oleg, you better hurry, RoF is releasing a ww-2 sim next

[zapatista]

there is many things wrong with RoF (mostly because they are starting to sell it before many of the problems with it are resolved, and it has a very cumbersome and inconvenient online-only play mode), but i just noticed a few comments in the last weeks from its staff that they are planning to release a ww-2 sim next, and that they will do this "soon" (not in a few years, could be as soon as a few months)

right now they sell a game with 2 flyable aircraft only as a ww-1 flightsim, and they have completed the work on their scenery and grafix engine. to now create two ww-2 flyable planes and slightly change their scenery to suit the battle of brittain era would take them very little effort imo.

they also provided some degree of openness in their game environment where they want to get their customers involved in creating game objects and addon planes and scenery

oleg, you might want to consider releasing BoB sooner then later imo. RoF looks very good (probably not as good as BoB will be, but close ?), and if to many flightsimmers get distracted by it this could well take some of your customers away

your loyal supporters know you are working on a grand masterpiece that will set new standards in flightsim performance and features, but there is only a limited number of aviation fans out there as a customer base. the sooner you can releases your sim, the more wind you will be able to take out of their sails :)

[Aviar]

This has got to be the funniest post I've seen in a long time. Very nice, zapatista! Hope to see more funny stuff from you.

Aviar

[Chivas]

ROF does look very good, but still needs alot of work before they could ever release a WW2 map and aircraft. In other words there is no chance the ROF developers could release another flight sim in the next months or even years for that matter.

[brando]

This has got to be the funniest post I've seen in a long time. Very nice, zapatista! Hope to see more funny stuff from you.

Aviar

+1

I'm glad to see I'm not the only person who thinks this post is hilarious. :D

S~ Aviar

B

[Bobb4]

Don't get me wrong, I am ordering it, but seriously to think they could bring out another sim, hell they still have not finish this one yet.
My understanding is at present ten planes maximium multiplayer or the lag kills you...

[proton45]

"Soon"(?)...that is funny.

[DKoor]

:mrgreen:

[Tvrdi]

initial post isnt funny at all...ROF is the most realistic sim up to date....yes, it is full of bugs and with only a few planes....just like IL2 was back then in 2002 hehe
I wonder how a hardcore simmer could possibly hate any of the great titles in sim genre (or makers)....red baron 3d, IL2, lockon, ROF...etc.

pffft from my ass in your mouth

did you earn your beta tester status and made ur loyality showroom for SOW?

[zapatista]

ROF does look very good, but still needs alot of work before they could ever release a WW2 map and aircraft. In other words there is no chance the ROF developers could release another flight sim in the next months or even years for that matter.

thats what i thought to

but when in the last weeks i did more background reading on what the RoF creators themselves actually said, about their current game, their sales model, and the way they plan to go forward, i got a different perspective on what they are doing

look at it this way, would anybody here really consider buying a full price aviation sim with only 2 flyable planes that are not even historically matched as opponents in the sky, one small map, only daytime weather, static cloud displays and static weather patterns, an empty in game world with only the odd token few trucks or tanks in one spot as mission objectives, "famed" flight modeling that produces takeoff and landing distances 4x longer then real life, only summer season for all maps, etc.... add to that you need to be 24/7 online to even play offline single missions, no real dynamic campaign, only 5 against 5 online servers where you have to wait your turn to rejoin a game after getting killed, no coop servers, no campain servers..........need i go on further ? :)

the obvious answer is no, we wouldnt.

but that is exactly what they are selling right now at the price of a normal full game

and here is the kicker, to get more maps, more planes, more objects, more seasons, you will have to pay for each item.

then i saw several specific posts from several RoF employees themselves, and this indicated that the missing content in the current game is very deliberate and could have been included from the start, for ex most of their main addon planes for RoF are already finished and they will put them for sale in a gradual manner to keep generating income, and here is the surprising part, that their next project is already started and will focus on ww-2

the main problem i see is that RoF really lowers the standard of what we expect from a decent flightsim, however good it looks and might fly. add to that a limited customer base for flight sims in general, and it can reduce the rapidity that olegs new product can penetrate the market. we have been incredibly lucky with oleg's products in the last years it seems, and if this RoF crap is going to be considered normal in the new future as a game, we'r all in trouble as flightsimmers.

[zapatista]

but seriously to think they could bring out another sim, hell they still have not finish this one yet.
My understanding is at present ten planes maximium multiplayer or the lag kills you...

they dont plan to "finish it", they simply will make the missing items in it for sale as addons, expansions and features

the problem is that an unfinished product like that being sold to enough silly people willing to buy it can now be seen by RoF as validation that this sale model works, and that people are prepared to pay full price for that little content

me mentioning they are now already working on a ww2 sim based on the same "game concept" is not idle speculation i grabbed out of the air, i saw this from indications in post from some of their own programmers and designers in other forums

[Bobb4]

they dont plan to "finish it", they simply will make the missing items in it for sale as addons, expansions and features

the problem is that an unfinished product like that being sold to enough silly people willing to buy it can now be seen by RoF as validation that this sale model works, and that people are prepared to pay full price for that little content

me mentioning they are now already working on a ww2 sim based on the same "game concept" is not idle speculation i grabbed out of the air, i saw this from indications in post from some of their own programmers and designers in other forums


Was not going to take a dig at another sim but, I will anyway.
I remember many months ago having a discussion on OFF about the pricing of their Phase 3.
I was lambasted because I told them the market would not support the high $50 price tag plus shipping. Well it is now selling for a more realistic to quote their site - NEW SPECIAL OFFER - OFF @ $29.99 (+p&p and taxes) see BUY page - Back on topic ROF is bright and shiny and new. But interest is already starting to disipate as reports of problems filter in.
The reason IL2 stood the test of time is because it was a basically sound product from the word go. Yes many patches later it is the near perfection we see today.
Unfortunately ROF is not a sound product. Why would I pay to fly a Fokker DR1 if I am already an ACE in an Albatros. Why would I pay to have winter landscape?
I would pay if the overall game worked, and I was dragged into the world through immersion. Yes buy the game I will, but I doubt I will be buying any add on planes until they offer something concrete in the way of dynamic campaign and better online play.
Unfortunately for them I am the same guy who would buy their WW2 sim. So if I am let down by ROF they cannot realistically expect me to buy their WW2 sim.

One thing I can say about Oleg, his sims have never let me down, even Il2 version one, you know the one, the one that had no flyable Stuka.
Hours of training just to learn how to land a plane properly. Who had ever heard of such a thing.

[csThor]

ROF hasn't even scratched the surface of flyable and AI aircraft they need to realistically depict their own "1917" subtitle. If they choose to ignore the scanty planeset and press for a totally new release they'll end up in obscurity - forgotten, ignored and scarcely lamented.

[Bearcat]

and here is the kicker, to get more maps, more planes, more objects, more seasons, you will have to pay for each item.

then i saw several specific posts from several RoF employees themselves, and this indicated that the missing content in the current game is very deliberate and could have been included from the start, for ex most of their main addon planes for RoF are already finished and they will put them for sale in a gradual manner to keep generating income, and here is the surprising part, that their next project is already started and will focus on ww-2

the main problem i see is that RoF really lowers the standard of what we expect from a decent flightsim, however good it looks and might fly. add to that a limited customer base for flight sims in general, and it can reduce the rapidity that olegs new product can penetrate the market. we have been incredibly lucky with oleg's products in the last years it seems, and if this RoF crap is going to be considered normal in the new future as a game, we'r all in trouble as flightsimmers.

Not as long as 1C is still in the picture.. I don't think that 1C will allow the standards to drop but so low... and they will certainly raise them higher than they are now.... I have not gotten RoF.. even the demo.... I cant speak for anyone else.. but for me the prospect of a limited theater, limited planeset sim with limited online capabilities, by an unproven developer is not a threat to 1C at this point... I think any real simmer is just filling a void until SoW is released.. and once it is released I have little doubt it will do what 1C sims have been doing for almost the last 10 years..

Not only that... I for one am not crazy about the idea of paying peicemeal for things that should be in a sim IMO. 1C has raised the bar... any real contenders will have to meet it or go home.

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

Hmmm. Mixed feelings about Rise of flight at the moment. I was initially very enthusiastic about the sim, having much interest in that era......But recent things coming to light are making me think again. The AI looks incredibly unresponsive when under attack judging from a lot of YT vids I have watched, sometimes it looks like it has taken them an eon to realise they are under fire. The also seem to suffer from the "gang bang" mentality on the friendly side, ala at times IL-2, with 2-3 friendly AI getting in the way of player shots, and seemingly recklessly risking collision with you. Maybe this is harsh, and I do not know how configurable AI difficulty settings are.....Its possible that the makers of these vids had them on "lower" settings, I would hope, as they are just getting used to a new sim.

Now I'm no Physics "Major", but as impressive as some of the effects look, some of them do not look quite right to me. A plane diving at a collosal speed regardless of its weight is going to build up a lot of mass and energy, right? It just seems sometimes that they just crumple like the paper aeroplanes I used to throw at my maths teacher as a kid, when they were'nt looking :) Maybe I am wrong about this, but I would expect for example them to be impaled into the ground in this scenario, if coming down at speed at a 90 degree angle. Like I say, maybe due to their relatively light weight this would be correct, someone please correct me if this is so.

RE the paying for add ons scenario, I understand the POV that more should be included in the original release, but consider this. Haven't we as simmers been perhaps "spoiled" over the years with free addons, particularly from Oleg and Co? Lets make no mistake, they are in this to make money, and more accurately HAVE to make money, or they will go under like so many before them. A flight sim company succeeding is good news for all of us I believe, because this genre is small enough and arguably endangered as it is.

I guess I fall into the "wait and see" box, I will keep tabs on user opinions as to be honest I don't really know enough about it as of yet. I'll play the demo when it is released, and take it from there.

Like Fox Mulder, I WANT TO BELIEVE, lol.....But by nature have always been a bit of a doubting Thomas :)

[Nitro]

Coming soon! :)

http://i40.tinypic.com/34t4z1h.jpg

[Tree_UK]

It will be interesting to see where ROF is in a year and half's time when SOW gets released, maybe it will have escalated by then and be a much bigger sim. At the moment it does not interest me that much.

[brando]

ROF hasn't even scratched the surface of flyable and AI aircraft they need to realistically depict their own "1917" subtitle.

Especially when half the flyable aircraft hadn't even been introduced into service by the end of that year!

"The D.VII entered squadron service with Jasta 10 in early May 1918." Anyone can find out that information by googling Fokker DVII - but the RoF guys tend to ignore history it seems.

Now, I've read some RoF fans saying that historical context isn't important (@simhq) but I think that's a derisory excuse for such an anachronism. I've always had a love for WW1 aviation: Mickey Mannock and Albert Ball were my father's boyhood heroes and I caught it off him. I would love to take part in a WW1 sim, but nothing about RoF inspires me to buy it.

Brando

[Chivas]

Your right that the ROF developers are thinking of going into the WW2 flight sim market, but that in no way puts any pressure on the SOW developers. What I've seen from ROF is very good but no where near the detail the SOW developers are trying to achieve. Not that the ROF developers can't reach that level of detail, but I believe they are atleast a three years behind the development position of SOW.

[Chivas]

I believe the ROF sim will progress nicely over the years of paid and/or unpaid addons. That's if initial sales are good enough for them to continue the project. I also don't have a problem with paying for the added material.

Developing these sims is a very expensive and time consuming project. Releasing an early addition of the sim provides the developer with some much need cash. It lets them know if there is enough interest by the flight sim community to continue the years of labour.

Lets face it 39 bucks is nothing and paying a few bucks more for each aircraft or two combined other improvements to the sim is also very very cheap. I know Oleg doesn't see this as a route he wants to follow, but basicly hes doing the same thing. Hes just providing more content, for more money, at longer intervals. While ROF is providing less content, for less money, at shorter intervals.

Shorter intervals are not a bad idea as you know how little patience some in the flight sim community have. ;)

[Insuber]

Was not going to take a dig at another sim but, I will anyway.
I remember many months ago having a discussion on OFF about the pricing of their Phase 3.
I was lambasted because I told them the market would not support the high $50 price tag plus shipping. Well it is now selling for a more realistic to quote their site - NEW SPECIAL OFFER - OFF @ $29.99 (+p&p and taxes) see BUY page - Back on topic ROF is bright and shiny and new. But interest is already starting to disipate as reports of problems filter in.
The reason IL2 stood the test of time is because it was a basically sound product from the word go. Yes many patches later it is the near perfection we see today.
Unfortunately ROF is not a sound product. Why would I pay to fly a Fokker DR1 if I am already an ACE in an Albatros. Why would I pay to have winter landscape?
I would pay if the overall game worked, and I was dragged into the world through immersion. Yes buy the game I will, but I doubt I will be buying any add on planes until they offer something concrete in the way of dynamic campaign and better online play.
Unfortunately for them I am the same guy who would buy their WW2 sim. So if I am let down by ROF they cannot realistically expect me to buy their WW2 sim.

One thing I can say about Oleg, his sims have never let me down, even Il2 version one, you know the one, the one that had no flyable Stuka.
Hours of training just to learn how to land a plane properly. Who had ever heard of such a thing.

+1. We can complain about Il2 defects or omissions, but after a quick reality check with the competitors' products we go back to father Oleg as a bunch of prodigal sons.

Regards,
Insuber

[KG26_Alpha]

the main problem i see is that RoF really lowers the standard of what we expect from a decent flightsim, however good it looks and might fly. add to that a limited customer base for flight sims in general, and it can reduce the rapidity that olegs new product can penetrate the market. we have been incredibly lucky with oleg's products in the last years it seems, and if this RoF crap is going to be considered normal in the new future as a game, we'r all in trouble as flightsimmers.

The problem is ............ we have been spoilt by Oleg & 1c in the past with free updates, aircraft, maps and ground objects.

The Author of IL2 has surpassed any other genre of flight sim support wise and I hope it continues.

As for Rise of Flight........... I loose interest half way through saying its title.

[Rama]

Can't believe the amount of false rumors and crap information I read in this thread....

Neoqb has no intention to developp a WWII sim in the near future (in the next years).
The actual map isn't small by any standard, and took more than 2.5 years to developp, and building the planes and objects took a lot of time also.
Neoqb is now working hard to developp new planes and new features for their game.

AND... There's absolutly NO competition between ROF and SOW:BOB. Most of RoF purchaser will, lile myself, buy SoW:BOB as soon it will be released.

Good Job Zapatista, trying to build a useless "sim fight" on lies and mean false rumors!!!!

[virre89]

He's been doing these anti RoF threads and posts before it's nothing new. I mean comon seriously what the hell do you want? a fight were everyone just hates RoF just because you don't like it?, truth to be told i think you hate it because you know it's good and you're such a fanboy of Olegs work which you haven't even seen in MOTION YET. (2006 videos in all glory but they ain't anything spectacular today 3 years later)

Seriously i see nothing but RoF bashing in the initial post. RoF will sell and it does sell , who the **** gives a crap about your opinion man it's not like somebody ain't gonna buy it because of your posts. I must admit it's rather funny seeing that you seem to have made it your task of life to inform everyone how bad RoF is without even testing it yourself. The developers of RoF ain't out to fool around with anyone and people who accept their business model will buy it just as people play WoW or anything else. (WoW is played by over 12 million still it's probably hated by twice as much)

Sick of the 2 plane whine argument, it never gets old does it? How cheap are you?. Did you ever play the initial IL2 at all... the game wasn't what it is today it was loaded with bugs and you didn't have 100s of aircrafts. Another famous game was loaded with bugs it was called OFP 1 and Armed Assault both indeed very popular and solid games after a few patches, sold very well. RoF isn't even that buggy it has it's issues but it's defiantly a solid and playable release.

I have no problem with 2 fly ables , I've no problem with buying small updates at a small price, seriously not everyone thinks like you, accept it. Anyway it's a myth that you'll have to pay for landscape and such. In RoF the engine updates will be free and content such as extra planes will cost a few bucks.

Chevas said it very nice with the comparison more or less oleg is doing the same but with larger updates at a larger price.

[proton45]

The problem is ............ we have been spoilt by Oleg & 1c in the past with free updates, aircraft, maps and ground objects.

The Author of IL2 has surpassed any other genre of flight sim support wise and I hope it continues.

As for Rise of Flight........... I loose interest half way through saying its title.


You are right...and by the looks of things (even with our infrequent up-dates have been) Oleg is planning on giving us value for our dollar in the future. We know he has been working on 3rd party development tools...this in itself suggests a vibrant modding community. The ROF people will have to work pretty hard to equal the work (& options) Oleg has been talking about.

[Buster_Dee]

Well, I've already pre-ordered--more as a curiosity. There is not a chance that I would ignore Oleg's work as a result. I just think WW1 is somewhat neglected, and I just wanted to support it this go-around. But, to be honest, I hadn't given much thought to the bait-and-switch game RoF is playing on us. I don't want to be ANYONE's perpetual income unless they want to earn every cent, every time. Looks like I bought "potential" this time. I just might cancel the pre-order.

[zapatista]

Lets face it 39 bucks is nothing and paying a few bucks more for each aircraft or two combined other improvements to the sim is also very very cheap. I know Oleg doesn't see this as a route he wants to follow, but basicly hes doing the same thing. Hes just providing more content, for more money, at longer intervals. While ROF is providing less content, for less money, at shorter intervals.)

i dont think it would be bad if that concept was true, but it isnt the case here. you could for ex sell RoF initialy at 20$ as it is now in its unfinished late beta stage, then ask 5$ for each extra plane that might be released at one per month, and ask 10$ for the combined winter, autum, spring version of the current maps, and add a few more interesting new map sceneries at the same time for (right now it is a monotonous flat single map landscape that looks the same from one end to the other and you are stuck with permanent daytime summer weather, err they didnt even model night or dawn or dusk)

the problem however is that they ask full price for the hollow shell it is now, and you will pay more like 25$ for each next plane you have to buy (the 2 included planes right now are not competitively matched for online competition)

have a look at these prices from the RoF officially recommended sales point in north america (http://www.fspilotshop.com/index.php?cPath=2_21&osCsid=1e32b8ec2aae2e748fa5cd2c1a262cc3)

Aerostudios - ATC Simulator "Pro Edition" $60.00

Aerostudios - ATC Simulator "Standard Edition" $40.00

Condor: The Competition Soaring Sim $49.95

DCS: Black Shark $49.95

Falcon 4: Allied Force $29.95

Flight Simulator X (FSX) Gold Edition $39.95

Flyboys Squadron $29.99

PRE-Flight Standard Edition $24.95

PRE-Flight Super Helicopter Edition $39.95

Rise of Flight: The First Great Air War $44.95

Warbirds 2008 $19.95

Wilco - Tower Simulator $40.00

Wilco - Tower Simulator Download $34.95

X-Plane 9 (PC) $49.95


as you can see it is full price, same bracket as all the other real sims that are a finished product and completed game (fs-X, black shark, x-plane, etc....)

now the point i made in the OP, is that if you put some of these normal sims on the shelf at walmart next to RoF, and you have only a limited number of people shopping there for flightsims, the people who unknowingly buy RoF without being aware of all its limitations and lacking features could reduce the customer base for other genuine complete product flightsims (since the uninformed customer on the surface cant differentiate between what features and elements a real comprehensive flightsim product has normally, and the boxes will all look very similar), and if they make enough sales to make this sales tactic profitable other game creators could also shift to the same tactic, in which case we are all in serious trouble

regarding a quick follow up release now from RoF with a ww-2 sim based on the same sales model, a good analogy is pioneer discontinuing the manufacturing of its high end plasma tv's last year after on an annual basis being the clear winner in best quality products for large flatscreen displays, because however much better they were then the rest of the flat screen tv's of the same sizes (be it lcd or plasma from other brands), the 30% premium in price they had to ask was cutting out a large part of their sales volume, and most customers just ware not critical enough to make an informed choice, and bought on price alone. similarly, if RoF ww-2 sim is released 6 or 9 months before oleg's BoB, it WILL cut into oleg's sales imo, however bad RoF-ww2 is going to be from our more informed perspective.

[zapatista]

Can't believe the amount of false rumors and crap information I read in this thread....

poor rama, you really have trouble understanding the world, dont you

Neoqb has no intention to developp a WWII sim in the near future (in the next years).

there you are clearly wrong again, you dont know your facts. but as usually with you, dont let that stop you, just be rude and aggressive enough and pretend you know everything, that should be about enough for your level of logic

The actual map isn't small by any standard, and took more than 2.5 years to developp,
if they only have a few people working for them, then the length of time it takes has little to do with an indication of the finished product. as a single map they provide, it is a very monotonous scenery that is essentially the same all throughout the map. simple put you can just make one small section, then multiply it with little difficulty and quickly make it larger with a few minor changes. there are no mountains, no different countries with different trees and foliage, no deserts, islands, etc... or didnt you spot any of that ?


Good Job Zapatista, trying to build a useless "sim fight" on lies and mean false rumors!!!!
you poor thing, you really think people come here just to deliberately hassle you ? do you also think the whole universe spins around you maybe ? o what a troubled life you lead !

i'll try and help you out a little so you find these forums less confusing, read OP text, make sure you read what they actually wrote, and dont substitute your own confusion

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

Hi zapatista. Was wondering where you found this information out, or is it something you are taking a wild guess at?

"the problem however is that they ask full price for the hollow shell it is now, and you will pay more like 25$ for each next plane you have to buy"

Could you show me where neoqb have stated or quoted this price please? I find it hard to believe they will be charging this much for one add on aircraft, but if you can show me otherwise then please do.

Thanks.

[nearmiss]

ROF a threat? A threat to what?

Those little slow planes with the rat-a-tat-tat-tat machine guns looping around like flys in the sky. It is an Online game only as well.

No threat... That sim can't keep the interest of an 11 year old for long.

Whereas you can put an 11 year olds in front of a computer playing IL2 1946 version 4.08 and they'll play it for weeks. I've done that. The funny part is the 11 year olds found items of interest in the sim that just kept them coming back for more. Folding the wings on takeoff, flying in the different gunner positions, wingtip smoke with video replays, flying AI and just watching the whole battle unfold.

It was amusing to see all the things they could find to do with it and just love it.

[virre89]

ROF a threat? A threat to what?

Those little slow planes with the rat-a-tat-tat-tat machine guns looping around like flys in the sky. It is an Online game only as well.

No threat... That sim can't keep the interest of an 11 year old for long.

Whereas you can put an 11 year olds in front of a computer playing IL2 1946 version 4.08 and they'll play it for weeks. I've done that. The funny part is the 11 year olds found items of interest in the sim that just kept them coming back for more. Folding the wings on takeoff, flying in the different gunner positions, wingtip smoke with video replays, flying AI and just watching the whole battle unfold.

It was amusing to see all the things they could find to do with it and just love it.

A true fanboy speaking , is this some kinda cult or something.. I mean you do make it sound like IL2 is your religion jeez? Ah yeh forgot i am at the 1c forums where all the locked up fanboys live. Wanna join me in the sun some or is it too bright. Seriously go outside and enjoy life ?

No?
ok let's bash RoF some more then seeing as you're still waiting and waiting and have nothing better to do but bash products that doesn't suit your 1980s offline module or the so called perfectionism of BoB .. "the game we haven't even seen in motion yet, and updates every 6th months"

Still dont wanna go outside?
no?

