For better visualization
 

For better visualization:

http://download.ailantd.com/il2Cod/CompCoD.jpg
http://download.ailantd.com/il2Cod/CompRof.jpg

Amazingly enough we are moving from up to down, not down up.
So many things nowadays that follow this path.

( By the way... where are the cliffs in the RoF shot? I hardly can see them. )

http://download.ailantd.com/il2Cod/Comp2CoD.jpg
http://download.ailantd.com/il2Cod/Comp2Rof.jpg

This is really sad.

As a matter of fact ROF seems an ancient product compared to Cliffs of Dover.
More an IL2 mod than a new generation game.

Work. In. Progress.

Just bloody sad. Really really sad. Never thought this would happen. Going from the quality of Clod to the cartoon of ROF. Bummer.

BS, step backward (or more)

To be fair that shot of the cost doesnt do ROF justice, I said previously that ROF was cartoony but when i played it a few days back I was surprised its not as good but not at all bad.

http://s6.postimage.org/7wcq2wk1d/20...24_20_44_7.jpg

http://riseofflight.com/Forum/downlo...7083&mode=view

http://riseofflight.com/Forum/downlo...7086&mode=view

http://i1182.photobucket.com/albums/...DV06Jasta5.jpg

http://i1061.photobucket.com/albums/...__15_21_35.png

Like I said I was pleasantly surprised with what I saw, I think that image of the coast is just a bad screenshot, still prefer the detail of CODs landscape.

If it was a mod for IL2 it would at least have cockpit damage. ROF doesn't even have that. This is like 20 steps backwards.

lol no Cliffs in ROF nature engine only beach's..

There will be cliffs in the ROF channel map.

Different bit of England there.

S!

Can't really understand the amount of dislike and hostility here. IL-2 took the plunge and is dead, long live the king. It is now transferring to a new engine and we do NOT know if it will be exactly the same or DirectX 11 for example. Too much speculation going on. We all want a sim but still keep bitching about it like kids. Sad. Better give it a shot when released rather than biotch about it and not even giving it a chance.

I can practically hear Bliss crying, lol.. and crumpling up pieces of paper and grumbling.

This ^ for f's sake guys, its dead, they were a hole's to us while it was alive and now a actually well managed team is going to take on the next chapter of Il2. God you act liked they came over to your house and kicked your dog.

But on topic, there are some very beatiful shots that can be found in ROF. YES I KNOW ABOUT THE GROUND OBJECT LIMIT. But that is something that I'm sure they are going to work on. I doubt Jason took on this project knowing full well his engine couldn't handle it. I'm pretty sure he is aware of what can be done in DN in the future, I mean hell look at ARMA, that is the Real Virtuality Engine that ran OFP. Look at ARMA 3. Graphics engines can evolve.

You know, I joined this community not long ago with this silly idea that all of us Flight sim fans were in this together, that we were a tight knit community that knew not only how to behave but how to treat each other like human beings.

What I have seen on this post goes beyond playful sibling rivalry, this is outright shameful, all this nitpicking and hate for something you all know NOTHING about yet, there is no actual information yet beyond a few words on a page and you will think it is okay to jump on the 777 hatewagon.

I am going to be honest, I am one of those dirty ROF players and I find many of the posts on this topic (mostly from Banned) to be insulting and hurtful, I mean, don't you get that it is okay to like both, that liking one does not mean you can't like the other.

Lets be honest here, CloD is dead, it has been dead since the last steam patch and while I find it perfectly playable and very fun, it is not the product that we wanted and it is not the one that they set out to make, bad choices were made and now it is over.

777 has run a tight ship, while you may all look at ROF (in development) screenshots and thumb your noses, blurting insults at anyone who dares like the "rival", you all have to admit that ROF works as planned, everything that they set out to do gets done without all the drama and bellyaching that we have seen from some of the CloD dev's and forum mods, it just plain works and it works really well.

