JG4_Continuo Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 you mean that thing right on the left side of the picture?
II./JG27_Rich Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 you mean that thing right on the left side of the picture?
SvAF/F16_Goblin Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 In the 109E that is not the tail wheel lock lever. Can't check what it was atm because I'm not near my references. In later 109's that is the place for the lock lever.
JG4_Continuo Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 I just had a quick look at the original manual again. It seems that this was the "Tankdruckschaltung", a mechanism that made sure that there is no air in the fuel-tank. 2
II./JG27_Rich Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 I just had a quick look at the original manual again. It seems that this was the "Tankdruckschaltung", a mechanism that made sure that there is no air in the fuel-tank. Now we all know then the COD is modeled correctly then...Good work
SCG_Space_Ghost Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 Now we all know then the COD is modeled correctly then...Good work I never said anything about COD being modeled wrong. I said that there was a bug and there isn't - I stand corrected.
II./JG27_Rich Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 I never said anything about COD being modeled wrong. I said that there was a bug and there isn't - I stand corrected. wasn't referring to you
Pudfark Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 Well, here I am, hat in hand and nervously looking around for information? I could never get Cliffs of Dover to work well in FPS, so I just gave up on it. Seems, I was wrong. I just recently rebuilt/upgraded my system and found out, that my old AMD 8350, which ran Cliffs at 30FPS to 13FPS , may have been the culprit? Now using an overclocked I7 4790K, I downloaded the game again today and nearly fell out of my chair.... I was using the same GFX card as with the 8350, a GTX 770 w/4gig vram.....I saw 100+ FPS and a low in the high 60's. Those numbers compiled from the "Black Death" clip. Is there a 'one stop spot' where I can go update Cliffs? What do I need to have to be current and online playable in terms of mods or updates? Who ever can give to me a 'steer' to that location will have my Thanks. Thank You All
SCG_Space_Ghost Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 -snip- http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5058&p=52711 Good luck and don't forget to check six!
JG4_Continuo Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 +1 to adler... go trough his link, and welcome to the community!
Pudfark Posted April 14, 2015 Posted April 14, 2015 Thanks folks...I'll bookmark it and read it carefully.
Mysticpuma Posted April 14, 2015 Posted April 14, 2015 The latest breaking news is that Nvidia have released a new driver 350.12 (previous beta 350.05 also had same results) that has cured the stutters (micro and longer) for online players. The Nvidia hotfix v350.05 was released to fix an issue in Battlefield Hardline and some.of the Cliffs of Dover players installed it. During their next online session they reported that they had no stutters at all. News spread and other players tried the v350.05 driver and reported exactly the same findings. Stutter-free online play. Nvidia ha e since released and official v350.12 driver that is producing exactly the same results. So if you haven't installed the latest Nvidia driver go out and get it. The difference is night and day apparently It's not often we get a chance to say thanks to Electronic Arts, but this is one occasion as a hotfix for Battlefield Hardline has fixed Cliffs of Dover's micro stutters. http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16831&highlight=stutters Cheers,.MP 1
F/JG300_Gruber Posted April 15, 2015 Posted April 15, 2015 Same here, I can finally enjoy the game fully !!!
Chuck_Owl Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 (edited) And what you are wondering about? Look at DCS WWII (RRG Studios forum). Always the same happen like before. No feedback of the creator regarding development and rewards!! This is from last February. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2330706#post2330706 Edited April 18, 2015 by 71st_AH_Chuck
snowsnipersnow_sniper Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 It's not often we get a chance to say thanks to Electronic Arts, but this is one occasion as a hotfix for Battlefield Hardline has fixed Cliffs of Dover's micro stutters. LOL
[KWN]T-oddball Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 It's not often we get a chance to say thanks to Electronic Arts, but this is one occasion as a hotfix for Battlefield Hardline has fixed Cliffs of Dover's micro stutters. http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16831&highlight=stutters Cheers,.MP it's kinda hard to say thanks when you're over the pommel horse with red ball gag in mouth... Well, here I am, hat in hand and nervously looking around for information? I could never get Cliffs of Dover to work well in FPS, so I just gave up on it. Seems, I was wrong. I just recently rebuilt/upgraded my system and found out, that my old AMD 8350, which ran Cliffs at 30FPS to 13FPS , may have been the culprit? Now using an overclocked I7 4790K, I downloaded the game again today and nearly fell out of my chair.... I was using the same GFX card as with the 8350, a GTX 770 w/4gig vram.....I saw 100+ FPS and a low in the high 60's. Those numbers compiled from the "Black Death" clip. Is there a 'one stop spot' where I can go update Cliffs? What do I need to have to be current and online playable in terms of mods or updates? Who ever can give to me a 'steer' to that location will have my Thanks. Thank You All sorry mate, I have been a life long AMD builder till the FX line came out the performance gain you are seeing is a real jump, you skipped sandy and went right for haswell until AMD comes out with their new architecture in 2016 intel will give the best performance in software that is very much Dependant on clock and IPC. congrats on the new CPU and 100FPS.
Mysticpuma Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 The interview with Team Fusion that appeared in PC Powerplay Australia is now available to read for free online.There were more pictures in the magazine but here's the article that was published. Thanks to Bennett for the interview and publicity, cheers, MPhttp://www.pcpowerplay.com.au/feature/il2-cliffs-of-dover-a-diamond-in-the-rough,402432
SYN_Jedders Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 Overall a nice article. I'm not sure it was necessary to take a sideswipe at BoS though. "These beautiful warbirds inhabit the most eye-wateringly pleasing environment ever made for a simulator, with professional efforts like IL2: Battle of Stalingrad failing to match its graphical prowess" If you have confidence in a product there isn't a need to resort to snipe at another. Let your product stand or fall on its own merits not the perceived failings of another, especially on their forum. Team Fusion deserve all the credit they can get for doing this work, IMHO the sniping at 777 belittles that. P.S. enjoying CLoD very much now, thank you!
Team Fusion Buzzsaw Posted April 19, 2015 Team Fusion Posted April 19, 2015 (edited) Overall a nice article. I'm not sure it was necessary to take a sideswipe at BoS though. TF did not write the article, neither did we invite the writer to make comparisons with BoS. The writer was an independent reviewer who approached us with questions. At no time did he mention any comparisons with BoS. We have no interest in creating a controversy or competing with anyone. We are just trying to make CoD as good as it can be. By the way, the writer also got his info wrong... he blamed Oleg for the failure of the original release, but Oleg was no longer a member of the development team by then, he had resigned to move onto other work. By no means can he be considered responsible for the game's initial failure. Edited April 19, 2015 by Buzzsaw 1
JG4_Continuo Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 Overall a nice article. I'm not sure it was necessary to take a sideswipe at BoS though. AFAIK the very same autor wrote a very positive review about BoS in the same issue of the magazine as well... So I dont think that was meant too negative... Here you go: http://www.pcpowerplay.com.au/review/il2-battle-of-stalingrad,401237 1
Dakpilot Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 While I agree that Mr Maddox was not responsible for the early release and the issues that that incurred, I do feel that the fact that his project/dream could not be completed on time and within budget is the single reason for the failure of CLoD as a commercial venture, and that responsibility does lie with someone, the fact that he resigned and left the project at a late stage does not totally excuse him, anyway that is old history now Cheers Dakpilot
SYN_Jedders Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 I didnt say TF wrote the article. Im suggesting that some of the article came across a bit, well, confrontational?....surely you guys got to see a version before release?. The guy selected 777 for criticism on two occasions in the article. Why not level some at other developers aswell, DCS for example. It seemed that there was a deliberate attempt to compare with one group only, not the genre as a whole. To me, positive PR might have been more effective than Negative PR given that many of the target audience, including me i hope, use many software titles at a time. Anyhoo, only my opinion as stated above.
dburne Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 Very nice article, great to see TF get the recognition they so deserve! Really looking forward to TF5!
CisTer-dB- Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 PR?? What does that article have to do with PR Jedders?
SYN_Jedders Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 What does an article advertising a product have to do with Public Relations?....ermm.....
II./JG27_Rich Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 (edited) Just a great story. So glad I hung in there all those years. Cheers to all of us IL-2 folks Edited April 19, 2015 by II./JG27_Rich
FS_Fenice_1965 Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 CLOD and Bos aren't properly competing one each other, even if they are both WWII simulators. We must always think that they are both 1c products (even if greatest outcome for 1c are going to come from BOS success, considered the price). We shouldn't see any comparison between them as an attempt to damage one or the other. In my humble opinion that article hasn't gone beyond useful freedom of opinions and speech.
[KWN]T-oddball Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 I didnt say TF wrote the article. Im suggesting that some of the article came across a bit, well, confrontational?....surely you guys got to see a version before release?. The guy selected 777 for criticism on two occasions in the article. Why not level some at other developers aswell, DCS for example. It seemed that there was a deliberate attempt to compare with one group only, not the genre as a whole. To me, positive PR might have been more effective than Negative PR given that many of the target audience, including me i hope, use many software titles at a time. Anyhoo, only my opinion as stated above. soory mate but your bias is showing, if the author had wanted to be confrontational as you put it he would have brought up the unlocks,video setting's,48MP, delayed release of FMB/DServer...etc
SYN_Jedders Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 (edited) What do you mean "my bias"?.... I think you need to read again what I have said. If anything I am spending more time in CloD over the last weeks than BoS. I also make reference to how well TF have done. You need to read the content of a persons post rather than making a judgement based on who wrote it. This "us and them" attitude that some have is what keeps people away from this genre. Now that is bad PR! Edited April 19, 2015 by SYN_Jedders