Ok let's worship Il2 some more and make up the most idiotic stories ever heard.

How about that 11 year kids story? I think I've never heard a more desperate approach in trying to make something look stupid, i think theres enough examples in IL2 alone where people leave b4 they even get up in the air, not because its a bad product but because they ain't flight simmers or they just hate ww2.. or simply they didn't like the game. (Oh yeh everyone loves it? In your world maybe.. take a look outside the 1c/ubi boards sometime for the love of god, you'd be making both you and me a favor)

On a seriously level, i don't really understand why people here are so desperate to look down on RoF and keep promoting IL2 and BoB, it's not like ROF is trying to compete with either of them. Just accept the fact that another flight simulator is establishing itself at this very small market and be grateful for the people it brings into the genre.

Anyway here is why i bought em both , similar reasons..

My reasons for buying IL2 Series Was:
- Graphics
- Physics
- WW2
- Multiplayer

My Reasons for buying RoF series Is:
- Graphics
- Physics
- Aerodynamics
- WW1
- Multiplayer

No game is perfect.

[Bobb4]

Anyway here is why i bought em both , similar reasons..

My reasons for buying IL2 Series Was:
- Graphics
- Physics
- WW2
- Multiplayer

My Reasons for buying RoF series Is:
- Graphics
- Physics
- Aerodynamics
- WW1
- Multiplayer
I like the tone of your article, its got just the right tone in sarcasim...
But back on topic here, I have nothing against ROF. Neither their flight model or financial model. I do however have an issue with what they are offering for the price. If they are going to sell add-in's then the base product should be a lot cheaper for what you get. If you read their early blogs they promised a lot including a movie builder, persistant universe. As far as I have seen the game has shipped without a lot of these key components. I also fly for an online squadron and looked forward to ROF, but co-op, massive online maps just are not there.
I have seen screenshots of weather effects so I am assuming posters that say you only get bright sunny days are wrong, but then with so much else missing from what was promised one has to ask will we have to pay for the weather too?
Just pulling your leg on that one, frankly I will judge the rest when I fly it which I hope is in the next week or two.

[Rama]

poor rama, you really have trouble understanding the world, dont you

Much less than YOU have...

there you are clearly wrong again, you dont know your facts. but as usually with you, dont let that stop you, just be rude and aggressive enough and pretend you know everything, that should be about enough for your level of logic

I don't know everything, but since I worked with Gennadish, then neoqb as benevolent helper since almost the start of the devlopment of this sim, I know a little bit more than you do about it.

as a single map they provide, it is a very monotonous scenery that is essentially the same all throughout the map. simple put you can just make one small section, then multiply it with little difficulty and quickly make it larger with a few minor changes

You don't know what you're talking about.... the map is large, have you flown above it from one end to the other???
No... you're just assuming (wrongly) and presenting it lile the "truth", it's a typical volontary twist of the reality, and the clear show of mean intentions.

The map use an accurate elevation model over the whole area, and was developped using topomaps from 1900 (that I provided to the dev), who spent a lot of time digitizing the road network, the railways network, etc... with accurate positions.
That's the way neoqb works for every part of the sim... there's absolutly no way they will quickly and cheaply do a WWII sim or whatever fantasm coming directly from your twisted imagination.
You're only spreading false rumors with bad intentions... you're a lier and a Troll.
... and everybody will know it when they will be able to try the demo.

you poor thing, you really think people come here just to deliberately hassle you ? do you also think the whole universe spins around you maybe ? o what a troubled life you lead !

As usual, you're talking about yourself... ;)

[Eries]

IMHO ....Wasn't Zapatista one of the alias's used by the infamous Sgt Slaughter? I think I recall that name from the list that was posted over at Hyperlobby....

[SlipBall]

I think some of you are going over board on this...we don't need another zoo here

[nearmiss]

A true fanboy speaking , is this some kinda cult or something.. I mean you do make it sound like IL2 is your religion jeez? Ah yeh forgot i am at the 1c forums where all the locked up fanboys live. Wanna join me in the sun some or is it too bright. Seriously go outside and enjoy life ?

No?
ok let's bash RoF some more then seeing as you're still waiting and waiting and have nothing better to do but bash products that doesn't suit your 1980s offline module or the so called perfectionism of BoB .. "the game we haven't even seen in motion yet, and updates every 6th months"

Still dont wanna go outside?
no?

Ok let's worship Il2 some more and make up the most idiotic stories ever heard.

How about that 11 year kids story? I think I've never heard a more desperate approach in trying to make something look stupid, i think theres enough examples in IL2 alone where people leave b4 they even get up in the air, not because its a bad product but because they ain't flight simmers or they just hate ww2.. or simply they didn't like the game. (Oh yeh everyone loves it? In your world maybe.. take a look outside the 1c/ubi boards sometime for the love of god, you'd be making both you and me a favor)

On a seriously level, i don't really understand why people here are so desperate to look down on RoF and keep promoting IL2 and BoB, it's not like ROF is trying to compete with either of them. Just accept the fact that another flight simulator is establishing itself at this very small market and be grateful for the people it brings into the genre.

Anyway here is why i bought em both , similar reasons..

My reasons for buying IL2 Series Was:
- Graphics
- Physics
- WW2
- Multiplayer

My Reasons for buying RoF series Is:
- Graphics
- Physics
- Aerodynamics
- WW1
- Multiplayer

No game is perfect.

This is the IL2 forums, what do you expect?

SimHQ has a bunch different flight sims in their forums. You can share your joy of ROF there with like minded people. If you go to the iL2 boards there you'll probably get some more of the noise you don't want to hear.

[ElAurens]

I don't know anyone who has paid $45 for RoF.

I know I didn't, and I got free shipping as well.

Some of you guys need to get a life.

Really.

[proton45]

I think some of you are going over board on this...we don't need another zoo here

Ha-Ha-Ha... too late. These days I find the "zoo" to be a bit more interesting. ;)



By the way, a more effective price-point for add-on aeroplanes would be $4.99, not $5.

[Chivas]

zapatista

ROF will be the next benchmark combat flight sim and at 39 bucks plus a few dollars for updates, its a steal. I'm sure I payed atleast 70 dollars Canadian for the first addition of IL-2 and it totalled alot more when you added all the later additions of the series. What we pay for Combat flight sims software is like stealing in my opinion.

SOW will be the new benchmark combat flight sim when its released in a year or two. ROF will go thru many years of updates before they can even think about building a WW2 sim on the ROF engine.

I'm sure the SOW developers are having considerable headaches putting
all the detailed terrain, hundreds of aircraft, advanced Weather Systems, FM's, DM's, and AI with playable frame rates. SOW could have been released a couple of years ago if they wanted the detail that ROF provides, but they are working on something they hope to be more advanced and cinematic.

ROF will do well to stick with WW1 combat flight sims for awhile until they refine their new ROF engine. They certainly seem to have the drive and talent to be a player in the combat flight sim genre for years to come. I know I'm looking forward to buying their products.

[Blackdog_kt]

I like the tone of your article, its got just the right tone in sarcasim...
But back on topic here, I have nothing against ROF. Neither their flight model or financial model. I do however have an issue with what they are offering for the price. If they are going to sell add-in's then the base product should be a lot cheaper for what you get. If you read their early blogs they promised a lot including a movie builder, persistant universe. As far as I have seen the game has shipped without a lot of these key components. I also fly for an online squadron and looked forward to ROF, but co-op, massive online maps just are not there.
I have seen screenshots of weather effects so I am assuming posters that say you only get bright sunny days are wrong, but then with so much else missing from what was promised one has to ask will we have to pay for the weather too?
Just pulling your leg on that one, frankly I will judge the rest when I fly it which I hope is in the next week or two.

My thoughts exactly. At least for my personal taste, there's too many restrictions and an awful lot of things lacking to justify a full-game price. I'll get the demo when its released and see if the experience is good enough to warrant a purchase at its current half-finished state, otherwise i'll just wait for a few months until prices drop.

The original IL2 was limited and had its issues, just like RoF or any other new title for that matter. However, let's make an important distinction here that most people seem to miss or conveniently "forget". IL2 had most of what you needed to recreate the theater of war in question. RoF doesn't really have it.

Maybe we didn't have a flyable Stuka in the original IL2, but we still had an AI Stuka. RoF however doesn't have an AI Pfalz or AI Sopwith Pup/Camel and Se5a. It's not so much that it lacks flyables, it lacks AI aircraft too, important ones that had a big impact during the targeted timeframe.

It's a matter of branding and delivering what the title says. There are flight sims and there are combat flight sims. When i get a combat flight sim that has a "1917" subtitle, i expect to see the 1917 air war, not two flyable planes and half a dozen AI ones that make up a small percentage of the total. If you can't recreate the theater in question in an adequate manner, it's not a combat flight sim anymore, but a flight sim of an airshow with a handful of WWI planes.

No amount of FM/DM perfection or eye candy can change that, so until they add at least some more AI aircraft i will say it's incomplete. Of course, that's my personal opinion and others are free to judge differently and buy it. It's ok with me really as both sides will be happy in the end. They will get more hours of flying RoF and i will get a finished product thanks to them financing and beta testing it through its baby steps. ;)

[Oleg Maddox]

there is many things wrong with RoF (mostly because they are starting to sell it before many of the problems with it are resolved, and it has a very cumbersome and inconvenient online-only play mode), but i just noticed a few comments in the last weeks from its staff that they are planning to release a ww-2 sim next, and that they will do this "soon" (not in a few years, could be as soon as a few months)

right now they sell a game with 2 flyable aircraft only as a ww-1 flightsim, and they have completed the work on their scenery and grafix engine. to now create two ww-2 flyable planes and slightly change their scenery to suit the battle of brittain era would take them very little effort imo.

they also provided some degree of openness in their game environment where they want to get their customers involved in creating game objects and addon planes and scenery

oleg, you might want to consider releasing BoB sooner then later imo. RoF looks very good (probably not as good as BoB will be, but close ?), and if to many flightsimmers get distracted by it this could well take some of your customers away

your loyal supporters know you are working on a grand masterpiece that will set new standards in flightsim performance and features, but there is only a limited number of aviation fans out there as a customer base. the sooner you can releases your sim, the more wind you will be able to take out of their sails :)

When you'll buy RoF - you'll see many nice things in comparson to Il-2. This will be the first impression.
However in many items it is still far away even from Il-2.
Really I don't afraid if they will do WWII era aircraft. They need couple of years hard work if not more just to catch or reach our level in BoB at all in all items. Alos they have some limits for modeling of WWII eara aircraft in their engine and they soon will understand it themselves..

Read my interview on SimHq about our goal and my and Ilya opinion about situation on the Flight Sim market.

Also... I never promise or advertize things, that didn't went in final production... in comparison to some other developers.

[Oleg Maddox]

The problem is ............ we have been spoilt by Oleg & 1c in the past with free updates, aircraft, maps and ground objects.

The Author of IL2 has surpassed any other genre of flight sim support wise and I hope it continues.


We will go by other business model with SoW. I would be too hard with more complex in development and time consuming to go with so many free updates with aircraft and other objects. However we will keep some part as free updates with new content and of course fixes if neccessary. But general line - partially open architecture of the sim that to get all these third party developers to work officially, but not modding with stolen(hacked) source code.

Probably we also will sell some additions. But general line of all Sow series - second sim we may play stand alone or install in the first one. Then the third sim play alone, or install in the merged already first + second sim in a series, etc...
By this way we will build again the flight sim of all times... :) Like a collection of WWII and some other near than time eras (from us. From third party commersial of free addons we may see WWI or 2025 year aircraft or even complete sims. From third party in time we may see controlable u-boats and ships, tanks or sport cars on a track...)

At least I hope and no one hard point never stop me before I release my thoughts in software (almost would say in metal...)

[zapatista]

When you'll buy RoF - you'll see many nice things in comparson to Il-2. This will be the first impression.
However in many items it is still far away even from Il-2.
Really I don't afraid if they will do WWII era aircraft. They need couple of years hard work if not more just to catch or reach our level in BoB at all in all items. Alos they have some limits for modeling of WWII eara aircraft in their engine and they soon will understand it themselves..

Read my interview on SimHq about our goal and my and Ilya opinion about situation on the Flight Sim market.

Also... I never promise or advertize things, that didn't went in final production... in comparison to some other developers.

thanks for taking a moment to reply to my observation that RoF is intending to release a ww-2 sim next.

i saw a statement on this from one of the RoF creators in another flightsim forum, and i didnt know if you we aware of it. it is always good to know if there are competing products in the making.

[Aviar]

It sure doesn't sound like Oleg is too worried, judging by the quotes in that interview. He says the RoF developers "...need couple of years hard work if not more just to catch or reach our level in BoB at all in all items."

Then he says that the RoF gaming engine "...have some limits for modeling of WWII eara aircraft...".

I don't think Oleg has lost one second of sleep over it.

Aviar

[wannabetheace]

I don't think Oleg has lost one second of sleep over it.

Aviar

Well, that's very close to the truth lol!

[tagTaken2]

*waves flag with black shark on it*

There's a couple of great sims out at the moment, I think we're very fortunate. 1C would appear to be the benchmark now, but I don't think we can dismiss others as filler.

And as has been said earlier, flight sims just get harder and more expensive to produce as time goes by, and sell to fewer people. I wish we wouldn't whine so hard, when the alternative is considered.

[SlipBall]

(quote)Oleg Maddox
From third party in time we may see controlable u-boats and ships, tanks


Oleg do you think it possible someday for a total land, sea, and air on-line simulated war useing SOW engine. With the introduction of drivables, be it land and sea it seems possible to me:-P

[Oleg Maddox]

*waves flag with black shark on it*

flight sims just get harder and more expensive to produce as time goes by, and sell to fewer people. I wish we wouldn't whine so hard, when the alternative is considered.

Right said :)

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

Well, good to hear from the Gaffer again. I think most know that 1C are top dog in this field, and I have no doubt they will prove it again with SOW. Now get back to work lads, and stop dilly dallying!! Hehehe :grin:

Looking forward to updates again hopefully in Sept, keep up the good work ;)

[Oleg Maddox]

(quote)Oleg Maddox
From third party in time we may see controlable u-boats and ships, tanks


Oleg do you think it possible someday for a total land, sea, and air on-line simulated war useing SOW engine. With the introduction of drivables, be it land and sea it seems possible to me:-P

It will depends of how much we will be able to insert in the initial release and its success on the market.
If it will go with success then we will be free to add more and more features to help third party to release their dreams.

With the release it will be ready for third party modeling of aircraft, ground objects (both static and AI), online maps, controlable by player guns. But our external special tools for inserting of these objects will be ready a bit later than the release of the sim itself. It will be separate tools for free downloading and use.

I think it is possible to get flight sim as a flight sim, where we have aircraft as main heroes with simplified model of control for tanks, cars, torpedo boats of drednauts. I don't think we are going for modeling of all the personel positions of drednauts...:)
Simplified controls of these ground objects need to be present due to standards of other games that to invite in our niche more non-fligth simmers.

I think the next code that we will release with the tools should be drive-able tanks, cars(with ability to dive and shoot from MG of this military car) and torpedo boats.

Am I right?

PS. Also... there is real complex tasks that to make all this alive and with superb playablity... We will need also to give user of tank(ship) to command other AI tanks (ships) :) and these commands are not the same type as we a doing for the aircraft AI :)

[KG26_Alpha]

Am I right?

Yes. be sure ;)

[zxwings]

Oleg, it's great to see you replying to posts here :)

Since you seem to be online right now, I'd like to use this opportunity to suggest a new feature in BOB. Please have a look at the image below.

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/9428/convcg8.jpg
(Image hosted by ImageShack.us)

What I'm suggesting here is a guns test map where we can do the thing shown in that picture.

The most important thing we do in such a map is to test where the bullets will hit on the "blackboard" which is at a chosen distance from the fighter: the "blackboard" can be placed at different distances from the stationary fighter, and we can certainly set different convergences for the cannons for testing.

Of course, when we have set the convergence for an aircraft's cannons, we know exactly the point where the cannon shells will meet, theoretically, and their paths in the horizontal plane. But we the sim pilots do NOT know the shells' trajectories in the VERTICAL PLANE.

[But we may not do exactly the same thing as did they in the photo. They were possibly also adjusting manually the elevation values of the gun barrels to make them match the convergence (bullets reach the pilot's sighting line at the convergence point). We perhaps do not need to do the same thing with elevation values because every gun's elevation value and its convergence are automatically matched in game (as in IL-2) when you set the gun's convergence.]

So if such a map exists, then the sim pilots will know much more about the bullets' behaviour in the vertical, by placing that "blackboard" at different distances from the stationary fighter. Such knowledge is very much valuable to one's gunnery.


`
PS: Sorry this post is not related to the topic:).

[Oleg Maddox]

It sure doesn't sound like Oleg is too worried, judging by the quotes in that interview. He says the RoF developers "...need couple of years hard work if not more just to catch or reach our level in BoB at all in all items."

Then he says that the RoF gaming engine "...have some limits for modeling of WWII eara aircraft...".

I don't think Oleg has lost one second of sleep over it.

Aviar

About RoF engine - all is my thoughts after playing it around 4 hours that to look all things that they did there from professional point of view. I may be wrong in some details of my opinion, but in general I think I'm right.
I may say what I like there and it would be not in comparion to Il-2 or BoB... just what I like.
I like FM - for the first time in non jet sim I see good things. But it is good untill we get damage of aircraft. Looks nice, but in some cases - non realistic. Probably they will correct it in time. We also had in Il-2 some bugs in that area in the beginning untill we did all stable and working as it should with all cross functions tuned. However we had way more in amount that to tune...
I like details of aircraft (but the lighting effects is overdone on some surfaces).
I like Hangar in menu
I like the check by internet keys. However I will not go by the same way. Should be found more optimal.
I like the simulation of physics

Probably that is all.

What I dislike - I will never tell :) Users will find it themselves in time. Of will not find... and will be happy for one more other sim on the market.

Rumors that they developing WWII era aircraft - in my opion it is their mistake. For this they will need:
- to make also all enviroument of WWII era from arifield equipment to tanks, cars, etc...
- AI Radio chatter, engine for Radio chatter and its recording in sound, ability of player to interact with AI (great task really)
- to make at least night working in 3D engine and to make AI changes in that item....

Just of these main things listed above they will need really great development time, even if it was started a year or so earlier before release of RoF... If there will be just several playble aircraft - you can't name it combat sim... Interests will be little. Say like for some of add-ons for MS FS.
And I listed just some part of what they will need for WWII era success title...

In my opinion they should at first:
- fix bugs
- give more features of WWI era... It would be more easy for them really and will help to sell way more than it will be really....
- expand theater from beginnind of WWI to Russian October Revolution and the civil war in Russia (there were say English pilots on the north of Russia, White army pilots, Red army plots.... At least it would be very interesting for Russin customers... This is almost unknown for wide range of public in the west and east...)
- to make way better single and of course - online gameplay.

For WWI isn't so neccessary to make full copy of original cockpit for each aircraft (also they are way more simply in modeling and programming), because for many cockpits there are simply no one useful reference... in comparison to WWII and up - the consuming time for development of each aircraft is way greater... (and with our level of precise in SoW.... would be too hard for them to make more precise if only possible :))

[Oleg Maddox]

Oleg, it's great to see you replying to posts here :)

Since you seem to be online right now, I'd like to use this opportunity to suggest a new feature in BOB. Please have a look at the image below.

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/9428/convcg8.jpg
(Image hosted by ImageShack.us)

What I'm suggesting here is a guns test map where we can do the thing shown in that picture.

The most important thing we do in such a map is to test where the bullets will hit on the "blackboard" which is at a chosen distance from the fighter: the "blackboard" can be placed at different distances from the stationary fighter, and we can certainly set different convergences for the cannons for testing.

Of course, when we have set the convergence for an aircraft's cannons, we know exactly the point where the cannon shells will meet, theoretically, and their paths in the horizontal plane. But we the sim pilots do NOT know the shells' trajectories in the VERTICAL PLANE.

[But we may not do exactly the same thing as did they in the photo. They were possibly also adjusting manually the elevation values of the gun barrels to make them match the convergence (bullets reach the pilot's sighting line at the convergence point). We perhaps do not need to do the same thing with elevation values because every gun's elevation value and its convergence are automatically matched in game (as in IL-2) when you set the gun's convergence.]

So if such a map exists, then the sim pilots will know much more about the bullets' behaviour in the vertical, by placing that "blackboard" at different distances from the stationary fighter. Such knowledge is very much valuable to one's gunnery.


`

We did such devices(test targets) already.
However I'm not sure that we will use it for direct purpose. Becasue of time limitation. Also it isn't very useful for many types of aircraft that to make it looking realistic... and it will be not so useful for the beginners...
So probably we will have it as static objects on some airfields.

[proton45]

About RoF engine - all is my thoughts after playing it around 4 hours that to look all things that they did there from professional point of view. I may be wrong in some details of my opinion, but in general I think I'm right.
I may say what I like there and it would be not in comparion to Il-2 or BoB... just what I like.
I like FM - for the first time in non jet sim I see good things. But it is good untill we get damage of aircraft. Looks nice, but in some cases - non realistic. Probably they will correct it in time. We also had in Il-2 some bugs in that area in the beginning untill we did all stable and working as it should with all cross functions tuned. However we had way more in amount that to tune...
I like details of aircraft (but the lighting effects is overdone on some surfaces).
I like Hangar in menu
I like the check by internet keys. However I will not go by the same way. Should be found more optimal.
I like the simulation of physics

Probably that is all.

What I dislike - I will never tell :) Users will find it themselves in time. Of will not find... and will be happy for one more other sim on the market.

Its like listening to an artist talk about someone else work...Oleg only comments on the good things. ;)

[zxwings]

We did such devices(test targets) already.
However I'm not sure that we will use it for direct purpose. Becasue of time limitation. Also it isn't very useful for many types of aircraft that to make it looking realistic... and it will be not so useful for the beginners...
So probably we will have it as static objects on some airfields.
Thank you for your reply:grin:! Very glad to hear that your team have made somthing similar.:-) At least it can be hoped that the test map will be seen in one of BOB's expansion packs.

it will be not so useful for the beginners...
I agree, haha. But I'm not sure what you mean by the following sentence. Could you add a few more words to it?

Also it isn't very useful for many types of aircraft that to make it looking realistic

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

@Proton.... I think its called common decency :) Cheers for sharing your thoughts on this Oleg, I mentioned my concerns about damage modelling earlier in this thread and asked for other opinions but nobody replied, glad to hear that at least someone agrees! But like you say, its not something that cannot be fixed.

[Thunderbolt56]

All RoF comments aside (though they ARE appreciated), it's nice to see you take a few moments to post your thoughts here Oleg.

It's exciting to read the level of detail and complexity being built into SoW including a possible basic ground-handling model for other vehicles. Obviously, my greatest desire is to have great flight models, detailed damage models, a powerful mission builder and an easy multiplayer capability. Those are the things most important to me.

The complete environment is usually underrated by many (myself included) and having the added detail in the ground objects really is important to create an overall "feel" and add immersion.

Again, thanks for taking the time to post some of your thoughts.


TB

[Oleg Maddox]

I agree, haha. But I'm not sure what you mean by the following sentence. Could you add a few more words to it?

