Of Dover (Read Only) Wow!

They turned the original release from a slideshow into a playable game. Playable that is until the screen locks up. It's still nowhere near as smooth as RoF, regardless of rez and detail settings, and without FSAA and AF it's a rough image. Ignoring the 101 other minor and major bugs we have the broken MP, the only playable part of the game really, unless you're into QMBs and the FMB. Because the SP, the 'campaign', isn't a campaign at all, it's just another form of QMB. Pointless, empty and sterile, unless you regard them as training missions for getting warmed up for MP (which doesn't work. Again).

The "lying" (tch tch Tiger, it's a misunderstanding, not "lies")...I've read somewhere that the most likely explanation is Ubi, with its financial difficulties, was about to pull the plug so it was release now or kiss CoD goodbye forever. Obviously if they'd told the public what state the game was in next to nobody would have bought it, so what to do? I sympathise with thier plight, and if I'm honest I would have pulled the same stroke, with the full intention of grovelling later as I pulled out all the stops to fix things and keeping up a constant stream of comms explaining what was being done, how why where and when.
What we've had is three or four patches, most of which have broken as much as they've fixed...then a sales-pitch for stuff down the road and now total silence for a week. The last bit is totally unacceptable behaviour and smacks of contemptuous arrogance.

I don't play CoD, there's nothing to play. It's barren. Sterile. It doesn't look particularly good and it's not as smooth as it should be. And it locks up, so what would be the point of starting even if there was something to play?

So, in summary, the game remains un-playable.

The question is, is RoF as playable with 100 A/C in the sky? And CoD certainly has been proven to be able to run, playably, with 100+ A/C in the sky at normal game speed.
It's sticks and stones; can they really be compared?

RoF runs perfectly with 15 vs 15 in direct combat. I'm not sure one would expect to see bigger furballs than that in WW1. Whether or not it can handle more than 30 planes, as would be needed in a proper dynamic campaign that would have various planes at various locations, I have no idea. But as CoD has no such campaign anyway it's a moot point. CoD's big advantage, if the game is ever fixed, is its 128-player MP, with AI available to go into the mix too.

Slightly irrelevent; in the up and coming campaign, RoF will need to model events of more than 30+ planes, and this is largely unplayable for most people who have the game.
CoD lacks a proper campaign, but the user can create their own missions with historical numbers, which are playable.
At the end of the day, CoD is still an infant; you wouldn't compare a baby to a child who was 2 years old and walking, and wonder why your child couldn't walk, would you?

If my baby had been born with cerebral palsy I wouldn't wonder about it at all, at any age.

We are in denial. CoD has no "game" underneath. It is simply a tech demo. How many hours would users need to invest in creating and troubleshooting huge FMB missions? Even set on "ace" AI G50 in FMB mission I created simply runs from a fight. So even using FMB does not assure a"playable" environment in CoD.

Granted the BoB aspect is missing; but from playing RoF, I never felt that it was WW1, as opposed to OFF. So it's taking RoF what, 2 years to try and reach a level of immersion created by a CFS3 add-on....
we all have different perceptions of what we want the game to achieve.
Either way, for me, RoF had cerebral palsy on release, so go figure really. I'm not advoacting that CoD is perfect, or even brilliant, but it's not like BoB2 was on released. That was completely unplayable for most users, and for me, is the best sim I've ever played so long as immersion is concerned.

At the end of the day, I can't see where these talks are meant to lead to.
The dev team know they need to pull their fingers out and deliver.
They know about all the bugs and glitches

we can only base what will happen on past events, and they delivered with Il-2, so here's to hoping the same will happen. We don't want the sim to falter, do we?
Comparisons with games like RoF are rather pointless...RoF doesn't have to model half as much 'stuff' as CloD does (reflector gunsight switches, a realistic damage model etc etc)

On what, precisely? I have seen the syndicate "demos" shot using the FMB to show hundreds of planes, but I haven't seen anything showing actual gameplay with that many aircraft. If there is such a thing, please point it out because I must have missed it.

Philip_ed said:



An odd metaphor. So you're quite happy to see a game released in 'baby' condition or an infantile state? I'm not, especially after a 6 year pregnancy.

It should be fully formed at release, or mostly (given the underlying complexity)...to labour this bad metaphor (sorry).

These allowances are plain daft.

Forceps delivery, anyone? Venteuse?

Ben

In fact I find most of the defenses of this game are bit daft, and variations on a theme i.e. making endless, endless, endless allowances..

* It may have a decent campaign in future

* It may have dynamic weather in future

* It may be possible to simulate large Bob style air-melees in future

* The palette and graphical component may be improved in future

* The interface and key mapping may be intuitive and properly enabled in future

* The product may be expanded in future

* Screen modes, and hardware specific benefits may be working in future

* Investment may allow all of the above...in the future

Ben (in the future)

A ROF mission will not even load, much less be playable with 100 A/C in the air.

And those videos with 1000+ planes were made on a personal PC, (meaning the FM, AI, Physics, and the actual drawing of the planes are all done on the same PC) Trust me it brought that user's pc to it's knee's. But the point is, it still ran.

Using a dedi server should take off the majority of the client load as the only thing they'll have to do is draw them as another object.

