I just come by.. and I am getting the drift..I guess
Mods here allow yaysayers to suggest naysayers to stick their head through their anus, no moderation there.
And as naysayers claim what they think is wrong, that is called negative attitude and their posts are deleted and their accounts profoundly banned.
I always thought mods are not here to herd the discussion the "righteous" way, they are supposed to be here to keep it civil, just like the Hyde Park soapbox keepers. You can talk whatever you can, but you shall not insult any other member, right?
Mods projecting their wishes about the product and baning others, that is A shame and a major no-no for an ordinary customer like me.
So, to the topic:
I am a sport pilot IRL, so take my commentary with grain of salt as the only warbird I ever piloted was humble 600hp Yak11 trainer (a plane similar to Texan I guess).
Regarding visibility:
Sorry, but that's how it is, quite often, IRL. Very often you cannot see white Cessna half a km away against city or cloud or haze. In the autumn, I met a group of WWI replicas inflight and as these are brown/green they were almost invisible against the terrain, only the strobe light of accompanying microlight gave their position on about 300m. So get used to it, even a collision is a possibility.
Flight models:
These are, IMHO very, very gentle. Even way too gentle. IRL I am really not sure whether I would dare to fly the Spitfire of Hurricare the way I do in COD. Heck, I was able to bring Hurricane without any problems to precise 3-spot landing on the precise spot on the airfield on my first try with 19fps and heavy stutter. I have never bent any metal in COD as a result of pilot error. That is very, very strange as IRL I sometimes have a LOT to do to keep straight and otherwise civilised aircraft attitude.
(Not adding that IRL I always got like very smooth 25fps, irrespective of scenery density)
AI: I feel the AI is taken straight from the old Sturmovik. Same, robotic controls (jerking it), same ignorance of aircraft limitations (try to fly Blenheim on the same settings as AI does, you blew engines in no time!), same inability to lead up properly on shooting, same collisions with terrain, same aerobatics with full laden Dorniers. I have seen it all, and there is a lot of things to correct.
The game is unfortunately very buggy and it more looks like a Betatest.
Talking about flying the Blenheim, I was very upset on myself I was not able to keep engines ticking, as these always lost power quite soon after takeoff.
I even dug a Blenheim POH outta internet and studied. The reason dumbfounded me. As the GAME was telling me I have 100% mixture in the digital levers on screen and also on engine monitor, the lever was set to "weak" in the cockpit. So I ruined at least ten sets of Mercury engines just to find out the GAME is wrong? (Not adding there shall be no smooth 0-100% mixture setting, just "weak" and "normal".) How on earth could anyone with more limited knowledge of how airplane engines work IRL find out what is wrong here? (And as there are no POH's released with the game, CEM is a sort of wizardry for common folk)
Someone here has mentioned the state in which ROF came out.
As I was a ROF betatester, I can openly claim that such mistakes were absent. The flying part of the ROF was top notch from day zero.
And comparing ROF and COD release - while ROF was released with more or less "Sorry guys, it is not ready yet, but we need to release and make some money, please support us, there is a list of to-do's" and in reality it was a very late beta, COD was released as next-gen ultimate WWII simulator being in very early beta.
And the support of customers reflect that. ROF found its supporters (I also own a majority of addon planes, just to keep them developing the offline campaign and keep a wish for an MMOWWICFS), while COD still struggles with 500 copies max ceiling on Steam.
There were my 2c, shall I have only one wish, I beg yaysayer mods to leave my opinion here before baning me for being negative.
|