IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover

[ben_s 11]

Yeah, How bad is it really?

I'm going to guess it's nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be. Once i get my new PC, this is going right near the top of my to-get list.

Also, is it me or do people not put trust in developers? I mean, are we to the point where people trust random people on youtube preaching about how crap a game is, over a team that have made great games since 2001 - a few days after release of their latest game?

I mean, seriously ...

[Daniel 0]

Are you being sarcastic there?

Reviews by general members of the public ought to be as unbiased as possible. They aren't out to make a profit, and they're not being paid to give a good review, they're telling you how it is.

If this game was working as expected, it wouldn't be getting this level of bad press. At least that's what my intuition and my wallet are telling me.

[ben_s 11]

It was more a fact of, I would trust the developer who'd been making IL-2 games since 2001 to be capable of fixing the game up, especially since the release of the game is following the same lines as the first release (remember, 1C has already released a patch, Yesterday)

Over putting my trust in some random guy on YouTube preaching about it's bugs on day1 release.

It's not that it's unbiased, it's that people don't trust developers. And often go into rages for things that are guaranteed, You buy a game day 1. It's going to have bugs.

And I, and most people here I would guess, would trust (especially) indie developers to patch up their game. As much as we would trust BIS if they released a buggy ArmA game (God heavens no?)

[Daniel 0]

It shouldn't be like that though. You should pay full price for a game that works properly from the start. If we accept releases of this state they might as well charge us to beta test too.

Although, if you're willing to pay regardless, be my guest. I'm happy to wait for a fully working version.

In the meantime, i'll wait for more positive reviews.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Daniel

[ben_s 11]

Well, Generally speaking, You wont get a bug free release from any indie developer.

Buying a game day 1 is practicly paying for the beta version whilst they patch it up around you. An indie developer will hardley ever be able to release a game bug free, and I've never seen it before.

However, It depends on how badly the game is bugged I suppose. So, How bad is IL-2? And how bad will it be this time next year?

Patch 1 has already been released, and the devs are on the forums collecting information for future patches. And the game was only released a week ago.

I'm going to say, Trust the developer who did a good job with IL-2 previously, and let them fix it now they have information about the bugs. You would be surprised how much information a community of PC gamers can collate about a game's performance issues on machines (definantly the major problem with CoD). Everything from stats between VRAM usage on 1.5GB, 1.0GB and 2.0GBVRAM GPU's, to charts matching performance between CPU threading. (for example, that is)

EDIT:

Remember, that there's going to be 2 patches out before the game is even fully released (as the game is only released in Russia and Europe so far ... )

Edited April 3, 2011 by Ben_S

[max power 21]

It shouldn't be like that though. You should pay full price for a game that works properly from the start. If we accept releases of this state they might as well charge us to beta test too.

Although, if you're willing to pay regardless, be my guest. I'm happy to wait for a fully working version.

Well, it is like that, I guess. Especially in the Sim genre.

[Tonci87 163]

@Ben_S remember Ubisoft 2001 is not Ubisoft 2011

I personally don´t really trust Ubisoft. They have made some really bad decisions over the last few years. I would even say that Assassins creed is their only good brand. Everything else (especially major PC Titels) like for example Silent Hunter is being released in a very bugged way.

[ben_s 11]

Luckily, it's not developed by Ubisoft and is developed by 1C Maddox, who made IL-2 since 2001. Even Oleg is still there.

[whisper 0]

Oleg is not in the dev team anymore, since more than a year now.

He's just a name to give the title better reputation

[ben_s 11]

.. Well thats funny as Oleg has been spending time on the forums, giving updates about his game. Hell, late 2010 he even went into the forums to make sure people knew he was still with 1C and still working on IL2, it's just that he has other things, as well as, game development*.

(*Source:)

(Source2:)

[Baff1 0]

It was more a fact of, I would trust the developer who'd been making IL-2 games since 2001 to be capable of fixing the game up, especially since the release of the game is following the same lines as the first release (remember, 1C has already released a patch, Yesterday)

Over putting my trust in some random guy on YouTube preaching about it's bugs on day1 release.

It's not that it's unbiased, it's that people don't trust developers. And often go into rages for things that are guaranteed, You buy a game day 1. It's going to have bugs.

And I, and most people here I would guess, would trust (especially) indie developers to patch up their game. As much as we would trust BIS if they released a buggy ArmA game (God heavens no?)

I put my trust in the bloke who rang me up this morning to say he couldn't get the game past the interface screen.

LMAO all the years he has been waiting for this.

With regards to trusting indie developers....

What is to stop them going bust if they had to release early out of financial contraints and the release was so buggy it then got bad reviews and probably won't sell well?

This is hardly the kind of scenario which fills me full of "trust".

[ben_s 11]

Having trust in a developer does not mean you have to go buy it day 1. I may trust developers, but I don't buy games day 1.

I do trust Maddox and the team, They haven't gone bust over the last 10 years, so I don't see why they would go bust all of a sudden near the release of their latest game. I'm going to guess it's just a rough release, and nothing more.

[Baff1 0]

The date of their release is the most likely time for any studio to go bust.

They have come to the end of their loan period and now must pay it back.

If the sales don't come fast enough they won't be able to.

[ben_s 11]

Well, They're working hard, that is obvious.

They've not released the game in the US yet, and already the 2nd patch will be here by then.

Truthfully, none of us know what's going on behind the scenes. It may just be one of those 'it needs time out in the market to get more info from people to bugfix' things, over an actual problem with finances. I don't know.

You may be right, perhaps 1C is going bust. But, I doubt it.

