Comparisons to Rise of Flight

[ATAG_Dutch]

Ah! Back on topic. Thanks Rob.

Rise of Flight is a fantastic WW1 Flight Sim, but doesn't have anywhere near the lighting and shadow effects of CoD.

The damage model is also far simpler. In CoD, I took a wing off a Spit in a collision the other night, and was fascinated by the level of detail in the internal wing structure.
RoF's planes were obviously more simple in reality, but I've not seen any complex rib/spar detail that comes even close to CoD as yet.

The ground details such as grass and trees are there, but not as interesting or as varied as CoD.

I'm a big fan of RoF, but IMO once CoD gets over it's teething problems RoF won't be able to hold a candle to it in many ways.

I'll still fly RoF though, I just love those rickety old kites.

Love Spits and Hurris more though.

[Strike]

Rise of flight came with 5 planes and a terrible loading time, horrifying GUI and nothing close to a campaign. There wasn't even QMB so you had to fly the russian roulette missions and fly 1v1 until you ran out of ammo or died.

It was worse than CoD is at the moment on its release. I just un-installed ROF after a few days and shelfed it. Now, I play it oftenly. It's gotten a lot more flyables and recently 2-engine planes.

Rise of flight also has MUCH simpler damage models and the physics model is still slightly bugged (wings bending and clipping through other wings as if they weren't there which you can see in the trailer vid you posted too). For me, when I got RoF. It was unplayable at minimum specs. A year later on the same machine, works very well maxed out.

[Houndstone Hawk]

Originally Posted by Strike

Rise of flight came with 5 planes and a terrible loading time, horrifying GUI and nothing close to a campaign. There wasn't even QMB so you had to fly the russian roulette missions and fly 1v1 until you ran out of ammo or died.

It was worse than CoD is at the moment on its release. I just un-installed ROF after a few days and shelfed it. Now, I play it oftenly. It's gotten a lot more flyables and recently 2-engine planes.

Rise of flight also has MUCH simpler damage models and the physics model is still slightly bugged (wings bending and clipping through other wings as if they weren't there which you can see in the trailer vid you posted too). For me, when I got RoF. It was unplayable at minimum specs. A year later on the same machine, works very well maxed out.

Some really good points made. I guess I was one of the lucky ones with no initial problems. Will agree that CLoD has more to offer, straight-out-the-box compared to RoF but how on earth can you explain the performance differences with RoF's utterly beautiful landscape, dense forests, completely miniature model-like towns & villages; to CLoD's FSX-like Lego brick blocks for buildings. Both sims have huge maps & tons going on within their theatres. To me, RoF looks & feels far superior at much greater hardware performance value.

[Strike]

Originally Posted by Houndstone Hawk

Some really good points made. I guess I was one of the lucky ones with no initial problems. Will agree that CLoD has more to offer, straight-out-the-box compared to RoF but how on earth can you explain the performance differences with RoF's utterly beautiful landscape, dense forests, completely miniature model-like towns & villages; to CLoD's FSX-like Lego brick blocks for buildings. Both sims have huge maps & tons going on within their theatres. To me, RoF looks & feels far superior at much greater hardware performance value.

My guess: RoF uses better optimization, also has a lot less detailed trees it seems, far less buildings and villages are a lot more scattered. Basically the ground is very naked in RoF compared to what IL-2 CoD sets out to reach. A lot of calculations in CoD would never have to be used in RoF due to simper aircraft systems, controls, etc. Whilst RoF probably uses the "left-over" resources to produce the nice wind/air effect that lets the wind rip off wings/carry them as they fall towards earth. Yes, RoF is very immersive at the moment, but that was also their goal. To really create the impression of flying. Wind effects, sounds, weather effects, atmosphere... they are all there and near-perfected.

But you will also find countless real-life pilots saying "What? feeling of flight? pfft, more like freedom in a small box with windows traveling through the air".

Closed canopies, higher speeds, more G's, better aircraft stability all reduced the feeling of "floating" that you get in RoF. Btw planes from WWI were practically gliders with a weak engine


Anyways, I think this is a piece of art...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Pov-j4b6YY

[Houndstone Hawk]

Originally Posted by strike

anyways, i think this is a piece of art...

wow!!!

[Jotaele]

I feel very luky to have a game like ROF , its a great product, and its only a matter of time fliying it to love it, WWI aircombats are other experience.
The way in wich they implement feature are always with a excelent taste, UI, view sistem , management sistem effects , colors etc.YOu have to work a bit like in all games to get used with those planes. joy config etc.But cant feel the air in another title like in ROF.
I think that eventually, clod will be as good and bigger as ROF, and imgoing to be very happy with a WWI and WW2 flying simulator installed in my computer.
All the community should support bot teams intensibely, and being constructibe.
I hate mensajes like, "do not buy this game" because not buying games makes team to be break, makes distributors like ubi soft not to support games, that are only a matter of time that becomes great.
If you whant than a game becomes better, put money on it.

I think its very good that we have both teams working on similar problems, because we can compare and see diferent solutions , competition is good for us customers.

You dont have to choose a team...

If never flyed ROF, give it a try.

[Sven]

@ Veltro

I find this picture better in terms of representing CoD's beauty in stead of some low setting shot, I don't think you took it on low in RoF either

[scissorss]

I agree with you on most points. But I really cannot agree with you saying RoF has the better graphics, even when maxed out. It still has a dreamy, somewhat generic look to it, in my opinion. But I know others feel the same way about the color pallet used for CoD's landscape. I suppose when you compare graphics, it really depends on each individuals opinion.

[Jaws2002]

Stop comparing COD and ROF as competing oposing games.
I love them both a lot. Get a grip with reality. You all can enjoy both of them and have fun in both of them, without going anal in bashing one or the other.
ROF had big problems when it came out as well. It grew to an awesome game. So will COD.

If you are a real simmer, you should be happy that we have in the same time three such a high end simulators, ROF, DCS, COD, in a time when a lot of people thought the flight simulator's days are over.

Instead of bashing one or the other you should help out. Too much bashing of a sim is damaging the whole genere.

[Zoom2136]

Well reading through the multiplayer part of the forum, it looks like COD's multiplayer is OK (when it is not crashing). Good FPS and no stutters. So I think it is more of giving it a little time to mature.