I am not going to get into a fight over what is better in terms of gameplay, I prefer CloD's clickable cockpits (yes Banned, even a lowly ROF player can handle them, I even play DCS titles, is your mind blown?) and the overall look of the maps and aircraft but when it comes to feel, when it comes to the flight model, ROF wins hands down, it just feels right.

ROF is my go-to sim these days, I have all the planes and will continue to buy content for it as they release it, I would have bought Battle over Moscow also but that was never to be, I had my doubts that they could get things together and they came true.

Look at it this way, if it were not for this partnership, there would be no IL-2 anymore, in a way, us lowly ROF players are opening our doors to the CloD community and we are not doing so with vicious bile and hate, we welcome new players into our community with open arms.

I don't hate on CloD or CloD players because I play ROF, heck, I play CloD on a regular basis myself!

Perhaps it is time to just accept the fact that CloD is dead and maybe try to think of this as a fresh start where we can put away our petty rivalry and move on to brighter times for both of us.

It's not the "community". The problem is that a very small but vocal group of people on this forum have gone into full crusade mode the moment the news got released. Fanboys at its worst... The vast majority of the forum users seem to simply acknowledge the news and look forward to more info and hopefully a decent WW2 flightsim.

Of course it problem now that the roles have reversed, don't recall you making a post about all the rof fanboys smear campaign...

:lol: double standards...

Do you actually want to compare the criticism of customers who paid for a deeply flawed product with the ridiculous whining over a product that hasn't even been released?

:rolleyes:

You don't think that some people are overreacting maybe just a tiny little bit?

I agree, but wanted to be kind.
My initial impression is that CLOD has been judged a project too complex to be developed with enough economic satisfaction.
The ROF engine at the moment is not as advanced as CLOD engine, but can do the job to give a working title in less than two years.
They seem to have reduced the target to a less ambitious goal, to avoid being involved in something that cannot be reached, or reached with too much difficulty.
I have bought a computer able to run CLOD one month ago and can say (but it's only an opinion) that with a machine capable to run it, the game is amazing in a lot of sectors.
The game anyway seems uncomplete and cannot compete with IL2 (but can with ROF...) in terms of variety of features, planes and scenarios, not to talk of the larger online community.
This is not a new scenario in Flight simulations. It remembers me the Falcon 4 saga. Falcon 4 had & has (now) features so advanced that all the simulators that came after gave up to use. I refer to the virtual battlefield which is the only or at least the more advanced real dinamic campaign ever realized for a simulator. Falcon is built around a battlefield where the plane is the latest piece. You play realtime and you have an entire geoographic area living below you, reacting to your moves and to the moves of hundreds of objects living on it. You can live a server alone 24/24 and he "plays" itself, conducts the war, even if there are no humans on it. You can join anytime and take the role of one of the planes that the server has already programmed to play the war.
Unfortunately the system was so hard to fix that at a certain moment Microprose realized that the money spent on it would never be recovered and abandoned the project.
The community developed the initial project cleaning, fixing and updating it.
At today Falcon is still alive and is still the benchmark for modern flight simulations at least in some areas (DCS product are a good competitor....), and has a strong community even if cannot compete in terms of graphics with more advanced projects.
Now what we have to hope is that 1c and 777 will sum up their competences to raise up the standards of WWII flight sims, instead of the contrary.
I do not have the technical knowledge to judge if considerations based on actual ROF engine are worthy in future perspective.
If the engine can be drastically enhanced and (even more) if programmers have the project to push up the standards of WWII flight sims, instead of searching for a compromise solution, able to give a complete product in a shorter time, our worries are not justified.
The business model seems to guarantee more money than CLOD. This can be bad because we have to spend more, and because will sure limit the production of third party addons, but can be good if they will use the more money to give us a richer product and guarantee the life of the genre.

http://imageshack.us/a/img209/68/shot13.jpg

ROF with SeetFX right now, the ROF engine will be added to and updated for the next sim.

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.

I imagine that they will be doing some stuff to the engine to make it suit the needs of the title, I don't believe that they would release a product that just would not feel or work right (speaking of the combined team, not just one or the other, so we are clear).

