I like OFF3 when I want to campaign and feel like I am a WWI pilot in a historic campaign (OFF3 is a WWI time machine to me).

I like ROF when I want to Dog Fight , fly (my two A/C), and sight see.

ROF and OFF3 are both on my harddrive. They both have many Pro's and Con's. They are both being improved and enhanced (I hope).

Life is good for me with respect to WWI.

JFM,

What you list here are indeed shortcomings in OFF but most of what you name are things that are missing (no seaplanes, etc.).

And there are some FM and DM quirks such as the plane exploding when you scrape a wingtip on the runway or the small anti-balloon rockets that can take out an entire hangar with a single hit (the OFF developers always claim "It's a CFS3 thing that we can't fix" while at the same time also claiming "OFF is NOT CFS3 but a complete makeover of CFS3." Somehow their logic escapes me....)

I think you're being quite unfair if we are comparing the historical detail in the off OFF and ROF settings (NOT the airplanes themselves; ROF wins hands down)..

If you start to list all the historical stuff that's missing in ROF, we will be here for weeks. The list of what is there now is painfully short when compared to OFF.

My point was not to start peeing on either sim. I do fly both.

My point was that ROF developers should take a look at the historical detail in OFF and try to emulate and even exceed it.

The ROF plane models are so good (well, except the twitchy rudders when I try to aim the guns) that they deserve historically accurate settings in which to fly.

At the moment they don't have that but this is just the beginning and I am simply giving my opinion on what I think should be given high priority in the future development of ROF.

(If you don't ask, the answer always will be no.)

My opinion is free and thus worth exactly what you are paying for it.



ttt

Two should grow to three, then maybe five, then more as you choose, then maybe a 2-seater, then as its gunner. Other content, missions, and features will grow too.


Good point, and may your life only get better with respect to your WWI adventures.

I don't think OFF team "chose" CFS3 because it was the best available at the time. I think it was more of a case of it being their only option at the time. Well, now both OFF and RoF are off my list so it's back to First Eagles. Disappointing.

That's for sure Guppy, because it didn't seem like there was ever going to be another retail WWI sim built again.

Btw, about 40 of us WWI fans convinced TK to build First Eagles.

A couple of us got on the fan forums when we heard he had put up a poll on Third Wire's forum, to solicit a vote for his next sim project, and we won! (the regular jet fans there were pissed) We didn't abandon TK though as he went forward with a period he really knew nothing about, as a few of us provided him needed resources to help in the the sim's initial development. Oh, and I'm pretty proud of First Eagles too, it was my title suggestion for the sim (inspired by the WWI book America's First Eagles, by Lt. Lucien H. Thayer).

It really can be a small world sometimes.

If you like First Eagles, you probably will be able to appreciate Rise Of Flight I'm guessing.

Hi, TTTiger,

You don't know your ass from page eight, do you? LOL Gotcha! I'm just kidding; brewed up the coffee a little too strong, didn't I? Forgive me...

Anyway, we're pretty much on the same page. Just a few clarifications.



Sure. Vast areas of WW1 are missing in OFF, which is part of the reason why it's not perfect, no matter how many (not necessarily you, TTT) think it is. But, that's okay, too, really; whatever gets them through the night! I don't want to rain on their OFF parades if people think it's a perfect sim. Sincerely; more power to them.



I agree; I don't understand it, either. To be fair, though, I couldn't carry a two-second conversation about computer code so I'm at the mercy of the more learned. I speculate that if those shortcomings could be changed they would have been, because wouldn't the developers also want to (for instance) drag a wingtip without it exploding? It's maddening to endure a head-on collision that tears the gear off, nurse the crippled machine home, and then know that when a gear strut touches the ground (in a much gentler fashion than the collision that damaged it in the first place) during landing, it will explode.



No, I'm not being unfair, because I didn't compare OFF to ROF at all--I compared OFF to World War One. I did mention that OFF contains many things I hope ROF will implement in a manner better than OFF has done already. That's not being unfair to OFF; the same can be said about Phase 4.



Agreed. However, that has nothing to do with my comments about OFF's lack of perfection. OFF was imperfect prior to ROF's release.



I agree. I see no reason to mention OFF here at all (that reads like a slam but that is not how I mean it). I'm not saying people cannot mention it, but why? OFF is OFF and ROF is ROF. I want ROF to be like WWI, not like OFF.



I agree ROF should exceed OFF's historical detail.



I agree. Certainly a lot of nose hunt when firing the guns (and btw have you noticed the AI's strange "rudder flapping"?) but just remember: Rangehn ist Alles! From an airplane-length away, you don't need to aim.


I appreciate your opinion and our discussion, Tony-the. I think we both want ROF to grow into the paramount WW1 flight sim. Toward that end, ROF hasn't even raised its gear yet! It's going to be a fun flight.

Whoa, if anything ever sounded like nitpicking, this is it!

Yep, it's about sweating the details, because the actual magazine has exposed bullet rounds towards the weapon side, differences clearly visible when flying aircraft with wing-mounted Lewis Guns.

To understand building a WWI sim engine which allows for all these capabilities, is to understand all the little nitpicky work that goes into making these things function. Btw, ROF's guns load, ammo belts move, the weapons jam and require clearing, all of it in 3D animation. Nitpicky, tedious to model and code, but wonderful, and it's what flying and fighting with your face inches away from your weapons was all about (put simply: WWI immersion for that expected suspension of disbelief).

Btw, the Lewis Gun drum also rotate when the weapon fires, and it's awesome to see the reflection off the brass shells in the morning light.

Here's someone who really gets it.

Neoqb fell into the modern trap of most developers, it seems: build the world and make the customer construct the cities and populate it with life. The IL-2 series did the same thing, as did Black Shark. Without the skinners and the mission makers, it's a world that doesn't make a lot of sense contextually.

The upside is that there is a great group of people who will look at the sandbox and decide that they really should start making really detailed castles - and then invite us to play with them. And I have far more faith in the community wizards than I do in the professional developers, if only because mission and campaign writing is prose, while the bits and bytes of FM/DM/AI is math. It's the rare person that can do both with equal panache.

That's why I said "disappointing". I don't find FE meeting my realism curve very well. I guess I could buy both OFF and RoF too and then play all three just for different aspects but what I really want is just one that has it all. Beggars can't be choosers though.