Graphical aspect preference ROF vs COD and other stuff
 

In terms of graphical aspect, which one do you prefer ? ROF or COD ?

Theres no contest. RoF is a game for 2010, CoD is a sim for 2012 and beyond (or it was)
Anyone mention cockpit shadows (or God forbid, cockpit damage...)
I still play both, one when I need a quick arcade shoot em up experience, the other when I want to experience a flight sim.

I JUST INSTALL ROF - only just curious
Then I go to play offline,

I rise up the ROF deafault graphics a bit, and do some clicks
I know the limitations of a NVIDIA 560 Ti
No Antialiasing
Aniso only x4
Only 4 Light sources
Other settings High or ON....But not at maximun

ROF RUNS WORSE THAN CLOD!!!! ( less fps) AND LOOKS WORSE !!!

I get 32 FPS ... 19 over the trees


My system

Win 7 64bit

AMD PhenomII 965 BE @ 3.8 GHZ

Ram 8 Gigas

Graphics Card NVIDIA 560 TI 1 GB 1600x900 , Drivers updated !!!


ROF GIVE LEES FPS THAN CLOD.

I CANT UNDERSTAND I PLAY MANY GAMES @ FULL .

Some settings in ROF, Kill my PC.
Where this optimization??? if I must put the graphics in medium.



:confused:

I found RoF to be very optimizable with the many diverse graphic options available.

I like some aspects of the graphics in RoF and the camera, and for me, the dynamic 3d damage model is steps ahead of CoD imo, which kept too many legacy features of 1946, there are so many things I hate about the 3d, visual damage model in IL-2.

Overall however, graphics in CoD > RoF.

Turn off super sampling and dither vegetation... ;)

IMO there is no doubt. CloD have much better graphics. Besides that for me the FM looks better, plus the the DM which is more complex and realistic.

Can I hedge my bet a little? RoF isn't bad...in fact it is fine , its just that CloD is better...who knows what Studio 777 will come up with for BoS ? Working with a snowy landscape may offer all kinds of improvement possibilities...

The new team won't get any good feedback from the CLOD crowd unless they
do something drastic to the graphic aspect for the next Sturmovik. Maybe they are planning to do so, but Jason is very careful about revealing his future plans...He knows the story here...Very edgy clientèle....Don't flame me, but you should take a look at the new upgrade WT has done today...Still in BETA, but in 2 years from now, even if this game is not "totally hardcore" , it will be the new graphic standard for sure in WWII sim/game....It has already surpassed CLOD by a good stretch at this point....
So to hold its ground, BOS will have to look at least 2012....in 2014....

SAlute !

I didn't vote in the above poll as personally I like certain aspects from each game.

For COD - the lighting and sky (way ahead here),

the cockpits,

the clouds (limited variety and no weather variation to speak of but the basic appearance is better for me in COD),

the sea/water (though awaiting ROF's revamped water coming with the new Channel map)

For ROF - the land terrain (personal opinion - I just could never warm to COD's terrain mainly because of the colour balance and the haphazard trees. IT's a strange one - I recognise COD's technical superiority but my gut just screams NO...! ROF isn't perfect, but it just sits with me better, but then I prefer some of the il-2 maps to COD as well!),

AA - makes a difference (at least on my 1680x1050 screen)

The view control system - very nice, easily controlled and functional.

Weather - flying through a rain storm in ROF with the water pouring off your goggles. Also flying through heavy cloud formations - sometimes spectacular looking in ROF.



I think it's pretty much a tie on smoke and flame effects and explosions.

I guess Clod wins :)

looks more like nobody wins, the best flight sim released for the forseeable future has been binned.

That's right Bongo

Why would they close that CEM thread?

It mentioned CoD, and all hell broke loose.
They have a similar graphics thread running on the RoF forum, except the results are reversed ;)

Was it you who yanked my goodbye thread to Cranky??..lol

Yeah sorry, he doesn't exist here anymore.

He sure just added extra burden on the team, I think he will miss MG just as much as we will.

Well, this forum is here for people who want to enjoy what we have, and make the best of things. Personally I don't care if people want to talk about RoF or BoS, I don't see the harm myself, its obvious they are going to be compared, and until I get told otherwise (officially, not by anyone from another forum) then people can do so.
Trolls and troublemakers are going to get a swift boot off the forum though, they caused enough problems over the years, they are not going to ruin it for the people that are left.
Too late? Maybe, but whats done is done. Enjoy the forums while you can guys.

