Jump to content
ThePlainsman

I Don't Know Anymore Which is the Best WWI Sim!

WWI Aplenty  

71 members have voted

  1. 1. Which is the best?

    • Red Baron 3D stock
      0
    • Red Baron 3D with Full Canvas Jacket
    • First Eagles 1/First Eagles 2
    • Over Flanders Field: BH&H
    • Rise of Flight: Iron Cross Edition
    • Combat Aces for CFS2
      0


Recommended Posts

More than 10 years ago, it was RB3D. Over the last couple of years, it's been various iterations of OFF. Yesterday, I purchased ROF:Iron Cross Edition and it has blown me away! I didn't like the original everything on line, no SP, no campaign, get only 4 planes, original ROF. I tried the demo, was impressed with the graphics but not enough to take the plunge. So, I waited. Then ROF:ICE. Wow! Double wow! I'm no longer sure which WWI sim is the best.

 

Here's what I have on my hard drive:

 

Red Baron 3D wtih Full Canvas Jacket

Combat Aces (for CFS2)

First Eagles I

First Eagles 2

Over Flanders Fields: Beyond Heaven and Hell with Hat in the Ring Expansion

Rise of Flight: Iron Cross Edition

 

Could ROF:ICE be number 1? It seems to have everything, but I've only had it for 24 hours. What do you fellows think? Which is the best WWI sim available?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me I have voted OFF simple because it doesnt have the nasty idea of having to be online all the time that ROF does though that may have changed now... Also I vote OFF for its immersion and the dedicated work done by its creators... and I am glad that I wen through everything to get it... Also because I enjoy it so much...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't voted, but my brief flirtation with RoF in trial form was not a happy one. I simply don't possess a rig good enough to run it, and I am well aware of the limitations WRT the sort of things that I valued in RB3D and value in OFF:BH&H. FE is a great WWI 'lite' game, IMO, although it's fair to say that the plane selection due to the open source nature is better than anything other than RB3D with the Western Front Patch (which, irritatingly, I never got to work properly).

 

I'll probably be wedded to OFF until such time as NeoQB start ponying up more two seaters, have a decent campaign system and finally drop the ludicrous online stipulation. As it stands, OFF is a f***ing bare-knuckle ride, and I'm looking forward to P4, assuming my rig can run it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only have FE 1 and 2 right now, and they're perfect for my needs...short and sweet with a variety of planes! I just don't have the time to devote to a more in-depth sim like OFF unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't comment on FE as I never got into it, mainly because I think the graphics are so much better in OFF and in ROF. You left out RedBaron 3d - Hell's Angels, which was as good as or better then FCJ, depending on your view, they were both great, but are now so dated they look like dos games.

 

At this point I vote for OFF because I think it still has so much more to offer.. the full "Living Campaign" the huge assortment of planes and skins, the wonderful historical data with films, etc. ROF has got a ways to go to catch up to all that, but I fly both and enjoy both, each in a different way.

Edited by rabu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets make one thing clear here, do not use any judgement on people who never never played the particular game but still have a opinion on that game. So here I can not do any judgement on FE2 or Combataces, because I never played it , I'm not a fan of FE1 but maybe FE2 could be great.

But right now it seems that its going between "OFF3 for CFS3" and RoF-ICE in the poll and I think indeed these are the games to go for.

 

Now how to select between those two games and you only want to spent on one, [as a WW1 sim fan I would get them both]? Lot of opinions on forums like Simhq, RoF and here, going on, so do a search and try to find what you need/like in a game. Do not skip RoF if you want a campaign mode because Pat Wilson [THE RB3d Pat] is still busy in making a RB3d based campaign mode.

 

Personally I'm not a fan of running the game at the minimum PCspec's and RoF needs a big PC to run on a decent level. I'm thinking about something like a Q6700 and a 1Gb Vcard starting from a ATI4850/Nvidia9800GTX+ without this do not even think about RoF.