We still know very little at this stage and I doubt they are gonna spend more than a year doing nothing but setting up WWII fighters to exist in ROF, that would make more trouble for them than it is worth.

I (personally) don't think this is going to be as bad as many here seem to think but it is still too early to know for sure.

Lets just wait and see.

Regarding SEOW's ground campaign stuff (I'm not sure what you're specifically trying to point out as an example, I'm assuming controllable ground vehicles within CloD or something) I don't understand why you'd want to focus on controlling a set of ground vehicles when you're loading up a flight simulator. If you're into that stuff and it's very important to your simulator experience, you should probably stop looking in Cliffs of Dover's direction. I think DCS Combined Arms is more what you're looking for (http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.co...combined_arms/). Besides, how would it not be possible to upgrade the Digital Nature engine in a year's time to support threading and multi-core CPU instructions allowing a greater number of objects and scripting? The DN engine was made in what, 2008? And hasn't had a significant core upgrade opportunity (or reason) (aside from content additions) until now.

Yeah CloD engine was great in the scripting department, awesome, I agree. Does that make up for things it cannot do or does horribly? Do those great scripting opportunities present itself every day with the given community online or offline? No. I don't see anyone flocking to a vehicle ground war/scripted territory battle/control server on the Cliffs of Dover server list.

The clouds look absolutely gorgeous in the Digital Nature engine, btw. Have you seen em? Gorgeous.

You say "dx9" as if Direct3D9 is a horribly bad thing...do you even know what the differences between DX9 and DX10 are?

Take a look at this comparison from Crysis, this is the case in MANY other games:
http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/...=174785,00.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYWhKUoz8ww

There is no discernible difference. Seriously.

In any case, look at this http://forum.il2sturmovik.net/index....ic=21#entry912

Just because a game is written for DX9, it hardly means it's incapable of today's graphic standards. I believe the correct "critique" aspect of Rise of Flight you're looking for is "art style" or "art direction". SweetFX fixed a lot of the color washout issues that made things look cartoony.

I explain all this to you with hopes to ease your worrying. I'm not saying you can only enjoy one or the other, of course both sims are good products...but Cliffs of Dover is no longer being supported, so its popularity is easily toppled by any other similar product being released. Don't expect Cliffs to entertain forever...and especially don't expect Rof, a 5 year old game (will be 6 when BoS releases), to be just repackaged and sold without some significant enhancements.

I feel completely the same as you do about this, Aborted! by the way if you were aborted how are you on earth.

This should really read " LOL, I have no idea about Rof's nature engine" as there are cliffs on the channel map. ;)

I think you missed the point Vranac was making AM. We don't want to control ground objects, we just want them there doing basic things. If they are not there then you do not have the realism required.

Yeah, I wasnt really sure what he was trying to refer me to, the links provided had a flurry of different information.

[QUOTE][We don't want to control ground objects, we just want them there doing basic things. If they are not there then you do not have the realism required./QUOTE]
+1
an engine with different categories of objects is much more flexible in terms of resources management.
If some objects need only to be static targets we do not mind that they "have a brain".
Usually a mission has combinations of different AI objects (stationary, moving, shotting ......). This way you can setup complex game areas with lot of objects, lot of targets, lot of activities to do for the player.

Got any pix?????? I didn't see any in the wave videos that have been released.

I pre ordered the map about 6 months ago when it was first put on sale. Will be very interesting to compare the two maps.

Cods not dead! I was playing it last night. Still worked fine for me!

What’s happened is that it's got it's nuts cut off! Hopefully they have been cryogenically stored so that in the future the parts of the 'DNA' can be re-examined and the good bits can be used to progress the development of flight simulations

It may not be the natural order of things but there is always hope!

HA finally someone point something out and then adds proof of what he is saying. Good show dude!

Prettier or not Clod wont be supported any longer except if it gets released to the community somehow, in that case Id take another look, but odds are, this one is going down in the books as a noble but failed cause.