[Baff1 0]

It never matters to me if developer is going bust or not because I don't buy the game unless I feel it is fit for purpose/good value at the point of sale.

There is no such thing in life as a lifetime guarentee.

And the games industry in particular is well known for having studio's fold with regularity.

It's a very hit or miss business.

I'm currently downloading this one. Steam is an arse as always.

I'm intrested to see if I can get something playable out of it.

I don't think I'm going to spend a lot of time battling with it if it isn't.

[instagoat 133]

bought the game today, tested it, and I must say it´s a hog. Arma 2 was finely polished upon release compared to this.

Performance is abysmal, even when using low gfx settings. Missions don´t load. Flicking certain options causes the game to freeze up completely, needing a hard reboot. Options ticked are not remembered by the game upon restart. Loading, if Missions load at all, is slow. And this is only the things I discovered after running it for 15 minutes... one hard reboot, one CTD and four lockups in that time.

I am mildly disappointed, I have to say, though I trust maddox to up their game and fix this before it turns from a medium sized catastrophe to a complete catastrophe.

(But at least the shadows in the cockpit look good, if you can get ingame.)

[max power 21]

Wow! That's pretty tough, instagoat.

Did you patch it up to get the option to get rid of the epilepsy screen? Did that make any difference? I'm curious because I've never heard of such a thing.

[instagoat 133]

Wow! That's pretty tough, instagoat.

Did you patch it up to get the option to get rid of the epilepsy screen? Did that make any difference? I'm curious because I've never heard of such a thing.

Yeah, I did. Didn´t try it with the filter on, but it apparently does produce a noticeable drop in fps.

I really hope this isn´t a sign of Maddox being in financial trouble or anything, though, because if they go belly up, we´ll be stuck with this wreck. I think it really has potential, the planes look amazing, and the flight model itself is fantastic again, and once in the air the landscapes aren´t bad either.

It´s just that the thing is riddled with more bugs than our lawn right now.

[Baff1 0]

I can't even get it to launch currently.

Uninstallling AVG.

That seems to block all known games currently.

Maybe that's the prob.

Edit.

So far to get it to work, I have had to...

Uninstall AVG

Updated GFX driver

Set Steam to "offline mode".

I'm not finished yet...

I can now actually see some render on my screen.

And I have to say with GFX settings at low, it looks significantly worse than the original at this point.

I'll see if I can get it to function and then if I can turn them up a bit.

Edit 2

I've given up.

I run a triple screen setup and it can't cope with it at all.

I've had it rendering bits of the game. Enough to see what it would look like if it worked. Maybe 2/3rds of the screen.

And horribly, over London, it lags. On miminum settings. GFX settings that make the Original look bloody glorious in comparison.

In all honesty, you would have to pay me to play this.

There are a shit load of free games available to download instead of wasting time with this. Let alone money.

If you are or were a big fan of IL2 Sturmovik, I strongly advise you to play that game instead.

I'll come back to this one in a few years time.

If you've bought it already, don't open the box. Take it straight back.

After 10 years I normally expect a game to be improved in someway. But this development seems to have gone into reverse gear for ten years instead of forwards.

On the plus note... LAN is supported!

Hahaha.

Edited April 4, 2011 by Baff1

[whisper 0]

.. Well thats funny as Oleg has been spending time on the forums, giving updates about his game. Hell, late 2010 he even went into the forums to make sure people knew he was still with 1C and still working on IL2, it's just that he has other things, as well as, game development*.

(*Source:)

(Source2:)

Aww, he suddenly found the way to duplicate himself to do this all at the same time? Or did he pull back from the dev team in 1C, and act as a spare time manager there?

[gossamersolid 155]

I don't blame anything on the devs, I blame it on the publishers that rushed the game out. If it was up to the devs, they'd say it's not ready and not ship it... but publishers just see $ and they want to milk fans of the series.

Lucky for me, I'm just going to stay with 1946 until it's been patched up quite a bit.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Its a contract between devs and publishers and both do know when the project is on schedule or behind. Guess the best thing for devs is if the producers walks in and gives them +6 month more to work on it. ;)

IL2 is now at 4.101m. Daidalos Team are currently working on the Il2 4.11 patch.

[EricM 0]

That's really a pitty this game runs so bad and consequently looks so bad for so many people, while Wings of Prey - it's little arcadish brother - is so stunningly fluid and gorgeous. Granted the terrain is much smaller, but that's what streaming is meant for, right ? or is this the über flight-model that's killing everybody's machines ?

On the french forums, it's being nicknamed CloDo, which in French means "hobo". Not very flattering...

[instagoat 133]

Something must´ve gone wrong with the game code. The way it´s running (or rather, not running at all) for me as it is, is terrible. I´ve now figured out that I can´t load -any- of the missions, quick missions or FMB missions apart from the tutorials...

On top of that the abysmal performance and numerous other glitches. Their excuse is that "PCs are difficult to develop for because there´s so many different setups.", which I don´t buy. BI manages to get Arma, an also humongously complicated program, to run on the largest part of machines. Many other companies produce games that run well on most PCs, as WELL AS on Consoles!

I don´t know what they´ve been doing all this time, but their quality control really is a catastrophe. I´ve even reinstalled 1946 and ditched CoD for the time being, because right now it´s simply unplayable. I´ll wait a few patches, and if there´s no improvement, I´ll give the game back.

[max power 21]

1946 and its predecessors were also a complicated game and it had none of these problems. Their indication that it would be better to develop such a game on consoles is laughable. It can't be an issue of technology, either, because modern consoles (which are mostly powered by ATi technology), have the same basic graphics capabilities as PCs.