RoF 'Hat in the Ring' expansion

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

"Also there will be two campaigns included: recently released “Hat in the Ring” and the new campaign “Du Doch Nicht”. Both campaigns are based on real facts and made with maximal historical accuracy."

 

Hmmm....They can't even be original with a title!!

[Gr.Viper 131]

"Hat in the Ring" has already been released a while ago and, I suppose, that's one of the very few squadrons they could make considering that only SPAD is flyable in the original RoF without addons.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

"Hat in the Ring" has already been released a while ago and, I suppose, that's one of the very few squadrons they could make considering that only SPAD is flyable in the original RoF without addons.

 

Thats true I guess

[CaptSopwith 18]

"Also there will be two campaigns included: recently released “Hat in the Ring” and the new campaign “Du Doch Nicht”. Both campaigns are based on real facts and made with maximal historical accuracy."

 

Hmmm....They can't even be original with a title!!

 

I'm confused... does this game have a campaign system, ala IL2 Sturmovik with generic missions generated for the pilot, or are you limited to a pre-fabricated, scripted campaign? Scoping the website didn't reveal much.

[themightysrc 5]

From what I can gather, these campaigns are likely to be prescripted, particularly after reading a post from a player who was playing the HitR ROF campaign and had effectively given up, as he couldn't get past a particular mission. Although he bombed and shot everything that came his way, he still got a 'mission failed' message regardless, and thus couldn't progress (if that's the word) to the next mission. As he pointed out, it had become immensely frustrating after about half a dozen attempts at the same mission, since IRL, success was judged by survival (somewhat like our own dear OFF), rather than 'completing the level' as he scathingly put it.

 

From all of that, I took it to mean that ROF campaigns are simply a set of scripted missions, and that players have no latitude to continue on to the next one regardless.

 

All sounds very Groundhog Day to me.

[Gr.Viper 131]

Yeah, the new campaigns are a set of scripted missions. Like the tutorial in the original release. Still not even on RB1 level.

[rabu 9]

Pat Wilson, has been working long and hard on bringing a historical campaign to ROF. It uses scripted missions, but with some dice throws for who is where, from what I understand. I still don't think it comes anywhere close to OFF or RedBaron's "Living" campaign though. I say "Living" because there has been criticism that the OFF campaign is not "Dynamic" in the sense that what you do doesn't affect the outcome of the war, etc. Big deal, but that seems to be the criticism in then claiming that it isn't really "Dynamic." What they seem to ignore is that everything around you in the campaign is alive, things are happening historically... battles, raids, etc., but they aren't scripted in them selves. Pol or Shredward, or some one please correct me if I'm wrong, or clarify this more. I really do think we might be better off calling the campaign in OFF a Historical "Living Campaign." ..has a nice ring to it.

 

The big thing with ROF that stands out is the graphics qualities in some areas.. Damage modeling is excellent for most situations. The lighting is pretty amazing with moving shadows as planes fly, reflective surfaces, water reflections and transparency, etc. Animated details in the CP are impressive with moving recoil MG levers, dials, etc. Even the pilots are animated turning their heads, giving arm gestures, etc. On the other hand, the scenery varies in quality and has a sort of too clean, too pristine look. Rivers have been improved from early on when I noted they were way to blue, but they still just look too clean, don't know how else to say it. The trenches are still a really weak point with odd zig zag lines and abrupt transition from trench areas to country side.

 

Most seem really impressed with the flight model and boast about it a lot.. I have no idea, not being a pilot, seems like OFF is pretty spectacular, but I have no way to compare them.

 

The multi player seems to be the big advantage and what a lot of the players there are interested in, but it's still being worked on, from what I understand, and still has problems... and I don't play MP, so again, can't comment.

 

I always urge everyone to support any one's efforts, commercial or not, it's what gets us ahead in the WWI flight sim community. I don't play ROF that much, I prefer OFF more when I do have time to fly, but I've been buying the ROF planes and bought the game when it came out and I wish them best of luck and hope they can improve things, as they seem to be doing.

 

Nuff` rambling, gotta go to work..

 

 

 

 

[+Winder 32]

Pat Wilson, has been working long and hard on bringing a historical campaign to ROF. It uses scripted missions, but with some dice throws for who is where, from what I understand. I still don't think it comes anywhere close to OFF or RedBaron's "Living" campaign though. I say "Living" because there has been criticism that the OFF campaign is not "Dynamic" in the sense that what you do doesn't affect the outcome of the war, etc. Big deal, but that seems to be the criticism in then claiming that it isn't really "Dynamic." What they seem to ignore is that everything around you in the campaign is alive, things are happening historically... battles, raids, etc., but they aren't scripted in them selves. Pol or Shredward, or some one please correct me if I'm wrong, or clarify this more. I really do think we might be better off calling the campaign in OFF a Historical "Living Campaign." ..has a nice ring to it.

