Friday 2010-06-17 Dev. update and Discussion Thread

[KaHzModAn]

hey i didn't say the DM in ROF was perfect... just that it wasn't as bad as zapatista said
and i've never seen a plane "bounce" in ROF, except if you arrive on your landing gears, and in that case its pretty normal to bounce

with a frontal shock like in your vid, i agree the plane isn't damaged enough in ROF... but imho i like the way it's done you don't bounce, the plane is still damaged beyond repair, and it explodes half the time...
(plus your steel half-truck must have had more kinetic force then a wood and fabric plane (i think... maybe :rolleyes:))

[Romanator21]

I don't understand why anyone would take a WWI stringbag and fly it into the ground at max speed from 4000 meters. I guess the developers didn't have that in mind when creating the damage model. A WWI era biplane hitting the ground at 100 km/h is not going to react in the same way as a truck hitting the ground at the same speed.

Otherwise, their system is really not bad, and seems at least as good as Il-2's. 99% of the time, wood and fabric planes will crumple, rather than disintegrate.

http://www.maxair2air.com/WEB%20MEDIA/AIR-GALLERY/WWI-Training/plane-crash-5.jpg

http://www.maxair2air.com/WEB%20MEDIA/AIR-GALLERY/WWI-Training/plane-crash-2.jpg

http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/diaries/images/crash1.jpg

http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/diaries/images/crash2.jpg

http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/diaries/images/crash4.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqfomMCE7V0&playnext_from=QL

This shows fatal accident so beware:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuXMXdFQMX8&feature=related

[777 Studios - Jason]

I have to laugh.

ROF doesn't even get crashes modeled correctly, in the least.

And now with neoqb being forced out in favor of takeover by 777 Studios, I believe that ROF is in it's last days.

God you know I hope so. I can finally get some sleep. :grin: No one was taken over and no one was forced out. Just a friendly merger. Development continues as planned. Thanks for the vote of confidence El Aurens.

Jason

[777 Studios - Jason]

There is no way to model every part breaking exactly as it would in real life as that would crush your processor. Otherwise you'd have a damage simulator. ROF's damage model is very good and it is progressive in nature and it does a great job of makes shootdowns interesting, fun and pretty convincing.

People predicting doom for ROF is nothing new. We've learned to live with it. :-(

SOW will be awesome I am sure.

Jason

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

I have to laugh.

ROF doesn't even get crashes modeled correctly, in the least.

And now with neoqb being forced out in favor of takeover by 777 Studios, I believe that ROF is in it's last days.

I have to laugh at your spiteful hate campaign against ROF, El. :) Just to make it clear, ROF is a Flight Simulator, maybe you are looking for another title. 'Rise of the Crash Test Dummies', perhaps? Show us your vast library of photographs with WWI aircraft buried nose first 4ft in the ground please? Most photographs you will find they are a crumpled heap, some more disintegration is in evidence.

This of course is a real 'deal breaker' in a combat sim, as we all immediately switch to an external view to watch our foe crash when in the middle of a furball don't we? Does wonders for SA. There are actually some very impressive ROF crashes if one bothers to look for them on youtube, not saying they are perfect as they should be, but its a very minor, tertiary and inconsequential 'gripe', if you can even call it that. We don't see planes disintegrate into a million pieces. Lawks, the sim is doomed.

As to the comments about diving full speed from 4000 metres, err the plane will disintegrate well before that when exceeding its Vne, as in real life........so a wee bit irrelevant.

El has been saying that 'Rise of Flight' is 'in its last days' since roughly, lets say......3 days into its release? 1 year on it is unrecognisable from its earlier (lets face it Beta) state and vastly improved. I would take what he says with a pinch of salt, as he actually knows very little about WWI aircraft (not that I'm a world authority myself mind, still learning), as evidenced by his slightly less than illuminating contributions over on SimHq.

Yes, Oleg criticised elements of the DM on initial release (as did I in the same thread, before Oleg did. He also praised its simulation of physics and was overall positive about it. It is much better a little over a year on.

El, you don't like ROF, its not for you. Ok, we get it and you are of course entitled to your opinion. Fine and dandy, but I don't understand what you 'get' from constantly and spitefully bashing it? Call yourself a flight sim fan? Yeah, right......try to bury the only WWI sim there is likely to be for some time.