This means that for each aircraft we need to make special holders, visual and program.
Big work really. And then bug problems for third party.... and later with each addition of new aircraft type or model we need to make separate code and new holder in 3D for just this purpose. Way too expencive just ofr the nice feature.

[Oleg Maddox]

All RoF comments aside (though they ARE appreciated), it's nice to see you take a few moments to post your thoughts here Oleg.

It's exciting to read the level of detail and complexity being built into SoW including a possible basic ground-handling model for other vehicles. Obviously, my greatest desire is to have great flight models, detailed damage models, a powerful mission builder and an easy multiplayer capability. Those are the things most important to me.

The complete environment is usually underrated by many (myself included) and having the added detail in the ground objects really is important to create an overall "feel" and add immersion.

Again, thanks for taking the time to post some of your thoughts.


TB


Ground modeling is importnat for all modes of gameplay in flight sim. From single to online. Ground targets define the ouput of online wars, etc... Its targets for bombers.
In one of modes of BoB online ground objects will define all the ways of gamplay.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Ground modeling is importnat for all modes of gameplay in flight sim. From single to online. Ground targets define the ouput of online wars, etc... Its targets for bombers.
In one of modes of BoB online ground objects will define all the ways of gamplay.

So I guess (campaign wise) for a RAF pilot, a high kill rate Vs fighters will mean nothing if the bombers get through to their target. Or the same for a Axis fighter pilot if the bombers fail to damage their objectives.

Will campaign success be based on what percentage of a target is protected or destroyed?

Cheers! Oh and thank you for the countlesss hours of enjoyment and frustration I have experienced in IL-2. I am looking forward for even more in BoB!

[Feuerfalke]

Its like listening to an artist talk about someone else work...Oleg only comments on the good things. ;)

I truly wish more people would follow his example. Seems in these times it's mostly the other way around...

@Oleg:
After all the infantry-based games that want to be vehicle- and flight-simulations (like ArmA or BF2) and fail utterly, it's a great idea to have a flightsim giving players the chance to use ground-vehicles.

Another revolutionary idea, though it was truly overdue!

[SlipBall]

(quote)Oleg Maddox
Am I right?


Have you ever been wrong?:grin:...not offen I think

[zapatista]

I think it is possible to get flight sim as a flight sim, where we have aircraft as main heroes with simplified model of control for tanks, cars, torpedo boats of drednauts. I don't think we are going for modeling of all the personel positions of drednauts...:)
Simplified controls of these ground objects need to be present due to standards of other games that to invite in our niche more non-fligth simmers.

I think the next code that we will release with the tools should be drive-able tanks, cars(with ability to dive and shoot from MG of this military car) and torpedo boats.

Am I right?

PS. Also... there is real complex tasks that to make all this alive and with superb playablity... We will need also to give user of tank(ship) to command other AI tanks (ships) :) and these commands are not the same type as we a doing for the aircraft AI :)

Oleg,

it is exciting to see many of those aspects are coming true, many of us have dreamed of some sorts of integration of a flightsim with ships, submarines, and ground vehicles like tanks :)

will we be able to walk/run with our player pilot ? for ex from aircraft to AA gun, from briefing hut to aircraft, and from crashed aircraft to nearby vehicle for example ? if not immediately available, is that type of "real world" interaction going to be possible for the BoB players at some point ?

thanks again for your recent answers, its great to get some further detail :)

[J9 Austin]

:)
Thanks for the reply Oleg. Whatever ROF turns out to be we're all still hoping BoB gets here soon.
Best of luck and good hunting
AP:-)

[Tvrdi]

We also had in Il-2 some bugs in that area in the beginning untill we did all stable and working as it should with all cross functions tuned.


so, you need to compare il2 demo with this (in fact) beta stage of ROF....not IL2 1946....

[proton45]

I truly wish more people would follow his example. Seems in these times it's mostly the other way around...

@Oleg:
After all the infantry-based games that want to be vehicle- and flight-simulations (like ArmA or BF2) and fail utterly, it's a great idea to have a flightsim giving players the chance to use ground-vehicles.

Another revolutionary idea, though it was truly overdue!

Ya, I agree with ya...

Its pretty hard to escape the reality of the internet. The idea of the internet was to put information in the hands of the "people", and for the most part the "free" exchange of information is the most successful aspect of the internet in the 21st century. But along with information the individual now has the opportunity to express oneself to a world audience. Its just sad that so many people either mistake rudeness for self expression (empowered by the anonymity of the internet) or lack the imagination to explore the world of language and how it can help define who we are. The internet is still pretty young and mabey at some point a more mature attitude will develop...(rant over...)

[Feuerfalke]

Ya, I agree with ya...

Its pretty hard to escape the reality of the internet. The idea of the internet was to put information in the hands of the "people", and for the most part the "free" exchange of information is the most successful aspect of the internet in the 21st century. But along with information the individual now has the opportunity to express oneself to a world audience. Its just sad that so many people either mistake rudeness for self expression (empowered by the anonymity of the internet) or lack the imagination to explore the world of language and how it can help define who we are. The internet is still pretty young and mabey at some point a more mature attitude will develop...(rant over...)

Agreed 100%.

Though I doubt it will improve much. Humans always showed the most ugly sides of their personality, hiding behind the anonymity of a mask, a vail or a uniform. Same for primates, btw.
So I guess it comes down to the individuals personality to be pleased with a half-filled glas or shout and scream because it's half-empty. The later are not the majority though, just the ones that shout the loudest and the most often... ;)

[virre89]

I truly wish more people would follow his example. Seems in these times it's mostly the other way around...

@Oleg:
After all the infantry-based games that want to be vehicle- and flight-simulations (like ArmA or BF2) and fail utterly, it's a great idea to have a flightsim giving players the chance to use ground-vehicles.

Another revolutionary idea, though it was truly overdue!

Well, first of all BF2 doesn't try to be a simulator at all and it defiantly didn't fail both 1942 and bf2 was a huge success and is still one of the top competetive / public pc games played out there with Battlefield 3 being in the works as well.

Arma 2 approaches a combat simulator and it succeeds i mean it has loads of bugs but there is no game that comes close in it's overall realism , sure it doesn't have the indepth FM or flightsim feel but it does it way over the arcade level for all it's vehicles and weapons.

To be honest i don't think a mega sim of which some of you guys seem to beleive in here is possible, having a tank , ship , infantry and flight sim in one and a map as larage as the one in RoF or BoB would just be impossible unless you render everything very low detailed , and exclude physics etc.

You've to remember that these games that contains different formats such as flying vs Infantry has limited maps usually smalls ones.. Arma 1,2 has a very big one for being this type of game. The ground graphics archived in Arma 2 I'd kiss Oleg if that ground graphic would be there in SoW but it won't.

Tell me how in the world it would first of all even be fun with a map as large as say whole England or more and to be able to drive tanks, seriously you'd have to drive, walk etc forever and you could get so lost that it's freaking insane i mean even a simulator has limits, besides how about wild life, civilians etc... this is just not possible on that scale not by far at this time.

I say stick to your market which is flight sims and make it as awesome as possible and model key ground objects such as AA etc which you're already doing, leave infantry , tanks and other ground based stuff for simulators like Silent Heroes , Red Orchestra etc.

Oleg is a person not a god btw chill on the fanboism it's freaking scary sometimes..almost like the John Carmack fans at ID Software ffs.

[zxwings]

This means that for each aircraft we need to make special holders, visual and program.
Big work really. And then bug problems for third party.... and later with each addition of new aircraft type or model we need to make separate code and new holder in 3D for just this purpose. Way too expencive just ofr the nice feature.
Ah, I see. Indeed that's complicated. Thanks again for the reply :).

[Bearcat]

This is the IL2 forums, what do you expect?
SimHQ has a bunch different flight sims in their forums. You can share your joy of ROF there with like minded people. If you go to the iL2 boards there you'll probably get some more of the noise you don't want to hear.


Duuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh


zapatista
ROF will be the next benchmark combat flight sim and at 39 bucks plus a few dollars for updates, its a steal. I'm sure I payed atleast 70 dollars Canadian for the first addition of IL-2 and it totalled alot more when you added all the later additions of the series. What we pay for Combat flight sims software is like stealing in my opinion.
SOW will be the new benchmark combat flight sim when its released in a year or two. ROF will go thru many years of updates before they can even think about building a WW2 sim on the ROF engine.
I'm sure the SOW developers are having considerable headaches putting
all the detailed terrain, hundreds of aircraft, advanced Weather Systems, FM's, DM's, and AI with playable frame rates. SOW could have been released a couple of years ago if they wanted the detail that ROF provides, but they are working on something they hope to be more advanced and cinematic.
ROF will do well to stick with WW1 combat flight sims for awhile until they refine their new ROF engine. They certainly seem to have the drive and talent to be a player in the combat flight sim genre for years to come. I know I'm looking forward to buying their products.

Is that all it will be? A few dollars... Or will this be like the CFS/FS model.. where you could be dropping $30+ just for one plane.... because if that is the route they are taking then I will just as soon pass on the sim entirely before I go that route.

[Chivas]

[QUOTE=virre89;80676Oleg is a person not a god btw chill on the fanboism it's freaking scary sometimes..almost like the John Carmack fans at ID Software ffs.[/QUOTE]


What's scary are people who are offended that other people express their appreciation for a decent product. The product is not perfect but its the best we have in WW2 air combat. When a person says "you are a God Oleg" doesn't mean he thinks he's is a god. lol

[Chivas]

Duuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh




Is that all it will be? A few dollars... Or will this be like the CFS/FS model.. where you could be dropping $30+ just for one plane.... because if that is the route they are taking then I will just as soon pass on the sim entirely before I go that route.


I remember reading something like five euros or dollars can't remember exactly. I don't think they have finalized any price but if it's in the 10 dollar range its cheap. I doubt very much that it will be anywhere near $30+ dollars that could alienate many in the community. Although like you say a few companies are able to sell $30+ dollar aircraft to the CFS community. I've never bought one so I'm not sure of the quality, but if they are of high quality with many working avionic systems, thirty dollars is still very cheap. Again I doubt this will be the case with ROF aircraft.

[Blackdog_kt]

Very nice to have some confirmation from Mr. Maddox about the upcoming SoW features.

The way i see it, SoW will be the "Linux of simulators"...a modular engine that anyone can modify and tailor to simulate different things, from aircraft to race cars.

It's not only very clever of them to take the extra time and develop something that can be used in more popular game genres that sell more games, it's also very good for us because of all the added functionality and content we will see emerging after some time. If there's so many people modding IL2 in an unofficial and difficult way, i suspect there will be even more in SoW if they have tools that will make the job easier and cheat-proof. ;)

[Tree_UK]

Well, first of all BF2 doesn't try to be a simulator at all and it defiantly didn't fail both 1942 and bf2 was a huge success and is still one of the top competetive / public pc games played out there with Battlefield 3 being in the works as well.

Arma 2 approaches a combat simulator and it succeeds i mean it has loads of bugs but there is no game that comes close in it's overall realism , sure it doesn't have the indepth FM or flightsim feel but it does it way over the arcade level for all it's vehicles and weapons.

To be honest i don't think a mega sim of which some of you guys seem to beleive in here is possible, having a tank , ship , infantry and flight sim in one and a map as larage as the one in RoF or BoB would just be impossible unless you render everything very low detailed , and exclude physics etc.

You've to remember that these games that contains different formats such as flying vs Infantry has limited maps usually smalls ones.. Arma 1,2 has a very big one for being this type of game. The ground graphics archived in Arma 2 I'd kiss Oleg if that ground graphic would be there in SoW but it won't.

Tell me how in the world it would first of all even be fun with a map as large as say whole England or more and to be able to drive tanks, seriously you'd have to drive, walk etc forever and you could get so lost that it's freaking insane i mean even a simulator has limits, besides how about wild life, civilians etc... this is just not possible on that scale not by far at this time.

I say stick to your market which is flight sims and make it as awesome as possible and model key ground objects such as AA etc which you're already doing, leave infantry , tanks and other ground based stuff for simulators like Silent Heroes , Red Orchestra etc.

Oleg is a person not a god btw chill on the fanboism it's freaking scary sometimes..almost like the John Carmack fans at ID Software ffs.

+1 :grin:

[Abbeville-Boy]

Ya, I agree with ya...

Its pretty hard to escape the reality of the internet. The idea of the internet was to put information in the hands of the "people", and for the most part the "free" exchange of information is the most successful aspect of the internet in the 21st century. But along with information the individual now has the opportunity to express oneself to a world audience. Its just sad that so many people either mistake rudeness for self expression (empowered by the anonymity of the internet) or lack the imagination to explore the world of language and how it can help define who we are. The internet is still pretty young and mabey at some point a more mature attitude will develop...(rant over...)


true in life, so many negitive peoples. good for us that we have oleg, a very positive person to lead the way :grin:

[Abbeville-Boy]

I wonder if we will have a "squad of soldiers" in objects list to march with tanks that would look so cool from up in the air

[Bobb4]

.

Tell me how in the world it would first of all even be fun with a map as large as say whole England or more and to be able to drive tanks, seriously you'd have to drive, walk etc forever and you could get so lost that it's freaking insane i mean even a simulator has limits, besides how about wild life, civilians etc... this is just not possible on that scale not by far at this time.



Nodes, my dear chap nodes... You spawn at combat nodes where the action is while the rest is handled by the AI...

But again speaking from an SEOW background the ability to plan ground movements and combats is already in IL2.
Adding infantry and other cool stuff will advance the game for sure...
Straffing an airfield with troops scattering in every direction???? If you only fligh up high in a boom and zoom plane you will miss half the fun. But for us who like to get down and dirty in the mud, well the more objects the better.

As for the complete warfare package, air land and sea. Arma 2 has shown it is possible. While SOW is unlikely to have it the fact that Oleg has thought that far ahead is the reason why Il2 has stood the test of time.
My guess is if it is not Oleg himself that does it it will be a third party doing it with the SOW engine.

The fact that he has not totally ruled out online authentication is in my opinion a great step forward as well.

[Feuerfalke]

Well, first of all BF2 doesn't try to be a simulator at all and it defiantly didn't fail both 1942 and bf2 was a huge success and is still one of the top competetive / public pc games played out there with Battlefield 3 being in the works as well.

Arma 2 approaches a combat simulator and it succeeds i mean it has loads of bugs but there is no game that comes close in it's overall realism , sure it doesn't have the indepth FM or flightsim feel but it does it way over the arcade level for all it's vehicles and weapons.

To be honest i don't think a mega sim of which some of you guys seem to beleive in here is possible, having a tank , ship , infantry and flight sim in one and a map as larage as the one in RoF or BoB would just be impossible unless you render everything very low detailed , and exclude physics etc.

You've to remember that these games that contains different formats such as flying vs Infantry has limited maps usually smalls ones.. Arma 1,2 has a very big one for being this type of game. The ground graphics archived in Arma 2 I'd kiss Oleg if that ground graphic would be there in SoW but it won't.

Tell me how in the world it would first of all even be fun with a map as large as say whole England or more and to be able to drive tanks, seriously you'd have to drive, walk etc forever and you could get so lost that it's freaking insane i mean even a simulator has limits, besides how about wild life, civilians etc... this is just not possible on that scale not by far at this time.

I say stick to your market which is flight sims and make it as awesome as possible and model key ground objects such as AA etc which you're already doing, leave infantry , tanks and other ground based stuff for simulators like Silent Heroes , Red Orchestra etc.

Oleg is a person not a god btw chill on the fanboism it's freaking scary sometimes..almost like the John Carmack fans at ID Software ffs.

I didn't say they failed as a game, but they utterly failed as battlefield-simulations, though they're even named after that high goal! Even ArmA2 is merely an extended Ego-Shooter, that implemented aircraft and vehicles because they somewhat belong to warfare, but they are still far from being ment seriously. And while all the games noted succeeded as games, they utterly failed in simulating even the most basic physics, as this ArmA2-Video shows pretty nicely:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP-n4F_n4UU

And this is not a mere bug, it's ArmAs physics. Hell, the game doesn't even fit the aircraft with flares and chaff, but tons of Anti-Air tanks and launchers! And don't tell me, that they couldn't modell this level of detail!


And to the speed-differences: I think you have a basic misconception of modern warfare and game-design as well. While there is a frontline in war, it does not mean that there are thousands of units fighting in a single long line along that hundreds of kilometer long front. Most of the action is taking place at a limited area at a time, with spearheads and massed units attacking and defending for a strategic point. Infact, it's that exact slow motion you mentioned for games, that dictates this.

So back into the game, while the aircraft may spawn at an airbase some 10km behind the fenceline, your tank-platoon might just spawn at the depot 1km behind the action.
That not only makes it more suitable for playing, but also more realstic compared to planes in the games you named, that rearm by flying at 100ft and Mach1 over an airfield to rearm and repair and reappear fully armed 20 seconds after the last bombrun.

[Bearcat]

I remember reading something like five euros or dollars can't remember exactly. I don't think they have finalized any price but if it's in the 10 dollar range its cheap. I doubt very much that it will be anywhere near $30+ dollars that could alienate many in the community. Although like you say a few companies are able to sell $30+ dollar aircraft to the CFS community. I've never bought one so I'm not sure of the quality, but if they are of high quality with many working avionic systems, thirty dollars is still very cheap. Again I doubt this will be the case with ROF aircraft.

1914-1918 no avionics... and I dunno... for me even $10 for just one aircraft is steep.... I'll be watching this closely and waiting for SoW.

[virre89]

I didn't say they failed as a game, but they utterly failed as battlefield-simulations, though they're even named after that high goal! Even ArmA2 is merely an extended Ego-Shooter, that implemented aircraft and vehicles because they somewhat belong to warfare, but they are still far from being ment seriously. And while all the games noted succeeded as games, they utterly failed in simulating even the most basic physics, as this ArmA2-Video shows pretty nicely:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP-n4F_n4UU

And this is not a mere bug, it's ArmAs physics. Hell, the game doesn't even fit the aircraft with flares and chaff, but tons of Anti-Air tanks and launchers! And don't tell me, that they couldn't modell this level of detail!


And to the speed-differences: I think you have a basic misconception of modern warfare and game-design as well. While there is a frontline in war, it does not mean that there are thousands of units fighting in a single long line along that hundreds of kilometer long front. Most of the action is taking place at a limited area at a time, with spearheads and massed units attacking and defending for a strategic point. Infact, it's that exact slow motion you mentioned for games, that dictates this.

So back into the game, while the aircraft may spawn at an airbase some 10km behind the fenceline, your tank-platoon might just spawn at the depot 1km behind the action.
That not only makes it more suitable for playing, but also more realstic compared to planes in the games you named, that rearm by flying at 100ft and Mach1 over an airfield to rearm and repair and reappear fully armed 20 seconds after the last bombrun.

Take a look at what i wrote again plox.
Like i said Arma 2 is way over the arcade limit and more towards simulation in all of its areas especially when it comes to handling the infantry combat, however it's still far from an in depth simulator in specific areas but the game is defiantly not an Arcade shooter and it proves itself worthy very well.

The physics, FM and Aero dynamics you'll see in SoW for airplanes etc just won't be possible in an overall sim today. If Arma 2 would've had physics for infantry and a very advanced fm , aerodynamic systems etc for everything even tanks and boats and a rendered map as large as RoF for example and with the graphics of Arma 2 the system requirements and optimization issues would be insane, not to mention the bug list.

You can't honestly believe that Oleg will have you're dream game of a Sub simulator better looking, handling than Silent Heroes at the same time handle Infantry combat better than Arma 2 and keep Tank combat on such a detailed level in graphics , bullet simulation such as Red Orchestra and STILL have all the elements that is planned for Storm of War in the air.

Do you know what it is you're asking for lol? No offense but you better get that supercomputer asap..and the development time, buglist of a game @ this scale would be of the chart unless you're at least 300+ working on it... would it be worth it in the end.. doubtful. It's better to focus on one area and make it as good as possible instead since the market for even attempting something like this is to small anyway.

Sure Olegs engine has support for creating vehicles etc on the ground does that mean it will handle better than say Red Orchestra hell no were did you get that from. I am expecting the best ever created ww2-FLIGHT sim from Oleg with SoW BoB nothing more nothing less and if he can pull of a miracle in some other area at the same time then so be it , i will be happy but i bet my arm it won't happen.

-Cheers

[Thunderbolt56]

1914-1918 no avionics... and I dunno... for me even $10 for just one aircraft is steep.... I'll be watching this closely and waiting for SoW.


The way I understood it when discussed was approximately $10-$15 per pack and there would usually be at least 2 aircraft as well as other additional content per pack. That was some time ago (maybe 2 months?) and could have changed, but regardless, it wouldn't be prohibitive to those interested and already playing the game.

All of the patches, and subsequent new content included, made anticipation and excitement in the IL2 community grow to a virtual crescendo. When PE2 and Manchuria were close to release and slated to be "paid" add-ons, most people were more than happy to support them and the flight-sim community in general by proxy.

Like it or not, things are what they are and if the price is too high, bugs too frequent and quality too low, people won't buy it or perpetuate it with continued purchases of add-on content. If it IS of high quality and bugs are few, those interested will, no doubt, support it.

Look at the other end of the spectrum...Warbirds. It's pay-to-play. I don't like it and never got beyond my initial purchase. It sat on the shelf and hasn't even been on my HD in over 6 years. The quality wasn't there and the detail was spartan compared to IL2. Regardless, it still has a viable, enthusiastic (if small) following.

I don't think the RoF developers are looking at taking the sim world by storm (I could be wrong though). What I think they are trying to do is bring an era (WWI) back into the current level of detail and quality possible with the latest hardware and developement software. If they are successful at that, I'm "all-in".

That doesn't mean I'll forsake my greatest interest (WWII combat flight sims),b ut for me it doesn't have to one or the other.


My .02c

[Fearfactor]

As far as I'm concerned, ROF should stand for "Rip off fans" instead of Rise of Flight.

[Feuerfalke]

Well, virre89, I think you're missing the point:

If there is a solid physics programmed, it does not matter if it is a bullet fired by a soldier or a bullet fired from a flying plane. It also doesn't matter if there is a tank running over a field or a plane. And it also doesn't matter if there is a 30mm HE-shell exploding that was fired by a groundcannon or by an aircraft gun. The physics behind it are the same and in these examples probably not even too complicated.

Now, if that tank has its system modelled in such a detail as the plane has, is a completely different question and Oleg already answered this one and stated, that ground-units will have more simplified damage-models and controls for reasons of usability and damage-effects. Simplified, yes, but not in terms of controling a plane while flying backwards and not like in BF2 to fly tighter circles the faster you go.

But then, if you're such a fan of ArmA2, what did it model that is so important for ground-battle? AI to provide large battles? Well, AI is surely not the best part of ArmA2. So did they model the vegetation good? Yes, looks great - just that the AI can look through it and you can disable gras in the options. So did they at least implement complex hit-detection and wound-treatment, like in AmericasArmy3? Not really. Complex damage models of vehicles maybe? Rather not, to be honest. Weather effects? Yes, pretty nice looking - just doesn't effect AI.

So, if you know all this, how can you still keep saying that ArmA2 is the untouchable queen of infantry-combat simulations and no honest simulation will never ever be able to reach these features? What features? The pretty trees?
Never though I'd say that, but just look what the unspeakables accomplished in a matter of months without adequate editors and programming tools!


