Well, I finally managed to download and install the RoF freebie. Don't think the problem was 777's end but for some reason the download always seemed to have a corrupted file or two which prevented installation. After a week or so of frustration I finally cracked it and it is now up and running.

Haven't really flown it yet just loaded a quick mission and let it run on auto pilot to see what it looked like. I have to say it didn't look too bad at all. It seemed quite smooth on pretty high settings, the only compromise being HDR medium, although I hadn't got a fps counter running. The colours seemed fine to me and the towns looked better than I expected and I prefered the trees and grass to CloD. The ground textures seemed very bland like flying over parkland rather than countryside and the reflected glare off the planes seemed way overdone.The rivers and ponds look better and the grass is better but from what little I have seen of the clouds in RoF CloD is way ahead there. When you crash in RoF and it has gone quiet I could just hear a skylark which was brilliant. The sea in CloD is supurb although I haven't seen Rof sea myself except in video and screens and it seems poor by comparison. The load up screens and interface are far better in RoF but they don't matter so much when you are flying. I was also impressed by the look and DMs of the planes in RoF.

On the whole I think the whole look, atmosphere and feel of CloD is just more interesting and natural and to be honest if IC and 777 are going to spend another year or more of resources on developing a WW2 flight sim I wish it could have been spent on the CloD engine rather than the RoF one. But I am sure there were good sound economic and other reasons why that wasn't going to happen.

The question mark over the RoF engine is whether it can have really large maps and the level of detail, especially cockpits and the number of objects as CloD. Plus all the potential that exists in Clod for scripting missions. If it can't then in my view it will be a bit of a flop but only time will tell on that.

I also re-installed IL-2 1946 over the weekend and got it up to the fully updated HSFX mode and whilst I hadn't done all the tweaking I could do it trailed in third by a long way compared to the other two. In fact that really is the secret of all these sims - getting your system and game settings right.

Happy New Year everyone!

err, let's see what RoF II, err BoS is exactly before you start carrying on with RoF is more successful, (which by comparison to il2... it is not ;) )

Silly quiz.

Despite the question, people will actually vote based on what sim they prefer overall, not which sim has better graphics.

It's also silly because "better graphics" is entirely subjective. For me, a smooth frame rate is important for immersion in flightsims, so RoF wins there. Also, to me, it looks more real. You can flame as much as you want, but it won't change my personal opinion. It's not based on logic, or Dx10, or rivet-counting, or an "agenda", it's just what I feel.

People have posted screenshots to illustrate how CloD is better than RoF and to me they show the opposite. My point here is not to try to argue with those people, but to show that we can both be right because, when it comes to graphics in videogames, there is no right or wrong, just subjective opinion.

Whether "better graphics" is entirely subjective or not, isn't it silly indeed to think that opinion polls are to collect opinions which are objective?

Its too late now it is what it is...I hope that 1C has enough success with the project, so as to stay interested with possible new flight combat projects.

I know you will just label me as a insidious, sneaky spy for Jason if I ask but I don't really care anymore.

Do you have any proof (documented or otherwise) to back any of your assertions up or is it just pure speculation?

I think this is a valid question, your post not only slanders a company but also it's players (calling them "teens") so I would hope that you have something more than hearsay and speculation to back it up.

Keep in mind, before you file another report on me, I only ask because you are throwing a lot of heat at a project that does not even have screenshots yet, you are going to get another IL-2 and instead of going to that forum and asking honest, polite questions to address your concerns, you are sitting in this forum and fuming about how you just KNOW that it won't be what you want.

Tell me, is it just out of bitterness and spite? where does it all come from?

So, I ask again, do you have any proof (documented or otherwise) that backs up your claims that the new IL-2 will just be a reskinned ROF?

?

Do you have any proof (documented or otherwise) to back any of your assertions up or is it just pure speculation??

Nobody on this forum knows with any certainty what Battle of Stalingrad will be like, so it is all speculation. Hey I don't even think the developers "know"what the sim will be like, how can they? They haven't built it yet.

All I can say is that if they intend to make money they had better do a good job and meet the expections of enough of it's target audience to make money or it will get shelved, just like Cliffs of Dover.

1C has shown on a number of times, that they can be ruthless when it comes to non-performance. They don't take prior history into account. Two changes of management in two years.

Lets hope it's not three in three.

Where your logic fails is that for a lot of people who bought the game, CoD had none of those things either, because it wouldn't run properly. It's pointless to hark on about RoF/WW2 hybrid as a backward step, when there were never any forward steps. Sure, 1C wanted to make this amazing, complicated, beautiful sim, but in reality they didn't.