There are sims I don't like, but I don't go around bashing them constantly, what purpose would it serve? Why would I want to do that? Maybe El should ask himself that same question. If he says 'I care about standards' I will fall of my chair laughing, because his constructive criticism of ROF was negligible if not non existent.

Get over it El, nothing personal but it is beyond me why you do this. ROF is in my opinion now an excellent (not perfect) sim.....I would recommend it to anyone interested in WWI aviation. The 'feel' of flight surpasses anything out there by a country mile. Still a ways to go......(2 seaters coming up and revamped career mode amongst other things).

Had some great fun playing it and yes still very much looking forward to SOW, room for both in the world.....they are not in competition.

Oh and I fly as 'Biggles07' if anyone wants to shoot me down in flames online, I wont take it personally. :D

Peace be with you all. :grin:

[fireflyerz]

Well .ed , I think the nobs have been nabed , dont you:!:

[<George>]

Nice images Oleg,
at the end,if we compose them all together and play them like a film we might have a demo of the game at last...:)))

[Flanker35M]

S!

I play RoF for different reasons than IL-2. RoF makes you FEEL you are there, graphics are very nice, the FM is convincing, DM is nice and the sim has evolved a lot with patches. And it is the damn best WW1 sim out there at the moment, hands down. And with an engine that could be used for a lot more ;)

IL-2 DM is old, riddled with bugs and simplified in many ways. Our crashes in it are an effect and frankly, if you crash = game over and press refly. SoW will have more fidelity in many ways so maybe we can see more different crashes than just a fireball and flying pieces.

[WTE_Galway]

Oleg - will there be train tunnels?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/238/3163019033_20d0866624.jpg?v=0

http://www.culture24.org.uk/asset_arena/2/14/66/166412/v0_master.jpg

Oh dear.

People having competitions flying bombers inverted under bridges in IL2 was bad enough.

Flying upside down through railway tunnels is going to get silly :D

[Baron]

I have to laugh at your spiteful hate campaign against ROF, El. :) Just to make it clear, ROF is a Flight Simulator, maybe you are looking for another title. 'Rise of the Crash Test Dummies', perhaps? Show us your vast library of photographs with WWI aircraft buried nose first 4ft in the ground please? Most photographs you will find they are a crumpled heap, some more disintegration is in evidence.

This of course is a real 'deal breaker' in a combat sim, as we all immediately switch to an external view to watch our foe crash when in the middle of a furball don't we? Does wonders for SA. There are actually some very impressive ROF crashes if one bothers to look for them on youtube, not saying they are perfect as they should be, but its a very minor, tertiary and inconsequential 'gripe', if you can even call it that. We don't see planes disintegrate into a million pieces. Lawks, the sim is doomed.

As to the comments about diving full speed from 4000 metres, err the plane will disintegrate well before that when exceeding its Vne, as in real life........so a wee bit irrelevant.

El has been saying that 'Rise of Flight' is 'in its last days' since roughly, lets say......3 days into its release? 1 year on it is unrecognisable from its earlier (lets face it Beta) state and vastly improved. I would take what he says with a pinch of salt, as he actually knows very little about WWI aircraft (not that I'm a world authority myself mind, still learning), as evidenced by his slightly less than illuminating contributions over on SimHq.

Yes, Oleg criticised elements of the DM on initial release (as did I in the same thread, before Oleg did. He also praised its simulation of physics and was overall positive about it. It is much better a little over a year on.

El, you don't like ROF, its not for you. Ok, we get it and you are of course entitled to your opinion. Fine and dandy, but I don't understand what you 'get' from constantly and spitefully bashing it? Call yourself a flight sim fan? Yeah, right......try to bury the only WWI sim there is likely to be for some time.

There are sims I don't like, but I don't go around bashing them constantly, what purpose would it serve? Why would I want to do that? Maybe El should ask himself that same question. If he says 'I care about standards' I will fall of my chair laughing, because his constructive criticism of ROF was negligible if not non existent.

Get over it El, nothing personal but it is beyond me why you do this. ROF is in my opinion now an excellent (not perfect) sim.....I would recommend it to anyone interested in WWI aviation. The 'feel' of flight surpasses anything out there by a country mile. Still a ways to go......(2 seaters coming up and revamped career mode amongst other things).

Had some great fun playing it and yes still very much looking forward to SOW, room for both in the world.....they are not in competition.