 

note: why not give the Free ArgonsV WW1-FS a try?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets make one thing clear here, do not use any judgement on people who never never played the particular game but still have a opinion on that game. So here I can not do any judgement on FE2 or Combataces, because I never played it , I'm not a fan of FE1 but maybe FE2 could be great.

But right now it seems that its going between "OFF3 for CFS3" and RoF-ICE in the poll and I think indeed these are the games to go for.

 

Now how to select between those two games and you only want to spent on one, [as a WW1 sim fan I would get them both]? Lot of opinions on forums like Simhq, RoF and here, going on, so do a search and try to find what you need/like in a game. Do not skip RoF if you want a campaign mode because Pat Wilson [THE RB3d Pat] is still busy in making a RB3d based campaign mode.

 

Personally I'm not a fan of running the game at the minimum PCspec's and RoF needs a big PC to run on a decent level. I'm thinking about something like a Q6700 and a 1Gb Vcard starting from a ATI4850/Nvidia9800GTX+ without this do not even think about RoF.

 

note: why not give the Free ArgonsV WW1-FS a try?

 

I agree, FE is free, why not get it, load up all the amazing mods available for it and see what you think? A lot of hard work has gone into FE and it's very impressive.

 

ROF is progressing and has great potential, if it can just get enough added in, but they are working on it. Pat's ROF campaign has potential, though I still think it's in a beta stage and what it needs is to be availabe from ROF as one of their upgrades, or in some other easy way and with an easy install and integrated into ROF, if it's going to be popular with players. The graphics in ROF are pretty amazing and impressive. There have been complaints about the damage model on ground impact, but I don't feel those are fair, it's also very impressive. The lighting in ROF is one of it's strongest graphics points, giving it a feeling or reality missing in any other WWI sim I've seen. People that love it say it has the most realistic flight model they have ever flown and seem to be more interested in the multiplayer experience of combat, more then the historical campaign. On the negative side, it feels very empty and predictable, with the scripted missions but Pat is working on making that less obvious in his campaign generator. Also, the system requirements are much higher, but I disagree that you need a ultra high end system to run it, if you turn down the setup settings, and it still looks good.

 

Meanwhile OFF Between Heaven & Hell and the Hat-In-The-Ring expansion that use the CFS3 game engine, :grin:and completely remove any indication of it, is the most popular because it is the only WWI sim available with a "Living Campaign"... a fully active, unpredictable, historically correct campaign that provides the most immersion.. along with a huge choice of historically correct planes and skins.. if you like that sort of thing. The graphics may not be quite as good as ROF, but they are impressive and more wide ranging in area.

 

I still think, for the money, one can afford to buy both and help support both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, FE is free, why not get it, load up all the amazing mods available for it and see what you think? A lot of hard work has gone into FE and it's very impressive. Not to me, after playing FE, I went direct back to RB, btw I do not mean FE [firsteagles] but Fighter Squadron, it is a free and is a good game to start your WW1 adventure. see

ROF is progressing and has great potential, if it can just get enough added in, but they are working on it. Pat's ROF campaign has potential, though I still think it's in a beta stage and what it needs is to be availabe from ROF as one of their upgrades, or in some other easy way and with an easy install and integrated into ROF, if it's going to be popular with players. The graphics in ROF are pretty amazing and impressive. There have been complaints about the damage model on ground impact, but I don't feel those are fair, it's also very impressive. The lighting in ROF is one of it's strongest graphics points, giving it a feeling or reality missing in any other WWI sim I've seen. People that love it say it has the most realistic flight model they have ever flown and seem to be more interested in the multiplayer experience of combat, more then the historical campaign. On the negative side, it feels very empty and predictable, with the scripted missions but Pat is working on making that less obvious in his campaign generator. Also, the system requirements are much higher, but I disagree that you need a ultra high end system to run it, if you turn down the setup settings, and it still looks good. Yeah then it will be like using a race horse for pulling out the timber in the forest, so in this case I would not take the risk and get OFF3 that has lesser demanding graphics and game engine.