@RoF
Looked forward a long time for this, but with all the heat about the staggered release and the dates being pushed back ever more in combination with the other downsides rather cooled my interest down. Who knows, I might still get it, but so far it's not even clear if it will ever be released in Europe and no official word from the devs still.

[Tree_UK]

@RoF
Looked forward a long time for this, but with all the heat about the staggered release and the dates being pushed back ever more in combination with the other downsides rather cooled my interest down. Who knows, I might still get it, but so far it's not even clear if it will ever be released in Europe and no official word from the devs still.

+1

[Chivas]

1914-1918 no avionics... and I dunno... for me even $10 for just one aircraft is steep.... I'll be watching this closely and waiting for SoW.

I ment the modern FS models with complex avionics if modelled could hit a $30+ dollar price point.

[Chivas]

With the high cost of development, and time, it's easy to understand their business plan. I don't mind supporting them early on and hopefully the support will be large enough for them to build on what appears to be a very good base. What I see so far is a very talented ROF team that could use our support to establish themselves. ROF could blossum into the gold standard of WW1 flight sims. The initial thirty-nine bucks is a very cheap night out.

My only complaint would be it should have been something like six aircraft available then pay a nominal fee for each additional aircraft. That said Oleg was able to sell additional maps and content, but ROF only has one map with conscentrated WW1 activities. So their avenue of revenue is with the aircraft sales.

[proton45]

ROF = Wait & See, 4 me. tee-he

[virre89]

Well, virre89, I think you're missing the point:

If there is a solid physics programmed, it does not matter if it is a bullet fired by a soldier or a bullet fired from a flying plane. It also doesn't matter if there is a tank running over a field or a plane. And it also doesn't matter if there is a 30mm HE-shell exploding that was fired by a groundcannon or by an aircraft gun. The physics behind it are the same and in these examples probably not even too complicated.

Now, if that tank has its system modelled in such a detail as the plane has, is a completely different question and Oleg already answered this one and stated, that ground-units will have more simplified damage-models and controls for reasons of usability and damage-effects. Simplified, yes, but not in terms of controling a plane while flying backwards and not like in BF2 to fly tighter circles the faster you go.

But then, if you're such a fan of ArmA2, what did it model that is so important for ground-battle? AI to provide large battles? Well, AI is surely not the best part of ArmA2. So did they model the vegetation good? Yes, looks great - just that the AI can look through it and you can disable gras in the options. So did they at least implement complex hit-detection and wound-treatment, like in AmericasArmy3? Not really. Complex damage models of vehicles maybe? Rather not, to be honest. Weather effects? Yes, pretty nice looking - just doesn't effect AI.

So, if you know all this, how can you still keep saying that ArmA2 is the untouchable queen of infantry-combat simulations and no honest simulation will never ever be able to reach these features? What features? The pretty trees?
Never though I'd say that, but just look what the unspeakable accomplished in a matter of months without adequate editors and programming tools!


@RoF
Looked forward a long time for this, but with all the heat about the staggered release and the dates being pushed back ever more in combination with the other downsides rather cooled my interest down. Who knows, I might still get it, but so far it's not even clear if it will ever be released in Europe and no official word from the devs still.

A physics system that works out the ballistics for all types of guns and ammunition would be ideal yes but would it be possible , probably not with todays standards.

Arma 2 was just an example used i didn't say it was the untouchable queen i just said that it's the most realistic infantry simulation out there along with Red Orchestra.. give me a better example if you have one i'd be glad to try it. But speaking of preaching maybe you should lay of the imagination that BoB would beat out all these games in one single package, it ain't gonna happen even if your a huge fan of Oleg and Il2.

Still you fail to understand why the game(arma2) excludes uber fm/simulation in all areas, the game instead focuses to try and capture a semi-simulation at all angles, for example if you'd put characters physics on the soldiers in Arma 2 you'd be up for an insane CPU loss right there especially with that render distance. (always a balance between gameplay, realism and optimization)

We're not talking about COD or AA3 were you have a contained map as little as my shoe, that's also why AA3 has the ability to model some stuff more heavily seeing as it's only focused on CC infantry combat.

Sure i has it's issues i mean so does IL2 or any other game out there and to be honest Arma / OFP have always been leaned towards online play / mods.

Last but not least you mention that you can turn of grass and stuff, you say this just to try and point out bad stuff or? I mean come on for the love of god it's a matter optimization not everyone runs a monster system and any configuration you can get your hands on is great.

Just like you can play on arcade or sim servers in IL2 or turn on/off all assistance, in Arma 2 you can play on servers with locked setting and only first person view etc etc or you can play it arcade yada yada i don't see were you want to go with this except more than picking on Arma , my intention was never to preach about Arma just so you know I just used it as an example.

Can we leave the "IL2 patriotism & everything else sucks mood" at home for one single discussion?
Anyway Feurfalke RoF shipped last night if you ain't updated , i just noticed.

[Baron]

Ca 10 $/€ per "pack" sounds cheap, untill one look at what one get to start of with for 40 od bucks.

How many "packs" u neeed till u get to orginal IL2 for ex? (30 od flyables aircrafts)


A s**t load of money (for a game only) if my math isnt completly out of wack from old age.

[mondo]

The problem is ............ we have been spoilt by Oleg & 1c in the past with free updates, aircraft, maps and ground objects.


Too right. THis will never happen again, its just not financially viable. But it does buy you a shed load of loyal players including me. No developer has ever done it to the extent of Oleg and Co.

Anyone here who has an Xbox360 or has experiance of the Asian PC games market knows of the future. Micropayment DLC, free to play core + micropayment addons etc.

[msalama]

So what we're going to see with SoW is not just a CFS, but a generic simulation / game engine?

Cool 8)

Now if Mr. Maddox et. al. do take the trouble and implement a systems / equipment interface as well (i.e. make it possible for anyone to do, say, a technically accurate flight director as an object / module for the sim or whatever) then this bugger will not only lure all FSxxx modellers over, but pretty much wipe the floor with anything else out there! Save maybe for DCS...

Looking good in other words 8)

PS. Tell everyone I said hi :)

[Bearcat]

The way I understood it when discussed was approximately $10-$15 per pack and there would usually be at least 2 aircraft as well as other additional content per pack. That was some time ago (maybe 2 months?) and could have changed, but regardless, it wouldn't be prohibitive to those interested and already playing the game.
All of the patches, and subsequent new content included, made anticipation and excitement in the IL2 community grow to a virtual crescendo. When PE2 and Manchuria were close to release and slated to be "paid" add-ons, most people were more than happy to support them and the flight-sim community in general by proxy.
Like it or not, things are what they are and if the price is too high, bugs too frequent and quality too low, people won't buy it or perpetuate it with continued purchases of add-on content. If it IS of high quality and bugs are few, those interested will, no doubt, support it.
Look at the other end of the spectrum...Warbirds. It's pay-to-play. I don't like it and never got beyond my initial purchase. It sat on the shelf and hasn't even been on my HD in over 6 years. The quality wasn't there and the detail was spartan compared to IL2. Regardless, it still has a viable, enthusiastic (if small) following.
I don't think the RoF developers are looking at taking the sim world by storm (I could be wrong though). What I think they are trying to do is bring an era (WWI) back into the current level of detail and quality possible with the latest hardware and developement software. If they are successful at that, I'm "all-in".
That doesn't mean I'll forsake my greatest interest (WWII combat flight sims),b ut for me it doesn't have to one or the other.
My .02c

Dont get me wrong.. I don't mind paying for updates.... I just refuse to do like in CFS/FS.. which is the only other example I can give of what my particular issue is .. $10-$15 for at least 2 planes and additional content.. is not bad... but $30 just for one Spitfire say... or P-47 (even if it is multiple varients..) is not for me. I bought the Wings of Power add on for FSX by Shockwave....

As far as I'm concerned, ROF should stand for "Rip off fans" instead of Rise of Flight.

I couldn't speak ion that until I actually had the sim... "Rip Off Fans" is kinda strong... and if you dont have the sim then you are just talking out the side of your neck anyway....


I ment the modern FS models with complex avionics if modelled could hit a $30+ dollar price point.

Point taken... especially if they are done well.... but I still wouldn't buy them.

ROF = Wait & See, 4 me. tee-he

Wise............

[SlipBall]

Rof does not seem to be what I would enjoy, but I'll wait and see, and keep an open mind...the soon to be comments will be the judge for me

[virre89]

Rof does not seem to be what I would enjoy, but I'll wait and see, and keep an open mind...the soon to be comments will be the judge for me

Then you do best in getting them from a place such as SIMHQ were theres not a 90% influence by IL2 fanboys.

[csThor]

No, there's just an influence by 90% RoF Fanboys. :lol: To me the SimHQ staff tries to be objective, but there are a handful of Yay-Sayers who tried to talk critical questions into the dirt. Can't think they've stopped those tactics. A SimHQ review is probably the better source for objective information than their board (at the moment, that is).

[MaXMhZ]

LMAO - don't they know? 2 weeks (c) Oleg Maddox :D

[proton45]

LMAO - don't they know? 2 weeks (c) Oleg Maddox :D

What does that have to do with ROF???

[virre89]

No, there's just an influence by 90% RoF Fanboys. :lol: To me the SimHQ staff tries to be objective, but there are a handful of Yay-Sayers who tried to talk critical questions into the dirt. Can't think they've stopped those tactics. A SimHQ review is probably the better source for objective information than their board (at the moment, that is).

It's true that SIMHQ has RoF fanboys but it's still a more neutral board than this one.

[KG26_Alpha]

It's true that SIMHQ has RoF fanboys but it's still a more neutral board than this one.

WTF

Look at the top of this forum............what do you see............

Its like going to a Microsoft FSX website and accusing them of preferring FSX to IL2 !!!!!!

What else are you expecting from an Official IL2 1c forum ?

[virre89]

WTF

Look at the top of this forum............what do you see............

Its like going to a Microsoft FSX website and accusing them of preferring FSX to IL2 !!!!!!

What else are you expecting from an Official IL2 1c forum ?

Omg, read what we were discussing instead.
He said he was gonna base his decision of buying RoF in the soon to follow comments(hopefully he listens to reviews instead) etc about the game, only thing i said was you better get those from somewhere else than these boards seeing as people here tend to patriotism IL2 and throw garbage at RoF without even trying it. So i said Simhq is a good place for a more neutral point of view..

But sure there are a lot of decent people here as well which don't care much for worshiping products for no reason.

[Former_Older]

I like this thread

It advocates releasing BoB before it is really finished, because RoF has problems becasue it was released before it was really finished. This will help Oleg somehow :grin:

OK, we all want BoB released. I want a finished product more than a product right now. People always remember "broken" longer than they remember "late" with non-vital products like entertainment software

I haven't seen anything of RoF other than screens, and their mistake in my opinion is forcing people to play online

[ElAurens]

I've been flying R0F for a couple of days now.

Personally I like it. Believable FMs (Will know more when the rotary engines become available. How well they represent gyroscopic precession will make or break the sim for me).

So far the offline/single player missions I have been flying are pretty good. Which is a good thing as currently multiplayer is extremely limited owing to the newness of the game, lack of servers up and only coop mode being useable.

The game looks great overall, and the sense of being in the air is very palpable. Watching the shadows and reflections move around the cockpit and over the aircraft as you turn is really cool.

On my first combat sortie I had the best dogfight against AI that I have ever had in a sim. I was in a SPAD XIII and got jumped by a pair of Fokker DVIIs while I was lining up a Hun two seater observation plane. The DVII can out climb and out turn the SPAD, while the SPAD can out run and out dive the Fokker. So I pushed the nose down and extended away from them. They gave chase of course. When I had enough distance I turned into the oncoming pair and broke their formation as I passed between them. I used the SPAD's speed and dive advantge over and over till I could get a good deflection shot in and sent one down in flames. As I extended away I saw the remaining Hun running for his lines. I gave chase and let the power of the Hisso engine do it's magic. I came up on his low six, lined him up, pulled the trigger and about 2 rounds fired and then the guns jammed! I broke left and cleared the guns while he was coming around. He got some hits on my left wing, but nothing serious. So I started the fire, extend, turn, fire thing all over again. Finally I managed to get a shot into his cockpit from the high 4 o'clock position, and PK'd him. The Fokker slowly spiraled to earth.

I was sold then and there.

Now to be totally honest the game is far from perfect.

The control setup window cannot be accessed while in game, and takes a while to figure out. But once you do it becomes fairly intuitive. Just remember that you are not flying IL2 and you will be OK with some patience.

Setting up some of the view controls still is giving me some trouble, but as I use TiR anyway the only thing I need to sort out is the zoom feature. I've just about got it where I want it. The thing that is helping is to delete the standard control assignments for hat switches, and only set the ones you need. BTW one nice feature is that you can easily save several different control profiles if so desired, so I let the stock one be, and made a new one, so I'll always have a reference point.

Be sure to set a button on your stick or throttle for charging the guns! You haev to cock them manually or they won't fire! And if they jam you must recock them to clear the jam. This happens often.

The mission editor is a mystery to me, and I think it's broken. When I open it the map is very pixelated and quite unusable. I'll investigate more.

Some folks have had troubles with the initial registration, but mine went well and I was in the game quickly. Be sure to check the settings first and have the "full screen" box ticked, otherwise you won't see the menus at the bottom of the screen.

This sim has great promise IMHO. With more flyables, and getting the online servers sorted better (Hyperlobby support needed badly), it will mature into a classic.

http://http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/4844/elspad.jpg

http://http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/5035/obsz.jpg

http://http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/1899/fokkers.jpg

[virre89]

I like this thread

People always remember "broken" longer than they remember "late"

Hahah tell that to the Duke Nukem Forever community and you'll get bitch slapped :)

[ElAurens]

They still have a community?

:confused:

:mrgreen:

[flyingbullseye]

Heck, they have a website and forum.
http://www.3drealms.com/duke4/

Flyingbullseye

[Tree_UK]

Heck, they have a website and forum.
http://www.3drealms.com/duke4/

Flyingbullseye

That's more than SOW's got!! :grin:

[Feuerfalke]

That's more than SOW's got!! :grin:

Indeed.

And for most of us, it's a great example that a website is no indication for a close release, not even that it's still being worked on, to be honest. ;)

[Feathered_IV]

Thanks ElAurens. Based on your assessment and Oleg's positive comments also, I've ordered my copy of RoF too.

[Feuerfalke]

After all RoF has been announced for a European release in July, too.

[Former_Older]

Hahah tell that to the Duke Nukem Forever community and you'll get bitch slapped :)

Bitch slap me? OK, well good luck to them

Let me try to explain it to you

If you have a product that is broken, that is bad
If you have a product that is late, that is bad

The worst of the two by far is "broken". That's an accepted business principle in the Real World of Grown Ups. Now, your little opinion may be otherwise, and the darling little kidz at the Duke Nukem summercamp might think the other way around too, but you know what? Kidz think the darnedest things, and they think they know it all without having done squat. It's about the same as a fart in church- it stinks, there's no substance to it, and it makes me laugh. So sure, the Duke Nukem community might not like me saying "Broken is better than late"; and good for them. Can you guess how much I give a rat ass about what they think about sunshine, lollipops, rainbows or anything I say? :rolleyes:

[brando]

If you have a product that is broken, that is bad
If you have a product that is late, that is bad

The worst of the two by far is "broken".

+1

I remember firing up the original IL2 Sturmovik on my AMD Palomino rig with (wow) 512Mb RAM and a 64Mb Radeon 8500 and being amazed at the result. Within hours I was flying on-line with over 20 other people in a UBI-server, all of us reeling from the improvements over the flight-sims we had come from. It was new, it was different but above all, it worked. Straight from the box onto the on-line server. We never looked back.

[Blackdog_kt]

That's actually a very good point. The more anticipated a title is, the more of an anti-climax people experience when it is found lacking in areas of basic functionality.

That's also why the IL2 add ons and expansions sold so well. People had a lot of the new aircraft already from the free updates and patches. What made them sell well is the new maps and the ease of installation.

[Igo kyu]

Bitch slap me? OK, well good luck to them

Let me try to explain it to you

If you have a product that is broken, that is bad
If you have a product that is late, that is bad

The worst of the two by far is "broken". That's an accepted business principle in the Real World of Grown Ups. Now, your little opinion may be otherwise, and the darling little kidz at the Duke Nukem summercamp might think the other way around too, but you know what? Kidz think the darnedest things, and they think they know it all without having done squat. It's about the same as a fart in church- it stinks, there's no substance to it, and it makes me laugh. So sure, the Duke Nukem community might not like me saying "Broken is better than late"; and good for them. Can you guess how much I give a rat ass about what they think about sunshine, lollipops, rainbows or anything I say? :rolleyes:
It's a joke. :grin:

Duke Nukem is already 10 years late, and recently it's been cancelled. Late as in "never" isn't actually that much different from utterly broken, you can't ever play it either way.

[virre89]

Bitch slap me? OK, well good luck to them

Let me try to explain it to you

If you have a product that is broken, that is bad
If you have a product that is late, that is bad

The worst of the two by far is "broken". That's an accepted business principle in the Real World of Grown Ups. Now, your little opinion may be otherwise, and the darling little kidz at the Duke Nukem summercamp might think the other way around too, but you know what? Kidz think the darnedest things, and they think they know it all without having done squat. It's about the same as a fart in church- it stinks, there's no substance to it, and it makes me laugh. So sure, the Duke Nukem community might not like me saying "Broken is better than late"; and good for them. Can you guess how much I give a rat ass about what they think about sunshine, lollipops, rainbows or anything I say? :rolleyes:

Dude it was meant to be a little funny whats your issue?
And you call the people at 3d realms kids just because Duke Nukem is an action title, seriously they've for sure over 2000+ members which have hung around the forum since they were first put there, and thats what? around 10+ years my friend, more than enough for more than kids to hang around.

Think before you post and i wouldn't be surprised if their community has less whine than this one from time to time and then we're talking a heck load of years of waiting, anyway i don't think they care much for your words either seeing as it was just a little joke.

Being a fan om simulators doesn't make your more mature than a cod player by default..it's up to each individual.

[DoolittleRaider]

Thanks ElAurens. Based on your assessment and Oleg's positive comments also, I've ordered my copy of RoF too.

BIG mistake!!! For every glowing review at teh ROF forum, there are 6 or so that take the opposite opinion.

Good luck. You'll need it.

I consider that I lost $40 buying ROF on Day One from Gogamer. I surely won't be spending $5-$10 each (who knows how much really) for additional aircraft. My detailed reviews and experiences with ROFcan be found at the ROF forums...under Doolittle81

[Chivas]

My experience with ROF is a positive one. There are a few glitches but ROF is a very realistic combat flight experience that will steadily improve over the years. Cheapest entertainment available anywhere.

[lbuchele]

I like very much Oleg Maddox work. I think he is the best in the genre , but there is no need to bash other people work.
Even Oleg is satisfied in seen good combat sims emerging , even if in unfinished state at the start.(like Il2 when launched)
It made our genre of hobby stronger .

[flyingbullseye]

+1.

With more competition we as simmers should only hope to gain better more realistic sims. Without that competition we'd still be playing CFS3.:shock:

Flyingbullseye

[DoolittleRaider]

As expected...blatantly obvious Shill boy(s)...I won't say which one...just watch the phraseology versus that of the creators of the game. It's laughable how the shills are out there on the various forums pretending to be innocent and objective Customers...who LOVE the greatness of ROF. Transparent...except to fools. imho

What a joke.

[Chivas]

Its unfortunate that some of us have no clue on what's involved in making todays combat flight sims. Even Microsoft, who were able to make money on their flight sims quit the genre. It was just to much work for the profits being made. Today we only have two companies making combat flight sims from scratch, ROF and Maddox. I've heard nothing for sometime from A2A or 777 studios on their projects enhancing the old Rowan engine. It appears that Maddox made enough monies to extend the development of SOW until its a more polished sim.

The ROF developers don't have that luxury. They've had to put out an unfinished sim to fund further work. They say their in it for the long haul, but that could easily be short circuited if initial sales are poor. ROF's excellent Aircraft models, Engine Management, Terrain, Flight Model, and Damage Model are an excellent base to expand from. Even as is you can spend many hours and days learning the FM's, improving your weapons, and navigation skills. Well worth the 39 bucks IMHO. By the time I'm profient at these tasks, I'm sure that there will be bug fixes, and added content.

You can chose to trash everything they've done, desuading anyone else who will listen, and kill a developer we so sorely need. Or you can support them with your 39 bucks so ROF can develop into a benchmark WW1 sim, establishing a company that could produce combat flight sims for years. Our choice.

[Feuerfalke]

That depends on what you mean with "from scratch".

I'd like to add Eagle Dynamics, for example.


But also X-Plane is still alive and kicking, as well as Condor.

And at least we get some updates on projects like FighterOps, Thunderworks and Seven-G, which say's they are at least still working on the titles, whenever they will be ready.

I agree it's still a niche genre, but it's not as dead as it was 5-8 years ago, even if M$ abandoned the Flightsimulator series. And even here M$ already stated, that this does not mean the FS-series have come to an end.

[tagTaken2]

The ROF developers don't have that luxury. They've had to put out an unfinished sim to fund further work.

This gives me some food for thought. I wonder if what is currently on release to the public is actually a late beta, and perhaps (this could be pure wishful thinking on my part) they'll release a solid/polished more expensive version with more flyables later, *and without the online requirement for every mission*. ie, like any normal sim release, online activation or similar, but that would be it.
Because what they have at the moment is a sim that only the keenest (good beta testers) have purchased, and with small piracy chance.
Is anyone else wondering about this?

[Chivas]

That depends on what you mean with "from scratch".

I'd like to add Eagle Dynamics, for example.


But also X-Plane is still alive and kicking, as well as Condor.

And at least we get some updates on projects like FighterOps, Thunderworks and Seven-G, which say's they are at least still working on the titles, whenever they will be ready.

I agree it's still a niche genre, but it's not as dead as it was 5-8 years ago, even if M$ abandoned the Flightsimulator series. And even here M$ already stated, that this does not mean the FS-series have come to an end.

Maybe I didn't make it clear that I was talking purely WW1 and WW2 prop sims. :)

[Chivas]

This gives me some food for thought. I wonder if what is currently on release to the public is actually a late beta, and perhaps (this could be pure wishful thinking on my part) they'll release a solid/polished more expensive version with more flyables later, *and without the online requirement for every mission*. ie, like any normal sim release, online activation or similar, but that would be it.
Because what they have at the moment is a sim that only the keenest (good beta testers) have purchased, and with small piracy chance.
Is anyone else wondering about this?

Will they release a solid/polished sim later. Yes, thats the whole idea of the developer in it over the long haul developing consent updates, paid and otherwise over the next many years. After exhausting all avenues of improvement in the relatively small WW1 front they could expand their gained expertise into other time periods of combat flight.

Will it eventually not require online registration, maybe, but I doubt it. Unfortunately Piracy has dictated some form of protection, so they can be compensated for their years of hard work.

Is this a sim only the kennest have purchased, again not very likely, even a few who purchased ROF don't even like WW1 flight sims, but wanted to support the combat flight sim genre.