Oh and I fly as 'Biggles07' if anyone wants to shoot me down in flames online, I wont take it personally. :D

Peace be with you all. :grin:

The reason he is bashing RoF in this perticullar case, i think, is because people uses RoF as an example of how to do things, wich in manys opinion is, a bad example.

A year into RoF release iv learned NOT to say anything bad about it, because u WILL be hunted down, wherever u are. (A main reason why i stay as far away as possible from RoF at this point)
In my opinion RoF is a broken sim, granted, if u like just flying arround doing pretty much nothing ist ok but concidering its 5-10 years newer than any competition it doesnt surpasses anything, it fairs well (mainly in the grphics department ) nothing more.

And im quite sure Oleg WONT be looking at RoF for pointers in how to create SoW.

There are many things i dont like about RoF, a development team comming from IL2 succesully missing to implement even 1 good thing from theire experiance (empty SP/MP, Team Death Mach, Capture The Flag.....wth??) is one and a development team not beeing financially backed up from the get go just doesnt instill confidance, is one, beeing told on variouse forums that there is nothing wrong with RoF, youre the one whose broken, is another.

Could we just agree not to bring RoF into the SoW debate, RoF has nothing SoW wants. (That is really not an attempt at an insult, its just the way it is)

I can understand that many who like RoF think it gets treated unfair, but so what, just leave it be and enjoy your game. Exept the fact that there are many who wholhartedly dissagrees with u. ;)


P.S. The giddyness of getting a windstock implemented in the game, whats up with that?


Edit: As for bending on impact, im not an expert either but a solid object (what ever its made of) doesnt stay in on piece and bounce (RoF) if plowed strait into the ground a 200 mph, it just doesnt.

[Skoshi Tiger]

P.S. The giddyness of getting a windstock implemented in the game, whats up with that?

When you have aircraft that tip over if you have a 15mph crosswind component and no differential braking to turn and no ground handlers to hold your wing tips and tails, knowning the wind direction for ground handling purposes is quite important.


I own Rise of flight, and I think there is a lot to like about it. But I haven't quite got into it as much as IL-2, and I'm still learning the ropes. Unfortunately there is only so much time and I'm still enjoying IL-2 too much too spend the time in ROF to get good at it.

Cheers!

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

The reason he is bashing RoF in this perticullar case, i think, is because people uses RoF as an example of how to do things, wich in manys opinion is, a bad example.

A year into RoF release iv learned NOT to say anything bad about it, because u WILL be hunted down, wherever u are. (A main reason why i stay as far away as possible from RoF at this point)
In my opinion RoF is a broken sim, granted, if u like just flying arround doing pretty much nothing ist ok but concidering its 5-10 years newer than any competition it doesnt surpasses anything, it fairs well (mainly in the grphics department ) nothing more.

And im quite sure Oleg WONT be looking at RoF for pointers in how to create SoW.

There are many things i dont like about RoF, a development team comming from IL2 succesully missing to implement even 1 good thing from theire experiance (empty SP/MP, Team Death Mach, Capture The Flag.....wth??) is one and a development team not beeing financially backed up from the get go just doesnt instill confidance, is one, beeing told on variouse forums that there is nothing wrong with RoF, youre the one whose broken, is another.

Could we just agree not to bring RoF into the SoW debate, RoF has nothing SoW wants. (That is really not an attempt at an insult, its just the way it is)

I can understand that many who like RoF think it gets treated unfair, but so what, just leave it be and enjoy your game. Exept the fact that there are many who wholhartedly dissagrees with u. ;)


P.S. The giddyness of getting a windstock implemented in the game, whats up with that?


Edit: As for bending on impact, im not an expert either but a solid object (what ever its made of) doesnt stay in on piece and bounce (RoF) if plowed strait into the ground a 200 mph, it just doesnt.

Hi Baron.

im quite sure Oleg WONT be looking at RoF for pointers in how to create SoW.

Couldn't agree more. When did I say he would, or should? I think he knows what he is doing. :)

Could we just agree not to bring RoF into the SoW debate,

Yes we can, and I didn't. I was responding to someone who did.

The giddyness of getting a windstock implemented in the game, whats up with that?

The windsocks work in game. Maybe time to look again. They blow whichever way the cold wind a' blows. They wiggle like wee little stripey worms. :grin: There may be a bug when they sometimes don't work in career mode or something, don't recall. But they are now functional for sure.

