Asking real pilots that fly this sim the big question,,,how does it fly? Does it fly as good as FX or IL2,,does it feel right and can you slip correctly?

As for feel of flight, it has Il-2 beat, beat and beat. It would be interesting to compare it with the early versions of Il-2, but it's not worth the hassle to me. RoF is way better than the default FSX aircraft, and definitely better, albeit not by such huge a margin, than good addon light aircraft for FSX.

The soaring simulators Silent Wings and Condor are up there in the same league as RoF. F4 probably is as well, even if it is hard to compare a fast jet sim with a light prop aircraft sim - especially when never having had the opportunity to fly fast jets.

The RoF aircraft in my opinion act very predictably and as I would expect. This with a solid theoretical background and spam can/glider experience.

I completely concur with the above. I've flown light prop to fast jet to heavy jet, and this has the best feel and believability of any PC sim flight experience IMO.

I couldn't agree more with the last two guys.

I said this in another post. Okay, so we don't know if RoF planes behave exactly like their real life counterparts, but they do behave like REAL AIRCRAFT. Each one is different and has it's own tricks, even when getting the engine started.

I don't know what they did to give the sensation of flight through the visuals, but they did a great job. It looks much more like actually flying than any other sim. It's easy to guess your altitude just from looking outside. Also the sounds are great, the sound of the wind rushing past is dead on. It's so great for judging your airspeed.
If it sounds like you are going too fast, you probably are!

I have time in a variety of light planes. The oldest being a 1946 Taylorcraft and a 1946 Luscombe. I also own my own Cessna 150M.

Same as above.

Only prop time for me--C-150, 152, 172, 182, PA-28, DA20-A1, BE-76, mostly. Prop sims I own (although not necessarily installed anymore) include RB3d, CFS1, CFS2, CFS3, IL2/FB/PF/1946, OFF Phases 1,2,3, Flying Corps Gold, Fighter Squadron Screaming Demons Over Europe, Janes WW2, B-17II, BoBII, FS95/98/2K/2K2/2K4/X. IMO the ROF planes fly better than the stock planes in any of those sims and more closely match what I've experienced in real airplanes.

Of course, no Cessnas in IL2, etc. Still, spins, stalls, and slips are much better in ROF. Especially slips; that was the first thing to knock me out. I never thought any other sim slipped worth a damn; ROF nails it, at least much, much closer to the real thing than any sim I've experienced. The only thing missing from the ROF slip is the choppy sound the prop makes. Oh, and I have not checked the ASI to see if they've modeled airspeed errors in slips; I'm usually in the D.Va (although it may not even be prevalent with the SE5a, as I am not familiar with its pitot-static system). Even little things like the sound during the takeoff and landing rolls; I've done a lot of grass field landings and ROF sounds more like the real thing than any other. (Again, within limits to what I've experienced personally. I have never landed a Bf-109G on grass, for instance.)

I still love a lot of sims, despite some of the awful FMs. I love to fly approaches in FSX, even though the 172 feels like a piece of paper blowing behind a bus. I'm nuts--I like flying. Combat is incidental. I'll often fire up ROF to just practice landings, or stalls, or slow flight, or take it up to altitude and kill the engine to practice glides and dead-stick landings at precise locations, or how low I can recover a spin, or a million other things. Toward that end, ROF always delivers for me. This doesn't mean I've a blind eye to improvements I hope are made over time (campaign development, skins, seasons, controllable fuel valves, controllable tank pressure, controllable magnetos, icing, damageable props, flat tires, magnetic compass errors), but the flying is so good that I'm more than happy to wait for them as I fly around.

I have flown Full size WW-1 planes, still way to pitch sensitive for me in comparison. All in all, the best on the market hands down!

IMO, a PC based sim will never be like flying the real thing. In that you cannot feel what the plane is doing, most important.

RoF is awesome in its own right.

Cheers.

Hey womenfly2, do you mean the RoF is way to pitch sensitive or the real thing?

She probably means RoF is too pitch sensitive, and I'd agree. To be fair, most sims I've flown are.

I started out in a J3 cub and am about halfway through my tailwheel endorsement, and aside from any plane to plane issues I may have with RoF, I think the FM is great! The ground-looping, stalling, slipping, adverse yaw/rudder balance and just about everything I can mention in regards to the physics model is better than anything I've seen on a computer. Just for puttering around, I prefer RoF to FSX: they nailed the FM in terms of 'feel' and 'look'. Or at least as well as can be expected...I echo womenfly's statement about how much you lose when you have no 'seat of your pants' or Situational Awareness (although TiR certainly helps in the latter regard).

I've also gotten to see many of these planes fly at Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome in NY and from what I've seen, the performance in RoF is generally accurate.

IMO, a PC based sim will never be like flying the real thing.

+1.

I admit I've never flown a WWI airplane but have flown planes with light wingloading. The planes in ROF react as I expect but since these planes have their COG further back than most modern planes, they are not as forgiving and react a bit differently in stalls than one might expect. As for pitch sensitivity, it has to do with the fact that PC joysticks are too short therfore moving it a little translates to moving it a lot more on a real (longer) WWI control stick. Verdict, it's more accurate than any other flight simulator I've flown. Additionally, there are "flight simulators" out there that do not deserve that title due to it's simplified/arcade-like fiight models.