Ok post your thoughts of RoF here

[JediMaster 451]

Well, to be fair the first release of First Eagles was pretty limited. I think it gave you maybe 4 or 6 planes? It wasn't until the expansion/FE Gold that it became well rounded, and of course FE2 was just FE Gold redone.

So, it's true that those who started with ROF:ICE got a better deal than those that started with plain ROF...but that's pretty much par for the course for all games. Pick any game, wait a year or 18 months for the "game of the year edition" and you can get more stuff than it had on release for probably a bit less or you can pick up the original game at 1/2 price or less (I saw RoF non-ICE going for under $20 when I got ICE). Therefore, by getting it at the beginning you basically were an "early adopter" and you paid for that privilege.

As for the extra planes, when the 2 bombers were close to release a few months back, they had a mega-sale on all the other planes and I was able to pick up every single seater ICE didn't come with for just over $30 (and I paid $30 for ICE itself from Gogamer). So, for $60 I got a WWI sim with a ton of planes.

 

While it's true that OFF and FE are cheaper, they're not the same type of product.

[Dave63 13]

I was thinking about buying the ICE edition, so I downloaded the demo. It looks good. Even turned down it looks good. It flies OK. If sampled the Spad and Albie. The Spad is like trying to have a fight while looking through the book case at the public library. It's a bitch to shoot anything down. It runs like ass on my dual core system. I plan on spending an hour or so tweaking and trying the various fixes and if that doesn't do the trick, no sale. I will look at FE2 or OFF3...

[33LIMA 972]

Also unless I've missed something, RoF has precisely two 2-seaters, both AI, a B14 and a DFW CV. Even OOB, FE and OFF Phase 2 provided a minimalist but adequate selection of 2-seaters, a situation now much better. Flying for or against the RFC/RAF without at least an RE8 or a BE2 in the air is just plain silly/bone/naff.

 

RoF looks best for "flying WW1 planes" (scouts, anyway). But at the present, in my view it is for the above reason still a simply inadequate simulation of "flying in WW1", regardless of its other fine features. Each to their own of course but that's my position.

 

I hope the 2-seater selection, and the SP campaign, improve in due course, tho I'm not at all impressed at the idea of having to pay extra for what should have been a basic planeset and part of the basic package or an early patch.

[ArgonV 2]

The DFW is now player-controlled if you purchase it. They are working on getting the Breguet player-controlled as well (For purchase).

 

Then they plan on working on a player-controlled Bris Fit and an R.E.8.

[33LIMA 972]

The DFW is now player-controlled if you purchase it. They are working on getting the Breguet player-controlled as well (For purchase).

 

Then they plan on working on a player-controlled Bris Fit and an R.E.8.

 

Good to know, a Biff and a Harry Tate are just about's what's needed to make RoF's planeset acceptable in my eyes. Noticed the B14 and DFW were playables after I'd posted, but a few more 2-seaters is what's needed, certyainly at least one common, general purpose RFC/RAF type, the RE8 being the obvious choice, if less exciting than the F2B or the elegant and archetypal BE2c; after me now, everybody,

 

Oh they found a bit of iron wot some bloke had thrown away

And the RAF said "This is just the thing we've sought for many a day!"

And so they built the weirdest thing

Strangest engine ever seen

And they put it in a flying machine

And sent them out to fight.

When the blokes who had to fly them swore

The RAF said "They'll be all right!

The bus is as stable as can be

We thought of every bit of it ourselves, you see!"

They were so darn slow, they wouldn't go

And they called them RAF2c's".

Edited April 20, 2011 by 33LIMA

[Dave63 13]

I was thinking about buying the ICE edition, so I downloaded the demo. It looks good. Even turned down it looks good. It flies OK. If sampled the Spad and Albie. The Spad is like trying to have a fight while looking through the book case at the public library. It's a bitch to shoot anything down. It runs like ass on my dual core system. I plan on spending an hour or so tweaking and trying the various fixes and if that doesn't do the trick, no sale. I will look at FE2 or OFF3...

 

Got it working OK with RoF Boost. D/Led and installed. Now to perfect my ground impacts...

[JediMaster 451]

It's an admitted flaw that RoF runs best on dual-core machines under WinXP and quad-core (or more) under Vista/7. Reverse combos work less well. I know a guy with dual-core and 7 and he gets acceptable performance at med/hi levels, but I can max it out on my i7 and it still runs better than his.

