SimHQ Senior Air Combat Editor Tom Cofield reviews IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover
North America Version 1.02.14821

http://www.simhq.com/_air13/air_500a.html

-----

I would like to personally thank TC for picking-up the ball on a very difficult review to produce, and successfully maintaining a balance in discussing the good and bad aspects, all within a very few days since the project was reassigned to him. Salute to you sir!

Also, a big thanks to FearlessFrog and Avimimus for providing support content and input to the review.

Additionally, I would like to apologize to the readers of SimHQ for the delay in getting the North American Review completed and online. While we always did plan to review the initial North America version, it was hoped to arrive a few weeks, not months, after release.

When the new update arrives next week, FearlessFrog will be producing a "what's new / what works / what still doesn't work" writeup on the update and its impact to IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover.

Minor point, but the armament difference between the Bf109E3 and Bf109E4 is that the former has the MG-FF, and the latter uses the very similar development - MG-FFM (with a lighter recoil spring, and firing the mine shell with lighter weight, higher velocity and higher HE content).

The MG151 is the nose/engine block armament of the Bf109F2, with the Bf109F4 carrying the MG151/20, both are much later than the BOB

I thought Dart was to write part of the review. Haven't seen him around much. Is all okay?

Good review. Accurately spells out the strengths and current shortfalls of Cliffs of Dover.

Nobody has heard from Dart. Hopefully he is okay. Speculation is he is quite smitten with the RL plane build and it has him swamped. I asked TC to step in several days ago to do the review in Frank's absence.

Thanks, Doug. Hopefully speculation is right.

Good review Tom. You covered the good, the bad, and the just OK parts of the sim well.


Wheels

Thanks for the review, like you I suspect the game will evolve into a truly great game, it just needs a fair bit of nurturing.

The only thing I think I would pick you up on though is the bit about the Blenheim IV:



It was the Beaufort that evolved into the Beaufighter not the Blenheim IV. If memory serves then it was the Blenheim MK 1 that was used as a stopgap night fighter, much like the Hurricane thingy with the turret that for the life of me I can't remember the name of (old age and decrepitude) with little success (to slow). The Blenheim IV, I believe went on to have a tolerably successful career as a light to medium bomber in secondary theaters such as Malta and North Africa.

Well done Tom for stepping in, its pretty much spot on, though how could it not be?
Would like to see Darts version if it ever gets finished. maybe as a add on?

Steam is classified as DRM now?

Let me jog your memory Damocles,you mean the Defiant.
It did have initial success but that didn't last too long.

A well balanced review from a website that has gotten some criticism for not doing a review right away. It has the potential to be a great game but the campaign criticism is justified as it has always let the IL2 series down (That's were the community comes in to fill the gaps). Mentioning Rowans BOB campaign system, which should have been the standard for campaigns, is a good slap in the face to designers. For all the faults give COD a good campaign and all will be forgiven.

Bottom line the Framework is there to have a great game but needs some TLC. Give it a couple of months/years and the bad comments will be forgotten by some great gameplay.

Just two small typos :

"...you can play are almost unlimited mission selection." are -> an, under Gameplay on page 2.

"The German campaign is marginally better, but it also has not continuity to it." not -> no, under Campaign on page 3.

I think it's a fair review.


I would like to have read Tom's review on the initial, Euro release though.

Thanks, corrected.

Thanks, corrected.

I know I'll get flamed for this, but it's good to see Call of Duty finally get a review.

The Beaufort was based on the Blenheim. It then evolved into the Beaufighter.

Exceptionally fair, balanced and well written. +1 to Tom Cofield. Note his system was a Core 2 Duo - ATI 5770.

I have some very small differences of opinion with respect to Terrain, Flight model and Damage Modeling compared to RoF - but not enough to comment on. Great points were covered, Poor points were addressed and most importantly a reader of the review receives the "feel" of the product.

It's very refreshing to see some sanity in the pre 1950's Combat Flight Simulation universe. +1 to SimHQ for this, this is an excellent example of service to the community.


S!

Gunny

LOL, funneee guy.

lol

http://www.simhq.com/_land3/land_145a.html

http://www.simhq.com/_land3/land_117a.html

Not to belabor a point, just being pedantic for pedants sake, and the truth is I don't really know ( I would love to be enlightened by someone who really does) BUT, the Beaufort and therefore the Beaufighter were built USING THE EXPERIENCE GAINED WHILE DEVELOPING, and was NOT a direct decedent of the Blenheim. It would be like saying the Typhoon and Tempest were an evolution of the Hurricane, yes the same company built them, yes they shared many similarities and I'm sure they put lessons learned into building them, but to say they were an evolution of would be stretching the common heritage a little far me thinks.

From my understanding the Beaufighter was built using a modified Beaufort airframe, and therefore could very well be described as an evolution of the former, the Beaufort on the other hand was a completely different airframe from the Blenheim even if they shared some similarities.

Hope you take this in the spirit that it is meant, i.e. pedantic banter and not as a criticism or just being argumentative for arguments sake.

Why would it not?

Excellent review Tom. You're a brave man

@Damocles,

All aircraft (and tank and car and other mechanical) designs "evolve" based solely on experience gained during development, so I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make. To be literal, no one airframe "evolves" into another - there's no sexual reproduction with chromosome mutation/replication errors, each are designed (with some aircraft taking a liberal definition of the word "designed" ) - even if a later design uses components from a previous, it's still a new design.

If you're trying to argue that there is some maximum level of design difference that can be allowed and still say one aircraft design "evolved" from another, you're talking about a very subjective and impossible to define area. As an example, on one hand, I could argue that the A-10C Warthog "evolved" from the A-7 Skyraider, while on the other hand argue that the A-10C is a completely different aircraft than the A-10A. It's all about context, what differences are being emphasized, and the opinion of the observer. And I think we've demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a diversity of opinion when it comes to Cliffs of Dover!

By definition yes. Digital resource management. Steam has to be running to play CoD. You need a steam account with the game registered to that account to play the game.

Sounds like DRM software to me.

Great review Tom....well done.

@Einstein

I think this is the distinction hes trying to make.

Ok , last post on the topic and then I'll climb back under my rock

After some thought I would sum it up like this (I take and accept points made):

The Blenheim Mk1 evolved into the Mk IV (don't know what happened to II and III) before eventually evolving into the Mk V. That was the end of the Blenheim development, it didn't morph into anything else.

The Beaufort, common heritage with Blenheim, WAS adapted and chopped up to produce the Beaufighter (something that didn't happen to Blenheim Mk IV airframes), it was a direct evolution of it's predecessor and because of this the name also morphed to better reflect its new role.

For American parlance I would probably crudely put it like this, The Strike Eagle is an adapted form of the original Eagle air superiority fighter but neither while superficially similar to the F14 are an evolution of that aircraft.

To try and explain better using an analogy. The Blenheim is like the Neanderthals while the Beaufort is like Homo sapiens, both have a common heritage and share many traits, but to say that modern humans evolved from Neanderthals would be incorrect (I know the jury is still out, I go with the more modern interpretation). Neanderthals stopped evolving and died out while Homo sapiens continued to evolve into you and me (at this point you may very well not be including me ) same same but different.

Another but closer evolution would be that of the Avro Manchester/Lancaster/Lincon/Lancastrian all evolutions of the same aircraft, but it would be wrong to add the Avro Shackleton to the list because although it has a common heritage and superficially similar, indeed many of the parts were exactly the same, it was a different aeroplane altogether.

If I were to reword the article to better reflect what I think is correct (don't you just hate pedants) it would be "eventually being replaced by the Beaufighter"

Whose definition? DRM as most people understand it and every definition I've ever seen means digital rights management and as steam can be set to offline mode it's not really very good at it so no, I do not agree that steam is DRM. It's a digital sales, distribution and jack of all trades that might include some form of lighthearted DRM but it is not, in itself DRM.

Good and balanced review, thanks Tom.

MAC

Long time lurker here, but somehow I felt the need to register for this. Outstanding review, thanks alot.

Nice review, Tom. Perhaps a later version/patch(es) will help CloD rise to the level that the Il2 franchise enjoyed. Until then it's hard not to feel a little disappointed in 1C's latest.

I surely do long for the days of MiG Alley, where a dynamic campaign worked fairly smoothly and you could jump in and fly one of the missions you helped the game engine plan out. Sure wish one of those could be placed into CloD. Heck, even a scripted day-by-day campaign that lets you work through the real Battle of Britain from a historical sense would be welcome.

An idea for the mod crowd: A campaign that follows the events in the book "Piece of Cake" (Phony War/Battle of France/Battle of Britain) and the fictious "Hornet Squadron", who are a vehicle to tell the overall story of the battle from one set of characters.

Having written reviews in the past for Combatsim, I have to say this was a tough nut to tackle. TC pulled it off quite well. The multiplayer section was a bit brief as its my favorite part to read about.

Ive tried the direct connect MP mode, this is how users would host their own MP missions without a dedicated server. Host supplies the IP and clients should be able to use that and play online. We can get Lobby/COOP mission to partially work. Host sees all A/C placed on the mission, but the Client does not. This DirectConnect mode does not seem to be ready for prime time.

In making a mission, one has to make sure there is a respawn site over a base to allow clients to create a plane or group of planes. We still cannot get clients to join flights already made that the Host can join and fly with. Plus, the clients still dont show up with a player count under the flag of their choosing. Only the Host shows up as 1 Player, the client shows up as 0.

Once in the Host and Clients are able to fly together, the stability and lag are reasonable, although I did see some jitter when flying in close formation. Its not near perfect as with IL2-46, Lomac and DCS. Its just more evidence as to what TC had said as an overall situation, that being IL2-COD has much potential but is hobbled with some serious GUI and game play issues. I remember early IL2-46 as being troublesome too, so perhaps they will work these out over time (and pay for patches/addons).

Overall, Im OK with IL-COD, but the folks I fly with continue to fly IL2-46 as a squadron level platform until COD proves itself as equal or better than.

Great review Tom. You captured the highs and the lows very well and kept it subjective, putting your opinions about the devs/publishers in the commentary piece (which was good too).

As I play through and document the two campaigns ( http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3295421/1.html ) it confirms as you say, 'The campaign feels like an afterthought, and it shows.' I don't actually describe all the bugs and errors in each mission but they are legion...here is just a sample from my latest hand scribbled notes:

... "raf mission 6, float plane bounces on the sea like cork when destroyed..."
... "raf mission 7, fire truck drives into parked aircraft waiting to take off, meaning rest of aircraft do not take off, raf aircraft airborne just circle airfield and never intercept target..."
... "raf mission 8, briefing says player is transferring to Biggin, but it is Manston...aircraft accompanying player to Manston lands at Ford instead..."

It beggars belief that a dev with any common sense would so undervalue the long term drawing power of good campaigns or a good campaign engine, especially the devs of IL2 series which has been kept alive, in large part, by a huge library of user created missions, campaigns and dynamic campaign engines.

Maybe they just expected the community to do the job for them again this time?

Well written article. Good flow. Nice and neutral.

Claiming that the Beaufighter was develop from the Blenheim would be like claiming that the P-51 was developed from the P-40
It would have been nice if the auther had distinguished between the different types of Spitfire. My personal experiance are that only the IIa are a dream to fly due to the constant speed prop and the full variable pitch. The rest are of the Spits are lemons.
I find the authers stall issue on the Hurricane hard to replicate. I have flown 70% of my time with it and yet to get into a flatspin. The Hurricane should be flown Horizontal and not like a Spit. Getting out of an ordenary spin seems easy enough although I must admit that the Spit is easier. (THR: 0%; Full opposite rudder of the spin; A little negative nosedown.)

Good article. I enjoyed it

As others have said, very good and balanced writeup that helped me (probably) take the plunge with this sim.

A few comments:

Seems to me Rise of Flight probably has better terrain graphics and a nicer color palette. CoD isn’t that far off, and hopefully the update work-in-progress will resolve the issues I'm seeing. Some players have stated that games like Wings of Prey have better terrain graphics and in some respects it does, but CoD’s map is huge compared to Wings of Prey, so comparisons are somewhat unfair

In fairness CoD's map is probably (provided it's like any other WWI sim) also a lot smaller than CoD, plus it does not have to deal (provided it's like any other WWI sim) with similar altitudes which also translates into viewing distances and other CPU and GPU crunching.

The AI is another confusing portion of this game. I have seen the AI do some amazing things, fly very well and be out-and-out deadly at times. Other times I have been able to fly around lazily with no risk of being attacked. I understand that not all pilots are equal in real life but sometimes the enemy is flat out brain dead. I’ve seen some level flying while unloading my machine guns with the AI demonstrating little effort to resist. Likewise I’ve seen enemy bombers all of sudden outrun my Hurricane ... You can’t rely on your AI teammates because they seem to ignore orders or requests. Yet at other times you can get a real fight out of them. There is an AI in there and I think it might be pretty good. But like other components of CoD, it needs fixing.

This sounds very much like the old Il-2 AI. While a bit disappointing, it could also mean that the old tricks work like "resetting" your wingmen by giving them the Break-Rejoin command at regular intervals.

Another thing that stands out in this very well-rounded review is how different people's playing styles are. I mostly play quick missions, so campaigns and multiplayer aren't major issues for me. However I care very much about AI, FM, and DM and I was of course hoping for CoD to be a significant improvement from Il2 in those areas. According to the review it looks like it probably is overall, although it could be better.

Fairly presented and detailed review

I like CoD. Its worth the price. But, I'm not "driven" to fly it in its current state.

My main gripe is the easy to induce "stuttering" -- an immersion killer for me. With the right in-game settings, I was able to eliminate nearly all stuttering. However, it is there, lurking, and limiting how I can setup the game. No excuses -- games/simulations should not stutter, period.

Hi

A good review but it should carry a warning. I purchased the Collector's Edition from Ubisoft for their amazing offer price £18 last week. All the bugs have not been sorted yet and your reiew could list workarounds for the most common. For example, all dials etc in the cockpit were fuzzy and discoloured and thus flying was not possible. That is until I came across a suggestion that if you do not select the anti epilepsy feature the problem does not appear. I am still trying to find a way of sorting out how to assign all the controls in a sensible way - so I can start the engines and make all the adjustments for take off. It would be useful to find a standard solution as the manual provided with the simulation has an overview only.

Otherwise I am impressed by this simulation.

Best Wishes and I hope to join you all in the sky very soon