Hey! I just had an epiphany! The feeling I’ve had since the ‘News’ Is just the same one I had when I came home from work and found out my wife had taken my pointer down to the vet and had him fixed!

Nothing I could do about it, but boy it felt bad! Poor dog hasn’t smiled since!

Same here, well not exactly the same but I have a sinking dealing at the demise of COD and I am quite angry at the treatment of Ilya and his MG colleagues by 1C.

Bunch of wankers!

6+ years of engine coding down the drain in order to make a quick buck back the easier way, I just hope Jason and Loft are up to the task or not even his army of adoring fans will stop my vengeance!

the only difference is your missus probably didn't stand in front of you holding the dogs jewels and looking at you smugly unlike the collective group of COD bashing ROF mob who are gloating right now.

Oh! You don't know my wife! Gloat! The look in her eyes said it all! "Step out of line and you're next!" ;)

I haven't heard much about Loft, but I'm sure both of them will do their best. Hopefully the melding of the teams and ideas will benefit both BoS and ROF. I think it's a big gamble on 777's part.

If it goes the other way then the Combat Flight Sim genre will loose two more titles and would take decades to recover!

Now that is scary!

Competition is the main reason why we the customers get new features now there is non this is bad news for us!

Oleg and Ilya didn't have competition and they constantly added new features, will Jason do the same?

The water v2 does look good in ROF so I am hopeful.

No, you didndn't understand what I was trying to explain to you.I don't need controllable ground vehicles.
Those online wars I mentiond are similar in some way to the SoW campaign we are enjoying right now.
Lets say in SEOW you have simulated some historical campaign.you have to recon enemy positions first, and then planners(comanders) plan their actions for every mission and frontline is moving as a result.So for the example you have to destoy tanks that devasteted your infantry, or to protect your bomber friends so thay can destroy enemy supplies or ships, or to destroy bridges to stop reinforcements.
In AW you are trying to win a map, by conquering sectors, weakening supplies of cities, then taking them.
That kind of wars kept Il2 alive for years.

Somethin like that for CloD was almoust finished, but unfortunately talented guy that was doing that lost motivation after the announcment.

http://translate.googleusercontent.c...80yTs8Db3zNWCw

And that it is not possible in RoF,there is a try from some Italian guys,but the options are very limited.I heard you have to wipe out most of the cities from the map to make a mission that works.

About screenshots I could find you a lot of them to show you the difference.
Point is in lightning and shadows that give you warmer and more realistic picture.

[IMG]http://i360.photobucket.com/albums/o...DetailVert.jpg[/IMG]

I did't say that some things can't be done in dx9 but that is big step back from what we have.

With other things also,like CEM ,damage model ....

http://translate.googleusercontent.c...Fx7W1RNrEjsZHA

None of the projects in RoF exists.

:rolleyes:

I think everything is clear now.

This is exactly what I'm trying to tell you, it really isn't. It's been argued for years since DX10 came out that the differences between DX9 through DX10 and DX10.1 are performance based, negligible and that developers don't pigeonhole their software to one API enough to really take advantage of the newer tech like I think you're assuming. Read about: tessellation in modern games utilizing the DX11 API (or the lack thereof, rather).

Many argue that the pre-mature "re-versioning" of Direct3D is simply a marketing strategy to keep the 3D enthusiasts smiling. This is one part Microsoft advertising and marketing and one part game developers not taking advantage of the instruction set in a way that would warrant calling DX9 to DX10 to DX10.1 (and even to DX11) a proper paradigm shift.

Anyway, your worries about which DirectX API BoM will be using should be assuaged due to the post from Jason stating measures will be taken to utilize the latest DirectX API, and even 64-bit instruction sets to properly utilize memory among other things. This is surprisingly something many modern games do not support today (so kudos to the 1C/777 team) due to the extra work developers have to do...workarounds for larger memory addresses are often supplied by community/user made additions, read: Skyrim. Something not within the reaches of the original CloD team...they had bigger things on their plate.

