Jump to content
Philx123

Why can't I be treated like a grown up?

Recommended Posts

I've flown Rise of Flight, and though my system isn't the best, I've been able to tweak the graphics settings to get it to run well. This has made flying the sim a generally enjoyable experience. I was led to believe that if you could fly ROF, then that would be your benchmark for IL2. How wrong that turned out to be. I find I can get the thing to play, but only on the lowest setting and with the frame rate set at 30. That said, I still get stutters and pauses which mean I can't realistically hit a target to the point I can bring it down (they can hit me, of course. All in all it's just a frustrating experience that makes me rue the fact I spent all that money on it. I bought it off the back of my experience with ROF, which I found to be a joy to fly (once tweaked). I'm sure if it's the same engine, then the ability to tinker with various settings would make IL2 an exqually enjoyable experience. Makes me feel a bit like a kid who isn't trusted to fix his own bike by his dad. 

 

The thing which makes it doubley strange to me is that there's the potential there, probably, to get it to run smoothly on most people's machines (if their machines reach the spec). But without the ability to adjust individual settings (as in most games), folks will just be put off buying it (I certainly won't be recommending it). Can't quite see how that's a smart business decision.

 

Ironic, also, that I have the option to tinker with just about every other setting (Well, except audio, of course). I can choose to assign whatever to control magnitos and flaps and brakes and all that, and yet probably the one most important setting to making the game a success - Graphics - is kept from me.

 

Personally, I'm putting it down until I have the ability to smooth it out with the tools available in the ROF graphics options.

 

Come on, Devs, let me fix my bike. All you have to do is give me the toolbox.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are having trouble with performance on the lowest settings I don't think there is anything more you would be able to turn off to improve things, even if there were full GRX options, maybe if you post your computer specs there may be some who have solved your problems on a similar machine 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are having trouble with performance on the lowest settings I don't think there is anything more you would be able to turn off to improve things, even if there were full GRX options, maybe if you post your computer specs there may be some who have solved your problems on a similar machine 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

 

Not necessarily true. We don't know what Low settings entail, all i can say is that i dont see any particular difference between high and ultra, but maby im looking in the wrong places.

 

Besides, its not like the OP is wrong to begin with. BoS doesn't have what every other game under the sun has because, like the op suggested, the devs think we/most gamers are idiots, and they pretty much stated as much.

Edited by Baron
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My specs are: Asus P5N-E SLI, Intel® Core2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750, M-Audi Audiophile 2496 soundcard, 6.2 GB DDR2 ram, win 7. 

It's an old machine, but you know, I can still play Battlefield 4 and farcry 3, and Bioshock Infinite, and, of course, Rise of Flight, perfectly well with some adjustment of the graphics. I can even get IL2 COD to run after a fashionl when there aren't that many planes in the air. In fact, I might have to go back to that to see how it compares with BOS.

As I said before, though, I'd just like the option. All the other games I can think of give me the option. Why can't I have the option? I imagine it's a relatively simple thing to do. Again, my base point is, it's not a smart business descision. It's a key factor, and it's locked down, in my opinion, for no good reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The option was available during early access but was removed for reasons stated in previous post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only 'logical' explanation would be they are aiming (also) for consoles.

Can't see any other reason, because in EA the graphics settings worked fine.

 

Remember, in RoF you can fine tune your graphics for years already, which means it's not a prob on the customer side...

Edited by ST_ami7b5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have almost the same CPU, a quad core Q8300 (which is just a little bit better than yours, but not a lot), and a GTX 460, which is far worse than yours... and BoS run perfectly on High setting.

Have you deactivate the motion blur?

What is your screen resolution? Mine is 1440x900 (old screen...). Maybe you can try a lower resolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support the OP's request for handing us back control over grafic settings and difficulty level and thus showing us the respect by treating us as mature customers.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To minimise access to settings is "à la mode" everywhere concerning computing, not only in BoS.

The latest versions of Ubuntu, for instance, are very limited on this matter, in comparison with older versions. And we can talk about Windows 8...

