Comparisons to Rise of Flight

[Sven]

RoF has been pure hell for me for the first half year, nothing but crashes and stutters. Another half year went past and 777 studios took over development which resulted in its succes, at least for me. I find it very enjoyable but it's lacking serious content, in terms of game features. Especially online there's not much do do except for being a wannabe Richthofen in a Dr1. Nothing wrong with that though. Although the actual ' war ' in the game is very very limited to the air and especially fighter vs fighter I prefer IL2 1946 much more. Now that 777 studios released a 2 seater I was happy, finally something to ground pound in and create a real war scenario. The aircraft is limited however to a quick offline dogfight mode, and online play, they did not add any missions for it. There's I think 2 'realism' servers which you can use the 2 seater if you are lucky ( not all the time) and then you better start praying you get across the enemy lines

The RoF-future is bright though, it's only on a rather slow pace.

So for me the sim ranking on the moment is:

1: IL2-1946
2: RoF
3: IL2-Cliffs of Dover
4: DCS series ( Ka50,A-10c)

CoD and RoF are very competative right now, but due to performance limitations I can't get the 'War' feeling out of CoD yet, so I decided it deserved 3rd place.

[150GCT_Veltro]

This is my "comparisons".......about the engine at least.

Looks great, isn't it!?

London after the beta pacth (thank, now i can fly over the city.......)

[Strike]

Originally Posted by Houndstone Hawk

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.

My guess: RoF uses better optimization, also has a lot less detailed trees it seems, far less buildings and villages are a lot more scattered. Basically the ground is very naked in RoF compared to what IL-2 CoD sets out to reach. A lot of calculations in CoD would never have to be used in RoF due to simper aircraft systems, controls, etc. Whilst RoF probably uses the "left-over" resources to produce the nice wind/air effect that lets the wind rip off wings/carry them as they fall towards earth. Yes, RoF is very immersive at the moment, but that was also their goal. To really create the impression of flying. Wind effects, sounds, weather effects, atmosphere... they are all there and near-perfected.

But you will also find countless real-life pilots saying "What? feeling of flight? pfft, more like freedom in a small box with windows traveling through the air".

Closed canopies, higher speeds, more G's, better aircraft stability all reduced the feeling of "floating" that you get in RoF. Btw planes from WWI were practically gliders with a weak engine


Anyways, I think this is a piece of art...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Pov-j4b6YY

[Jotaele]

I feel very luky to have a game like ROF , its a great product, and its only a matter of time fliying it to love it, WWI aircombats are other experience.
The way in wich they implement feature are always with a excelent taste, UI, view sistem , management sistem effects , colors etc.YOu have to work a bit like in all games to get used with those planes. joy config etc.But cant feel the air in another title like in ROF.
I think that eventually, clod will be as good and bigger as ROF, and imgoing to be very happy with a WWI and WW2 flying simulator installed in my computer.
All the community should support bot teams intensibely, and being constructibe.
I hate mensajes like, "do not buy this game" because not buying games makes team to be break, makes distributors like ubi soft not to support games, that are only a matter of time that becomes great.
If you whant than a game becomes better, put money on it.

I think its very good that we have both teams working on similar problems, because we can compare and see diferent solutions , competition is good for us customers.

You dont have to choose a team...

If never flyed ROF, give it a try.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by 150GCT_Veltro

This is my "comparisons".......about the engine at least.

Looks great, isn't it!?

London after the beta pacth (thank, now i can fly over the city.......)

So.....you took some screens of COD on minimum settings and some screens of ROF on max...........hardly conclusive.

[Houndstone Hawk]

Originally Posted by strike

anyways, i think this is a piece of art...

wow!!!

[Sven]

@ Veltro

I find this picture better in terms of representing CoD's beauty in stead of some low setting shot, I don't think you took it on low in RoF either

[Jotaele]

Wooooowwwww, i hope eventualy, i will get a picture like that in my computer, now is totally diferent inclusive in high settings, shadows flikering, no aa, etc.very diferent.

[Houndstone Hawk]

Great screenie Sven. That does much more to represent a fairer comparison than the previous posters because I agree in that CLoD was unfairly made to look bad in low settings up against the RoF grabs.

[150GCT_Veltro]

Fanboys again....

CoD is on very low graphic because this setting is the maximum i can run with my PC, when RoF run great also with maximum setting, also online.

In 2011 i was waiting for something more than a Commodore 64 game for XP and DX9.