 

The big thing with ROF that stands out is the graphics qualities in some areas.. Damage modeling is excellent for most situations. The lighting is pretty amazing with moving shadows as planes fly, reflective surfaces, water reflections and transparency, etc. Animated details in the CP are impressive with moving recoil MG levers, dials, etc. Even the pilots are animated turning their heads, giving arm gestures, etc. On the other hand, the scenery varies in quality and has a sort of too clean, too pristine look. Rivers have been improved from early on when I noted they were way to blue, but they still just look too clean, don't know how else to say it. The trenches are still a really weak point with odd zig zag lines and abrupt transition from trench areas to country side.

 

Most seem really impressed with the flight model and boast about it a lot.. I have no idea, not being a pilot, seems like OFF is pretty spectacular, but I have no way to compare them.

 

The multi player seems to be the big advantage and what a lot of the players there are interested in, but it's still being worked on, from what I understand, and still has problems... and I don't play MP, so again, can't comment.

 

I always urge everyone to support any one's efforts, commercial or not, it's what gets us ahead in the WWI flight sim community. I don't play ROF that much, I prefer OFF more when I do have time to fly, but I've been buying the ROF planes and bought the game when it came out and I wish them best of luck and hope they can improve things, as they seem to be doing.

 

Nuff` rambling, gotta go to work..

 

 

 

 

 

'Living World' is the phrase I coined for the system I wrote - yes it is historically biased and that was what I wanted in the system...

the campaign engine and database system is a separate entity from CFS3 and is part of the OFF wrapper - the GUI that interfaces to the CFS3 runtime.

 

Yes you fly in a living world where each squad is in its correct place flying missions that suit the period (frequency type etc) with the correct craft, ace complement morale etc.

No two days can ever be the same - so thats the dynamic part you will always see different activity - different squads as they go about their daily business.

Squads transfer bases, become defunct, or change name exactly as they did historically... Aces die on the day they were supposed to.

 

And yes the ground war is alive as well with the main battles taking place on the correct dates and yes the frontlines move back and forth as they did as well - again this is historically based.

Gas and tanks are used where they were historically...

 

I hope to expand this with more ground activity in P4 - CPU/GPU power allowing - yes the limitation is CPU/GPU

 

There are no scripts that run in OFF runtime....I could go into a lot more detail but I think OFF campaign speaks for itself as many I am sure can attest to.

 

 

HTH

 

WM

[Morris 2]

Go Winder, go Winder.....

 

Did you get an Intel SSD?

 

I have set my regional air activity - Heavy

 

and there are no loading time during the gameplay. I was fly a sortie this afternoon in a ALB DIII with 7 planes in my flight attacking 4 flights of REF BE2 = total of 30 planes over Flanders without any problems.

 

then a SSD raid setup should work great for P4 if there going to be lots more ground activity?

 

Cheers

 

Morris

Edited June 7, 2010 by Morris

[Hasse Wind 46]

RoF in a nutshell:

 

Pretty planes, nice flight and damage models. All the rest of it is less than satisfying, to put it mildly and diplomatically.

 

I haven't even bothered to buy most of the new planes because the campaign mode is so bad compared to OFF. (And that capture the flag mode...)

 

I don't have all the latest technology in my PC, but OFF runs very nicely with good-looking graphics and smooth gameplay most of the time. I plan to upgrade my PC in any case before P4 is released, but I hope the same good quality coding and excellent configuration options for different systems will be included in P4 also.

[appraiserfl 0]

"Also there will be two campaigns included: recently released “Hat in the Ring” and the new campaign “Du Doch Nicht”. Both campaigns are based on real facts and made with maximal historical accuracy."

 

Hmmm....They can't even be original with a title!!

 

 

AND

 

RoF in a nutshell:

 

Pretty planes, nice flight and damage models. All the rest of it is less than satisfying, to put it mildly and diplomatically.

 

I haven't even bothered to buy most of the new planes because the campaign mode is so bad compared to OFF. (And that capture the flag mode...)

 

I don't have all the latest technology in my PC, but OFF runs very nicely with good-looking graphics and smooth gameplay most of the time. I plan to upgrade my PC in any case before P4 is released, but I hope the same good quality coding and excellent configuration options for different systems will be included in P4 also.

 

Why must people down one game or the other? Both ROF and OFF bring something different to the table and both are fantastic and both are improving every day!

 

ROF's multiplayer, graphics, physics, Mission Recorder, etc blow OFF away, but OFFs attention to detail and single player immersion blow ROF away...its like dating a smoking hot blonde with big tits that cant cook and relatively sucks in bed but lets you have your way with her and also dating a very cute, small breasted, brunette that can cook her ass of and rocks your world in the bedroom...both are great at the same time but if you had to settle down with just one of em the quality of the experience would suffer due to lack of competition....lol.

Edited June 7, 2010 by appraiserfl

[rabu 9]

Why must people down one game or the other? Both ROF and OFF bring something different to the table and both are fantastic and both are improving every day!

