lol.. it is spelt correctly. Only you yanks spell it with a z.. but its not your language, you've just borrowed it and added z for some silly reason :p

.. In England therefore English it's spelt with a s, i.e Authorisation



Play multiplayer with some friends.. its a blast. All games played single player gets old fast.

I didn't know that. I thought if anything is was a play on words since the game's name is "Rise ..."

However! This IS the North American version, it should have a 'z'. ;-)

^^ fair point. But i don't think they have two versions in English..so i think you have the English version.. like me.

It'll be wrong for one of us. Just glad its not me, lol.

Counterman and Mogster, it is just a suggestion, and as pointed out by you may not be practicable.

But, for example take the Nieuport 17. It may not be popular so much now, it is outclassed, rightly so. But it is a very popular plane for many WW1 gamers. And I'd guess people would prefer one variation or another, and many would like several variations even.

I don't believe that Neoqb would do a second version for free, when there are probably 100 different planes that could be done, and sold.

I don't believe they could sell a second Nieuport 17 for the same price either. That would be a rip off.

I don't believe it is worth it for NEOQB to do several variations and sell individually, for less then full fee. Limited sales.

So combining the following: many variations of planes in WW1, NEOQB would not provide a second free (certainly not many), NEOQB could not really charge much for a second variation, why not provide a package?

Not everyone will want to buy it, but those that like for example the Nieport 17 would - they are happy. Noeoqb gets extra money, they are happy. Neoqb generates revenue (and admittedly profits), and improves/adds to the game I'd hope - players generally are happy.

It is just a suggestion. It clearly is not needed now, there are higher priorities at the moment and maybe for some time.

Maybe some simple and common ones could be provided free. The Fokker D7 w/BMW engine is a good candidate for that. It would take some work by NEOQB, but goodwill and all that. Just do not think they could ever do engine variations on all palnes (lots of testing if nothing else), but as an avid WW1 sim gamer, I know people will eventually want these variations for many planes.

I would consider myself an aviation buff and a history buff. While I am sure there were many different variants of each kind of aircraft, I don't see the point in modeling more then one. The rapidly evolving technology back then simply led to new and better planes. -Quickly.

I would encourage the Devs to simply model the most common variant of each type of aircraft. The differences are small enough that I don't think it would matter much. -Yes an additional machine gun would be nice for some types of aircraft, but I don't think we need a completely re-engineered flight model for that, just use what exists with a different 3d model.

WWI isn't like WWII when it comes to more advanced variants need to be modeled. The P51A is vastly different than a P51D. The Bf109E is much different than a Bf109K. I think you understand my reasoning for thinking this way. Give me the most common variant and I'll be happy. -Even if the new variants were free, I would rather keep it simple since we are talking WWI.

"I would consider myself an aviation buff and a history buff. While I am sure there were many different variants of each kind of aircraft, I don't see the point in modeling more then one. The rapidly evolving technology back then simply led to new and better planes. -Quickly."

Ok, what about the Bristol F2B?

Early models mid 1917 had 150hp engines, later 1918 variations had 275hp engines (and they were far better engines too). Huge difference. And several engines in between. Which one should NEOQB provide?

It was "leading edge" for all that time, until the end of the war.

Some had one Vickers, some had an extra Lewis on the wing. Some had a rear gunner with one Lewis, some with 2 Lewis.

Of course everybody would want the 275hp model, but it was not available till about 1918, and the Bristol was around in Bloody April 1917 (as F2A). So, realism, completeness?

Take the Nieuport 17 - in French service it had a Vickers, in British it had Lewis. Both available at the same time. And more variations with added guns, all in the same period, and different engines.

you could even ask what guns should be standard on the Dolphin?

The list is longish. And from my experience I would say many people like one plane or another to almost the exclusion of everything else for a particular perios at least, and WANT the variants. It's one the unique things of WW1.

"All games played single player gets old fast."

You really think so? I don't.

NORTH American, not USA version.. some of us here still go with proper British spelling old boy!

In my opinion, the different variants of engines/weapons could be produced in the same way we have the loadout screen to select different ammo and bombs. And for the record I am OK with paying for different variants of aircraft (like what has been done with the Albatross) but I do not think we the consumer should be expected to pay additionally for different engines of a specific variant.



I would disagree with this statement with the hope that a better campain could be built. I would really like to see the single player environment evolve as it did in WW1 where the (surviving) pilot would see the aircraft he flies change, from month to month.

But within three months of flight sim time I'd be flying more patch than plane!

Excellent idea, this.

Sorry none coming. Aside from disagreeing that twisted your opinion, I am unsure how you would categorise your comment "He wants everything free, I guess" about me?

I am tired of every Tom Dick and intramile suggesting that we should pay extra for every item in RoF at the drop of the hat especially as the full priced game with less content than anything I can ever recall being published.

As for the win-win-win... The only people I see wining here are Neoqb and people who can afford to have the edge on their fellow players. I see this as a win-win-loose.

Agreed, by having the many different variations you will add variety, excitement and unpredictability into the game.

Imagine the fun of never knowing if the enemy you are about to attack has 1 or 2 guns or the better engine until you have engaged them.