[Dave63 13]

It's an admitted flaw that RoF runs best on dual-core machines under WinXP and quad-core (or more) under Vista/7. Reverse combos work less well. I know a guy with dual-core and 7 and he gets acceptable performance at med/hi levels, but I can max it out on my i7 and it still runs better than his.

 

That is pretty much my experience, so far. It's still quite nice on medium!

[themightysrc 5]

"Also unless I've missed something, RoF has precisely two 2-seaters, both AI, a B14 and a DFW CV. Even OOB, FE and OFF Phase 2 provided a minimalist but adequate selection of 2-seaters, a situation now much better. Flying for or against the RFC/RAF without at least an RE8 or a BE2 in the air is just plain silly/bone/naff. "

 

Really have to agree with this. A WWI air sim with precisely two 2-seaters? That is beyond absurd, and undermines any claim RoF might make for authenticity. I mean, for f***'s sake: how can you have a WWI sim that doesn't have the BE2/RE8/Brisfit/Alb C series/Avaitiks/Rolands, etc? It's a bit like pretending that WWII had no Lancs, HE111s, B17s, etc. It's just a joke.

 

"RoF looks best for "flying WW1 planes" (scouts, anyway). But at the present, in my view it is for the above reason still a simply inadequate simulation of "flying in WW1", regardless of its other fine features. Each to their own of course but that's my position."

 

Well, no wonder the MP capabilities are so touted: from everything I've seen and heard about RoF, it's great for whizzing about shooting up other owners in cyberspace: as a WWI game, it's sadly lacking.

 

"I hope the 2-seater selection, and the SP campaign, improve in due course, tho I'm not at all impressed at the idea of having to pay extra for what should have been a basic planeset and part of the basic package or an early patch."

 

This is one of my bugbears as well. If they were to offer the full planeset, a decent SP campaign and an acceptable number of 2-seaters, then the response would be that every WWI addict would buy the damn game, and the servers would be full of players.

 

I might get RoF in the future, given the money to get a butch system. At the moment, it's out of the question on the basis of my rig, and until I see genuine movement, and what I'd consider value for money in the future, it remains a borderline consideration.

 

Sorry Dagger.

[JediMaster 451]

They needed to create the code to allow multi-crewing of planes. That was implemented first with the Gotha and HP, released only a couple of months ago, and now put into the DFW and Breguet. I know they have more 2-seaters coming.

 

As for other games lacking things and claiming authenticity, have you ever paid any attention to the Battlefield, MoH or CoD games? They don't claim to be sims, but they claim authenticity because there are military advisors used (even if they're mostly ignored).

What about a WWII sim that ignored the Pacific theater? I guess the original releases of Il-2 were crap then, because they were Eastern Front only.

 

You can't have it all, something has to give. The hard truth many of you don't want to accept is the number of people that would buy the "perfect" (in your estimation) WWI sim is far too small to recoup the costs to make a sim like that. Unless you'd be happier with each copy costing $250 instead of only paying for the planes you want? Then however the number of people willing to buy that "perfect" sim would drop even more, as few seem to accept paying more than $40 for any software...

 

Also remember RoF was begun by a Russian publisher that wanted a WWI MMO and then dropped it, leaving the team with code that was hardwired a certain way. Had they started from scratch knowing this was the way they were going, they might have made vastly different choices.

[33LIMA 972]

They needed to create the code to allow multi-crewing of planes. That was implemented first with the Gotha and HP, released only a couple of months ago, and now put into the DFW and Breguet. I know they have more 2-seaters coming.

 

As for other games lacking things and claiming authenticity, have you ever paid any attention to the Battlefield, MoH or CoD games? They don't claim to be sims, but they claim authenticity because there are military advisors used (even if they're mostly ignored).

What about a WWII sim that ignored the Pacific theater? I guess the original releases of Il-2 were crap then, because they were Eastern Front only.

 

You can't have it all, something has to give. The hard truth many of you don't want to accept is the number of people that would buy the "perfect" (in your estimation) WWI sim is far too small to recoup the costs to make a sim like that. Unless you'd be happier with each copy costing $250 instead of only paying for the planes you want? Then however the number of people willing to buy that "perfect" sim would drop even more, as few seem to accept paying more than $40 for any software...

 

Also remember RoF was begun by a Russian publisher that wanted a WWI MMO and then dropped it, leaving the team with code that was hardwired a certain way. Had they started from scratch knowing this was the way they were going, they might have made vastly different choices.

 

I certainly don't expect a WW1 sim - or any sim, for that matter - to be "perfect", or to have every plane or feature I just happen to favour - that would be silly. Nor do most simmers in my experience. To to characterise such criticism of RoF - especially in a thread which seeks views on the sim - as a "hard truth many...don't want to accept" is I believe at best a sweeping generalisation, which fails to distinguish between fair comment and sim-bashing.