EDIT: Oh, and "DX9 will be standard" most likely means it will be the minimum requirement, but able to run other APIs. API = an abbreviation of application program interface, by the way.

Ground unit scripting in CloD is limited by it's own engine as well, you're saying a guy was completing an addition with all the fancy features, but the reality is, he didn't. Seems like there is more to the story rather than he just "lost motivation". If the CloD engine were capable of doing it, then anyone would have done it by now, (like Bliss...he's a scripting ultra-super-mega-god, isn't he? That's what I've heard ;)) and it would be everywhere in abundance. CloD has just as many limits as any other online game. Too many objects and object instructions, more player limits apparent to both you and I in these last weeks on SOWC...such is online gaming life (universally - across the board).

On the contrary, I'm having a hard time understanding what those questions are trying to ask, I think Google translate needs some work. "WT" is mentioned, are they asking about comparisons versus War Thunder?

In any case, I urge you to cease the focus on the potentiality of negativity regarding the features of a new project, as it's highly unlikely a new, collaborated project that has it's standards set before it (the greatness that was CloD...or what CloD was supposed to be) will be anything short of a giant leap forward in regards to both products.

You wrote all of this and didn't even comment that screenshot I posted.
I know what tesselation(and lack off it in modern games)is and and I don't think flightsim needs it.

BoS will use DX9.

The main point in the graphic design is different approach between 777 and MG,where 777 have artistic approach and MG tends to photorealistic one.

If you prefer RoF graphics,enjoy it, but its far away from Clod.



Yes it is limited of course, but its light years ahead from that in RoF.
Have a look at the link I posted, that scripts are working and some tehnical problems will be solved.
Fortunately after lot of requests from the comunity he changed his mind and will continue working on the project.
Now he is working on how to transport units with trains.

Test mission is running on The Battle of France - Il2.Kupikolesa.Ru sever,
you can try it,but I dont know will you be able to understand what to do with
TAB 4 commands.

I don't know what you had with Bliss, but I can tell you for shure that Bliss and other ATAG guys kept this sim alive, and wll continue to do so with all the forces
of the comunity joined together.
Why they banned you I really don't know, but I think you are the only one as far as I know.





WT in that case is bad translation from BoB (Battle of Britain).

I will quote developer Loft for you again, so you can see what you'll get.


I will end my disscusion with you now.If you like RoF you will enjoy BoS.
Good luck!

I wan't.

I'm not so bothered about who makes good flight sims, as long as they keep coming. I would however like to see a flight sim software company produce a theatre outside of the usual. We had a full on airwar down under too 777. RAAF and RNZAF Pacific campaign. Or even the Mediterranean theatre. Surely the Americans, Brits, Germans and Russians would like a change.

But that's another topic.

Well, in any case, I hope you change your mind Vranac. You're a good pilot and a great and enjoyable teammate to play with. I'd like to see you in BoS if you can stand it.

Not strictly correct. Only the name has been transferred to a different engine (not new by any means). Also it will not be DX11 it will be DX9 as stated by Jason. They MAY consider upgrading to Dx11 in the future but as that will be after the 2014 release (barring slippage) we can guess that it may not be Dx11 until say 2016/2018, if ever.

The dislike and hostility is generally an outpouring of anger and grief following the stopping of "SoW" along with the suspicion that BoS will not live up to CoD player's expectations.

The whole of this week following the announcement has been like a funeral.

[QUOTbortedMan;488403]Well, in any case, I hope you change your mind Vranac. You're a good pilot and a great and enjoyable teammate to play with. I'd like to see you in BoS if you can stand it.[/QUOTE]

I also think you are a good pilot and a nice guy , at least we met each other on ts in flight together few times.

S!

It's not just a matter of engine. It's a matter of heritage, philosophy, culture and knowledge which is spread among all the people involved in the IL2 experience, beginning from the creators, finishing in the community.
If on the new project will be used the good part of IL2 heritage it will be a good product.
If they will waste what has been achieved in 10 years of development within IL2 (they should be crazy, anyway, because that culture is also their market....but it's not the first time we see failures caused by misinterpretation of business laws), then it will be a failure and IL2 will be dead forever.