Meanwhile OFF Between Heaven & Hell and the Hat-In-The-Ring expansion that use the CFS3 game engine, :grin:and completely remove any indication of it, No there are still irritating CFS3 leftovers like the graphic adjustments in the CFSconfig file, is the most popular because it is the only WWI sim available with a "Living Campaign"... a fully active, unpredictable, historically correct campaign that provides the most immersion.. along with a huge choice of historically correct planes and skins.. if you like that sort of thing. The graphics may not be quite as good as ROF, but they are impressive and more wide ranging in area. Right now I think the RoF skins, non and historic are more then skins made for OFF3, but this is not the strongest point here. RoF will be open for ad-ons, Pat Wilson Campaign is just a start, people are preparing scenes, planes etc, like RB3d this could be immense! At this point OFF3 is more closed and ad-on planes can only be used in the CFS3 single mission not in the campaign mode. But if you like cheating, you can make your own guns like a .5" in your plane, then it is back to the OFF3 choice

I still think, for the money, one can afford to buy both and help support both. Rabu, we both know the time that there were only old WW1 games or games that were very cheap made so lets enjoy this, yeah get them both.

Edited by Dutch_P47M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted OFF

Have got FE and ROF....not hugely impressed by either, but thats not a critisism..just a personal opinion.

FS-WW1 should have been on the list too (and it's free) with a shed load of Planes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From all that I have read about Rise of Flight, it doesn't seem to have a good and immersive "Campaign" -

for me a most important point.

"Over Flanders fields" has that to an extent, which is just great. If you want to fly a longer campaign;

if you want to develop a good pilot and fly him as long as possible - maybe even through the whole war - it must be OFF!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OFF for me aswell....I own FE2, RoF Ice and a fair few planes and OFF Phase 3. For every 5 hours I fly on OFF I put in about 1 hour on RoF. RoF planes look superb (OFF terrain and clouds beat RoF's hands down though) but with a very weak single player experience and little immersion it can't compete at the moment for my simming time. I see it as a game in the making and look forward to it's future progression. However we have OFF Phase 4 and I'm sure that will keep OFF franchise on the top for a fair while longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted RoF, I own RB, and use the free promiseland upgrade. makes it a great sim as far as graphics go. I Also agree FS:SDOE with ArgonsV work has been nothing short of super. I don't own OFF, so can't comment on that one, and I like First eagles, I like all TKs sim lites., but at the end of the day it is Strike Fighters with new planes. RoF looks stunning, the FM and DM are very accurate,from what I have been told. I just like the sim, yes it takes a big rig to run it, and it has a steeper learning curve, but in the end it is worth it, if nothing else for the MP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As mentioned in the other post, polls such as "which is the best" mostly only serve to create deeper divisions between entrenched sim-camps. I own the 3 titles that are in the lead, and honestly enjoy them all for different reasons.

Personal taste will always enter into debate, and that's fine, but polls such as this are nothing but mental masturbation (no emoticon for that one!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First Eagles is the best (gold edition).

Developers like Rabu (OFF) are promoting their work (and money) and his opinion should not be taken seriously.

I'm not a developer, i'm just a gamer and i can say that First Eagles is the best choice of the last years. Lots of new planes to downlaod, some are really incredible like the Morane Saulnier Type N or the Ansaldo SV5a or the Nieuport 12 (ROF demands a ultra high computer and OFF uses the worst engine ever (CFS3))

Edited by Cagallon
  • Dislike 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess your definition of "ultra high" computer is pretty low. ROF runs great on a PC you can build for less than $1000. If you think $1000 is "ultra high", you're in the wrong hobby. I used to spend $2500+ for a PC when I started out, so buying a video card or CPU that blows stuff out of the water for less than $350 each seems like a bargain to me.