Hopefully the aircraft in RoF are constructed in a way the would make this possible ingame without any special requirements.

I think it's highly unlikely NeoQB are ever going to be winning in a very substantial sense. Flight sims are costly to make and have a small audience. That means that if you are to make any money the audience have to pay a lot for the product. And it's a high risk business - Rise of Flight spent money for over 2.5 years before seeing any return at all on that investment. I've long been of the opinion that if flight sims are going to survive then the people who want to play them are going to have to get used to the idea that they pay much, much more for them than they would for mainstream games because there are just fewer of them buying. It's already very noticeable that flight sim development has moved to countries where high education levels command comparatively low salaries, which is probably the only thing making it remotely practical for these programmes to be developed at all.

For me that makes strong statements like "X should be free" a bit of a nonsense; if it's new, then there's no rational basis for saying it should be free. There might be good marketing reasons for choosing to make it free, but there's no should about it.

Mahoney,

One could argue that most of what people have and will be paying for should have been included in the original game.

I doubt the SimHQ flight simmers would would have allowed Ubisoft to release a product in the manner the Neoqb has nor in the same state.

I can see it now, Silent Hunter 5 comes with the Type II, the VII and 10 ships. All variants of the U-boats will cost extra and new ships will also be charged for.

While I respect your opinion, I see no substance in your argument unless you now want to apply it to all games.

"I am tired of every Tom Dick and intramile suggesting that we should pay extra for every item in RoF at the drop of the hat especially as the full priced game with less content than anything I can ever recall being published."

Your threshold of acceptance to alternative viewpoints is about as low as your comprehension skills.

You're implying I'm suggesting everyone pay extra for everything. So where are my posts on that? In fact, my suggestion that you snarkily keep dissing is about paying extra for things that I or others may like that may not be available otherwise. You can keep your tight wallet shut.

Tired of it, you say? Hey, very democratic of you to feel you can attack others and distort views different to your own. Not necessarily what you want, but there you go ... hello, hello! ...welcome to a forum, teddy!

And, tired and whingey, tired and whining, it's a broken record, pal.

So far I've paid for a beta piece of software.

Once it comes up to the standard of a commercial release I'll consider paying for additional content.

I'm perfectly happy to apply the argument that there is no rational basis for thinking new features (no matter how small or trivial) should be free to all games. New features cost money to create in the form of time and resources; why then should they be free? Whatever the state of RoF, it was not sold with any guarantee of future free features, as far as I know. Suggestions, hopes, but not guarantees.

The whole point of my argument was that flight sims in particular are different from other games - because they are as expensive (if not more expensive) to create, but have a much smaller market of people who will buy them.

If it costs £1,000,000 to develop a game and you have 40,000 sales at £40 a pop then you make £600,000. If you only have 10,000 sales then you lose £600,000 and go out of business. So if those 10,000 want that kind of game to keep on being made then they have to accept that in one form or another, whether up front or in additional content they might once have seen as "standard", they will need to spend more than £40 on that type of game. RoF appear to have taken the view that people will be happier to pay a "normal" sum for a game with pretty limited content and then pay more for additional content rather than increase the time till they see a return on their investment in order to have more features up front and potentially put a lot of people off by charging much more for it. I suspect that's the right decision, it's certainly a lot closer to Agile and Lean principles of business & software development.

People can choose not to pay for additional content, of course, or pay for a full featured game up front - in which case it becomes uneconomic to make that kind of game. Nothing wrong with that, per se, just life. That's why so much professional software with limited audiences is very expensive, and why specialist academic books are much more expensive than best sellers.

Well I do agree that total sales and A/C sales will drive ROF ability to stay in business and pay off investors.

We will know in the coming months if ROF's business model will pay off or not.

If ROF management is currently disappointed in sales of both new A/C and the Rof game, they must be starting to take action to cut cost and future ROF development plans as investors must be paid with current income.

In some ways it's frustrating to get what is perceived to be an incomplete game. We've been spoiled by the likes of Shockwave's BoB and Maddox Games IL2. Even X Plane and MSFS have more features and represent a more rounded experience.

I was originally very hestitant to buy RoF and said so on a few occasions. My thinking changed when I realized if Oleg's BoB came out today I'd easily buy it for $100.00..... probably more with some qualms. With that logic and my love for flight simming then why wouldn't I want to 'invest' into my hobby.

As another poster mentioned a few days ago 'THIS GETS HIM FLYING AGAIN." I'm not a healthy guy and with numerous heart surguries I would never be able to take to the wild blue yonder. This is it for me. This is as close as it comes to sitting in any cockpit and taking control of the joystick. RoF does a pretty good job. So this hobby is a little personal to me - as it is to all of us, or why would we be here fussing day after day?

With the reaities of flight simming and subsequently its development costs, RoF is what it is. It has a great engine. The wheels are on pretty tightly, but it needs more to finish it. Will that take our money to do so? I don't know. I doubt any of us can be sure, but I'd still pay $100.00 for BoB:Sow, So with that logic, throwing a few dollars here and there won't kill my bank account (despite the low funds within) and hopefully will help with developement.

That's how I feel about it. BTW.... I just took my first flight in the Se5a. She feels huge compared to the albatros.