Rise of Flight - To buy or not to buy?

[Fearfactor]

ROF doesn't even have a static campaign, let alone a dynamic one. At least COD will have a static campaign set up. I'll buy COD but I have yet to even consider ROF. One main reason combat sims are dying is because devs are too lazy to create much offline content.
It's well known that most sim players like offline. I play 99% offline, only go online to do something different for a change.

[Acid]

Originally Posted by Fearfactor

ROF doesn't even have a static campaign, let alone a dynamic one. At least COD will have a static campaign set up. I'll buy COD but I have yet to even consider ROF. One main reason combat sims are dying is because devs are too lazy to create much offline content.
It's well known that most sim players like offline. I play 99% offline, only go online to do something different for a change.

They are adding a pilot career mode, much like red baron 2's, one reason why im going to get it, and because it looks like a good game.

I dont know if CoD will include a pilot career mode on release since there's no dynamic campaign i'm thinking there wont be, hopefully they'll have one later on in a update or addon.?

[David603]

Originally Posted by Acid

They are adding a pilot career mode, much like red baron 2's, one reason why im going to get it, and because it looks like a good game.

I dont know if CoD will include a pilot career mode on release since there's no dynamic campaign i'm thinking there wont be, hopefully they'll have one later on in a update or addon.?

There are scripted singleplayer campaigns for both sides in CoD.

[LukeFF]

Originally Posted by Fearfactor

ROF doesn't even have a static campaign, let alone a dynamic one.

Try again. There are three static campaigns that ship with the game: one a training campaign, one for the Central Powers, and one for the Allied Powers.

[vanderstok]

Originally Posted by Fearfactor

One main reason combat sims are dying is because devs are too lazy to create much offline content.
.

Too lazy? I have never seen a small team work so hard and deliver so much as the RoF team did. I'm pretty sure the same goes for the CoD team.

You must be one of those strange creatures that think by throwing insults they'll get what they want. Or is that just how your parents raised you?

[Blackdog_kt]

I don't think the RoF guys were lazy. I think they were forced to release it way too prematurely due to financial reasons, plus one of their investors decided on using the constant online requirement. All that gave it a slow start and it's been playing catch up for a while.

That being said, i've tried the demo on various times during its life and i still think it has some way to go before it's something i can consider what i call a complete game in an "out of the box, install and play" sense.
If they had a version with enough flyables, a different DRM and a proper offline campaign (that uses the correct AI opposition, not spawning sopwith camels against my eindecker) i would reconsider.

Then again, i was recently looking it up again and i see people still complain about the render distance and the need to use zoom view to see the dots as close as 2km from their aircraft, so i don't know if such annoyances can be ironed out or it's a case of something that's buried too deep in the game's engine to change.

I think that's the problem with a pay-per-plane business model, even if they are cheap: developers are forced to focus on creating a constant stream of new flyable aircraft to sustain their revenue, almost to the expense of everything else in the sim, plus these flyables are not really that pricey from a developer's point of view but they are from a user's point of view if you want to have more than 4-5 of them.

On the other hand if they did it a la IL2 (content upgrades with major expansions only), they'd have more time to work on other stuff in-between releases of expansions: bug fixing, game engine upgrades, extra AI units to help enrich missions and campaigns, etc. Plus, they would be able to sell it for $50 instead of $5 and more people would buy it. Even if an expansion includes 5 planes i'm not interested in among a total of 10, i still consider it a better value than buying 5 planes individually, because expansions usually include extra maps or other goodies (some AI ground units, added mission builder capabilities or just a new mission type or multiplayer mode as an extra selling point). So, a full-on expansion is also a way for a developer to sell extra flyables to me that i wouldn't otherwise buy individually.

What i'm really interested to see is how long it takes before a 3d party group makes a WW1 sim out of Oleg's new engine and how it would compare to RoF.

[Bryan21cag]

Im sure this has already been covered but i have been really getting into this game waiting for IL2 COD to realease.

1. Make sure you have a pretty high performance computer. I had a diecent one but because of the level of detail and large battle areas that need to be loaded. even if the game is playable you could incur 20 min load times per mission (that was me) which is not fun if you get killed rite off the bat and need to re fly the mission.

2. The offline game play is limited but not bad. The career mode i think randomly generates missions to fly and allows you to rack up your kills.

3. the online is really fun if you either normally fly with full switches (full realistic difficulty) or log on when one of the 2 beginner rooms have people in them. Most all of the multiplayer rooms are full switches only. but again pretty fun.

I would definitely recommend this game after allowing for a few days of learning curve. the menu navigation is just a little clunky but for the most part i would say very well put together.

[BigC208]

@Bryan22cag,

I have a duocore running at 3.4 ghz and a 8800gts, 1680x1050. My quick missions used to take 4 or 5 minutes to load. I asked about this on the RoF forum and they gave me some tips. Turn post effects off, keep video usage around 40% by playing with the quality settings. In the quick mission menu I turn all options off. No vehicles, AAA, Artillery, Buildings, Trains, Armour, Balloons, Ships. Who needs AAA shooting at him in a dogfight anyway?
I can now load a quick mission in about 30 seconds and a refly even faster. Framerates are smooth as long as I keep it under 20 planes and not too many bombers, they're really fps killers.

My system has problems with the career missions. They demand too much from my system. Online missions are no problem and run smooth.

Best flightmodel in a homecomputer sim I've played with going back to the first microsoft sim I had on the commodore 64 in 1985. Looking forward to CoD to take that title back or at least equal it.

[Alien]

Originally Posted by vanderstok

Too lazy? I have never seen a small team work so hard and deliver so much as the RoF team did. I'm pretty sure the same goes for the CoD team.

You must be one of those strange creatures that think by throwing insults they'll get what they want. Or is that just how your parents raised you?

Oh please, c'mon! How could RoF with 4 planes, and almost none physics compare to CoD?! If it had to, you'd have in CoD only Hurricane, Spitfire, Bf 109 and Stuka available AT ALL and have to PAY MONEY for rest of content which SHOULD be included for that 50-60 bucks!

[BigC208]

Almost no physics? That program has lot's of physics, 100% realistic? nope, but better than anything this side of a 6 million dollar level D sim at Flight Safety International. I bought the Iron Cross Edition that had 8 planes plus one bonus plane.

You're right, when it came out a year ago, it was not a finnished product. I did not buy it then because of the DRM requirements. When they dropped those I looked at it again. The $50 I spend on ICE was worth every penny. Including the 50 bucks I spend on extra aircraft.

We got spoiled by how Oleg gave us all the free stuff when Il2 came out. Those days are over. If you want to play you got to pay. Don't go all negative on a game because it cost more than you're willing to pay. Judge it on it's merits.