[Feuerfalke]

Maybe I didn't make it clear that I was talking purely WW1 and WW2 prop sims. :)

Not clear enough for me, it seems ;)

[tagTaken2]

Will it eventually not require online registration, maybe, but I doubt it. Unfortunately Piracy has dictated some form of protection, so they can be compensated for their years of hard work.

Is this a sim only the kennest have purchased, again not very likely, even a few who purchased ROF don't even like WW1 flight sims, but wanted to support the combat flight sim genre.

I've been thinking about the current release being a deliberate unannounced beta test and it's making a lot of sense- if you proceed on the assumption that requiring people to connect continuously even for singleplayer is going to cost a significant number of sales in the long term. I was dead keen right up to the point they announced the connection reqs, but it's killing my interest- I, along with many others in Oz, don't have reliable broadband. And, if the company does go under, potentially there'll be a lot of coasters around.
So maybe this is not the 'real' release. RoF in its current form is just an open beta that people have paid for the opportunity to test. RoF developers get the money required to keep going until the game is a stable release. Requiring a server check at the beginning of every mission locks down piracy, and reassures the investors in the meantime. When I say that the keenest ones purchased, there's still a LOT of people holding off until they see that the company won't founder, and in the meantime, RoF gets a huge amount of feedback from the people who most want to make the game a success.
Part of this would be the forced updates, which is something else I loathe- patches do break stuff sometimes, and I don't want to have to wait 2 hours to download the latest before I can play- with updates, everyone plays the same version for 'testing'.
So, here's what I'm hoping would be the idea: After 6 months, RoF announces that they're moving to different distribution model; puts out boxes with stable 1.08 version including 8-10 flyables charging normal game release price; box requires internet/phone activation/disk check etc, but doesn't require continuous connection for SP; wild rejoicing on the part of all of those left out previously, and I purchase game :)
Presumably game gets cracked at some point, but sales rise considerably anyway.
Might be additional paid patch with extra flyables, reqs another activation to get on servers.
I really hope they've got something like this in mind, because their current business model seems... rubbish.

I understand that people need to support the genre, but I'm not purchasing a game I can't expect to work for me.

[He111]

I have no problem with a staggered release, even if some aspects don't work! (ie with bugs). Empire Total war was released with bugs but I was glad to get it! I was forced to upgrade my system, no problem, i needed a good reason to upgrade. Now ETW is great, with patches and DLC (Down Loadable Content)

I have no problem paying $100 for a quality game like IL2 II (SOW) and $20-$30 for DLC, and even paying <$10 for external modders additional aircraft!

As to a full air / land / sea system, I would love to see an invasion plan and interaction between all aspects of 1940 military to achieve / defend against this.

He111

Remember, quality will always win through.

[Bearcat]

1C has nothing to worry about.... WWI siming is different.. and frankly... neoq needs to polish & finish thew WWI stuff before even thinking of going to WWII.. not only that.... because of the differences in the two sims... and if you want a small taste in IL2 just fly nothing but a I 153, a U-2VS, or a Gladiator against other similar aircraft for a week straight.. and then consider that the above mentioned planes are actually more powerful than the WWI aircraft... and you will agree that 1C has nothing to worry about as long as they release SoW... and I have no doubt that will be forthcoming.

[sop]

This has got to be the funniest post I've seen in a long time. Very nice, zapatista! Hope to see more funny stuff from you.

Aviar

Shouldn't you be hosting a coop instead of posting>?

[Chivas]

I agree Bear...it will be years before the ROF developers can even think about getting into the WW2 theaters. ROF will do well sticking with WW1 stuff for the foreseeable future, as they have little competition. The developers have alot of work to do, fixing, improving and adding content to ROF.

[SlipBall]

I would not be a bit surprised to learn, that plan's and work on an WW II era had began already. If so, the competition between these two Russian firms, will be a win win for all of us. That era of flight I think, represent's a larger piece of the possible sales pie to both.

[virre89]

Funny there is like 3 major Sim Developers still out there Neoqb , Maddox and Eagle Dynamics and the war is raging about which one sucks the most... TBH it's only a good thing that we get more games and competition between sim games so we can see the genre expand into more quality.

RoF vs Initial IL2 release, say what you want but my opinion is that RoF takes the gold medal here, it even has inbuilt server browser something that IL2 lacked and kept a lot of "non bothering" online players out of the buisniss, i mean things improve and it's all for the good, sadly thats the case with real life as well... i.e deaths and disasters helps improve the future and safety.

Be joyful instead, it definantly doesn't hurt the sim community to have more games ffs.

[ElAurens]

I have been flying R0F for a bit now, and I would not go so far as to say that it is better out of the box than the original IL2.

R0F suffers from lack of content, both in terms of aircraft and online capabilities, and an overly complex and totally undocumented mission builder.

If neoqb can deliver on some high content patch work, then it will become a classic of the genre. If not, well, I have other $40 coasters around the house that it can join.

I hope they pull it off. I really enjoy this type of flying. It is very much more difficult than WW2 flying, by a huge margin. Bearcat alludes to this in his post. A lot of players simply will not "get" what it is about no matter how polished it becomes, because they can't go 450mph and tote around a brace of 30mm cannon.

But for the virtual flyer that appreciates the subtlety of sticking a .303" machine gun right in the enemy's face and pulling the trigger, it will be an answered prayer.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Well, nice to see that three huge developers (each one having a distiguished game, and in different areas) in Russia (and even better for me, as I'm moving there tomorrow).

Rise of Flight in WWI, IL-2 in WWII and Lock On in the modern combat area (well, as I started playing Lock On after IL-2, I use some of my IL-2 knowledge in Lock On. Remember those turn fights between Spit and 109 that we all love in IL-2? It's the same thing, but with a three times greater speed, missiles and everything.)

Sad thing we lost the guys from Microsoft in the civilian aviation field. Hope their staff and all that third party industry that orbitated around it start to coop with these three developers to improve their products and make flight simulation more realistic than it is.

About this Rise of Flight world-war 2 project, I think they're rushing the stuff. I would try to consagrate RoF as the top name in World War I simulation, as Maddox Games did with IL-2 series, and Eagle Dynamics did with Lock On. I had Flanker 2.0 installed on my computer a long time ago, and you can see they did a marvelous effort to improve it until the level Lock On reached nowdays. I also bought, at about the same time, the original IL-2, and again, we can see how did Maddox Games to turn it on what most of the virtual and real pilots consider the best when talking world war 2 simulation. If they do a similar effort like Maddox and Eagle did, or even like Aces Studio did to bring Flight Simulator since the early 90's editions to the X version 'til they were kicked from Microsoft, Rise of Flight series might became the classic in it's category as Lock On and IL-2 became in theirs.

[SlipBall]

So how is the general feedback from Neoqb, do they seem interested to correct the short coming's soon. Or are they mute on peoples concern's, and reluctant to promise anything forthcoming fairly soon.:confused:

[Chivas]

Apparently the ROF developers are too busy fixing bugs and adding content to comment, but people close to the developer say they are hard at work.

The initial IL-2 release was immensely more polished than the initial ROF release, with far few buggers, and far more content.

[virre89]

Well, nice to see that three huge developers (each one having a distiguished game, and in different areas) in Russia (and even better for me, as I'm moving there tomorrow).

Rise of Flight in WWI, IL-2 in WWII and Lock On in the modern combat area (well, as I started playing Lock On after IL-2, I use some of my IL-2 knowledge in Lock On. Remember those turn fights between Spit and 109 that we all love in IL-2? It's the same thing, but with a three times greater speed, missiles and everything.)

Sad thing we lost the guys from Microsoft in the civilian aviation field. Hope their staff and all that third party industry that orbitated around it start to coop with these three developers to improve their products and make flight simulation more realistic than it is.

About this Rise of Flight world-war 2 project, I think they're rushing the stuff. I would try to consagrate RoF as the top name in World War I simulation, as Maddox Games did with IL-2 series, and Eagle Dynamics did with Lock On. I had Flanker 2.0 installed on my computer a long time ago, and you can see they did a marvelous effort to improve it until the level Lock On reached nowdays. I also bought, at about the same time, the original IL-2, and again, we can see how did Maddox Games to turn it on what most of the virtual and real pilots consider the best when talking world war 2 simulation. If they do a similar effort like Maddox and Eagle did, or even like Aces Studio did to bring Flight Simulator since the early 90's editions to the X version 'til they were kicked from Microsoft, Rise of Flight series might became the classic in it's category as Lock On and IL-2 became in theirs.

Neoqb aint building a ww2 sim anytime soon.
Anyway chivas i can't say i've found many bugs in Rof most of them consist of the GUI interface or some AI, besides that i had far more trouble with IL2 but everyone has a different experience from another perspective.

[nynek]

Couple of weeks ago I've got email from Microsoft with survey about future flight sim.
It took me quite of time to answer all the questions and my impression was that they are thinking about some enormous 24/7 VATSIM like environment with missions , buying and selling paint skins , dropping "things" and the likes. Half of the questions was about flight model which of course I answered "hard core".Something is up.Warcraft is coming to the virtual sky ?! The only problem is that in order to go "for the masses" you have to "relax"
something - 12 years old and CEM ? I don't think so.

[Blackdog_kt]

I'm one of the people that decided to wait. The reasons are many and i don't expect everything to be the way i like it, but through a strange twist of fate every single one of RoF's design and marketing decisions are the exact opposite of what i'm expecting from a modern flight sim.

If the online requirement was dropped i would probably order my copy today.

If there was more AI aircraft to accurately represent the 1917 theater of war, plus a properly done dynamic campaign to fly with and against them, i would probably order it as well. Look at Black Shark for example. It's only one flyable, but there's an entire war around you with dozens of AI units. It evens out pretty well.

If there were more flyable aircraft i would probably order today as well. Mind you i'm not talking about 30 extra aircraft. Between 4-6 flyables would be both good and reasonable. I know these next-gen models take time to develop and Oleg said himself on an interview that it might take a single person as much as 6 months to do a SoW-quality model.

The thing is, i don't expect everything i wrote to happen, but i expected some of it. As it stands in its current state, the reason i am going to wait for it to mature a bit is that absolutely none of these things are in the sim yet.

In regards to the aircraft/content issue, Oleg is going for a dozen of flyables right out of the box for SoW. We have also seen a lot of screenshots and videos from the early RoF days (when it was still called knights of the sky) with different aircraft, so it's not because they don't have time to model additional aircraft, some of them are already done. Not to mention that WWI aircraft have limited systems when compared to WWII or modern ones.

I think that a lot of the controversial decisions were made when the companies merged and the project was renamed from KoTS to RoF. The gennadich team was also a group of experienced people in the IL2 3rd party community, so they probably know how succesful the IL2 business model is. So why change it?

Well, the only thing i can think off is that they ran out of money to finish it, an investor came along and said: "Here, take this money, but you'll have to change some things first". And then came the online requirements, the lack of aircraft, micro-payment add ons and so on. Ever wonder why we used to see the Camel and the Dr.I in all the Kots videos, yet RoF was released with a Spad and a D.VII? It's simple, someone thought that having two of the most iconic aircraft of WWI in the initial release might be all the casual sim gamer would want, thus never buying anything extra.

All the measures taken seem to suggest an approach to securing as much income as possible, from the copy protection method to the way the add ons are handled and how these add ons become a necessity through a lack of initial content. Nothing wrong with a developer cashing in on years of work to be honest, but it pays off to exercise some moderation. Otherwise, if you go with a brand new way of doing things in every field imaginable and give the impression you're in it strictly to milk the proverbial cash cow, you simply run the risk of scaring away a load of people and having the entire thing backfire on you. To a certain extent this has happened. What remains to be seen is whether they can stay afloat long enough to address some of these concerns, at which point they'll start getting a lot more sales.

Just my 2 cents ;)

[Bearcat]

Neoqb aint building a ww2 sim anytime soon.
Anyway chivas i can't say i've found many bugs in Rof most of them consist of the GUI interface or some AI, besides that i had far more trouble with IL2 but everyone has a different experience from another perspective.

For what it was worth I had absolutely no trouble with IL2... or FB for that matter... and I agree.. the GUI leaves a bit to be desired.. although the scalability menu is nice.... I havent been able to really fly the sim yet because I cannot seem to get my TIR working right.

[SlipBall]

I still fly the original IL-2 release, un-patched & un-pluged:). A very refined out of the box sim, if you were to ask me. Right now ROF has a bit of a black eye, which tends to scare off some potential customers.

[Feuerfalke]

I never had problems with my original IL2 either. Infact, from my personal experience, I'd say that IL2 is one of the most bug free out-of-the-box-games I ever had.

The only really bad thing that comes to my mind is the manual setup of IPs.

But I still miss the touchy P39 in the original IL2 and of course the whistling sound of the 109, especially in times of excellent sound-alternatives for most other aircraft. :(

(Helping PMs welcome)

[JG52Uther]

The RoF appreciation society has thinned out considerably from most of the forums.
If you sugar coat a turd,its still a turd.They didn't even bother to sugar coat RoF!
IF it survives,one day it might be worth the purchase price.

[Feuerfalke]

I wouldn't go as far as to say the game is not worth the price or even a turd.

It is a good simulation and it's fun to fly and stuff.


But it's the brown, stinky touches they applied to the nice simulation, that makes it hard to fall in love with.

[Bearcat]

The sim has potential... it does have some plusses... I still cant get tpo most of them because I have yet to fly a successful mission because for some reason my TIR goes out every time... but the sim has potential. I am certain NQ will fix many of the issues... I dont think they invested as much time, work & money into this thing to let it doe on the vine... but there is a window of opportunity to maximize a product's potential.... I am not sure if they will make it through that window without squeezing through..

[SlipBall]

It seem's to me that they rushed it out the door, at least that's the feeling I get after reading all of the neg. post here and there. If there were any English only speaking beta tester's, you would think that that problem with the language would have been pointed out, and fixed. Now couple that with the call home feature, it just plain scares people away. Well I should say scares me away...I hope that they survive and clean it up, add some content, it does look good! grafics/fm...I wish that I was "in" on the ground floor, but I think that I should wait.

[Chivas]

Maybe is just me, but I don't think $39 dollars is that big of an investment for a healthier future for prop combat flight sims. Especially when I consider what we spend on computers, monitors, and peripherials to play the software. I agree that ROF needs alot of work, but that will be continually upgraded, if ROF generates enough initial revenue to continue. Maybe all of us in the community don't need to initially support the developers, but I just hate to leave it up to chance. There is alot of quality in what we've seen so far from ROF, so we know they have some talent.

[Tvrdi]

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/2764509/True_Wide_Screen_not_Supported.html#Post2764509

NeoQB, a bunch of l***s.....they told me that the sim will have full wide screen support....what a bunch of l***s

I feel like somebody slaped me in the face since I was the one who trusted them the most....

I realize its a new sim with a lot of bugs...but when someone lies in marketing purpose (to the ppl who trusted and supported them) and then vanish....

[JG52Uther]

Maybe is just me, but I don't think $39 dollars is that big of an investment for a healthier future for prop combat flight sims. Especially when I consider what we spend on computers, monitors, and peripherials to play the software. I agree that ROF needs alot of work, but that will be continually upgraded, if ROF generates enough initial revenue to continue. Maybe all of us in the community don't need to initially support the developers, but I just hate to leave it up to chance. There is alot of quality in what we've seen so far from ROF, so we know they have some talent.


Would you pay $97 for it though Chivas,because that is what it would cost me in the UK,with postage and customs!
I wouldn't.

[Feuerfalke]

Would you pay $97 for it though Chivas,because that is what it would cost me in the UK,with postage and customs!
I wouldn't.

Wait another 3 weeks, then you will pay 39$, too. Aerosoft will sell the game in Europe.

Until a few days ago you could also have ordered the import version from local stores. Here in Germany it costs 50 Euros including taxes and shipping from the US.

[Feathered_IV]

Maybe is just me, but I don't think $39 dollars is that big of an investment for a healthier future for prop combat flight sims.

I tend to agree. RoF is selling for the equivalent of two Osprey titles over here. Or 2/3 the cost of a modest dinner out with the missus (one entré to share and one drink each).

[Chivas]

Would you pay $97 for it though Chivas,because that is what it would cost me in the UK,with postage and customs!
I wouldn't.


I agree Uther, $97 is alot of money, especially for a sim that is not fleshed out. Hopefully your local sellers will soon have ROF at a more reasonable rate.

You guys on the other side of the pond seemed to get shafted with the high cost computer stuff. I'm having a tough time reconsiling a golf holiday to Scotland this summer especially when I look at the conversion rate and have to double the price of everything.

[Hood]

Would you pay $97 for it though Chivas,because that is what it would cost me in the UK,with postage and customs!
I wouldn't.

Odd, I'm in the UK and it cost be about £35 including FedEx postage.

[JG52Uther]

Odd, I'm in the UK and it cost be about £35 including FedEx postage.

Did you get the game Hood? And if so,where from,because thats cheap.Also did the customs charge arrive yet? If you get one that will add £11.10 to the price.

[KG26_Alpha]

Ive just been into by a shop in the UK they wont be stocking it as its not a popular title, the assistant then informed me RoF is already a torrent and available to download with CD keys etc

I suppose those high prices will push up the piracy unfortunately.

[JG52Uther]

Well if I'm wrong with the price I will admit it! Somehow I worked it out to that figure.I dare say we will know in a few weeks here.
Can't believe its a torrent,and as its online registration,I doubt it would work.

EDIT
Christ its all over the net! Someones having a laugh!

[Feuerfalke]

Ive just been into by a shop in the UK they wont be stocking it as its not a popular title, the assistant then informed me RoF is already a torrent and available to download with CD keys etc

I suppose those high prices will push up the piracy unfortunately.

I guess this is why they chose to make use of online-only mode and only playing via registred accounts in the first place.

[tagTaken2]

Ive just been into by a shop in the UK they wont be stocking it as its not a popular title, the assistant then informed me RoF is already a torrent and available to download with CD keys etc


Now that's customer service!

:)

[SlipBall]

Maybe is just me, but I don't think $39 dollars is that big of an investment for a healthier future for prop combat flight sims. Especially when I consider what we spend on computers, monitors, and peripherials to play the software. I agree that ROF needs alot of work, but that will be continually upgraded, if ROF generates enough initial revenue to continue. Maybe all of us in the community don't need to initially support the developers, but I just hate to leave it up to chance. There is alot of quality in what we've seen so far from ROF, so we know they have some talent.



For me it was a matter of not wanting to deal with the agravation of the things that need attention in the sim. The money or price was not a real factor or concern for me. I'm sure that once they patch her up, especially the language part, I'll be happy to support them:)

[Robert]

Won't support their business model. Sorry. It may be detrimental to the hobby as a whole, but I'd rather them think I'm not interested in WW1 flight sims than to have them think I approve of their business model.

2 planes.... online connection for off line play (I realize it's only for tallying players score).... half assed unfinished online access (THIS is one thing that shoud have absolutely positively been completed before sending out the door. It's like selling a car with only 3 tires).... poor UI.... figity Track IR support

I'll wait to see how everythng pans out, but I'm not confident in the future of RoF. And if it means setting a precedent for continuing this business model I'll pass.

[ElAurens]

I don't understand the Track IR issues people say they are having.

I use the profile I use for IL2/46, set it to exclusive load, and it works great.

[Feuerfalke]

Did they at least integrate player vs player dogfights? AFAIK it was only possible to do coops in the initial release.

[JG52Uther]

Did they at least integrate player vs player dogfights? AFAIK it was only possible to do coops in the initial release.

Nope! 5 Vs 5 coops apparently.A real winner for an online game.

[Tvrdi]

I don't understand the Track IR issues people say they are having.

I use the profile I use for IL2/46, set it to exclusive load, and it works great.

how do u load that profile?...I can only pick it for favofrites but I can only work with default profile....

[ElAurens]

Open the "Profiles" tab of TiR. You should see two windows. The upper are the default game profiles that the program auto loads on game start up, listed by game.

The lower window is a list of all the available profiles.

Just tick the "exclusive load" box to the right of the profile you use for IL2 and it should load that, and that only every time.

My IL2 profile is a modified "combat flight" profile and I saved it under the "Combat flight" name. So I just use "exclusive load" for that one.

If you let TiR auto load a profile then it does not work well at all.

[Thunderbolt56]

Players these days are so spoiled (some for good reason certainly) and I agree there are some high expectations because of the current state of IL2 and the interesting things the MOD community has been able to do with it as well as other sims like LOMAC, DCS, etc.

Expectations are such that the mindset mirrors something like this -"IL2 was the last-gen, the next gen should be better in ALL aspects or it's a failure." The fact is, it's not better in "all" aspects, but it is better in some. Personal choice allows people to either buy it, work through some of the teething issues and enjoy many aspects of the first, of many, next-gen sims...or not.

I like it. There are some really terrific things in the sim and many more already in the works.

Sure, I volunteered and signed up to experience some of the teething pains as a beta tester, but this is a hobby of mine and not only do I get an early peek but also know I'm contributing to the betterment of the genre...whether you agree with me or not.

From where I stand, I'm excited about this sim and very much look forward to what it will be in another 6 months. That doesn't mean I have to forsake IL2 or any other sim I enjoy flying. I wasn't a beta tester for IL2, but I got onboard early (since the first demo) and walked with it through it's many teething problems as well, and to see what it ultimately became is truly satisfying. I know the neoqb gents are also very dedicated and talented. If it's better for anyone to sit back and wait, cool. It will be a fantastic sim though...like it or not.


TB

[ElAurens]

Well said Thunderbolt.

[DKoor]

Well said Thunderbolt.
+1

[Abbeville-Boy]

Players these days are so spoiled (some for good reason certainly) and I agree there are some high expectations because of the current state of IL2 and the interesting things the MOD community has been able to do with it as well as other sims like LOMAC, DCS, etc.

Expectations are such that the mindset mirrors something like this -"IL2 was the last-gen, the next gen should be better in ALL aspects or it's a failure." The fact is, it's not better in "all" aspects, but it is better in some. Personal choice allows people to either buy it, work through some of the teething issues and enjoy many aspects of the first, of many, next-gen sims...or not.

I like it. There are some really terrific things in the sim and many more already in the works.

Sure, I volunteered and signed up to experience some of the teething pains as a beta tester, but this is a hobby of mine and not only do I get an early peek but also know I'm contributing to the betterment of the genre...whether you agree with me or not.

From where I stand, I'm excited about this sim and very much look forward to what it will be in another 6 months. That doesn't mean I have to forsake IL2 or any other sim I enjoy flying. I wasn't a beta tester for IL2, but I got onboard early (since the first demo) and walked with it through it's many teething problems as well, and to see what it ultimately became is truly satisfying. I know the neoqb gents are also very dedicated and talented. If it's better for anyone to sit back and wait, cool. It will be a fantastic sim though...like it or not.


TB




as beta tester what did you find that needed review and fix, anything? seems like you could have listed a few things for them to look at. did they give to you some promise to correct any problem you found, do you feel that they did act on your requests and repaired the problems you found? i think the beta testers might have screwed up a bit from all the bad talk about the game on boards.

[KG26_Alpha]

as beta tester what did you find that needed review and fix, anything? seems like you could have listed a few things for them to look at. did they give to you some promise to correct any problem you found, do you feel that they did act on your requests and repaired the problems you found? i think the beta testers might have screwed up a bit from all the bad talk about the game on boards.


+1

The RoF forum has lots of problems in there.