Mysticpuma Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 I didnt say TF wrote the article. Im suggesting that some of the article came across a bit, well, confrontational?....surely you guys got to see a version before release? Hi Jedders. Not sure if you have worked in the publishing business (Newspaper/Magazine) but generally you'll get sent a preview version of the finished article. I think in very rare exceptions like Beyonce there may be a possibility of seeing a preview article and changing it to suit your agenda, but this is not generally the case. The writer did send me a copy of the finished article that was ready to go to press so I could see what would be in print. Let's not forget, this is a magazine writer with his own opinion and his own point of view. There is no agenda as can be seen from the positive review he gave to BoS. But hang on, he gave a positive review to BoS using his own opinion and his own point of view and yet there was no decrying that fact? The main point is, an article talking about Team Fusion is in a magazine and we have let the writer form his own opinions without getting involved other than to answer the questions posed. There is nowhere it says TF said BoS was bad, ugly, lacking.....nowhere. The writer has his own opinion as do you all who write here, the fact that it isn't exactly as some would like it written isn't down to TF, so as the saying goes "don't shoot the messenger". Also I should add we didn't influence the article or put a positive bias on it, the questions were answered and we don't need to get involved to let others decide on whether our work is good enough for the community to use, we let the community decide that for themselves. Cheers, MP
CisTer-dB- Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 What does an article advertising a product have to do with Public Relations?....ermm..... I am sorry mate but that magasine is independant, as far as I know so is the autor. He wrote what he want with no agenda nor obligation towards BOS or Cliffs. That's not PR works 1
SYN_Jedders Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 (edited) Also I should add we didn't influence the article or put a positive bias on it, the questions were answered and we don't need to get involved to let others decide on whether our work is good enough for the community to use, we let the community decide that for themselves. Cheers, MP Thanks for the reply, MP. The positive response the article gives is clearly deserved as Ive stated before as have many others. Im just not sure the RoF references nor the 777`s help to garner support. Tell everyone how good it is now. Leave the other stuff to history. In my opinion it devalues what has been achieved. I just feel the article would have read better without the negativity. Edited April 19, 2015 by SYN_Jedders 1
6./ZG26_Emil Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 Well personally I lost interest in CLOD and have even uninstalled it, there's too much flying on rails feeling for my liking and by the time TF made it playable my desire for an IL2 BOB sim had gone off the boil which is a major shame since I spent most of IL2 hopig for the BOB and now I'm quite happy fighting Yaks again over the snow like in 2001. TF did a great job though, at least people got to fly what they paid for.
AvengerSeawolf Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 (edited) I lost interest in CLoD for 2 reasons1) Purchased the DVD and that required steam to start the installation of the game., Steam always was freezing to my PC no matter all the tips and tricks on the internet, that tried to fix it so i did not install it. 2) All this fuzz that the game was buggy and so on. After [Edited] to be able to install it and see ( though I still have the boxed paid version of it)I did not find any bugs in the game. Some if the TF patches would not install so I left it there. Perhaps I will try it another time, if that steam thing start to work, but I never had the impression that the game needed any patches to play and never understood why all this frenzy in moding and patching something that already worked. Edited April 20, 2015 by Bearcat PM sent
Lusekofte Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 Well I am sure you did the right thing , uninstalling COD. You should not have it installed if you do not fly it. But what relevance does that information to do with this tread. It is intact quite possible to enjoy both games, currently COD beats the living daylight out of BOS in terms of organized squad flying. There is nothing wrong with BOS in that regard, it just is not yet happening, it is a community thing. I am quite pleased for good review on any WW2 combat sim. We need more people to the genre, and I see no reason for anyone to be upset for some well deserved kudos to TF. And I think the people who does got a issue with their own agenda. Good work TF, and good luck with TF 5,0 many are eager to test that one 2
Team Fusion Buzzsaw Posted April 20, 2015 Team Fusion Posted April 20, 2015 I never had the impression that the game needed any patches to play and never understood why all this frenzy in moding and patching something that already worked. Actually the game had quite a number of problems, among them... - LoD models would disappear at close ranges - Many graphics glitches, like objectives showing through clouds - Performance of the aircraft way off historical, overheating mismodeled, aircraft unable to climb to altitude, etc. etc. All of these and many others fixed by TF. If you can get round your dislike of Steam, you might consider re-installing and trying it with the TF patches, they are not hard to install if you follow the instructions on the ATAG forums, see link here: http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5058&p=52711 You might be pleasantly surprised to find you get your money's worth.
6./ZG26_Custard Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 Not knocking what TF have done and I have enjoyed playing Clod but I just find the aircraft too easy to fly and particularly far too easy to land. As much as the FM's have been knocked in BoS I think the "sensation" of flight has been nailed so much better than 95% of other sims.
Original_Uwe Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 (edited) Agree to disagree then, I find the CoD FMS much more immersive than bos. Add to that the FM debates revolve around spits being to slow/fast by 10kph etc etc...not about yaks being over 40 kph to fast! TF got their stuff together and nailed it, BoS not so much. Edited April 20, 2015 by forsale 1
6./ZG26_Custard Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 (edited) Agree to disagree then, I find the CoD FMS much more immersive than bos. Add to that the FM debates revolve around spits being to slow/fast by 10kph etc etc...not about yaks being over 40 kph to fast! TF got their stuff together and nailed it, BoS not so much. That's the great thing about opinions and forums, we can indeed agree to disagree. Landing in my view is far too easy on Clod. I also think that the flight envelopes can be pushed just too far, but hey that's just my view, I respect yours but don't agree with it. Edited April 20, 2015 by OriginalCustard
Recommended Posts