Comparisons to Rise of Flight

[bongodriver]

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.

No.....just pointing out the obvious bias.

[ATAG_Doc]

Notice the number people viewing CoD forum was over 340. There's no doubt what that means. Interest is high and only time will tell if this continues to bleed off others from the remaining sims.

[Fritz X]

@ Sven:

Very nice screenshot, indeed! But you're not actually playing the game with those settings, do you? If yes, I'd be impressed

[GnigruH]

Originally Posted by timej31

Notice the number people viewing CoD forum was over 340. There's no doubt what that means. Interest is high

No, it's because 300 ppl bought this game and now they are searching internet forums to find out why it doesn't work like it should

[Blackdog_kt]

I'm not worried about graphics or sounds...the developers will fix some and the modders will fix some, even if they can't be adequately optimized our hardware will catch up in 6-12 months, etc...

Long story short, i don't worry about stuff if it's only a matter of waiting until they get better. I prefer to worry about stuff that can't be added at a later date and thankfully, CoD has a lot of that already built-in.

That's the reason my personal choice goes in favor of CoD, it's just a matter of what each one prefers.

I never liked RoF's online restrictions and the fact that they don't offer any full add-on/expansion packages but only individual flyables.
I've tried the demo a few times and i got the impression that RoF is perfect for flying the aircraft, but not for flying a simulated war: the 2km visibility bubble, the inability to use large numbers of ground units, the lack of a common content base between players (they don't all have the same aircraft available to fly), etc.
They got the feeling of flight perfect, they just didn't have time to model the war around it and they are still filling the pieces in, more than 2 years from its release date.

CoD on the other hand is the exact opposite approach: here, take all these undocumented features that you can hardly use today but which will be useful in the future for a full-on dynamic war experience, take these flyables and AI units that are enough to cover all the major players for the scenario, experiment with it and by the time you've figured it out we will have improved it sufficiently so you can use what you've learned.

None of the above methods are ideal and that's due to money and time constraints, i just prefer CoD's method because it's better geared towards long term development. The fundamental building blocks for the future are already there, they are just hidden under the heaps of disorganized stuff that lies on top. When the easier to perceive features are sorted out (graphics, sounds, etc) and people start looking under the hood, it will be easier to realize and appreciate the complexity involved.

[150GCT_Veltro]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

No.....just pointing out the obvious bias.

I've also Slovakia in 1946, with superb textures, much better than what i've in CoD now. With low setting this engine should have been at least like IL2 at maximum, and it's not....is worst than IL2.

So, yes...fanboys.

[Plt Off JRB Meaker]

One of the things I do love in ROF are the incredibly realistic tracers that smoke through to their target,see any WW1 or WW2 gun cameras and you'll see what I mean.

Whilst I love COD,nice graphics,the tracers for one are pretty sub standard and not realistic at all.Incorporate the ROF style tracers and it will look superb.

After all it is the tracers you see firing and landing on you're target,so for me these have to look good.

Saying that the cockpits and workable options within COD are superb,love it,especially start ups with complex engine management,to a real sim flyer like me this is nirvana.

In short I hope COD does improve it's issues as it has tremendous potential,let's face it at present it can't get any worse.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by 150GCT_Veltro

Fanboys again....

Making you look bad does not make someone a "fanboy".

[Strike]

please... no... more... tracer.. opinions.

[Sven]

Originally Posted by 150GCT_Veltro

I've also Slovakia in 1946, with superb textures, much better than what i've in CoD now. With low setting this engine should have been at least like IL2 at maximum, and it's not....is worst than IL2.

So, yes...fanboys.

I'll give you an example: I'm an amateur oldtimer-motorcycle tuner, I work with old cilinders with great care and it's always a struggle to get the most out of it.
The step from let's say tuning the same cilinder to 80 HP to 81HP is much more difficult/expensive than from 50 to 51. Making things closer to realism is exactly such thing, Il2 was already pretty close to real life if viewed from a distance, and with the newest maps: Slovakia, things got even more realistic. CoD however does not only look great from a distance it also looks very good on very low altitudes. It's hard to make huge improvements if you are already so close to the real thing.

Another reason why CoD may appear rough is because AA is not working or not properly.