Graphical aspect preference ROF vs COD and other stuff

[Stublerone]

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.

[Davy TASB]

Originally Posted by zapatista

we already know the answer to that, RoF cant, and BoS will use the same game/gfx engine so it wont either.

but here is the real kicker, they dont see it as an objective to match or better Cod-il2

1c has simply decided to stop pouring money into MG-CoD, and are funding the 777 team to make a completely different ww2 aircraft game instead. and what 1c really loved is the jason's 777 cash cow method to keep milking his teen crowd for more money every month. the sturmovik product name has just been given to 777 project in an attempt to increase sales appeal. a bit similar to saab cars a few ears ago coming out for the first time with a v6 engine in some of its models (after it had been bought up by GM), the only problem was the engine wasnt actually made by saab, it was a GM engine the brand badge matters very little in both those cases

the funniest part in all this is that all the whiners and trolls here who had still been whinging here the last few months that CoD didnt meet their childish expectations, they are now all of a sudden happy with the much inferior product teflon jason is cooking up up for them

lets see, compared to CoD, the RoF-ww2 reskinned game
- wont have the level of cockpit detail
- wont have the same detailed plane damage models
- wont have the same complex engine and aircraft system modeling
- wont have the same realistic advanced flight models (which has been THE great strength of the il2 series and has built its reputation)
- wont have anywhere near the same amount of flyable aircraft
- wont be able to have the same high aircraft count in the air, either human flown or combined with AI
- wont be able to handle 100 players on a online server with additional high counts of AI planes at the same time
- wont have anywhere near the same amount of static ground objects (buildings etc)
- wont have anywhere near the same high amount of ground AI activity and active ground objects, be this moving collums of vehicles, trucks/tanks, AA batteries or civilian traffic
- ...... and the list goes on and on.............

so forget about the RoF-ww2 project, it just aint in the running

the only viable alternative for ww2 flight simulation enthusiasts is going to be the p51 project from DCS, but they havnt even announced any other ww2 aircrafts to be in the making, so anything there is a long way off.

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

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by Davy TASB

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

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

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by =CfC= Father Ted

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.

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.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by =CfC= Father Ted

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.

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

Originally Posted by startrekmike

, 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

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

Originally Posted by startrekmike

and instead of going to that forum and asking honest, polite questions to address your concerns,

people get threads locked and banned for such blasphemy

Originally Posted by startrekmike

you are sitting in this forum and fuming about how you just KNOW that it won't be what you want.

read the above

Originally Posted by startrekmike

Tell me, is it just out of bitterness and spite? where does it all come from?

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

Originally Posted by startrekmike

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?

read the blurbs

[ZaltysZ]

Originally Posted by Stublerone

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.

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.

[Wolf_Rider]

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

[Fjordmonkey]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

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.

[ZaltysZ]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

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

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.

[startrekmike]

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).