"Enjoy the forums while you can guys"


Thanks for the headsup, Uther

I just bought ROF too as I found ICE edition on special offer for around £5 online.

I have to say that it is a nice looking sim and I can imagine I'm going to have a lot of fun with it. Is it better than CloD? That is a hard question as CloD is a WW2 sim and ROF is a WW1 sim....

As far as complexity is concerned... (Steadies himself for the rotten tomatoes).... It kinda reminded me of flying the Tigermoth in CloD... but with guns. :D All in all I don't think ROF is half as bad as many on this forum would have us believe. I don't expect anything more complex as, simply, the technology of that era doesn't demand the same level of complexity as does the time period of CloD.

Now the big question: Which is better looking?

CloD hands down! But ROF isn't ugly by any stretch of the imagination.

I believe looking at the screen is cheating as in real life WWII Britain people often flew in heavy fog. I therefore fight online with my eyes closed working purely by sound and force feedback alone.

Hence graphic quality is irrelevant.

Its not a heads up mate. Who knows what will happen in the future. All I'm saying is fans of the game can stay here as long as they want, anyone here just to gloat...can't. I once got reported for saying 'if you're not a fan you shouldn't be here' Thats the mentality of some people we were dealing with. They did everything they could to screw the forum up and make it a warzone. Depending what side of the fence you are on, we are either too relaxed, or the Stasi. I wonder what the person who made that comment thinks about the other forum now ;)
Where I failed, is I assumed everyone on a forum for a game was actually interested in the game, you know, like a fan. Maybe the other forum has the right idea, and it would have been better to go in to total lockdown, but that was never the il2 way, and talking about stuff like 'what side will you play' and what icons will you like' and other suger coated stuff will soon get old for someone who's been around il2 for 10+ years.Still, its their forum, they can do what they like. I won't go on to that forum and 'lay down the law' so they can forget about doing it here.
I don't care if people want to talk about BoS here, its over a year away, and 1C have a hand in it. Just no more flame wars please.

my bad...

Nobody is telling RoF is bad ( for what it is ). But going from CoD world and vision to RoF world and vision is a downgrade without any doubt. And nobody really wants a downgrade, even if that downgrade is to something good anyway. Because what you had before was simply amazing, and good things just don´t feel as good as amazing things.

It is not that dramatic. People are perfectly able to make compromises, if they can just be given a realistic game with a lot of content. At this moment we are basicly able to confirm that BoS will not be anywhere near the graphical level of CloD. Now we need to know how much of an upgrade (if any at all) will BoS be when compared to the IL2 1946.

We are being made promises, but that is how it always looks at the start.

What are you on about?
Firstly, RoF is way superior to Il-2 graphically.
Secondly, it is just the engine that is being used. BoS is not RoF. It is an entirely new sim, made using the same engine. This does not mean that it will look exactly the same. We can compare CloD to RoF all day, but until we see more of BoS it is pure conjecture, and you sir are sh*t stirring.

We have seen aircraft models from BoM imported into BoS, and they looked fantastic.

When they run out of models made for BOM, you'll see a big difference in quality of the planes.
Anyway, I'm not at all excited about the title. I couldn't care less if it comes out tomorow or in ten years from now.

So many waiting for so many years, then some disappointments...but I think that you took the right approach

Well actually Jaws I believe both companys helped each other with models. The ROF models are done to a very high standard especially given the lack of data compared to ww2 aircraft, so thats not my concern, my only concern at the moment is cockpit details, CEM and DM.

Only time will tell if these are legitimate concerns, but model quality certainly isn't one :D

http://riseofflight.com/Forum/downlo...7461&mode=view

One thing that I will be enjoying with BOS and 777s work is the amount of attention to detail they also put into skins, MG never did that you had to wait for skinners to come out with skins and templates that showed off the models details.

Where did you see me write that, exactly?

Maybe you should reread that yourself.


I`m not, I`m just asking questions. Maybe you should not post at all if you feel offended by such questions.

The future of commercially viable flight sims is pretty clear.

Anything that approaches realism or has any sophistication is far too likely to attract criticism and negativity. These things should be avoided.