Baron, its not your thing and I can dig that lol.....Its ok. Not your cup of tea and no harm done. It is most certainly not broken however, sorry. Things to do yes, broken no.

The only reason I'll be 'hunting you down' is if you're the b*stard who sold me that Ford Mondeo 6 years ago. You probably aren't......so fear not. :grin:

Now, back to SOW! :)

[Baron]

Agree, broken is the wrong wording, incomplete is better (in my case)


Didnt mean to bring further critiques to RoF, it was my opinion and really didnt surve a purpose in this threadh.( exept for the impact thingy)


And rgr on the windstock, couldnt gett the "woha" over it since i never had problems landing without it in the first place. :)


Like u said, back to SoW :)


P.S. Wasnt me, but i do have a Ford Curier that wont let me use the 5:th gear :( :)

[zapatista]

hey i didn't say the DM in ROF was perfect... just that it wasn't as bad as zapatista said
and i've never seen a plane "bounce" in ROF,

KaHzMod, it makes me think you are a bit dazzled by the eye candy in RoF (and for a 2009 sim it indeed looks good at first glance), but from what you have said so far i doubt you have done much critical observations in RoF to compare it to how in real life you expect physical forces to work on an airframe of very limited strenght.

just try it, take your favored ride in RoF up to say 1500m (since taking it to 4000 m seems a traumatic concept to the RoF cheersquad here), then point the nose to the ground and keep max power on, dont get distracted if a few bits fall of your aircraft on the way down and just keep going in a vertical accelerated dive. under best circumstances with a ww1 aircraft you should be able to reach almost 100 mph.

then watch on external cam what happens to your aircraft in RoF when you plough straight into the ground, you will observe it will hit its nose to the ground, then the aircraft will bounce a couple of times, and some bits will fall of and it will break a wing or even crack the fuselage somewhere. in fact it looks little different from the crash sequence modelled by a RoF plane crashing from 20 or 30 m altitude. that is simply NOT realistic, with the high speed crash from a great height from 1000m + it should go SPLAT and disintegrate into a tangled mess, and yes some bits might still resemble an aircraft component (like part of the tail section maybe, some wing sections or the engine block itself), but the rest should be a barely recognizable mangled mess with lots of broken bits lying around and the engine half buried into the ground.

that limited realism might be fine for a sim from 1990, but not very realistic for a sim in 2009/2010 that makes claims of being uber real (and as it turns out following its long anticipated release, once people looked closer at it RoF does not use pure physics modeling of forces working on the airframe, be this air currents or the structural aircraft encountering another physical object like tree, ground, or other aircraft)

i do have much higher hopes for BoB ! given the extensive structural damage being modeled in some of the recent screen shots, i suspect crashes will be much more realistic to.

[zapatista]

I don't understand why anyone would take a WWI stringbag and fly it into the ground at max speed from 4000 meters. I guess the developers didn't have that in mind when creating the damage model.

afaik the pictures you posted there are from low altitude or lower speed crashes, and yes under those circumstances the aircraft will crumple a bit, bend, break a wing or so and thats about all the excitement you get. other then finding the RoF modeling of this a bit simplistic, it doesnt look to bad and keeps the crowd happy.

pretending the same result happens with a ww-1 aircraft going into the ground at 140 km/hr is just delusional, and shows how irrational its fanbase is in ignoring some major problems in that sim

Otherwise, their system is really not bad, and seems at least as good as Il-2's. 99% of the time, wood and fabric planes will crumple, rather than disintegrate.
you'd hope so wouldnt you :) RoF is a 2009 sim and you are comparing it to a ten year old il2 sim, of course RoF should look better. my point is simply that RoF models physical force interacting in a crash only in a very limited way, and that the bouncing aircraft hitting the dirt at 140 km/hr is a good example of this.

the 2 video clips you posted are a good example, both are relatively low speed low altitude crashes, and thats what they all look like in RoF, no matter how great the altitude or speed the crashing aircraft has

[Hood]

Wow, what are all these ladies arguing about? Damage to WWI planes and the like, in a forum not even devoted to that game? Anyway who cares about the damage on crashing - I'm more concerned about the next plane I'm going to shoot down or the next guy who's going to get me.

Get over it ladies as all games are WIP until they are no longer supported.