 

The lack of even a basic set of representative 2-seaters really is a big gap in any WW1 air combat sim, whether peolple accept THAT, or not. Hopefully that situation will soon be remedied. In the meantime I wish RoF and its adherents well and look forward to joining them in due course.

[themightysrc 5]

Sorry, Mr. Jedi, but I'm with 33Lima on this one.

 

No one expects perfection (although it would be nice!), however the omissions in RoF are pertinent to the subject matter, and it is disingenuous of people seeking views to simply sweep criticisms of these under the carpet. The review of RoF:ICE on this very site was more akin to hagiography rather than a balanced piece, so I feel it is fair to raise omissions/criticisms accordingly, particularly when, as Lima's pointed out, views were actually actively sought!

[Dave63 13]

For what I paid for it, I'm not complaining about anything! If I don't care about 2 seaters, which I don't other than to use as targets, I don't have to buy them to see the AI and other players use them. I really like that part.

[themightysrc 5]

"For what I paid for it, I'm not complaining about anything! If I don't care about 2 seaters, which I don't other than to use as targets, I don't have to buy them to see the AI and other players use them. I really like that part."

 

Which, I guess, reinforces the point made by many people regarding RoF. If you want to fly a WWI scout, then that's probably the best route for you: if you want to fly in WWI, warts and all, then OFF is probably better suited to you.

[JediMaster 451]

I suppose the problem is that I've seen literally dozens of posts complaining that the lack of 2-seaters = total fail at realism, so why bother getting RoF?

 

I don't think I ever saw any claim made that RoF was to be some sweeping perfect recreation of WWI air combat. The sim was designed around single-seater fighter vs fighter combat. Due to clamor from the community, they've been putting other planes in at a rate they can manage that obviously is too slow for some people.

The fact is that RoF has been out for 2 years, but in the last 4 months a 2-seater and 2 multi-crew bombers have been released, so I'd say progress in that area has been swift now that they've figured it out.

 

So, to be clear, I'm simply fed up with people saying "game A doesn't have feature X (regardless of what else it has), therefore it's crap" or some variation. Is it a shortcoming that more 2-seaters aren't there, whether flyable or not? Certainly. However, to say said program is not worth the money because of that lack is "I believe at best a sweeping generalisation." This isn't limited to RoF. I see it all the time about TK's sims as well. They don't have MP (since SF2), they don't have proper prop-plane modeling, they don't do modern planes well enough, the terrains are too poor...and therefore not worth getting. I saw it when Black Shark was released because it wasn't a Western helicopter, but a Russian one they didn't care about. All because the poster claims that whatever particular feature in their opinion is very important is missing. Certainly a sim that misses on dozens of features that were present in sims before is worthy of criticism, but I've seen an undue amount aimed at RoF over the 2-seater issue as if that's the single most important facet of a WWI sim.

 

Perhaps then the "hard truth" is that it's an opinion, not a fact, that a particular feature is vital. Therefore arguing about it is no more than two people of opposing viewpoints who will never be swayed from their opinion.

[33LIMA 972]

I suppose the problem is that I've seen literally dozens of posts complaining that the lack of 2-seaters = total fail at realism, so why bother getting RoF?

 

I don't think I ever saw any claim made that RoF was to be some sweeping perfect recreation of WWI air combat. The sim was designed around single-seater fighter vs fighter combat. Due to clamor from the community, they've been putting other planes in at a rate they can manage that obviously is too slow for some people.

The fact is that RoF has been out for 2 years, but in the last 4 months a 2-seater and 2 multi-crew bombers have been released, so I'd say progress in that area has been swift now that they've figured it out.

 

So, to be clear, I'm simply fed up with people saying "game A doesn't have feature X (regardless of what else it has), therefore it's crap" or some variation. Is it a shortcoming that more 2-seaters aren't there, whether flyable or not? Certainly. However, to say said program is not worth the money because of that lack is "I believe at best a sweeping generalisation." This isn't limited to RoF. I see it all the time about TK's sims as well. They don't have MP (since SF2), they don't have proper prop-plane modeling, they don't do modern planes well enough, the terrains are too poor...and therefore not worth getting. I saw it when Black Shark was released because it wasn't a Western helicopter, but a Russian one they didn't care about. All because the poster claims that whatever particular feature in their opinion is very important is missing. Certainly a sim that misses on dozens of features that were present in sims before is worthy of criticism, but I've seen an undue amount aimed at RoF over the 2-seater issue as if that's the single most important facet of a WWI sim.