FE2 blows away FE Gold anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stock FE 2 is better than FE gold ONLY in Vista or Windows 7 (cause the bump mapping is only available in Vista or Windows 7)

I'm not going to upgrade my OS (XP), Windows Vista sucks a lot so i will keep playing with FE Gold

Anyway, bump mapping is only available for the stock planes and my favourite plane is not a stock plane (Morane type N)

You are right, Today's computers are very cheap (i remeber the day i spent 500 $ in a voodoo 3000 card LOL) but I can't spend 1000 $ in a new computer since i lost my job (f***ing crisis). I have a Sapphire Radeon X1550 512 MB and a Pentium 4 2.8 Ghz and ROF runs very very slow (but i can play FE with maximum settings in textures, shadows and effects, and it looks and plays superb )

Edited by Cagallon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ANY game that requires online activation will not get my vote. I've been burned once and it will never happen again.

 

I went with FE2. It's just a solid, fun sim. I am about ready to give OFF a try as I have a new rig that runs CFS3 well. I'll look at ROF if and when it goes on sale on GOG DRM free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW.... Where have all the ethics gone?

I see developers voting for their own sim: "My game is the best one. BUY MY GAME"

 

WTF!!!???

 

This is a poll for gamers and some developers are using this poll as an advertisement

 

That's shameless self-promotion.

 

OK. Let's watch a developers war and we will see which ones are the best spammers in this forum good.gif

Edited by Cagallon
  • Dislike 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's really no reason to keep a 10 yr old OS anymore when the 2-yr old Win7 works so well.

 

JM,

 

I normally find your posts among the more reasonable, and enjoy your contributions as generally objective. However, I have to disagree with this comment.

 

One "reason" to keep a 10-y/o OS is compatibility; as much as I understand time marches on, there are usually some apps that just wont run properly on a newer OS. (On a "not-so-funny" note, these are usually my favorite apps...)

 

Another reason? Cost. Keeping XP ATM (for the poster you were discussing it with) is free; last I checked the cheapest you can find a (LEGAL) version of W7 is around $80-90USD.

 

A less concrete (but still significant) reason, at least for me, would be that M$ really screwed some parts of W7 up (for all the good I agree it is). Among these is no more 'expanding' menus on the desktop/Start button (and this isn't optional, if you don't like it then you must use third-party SW to overcome this); they moved the "show desktop" button to the right-most corner of the taskbar (completely away from everything else!!) And again, not optional.

 

And this ridiculous "search"??? They've actually made it so that you're better off not knowing where anything is...and this encourages the type behavior that will, over time, ruin a good computer. God forbid anyone learn and use the file/directory structure properly any more...

 

And these things aren't just my opinion, either. There are *plenty* of long-time (and new) computer users out there that complain about these same things in W7. Just look around on the Internet sometimes, you'll see. And please - don't hand me this crap about I just need to learn the "new way"and stop clinging to the past. The new way is totally stupid...it makes little sense and actually rewards people for being total idiots when it comes to a computer.

 

Mostly, I attribute this to what I call the "i-tards"; that is, mostly younger people (no offense, it's simply a demographic thing, not personal) who have grown up thinking a 'smart-phone' replaces their brains, and it's perfectly OK to have to "search" for everything (even stuff you put there, and/or you have already been to at least 10-20 times). Windows 7 appeals strongly to this demographic.

 

To be honest, if we collectively are at such an intellectual state as to require Microsoft to help us find things...well, we're screwed in ways Windows 7 can't touch, I can tell you.

 

I changed to Window 7 strictly to get the benefit of a 64-bit OS (> 4G RAM). If it weren't for that, I wouldn't use it. (And let's not get started on XP64...).

 

Sorry to disagree, but it is what it is. Hope you understand, nothing personal :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted OFF,

 

Like JM I wish I had time to fully play it, immerse myself into the campaigns and all the squadron life as it is, but I voted for OFF mainly because it has something developers in fact don't give a s**t about -the Single Player experience. ROF, I had to wait almost TWO years for all the shift and Campaign to arrive, Cliffs of (my) Depression, that's a joke in the face...

 

FE2 is another nice one with good graphics delivered without ROF requirements, and is mean to be modded (like all TW sims in fact...)