In general, for what I have seen (since a long time), computer guys don't care about customers, and never want them to be able to do something they have not planned.
They are some kind of psychopath...

On the other hand, a lot of "crash to desktop" that people have experimented in RoF are caused by overestimated graphical settings. Maybe the devs wanted to avoid this...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only 'logical' explanation would be they are aiming (also) for consoles.

Can't see any other reason, because in EA the graphics settings worked fine.

 

Remember, in RoF you can fine tune your graphics for years already, which means it's not a prob on the customer side...

 

 

And yet console games ported over to PC give you control over the graphics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we really need another thread re-hashing the same old thing...some help for the OP to get his game running better would be far more productive

 

RoF had huge discussions over many forums on how hard it was to get running right, and that led to a lot of negative publicity on what hardware it would run on...most of it unjustified, people have short memories

 

Cheers Dakpilot

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The minimum spec sheet states that his pc should run the game, right? Except when you engage enemies and Fire your guns then he's getting shutters? My system is an I5 3.3 with a 2 gig 6970vc and I'm concerned buying this game without the ability to tweak it. In dcs Im running medium/custom and I'm 30-60 fps and occasionally down to 20 which makes my chit stutter. I've been ready to purchase BoS with this sale but........this has concerned me more then the unlocks.

 

As far as a new thread, I guess it doesn't make much sense since Zak said they want it to look a certain way, so you're sol on a 2-4 yr old system?

 

 

 

Do we really need another thread re-hashing the same old thing...some help for the OP to get his game running better would be far more productive

 

RoF had huge discussions over many forums on how hard it was to get running right, and that led to a lot of negative publicity on what hardware it would run on...most of it unjustified, people have short memories

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The graphics options in BoS are among the thinnest I've ever seen. This game has fewer options than the average idiot proofed console port. As pointed out, we used to have a myriad of options like RoF does but these were removed because the devs decided we were too stupid to use them. I've never agreed with this decision and it seems only maybe 4-5 people do, all of them working at 1C:Studios. Unfortunately, those are the only oppinions that matter in this case. Regardless, I too can't tell the difference between balanced, high and ultra. The different settings have minimal impact on my fps as well (GTX 770 2GB, 8GB DDR3, I5 4690, Win8.1).

Edited by =LD=King_Hrothgar
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we really need another thread re-hashing the same old thing...some help for the OP to get his game running better would be far more productive

 

RoF had huge discussions over many forums on how hard it was to get running right, and that led to a lot of negative publicity on what hardware it would run on...most of it unjustified, people have short memories

 

Cheers Dakpilot

The fact that it still stays in RoF shows clearly it was not a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a ver a ver me tienen los huevos al plato!!!

 

The presets was a devs decision to make the bug finding easier, as having thousands of hard plus graphic configs

are not a helpfull thing, so stop crying for a bit, it's annoying mates!!!

 

to the OP, you need a quadcore and ddr3 mem to at least run the game in a descent way. so i recomend you

to look for an upgrade ASAP

Edited by Erg./JG54_Potenz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a ver a ver me tienen los huevos al plato!!!

 

The presets was a devs decision to make the bug finding easier, as having thousands of hard plus graphic configs

are not a helpfull thing, so stop crying for a bit, it's annoying mates!!!

 

to the OP, you need a quadcore and ddr3 mem to at least run the game in a descent way. so i recomend you

to look for an upgrade ASAP

 

Just c'mon, the same engine as in RoF...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides, having a big disclaimer you have to click away once you try to set the graphics to "custom", warning you that you won't get official support in case of a problem, would take care of any folks messing up their settings anyway.

Presets and custom settings are not mutually exclusive.

Or rather they shouldn't be.

 

 

 

Oh sorry, I think this is one of the topics I am no longer allowed to comment on, correct? It's hard to keep track of all of them...

