Comparisons to Rise of Flight
 

Was always in 2 minds re. voicing my opinions in my personal comparison between the 2 sims because not only am I a huge fan of Olegs work but also for the fact that so many other posters have been ripped apart for merely having an opinion on this title at such an early stage.

I fully realise that Neoq/777 Studios Rise of Flight has been around for a while now & has received much love & attention in the way of enhancements & upgrades aswell as a healthy user input & for that part it may be rightly unfair to voice comparitive opinions when CLoD has been out a matter of days & as yet, is still awaiting its 1st official patch.

With all that in mind, I still have concerns for the future of CLoD because in my opinion, the gap that seperates the 2 sims is huge in all areas.

My system is nothing fancy by any means; an Intel Core Quad Q8400 @ 2.67GHz, 4Gb DDR3 RAM, Windows Vista 64-bit with SP2 & before CLoD, I was running with the GeForce 9800 GT card on a 32" LCD screen @ 1360x768 resolution.
This setup had me running RoF with all sliders set to high or max & this gave my FPS between 35-50 depending on the amount of a/c in the mission. Bloom effects, Lighting, etc were/are fantastic & breath vibrant realism into its graphics & atmosphere. I've included a couple of my Rise of Flight videos to show an example.

Enter the much awaited IL-2 Successor; a title I (like many others), have waited quite literally years for & after much tinkering & fiddling, managed to get a framerate of nearly 30 with everything set to low or very low & with no other a/c, over sea. Land was between 5 & 17 FPS.
Wanting to upgrade the GPU anyway, I went & treated myself to the GeForce GTX 580 Amp! edition Card & was staggered (£400 later) to find that I'd gained an average of about 5 to 10 FPS (6 to 13 post BETA patch) yet RoF FPS are now well into the 60's, 70's & 80's.

I won't dwell on this because we all know the FPS problem but it's everything else that concerns me. The visuals are far from surpassing Rise of Flight's crisp, realistic, gorgeous world; & the sound is way, way behind. RoF in my opinion, also has better physics & handling but that's not to say CLoD is a slouch in this dept as it's easiest, still the best WWII flight experience out there.

Like I said, RoF has received many updates but I remember in it's infancy, RoF still looked & sounded much like it does today & I just can't see CLoD coming anywhere near it in performance or visuals but I really am hoping & praying that I am proven wrong & wish the devs all the very best in their work to nurture this title to good things & thank them for any improvements that they are currently workin on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_svtcUQaTY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxBkXMQ4Xxo

Even if I'm very unhappy about CoD's current state, I can't deny that RoF was facing some massive troubles in its' initial release. Not as bad as CoD though, but still.

About the whole "performance / visuals" topic, I guess we'll have to wait and see. Hopefully the major hic-ups will get ironed out in the near future.

Yeah, and how many planes playable ? :rolleyes:

No doub it looked and perform good, but no wonder why ...

ROF was unplayable for me (just after release)..massive stutters etc....and is optimised pretty well today (with some graphical glitches above no mans land, flashing/flickering textures etc.) ......however I must admit that some folks had smooth gameplay right from the start....
Looks like I will need to pass through same "horror" again...its my destiny with sims I like, it seams....

Tvrdi,very true.Although,I still can't play online in RoF for more than a few minutes without being kicked out,and thats the only game that happens with.
Their online code is crap.

Rise of flight came with 5 planes and a terrible loading time, horrifying GUI and nothing close to a campaign. There wasn't even QMB so you had to fly the russian roulette missions and fly 1v1 until you ran out of ammo or died.

It was worse than CoD is at the moment on its release. I just un-installed ROF after a few days and shelfed it. Now, I play it oftenly. It's gotten a lot more flyables and recently 2-engine planes.

Rise of flight also has MUCH simpler damage models and the physics model is still slightly bugged (wings bending and clipping through other wings as if they weren't there which you can see in the trailer vid you posted too). For me, when I got RoF. It was unplayable at minimum specs. A year later on the same machine, works very well maxed out.

Sorry, but that has got nothing to do with the performance of the game engine.

Of course there were very few flyables in RoF at first, but how does that influence the game's performance?

everything is happenin through master server which can be buggy sometimes...but recently that settled and you can play online no probs...the things that bothers me with their multiplayer is bad optimisation of ground units...you cant use more than few units without crashes when more ppl are on the same server...

Off course everything has his influence in the development of a game, how you invest your time and resources is one of them.

If ClOD was delayed just a week the shuttering patch was included.

So in the case of Rise of Flight if you develop less planes you can invest more resources and time in the game engine.

Some really good points made. I guess I was one of the lucky ones with no initial problems. Will agree that CLoD has more to offer, straight-out-the-box compared to RoF but how on earth can you explain the performance differences with RoF's utterly beautiful landscape, dense forests, completely miniature model-like towns & villages; to CLoD's FSX-like Lego brick blocks for buildings. Both sims have huge maps & tons going on within their theatres. To me, RoF looks & feels far superior at much greater hardware performance value.