[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by Jaws2002

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.

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.