I've been with IL2 from the beta and I don't remember seeing the problems they are having at all, in fact its not a good idea to compare the 2 sims as some have done here for obvious reasons, obvious to me that is :)

[SlipBall]

I wasn't a beta tester for IL2, but I got onboard early (since the first demo) and walked with it through it's many teething problems as well,

TB

I have to disagree...there were no "teething problems" The game was First Rate...problems, only very poor pilots who could'nt get off the ground, and who thought that they knew better, and were a better pilot than Oleg. They did nothing but complain and critersize every little detail. The so called fixes to appease were a shame! The original game, straight out of the box was superb, and I fly it regularly...Your record with ROF does not seem any bettter LOL, maybe you should stay out of the kitchen...and I mean that in a respectfull way, I know that you mean well:grin:

[Thunderbolt56]

Your record with ROF does not seem any bettter LOL,

And what is my record with RoF? You don't know what I've done.

"...maybe you should stay out of the kitchen...

Nah, I'd rather mess up a few batches of cookies and end up with something tasty in the end than sit at the table in front of an empty plate griping at the cook.

"...and I mean that in a respectfull way,

I have quite a bit of really hard bark on me and nothing much bothers me...especially nothing to do with games and online forums.

I know that you mean well:grin:

Mere speculation.

:)

[heywooood]

As expected...blatantly obvious Shill boy(s)...I won't say which one...just watch the phraseology versus that of the creators of the game. It's laughable how the shills are out there on the various forums pretending to be innocent and objective Customers...who LOVE the greatness of ROF. Transparent...except to fools. imho

What a joke.


yes...puny humans - we shall make a bonfire of their sad husks

[Feuerfalke]

yes...puny humans - we shall make a bonfire of their sad husks

LOL :grin:

[Thunderbolt56]

FYI, as is typical, the NDA I signed will not allow me to discuss bugs and/or unreleased content from the beta.

I will say this though; The developers really are pro-active and releasing updates with high frequency. Some will say that is bad and indicates many problems that should not have been there to start with. Others will say the attention is a good thing (though very necessary right now) and the ultimate goal will be a refined product that incorporates latest code, effects and modelling techniques.

If you formulate your opinion without trying the product in any way and from only reading a public forum populated by people who mostly don't have the product in question, well then, that explains quite a bit.

I'm not even remotely saying this is a polished product that is perfect for EVERY flight sim enthusiast...at least not yet. What I AM saying is it shows much promise and with the developers working tirelessly and continuing to make improvements and sending out updates, it will only get better. If it's still not your cup of tea, fine. That's all I'm trying to say.

The passion with which many people who have not even seen any part of this sim are crying out is humorous.

[FAE_Cazador]

Does ROF have an automatic updating service, like Windows Update, to download patches or fixes? Or are you notified somehow?

I mean , patches to solve problems of the game, not new planes to be purchased.

Or will we have to wait for a release of a official patch, like in IL-2?

[Feuerfalke]

IIRC it has an autoupdater, yes. But that's just second hand information.

If it's true what Loft answered to a German forum, I think that RoF definitely died for me:

4) What cost the addon aircraft?
About 25 dollars.
http://www.homedrome.de/Startseite/UnsereForen/tabid/102/aff/54/aft/438/afv/topic/language/de-DE/Default.aspx

25$ per plane? That's insane!


If that is true...
21) Will there be more patches than individual, or sometime is a gold edition with all previously released new aircraft types, modifications etc planned?
Yes, I think already in autumn we’ll present gold edition with all the patches.

...will probably cost it's weight in gold...

[Sturm_Williger]

Does ROF have an automatic updating service, like Windows Update, to download patches or fixes? Or are you notified somehow?

I mean , patches to solve problems of the game, not new planes to be purchased.

Or will we have to wait for a release of a official patch, like in IL-2?

It updates automatically when you launch the game and it connects, the first thing it does is check for updates.

[Feathered_IV]

IIRC it has an autoupdater, yes. But that's just second hand information.

If it's true what Loft answered to a German forum, I think that RoF definitely died for me:


http://www.homedrome.de/Startseite/UnsereForen/tabid/102/aff/54/aft/438/afv/topic/language/de-DE/Default.aspx

25$ per plane? That's insane!


If that is true...


...will probably cost it's weight in gold...

Those aircraft take a team of workers ages to make. $25 dollars is reasonable I think. Even on my modest income. Don't forget though, AI versions of new aircraft are confirmed as being FREE. You only pay if you want them as flyable. That makes it fair to those who wish to purchase, and to those who don't but want to stay current.

[Arklight]

Those aircraft take a team of workers ages to make. $25 dollars is reasonable I think. Even on my modest income. Don't forget though, AI versions of new aircraft are confirmed as being FREE. You only pay if you want them as flyable. That makes it fair to those who wish to purchase, and to those who don't but want to stay current.

Per a post made by Neoqb today, the Albatros and Nieuport 28 will be free, and the Nieuport 17 will cost $7.62 next week.

The aircraft are VERY high quality, and I would not take issue with paying more for them. IMO, their Nieuport 17 at about $8 is a steal. I would have paid much more for that aircraft, as well as the Albatros and Nieuport 28. I had actually planned on spending about $15-$20 per aircraft but would not have minded paying more.

I know I am probalby in the miniority with regards to what I am willing to spend, but when I look back at how much I have spent on FS9 and FSX (yes, very different products), this pales in comparison.....and I am having more fun with RoF. :)

[ElAurens]

neoqb's flight modeling of the new aircraft is very good indeed.

The Neiuport 28 has really well done gyroscopic precession, as it should, and the modeling of the sequential ignition cut off for "throttling" the engine is well realized.

The DVa is very smooth, and easy to fight with. In fact I prefer it to the early model (Mercedes powered) DVII we currently have.

The SPAD is still the "uber" plane of the sim so far, but the upcoming SEVa will steal some of it's thunder. The Pfalz D3 is an unknown quantity to me, other than what it looks like. We shall see...

[virre89]

Those aircraft take a team of workers ages to make. $25 dollars is reasonable I think. Even on my modest income. Don't forget though, AI versions of new aircraft are confirmed as being FREE. You only pay if you want them as flyable. That makes it fair to those who wish to purchase, and to those who don't but want to stay current.

+1 , That's very true.

[DuxCorvan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BhtR8bEN6M

Johnny Long Torsoooo, Johnny Long Torsoooo, the man who comes in pieceeeeeesss!!! It's loooong! :-P

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

neoqb's flight modeling of the new aircraft is very good indeed.

The Neiuport 28 has really well done gyroscopic precession, as it should, and the modeling of the sequential ignition cut off for "throttling" the engine is well realized.

The DVa is very smooth, and easy to fight with. In fact I prefer it to the early model (Mercedes powered) DVII we currently have.

The SPAD is still the "uber" plane of the sim so far, but the upcoming SEVa will steal some of it's thunder. The Pfalz D3 is an unknown quantity to me, other than what it looks like. We shall see...

Hi ElAurens, yes I have to agree regarding the Nieuport 28, nimble aircraft and nice roll rate, its a real challenge aiming with those offset guns too.....a good trainer if ever there was for the necessity of getting in close, as you should. I too prefer the handling of the Dva, looks great too :)

Re the Spad, I would disagree that anything in this sim thus far is "Uber", but then I have never believed in the concept of "Uber" planes. It is always the pilot that matters. Performance is of course great, fast and a great diver, relatively stable gun platform too. One big weakness however is cockpit visibility, SA is always paramount, but in this sim more than others.....and with the Spad if you don't have trackir then forget about it. Have to agree though, its my personal fave thus far.

This is a welcome move by Neoqb, and at least shows willingness to address community grievances (of which there have been many) and shows good will. This will go a long way, as will this sim with more much needed hard work. They seem to be grasping this, and I look forward to the bigger second patch. I am an optimist, and hopefully its onwards and upwards from here.

Now go make me a Sopwith Snipe!! :grin:

[SlipBall]

This is a welcome move by Neoqb, and at least shows willingness to address community grievances (of which there have been many) and shows good will. This will go a long way, as will this sim with more much needed hard work. They seem to be grasping this, and I look forward to the bigger second patch. I am an optimist, and hopefully its onwards and upwards from here.

Now go make me a Sopwith Snipe!! :grin:


Yes, a very good move on their part...this should help with the sale's of this sim, both short and long term...brovo:cool:

[JG52Uther]

Yes, a very good move on their part...this should help with the sale's of this sim, both short and long term...brovo:cool:

I agree.

[DuxCorvan]

I just think they're just charging you for content that was ready and should have been included with the retail out-of-the-box "vanilla" game from the start. Making necessary content out of the retail game and selling it to you days after initial release as meager "add-ons", does not show good willingness, but real gullibility on your part.

[KG26_Alpha]

I just think they're just charging you for content that was ready and should have been included with the retail out-of-the-box "vanilla" game from the start. Making necessary content out of the retail game and selling it to you days after initial release as meager "add-ons", does not show good willingness, but real gullibility on your part.

These idiots are kidding themselves.

Only a fool would buy an incomplete anything on the promise the rest is yet to come, oh that's if they don't go bust in the mean time before relieving you of more money to complete your "game/sim".

It reminds me of the Di Agostini business model where you buy a monthly magazine with a part attached to it until you collect all the parts and have built the magazines advertised item, car plane boat etc, problem is the thing ends up costing ten times what its worth and it don't work either, but you have collected faithfully every month over the last year paying through the nose for a piece of worthless junk.

In this case it seems you have paid up front for a very basic shell and will continue to "fill" it out at your own expense, they must be laughing all the way to the bank (hopefully they are investing it in a bank) and will continue to service their cash cow and not dump the project leaving customers with an incomplete basic WWI sim that you cant use because the registration server has gone and cant call home to launch the game and join a server that no longer exists.

Just my thoughts

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

I just think they're just charging you for content that was ready and should have been included with the retail out-of-the-box "vanilla" game from the start. Making necessary content out of the retail game and selling it to you days after initial release as meager "add-ons", does not show good willingness, but real gullibility on your part.

No, DuxCorvan. Being fully cognizant and aware of their business model and intent to charge for add ons (which they have always been clear about) does not show "real gullibility" on my part, thank you. Perhaps you would like to look up the definition of the word "gullibility".......Implying susceptibility to deception. No deception has taken place, but thanks for the concern.......I really need people like you to look out for me in this big bad world ;)

The "extra" new planes were for free, as the Russians had them also....Making now 4 flyables in the soon to come initial Euro release. Nothing charged. People are free to buy or not as they choose, it will not affect online play, and regardless they will appear as AI. I have no intention of buying the Nieuport 17 for example, because I have no interest in it. The cost of a new plane you could not buy two pints of beer in Newcastles Bigg Market for. (Around £4.60 I think).

I'm happy with that. You're not. Nevermind, eh. It takes all sorts, and I think we will be able to live without you mate, no offence :)

Cheers.

[ElAurens]

WW1 air combat sims are a vrey small niche in a rather small niche.

Even if RoF was done on the business model that Oleg has used all these years, it would never sell in the numbers necessary for it to be successful.

Never.

Hell, you can't even fill a sever in IL2 with early WW2 aircraft because they are "too slow" and frankly too difficult for the cannon toting masses to get their quick 1000 points in.

neoqb's approach seems a reasonable one to keep a sim with a rather small market alive over time.

In case you have not noticed, PC flight simulation, of all kinds, is going the way of the dinosaur. Most publishers simply won't bother with us anymore. Why should they? We are demanding, rude for the most part, and tiny in number. Big publishers can far more easily bang out another first person shooter, that is just like every other FPS, incrementally improve the graphics, and sell millions of copies to slobbering 13 year olds who wouldn't know an aileron from an air speed indicator, much less have the patience to master flying in a simulator. Wat? No power ups?

:roll:

I give a lot of credit to neoqb for trying something new, that has the potential to keep small segment titles alive.

Or would you rather have no new WW1 flight sims at all?

[Chivas]

There is a big difference between the idiots who bought Microsoft stocks and those that bought Bre-X gold stocks. One is a company that had known assets that continually evolved and the other company had nothing but false claims.

ROF has known assets that most early adopters are enjoying as we speak, with the strong likelyhood that ROF will continually evolve. Could ROF fail, of course it could, its a gamble, but a very cheap gamble. Its not like your investing your life savings.

Those that are waiting for the sky to fall or the sim to become more fleshed out are missing out on some very cheap entertainment right now.

[zapatista]

Maybe is just me, but I don't think $39 dollars is that big of an investment for a healthier future for prop combat flight sims. Especially when I consider what we spend on computers, monitors, and peripherials to play the software

chivas, i dont think that is a valid argument

you'r basically saying that we (the long term flightsim enthusiasts, rather then dabbling newbies) should always blindly support and unjustifiably glorify any flightsim program that gets released, no matter how bad it is or whatever problems it might have, just because we are a smaller subsection of the gaming world and somebody makes "something" for that genre.

personally i think we should take the exact opposite approach, and only support quality products that have good content, and those that provide us with content and features we actually want. to get a yardstick of what that minimum level of quality and content should entail, we should look for something that is BETTER then the best individual aspects of the current and previous state of the art products in that category (like il2-1946 or ms-fsX products, and the better previous ww-1 sims), not something that might only look a little prettier in the eye candy department then older games and then doesnt include (or even deliberately regresses or removes) many basic components/aspects that make up the now well understood minimum standard for a "good game" in the flightsim genre.

there are many many problems with the RoF sales model and the product itself, i wont extensively list them all here again because it gets rather boring, but at the moment of sale in the west it very obvious it is more like a late beta with multiple deliberate limitations added that cripple it even more (limited servers, limited type of online play, limited planes, limited maps, limited season of year, daytime flying only etc..), and whatever you buy is a disposable item that has no intrinsic or long term value or usage whatsoever. looking at some of the main RoF forums in the last few weeks the volume of complaints from disappointed and frustrated customers is very high, so severe in fact they already had to release a few of their precious extra planes as "free" extra's (jay, you can now fly 4 planes instead of 2 !, /sarcasm off, but it still has lots of lockups, crashes, and you cant play it offline at all etc..). btw in some of their western world game advertising they previously had already stipulated you could fly some of those new "free" planes, so not providing them could have landed them in more hot water.

if you are going to be so desperate to always accept anything new, no matter how bad it is, just for the sake of getting something, then all we will get in future is similar crap, if you pardon my french, because that product and sales model will be deemed a successful model for those that will make products afterwards.

your argument about already having an expensive pc with various expensive flightsim hardware addons is also the wrong way around imo. people buy pc's for multiple usage purposes, then most flightsimmers here spend an extra 30 to 50% to get better components and extra hardware for it, but they bought those extra items specifically to fly and enjoy the few good flightsims that already exist, and to enjoy them in the best possible way, not the other way around.

does that mean there is nothing good about RoF ? there are some good aspects, but with the deliberately imposed limitations and buggy state it is right now, for the better informed flightsim customers that make up a large part of this small market it definitely aint worth the full game price they are asking the way it is in its current form, and for the new type of product it is it should be avoided completely untill they correct some of the major limitations (currently they hope people wont look to closely at what they are actually getting before they spend their money, and the perpetual roiling carpet of paying more money they need to continue with).

they have essentially taken a console product sales model where you buy a locked item at full price that can only be played on one station at a time, but have then prevented you from playing it as a stand alone game offline which is what most people normally would do (and then still constantly force you to keep buying more extra's for it like more cars, planes, or scenery like you do with some console games), and then mixed this with aspects of the "online-only" flightsim model (where you normally get the game for free and pay a monthly subscription to play it, but in this case they make you pay for the game itself to), but they then added their own further twist on it, make the game deliberately incomplete to start out with (one season, one map, 2 flyable planes only, daytime only, etc..) so people need to start immediately buying more items and features from the start, and then also make it 100% reliant on some distant russian server functions that can be stopped or discontinued at any time, forcing you to buy their next product when they decide to shut it down (or fail), leaving you with absolutely nothing.

if that is your dream of the future of flightsimming, i think you have set your standards rather low

[nearmiss]

It is easier and less exacting to build a game than a flight simulator.

The mathmatics required to build a navigation system is pretty mind blowing stuff. Then you couple that with the physics, aerodynamics, and graphics.

Games are "hot" and the console has done a great job of bringing the kiddies to the box.

A combat flight simulator equal to an IL2 and upcoming BOB requires an enormous amount of work. The mathmatics, physics, graphics are just mind numbing.

Heck, I love air combat. If I were in the gamer business I'd study the kiddies with the console games and try to address that market. The setup, installation and continued game play is totally controlled by the application. No addons or improvements... just play the game and enjoy. That is probably the reason so many games are on the shelf.

A friend of mine tried to buy a Sturmovik 1946 at EA store, and the clerks didn't even know what it was. Sorry, air simulation geeks are becoming extinct or something like that.

Oleg will do alright, because he knows the Jets are too fast and complicated. The WW1 stuff is too slow, and the weapons too weak. There is plenty of speed, weapons are powerful and the pilot is the most important element in WW2 CFS. The player should be the focus and that is alot easier to do in a WW2 CFS.

Flight simulators like MS and X-Plane are complex, but pretty good if you are interested to learn many of the more cerebral things that go with piloting aircraft. There is even good crossover to the real world in both sims that is valualble to any one seeking to be or already is a real world pilot.

I read Oleg's responses in this thread. I am satisfied we are going to get a excellent product.

[Chivas]

chivas, i dont think that is a valid argument

you'r basically saying that we (the long term flightsim enthusiasts, rather then dabbling newbies) should always blindly support and unjustifiably glorify any flightsim program that gets released, no matter how bad it is or whatever problems it might have, just because we are a smaller subsection of the gaming world and somebody makes "something" for that genre.

personally i think we should take the exact opposite approach, and only support quality products that have good content, and those that provide us with content and features we actually want. to get a yardstick of what that minimum level of quality and content should entail, we should look for something that is BETTER then the best individual aspects of the current and previous state of the art products in that category (like il2-1946 or ms-fsX products, and the better previous ww-1 sims), not something that might only look a little prettier in the eye candy department then older games and then doesnt include (or even deliberately regresses or removes) many basic components/aspects that make up the now well understood minimum standard for a "good game" in the flightsim genre.

there are many many problems with the RoF sales model and the product itself, i wont extensively list them all here again because it gets rather boring, but at the moment of sale in the west it very obvious it is more like a late beta with multiple deliberate limitations added that cripple it even more (limited servers, limited type of online play, limited planes, limited maps, limited season of year, daytime flying only etc..), and whatever you buy is a disposable item that has no intrinsic or long term value or usage whatsoever. looking at some of the main RoF forums in the last few weeks the volume of complaints from disappointed and frustrated customers is very high, so severe in fact they already had to release a few of their precious extra planes as "free" extra's (jay, you can now fly 4 planes instead of 2 !, /sarcasm off, but it still has lots of lockups, crashes, and you cant play it offline at all etc..). btw in some of their western world game advertising they previously had already stipulated you could fly some of those new "free" planes, so not providing them could have landed them in more hot water.

if you are going to be so desperate to always accept anything new, no matter how bad it is, just for the sake of getting something, then all we will get in future is similar crap, if you pardon my french, because that product and sales model will be deemed a successful model for those that will make products afterwards.

your argument about already having an expensive pc with various expensive flightsim hardware addons is also the wrong way around imo. people buy pc's for multiple usage purposes, then most flightsimmers here spend an extra 30 to 50% to get better components and extra hardware for it, but they bought those extra items specifically to fly and enjoy the few good flightsims that already exist, and to enjoy them in the best possible way, not the other way around.

does that mean there is nothing good about RoF ? there are some good aspects, but with the deliberately imposed limitations and buggy state it is right now, for the better informed flightsim customers that make up a large part of this small market it definitely aint worth the full game price they are asking the way it is in its current form, and for the new type of product it is it should be avoided completely untill they correct some of the major limitations (currently they hope people wont look to closely at what they are actually getting before they spend their money, and the perpetual roiling carpet of paying more money they need to continue with).

they have essentially taken a console product sales model where you buy a locked item at full price that can only be played on one station at a time, but have then prevented you from playing it as a stand alone game offline which is what most people normally would do (and then still constantly force you to keep buying more extra's for it like more cars, planes, or scenery like you do with some console games), and then mixed this with aspects of the "online-only" flightsim model (where you normally get the game for free and pay a monthly subscription to play it, but in this case they make you pay for the game itself to), but they then added their own further twist on it, make the game deliberately incomplete to start out with (one season, one map, 2 flyable planes only, daytime only, etc..) so people need to start immediately buying more items and features from the start, and then also make it 100% reliant on some distant russian server functions that can be stopped or discontinued at any time, forcing you to buy their next product when they decide to shut it down (or fail), leaving you with absolutely nothing.

if that is your dream of the future of flightsimming, i think you have set your standards rather low

Actually my standards are quite high. When I see an emerging quality developer, I'll support him with my monies and words, and I'll keep supporting them as long as the quality carries on. Quite frankly what we pay for quality flight sims is a joke compared to the monies, talented people, and time required to devleop them.

Personally I'm mainly waiting for SOW, and have no problem waiting for a completed quality product. That said I'm able to enjoy another uncompleted quality product in ROF now. It also wouldn't have bothered me if Oleg had released SOW early with just a map, spit, hurri, 109, and He111 as it would have given me time to learn those aircraft and navigate the map. I have alot of respect for IL-2 series and how it was continually improved over the years. I see ROF having the same kind of future. The only difference is Oleg has the resources to hold off release until SOW is complete where ROF doesn't have that advantage.

You can chose to kill the developer withholding your monies and trashing the sim, but I've chosen to help them continue their quality work.

[csThor]

RoF has two pretty big problems - the legacy of Il-2 (as an example of a very extensive planepool) and the legacy of Red Baron (as an example of a near-perfect offline campaign). At the moment (and for quite some time, or even never at all) it will be able to compete with either of these things. I must agree with naysayers - at the moment the content of RoF is more Beta than full product (heck, the original Il-2 demo had two flyable aircraft!) and the unfinished state of several key features (Mission builder, online, campaign) seriously limits what you can get out of it. If flying and dogfighting is all you're interested in then it's probably quite good (have heard only good things about FM and DM), but if you seek a Red Baron - like campaign or massive online battles á la Il-2 you're going to be disappointed. To me it feels as if neoqb ran out of cash and had to release something to get new funds to continue work, because I severely doubt they'd have released the current product if they'd had the choice.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

I'll wait until they add some stuff to the original game to start thinking about buying it.

Unfortunately, I guess that when this happens, I'll be too busy scrambling on my Hurricane trying to catch a Dornier formation before it reaches London, screaming "Atchung, Spitfeuer!" through my radio and immediatly break formation in my yellow-nosed Emil, followed by Black 6, 12 and 3, diving over "the few" to give the bomber boys enought time to drop their bombs on Bristol.

[virre89]

I'll wait until they add some stuff to the original game to start thinking about buying it.

Unfortunately, I guess that when this happens, I'll be too busy scrambling on my Hurricane trying to catch a Dornier formation before it reaches London, screaming "Atchung, Spitfeuer!" through my radio and immediatly break formation in my yellow-nosed Emil, followed by Black 6, 12 and 3, diving over "the few" to give the bomber boys enought time to drop their bombs on Bristol.

spare us the BoB drama it's not even been shown in motion yet..