It has felt that way for me, plus I am very sad for luthier and his family

Clod is dead, but his spirit is alive and left a worthy heritage in the way of thinking wwII aerial simulation.
What the community wants is that this heritage will not be wasted and - obviously - is expecting that those who took the name "IL2" will recover this heritage and will not use that name only because it's part of a commercial agreement.

+1 Well said :sad:

Very sad indeed. I hope he saw it coming in sufficient time and was able to make alternative arrangements. Getting laid off just before Christmas is no joke.

Yea, tough time of the year when you are down.

But there are clouds in ROF, and co-ops, and no crashes etc etc etc.

Let's wait until the DN engine properly models the white cliffs for a BOS sequel.

Really, what is the point of comparing CLOD and ROF? One looks better than the other at certain things. One works, one doesn't. Both have good and bad points and require optimisation to look at their best. CLOD at 12 noon looks rubbish. ROF without tweaks looks cartoon-ish. Set CLOD to 17:00 and wow - set ROF to 17:00 plus clouds etc and wow.

Woopee.

Hood

Hood, I think the main concern I have with ROF is there is not enough time for objects development. My second concern is that the CEM will not be there...I'm sure ROF will pull it off and be successful at first, but I think it will wear off for the users rather quickly, if Clod can be revived they will leave it.

Slip, I share every possible concern you may have, and more besides.

I also know that CLODs potential was never realised when ROFs was. I've got ROF. and like it a lot but WW1 isn't as much of a pull for me as WW2. As it is for me ROF is now a work of art but one that doesn't tug the heart strings.

My point is that we don't know what we'll be getting so there is no point comparing A to B when we're getting C. If I had to bet on it I reckon we'll get something that is more like CLOD than ROF but not quite CLOD. CLOD-lite with everything functioning. It maybe better than CLOD.

If what we get is high fidelity FM/DMs and graphics that look great then we all win. If we get more then we're lucky indeed. I can see CEM being good enough (thankfully I fly blue when I can so I have the automommandervthingy to do everything for me).

I'm rambling now so I'll just repeat that it is pointless A fans bashing B fans and vice versa.

Hood

All good points Hood

Look here: http://riseofflight.com/en/about/team - this is current RoF team. Some of them are forced to be Jacks of all trades (in sense of workload). If partnership between 777 and 1C results in adding more people to team, productivity will probably increase by large margin.

Yawn...

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n...nshot31322.jpg

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n...hot51876-1.jpg

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n...sstake-off.jpg

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n...rosswinter.jpg

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n...hot19820-1.jpg

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n...37-46-22-1.jpg

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n...hot21408-1.jpg

You forced my hand Low Flyer...

http://s5.postimage.org/7qxkzub7b/2012_12_15_00001.jpg
free image hosting

http://s5.postimage.org/8hqb5mdkn/2012_12_15_00002.jpg
image ru

http://s5.postimage.org/s0zhsq1pz/2012_12_15_00003.jpg
online photo sharing

That happened yesterday no wing struts and the wing is still attached, its expected when dealing with games this complex.. Cut out the trolling.

Sorry Bearcat , I didn' saw your response in this thread, but I saw you trashing
another one that is locked, so please answer here ( or ask your bosses )
am I right ?

Will BoS be dx9 game based on outdated DN engine with poor quality cockpits and graphichs,dumbed down CEM, cartoonish graphichs, with no opportunity to make
online war(even with some guys tried wery hard to do it ) or not?

That thread is locked.

I beg you for the answer:rolleyes:

Here is a sample of an optimised DirectX 9 title that looks better than ROF and COD IMO


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUu4SV3GjVw

Well, its nice and full of action but there's something missing. I don't think the terrain is as good as CoD and whilst the aircraft models and cockpits are really good I think maybe lighting effects could be better. It may just be Dx9 limitations (I don't know) or the transfer from game to video through Fraps. Some hi res screenshots might tell a different story.