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the minimum

 

 

Windows® XP (SP3) / Vista (SP1) / Windows® 7 (SP1) / Windows® 8

CPU: Intel® Core™ 2 Quad 2.6 GHz+ or Intel® Core™ i5/i7 2.6 GHz+

GPU: 1024 Mb+, GeForce GTX 260+/Radeon HD5850+

RAM: 4 Gb+

Sound: DirectX 9.0c/11 compatible

Free Hard Drive space: 10 Gb+

Internet Connection Required for Registration, Campaign Mode, Multiplayer and Statistics Tracking. 256 Kb/s for single-player and 1 Mb/s for multiplayer

 

 

 

a ver a ver me tienen los huevos al plato!!!

 

The presets was a devs decision to make the bug finding easier, as having thousands of hard plus graphic configs

are not a helpfull thing, so stop crying for a bit, it's annoying mates!!!

 

to the OP, you need a quadcore and ddr3 mem to at least run the game in a descent way. so i recomend you

to look for an upgrade ASAP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, those are the only oppinions that matter in this case.

 

It'll matter the next time they want my money for anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My recollection from some time ago is that the devs didn't want the forums swamped by posts about graphics settings when there were no absolute answers because the variety of rigs producing an equal variety of results on different settings. As said above, there was a lot of negativity...mostly from large numbers of people failing to act like adults and thereby foregoing the luxury of being treated like one! Usual thing of a minority making things difficult for the majority, I'm afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

me would like too tweakble settings or otherwise can not play

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q6600 is an dated processor. GTX 750 is fine, not great though.

 

I tend to believe your system is bottlenecked by the processor not by your GK. I run BOS on two different PCs and the second one is equiped with an GTX 560 and it runs acceptable FPS. But it sports an i7 3770 CPU. Which is much faster than the Q6600.

 

Presets are here to ensure all players have roughly the same ability to see targets at distance. You may or may not like it but it's a simple way to accomplish this task. And no one stops you from fine tuning BOS with SweetFX. Well what else do you BOS critics need?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My recollection from some time ago is that the devs didn't want the forums swamped by posts about graphics settings when there were no absolute answers because the variety of rigs producing an equal variety of results on different settings. As said above, there was a lot of negativity...mostly from large numbers of people failing to act like adults and thereby foregoing the luxury of being treated like one! Usual thing of a minority making things difficult for the majority, I'm afraid.

Sry Salle,

RoF proves it works (for years) - otherwise they would imply those ugly presets also there - God forbid!

Q6600 is an dated processor. GTX 750 is fine, not great though.

 

I tend to believe your system is bottlenecked by the processor not by your GK. I run BOS on two different PCs and the second one is equiped with an GTX 560 and it runs acceptable FPS. But it sports an i7 3770 CPU. Which is much faster than the Q6600.

 

Presets are here to ensure all players have roughly the same ability to see targets at distance. You may or may not like it but it's a simple way to accomplish this task. And no one stops you from fine tuning BOS with SweetFX. Well what else do you BOS critics need?

 

BoS "critics" want to get the sim/game even better ;)

Edited by ST_ami7b5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides, its not like the OP is wrong to begin with. BoS doesn't have what every other game under the sun has because, like the op suggested, the devs think we/most gamers are idiots, and they pretty much stated as much.

 

That's a pretty ridiculous and unfounded assertion right there... the far more logical conclusion is that graphic options are limited in order to facilitate the QA process.

 

This way, they don't have to test for every permutation of graphic settings, but just 4 of them instead. This greatly reduces the amount of testing required during regression and allows the devs to get the most out of their limited resources. It also, as was stated, makes troubleshooting and customer supprot a lot easier as well.

 

Seriously, before attributing nefarious intent to the devs, let's look at the more reasonable and less emotionally charged possibilities first.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sry Salle,

RoF proves it works (for years) - otherwise they would imply those ugly presets also there - God forbid!

 

 

Just my recollection of what has been said. Not my view!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have almost the same CPU, a quad core Q8300 (which is just a little bit better than yours, but not a lot), and a GTX 460, which is far worse than yours... and BoS run perfectly on High setting.

Have you deactivate the motion blur?