I guess the update is nice but I'm sure looking forward to better footage of in-game action. The most exciting video trailer for a game I've ever seen was the La attacking a Ju88 (or He111?) for the original IL2. Class.

Hood

[Chivas]

Damage model is a huge component of a flight sim. The wrong damage model will quickly have flight simmers removing the game from their hard drives. That said, I'm sure SOW's damage model will be the most comprehensive in combat flight simming today.

Seeing damaged aircraft staying in the fight will be almost a thing of the past. They will be bailing or immediately looking for an escape route.

[BigC208]

Great update this week. Still wondering if the reflections in the flight instruments are dynamic or frozen. When ditching, will it be lights out like Il2 or will you be able to come to a halt and float while you are still in the cockpit?

About the physics expectations. Unless we all start running Crays, it'll always be a compromise between eyecandy and playabillity. Watching a beautifull slightshow gets old quickly.

Even after almost 10 years of Il2 I still think it's pretty close to the real thing. This makes me pretty confident that when SoW comes out it'll be as good as Oleg can make it without bringing the fastest computers on their knees. Come in for landing with too much speed or flare too high and you'll bounce. Relax a bit on the stick and you can still save it. Good enough physics for me.

I got the same feeling when playing the demo for RoF a few months back. So what if they had tone the physics effects down in order to keep the game playable? I did not buy it but that was because of the DRM measures and lack of flyable aircraft. They changed their bussiness model, upped the content and no more online requirements. My preorder for RoF Iron cross is in.
Even if they stop supporting the game I feel that there's enough in the box to make it worth the asking price.

There are so few good combat flightsims out there that I think we should all support them instead of all this negativity.

[Friendly_flyer]

Damage model is a huge component of a flight sim. The wrong damage model will quickly have flight simmers removing the game from their hard drives. .

When in flight that is certainly true. When a plane crashes, it cease to be important. If you are in your plane, the only relevant parameter is whether you survive or not. If your virtual you is killed, it doesn't matter much if it is the left or the right wing that comes off or whether it is the fuel tank or coolant that catches fire.

I am (as you) sure that the flight- and damage models of SOW will be impressive. I am equally sure crashes will be spectacularly animated with dirt and loose bits spraying.

[Skarphol]

Damage model is a huge component of a flight sim.

The damage model on FS X seems quite basic, but that sim is fairly popular. You have a point, though.
The most important thing to me is playability, and I'm pretty sure that will be good taken care of by Oleg & team.

Skarphol

[philip.ed]

Well .ed , I think the nobs have been nabed , dont you:!:

:D I LOL'd. It's quite funny sitting pack and watching people make fools of themselves. :cool:

[Dano]

The damage model on FS X seems quite basic, but that sim is fairly popular. You have a point, though.

It's not a combat sim though so it's largely irrelevant.

[AdMan]

any 3d object can "bend", water, cloth, hair. etc are 3d objects just like any other model but other than props and major damage there aren't many parts on a aircraft that would bend to the extent that would be worth using physics on. Small dents and dings can be modeled using normal maps. Bullet holes, for example, probably contain a normal map (to lazy to look right now).

Major damage would/should of course be modeled from polys and should also be physics based

[Romanator21]

afaik the pictures you posted there are from low altitude or lower speed crashes, and yes under those circumstances the aircraft will crumple a bit, bend, break a wing or so and thats about all the excitement you get. other then finding the RoF modeling of this a bit simplistic, it doesnt look to bad and keeps the crowd happy.

pretending the same result happens with a ww-1 aircraft going into the ground at 140 km/hr is just delusional, and shows how irrational its fanbase is in ignoring some major problems in that sim

If you can find some pictures/video of a WWI stringbag striking the ground at 140km/h, then please present it/them.

Again, the developers probably didn't consider that we would be flying these kites straigt into the ground intentionally from any altitude in order to see just how extensive the DM was. Shame on them.

Let's not forget also that Oleg's Il-2 was developed for a single engine, low altitude, ground attack aircraft which had a top speed of around 350 km/h. It's too bad that he and his team didn't create a game engine which modeled compression, supersonic flight, high-altitude flight, or dynamics of multi-engine aircraft which, I'll bet, he never imagined would become part of the game. Shame on him too. ;)

[philip.ed]

Are we here for SoW or RoF?

[Insuber]

Are we here for SoW or RoF?
RoW. At least someone.