What will sell is something that looks pretty, has awesome explosions and effects, is simple for beginners to use, and right from the start makes absolutely no claims to historical accuracy or accurate flight dynamics.

hmmm ... sounds like someone should make a Crimson Skies II

It wasn't the realism and sophistication in COD that attracted criticism. It was the half-implemented features and bugs.

Those problems were related to the sophistication and ambition though so there is a lesson - if you're going to go for the ultimate make sure you can pull it off, or else scale back your ambition.

What bugs!

I could fly around with a fairly constant 60fps, the bugs couldn't have been that big!

Ok. Parallel universe time again??!

Were you getting the steady 60fps at release of the game Krupi?

I don't think saying that COD was afflicted with bugs and problems is really that controversial a statement, at least I didn't intend it to be and I didn't intend to provoke an argument.

Netcode and AI commands fixed would have been the saving grace I think...oh well here we are today

No I got a steady 60 fps about two patches ago IIRC.

The bugs were been slowly but surely ironed out, the problem was not the sophistication or the ambition those are both things that should have been seen by the community and allowed them time to fix everything ala the original il2.

The problem was the game was released too early and that a lot of people were not patient enough to wait for fixes and added content.

Well that and an OK offline campaign.

The offline gamer market segment is bigger than people think, the game ran OK offline compared to online early on, and offline players tend to be much more tolerant of issues and glitches (a mission freezing is way less annoying than getting kicked from a server) and are less bothered by percieved game balance issues.

Yep, desastersoft with the release :grin:

Sorry, but I disagree. But it's easy to see which way any further discussion on this will go, and in the current climate I'm not going there. ;)

They had till June, that was the time Luthier had to show what progress they had made for the sequel to the people who payed his wages that BOM was a viable product, it wasn't enough.

Since then i suspect negotiations had been taking place between 1C and 777.

COD died in June.

Can the modders do something with COD? i hope so, i wish them luck.

Thanks for seeing the light and backing down :-P

They both look fine.

Even if RoF is considered arcade by some simulation fans it is still a simulator and nowhere near a real "arcade/casual" - game on the market out there.

In my opinion RoF took a lot of undeserved criticism by the IL2 community which branded it as a joke initially before any of the games were even released.
Having the facts in our hands we can pretty much conclude that the developers that ran IL2 while having a huge passion, dedication for their project,
obviously had a hard time managing and packaging the project into a solid game within a reasonable timeframe.

RoF is a more polish and solid game title than CloD, while clod obviously contains a lot more realism it also contains a lot more bugs.
From my experience this isn't rare when it comes to easter-europe/Russian developers, in fact they usually make much greater & deeper
games for specific niches, but they tend to be very buggy like for instance some series such as Stalker, Arma, Outfront series(Men of War) etc.

Last but not least, working with the sim community as a developer can sometimes be a bitch. The undertaking of CloD was massive and i think it would've benefited
a lot from being a much more "expanding project" and having an early release with very little content. Yet many folks demand triple A quality with quantity when it comes to our very little and beloved niche.
I think we should treat both our devs and our community a little better if we're gonna keep what little is left.

It should have read beta on the box and with a much higher system requirement on there too...the amount of dx9 out there didn't help matters either.

I would like every sim to have the graphical beauty of CloD or even DCS A-10C but that is simply not a option for every company.

In terms of pure playability, I would choose ROF every time, the menu's work properly (I can actually choose options in quick battle as opposed to porting them over to the editor, altering them so that I have useful loadouts and to try and get the AI to not spiral into the channel), the framerate is very consistent at high settings and online games tend to run very stable.

I see this thread has starting going in to the realism aspect, I also notice that some seem to think that ROF is not as realistic as CloD, to me, that is a pretty silly thing to say, while ROF does not have the nice clickable cockpits, that does not mean that it does not have a superior flight and physics model (the planes in CloD feel a bit dead compared to ROF aircraft, like they are not travelling in air).

I suppose it all comes down to personal taste in the end, I love both titles but I think that ROF is not nearly as graphically inferior or as arcade as some on this forum would like us all to think.

Both are good in different ways, I tend to stick to ROF because it always works properly but I play CloD because it is the only decent WWII sim out there even if the menu problems drive me crazy.

Anyway, this thread topic is a pretty loaded question, not sure what kind of response anyone was expecting.

