• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

[Game] IL2 sturmovik Cliffs of Dover Press Release/Video

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#261
SheepDip said:
I think his point was that they won't be a true representation of what is being depicted.

I get the impression that when they're done the prop in the aircraft will be intentionally made not to look like a prop would in reality, there'll be a prop there, and you'll be able to see it spinning...but it will not be visually behaving like they had originally intended, and like it does in previous IL2 instalments.
Click to expand...

This. I thought the propellers looked so odd - as if they where in slow motion in all the trailers. Nothing like prop planes I've seen in real life as they've flown by. I thought this was just a bug that would be fixed in the final version of the game...

It does make a huge difference. If I am flying and I see an enemy fighter with its prop spinning slowly (like they do in the trailers) I would think their engine is out and I would prefer to engage another target. Now it will be harder to tell when an enemies engine is about to go out. This is a big deal in a simulator.

So we either get crappy frame rates or be stuck with degraded and awkward graphics? :rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0
#263
heady89 said:
Not sure where you got your info mate, from the posts I've been following and the link posted above again, its only a stop-gap temporary measure, sure it will still have an epilepsy filter but so does quite a number of games, maybe even RO2.

People are jumping to conclusions without official words, understandable but its not accurate, the system will be in place and work the question is how long it takes for them to replace the current stop-gap fix.

You'll be able to see all the props and explosions etc no worries.
Click to expand...
I've been reading all of Luthiers posting on the subject, he clearly says in one post that the filter is just a stop gap to get the game out the door on time and that the things it does to the effects (like invisible props etc) will eventually be patched into the game code. So yes the filter will eventually go but in it's place the look of the game is being modified, that realy disappoints me.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#264
Whether or not it's the filter or the game is just that poorly optimized, or more likely a combination of both....early reports from both Ubi and 1c forums indicate that this game runs quite poorly on what most of us would consider a rather nice gaming rig. That's really too bad. I'm sure EVENTUALLY I will get this game...but I'm not about to shell out hundreds and hundreds of dollars to run it. I'll shell out another hundred or two to get RO:HoS to run better...but not this.

In the meantime, there are other options if you had a few bucks stashed for a decent flight game.

1. The latest build of Wings of Prey removed the stupid DRM they had. 29.99 at Steam store...and will likely be on sale during the Steam Summer Sale. Maybe not a hard-core sim, but fun and really good looking. And it runs very smoothly on the same kind of rig that CoD would cripple.

2. A2A Simulations has Battle of Britain II: Wings of Victory for 19.99. It might not be THE cutting edge graphically...but it is still very nice looking and runs well from what I've read. Available here:

[url]http://www.a2asimulations.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=18&zenid=762d4094c044037bd02f622b0408dd1b[/URL]

3. Rise of Flight....being discussed here in another thread.

I think overall, I don't have enough time to game with or enough money to spend to worry with IL-2:CoD. Eight out of ten of my gaming minutes are spent with RO or DH anyway....flight sims (which used to be my gaming mainstay) are now just a sideline for me. No big deal.
 
Upvote 0
#265
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SheepDip, PNV and Apos
Upvote 0
#268
hockeywarrior said:
HUZZAH! The IL2 devs finally duked it out with Ubisoft long enough and resolved this issue. All versions of the game will have patched-in option to turn off the epilepsy filter, though it will be on by default. Praise :IS2:!

EDIT:
Here is the correct link
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=19645
Click to expand...

Just saw it, **** yeah now i can't wait :D common sense prevails!
I'm doing the happy dance atm =)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#270
Stormer said:
Just to bring ubi back to attention even if offtopic:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=26760108&postcount=1http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=26760108&postcount=1

guess that shows the view on modding from major publishers/developers
Click to expand...

True , however ontopic, modding isn't going anywhere with IL2, its one of its biggest features and Maddox games would never let that go, Ubi doesn't have a say in that matter here. (All IL2 titles are heavily moddable to this date and IL2COD is no different)
 
Upvote 0
#273
Upvote 0
#274
heady89 said:
True , however ontopic, modding isn't going anywhere with IL2, its one of its biggest features and Maddox games would never let that go, Ubi doesn't have a say in that matter here. (All IL2 titles are heavily moddable to this date and IL2COD is no different)
Click to expand...