 

Perhaps then the "hard truth" is that it's an opinion, not a fact, that a particular feature is vital. Therefore arguing about it is no more than two people of opposing viewpoints who will never be swayed from their opinion.

 

Agree re the last bit - as the Romans said, "de gustibus non est disputandum" - there's no point duspiting what are matters of taste.

 

However, it's worth recording that it is what's known in debating circles as a 'strawman argument' to characterise this particular matter of taste as "few 2-seaters = total fail'. I didn't say that, and I don't see anyone else saying it. What I'm saying is that a lack of representative 2 seaters is major omission - NOT a 'total fail' - in a WW1 sim. Opinion, yes, and a perfectly reasonable one, apparently fairly widely held, and worthy of some respect rather than being objected to, in somewhat petulant terms, especially in a thread seeking views; as opposed to simply saying 'I disagree/hold a different view'. I also said that the lack of 2-seaters deters me from buying RoF, which bit at least is a statement of fact.

 

Anyway despite that I do respect your defence of RoF, it's a great product in many ways and is getting better; and it deserves to be defended from anyone handing out an ill-considered or intemperate bashing. I expect I'll get it when I have a graphics card able to run it decently/at all, and play and enjoy it along with OFF and FE.By which time it should have at least an AI RE8.

Edited April 29, 2011 by 33LIMA

[themightysrc 5]

"Certainly a sim that misses on dozens of features that were present in sims before is worthy of criticism, but I've seen an undue amount aimed at RoF over the 2-seater issue as if that's the single most important facet of a WWI sim."

 

Well, if you feel that way, fine, but for many, authenticity of environment is important. Consider also the single player campaign: how playable will it be when all that you ever encounter is scouts (or the very occasional multiseat aircraft)?

[JediMaster 451]

Again, I HAVE seen that many posts making those assertions, not in this thread necessarily, but around the net for months and months.

 

The problem is that making a sim is time-consuming and expensive and something has to give. What would you be willing to put up with to get these extra non-flyable planes just flying around?

A) Worse graphics, either in appearance or performance

B) Worse AI, either being cow-stupid or Terminator-accurate

C) Laggy MP

D) constant crashes/game instability

E) poor flight modeling

F) poor damage modeling

G) fewer ground targets, maybe they could just have the WWI equivalent of "comm building" for every mission?

 

RoF does good on all those areas. It DOES have 2 seaters, one for each side. So instead of seeing a variety of different types of 2 seaters, when you see a German one you know it's a DFW CV. Is that really so bad?

There are many areas that RoF still needs to improve on. Personally I'd rather have zeppelins before more 2 seaters because they were important too. After all, we DO have 2 seaters to both fly and fly against. Hence it seems like the focus on the fact that there aren't more of them seems to be disproportionate to the actual issue.

[Dave63 13]

Good God, give them an RE8 and a Roland and maybe they'll be quiet! You'd think that 90 percent of aircraft over the lines and 75 percent of the squadrons formed were two seaters.

[themightysrc 5]

Well, for a title that is subscripted with 'the first great air war', I'd be a little surprised to find that it only consisted of a few types of scout and two recon planes, one per side.

 

"when you see a German one you know it's a DFW CV. Is that really so bad?"

 

Er, yes.

 

"You'd think that 90 percent of aircraft over the lines and 75 percent of the squadrons formed were two seaters."

 

Don't know the proportions involved in WWI of recon/bombers to scouts, but I'm willing to bet on it being 60/40 recon planes to scouts. Anyone got accurate figures to hand? By year?

[catch 81]

I like OFF too and OBD have done a grand job but I have my eyes wide open to other quality WW1 flight sims that deserve support and RoF is obviously heading in the right direction.

Edited May 15, 2011 by Dave
Catch this post was uncalled for. Stick to the fact and not flame baiting

[themightysrc 5]

I'm sorry if my reservations come over to you in that manner - that is not what I intended. I'm fairly sure that RoF will, in due course, take its place in the pantheon of WWI sim 'must haves'. What I take exception to is that it is already perfectly formed and that anyone taking exception to this view is in some way perverse or a gainsayer. If RoF is already such a great sim, then why are there still so many people arguing about aspects of it that displease them? Do you honestly believe that it's a fully formed sim when there are only 2 recon aircraft available? Do you genuinely think that that is a fair portrayal of WWI in the air? Further, why do object so strenuously to other people pointing out that it's not the 9.85 sim that we were asked to comment on?

 

"And have you actually tried it ? Or are you just relying on outdated rumours and misconceptions to formulate your arguments ?"

 

Yes, I've tried it, but my rig wasn't up to handling it to the point where it was tenable. And, no, I simply read the opinions of others, see what planes they've released and refuse to be drawn into the fanboism that appears to be so prevalent amongst RoF owners. I dare say I'll but it due course, but it will be when the standard package comes with about 30 flyables, a realistic campaign, enough 2 seaters to make it actually look like WWI and no necessity to log on to a server elsewhere to provide me with the entertainment that I've shelled out hard earned $/££ for - you know: a bit like Red Baron 3D that I bought over 10 years ago.

 

I wish them the best of luck; I simply don't believe that sitting back and proclaiming that all is well now is an option. Do you understand me now?

Edited May 15, 2011 by Dave

[JediMaster 451]

"If RoF is already such a great sim, then why are there still so many people arguing about aspects of it that displease them?"

 

LOL, I take it you don't hang out on many other flight sim forums then! Name ANY sim and I can find 5 complaints that people endlessly debate online. Even the venerated pantheons of Il-2 and Falcon 4 have flaws galore. I myself have a lot less time in Il-2 than I would like because after only a few hours playing it I tire of: overpowered cannon/underpowered MGs, bizarre A/C handling that makes it seem like I'm flying a model airplane more than a real airplane (like they don't weigh enough), AI that is more stupid than intelligent, a very sterile feeling in the cockpit that makes it feel like I'm flying a WWII simulator but NOT a pilot flying in WWII.

 

Every sim has shortcomings. Some, like Il-2 after almost 10 years, will obviously never have them fixed because development is done aside from mods (the TD stuff is just official mods). Others are still in development and may see those flaws reduced/eliminated, and RoF is one of those. It's been 2 years but it's in full swing. Where was Il-2 after 2 years? Replaced by Forgotten Battles, you better buy that, nothing more for Il-2. Where was F4 after 2 years? Well the team was disbanded after 1 year so all we had was mods on the horizon starting with the realism patches. RoF has finally introduced flyable bombers and 2 seaters and more are coming along with a revamped career.

 

So at the 2 year mark I would say RoF is doing far better than those classics which either said "hope you like it now because that's how it's staying" and folded, or said "hope you like it now because that's how it's staying unless you buy the sequel". As RoF has only charged for more planes (and now changes to those planes which aren't necessary, just nice to have), those who only bought the original release have a better experience now than 1 yr ago which was better than release. Don't give up on them.

[themightysrc 5]

Hi JM,

 

I'm not a habitual flight sim gamer, so I really can't comment on any other game (except IL2, which ran increasingly slowly on my rig in each of its iterations. 1946 just doesn't run at all). I would like to RoF to be a great success and the yardstick by which all flight sims are judged, but I will stand by my POV regardless of ad hominem comments. I loved RB3D and its add ons, whilst recognising its weaknesses (but, boy, what immersion!). I loved First Eagles, once I'd loaded as many planes and other mods as I could find, but didn't sense the immersion. I hated OFF P3 when I first loaded it, until I realised that I had to tweak my rig like I'd never done before. Then I began to realise that it was rather good. I'm still not sold on aspects of it, although the Hitr add on was admirable, but I look forward to P4 in the same way I look forward to RoF finally fulfilling its potential and my dreams of a WWI flight sim that really does 'do' WWI. OFF P3 is closer to that. I hope both titles prosper.

 

Is that clear enough for everyone?

 

Cheers,

Si

[JediMaster 451]

I'm not just a habitual flight simmer, but also naval simmer, sim racer, FPS'er, RTS'er, and even a few RPGs to boot. I think I have over 2 dozen games installed on my PC right now not counting the vast library of previous titles that aren't installed. So I have a much longer view of the patterns seen over the life of games (in the 90s, 2000s, and today) and can say with great confidence that today's audience/market is far more demanding than in the past. At the very minimum, it can be stated they want the sims to do more and look better than ever before while still paying the same $50 they paid 20 years ago! A good sim now is the price of one tank of gas. I think what I paid for Falcon 3 20 years ago ($65) would've bought at least 3 full tanks if not 4, depending on your vehicle.

Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe charged $30 per expansion, and that was ONE plane each. All it did was add that plane to the campaign plus create a new career for it. There was no MP. People bought them in droves. I recall one of the biggest sellers was the P-38 (a WWII sim that covered the later war years that didn't come with a P-38 stock?? GASP!)