What is your screen resolution? Mine is 1440x900 (old screen...). Maybe you can try a lower resolution.

Hi, I can't see any option to deactivate motion blur. All I get is resolution (which makes no difference play-wise what setting it's on), V-sync, frame rate, gamma and multi GPU (from memory). Mine is the Steam version. You're not going to tell me that the none steam version has more graphics options, are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I can't see any option to deactivate motion blur. All I get is resolution (which makes no difference play-wise what setting it's on), V-sync, frame rate, gamma and multi GPU (from memory). Mine is the Steam version. You're not going to tell me that the none steam version has more graphics options, are you?

 

You can turn off motion blur: go to the Camera settings menu (I think that's it), and turn off the "Cinematics" option. That will remove motion blur and other cinematic effects (though admittedly I'm not too sure what those are, beyond motion blur).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a pretty ridiculous and unfounded assertion right there... the far more logical conclusion is that graphic options are limited in order to facilitate the QA process.

 

This way, they don't have to test for every permutation of graphic settings, but just 4 of them instead. This greatly reduces the amount of testing required during regression and allows the devs to get the most out of their limited resources. It also, as was stated, makes troubleshooting and customer supprot a lot easier as well.

 

Seriously, before attributing nefarious intent to the devs, let's look at the more reasonable and less emotionally charged possibilities first.

Unfortunatelly, after testing (EA) is already finished, they (Zak?) said there is no plan to come BACK to customisible graphics settings!

Again and again: in RoF they do work with no problem!

Edited by ST_ami7b5
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a ver a ver me tienen los huevos al plato!!!

 

The presets was a devs decision to make the bug finding easier, as having thousands of hard plus graphic configs

are not a helpfull thing, so stop crying for a bit, it's annoying mates!!!

 

to the OP, you need a quadcore and ddr3 mem to at least run the game in a descent way. so i recomend you

to look for an upgrade ASAP

 

if so the more they now can hand us back control over the settings because the game is released now and bug fixing is no longer the main focus (should be since one might expect a well-polished game with few bugs remaining upon release). So this argument has lost any justification.

 

That said I think it is absolutely fine if we have the presets ALONGSIDE custom settings: presets for those who don't like to fiddle with their system and custom settings with a disclaimer for those who like to fiddle with it. The current system is just patronizing.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q6600 is an dated processor. GTX 750 is fine, not great though.

 

I tend to believe your system is bottlenecked by the processor not by your GK. I run BOS on two different PCs and the second one is equiped with an GTX 560 and it runs acceptable FPS. But it sports an i7 3770 CPU. Which is much faster than the Q6600.

 

Presets are here to ensure all players have roughly the same ability to see targets at distance. You may or may not like it but it's a simple way to accomplish this task. And no one stops you from fine tuning BOS with SweetFX. Well what else do you BOS critics need?

I know my processor is old and as such, a problem, but like I said in the original post, in other games, given the ability, I can tend to find something which causes a problem and deactivate it while leaving other things running which make it look good. I think it's testament to my system and the old way of doing things that I can still get decent results on such an old system. Here, I'm pretty much stuck with these mysterious bag of presets which are doing what?

Q6600 is an dated processor. GTX 750 is fine, not great though.

 

I tend to believe your system is bottlenecked by the processor not by your GK. I run BOS on two different PCs and the second one is equiped with an GTX 560 and it runs acceptable FPS. But it sports an i7 3770 CPU. Which is much faster than the Q6600.

 

Presets are here to ensure all players have roughly the same ability to see targets at distance. You may or may not like it but it's a simple way to accomplish this task. And no one stops you from fine tuning BOS with SweetFX. Well what else do you BOS critics need?

Thanks for the HU on Sweetfx. I'll give it a go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That said I think it is absolutely fine if we have the presets ALONGSIDE custom settings: presets for those who don't like to fiddle with their system and custom settings with a disclaimer for those who like to fiddle with it. The current system is just patronizing.