The flight models in ROF are sure not arcade. There will be a ton of IL-2 carry overs that will want Battle Of Stalingrad and it will make no sense to make a Wings Of Prey type sim right?

They are not definitely not arcade, that I agree however they are not up to scratch some aircraft it seems are way too slow and have been for quite sometime even with constant threads on what needs to be corrected :(

In fact most of the complaints on the RoF forums are about planes that are perceived to be too fast, which only goes to show that, when it comes to FMs, we all have our own ideas. Some of those ideas seems to have some sort of fanboi bias - "Spit/190/P51 was the best fighter in the war, it should...". or even Red/Blue bias, which is more subjective than objective.

In short, I've yet to join a combat flightsim forum in which the community agree on the FMs on all planes in the game, so to single out RoF and its devs as being remiss in this department is a little disingenuous.

LOL I was not saying that 777 were the only ones that cannot get the FMs just look at il2: 1946 and COD :D

I entirely agree that its an impossible task to make an FM that everyone agrees upon :D

There isn't much FM difference of opinion whinging with DCS ;)

RoF has been out (in the wild) for years and CoD hasn't... so of course the RoF is going to have less bugs, and do keep in mind RoF was extremely buggy when first released. (crikey) given the amount of time RoF is in release, it would have been nice to see how the CoD engine would have polished up, given the same opportunity)

Also... be prepared for Pay to Play (online subscription service) with BoS ;) ;)

Well that is good news for tree, he has been asking for that for years ;)

BoS will not be free to play, we know that much about it from what they have said about it.

I know that it does not fit the whole "BoS is just ROF repackaged!" crap but we at least know it will not use the same business model as ROF.

Do some reading on the FAQ before you follow the assumptions that many are making on this board.

now, what assumptions would they be you suggest I'm making/ following?

Please vote massively for COD.
If COD wins, maybe the new 1C/777 team will switch to DirectX 10 instead of keeping old DX9 for BOS.
Imagine BOS and ROF with a DX10 graphical engine... :wink:

For much more effect, vote also massively in this post of the Rise of Flight forum

I'm sure you know that Cliffs Of Dover was first released with a DirectX 9 engine, and only after updated to DX 10. See "BETA PATCH v1.06.17582 - May 05, 2012".
Since "the looks", and not the performance, seems to be what you guys are on about here with this pointless poll, tell me what big priceless aesthetic difference the change made to you.

Ooops, I felt like I was making a mistake by writing that... maybe it had both DX 9 and DX 10 support at release?
But were there any differences on an aesthetic level, between the two?

What do you think was the reason for posting FPs? ;)

I'm not sure that by "FPs" you mean frames/second but, if so, that would suggest a simple difference in performance and not in strict graphics quality, yes?

Oh, now I got it... thanks! And sorry swiss.

Why should I vote for ROF? Everyone knows, that the graphics in ROF potentially are years behind COD.... Grmpf! :)
Ther are some nice weather effects and the planes look very present, but not as detailed as COD. So the chance is near 0, that a guy who knows about graphics, will ever vote for ROF!

But what a useless poll is that? In graphics it is 100% COD and when you look at the fps it is 100% ROF, as this is procen to give you more fps So, this poll is useless as hell and 777 will never consider anything said here or in their forums. So?....facepalm?... Hmmmm...yeah!! ;)

startrekmike,

you should have the decency to identify yourself as a RoF employee (or stake holder), and not make misleading spin control statements here glorifying RoF and pretend you are a normal impartial CoD forum member

another sign of how underhanded the whole RoF clique is

folks if its that easy to mold your minds with a bit of spin control, you deserve all you'r gonna get, more RoF junk with a new coat of paint lol

you've just been social engineered folks, enjoy the show

Let me make this very, very clear for you.

As I have said over and over and over again, I play both sims and I am not employed by 777 at all, I am not advertising the sim for them, I am simply tired of the whole "us vs them" attitude that persists on this forum but not really on any other that I have seen.

I would spend my time on this forum posting about CloD and how much I like it but some on here have taken it upon themselves to make entire threads about how much ROF sucks or how BoS is just going to be ROF reskinned or some other such nonsense and I find all of it poisonous to the flight sim community at large.

I defend ROF on this board because I enjoy the sim and I think there are many falsehoods being spread around about it, I would do the same for DCS World, BMS Falcon or even CloD if the situation was reversed (I do defend it against those who think it is sill in the condition it was in on release).