 

ROF, I have a problem with this title, at the beginning in mid-2009 I was soo pissed at the devs and the online DRM, now it's past, but still to me it's more of a FM/DM tech demo than a real flight simulator, whose aim is not to only (very accurately I admit that) depict the single plane one's flying but whole war environment "going on" around

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, for sheer power user-friendliness, I preferred DOS 6.22...it never crashed. :grin:

 

I never use the show desktop button, wherever it is, I'm a Win-D guy! Likewise I tend to use a ton of kb shortcuts for things like explorer and alt-F4 blows away moving the cursor all the way up top just to close something. I agree search sucks, but that was actually changed first in XP if you DL'd it from the MS update site. A lot of that, though, is merely personal preference. Myself, I was upset 7 did away with Classic Control Panel. I never liked the new way, and always turned it off in XP and Vista, but now that I'm forced to use it in 7 I've become accustomed to it and I don't turn it off on XP and Vista anymore.

 

Anyway, having worked with NT4, 2000, XP, Vista, and 7 over the last 10 years, I'll say that Win 7 out of the box was the best Windows OS they ever made. XP sucked until SP2, frankly. It was BSOD city from programs and drivers alike. That's why I ran Win98 SE (again the first version sucked) until SP2 and upgraded then. Then I kept that (and later SP3) until Win 7 because Vista was no good until it reached SP2 (which was right around 7's release) so why bother? Besides, only Vista and 7 have what I'd call more than half-hearted security, and as XP is now 2 versions old no one tries to fix it anymore. I've also found that only very old programs don't like 7 32-bit. By that I mean programs that either pre-date or were contemporaries of XP's release.

 

So if you've got an older machine you keep off the internet, I guess XP is fine, but I find the positives outweigh the negatives in it. The only point I will concede without challenge is the price. It does cost, and if your PC is older you'll need to pay to get it to take advantage of it properly, and I know some can't afford that.

But if you can, and you mostly use programs that date from within the last 6-7 years, and you don't have too many old peripherals like printers and scanners that predate Vista lying around that the OEMs may not have made 7 drivers for, I think 7 is worth the upgrade even if you don't go 64 bit (I haven't yet, although with A-10C and Crysis 2 DX11 texture pack I wish now I had when I installed it 2 years ago).

 

I don't mind you disagree, I only mind when people are nasty or dismissive in their disagreement. A reasonable response can always be respected even if it's contrary.

 

Now if you'd said Windows ME was the best OS, I don't care how nice you were, you'd be a kook!! :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now if you'd said Windows ME was the best OS, I don't care how nice you were, you'd be a kook!! :biggrin:

 

*Whew* Thank God we do agree on that :grin:

 

And, just like you, I waited (using good old 98SE) until XP was past the bumps. As memory served, i waited on Windows 9x until it was 98. Likewise, I also skipped Vista and landed on W7 after XP. (I bet money you're familir with the "rule" that applies to 'every other version' of an M$ OS).

 

But - just for the record - I have to say I liked DOS 5 better'n 6.x(x) :good: S'where I really learned a lot (and it was fun, and almost made sense), and I never used the drive compression or any of the other junk 6.xx introduced much, anyway. (Plus it was honestly getting time to move into Win3.1 by then).

 

Like what you describe, I still have machine(s) that run XP...this is more or less necessity for me. Not due to tough times in my case (thank goodness), but I keep 9 machines running at home (for the kids, their guests, and our "multi-seat a$$whip-a-palooza" LAN games). All these machines have legal OS licenses, and I just couldn't afford to put 'em all on W7 (currently only mine is). Anyway, they work just fine, and they support everything we need them to. Since they're only 'guest' seats, some of these are old enough that they might have driver issues with W7 (if drivers exist at all). Good old hot-as-Hades late-model P4s; S-478 boards with AGP slots *lol*

 

In any event, I can appreciate anyone who can't (or doesn't want to) go to W7 - even though nowadays it does seem the 'obvious' choice. My situation might be different, but I have to remember that not everyone can afford to 'keep up' with how PCs change. Fortunately, XP is a long way from 'dead' as long as you're not trying anything too new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..