Comparisons to Rise of Flight

[Houndstone Hawk]

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

[Fritz X]

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.

[Buchon]

Originally Posted by Fritz X

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 it still.

Yeah, and how many planes playable ?

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

[Fritz X]

Originally Posted by Buchon

Yeah, and how many planes playable ?

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?

[Buchon]

Originally Posted by Fritz X

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?

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.

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....

[JG52Uther]

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.

Originally Posted by JG52Uther

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.

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...

[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.

[Robert]

Originally Posted by Tvrdi

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....

Stop liking the same sims I like, dammit. LOL

I've a rather humble machine by RoF's standards. Putting up a major battle with RoF would be nigh impossible, but I aams still managing to play 6 on 6 with full rain effects. Most of the eye candy I can turn on and still play instant missions fine.

I'm quite pleased with RoF. Who knows how I'd feel if I knew that my PC was a bear and it wouldn't handle RoF? I've never had any of the issues that were reported. I've been lucky I guess.

Anyway, I believe we'll see the same quality from 1C as we've witnessed in RoF from neoQB and 777 Studios. Hopefully better. Competition is a good thing. For what ever reason this cluster fudge has been sent out, it'll be fixed.


Oleg. Good to hear from you. I hope all is well on the home front. If the few posts I've read regarding your son are accurate I hope the best, and to me that's much much more important than a $50 game.