Now, I may not have spent as much time with CloD as some of you and if that somehow means that my opinion means less than I am sorry but I don't really give a crap, I play as many flight sims as I can get my hands on and I feel that we as a community need to stop being so angry at one another and actually give this new sim a chance, I don't know what it really is going to be (beyond the dev diary entries) and nor do any of you so lets just take a step back and calm the heck down.

So, for clarity, and because you seem to like to report me without actually confronting me via PM for the truth, I do not work for 777, I do not advertise for 777, I have never been paid by 777 and if you don't believe that than I don't know what to tell you.

Keep your tin foil hat on all you want, I just wish this board would spend more time talking about CloD and less time talking about how all other flight sims suck compared to it.

tripe and poppycock

reading your recent stream of posts is like a RoF infomercial

your either loft, jason or one of their stooges, but whatever you are you're not a normal CoD player who is here to solve some technical issues and exchange information about the game

Zap, as you and Wolf Rider are obviously gonna be the last to leave here; could you put the Cat out and remember to turn the gas off!:-)

+1

Did anyone see the graphics in WoP? They were not bad either.. one of the strong suits of the sim.. I wonder how they got it to lok so good with such a minimal performance hit.. I wonder if 1c777 will be able to use the best of both sims (RoF & CoD) to come up with something similar.. The lighting in CoD is the best I have seen.. It looks almost photorealistc and on a lot of the shots if you made them B&W they would look like archival footage..

That tinfoil hat must be very tight.

I can see that I won't convince you, it is difficult to reason with someone who won't even listen.

Sorry that you think I am a insidious spy lurking in the shadows to derail these forums, not much I can do about that it seems.

In ROF, even the ground and the sky look like toys.

Some people on this forum have really lost the plot, i mean seriously bat crap Jesus boots crazy tunes.

Not necessarily. Dumping clickable cockpits is one thing, saying that BoS will be closer to IL2 than CloD is another.

For example, if BoS ends up with a damage model that is merely a slight upgrade of the old IL2 DM, then it will surely be a dissapointment.

It all depends what else is there, i can take a slightly upgraded IL46 DM that works great, looks great, the FM's are good.

In fact if it is a upgraded IL2 i will be more than happy.

We will all have to choose, nobody is right or wrong.

If that was what we got in 2007 we would'nt be having this discussion and we'd probably be in The Med or back in Western Europe by now on the new engine. If it had been an upgraded IL2 with a more powerful engine capable of easily doing what the mods can do with a better DM FM CEM and a fully functional MDS and imporived graphics 2048 skuns with alphas that looked like IL2 on it's lesser settings and close to CoD on high settings and ran with frames of 20-25 on older rigs everyone would have probably been ecstatic.

That is pure speculation.

Maybe.. but if that was what we got in 2007.. and it worked.. it is more probable than not. Don't forget the original scheduled release for this was 2006.. so in 2007 if what we got would have been capable of doing what I stated above.. I am pretty sure more people would have been pleased than there were in 2011 upon CoD's eventual release.

There's no comparision
Since CoD failed it's irrelevant what it's graphics look like.
RoF strikes a good balance between performance and graphics and the overall game. both have appealing qualities but oveall RoF is the more sucessful game.

Why Oleg went for a rewrite rather than an upgrade we can't know, since we don't have the old code to see what was wrong with it, and I for one would probably have a great deal of trouble reading it if I did have it.

It takes a couple of years to learn C++ if you have the apptitude, which many folks just don't, it's not something that anyone can pick up over a weekend. After those years, you would then have the time it would take to learn to understand the old IL*2 codeset, which would probably be another year if you could do it at all, I doubt anyone on the team but Oleg had a complete overview, and even he probably had bits that someone else worked on that worked just fine that he didn't understand all the details of. That's just how complicated programming is these days, and it's not getting easier.

It's not a case of:

"Here are two spades, there's a mountain of earth, the two of you have got six months to shift that mountain 20 ft west, start now!"

That would be tedious, hard and annoying, but if the size of the mudpile was right, you'd know it could be done from the start. With Programming, everything tends to interact with everything else. You do try your hardest to keep the interactions limited to the ones you know about and want, but they tend to escape and run wild. Those wild interactions are called bugs.