 

ROF's multiplayer, graphics, physics, Mission Recorder, etc blow OFF away, but OFFs attention to detail and single player immersion blow ROF away...its like dating a smoking hot blonde with big tits that cant cook and relatively sucks in bed but lets you have your way with her and also dating a very cute, small breasted, brunette that can cook her ass of and rocks your world in the bedroom...both are great at the same time but if you had to settle down with just one of em the quality of the experience would suffer due to lack of competition....lol.

 

I agree, though I never thought of it quite like that before!

[rabu 9]

'Living World' is the phrase I coined for the system I wrote - yes it is historically biased and that was what I wanted in the system...

the campaign engine and database system is a separate entity from CFS3 and is part of the OFF wrapper - the GUI that interfaces to the CFS3 runtime.

 

Yes you fly in a living world where each squad is in its correct place flying missions that suit the period (frequency type etc) with the correct craft, ace complement morale etc.

No two days can ever be the same - so thats the dynamic part you will always see different activity - different squads as they go about their daily business.

Squads transfer bases, become defunct, or change name exactly as they did historically... Aces die on the day they were supposed to.

 

And yes the ground war is alive as well with the main battles taking place on the correct dates and yes the frontlines move back and forth as they did as well - again this is historically based.

Gas and tanks are used where they were historically...

 

I hope to expand this with more ground activity in P4 - CPU/GPU power allowing - yes the limitation is CPU/GPU

 

There are no scripts that run in OFF runtime....I could go into a lot more detail but I think OFF campaign speaks for itself as many I am sure can attest to.

 

 

HTH

 

WM

 

Winder, you've done an incredible job, no doubt about it. Whether it's a "Living World" (didn't know you `coined` that phrase) or "Living Campaign," I think they both do justice to describing OFF's campaign, which is one of it's most unique and desirable qualities. Just as I "coined" the word "immersion" to describe OFF several years ago..that word has also stuck around because it's so true. OFF is a very special gem of a sim that reflects a lot of hard work by many who believed in it and helped in creating it, and you have, especially, done that and have also been able to bring it together and keep it going. I'm looking forward to more in the next phase.. pretty amazing stuff! Thank you!

[appraiserfl 0]

I agree, though I never thought of it quite like that before!

 

Oh I forgot to add that the blonde also lets you "Record," while the Brunette can also hold her own with interesting conversation on almost any topic including muzzle velocities, attack helicopter specs, survivalist training, treadwear patters on corvette tires, socket 775 versus 1366, can you really have enough ammo, ground fire versus Canadian pilots, etc, etc.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

I own both...but hardly ever play RoF...certainly wouldnt waste any more money buying the planes

[Olham 164]

Winder: I think OFF campaign speaks for itself as many I am sure can attest to.

 

Amen to that !

 

 

[+Polovski 414]

A lot of these phrases have been banded about for some time in conversations here and internally for many years. We know what we have, and what we have worked towards. "Immersion" is something we have worked on specifically since P1, and it will get better. Your cool posters reflect that well Rabu.

 

Dynamic means changing of course- never the same. Fly a new mission and we can be sure you have never flown it before, aircraft all historically set where possible. Real flights out there doing real missions. Aircraft will not be generated on a spawn, or be "triggered" into some set action it's all randomly based on their own agendas and missions they are undertaking. I think that's pretty Dynamic.

 

If you happen across them who knows what will happen.

[Hasse Wind 46]

That's exactly the kind of dynamic campaign a WW1 era flight sim should have. Some people seem to forget that airpower was nowhere near as decisive in WW1 as it was in WW2, or any of the later conflicts where it has had an even more important role to play. In WW1, the tactical and strategical results achieved by the use of the airpower were very limited compared to WW2. It would feel pretty crazy to me if my flight of small 2-seaters with their puny bombload would do something that completely changed the course of the war.

[Von Paulus 8]

That's exactly the kind of dynamic campaign a WW1 era flight sim should have. Some people seem to forget that airpower was nowhere near as decisive in WW1 as it was in WW2, or any of the later conflicts where it has had an even more important role to play. In WW1, the tactical and strategical results achieved by the use of the airpower were very limited compared to WW2. It would feel pretty crazy to me if my flight of small 2-seaters with their puny bombload would do something that completely changed the course of the war.

Fully agree.

[rabu 9]

Fully agree.

 

Absolutely! ..thanks, Pol

[CaptSopwith 18]

That's exactly the kind of dynamic campaign a WW1 era flight sim should have. Some people seem to forget that airpower was nowhere near as decisive in WW1 as it was in WW2, or any of the later conflicts where it has had an even more important role to play. In WW1, the tactical and strategical results achieved by the use of the airpower were very limited compared to WW2. It would feel pretty crazy to me if my flight of small 2-seaters with their puny bombload would do something that completely changed the course of the war.

 

Well, I came in here to say exactly what Hasse Wind already said! You hit the nail on the head mate, can't say it any better than that.

 

IMHO, anyone who says a WWI flight sim should be fully dynamic, and that you should be able to affect the outcome of the war doesn't fully grasp the history of World War I aviation.

[Dej 17]

At the risk of (uncharacteristically I hope) lowering the tone. I happen to be in a relationship with the brunette Appraiserfl is talking about