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

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

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.

+1

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.