Old code gets encrusted with additions but it depends on the original foundations, and sometimes they just can't be updated. For a hypothetical example, suppose all the integers in the original IL*2 were 16 bit, if the newer code wanted 64 bit integers, you couldn't just change the definitions, because something, somewhere, would be hardcoded to 16 bits, and it would break when you changed the definitions. It wouldn't be obvious where the break was, it wouldn't be clear what you could do about it, and in a large codebase like the original IL*2 there would probably be thousands of breakages each of which would probably take a week of somebody's time to fix.

So, since Oleg said it wasn't possible to update the original IL*2 codebase, I think we have to take his word on that.

True.. but I am just speculating.. you are right it is moot.. but just for the sake of hypothesizing..

True as well.. although.. with hindsight there were a lot of things that Oleg said were not doable.. but are now parts of the stock sim. If you count mods then like I said .. given the already almost rabidly loyal fanbase that definitely included yours truly.. Even if he had come up with something that did what the mods did.. with a working MDS and the extra planes.. people would have snapped t up.. That is not speculation..

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.

Jep, there are some shots in the dark but generally spoken with reference to ROF actual engine, he is mostly right.

Only thing to mark is the DCS thing. Noone ever requested into deep, how the flight modelling is done in the DCS series. My guesses to that: It has also no sufficient up to date flight models. I know of helicopter pilots saying something about incorrect FM at blackshark. But DCS is not having the priority on fm. It is all about learning and using the systems. So I really doubt, that the p51 is modelled right!!! U most also see, that a ww2 combat series within dcs is not really in discussion and would take about 20 years to deliver enough planes, not mention the VERY bad ground details and LODs. This will never happen and they will stick with modern fighters to combine more planes to what they began with a10 and blackshark.:)

But again: No discussion possible on graphics. Clod has better graphics and more powerful engine. There is nothing to discuss about it. Graphics are never subjective. You can measure it and you cannot mention the graphics together with performance issues, as this is another topic.

Cor blimey guv...
This is REALLY eating you up, innit. :grin:

Its eating a lot of us up...a real shame guv

But then there are people like me who's only issue I had with the COD was the constant whining when I visited the forum! ( some things NEVER change ;) ) Like all sims (Including ROF - can you remember what it was like before their performance patches????) it had issues that for the most part were solved by the developers.

There seams to be a lot of ROF fans who will buy BoS even if it is ROF with the minimum amount of development to get a WWII theater going. Good on them I am glad that they are enjoying their sim.

I would class myself as one of the people who would have bought the IL2 Sequel even if it was just the CoD engine with the minimum ammount of development to get the theatre working. I enjoy COD that much.

For me 1CGS will have to put in a reasonable amount of effort into their development to make a worthy successor for the Il2 series.

The ground war in particular will need a lot of attention.

How can you honestly sit there and say "graphics are subjective", "there is no right or wrong", "both can be right" and in the same sentence put " ~ to illustrate how CLoD is better then RoF and to me they show the opposite"?

Try again



SO... we're going to get another il2, are we?
How can you honestly sell people that when, your higher up says different?


people get threads locked and banned for such blasphemy


read the above


you should have seen the bitterness and spite from RoF gang here ;)



read the blurbs

You made it sound like DCS is like FSX. :) Nah, FM is very important and complex in DCS, however some bugs creep in sometimes.

Regarding Ka-50. The main concern about its FM is "easy" autoration. However, it is concern and not really a blame, because almost all concerned people have experience only with single and/or light rotor helicopters, which are very different. In other words, there are no one qualified enough (someone who has experience with such helicopter) to say surely if it is correct or incorrect.

DCS seem to have enough genuine sources of input to have their FM's appear quite accurate

This. From what I remember from the dev-letters about DCS:Black Shark, they had both testpilots and Kamov engineers in to quality-assess and -assure the FM's on the Shark. They ended up with the best possible FM they could hope to get on a desktop-system, as far as I remember.

Yes. Black Shark was created with some help from Kamov. A10C with help from USAF (ED was doing military version of sim). P51 was created with access to live pony and people working with it (The Fighter Collection). Unfortunately, it would be very hard to create BF109 or FW190 for them as available information is too scarce.

I imagine that since Eagle Dynamics has access to a lot of the flight and systems data that they would have a easier time making sure that the flight models are about as right as they can make em.

Personally, they feel right to me but I have never flown a A-10C or a Ka-50 myself (unfortunately).