Maybe a little bit, but then if the COD engine had been chosen it would be exactly the same reaction just reversed.

You know, posting one picture of the coastline on an unfinished map and saying rof is ancient is just ridiculous. Have you ever played the game?

Rof have so many things, amazing clouds cockpits and planes, rain and overcast weather, excellent tracers, superb draw distance, and the graphics options, you can change everything to fit your system, and on max settings in looks great, it also has functional anit-aliasing and antistrophic filtering. Great colors on the landscape as well. And the planes is realy well modeled to real life performance, something Clod have totaly missed.
And when you crash your plane it dont dissapear into a hole in the ground, the wreck stays there.

I am looking forward to see and hear more about this great project. I know we are getting the best now.

Surely we just have to wait and see what developes. If 777 has the clod engine and good intentions ( like pleasing the community and making money) then they should be able to release a game we can all enjoy.
By the time it arrives we will all have better pc's (probably) and we'll be playing clod with max settings and people will wonder, like they are in another thread, what some moaned about.
BoS WILL have teething troubles and people WILL moan about them but lets not forget that some of us couldnt play il-2 '46 on our pc's on max settings in 2008 and that came out around 2006.
I think i've taken a long time to say "lets be wait and see...."

This is Folkestone. No need cliffs here...

This diferences maybe makes a good software "sim" to record movies and the other to fly nicely without stuttering at low level?

The screenshot of ROF is WIP.

It's pretty obvious clod engine is significantly more advanced than rof engine, but the problem is the management we had in clod killed it. The last two years they just moved around in circles, fixing one thing and messing two. It's understandable 1C wants them out.
The ideal fix, if 1c hd some vision, would be to get Jasson and rof team fix the sucker. That would have made more sense for the future. However, 1c wants money, not a great, next generation simulator. What we want and what 1c wants are not the same thing.
In the short run, for the very next product, they'll maybe do ok and mke money. But few months from release, the things we'll miss will turn a lot of people off. Than, 1c will be left with a very old game engine they'll have to scrap and start from scratch.

I like rof a lot. I bought most stuf they offered. But it's engine is pretty limited compared to what we are used to.
There are few things to consider when you look at wht made rof a success. It came at a time, when there was nothing going on in il2 world and a lot of il2 players were bored witing for CCLOD. There were a lot of people that used to play red baron and OFF, and for this guys rof was light years ahead of what they used to play. And let's not forget the absolutely awesome hard working team, that when decided to fix something, they did it right the first time.
I'm sure, if rof team had the money availble for rof, that Maddox games had, they could have done a working sim, at least as advanced as cliffs of Dover.
That initial lack of funds decided how far they can go with the engine. They achieved a lot with what they had.
Sadly, the limits they had to put on the engine, tight budget and timeline, will make it hard for them to make an impressive, future proof product.
This are a hard working and well managed bunch of guys. I hope they can pull it off. I just don't see this new bussines model investing in the advanced features that make a great sim.

Be careful you will make people post the best Dover landscape...

http://youtu.be/hd18tx--ApU

I read today that MG may have had a complete turnover of its coding personnel 2 years ago, and so if true, would explain things somewhat.

I installed RoF for the first time last night, (had no interest before to do so because I wasn't into WWI) and I have to say I'm really impressed.

The engine is solid and interface and delivery of the game is very well polished and extremely functional, yet stylish. Much more so than Cliffs. It was (weird) refreshing seeing a polished and complete sim after playing Cliffs for so long.

Flight felt good. The scale is appropriate and akin to CloD, by that I mean "fast" feels fast, and "high altitude" feels high altitude. This is also a relief when comparing to other modern sims such as War Thunder (I'm in the beta)...a potentially good game, but right now, is completely missing its mark when it comes to a good flight "feeling", even with its "full realistic" simulator mode.

There were friendly and enemy AI in abundance on the multiplayer server mission I tried, along with plenty of ground targets and ground action. Dunno what all this fuss about RoF's engine not being able to handle ground objects is.

The graphics looked really good and very on par with Cliffs of Dover, for the most part, I couldn't tell the difference after I applied SweetFX's filters.

I don't understand what the crying is about. If BoS is held to the same standard of quality as RoF, then we're definitely in for a good time.

You must be blind if you don't see the difference between cartoonish dx9 engine
and advanced graphic engine in Clod.

Again on ground targets, I suppouse you never been in some online wars like SEOW and AW war

http://seowhq.net/

http://war.by-airforce.com/

And this is imposible to do in Rof engine on this scale.Old Il2 engine is a way superior compared with Rof engine for this kind of campaigns.

The Eastern front is based on support for the ground troops.

Here Jason answers about ground units

http://forum.il2sturmovik.net/index....age=3#entry959

We will see what Loft will say today, answering the precise questions about
graphic quality (dx9?) , size of the maps, and quantity of objects in the missions.