1C Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official 1C Company forum > 1C Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover

IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover Latest instalment in the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik series from award-winning developer 1C: Maddox Games.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 10-05-2012, 06:16 AM
hiro hiro is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 352
Default

I'm going to go with these guys . . .


Quote:
Originally Posted by Feathered_IV View Post
Less gimmicks. More soul. A development team that knows its capabilities a and does not overreach itself. I'd rather have a very good sim that works, than a brilliant one that does not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by csThor View Post
Uhhh ... how about a game instead of just a beta engine?

and set the bar low.


Just have a working game with a solid game engine. No CTD, no stutters, runs on a decent current ( 2013 / 2014 or whenever the release is) system. Essentially its just install, set features and go.



Ok, maybe some immersion stuff, like decently accurate FM, DM, physics, and others like sound and CEM . . . and great graphics . . .

Even if it came with a plane set like 4 fighters, 2 big bombers, a recon plane, and 2 attack (cuz the Il-2 is in it), just as long as its a solid, working game.

And even if ground targets were buildings, 1 tank type, 1 jeep or car type.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 10-05-2012, 06:38 AM
David198502's Avatar
David198502 David198502 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Austria
Posts: 1,535
Default

more realism!
-completely working cockpits(im sick of hitting the I button and im even more sick of hitting the W button)

-no arcade compasses or other dumbed down systems to please a minority(at least make it optional and give the option for full realistic and historical gauges)

-FMs closer to reality!(right now in my view clods biggest problem is the underperforming planes of the RAF.i know that all planes are too slow, and im a 109 guy, but its sad, that so many people cant really enjoy the sim, as the Fms are really way off)

-as already mentioned....working weather!in my view it doesnt even have to be dynamic if thats too performance demanding.better make a static but really working weather, where contacts cant be spotted with ease through clouds, and where clouds are really visible the same way for all the players.thunderstorms, flashes, turbulences....its a flight sim.

-things that worked in 1946 and now are missing in clod!there are many of them...although im not the guy who shoots at parachutes...i still want the possibility to do so...and that i can collide with them as well(note this is one really minor feature, of many, which were already working in clods predecessor, and now are completely missing)

-bailout animation, and other animations!looking around after bailing out, and mabye having to pull the cord...

-dedication to things like blind landing systems(if historical available at that time period)
in my view it was a massive improvement with the 4.10 patch in 1946, to have a more realistic navigation, with working radio beacons and landing systems like Lorenz)

-no IL2 girl!

-dynamic campaign

-a personal whish, where i dont know if many share that view: better make less planes, but with more love to details....look at DCS and you know what i mean.

-if possible, collision with trees!

....to be continued
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 10-06-2012, 11:38 AM
He111's Avatar
He111 He111 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Posts: 707
Default

Allow the community to develop their own stuff - SDK ?

1C could save a huge development bill by releasing the source code to fans and move the development team to something more important ... Real Warfare - Rome !

I want a flyable Defiant, Whimpy etc and would be willing to pay and invest my own time to get such. maybe not what others want but a nice add on to build CLODs plane base.

.
__________________
.
========================================
.
.....--oOo-- --oOo-- HE-111 --oOo-- --oOo--.....
.
========================================
-oOo- Intel i7-2600K (non-clocked) -oOo- GA-P67A
-oOo- DF 85 full tower -oOo- 1000W corsair
-oOo- 8 GB 1600Hz -oOo- 2 x GTX 580 1.5M (295.73)
-oOo- 240 SSD -oOo- W7 64bit
-oOo- PB2700 LED 2560 x 1440 6ms 60Hz -oOo-
========================================
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 10-06-2012, 11:48 AM
Skoshi Tiger Skoshi Tiger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 2,196
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by He111 View Post
I want a flyable Defiant, Whimpy etc .
A flyable Beaufighter would be nice as well.

Everytime I spawn in my Blenhiem next to a shutdown Beaufighter I promise myself I ask for a transfer IF I get back alive!
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 10-06-2012, 11:58 AM
Toni74 Toni74 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Lucca
Posts: 109
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodoss View Post
Historical cockpits!

The cockpit of the Bf 110 is so far from reality that it really hurts.
Even the description on the left circuit breaker box by the pilot (which came with the E-series) is wrong.
so true.

we even didn't get any single statement about all the facts and errors reported so far for Bf 110 on that bloody bugtracker wich even haven't been visited by any single developer so far.

useless.

Last edited by Toni74; 10-06-2012 at 12:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 10-06-2012, 12:53 PM
slm slm is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 160
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadBlaster View Post
I think threads like these have the potential danger to repeat past community mistake. "I hope they do this, I hope they do that"...turns into "I expected this, I expected that" when the sequel comes out. Then when it doesn't materialize...which it won't, then there is disappointment.
Some companies actually ask their customers about which features would be useful. And if they have a list of features they consider implementing, user can put them to importance order. Polls like this are easy to do using free SW like www.surveymonkey.com
I'm pretty sure if 1c made such survey, the results would be useful for both development and users.

I agree with Feathered_IV who wrote " I'd rather have a very good sim that works, than a brilliant one that does not. "
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 10-06-2012, 01:16 PM
senseispcc senseispcc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 598
Default

.
If you ask what I want in Battle for Moscow ...
the same quality than in Cliff of Dover with a little more
Weather (more diversity)
and maybe a easy way to populate the map or a already populated map by this I mean a map with ground "things" on them but maybe friendly and not so friendly airplanes generated at "random"!
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 10-07-2012, 03:31 PM
341_Knight 341_Knight is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1
Default

One that actually works would be nice
__________________
AMD FX[tm] 8120 Eight Core Processor 3.11Ghz 3.25GB Ram . Nvidia GeForce 560 GTX 2GB Memory .
8GB DDR3 RAM . Windows XP SP3 .
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:50 PM.

Based on a design by: Miner Skinz.com

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 1C Company. All rights reserved.