The point Phillp_ed is trying to convey is the game engine supports, well, anything your hardware can handle. In ROF your hardware only matters to a point, a very small one at that (object/AI-wise) at which the mission won't load or game will just crash. This is why the trenches (NML) in ROF are completely empty. A mission won't even load if the only objects you put in a ROF mission were the same # of AAA historically there in the trenches. No other objects added (no airfields, no anything) besides a single player plane, mission won't load. When (not if) IL2COD is fully up to speed, you'll have the biggest online, or offline for that matter (depending on your hardware) battles/scenarios ever seen in a flight sim.

And this is comparing (I don't know why people still do it) to a flight sim that has been released for 2 years, and has had numerous updates and patches. Stupid comparison IMO. But if you want to compare it, 2 years after ROF's release, to the new born IL2COD, the ROF engine is one of the worst limited engines I've ever seen. But then again, I come from IL2 where it's expected to be able to recreate the war (on the ground or in the air) of the theater you are flying in. I guess I'm spoiled in that regards. Even though it's not properly working (IL2COD as a whole) there is no netcode out there that even holds a candle to IL2 (both new and old)let alone the game engine. The people crying about lack of content have no idea just how much can be done or recreated for that matter. But if you think you are going to be able to host massive battles off a PC that was good in 2008, you're seriously kidding yourself.

You can create your own SP dynamic campaign right now

You can create your own MP dynamic campaign right now

You can recreate massive battles online or offline right now

The product expansion is being worked on right now and they've actually modeled the majority of many of the planes up to Korea long before IL2COD was even released.

As far as graphic enhancements or the other bug fixes, they are working on them right now and it will be fixed.

The usual strawman grasping at straws I see.

And as usual, surprise it's Ben, the 44 year old man posting his heart out on an internet gaming forum on a game that he doesn't own or even know anything about!

Good job Ben!

Keep it up.

I never said I was happy, but then again, the last 3 flight-sims I have bought were like that, so I am unsurprised that CoD was the way it is.
I was surprised, though, that it was so poor, given the development time and what the dev's posted in the update threads.
But at the end of the day, it is the way it is, and hopefully it will develop.
I think one can draw reasons for why it was like that (ahem Ubisoft) and Oleg has stated on his youtube page that having such a small team means that development takes a lot longer. It does mean, though, that development of the game is more personal and, thus, more community based.

But as Syn has pointed out, the potential is staggering, and without appeearing rude, I can't think of any curreny flight-sim that has this much potential.
Whether you're angry we're reliant on compromises or statements that are pure conjecture, this is the only tangible modern WW2 flight-sim, so it is in all our interest that it expands to something great.

In the meantime, if I want BoB, BoB2 is fine for me; in the same way that the only way I will be drawn into RoF is if the up and coming campaign is a success.

Dynamic? Really? So you have no idea what is going to happen?



Dynamic? Really? So you have no idea what is going to happen?



But playably?



Worked-on (if true)is not the same as being availabl. I am also working on room-temp nuclear fusion

Do you know all thos eplane sar properly modelled and functioning? No, thought not. Care to share your exclusive access to those code libraries?



Ah, the future tense in all it's totemic glory. Not conditional, not future-perfect, but glorious 'future'. Yes, I bathe in its warm glow.



Ah, the usual crude attempt at a put-down. I see...



I think you mean somewone who had justbeen out for a rather good long pub lunch in SW England with his family (Butcoombe beer anyoen?). And were you just sat there in the hope I might post? No?



I feel appreciated! Why, thank you!



We do our best (often under trying circumstances).

It's a hard job, but someone's got to do it!

Ben

Ben, ParaBellum posted a topic where he ran a game with 100+ planes at normal game speed and it was playable. It is what one would have expected, save for the fact that RoF can't achieve this on any level. Whilst this comparison is obviously rather pointless, why can't RoF do that? It's not as though it has to model anything more significant; in fact, RoF is probably a lot simpler, so CloD has clearly achieved something.

So yes, wow, that's one thing they have achieved!
But look where this is getting us? Nowhere, really.

The point is, we know release sucked. But the future is the only thing fans of this genre can hold out for. We know that modding is easily done (take a peep at the 1C forum) so we can imagine there will be a nice future in community modding.

I think the point is, too, that the future is an important part of any game like this. Release should have been brilliant, it wasn't. But what can we do? What do you advocate, Ben? Leave the game until it is how it should have been? I agree if that's what you want. If you're happy with the game as it is, then that's also great. Afterall, it's the users experience, for them to enjoy how they wish.

So at the end of the day, the metaphor I made was not comforting, but it has proved true for RoF and BoB2 and, now, with CloD. CloD is not an enigma; it's just one of those times when a game gets hyped to an extortionate level, and then fails to deliver. The result is that a lot more people are angry than if the team had announced that this would be the case.

failstuff,

The future planes (the one's they've already worked on or modelled) have been shown on the SOW/COD engine way back as early as 2006. This is public info and screen shots are abundant.

Yes Dynamic to both.

Yes Playable

And there wasn't a crude attempt at a put down. Your argument, as usual, has no validity because you simply don't know anything about the game. Your assumptions or your ideology may work for the less informed public, but not for me. I usually try to know what I'm talking about before posting.

Sorry if the truth hurts. Thanks for your valiant efforts.

Truly, ignorance is Bliss

Ben

Good arguments. Your validity or should I say, lack there of, is shown again.

Thanks.

Dynamic campaign? Somebody should let Luthier know, he thinks CoD hasn't got one.