 

Agree completely.   @Philx; you ask some reasonable questions.  'Fraid the devs have made some decisions with this game which in my opinion - and a lot of others - are questionable.  Graphics presets are one of these.

 

I believe the current advice is to "suck it up". :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunatelly, after testing (EA) is already finished, they (Zak?) said there is no plan to come BACK to customisible graphics settings!

Again and again: in RoF they do work with no problem!

 

So? Testing is something that happens after every update/bug fix.. they still need a QA department after release, after all. The testing and support streamlining offered by graphics preset is something that continues to be useful regardless of whether it's post-release or not.

 

And the issue is not that custom graphics options work or not... we know they work from EA. The point is to facilitate testing and support by limiting the graphic settings to a handful of presets, instead of untold other permutations. It's a perfectly reasonable option, if their resources are limited. As a result, I imagine BOS requires less QA effort than RoF did at the same stage in its development.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So? Testing is something that happens after every update/bug fix.. they still need a QA department after release, after all. The testing and support streamlining offered by graphics preset is something that continues to be useful regardless of whether it's post-release or not.

 

And the issue is not that custom graphics options work or not... we know they work from EA. The point is to facilitate testing and support by limiting the graphic settings to a handful of presets, instead of untold other permutations. It's a perfectly reasonable option, if their resources are limited. As a result, I imagine BOS requires less QA effort than RoF did at the same stage in its development.

Here:

 

Besides, having a big disclaimer you have to click away once you try to set the graphics to "custom", warning you that you won't get official support in case of a problem, would take care of any folks messing up their settings anyway.

Presets and custom settings are not mutually exclusive.

Or rather they shouldn't be.

 

 

 

Problem solved.

Customers happy, fanboys happy, 777 happy.

 

All it takes is a single window popping up.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if so the more they now can hand us back control over the settings because the game is released now and bug fixing is no longer the main focus (should be since one might expect a well-polished game with few bugs remaining upon release). So this argument has lost any justification.

 

That said I think it is absolutely fine if we have the presets ALONGSIDE custom settings: presets for those who don't like to fiddle with their system and custom settings with a disclaimer for those who like to fiddle with it. The current system is just patronizing.

 

Firstly, the argument retains FULL justification, because the developers are still providing full support to the game, and are continuing to develop new features and additions to the game. The testing and support requirements are no less stringent as they were pre-release, and thus the benefits of graphic presets are still quite useful and no doubt save the BOS team loads of time and effort in testing/support.

 

That said, having an unsupported custom settings option w/ disclaimer would probably be a good idea... though I imagine loads of people will still get angry when things go wrong with custom settings.

 

Personally, I'd be happy with just a textual explanation of what each preset entails. It'd be nice to know what the actual differences are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again and again: in RoF they do work with no problem!

 

Or, and I think this is far more likely, their experience with RoF is what convinced them to not include that functionality in BoS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or, and I think this is far more likely, their experience with RoF is what convinced them to not include that functionality in BoS.

That functionality WAS in BoS already during almost whole EA.

So, again, I am afraid they are aiming for consoles...

 

Also note there was NO official explanation from devs why they insist on presets and do not plan to change it even in future.

Edited by ST_ami7b5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, the argument retains FULL justification, because the developers are still providing full support to the game, and are continuing to develop new features and additions to the game. The testing and support requirements are no less stringent as they were pre-release, and thus the benefits of graphic presets are still quite useful and no doubt save the BOS team loads of time and effort in testing/support.

 

That said, having an unsupported custom settings option w/ disclaimer would probably be a good idea... though I imagine loads of people will still get angry when things go wrong with custom settings.

 

Personally, I'd be happy with just a textual explanation of what each preset entails. It'd be nice to know what the actual differences are.

 

Sorry but this really doesn't hold in my opinion (with all due respect). Post-release customer service is available for ALL games - even those who offer full control over grafic settings. Also the restricted ressources is imho not justifying this. I play quite a few indie games with even less ressources than BoS and they ALL offer full control over COMMONLY available grafic options. And we are not asking for some fancy grafic options here ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...