Aside from that RoF has been exceeding my expectations and i am happy with my 38$ spent on it , rather have some fun while waiting for the "hopefully" successful and good SoW than be a sour old man.. I've no problem with enjoy some pure next generation quality. Nothing is perfect not even SoW will be perfect at retail, if it is flawless it would be the first game in the history so chill on the preaching.

[Tree_UK]

spare us the BoB drama it's not even been shown in motion yet..

Aside from that RoF has been exceeding my expectations and i am happy with my 38$ spent on it , rather have some fun while waiting for the "hopefully" successful and good SoW than be a sour old man.. I've no problem with enjoy some pure next generation quality. Nothing is perfect not even SoW will be perfect at retail, if it is flawless it would be the first game in the history so chill on the preaching.

I am pleased you like it, i have not tried it yet simply because the first world war is not really my thing. However just imagine how may updates and add ons there will be for ROF by this time next year, when we will still be here asking if we can have an update for SOW or asking questions that will never be answered in the appropriate thread. Actually ROF is looking more appealing by the day....

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

I can understand the viewpoints of those saying WWI is not their thing.....Fair dinkum its not everybodys cup of tea. I do however find the ruminations of those who have not played it, yet seem to somehow be experts on the sim a bit confusing......And no I am no "Cheerleader". I wrote a small review on it over on Simhq (I post there under "Biggles07") I think began with "I'm a believer BUT", with both positives and negatives. Those opinions are pretty much the consensus at the moment. That said, I had been playing it only around 3-4 days at that point, since then I have had some great fun with the sim, despite its frustrations.

It is not in competition with SOW, room for both in this world and then some. 99% of those who bought ROF will buy SOW too, no doubt about it. Why all the bitching?

@KG26_Alpha "These idiots are kidding themselves."

Thanks for that mate, charmed. This "idiot" here is having a great time with the sim, cheers. Don't worry, though your comment struck me as somewhat ironically "idiotic" itself being that you have never met me.....though I'm not quite puerile or immature enough to return the favour.

That said Alpha, if British you are more than welcome to attend Newcastles Cruddas park community centre boxing gym on wednesday nights and call me an "idiot" then.......I'm a middleweight so PM me if your interested. Relax, its just sport! Funny how the insults flow on computers isn't it? Aye, whatever Bonny lad, lmao ;).


@Tree, theres a new vid up on YT which you can find on the Simhq ROF page of the British SE5a coming soon......looking good. If that doesn't get yer in the "Tally Ho" Spirit then nothing will hehe.

Cheers.

[proton45]

I am pleased you like it, i have not tried it yet simply because the first world war is not really my thing. However just imagine how may updates and add ons there will be for ROF by this time next year, when we will still be here asking if we can have an update for SOW or asking questions that will never be answered in the appropriate thread. Actually ROF is looking more appealing by the day....

Chumming the water again?

[Tree_UK]

I would call it putting things in perpesctive, we can wait and wait, or try something new.

[Tree_UK]

I can understand the viewpoints of those saying WWI is not their thing.....Fair dinkum its not everybodys cup of tea. I do however find the ruminations of those who have not played it, yet seem to somehow be experts on the sim a bit confusing......And no I am no "Cheerleader". I wrote a small review on it over on Simhq (I post there under "Biggles07") I think began with "I'm a believer BUT", with both positives and negatives. Those opinions are pretty much the consensus at the moment. That said, I had been playing it only around 3-4 days at that point, since then I have had some great fun with the sim, despite its frustrations.

It is not in competition with SOW, room for both in this world and then some. 99% of those who bought ROF will buy SOW too, no doubt about it. Why all the bitching?

@KG26_Alpha "These idiots are kidding themselves."

Thanks for that mate, charmed. This "idiot" here is having a great time with the sim, cheers. Don't worry, though your comment struck me as somewhat ironically "idiotic" itself being that you have never met me.....though I'm not quite puerile or immature enough to return the favour.

That said Alpha, if British you are more than welcome to attend Newcastles Cruddas park community centre boxing gym on wednesday nights and call me an "idiot" then.......I'm a middleweight so PM me if your interested. Relax, its just sport! Funny how the insults flow on computers isn't it? Aye, whatever Bonny lad, lmao ;).


@Tree, theres a new vid up on YT which you can find on the Simhq ROF page of the British SE5a coming soon......looking good. If that doesn't get yer in the "Tally Ho" Spirit then nothing will hehe.

Cheers.

Thanks buddy i will check it out, I dont think you will get many takers for a good old 'punch up' on here though. This is really a fan site so anything that threatens Oleg normally gets toasted both sides by the usual suspects.:grin:

[proton45]

I would call it putting things in perpesctive, we can wait and wait, or try something new.


As it stands "ROF" doesn't offer enough for me (right now) to try it... and "I'm" not willing to hedge my bets on speculating what kind of (and how many) "free"(?) up-dates "ROF" may offer.

[KG26_Alpha]

I can understand the viewpoints of those saying WWI is not their thing.....Fair dinkum its not everybodys cup of tea. I do however find the ruminations of those who have not played it, yet seem to somehow be experts on the sim a bit confusing......And no I am no "Cheerleader". I wrote a small review on it over on Simhq (I post there under "Biggles07") I think began with "I'm a believer BUT", with both positives and negatives. Those opinions are pretty much the consensus at the moment. That said, I had been playing it only around 3-4 days at that point, since then I have had some great fun with the sim, despite its frustrations.

It is not in competition with SOW, room for both in this world and then some. 99% of those who bought ROF will buy SOW too, no doubt about it. Why all the bitching?

@KG26_Alpha "These idiots are kidding themselves."

Thanks for that mate, charmed. This "idiot" here is having a great time with the sim, cheers. Don't worry, though your comment struck me as somewhat ironically "idiotic" itself being that you have never met me.....though I'm not quite puerile or immature enough to return the favour.

That said Alpha, if British you are more than welcome to attend Newcastles Cruddas park community centre boxing gym on wednesday nights and call me an "idiot" then.......I'm a middleweight so PM me if your interested. Relax, its just sport! Funny how the insults flow on computers isn't it? Aye, whatever Bonny lad, lmao ;).


@Tree, theres a new vid up on YT which you can find on the Simhq ROF page of the British SE5a coming soon......looking good. If that doesn't get yer in the "Tally Ho" Spirit then nothing will hehe.

Cheers.

Confirmed.................... Idiot.

;)

[hiro]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akNmqkEPoV0&NR=1 LOL



I can't run it on my PC so my friend had to help me out.

he has a quad w/ 2.66 ghz pc.


I'm using my Microsoft 'new OS' approach.

1. wait and see the damage.
2. wait for a patchable or version that runs reliably.
3. wait and see the non MS support community behind it + extra apps.
4. buy, patch, and install (for this game, i'd be play).


I'm going to wait on ROF.

why?

short version:

DRM turns me off esp w/ better DRM methods out there.

ROF bugs are big. They forgot Rule #3 of game fight club. release beta = betamaxed. Don't release beta. (rule 1 n 2 talk about the game club to everyone). Still though pest control (patience + beating up a pillow / punching bag) will work. Somtimes.

ROF content is low. I feel like I just bought a box of my favorite ceral, opened the box, split the plastic bag's top and find it half full. And 5 crunch berries, when the picture has half of it berries and cereal.

However the modeling, physics and eye candy (graphics) is good so if they fix it, its worth it, so I will wait.


Support the flight sim devs, yes. This is why I will get a 2nd copy of IL-2 for backup (one DVD will travel). But support a product that was rushed through QA? This happens more than it should for the video game community. And lower expectations of intended audience is partly to blame.




long version:






first the good:

Gorgeous graphics, excellent physics, and realistic WW I flying. Yes you can crash (planes) just cuz. Wind blows too strong, smack. Squirrelly movements check.

then the bad:

1. the DRM thing. I buy my games. I don't want to be penalized because of some pirate paranoia. Look at Microsoft, they've been fighting pirates and ninjas and you can torrent a modded Vista that runs smoother than a trimmed Pony. Millions and months spent on DRM that the electronic army of hackers undoes in a day. I d/l games to test to see if I like and if I like I buy it. If I don't like it gets erased.

(I'm going to buy backup copy of IL-2 46 dvd). There are so many user friendly ways to implement DRM and they went the hardline. So I'll wait until a good patch / hack / mod / DRM method switch happens.


2. Bugs. I am tired of being punked by game dev companies. Like Age Of Conan ( more like age of crash on). First my friend said registering Rise was a challenge (waiting to time out, then retry etc), and he's tech savvy. On my ROF play, got CTD once, and locked up several times, looked for online connection.

And my friend has solid internet (he plays MMO's and FPS hard core.)

We tried selecting a plane and it says cant access it, then we back out to main menu and back in and NOW can select it.

I'm ok with the funky voice acting, but during a mission when the game quits and blacks out, then you're greeted by your desktop and flash of a window some error message that appears and disappears in the same instant . . .

The fight for good quality continues. I will not be betamaxed and waste $$ and time on something that should have been QA'd properly. And this is basic to any product.


3. loading like playstation. Ok his rig is powerful. It can run 3 instances of Left 4 Dead, two Lord of the Rings online's and run in desktop or in either games as if no thing else is being ran.

He can even render Lightwave style while playing Left 4 Dead (1 instance).

We had some laughs, were waiting for ROF to load, and he switched to Left 4, played a bit, went to check ROF, loading :D


4. Weak sauce content. 2 planes? Ok, they're trying the Valve angle / Blizzard Starcraft 2 model. Release a 3rd of the game, then more. Ok. But Valve and Blizz are industry heavy hitters and neoqb's the new kid on the block (does neoqb rhym with n00b? ). Valve and Blizzard can make this call given their position.

2 planes and some missions doesn't have the scope of the theater they're trying to represent.

5. buying new planes. I could support this, but being stingy with only 2 planes upon release means they're out for $$. I was laughing at the post on the ubi forums where someone said if this was IL-2, it would have only IL-2 and ME-109 to play lol.

And only 2 planes harkens to this japanese 8 bit ww2 sim where you could fly a cream yellow or green zero or something that looked like a mustang in USN hellcat colors. it was from arcade tail end 3rd person view perspective and you could bomb, torpedo, and shoot at incoming planes ships etc. But thats cuz memory was premium, 8 bit gaming was new frontier.

But this is 09, variety is the spice of life. And IL-2 has raised the standards.

Give something more than 5 planes each side. And more missions, heck maybe even one bomber biplane and missions like that. I don't care if its old school where a gunner uses a modified sextant to aim, picks up a bomb from the basket, and arms the bomb and holds it over the side.

I'm waiting for the 10 planes for $10 sale! It seems they know how rare WW I sims are so they're milking it.

6. The ubi forms post has lots of posts w/ a near fanatical fanboy ism of this game. I'd think lots of people would be wanting this game due to the starving nature of WW I sim and the rarity of good sims of that era.

I notice here, like ubi, flaws of the game and neoqb's shortcomings are overlooked because of the eye candy graphics, the 'ohhh and ahhhh' of a flight sim and the accurate flight model. But ROF has the bugs, the issues, the lack of content, lots of missing qualities from stellar games that should've been there from the start.

Ok, I can understand beggars can't be choosers right? A hungry man's gotta eat? And if your diet is only WW I sims . . . when anything edible shows up, bon appetit, even if its a rat burger (demolition man anyone?). But like Ash, I choose you IL-Two!


Support the sim community. Yes, if product is good. But I don't think so, if its not. I mean, if you buy a buggy product, you are telling the manufacturer you're willing to take something less than the top notch quality we all deserve.

Forget all the doomsaying Flight Sims are dying. IL-2 is just as popular. 7 years and you can still find a strong community going for that. Only games I know of with that longevity are a few MMO's (Asheron's Call) and classics like Nintendo's on its Wii.

Alot of the posts praising ROF seem to be skewed by the lack of good WW I flight sims, heck even WW I sims period (ya it hurts we can count them on our fingers since x86 days) so once one comes up, with graphics and decent flight model its "next best thing since sliced bread" despite the shortcomings.

Ahh, takes more than just eye candy to sell me.

But at least none of the issues are what I would call game breaking. Game hesitant to buy, yes.


So I'll wait for more content, patches to fix the bugs, and hacks / replacement of the DRM.

Plus I have to build a PC, and that takes time cuz I'm going CH for IL-2 first.

See . . . but what if BOB SOW comes out. And also I'm waiting on Starcraft 2, and Mass Effect 2. ROF could slip under the radar . . .


lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6YJVvKu8Ag&feature=related

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

@Alpha....Hahahaha, confirmed......Bigmouthed Wuss ;)

[Tree_UK]

As it stands "ROF" doesn't offer enough for me (right now) to try it... and "I'm" not willing to hedge my bets on speculating what kind of (and how many) "free"(?) up-dates "ROF" may offer.

To be honest i am not a big fan of first world war sims fullstop. However ROF does look very good and the support seems to be there, i am not concerned about paying a few quid for add-ons that is to be expected these days, and i am getting very tempted by ROF, at least its something new to fly about in.

[virre89]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akNmqkEPoV0&NR=1 LOL



I can't run it on my PC so my friend had to help me out.

he has a quad w/ 2.66 ghz pc.


I'm using my Microsoft 'new OS' approach.

1. wait and see the damage.
2. wait for a patchable or version that runs reliably.
3. wait and see the non MS support community behind it + extra apps.
4. buy, patch, and install (for this game, i'd be play).


I'm going to wait on ROF.

why?

short version:

DRM turns me off esp w/ better DRM methods out there.

ROF bugs are big. They forgot Rule #3 of game fight club. release beta = betamaxed. Don't release beta. (rule 1 n 2 talk about the game club to everyone). Still though pest control (patience + beating up a pillow / punching bag) will work. Somtimes.

ROF content is low. I feel like I just bought a box of my favorite ceral, opened the box, split the plastic bag's top and find it half full. And 5 crunch berries, when the picture has half of it berries and cereal.

However the modeling, physics and eye candy (graphics) is good so if they fix it, its worth it, so I will wait.


Support the flight sim devs, yes. This is why I will get a 2nd copy of IL-2 for backup (one DVD will travel). But support a product that was rushed through QA? This happens more than it should for the video game community. And lower expectations of intended audience is partly to blame.




long version:






first the good:

Gorgeous graphics, excellent physics, and realistic WW I flying. Yes you can crash (planes) just cuz. Wind blows too strong, smack. Squirrelly movements check.

then the bad:

1. the DRM thing. I buy my games. I don't want to be penalized because of some pirate paranoia. Look at Microsoft, they've been fighting pirates and ninjas and you can torrent a modded Vista that runs smoother than a trimmed Pony. Millions and months spent on DRM that the electronic army of hackers undoes in a day. I d/l games to test to see if I like and if I like I buy it. If I don't like it gets erased.

(I'm going to buy backup copy of IL-2 46 dvd). There are so many user friendly ways to implement DRM and they went the hardline. So I'll wait until a good patch / hack / mod / DRM method switch happens.


2. Bugs. I am tired of being punked by game dev companies. Like Age Of Conan ( more like age of crash on). First my friend said registering Rise was a challenge (waiting to time out, then retry etc), and he's tech savvy. On my ROF play, got CTD once, and locked up several times, looked for online connection.

And my friend has solid internet (he plays MMO's and FPS hard core.)

We tried selecting a plane and it says cant access it, then we back out to main menu and back in and NOW can select it.

I'm ok with the funky voice acting, but during a mission when the game quits and blacks out, then you're greeted by your desktop and flash of a window some error message that appears and disappears in the same instant . . .

The fight for good quality continues. I will not be betamaxed and waste $$ and time on something that should have been QA'd properly. And this is basic to any product.


3. loading like playstation. Ok his rig is powerful. It can run 3 instances of Left 4 Dead, two Lord of the Rings online's and run in desktop or in either games as if no thing else is being ran.

He can even render Lightwave style while playing Left 4 Dead (1 instance).

We had some laughs, were waiting for ROF to load, and he switched to Left 4, played a bit, went to check ROF, loading :D


4. Weak sauce content. 2 planes? Ok, they're trying the Valve angle / Blizzard Starcraft 2 model. Release a 3rd of the game, then more. Ok. But Valve and Blizz are industry heavy hitters and neoqb's the new kid on the block (does neoqb rhym with n00b? ). Valve and Blizzard can make this call given their position.

2 planes and some missions doesn't have the scope of the theater they're trying to represent.

5. buying new planes. I could support this, but being stingy with only 2 planes upon release means they're out for $$. I was laughing at the post on the ubi forums where someone said if this was IL-2, it would have only IL-2 and ME-109 to play lol.

And only 2 planes harkens to this japanese 8 bit ww2 sim where you could fly a cream yellow or green zero or something that looked like a mustang in USN hellcat colors. it was from arcade tail end 3rd person view perspective and you could bomb, torpedo, and shoot at incoming planes ships etc. But thats cuz memory was premium, 8 bit gaming was new frontier.

But this is 09, variety is the spice of life. And IL-2 has raised the standards.

Give something more than 5 planes each side. And more missions, heck maybe even one bomber biplane and missions like that. I don't care if its old school where a gunner uses a modified sextant to aim, picks up a bomb from the basket, and arms the bomb and holds it over the side.

I'm waiting for the 10 planes for $10 sale! It seems they know how rare WW I sims are so they're milking it.

6. The ubi forms post has lots of posts w/ a near fanatical fanboy ism of this game. I'd think lots of people would be wanting this game due to the starving nature of WW I sim and the rarity of good sims of that era.

I notice here, like ubi, flaws of the game and neoqb's shortcomings are overlooked because of the eye candy graphics, the 'ohhh and ahhhh' of a flight sim and the accurate flight model. But ROF has the bugs, the issues, the lack of content, lots of missing qualities from stellar games that should've been there from the start.

Ok, I can understand beggars can't be choosers right? A hungry man's gotta eat? And if your diet is only WW I sims . . . when anything edible shows up, bon appetit, even if its a rat burger (demolition man anyone?). But like Ash, I choose you IL-Two!


Support the sim community. Yes, if product is good. But I don't think so, if its not. I mean, if you buy a buggy product, you are telling the manufacturer you're willing to take something less than the top notch quality we all deserve.

Forget all the doomsaying Flight Sims are dying. IL-2 is just as popular. 7 years and you can still find a strong community going for that. Only games I know of with that longevity are a few MMO's (Asheron's Call) and classics like Nintendo's on its Wii.

Alot of the posts praising ROF seem to be skewed by the lack of good WW I flight sims, heck even WW I sims period (ya it hurts we can count them on our fingers since x86 days) so once one comes up, with graphics and decent flight model its "next best thing since sliced bread" despite the shortcomings.

Ahh, takes more than just eye candy to sell me.

But at least none of the issues are what I would call game breaking. Game hesitant to buy, yes.


So I'll wait for more content, patches to fix the bugs, and hacks / replacement of the DRM.

Plus I have to build a PC, and that takes time cuz I'm going CH for IL-2 first.

See . . . but what if BOB SOW comes out. And also I'm waiting on Starcraft 2, and Mass Effect 2. ROF could slip under the radar . . .


lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6YJVvKu8Ag&feature=related

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/facepalm.jpg

[Tvrdi]

SE.5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KGaWGfjJWs

Pfalz D.IIIa

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpGva7i-S2M



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlbUuMQ1z5c

[Feuerfalke]

Neobq also added the D.5 Ablatros, the Nieuport 28 for free.

[Feuerfalke]

The free Albatros convinced me - luv that plane - , but I got to say that I'm not impressed that much. It has potential, no doubt, it's fun and it looks great, but I also know now why 4 hours were enought to see it all...

If it only would have adjustable sensitivity (at least they are considering that, now...), I could say something about flight-modell and stuff. With a Saitek-HOTAS, you are fighting your input a lot more than the flightmodel itself. :rolleyes:

[Al Schlageter]

Neobq also added the D.5 Ablatros, the Nieuport 28 for free.

As they should have as they were to be there in the first place.

[Feuerfalke]

True.

[virre89]

Anyway abit offtopic for the discussion but a "in your face" kinda thing..
Command and Conquer 4 , yes as far away from a ww2 simulation you can get , have just announced that they require constant internet connection while playing, even for Single Player à La RoF.. just thought some people should realize this is a buisniss model that is gonna get even more common with the years to come... even for casual games..

[Igo kyu]

Anyway abit offtopic for the discussion but a "in your face" kinda thing..
Command and Conquer 4 , yes as far away from a ww2 simulation you can get , have just announced that they require constant internet connection while playing, even for Single Player à La RoF.. just thought some people should realize this is a buisniss model that is gonna get even more common with the years to come... even for casual games..
It might become more common, if people knowingly buy software that behaves that way. I won't be buying software like that.

[Thunderbolt56]

As they should have as they were to be there in the first place.

Actually, not true. It's the same type of snafu that plagued 1:C maddox regarding the Betty bomber and a few other flyables that the publisher put on the box art thus giving the impression they would be included. 1:C responded by finishing that (and a few other things) and putting them in a free patch. Not much difference really.

As far as fighting your inputs, trim adjustments were only present in a few models (like the SE5a for one) and it was limited. The standard practice for many was to set their control surfaces to be slightly nose-up at a certain airspeed and fly with constant forward stick pressure. Sounds awkward (and it is), but it was common then.

To what extent should we have to apply forward stick pressure to achieve level flight (as one example) is still being worked out.


TB

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

The free Albatros convinced me - luv that plane - , but I got to say that I'm not impressed that much. It has potential, no doubt, it's fun and it looks great, but I also know now why 4 hours were enought to see it all...

If it only would have adjustable sensitivity (at least they are considering that, now...), I could say something about flight-modell and stuff. With a Saitek-HOTAS, you are fighting your input a lot more than the flightmodel itself. :rolleyes:

"I could say something about flight-modell and stuff. With a Saitek-HOTAS, you are fighting your input a lot more than the flightmodel itself. "

I disagree with that Feurfalke, ( I have an X52 Pro setup myself) but this is how it was anyway by all accounts, big adjustment from the comparitively "fly by wire" IL-2 birds lol and you can't relax much at all. Throttle/RPM adjustment is key, its very difficult at first but its as Thunderbolt says, its the way it was. Wind and turbulence are also big factors, you will find yourself crabbing due to a strong gust alone, these things were lightweight. You go full throttle, and unless you "Trim" your stick with some rope you will end up with a sore arm (I was one of the first in Europe to get it retail) Adjustable sensitivity would be great for those who want it, but not flying at full throttle all the time and getting mix and radiator settings right works wonders too, especially in dives. Personally, I feel the FMs are hands down the best thing about it by a country mile, a lot of others feel that way too.

Agree that its fun, but yes at present 4 hours tells you pretty much the whole story so far. GUI and Map interface improvements are pending.....and maybe more in next patch. Like you say, the key word is potential and lets hope it fulfills it. Something to amuse myself with until "Storm Of Waiting" shows up anyway :) I'm enjoying it despite its flaws, particularly the Albatros which is my fave ride by far, and looks great (Fokker too twitchy for my liking ).

Roll on September, hope theres something worth seeing from 1c.

[Feuerfalke]

Yes, Orville, that was my impression at first, too.

I though "Wow, the wind feels great on the light planes" and was fascinated by the sluggish feeling. Then I tried the game with my CH HOTAS and adjusted curves and I could snipe a pilot from 500m in a Albatros - not even to mention the much more stable Spad13.