(It's something I am considering getting for the P51D while we wait 2 years for BoS. If they added a FW190 I'd buy both immediately.)

I think you would find that DCS World somewhat lacks in terrain quality (mainly due to it's size and the fact that it is a older map that has been retextured as time has gone on).

While it lacks in that, it more than makes up for it in both the aircraft and cockpit models, I would even say that the lighting is vastly superior to CloD, while it may not be DX10, they manage to use DX9 to better effect.

The DCS titles are in a league of their own at this point, CloD looks good but DCS World just looks much more polished and the overall feeling is of a more professional product.

Still, they show what you can really do with DX9, hell, they have made it so that you can both fly aircraft (multiple types on the same server) and command and operate land forces (with the combined arms addon), overall, DCS World proves that all this jabber about DX9 being horribly outdated is false.

DCS looks in my humble opinion terrible and 100k polygon models won't save it :)
Don't get me wrong, it's masterpiece among simulators, but has poor graphics (and even worse particle effects)

All true... but... DCS also has a new graphics engine (EDGE) on the way, which has been being worked for a while now, and we're all patiently waiting for that baby to arrive.

By the time XP falls off the supported list (and it is starting to fall off the lists now), DX9 will be outdated

First look at RoF's Cliffs of Dover

http://i53.fastpic.ru/big/2012/1219/...1322758989.jpg

It's all rather bland to be honest.

Borsch, that's not fair. Flying the Felixstowe on the Channel Map when there's no news at RoF Forum.

Or do you have a link please? :)

Its just a couple of pics from Loft,with no other news. The other pic is better ;)

Well I can't find it. Got both on pre-order too. :(

Edit: S'ok, found it. Drool.

The leaves on those trees don't look right:evil:

That red and white one is mine.Gerrof!

Where can we find these pictures?

http://riseofflight.com/Forum/viewto...?f=346&t=34371

Here you go mate. :)

Cheers boss

It looks good (from a distance).
Can't say it's anything superior to what CloD offers. I'd say the cliffs in CloD are a lot more detailed, although the colours in RoF look a lot more realistic.

Clouds don't look very flat on the bottom though mate. :D

Maybe one day.......;)

Dutch gets it :)

The cliffs look a bit faceted at present, I want to see them up close.

So why are they showing a channel map anyway:confused:

You mean you don't know that R0F is about to release a Channel Map? :confused:

http://riseofflight.com/Blogs/default.aspx

I want to see the train carriages to compare if the curtains in them are as good as CoD's :)

I never knew Dutch, well I should say while being sober :)

Aha!
Actually, they do sort of have flat-bottomed shadows...
they seem flatter than CloD's :-P

Thats not bad. The trees seem a bit too dark for the landscape, I think they need toning down a bit and the near landscape toning up.

I don't like flying in RoF but I'll be interested to see what the channel map is like in-game when its released. I suppose I'll have to pay for it or is it a free upgrade?

Well theres the rub Klem! Its for sale at about $20, but I have a feeling it 'might' be free for people who fly on a server online.
We'll see when it is released.

Maybe some of the regular whiners here will get it for free :rolleyes:

I just tried War Thunder...

Do any of you guys have a gun, preferable a magnum I want to blow my brains out!

Thanks

So, we can expect an improvement then? :D

why i oughta...

http://birthwithoutfearblog.com/wp-c...y-i-oughta.jpg

Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck. Gotcha! :D

CloD had born dead, oleg spent all the develop money on vodka and whores, luthier did nothing but fill this forums with empty promises, then what i said a year ago happened, so the last we need at RoF forums is this gang of wee daftys talking about colours and saying CloD engine is the best, yes is the best example on what you don't have to do, as an engine never work as expected, and NEVER will cause yer beloved devs, has buried it and their aren't going to touch it again, so grow up and go on.

That sounds a bit Scottish. Are you Scottish? I'm reminded of Rab C. Nesbitt for some reason. But you're right. Of course you are. Everybody's right here. :D