[Romanator21]

I'm here, because like you, I have nothing better to do.

[Fossil-Goz]

Are we here for SoW or RoF?

I came here for an argument


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

[proton45]

Great update this week. Still wondering if the reflections in the flight instruments are dynamic or frozen.


If you watch the Spitfire cockpit video that was posted some time ago...it looks like the reflections are "dynamic"...

[zapatista]

Again, the *[RoF]* developers probably didn't consider that we would be flying these kites straigt into the ground intentionally from any altitude in order to see just how extensive the DM was. Shame on them.
a predictable RoF-fan type statement that ignores any rational logic whenever some criticism is raised. because you like the game, it doesnt mean you have to abandon all common sense and any recognition about some of its obvious flaws. yet this seems a traumatic concept for the RoF fanbase (to the point their north american distributor has to turn up here and try to brush away its flaws)

i would sugest instead that if their game indeed uses accurate physics modeling of forces and objects interacting (like their fanbase is deliberately misled to believe in the marketing hype), then no matter at what speed, one of their aircraft interacting with other solid objects it encounters in the game world should have an accurate and realistic outcome, and it simply doesnt. for lower speed crashes it looks reasonably nice (for a 2009 sim), but thats about the limit of what they created. and they use this same type of "standard crash" sequence for all events, no matter what the circumstances.

my point simply has been that for RoF, no matter what its eye candy might delude you to believe, that accurate physics modeling is simply not present, and you can illustrate this VERY obvious flaw by flying an aircraft at high speed into a solid object (like terra firma), having it go bouncy-bouncy and then crumple like a 30 km/hr plane crash is just not realistic

still, all of this was simply raised by some posters here (in a BoB forum discussing a BoB development update) in the hope/belief that BoB will be able to model this more correctly. the damage model of some of the BoB aircraft we have seen so far would provide high hopes for this (individual components of the airplane frames are modeled in 3D for ex, and the damage from individual shells being factored in)

add to that some of the recent statements like:

Since visual damage is pre-modeled by designers, it's up to them, to learn what the blades (or any other AC parts) were made of and model damage according to the material and damage conditions.

You should understand, that visual damage and physical damage are like two different worlds, with the later being actually invisible to a player, while the first one serves as visual representation of it.

and ....

"To my knowledge, on all SoW:BoB models visual damage is modeled respectively to the materials the damaged parts were made of in RL and to their physical properties. Besides, some of the 1C modelers are former aviation industry engineers with experience in airframe design and material strength. So, they know very well, how materials in general and airframes of different design in particular behave/look like under damage.

So, here I wouldn't worry. Within the general game limitations the visual damage will be modeled as close, as possible to the RL and, certainly, will depict the physical damage modeling with the highest possible fidelity. "

so i have high hopes SoW-BoB will model these crashes much more realistically, and that the extent of damage to the aircraft in various crashes will more correctly reflect speed and the forces involved :)

[Flanker35M]

S!

Zapatista, if you are believing SoW will have a truly fully dynamic DM in both the forces, materials and the visual department then do not be here whining when it is not. Just a matter of the computing power needed for it and not a single rig any us users here has can model that. Plain and simple. It will model DM for sure but do not expect every crash to be different if the plane comes in at different angles how the parts rip off and how a spar bends etc. A flight sim is not about modelling the crash but the flight ;)

Regarding RoF. Make a better game if it bothers you ;) RoF is the best WW1 sim, did I say World War ONE sim, out there at the moment. It offers fun for me and many others..and no need to be a fanboi ;)

[lbuchele]

S!

Zapatista, if you are believing SoW will have a truly fully dynamic DM in both the forces, materials and the visual department then do not be here whining when it is not. Just a matter of the computing power needed for it and not a single rig any us users here has can model that. Plain and simple. It will model DM for sure but do not expect every crash to be different if the plane comes in at different angles how the parts rip off and how a spar bends etc. A flight sim is not about modelling the crash but the flight ;)

Regarding RoF. Make a better game if it bothers you ;) RoF is the best WW1 sim, did I say World War ONE sim, out there at the moment. It offers fun for me and many others..and no need to be a fanboi ;)

Thanks for posting exactly what I think about this matter Flanker.
Clear,short and precise.
Let's move to another subject.

[Romanator21]

And that subject being a brand new update :)