Comparisons to Rise of Flight

[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