It's also not really realistic how the planes respond. Okay, I only flew once in a radial-engine biplane, but it felt a lot different - especially on the ground. In RoF if you kick the rudder you can turn without moving forward and against the skid the back of your plane is lying on. We had a wheel on our biplane and it didn't like that without applying that much throttle, that the plane at least slightly moved forward when turning.
It also has little to no effect when starting or stopping the engine. In IL2 this effect is like 10 times stronger and they had a much different prop-weight/resistance to planeweight ratio.

You should also play the game online a bit. Some people also know about the sensitivity trick. Depending on who you fly against, they'll shoot 10 times in a row with less 1 second burst, no matter from what angle they're coming, while other planes twitch and twiggle around like you and I do with the X52 ;)

As I posted: Great potential, but not quite there, yet.

[Al Schlageter]

Actually, not true. It's the same type of snafu that plagued 1:C maddox regarding the Betty bomber and a few other flyables that the publisher put on the box art thus giving the impression they would be included. 1:C responded by finishing that (and a few other things) and putting them in a free patch. Not much difference really.
TB

You do know who Albert Zhiltsov is, don't you?

PC Pilot Magazine, Jan-Feb 2009, Page 59.

Albert Zhiltsov - "On initial release the end-user will be able to fly the legendary Albatros D.V, Fokker D.VII, Niewport 28 and SPAD 13."

There it is for you in 'black and white'.

All 1C patches for Il-2 were free.

[KG26_Alpha]

You do know who Albert Zhiltsov is, don't you?

PC Pilot Magazine, Jan-Feb 2009, Page 59.

Albert Zhiltsov - "On initial release the end-user will be able to fly the legendary Albatros D.V, Fokker D.VII, Niewport 28 and SPAD 13."

There it is for you in 'black and white'.

All 1C patches for Il-2 were free.

Not patches.........updates :)

[virre89]

You do know who Albert Zhiltsov is, don't you?

PC Pilot Magazine, Jan-Feb 2009, Page 59.

Albert Zhiltsov - "On initial release the end-user will be able to fly the legendary Albatros D.V, Fokker D.VII, Niewport 28 and SPAD 13."

There it is for you in 'black and white'.

All 1C patches for Il-2 were free.

All RoF patches are free as well.. what are you on about luls.
Only addons will cost such as planes.. lewl

[KG26_Alpha]

All RoF patches are free as well.. what are you on about luls.
Only addons will cost such as planes.. lewl

IL2 updates were free the only paid addon I bought was the PE2 Peschka and that was only because the Russian market had it and the Western market demanded it, it comes included now in IL2 1946 @ £9.99

Free updates included
100's of aircraft
ships
vehicles
artillery
armour
buildings
100's of ground objects
maps
and some stuff I've probably missed.

I wonder if RoF are going to just charge for planes.

[Tree_UK]

IL2 updates were free the only paid addon I bought was the PE2 Peschka and that was only because the Russian market had it and the Western market demanded it, it comes included now in IL2 1946 @ £9.99

Free updates included
100's of aircraft
ships
vehicles
artillery
armour
buildings
100's of ground objects
maps
and some stuff I've probably missed.

I wonder if RoF are going to just charge for planes.

And the winning answer is...... "Who Cares".

Those that want to pay for add on's will, and those that don't wont. It has no effect on people who haven't purchased the game yet.

[virre89]

And the winning answer is...... "Who Cares".

Those that want to pay for add on's will, and those that don't wont. It has no effect on people who haven't purchased the game yet.

+1

Besides RoF isn't IL2 get used to it ffs.

[Robert]

Is it right to compare IL2 with RoF? Times are certainly different and in this economic market it's tough to give away as much as Maddox/UBI did.

The difference between the two (and I think is a valid point) is that there was a fully fleshed out game with IL2. You could take on different roles dependant upon the plane you chose. There was more than two planes listed. There were more maps. As far as I remember online worked from the get go. IMO RoF isn't a complete game.... yet.

TBH. If SoW:BoB were to come out at $100.00 I'd buy it. If I add up what would be necessary for RoF to be what I'd consider a complete game I'd probably pay the same amount as I'd pay for BoB and I'd be happy to do so if all the features and planesets were included and functional.

In time I'm sure it will get to the point where IL2 was upon it's release (or to where I think RoF is a complete game) but two planes and one map and non-working online are a little light for my tastebuds.





With that said even SoW seems like it will have more features out of the box than RoF. We can all ONLY guess as to why the diparity of releases, but I'd hate to set a precedence for incomplete releases just to make more money upon completion or to allow unfinished buggy games to go out the door to unsuspecting simmers.

[KG26_Alpha]

Gotta love the non contributing finger poking posters here that have no idea about IL2 1946 as it stands now and the development its gone through and continuous support over the last 8-9 years.

I hate to be labelled a fanboi but that's what I am only on the grounds of the development team from Oleg/1 C Teams continued interest in taking facts and advice from its customers regarding flight models and historical data and updating the sim/game according for free.

You will be hard pressed to find any other developer dedicated to its community as Oleg and his fellow workers.

My final post here as this threads so far OT.

Good luck to RoF buyers and your future I mean that most sincerely.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Is it right to compare IL2 with RoF? Times are certainly different and in this economic market it's tough to give away as much as Maddox/UBI did.

The difference between the two (and I think is a valid point) is that there was a fully fleshed out game with IL2. You could take on different roles dependant upon the plane you chose. There was more than two planes listed. There were more maps. As far as I remember online worked from the get go. IMO RoF isn't a complete game.... yet.

TBH. If SoW:BoB were to come out at $100.00 I'd buy it. If I add up what would be necessary for RoF to be what I'd consider a complete game I'd probably pay the same amount as I'd pay for BoB and I'd be happy to do so if all the features and planesets were included and functional. [\QUOTE]

Of course you can compare the two, but you need to take into account the extensive expansion and development that occured to IL2 AFTER it's release.

Hopefully ROF will show enough potential to get enough suport from the FS community to develop into a truely comprehensive WWI flight simulator. (Or at least keep ME amused until SOW is released ;) )

[QUOTE=Robert;82928]
In time I'm sure it will get to the point where IL2 was upon it's release (or to where I think RoF is a complete game) but two planes and one map and non-working online are a little light for my tastebuds.


One of the big complaints people have about IL2 is the size of the maps. ROF has put it all on one map. Supose you can't please every one! Hmmmm!

ROF - "On one map of 125 000 km2 the military conflict between Germany, Austro-Hungary and France, England, Italy, the USA and Russia take place."

From what I've read they already added another two flyable planes That get installed through the patching process.



With that said even SoW seems like it will have more features out of the box than RoF. We can all ONLY guess as to why the diparity of releases, but I'd hate to set a precedence for incomplete releases just to make more money upon completion or to allow unfinished buggy games to go out the door to unsuspecting simmers.

How long has ROF had it's website and blog up? Concidering that we are in a niche market and mainly enthusiasts are going to buy the game, I think that most people know the situation or will at least read the box cover. Do you want a warning label on the box in inch high letters? "WARNING- This Combat Flight Simultation contains 4 flyable aircraft, you may experience a level of disapointment if you expect more!"

Check out DCS Black Shark. At the moment there is only one flyable helio. The precedent has already been set, a long time ago. Flight Simulator (before micro$oft got involved) had only one plane I believe. No one complained because they knew the the situation.

My big concern is the online validation every mission and the patch updates. I still remember playing Company of heroes the first time and took about 3 hours to install the patches before I could run the silly game and get into my first mission.

Until my copy of ROF arives I don't know how intrusive it will be?

Cheers

[Robert]

I should have added AT RELEASE. I took it for granted that people would know what I meant. Sorry. I know IL2 has expanded quite a bit. Compare the two out of the box and I feel RoF lacks. If it were a more robust collection I'd pay $100.00 just like I'd pay for BoB. At this time I don't want a piece-meal game that doesn't have all it's features added or working.

I honestly wasn't aware the map was that big. Are there any hills or mountains?

MS Flight sim had one plane when PCs were still running DoS and CPUs were running at 33MHz or less. There has been a full spectrum of airplanes since FS 98 (or before, but I wasn't simming back then).

We are spoiled with IL2. I freely admit it. I'm only asking for a complete game. To me RoF feels undone..... despite neoQB's best efforts.




Good luck with RoF. I hope you enjoy it, Skoshi. Reading some of the folks at UBI rehashing their experiences is great. I enjoy reading about them. I'll more than likely buy RoF when things I think need finishing are done.


PS. If you could arrange the 1 inch high letters I'd appreciate it. ;)

[Feuerfalke]

And the winning answer is...... "Who Cares".

Those that want to pay for add on's will, and those that don't wont. It has no effect on people who haven't purchased the game yet.

+1

You have to be a bit more honest, when comparing IL2 and RoF.
Imagine you only bought the basic IL2FB and you decided to not buy the Aces Expansion, PE2 and Pacific and 1946 addons. Then with the RoF-Model you'd still be able to play with the rest of the IL2-players regardless of addons they got, because you'd have received the graphics updates, maps and improved flight-model with free patches! So the only difference would be, that you cannot fly the planes yourself that came with the addons.

Now THAT would compare to Rise Of Flight's business-model.

[Tree_UK]

+1

You have to be a bit more honest, when comparing IL2 and RoF.
Imagine you only bought the basic IL2FB and you decided to not buy the Aces Expansion, PE2 and Pacific and 1946 addons. Then with the RoF-Model you'd still be able to play with the rest of the IL2-players regardless of addons they got, because you'd have received the graphics updates, maps and improved flight-model with free patches! So the only difference would be, that you cannot fly the planes yourself that came with the addons.

Now THAT would compare to Rise Of Flight's business-model.

How does ROF work with online play Feuerfalke, say for example you purchased/downloaded a Sopworth pup and i hadn't purchased/downloaded it, but I wished to join the same server as yourself, would I get an error message or would i simply not be able to see your aircraft or would i see it but not be able to fly it.
I haven't got ROF yet but i am interested.

[Rama]

say for example you purchased/downloaded a Sopworth pup and i hadn't purchased/downloaded it, but I wished to join the same server as yourself, would I get an error message or would i simply not be able to see your aircraft or would i see it but not be able to fly it.

The later.
You will have the Sopworth pup fully installed on your PC, and even be able to built mission with it as AI plane.
"Purchasing" a plane means only purchasing the right to fly it (and it means no specific download, just an authorisation in the server database... so next time you launch the game, you will be able to fly it). Every patches/upgrades are downloaded automatically as soon they're available and you lauch the game, whatever you bought planes or not... so everybody has the same code and data on his PC.

I really don't want to compare business models of both games. I had tremendous fun with IL2, and all money expended on it was worth it. I'm 100% sure it will be the same with SoW:BoB.... and so far, I have the same feeling with RoF (just hoping neoqb will get enough income to be able to continue its continuous development plan)

[ZaltysZ]

If you don't purchase an aircraft, you will not be able to fly it, but you will be able shoot at it and down it. :)

[Foo'bar]

Keep it simple. To purchase a plane simply means to purchase a cockpit. All externals are in the game already.

[Feuerfalke]

How does ROF work with online play Feuerfalke, say for example you purchased/downloaded a Sopworth pup and i hadn't purchased/downloaded it, but I wished to join the same server as yourself, would I get an error message or would i simply not be able to see your aircraft or would i see it but not be able to fly it.
I haven't got ROF yet but i am interested.

Couldn't put it any better than Foo'bar just did.

You buy the cockpit, the rest comes with free patches. That means you can join any server using these planes, but you may not fly it. In other terms, you will only run into problems if you join a server that only uses planes you don't have payed for, because then you can only join to watch the show.

[DKoor]

:cool:

[Tree_UK]

Couldn't put it any better than Foo'bar just did.

You buy the cockpit, the rest comes with free patches. That means you can join any server using these planes, but you may not fly it. In other terms, you will only run into problems if you join a server that only uses planes you don't have payed for, because then you can only join to watch the show.

Rgr that, thanks. :grin:

[Feathered_IV]

Just got my copy. Takes some time to customise things to ones liking, but first impressions are very good indeed. After seven years of Il-2, it does take you out of your comfort zone somewhat. However perseverance is rewarded.

I'm very pleased with my purchase and I'm glad I was not swayed by the more hysterical members of the community.

[Feuerfalke]

It's definitely fun and it's something new. It just get's old a bit quickly, but that's when we start playing online ;)

[Blackdog_kt]

Support means different things for each one. To some it is unconditional, to others it means "i'll buy if i like what i see". Both groups are needed for the survival of the flight sim genre, the first to fund the beta testing and bug hunting process, the second to press for improvements :cool:

Personally, I'm waiting for something like a "gold" version a few months down the line. One that possibly has proper multiplayer capabilities, more aircraft (both flyable and AI) and a well done single player campaign for a normal game price. A $40 admission fee to take part in an open beta doesn't cut it for me, no matter how good the FM/DM is, but that's just my personal opinion.

Also, a version that lets me choose if and when i want to install the latest patch and/or revert to a previous version, because sometimes patches break more than they fix. And most of all, a version that isn't dependant on a bunch of different ISP's working in unison for me to use a product i paid for. If i buy something i expect it to work regardless of what technical hiccups the server on the 5th hop from my local ISP to Amsterdam might be experiencing. It shouldn't be my problem, simple as that.

Maybe not all of this will be fixed according to my liking, but i expect some of it to be fixed before i get a copy. For example, maybe the new version has more aircraft and a well done dynamic campaign but the stupid DRM implementation remains, or vice versa. If half of my wishlist was being addressed i would probably pick it up.

At the state it is right now i feel i don't really want to get my hands on it. I fear i'll like so much the few things it does well, that i'll be even more frustrated at the total glaring omission of other important stuff and/or the not so user friendly customization process and DRM scheme :grin:

Your mileage may vary of course, but being primarily a WWII jockey i can certainly keep flying IL2 for a couple of years more, especially thanks to the unofficial add-ons made by the community. I wanted to get RoF initially before i found out about all the things i dislike, but even then i was just looking for something to keep me occupied until BoB:SoW. To me that means a more or less complete game that will work right out of the box in the sense a traditional combat flight sim is expected to. I'm looking for something to keep my mind off BoB:SoW for a while, not trade one anticipation with another waiting for new flyable biplanes, a proper campaign and bug fixes :grin:

[Feathered_IV]

The RoF manual has some interesting notes about it's FMB.
As well as event triggers and much other stuff, you can also arrange objects (say an AAA or observation balloon position) and save the layout of those objects as a kind of template that you can paste into other missions or areas of the map. It sounds like a great feature, that will allow a much more lively frontline to be created for a lot less effort than in Il-2.

[virre89]

Support means different things for each one. To some it is unconditional, to others it means "i'll buy if i like what i see". Both groups are needed for the survival of the flight sim genre, the first to fund the beta testing and bug hunting process, the second to press for improvements :cool:

Personally, I'm waiting for something like a "gold" version a few months down the line. One that possibly has proper multiplayer capabilities, more aircraft (both flyable and AI) and a well done single player campaign for a normal game price. A $40 admission fee to take part in an open beta doesn't cut it for me, no matter how good the FM/DM is, but that's just my personal opinion.

Also, a version that lets me choose if and when i want to install the latest patch and/or revert to a previous version, because sometimes patches break more than they fix. And most of all, a version that isn't dependant on a bunch of different ISP's working in unison for me to use a product i paid for. If i buy something i expect it to work regardless of what technical hiccups the server on the 5th hop from my local ISP to Amsterdam might be experiencing. It shouldn't be my problem, simple as that.

Maybe not all of this will be fixed according to my liking, but i expect some of it to be fixed before i get a copy. For example, maybe the new version has more aircraft and a well done dynamic campaign but the stupid DRM implementation remains, or vice versa. If half of my wishlist was being addressed i would probably pick it up.

At the state it is right now i feel i don't really want to get my hands on it. I fear i'll like so much the few things it does well, that i'll be even more frustrated at the total glaring omission of other important stuff and/or the not so user friendly customization process and DRM scheme :grin:

Your mileage may vary of course, but being primarily a WWII jockey i can certainly keep flying IL2 for a couple of years more, especially thanks to the unofficial add-ons made by the community. I wanted to get RoF initially before i found out about all the things i dislike, but even then i was just looking for something to keep me occupied until BoB:SoW. To me that means a more or less complete game that will work right out of the box in the sense a traditional combat flight sim is expected to. I'm looking for something to keep my mind off BoB:SoW for a while, not trade one anticipation with another waiting for new flyable biplanes, a proper campaign and bug fixes :grin:

Oh dear, you're gonna be waiting forever with those demands.. why not just go make the game yourself..

[Blackdog_kt]

Well, it's not my job and i certainly don't have a problem waiting. Just like i said, IL2 will be a fine companion for me for a couple of years more. If Neoqb comes up with something i like then i'm going to buy it, otherwise i'm not going to and wait for SoW:BoB, very simple really.

[zapatista]

It's definitely fun and it's something new. It just get's old a bit quickly

you've just summed it up pretty well, the problem is however that "thats all there is" and after a few days you have already seen its limitations. however nice it might look, its unfinished in much of its content and many of its game aspects (online play, stand alone missions, campaign, coop etc..)

now just remember that this has been sold to you at full game price, under the illusion that you would get a fully functional and completed product, which it clearly isnt

and from now on, just keep your wallet open, cause you are about to go on a long drawn out ride where they will keep stringing you allong to extract more and more money from you at each step.

but that's when we start playing online ;)

except of course that this is EXTREMELY limited, no 24/7 dogfight servers for global players to meet on whenever they feel like playing their game, no decent campaigns, coops, or new series of missions to dld either.

now is that really the level of quality in a new flightsim product you will accept from all new flightsim products from now on ? i doubt it, or you have set your standards really low, and in many regards it is a significant step back from the good flightsims from the last 10 years (mig alley, falcon 4, ms-flightsim, il2 etc...)

now also compare what you have now to the long list of exiting features and content that in the last few years you were led to believe would be included, any sense of feeling conned or fooled by the old bait-and-switch trick yet ?

[Chivas]

zapatista

39 dollars isn't full sim price...I paid alot more for IL-2, OFF, CFS, and FSX, etc
The addon aircraft cockpits, FM, and DM's are cheap by any standard if you so chose to buy them.

I guess you missed "Rise of Flight Vision Statement" that indicates that ROF was released early to generate funds to continue development of the sim. All aspects of the sim will be improved over the life of the sim. I would image if you enjoy the sim the cost per hour of usage will be measured in pennies. Hardly a deal breaker.

Chivas

[virre89]

you've just summed it up pretty well, the problem is however that "thats all there is" and after a few days you have already seen its limitations. however nice it might look, its unfinished in much of its content and many of its game aspects (online play, stand alone missions, campaign, coop etc..)

now just remember that this has been sold to you at full game price, under the illusion that you would get a fully functional and completed product, which it clearly isnt

and from now on, just keep your wallet open, cause you are about to go on a long drawn out ride where they will keep stringing you allong to extract more and more money from you at each step.



except of course that this is EXTREMELY limited, no 24/7 dogfight servers for global players to meet on whenever they feel like playing their game, no decent campaigns, coops, or new series of missions to dld either.

now is that really the level of quality in a new flightsim product you will accept from all new flightsim products from now on ? i doubt it, or you have set your standards really low, and in many regards it is a significant step back from the good flightsims from the last 10 years (mig alley, falcon 4, ms-flightsim, il2 etc...)

now also compare what you have now to the long list of exiting features and content that in the last few years you were led to believe would be included, any sense of feeling conned or fooled by the old bait-and-switch trick yet ?

Says the guy, who don't own the game and seemed to know everything 1 year ahead of everyone..lmao

We where well aware of what we were getting Neoqb haven't fooled anybody on purpose. IL2 consists of many expansions and updates, stop comparing it to RoF it's just ridiculous besides IL2 doesn't really have the proper tools for multiplayer either... it utilize a 3rd party tool for server browsing, something that would leave a lot of players out of the online community.

And IL2 wasn't exactly rich on content at initial release either.

[JG52Uther]

I wonder,neoqb showed a lot of stuff which looked totally finished when Rof was called KoTs.Did they take it all out just so they could sell it as add ons?
Imagine Oleg releasing SoW with one flyable 109 and one flyable hurricane,no campaign,very limited SP,broken MP (can't host behind a router,just go in DMZ and open all your ports to the world,don't worry...),and a dead environment.
Then said don't worry,everything else you need will be available to purchase at the store soon.
I think RoF looks good,but will not buy it until it is improved by several patches to bring it up to something other than a beta,and an early beta at that.
Everyone raves about the DM of RoF.Screenshots of,and reports of planes flying around with no wings,or most of the wings gone don't impress me that much.Planes crashing from hundreds of feet and just doing a little bounce on impact,and looking a little crumpled???

What is it with the fanboiism of RoF? Are the people who brought it slightly embarrassed about it,and need to keep defending their purchase,even though deep down they know its not good enough just now?
Visit simhq and if you complain about RoF,even people who brought the game,get ripped to pieces.Then again some of the fanbois appear to be on the neoqb payroll,and belittling anybody who dares to complain seems to be a valid tactic of defence.
Some even purport to speak for the developers (they are working on ....... and ..... now,so shut up etc) but that seems to be a trend that infects a lot of forums these days.

[Chivas]

JG52Uther if your not interested in supporting ROF at the moment and prefer to voice your inexplicable wonder at those that do, its your choice. We all understand that the sim is unfinished and has bugs and anomilies but the community can see that the ROF team is talented and could use our support. Especially in the early stages of development in these tough economic times. If the community withheld their support, I have no doubt there would be considerable pressure to close the doors. We have too few talented combat flight sim developers to let that happen. Thirty-nine dollars is a very cheap investment in the possiblity of much greater things to come. Although I realise that quite a few people have there own financial problems and can't afford to invest in an unfinished sim.

Luckily it appears that many in the flight sim community are able to support the sim, and it should give the company enough of a financial boost to continue development to a stage where it could attract many more gamers.

Its not like early adopters are having to wait for the sim to flesh out. There is huge entertaiment value in what there is in the sim now, and it gives me something to do until SOW comes out. :)

Chivas

[ElAurens]

If you look at my early posts at SimHQ, I was very enthusiastic about RoF.

I still am in some ways.

The flight modeling is very good indeed, as are the aircraft models.

However, after flying it for a while now the new has worn off and the problems are becoming very apparent. My most recent posts at SimHQ reflect this experience with the sim.

You can agree with the business model or not, I'm not getting wrapped up in that debate, but no one can tell me that all is well and that the unicorns and rainbows are there for all to see. The rabid fanboism at SimHQ is out of control. If you are an onliner and post about problems with the multiplayer aspects of the sim your comments are brushed off as trivial gamer talk. Only "serious" off line players can have valid observations there it seems.

I want RoF to succeed. It has tremendous potential.

But right now the emperor has no clothes, and the fan boys are blind as a bat.

[Feuerfalke]

That's true, zapatista.

Considering neoqb has to maintain online servers 24/7 for all their stuff it makes you wonder why they don't have some official servers running for their customers. :(

[Chivas]

It does surprise me that Neoqb doesn't have dedicated servers running for their customers. I could be because the code hasn't been optimized enough to run effectively with large groups of players. It doesn't bother me at this point as I usually like to learn the aircraft and practice shooting skills before venturing on-line.