I understand perfectly. I felt exactly the same way, and if it wasn't for imaging program Acronis, I never would have tried it. There was some mention on this forum (?) of developer admitting that they were giving some thought to SP without connection, but I can't find a quote, which is annoying.

I got it for AUD 47. I bought it because I accepted that I was trying out a beta, and I'd like to support flight sims. I DON'T support the connection requirements, but I have a suspicion that eventually the game will get a 'full' release and connection requirement for single player will be ditched. At least now that I've kicked in, I have more of a right to complain

I still think some people have unrealistic expectations about what a PC sim can deliver.

IL-2 was very poor on delivery if we take off our rose-tined glasses (FM, anyone?), so was Lock On, FS9, FSX, so were Silent Hunters 2, 3, 4 and I expect 5. Don't even get me started on CFS3. All of these sims turned out OK in the end through a mixture of patches and user-generated content. Why on Earth does anyone think RoF could be different?

Wise sim players are patient and enjoy what they have while they wait for more to be delivered. Personally, I'm using the mission editor to create semi-historical missions and I'm having an absolute blast.

Cheers,

RD.

Wrong.
Replace it by "A lot of peoples would like neoqb to produce a game which correspond exactly to their expectation (sometimes to their fantasm...) and wont show any support until they will be absolutly convinced that all their expectation are met".... and you'll be clother to truth.
Again: this behaviour is totally normal and understandable... as long they don't pretend they are supporting neoqb TODAY in their attempt to meet their expectations.


Because something wrong can't be true...


I totally understand also... never said the contrary...


It's certainly not "their job", but if they trust neoqb (like some of us do) and buy the game now, then they are supporting neoqb.

If not, they aren't supporting neoqb.
Why is that simple truth so hard for you to understand?

I could agree with you if you add "without this kind of answer (posibility of peoples trusting a company project), they wouldn't release anything at all..."

But IL2 had functioning multiplayer and a relatively large plane set right out of the gate. It was enjoyable and was worth every penny spent.

So far RoF has not been worth the price of admission.

I purchased the game and, so far, every plane released. I guess you could say I'm doing it to support Neoqb and the genre, considering the fact that I seldom fly it. I'm not into the online thing and repeating the scripted missions in SP has gotten to be "been there, done that". I'm not lacking in WWI sims to fly right now so I can wait, perhaps buy the DrI and Camel when they come out, and see what transpires in the coming months. So far I haven't seen much.

CJ

Heh, you knew your original argument of "wanting to see neoqb succeed" was wrong, so you swtiched it to "supporting neoqb", which wasn't even the original argument.

Clever.

Not.

@Koala
And what's the difference between "wanting to see neoqb succeed" and "supporting neoqb" ?????
I don't see any....
When you want someone to succeed you don't support him?... and when you support someone you don't want him to succeed?
(BTW, If you say you want someone to succeed and don't support him, then you're lying to him or to yourself...)

Seems to me you'r splitting hairs just for the sake to be able to say "I'm right'....

Someone might want neoqb to succeed as good WWI sim developer without using inconvenient DRM and with more attention to game design, and is not supporting their current methods by not buying the game. Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind.