Been away for awhile.. thought this would have been patched and working by now..
So, the Med has been dropped for Moscow in a stand alone version.. sad as you like! I wish they would have stayed with the Med theatre as I was never into russian stuff.
Now I see it's moving towards a 'battlefield 1942' type of game with drivable vehicles and working AA guns and stuff.. bloody hell! That's not good.
It's beyond me why time and effort is being wasted on the ground side of things when we were supposed to be buying this game as it was hailed as the premier WWII 'air' combat game..
I'm never going to get into WWII air combat again at this rate...
Someone tell me this is just some soviet plot to undermind the western world, or a similar dream please!

Hi chaps,

I too would have much preferred the Med. to Moscow, I think it would have been a nice (and long-awaited) alternative to yet more Eastern Front warfare and they already have most of the aircraft, Italian, British and German neccessary for a good Med. simulation especially for a battle for Malta scenario.

As far as patching CLOD is concerned ALL I'm hoping for is a patch PDQ to make it playable. I've recently upgraded my graphics card and added a second hard disk ready for installing Windows 7 when I can afford it but I'm waiting for some code optimisations that will make the game playable, plain and simple. As for the new ground content, I suppose it's fun but the game has been sold as a simulation of the "Battle of Britain" and small-scale raids at poor framerate don't make for a very immersive representation of a major-scale aerial conflict IMO. Also by the time that one has reduced the graphics quality significantly to get a half decent framerate most of the eye-candy improvements over the IL-2 series have dissapeared like scotch mist. I don't care a jot if each and every one of my bullets causes damage when there's little to no probability of them hitting the target anyway so the point is totally mute.

Given how many game-owners have and are experiencing problems running the game well enough I would have thought that this would be their number one priority way above anything else. I fail to see the point in adding new stuff before they've fixed existing issues or prelonging the arrival of the patch to incorporate new stuff, IMO that can come later. Working on a sequel when there's so much to be fixed in the original simply doesn't make sense timewise to me. The sooner the fix CLOD and get it running well the more potential customers they'll have for any sequels. Who in their right mind would want to buy the Moscow game (or any sequel build on the same engine) when they can't get CLOD running as advertised?.

Best Regards

Aces

We all have to, or its our fault that the series fails apparently.

I think that they'll fix CLOD eventually and that their work on the sequel will ultimately feed back into CLOD development but it is their sense of priority that I find quite strange.

Edit: I'll readily accept that a so-called "state of the art" combat flight sim will "push the envelope" (pun intended) computer hardware-wise and I'm never going to have the money or the justification to own a "bleeding-edge" computer system. I've bought several new titles over the last year, including, Silent Hunter 5, ROF and Red Orchestra 2 all of which run with very acceptable frame rates with all graphics option maxed out and a good number of mods in memory including some large textures. Sure I could back off a few graphics options and increase the frame rates further if I wish but they play just fine as they are. With CLOD I have to back things off a long way in order to get it to run with anything other than a slide show and that's with relatively little going on graphically. For example the textures load VERY slowly even with a 2GB graphics card and a fast and new SATA drive and fast RAM. So it would seem to me that the optimisation is pretty poor. I remember IL-2 taxing my system when it came out but it was just a case of back off a few options and it was playable. With my other new games such as SH5 I have a very heavily modded install including a lot of very big modded textures, larger than supplied with the original game and this hasn't had any appreciable effect on framerates whatsoever. In CLOD I'd have to take their textures (no bigger than the modded textures in SH5) and reduce them and even that doesn't improve frame rates one little bit, I've tried.

I had a look at their latest videos and thought to myself "what the hell are they running that on?, an IBM super-computer! and that's after video capturing!. Maybe they're secretly animating the crew members of each and every bomber eating their sandwiches, drinking their "ersatz" coffee and thumbing through the pages of Signal and that's eating up my RAM and CPU power?!.

Regards

Aces

Ace, you can be the only object on the map. sitting still on the airfield with your engine off and it makes almost no difference to FPS. We all have big hopes for the next patch though Luthier isn't saying if the optimization will allow FSAA to work.

FSAA!! ROTFLMAO m8, that would surely halt my slideshow dead in its track "for sure" :), I've no FPS to loose for FSAA.

Are we sure BOM will be an IL-2 title?. If I was the developer I would try to distance from Ubisoft. If that is the case,the patch won't be available for COD.

My best guess, from past experience, is that they'll stick with "Ooo'dbuysoft(ware) from 'em" .

EDIT: I was just thinking back to the IL-2 series when they brought out new features such as dust on the runways or searchlights in subsequent patches and most people, including myself, though "ooh that's cool". I suppose we were spoiled really. This time, looking at the player-controlled vehicles and guns etc. I'm thinking to myself, "that's nice but 8 FPS driving a vehicle or manning AAA is not better than 8 FPS in the air, it's not adding extra fun to an already playable game. With the IL-2 series, IMO, they hit the mark first time around, attracted both the hard-core and the fun gamers and then made it even better. This time they seem to have gone for the hard-core fans and missed out the casual gamers by design unless one considers making it DX9 compatible and having to reduce the settings so low as throwing them a concessionary bone in which case I doubt if there are many causal gamers going to accept such low quality settings or upgrading their OS in order to play it. Right now for a lot of people it is neither "fish nor fowl" as the saying goes.

My understanding is that BOM will be much like CLOD, some new aircraft, some new skins, some new scenery and most probably some improvements and added features but they aren't going to develop a whole new game engine when they have spent do much time developing CLOD. The question is is it going to be a seller for UBI?, much of that depends on how and when they fix CLOD.

Kind regards

Aces

Wow, some of you guys actually think that everyone in the development stopped work on all flight sim aspects to watch the guy working on drivable vehicles. Vehicles have been apart of the original IL-2 series and have been in the works with the new series from day one.

The sequel has yet to me announced and I would have preferred that it was the Med, but the development needs working capital now and the Russian front was probably much closer to completion.

Ubisoft has very little influence with the main IC publisher and IC development team. Ubisoft is just the Western publisher.

BOM is an addon to the new IL-2 engine. Basically only the map is different. All aircraft can be used in any theater whether they applicable or not. It will be up to us to use them historically or not. This mean any work done on the game engine AI, Commands, FM, DM, Graphics, code optimizations, will apply to every theater. This means they haven't stopped work on COD. Only the map maker is really dedicated to one theater at a time. Also some aircraft modelers, but some of those aircraft can be used historically on the COD map. You will probably see a number of patches for COD before BOM is anywhere close to release.

From their updates, it sure seems like it huh? Instead of giving us the code for driving vehicles around, they should have put those same guys into making planes flyable for a flight sim. The FMs for a ground vehicle are simple though, so perhaps they are cutting their teeth on these before tackling bigger projects?