AFAIK IL2 was not meant to be modded in the first place, it wasn't until several years (around 2006\7?) of work it was finally 'cracked' and modability was introduced in one way or another.
 
Upvote 0
#275
Upvote 0
#277
[OT]But why though? It makes no sense to stifle creativity and to harm those who have supported you by buying a game you've published.

Raven Shield is basically a dead game now, 8 years old? Those people still playing it would no doubt love to see it being given a new lease of life. What's the problem with people showing their appreciation and enjoyment by doing so?

The only possible angle I can think of from Ubis point of view is that they don't want people playing an old game and not buying their new ones (newer R6 games...yeah right), but doing **** like this isn't going to make that happen.[/OT]
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#278
SheepDip said:
[OT]But why though? It makes no sense to stifle creativity and to harm those who have supported you by buying a game you've published.

Raven Shield is basically a dead game now, 8 years old? Those people still playing it would no doubt love to see it being given a new lease of life. What's the problem with people showing their appreciation and enjoyment by doing so?

The only possible angle I can think of from Ubis point of view is that they don't want people playing an old game and not buying their new ones (newer R6 games...yeah right), but doing **** like this isn't going to make that happen.[/OT]
Click to expand...
Well it's not really about whether it's right or wrong in this case -- simply that Ubisoft has the lawful right to protect its trademark. Clearly they saw a product not made by them with the name "Ravenshield" that could be seen as a direct competitor for their actual "Ravenshield" brand games. Is it a real market threat? Probably not really, but it's definitely legally actionable by Ubisoft.

Whenever other mods get away with this sort of thing, it's either because the company owning the trademark/copyright doesn't know about it, or that they don't care and see it as positive. Ultimately, the fate of such mod teams is always in the hands of the company who owns the original trademark or copyright.

/OT

Anywho, back to Cliffs of Dover, I'm also excited to see that Bestbuy is carrying the game in its online store, which it wasn't a few days ago. This means I can probably buy a physical copy in a store near me when it releases :D
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#279
How can it be a market threat to their product if, being a mod, it requires their product to run? Even if I just wanted to play the mod and couldn't give a rat's *** about Raven Shield I would still have to buy it, right?
Or am I missing something?

I can see how MS or Bungie could have a problem with a Halo RTS mod for C&C Generals, because that's taking their creative property to sell someone else's product, but since when is modding a game that comes with modding tools illegal?

I don't know the background, but this could be a case of a lawyer on the prowl, looking for things to do and reading some clause about how it's illegal to modify or create derivative copies of the game, which of course means you can't just change the title or the names of characters and then sell it as your own. Obviously it doesn't mean you can't make mods for the game!

I remember a while ago some kid was sued for making Gears of War fan art, because one of Epic's lose canon lawyers saw it as a derivative work or something. When Epic heard about it though they did the right thing, dropped the law suit immediately, apologized and gave the kid something. Don't remember what.

I can totally see this being a similar case except Ubi apparently doesn't care as much as Epic.:p

----------
I'm glad the filter is optional now. Would have been laughable if it wasn't.:rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0
#280
Murphy said:
How can it be a market threat to their product if, being a mod, it requires their product to run? Even if I just wanted to play the mod and couldn't give a rat's *** about Raven Shield I would still have to buy it, right?
Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...
It's a market threat because technically someone could either 1) confuse the mod with the retail product due to the use of the brand name, or 2) could potentially play the mod for free INSTEAD of the buying Ubisoft's commercial product which bears the same registered name.

Regardless, it's technically against trademark law to use a name or image belonging to another person or company when you don't have the rights to do so. Sometimes you can argue that it is legal if your product in no way is related to the other one, such as if you wanted to name a type of bodywash "Ravenshield" and it would be unlikely that anyone would confuse that with a video game name OR if you get permission from the trademark/copyright owner. But in this cause, both types of medium are basically the same, so Ubi's case is strong.

I agree that it's pretty lame to do, though, especially given the age of the game. Blizzard recently did this sort of thing against a first person shooter mod using the Starcraft name, when they SHOULD have hired the guy lol.

It's just the way the law works! As I said, mods get away with this all the time but that's only because either A) the company doesn't know, or B) chooses to ignore it for whatever reason, such as seeing it as a perfectly OK thing.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu