Hello dear SimHQ Community,

I'm a SP-only guy liking a battle of britain setting. So I'm obviously interested in wotr. Hearing only good opinions about woff increases this interest. But I never played woff.

On the one hand I enjoyed flying the 109 Emil in cliffs of dover and battle of moscow very much.

On the other hand the ai and campaign in bob2wov are the best I've seen so far.

So my question is: How does the flight and damage model compare to clod or bom?

And how does the ai and campaign system compare to bob2wov?

Looking forward to your opinions!

Hopefully some guys can chip in Eisenfaust.

FM: Lightyears behind Cliffs of Dover... Absolute lightyears... The FM doesn't even compare to 1946 IMHO. Even with that being said, Cliffs' FM is pretty far behind IL-2: Great Battles. If you've flown the Hurricane or Emil in any other sim, this one is going to feel strange and alien to you, the aircraft won't respond in any of the ways you expect it to, etc. It is very hard to "suspend disbelief" with the FMs having their roots in CFS3. I was told the FMs had "good feedback" in beta... I don't know who was smoking what or who they were talking to.

DM: Graphically way behind every other sim on the market. Systems modeling is on par with Cliffs if not a little worse. Cliffs and WOTR both leave something substantial to be desired with regards to physics, collisions, etc.

I don't think WOTR or WOFF are really sold on the merits of the accuracy or feel of the flight or damage models. At least, that was never even remotely the marketing appeal to me.

AI: Pretty enjoyable. They still do things that are physically impossible (I've seen AI do inverted vertical climbs under negative G in both WOTR and WOFF - the AI doesn't use the player's FM... YMMV...) but RTB logic, logic concerning odds/wounding/moral/status, etc. add a nice layer of enjoyment.

Campaign: A cut above the rest that are currently supported/on the market in all aspects although I haven't played BOB and can't compare the two.

Firstly..Welcome to the forum Eisenfaust .

My personal experience so far pal
Il2 BOX series has excellent FM as does COD it's "feeling" of flight is unsurpassed IMO but I do Personnally think that WOTR,S is way better than il 1946. But yep its not has good as Box series of FM,s IMO

DM I've not seen to much experience of this yet,so honestly I couldn't accurately comment at this time.

Ai again I've not seen what Space Ghost describes regarding the inverted vertical climbs but I'm not going to doubt him I've no reason to. The Ai experience I've had so far has been excellent,enemies break off,head for home if "feeling" threatened etc..not like the robotic Ai that I've often come up against in the BOX series (that actually has stopped me playing) it's behavior at times in that series is preposterous. And it's such a shame has the rest of the sim is good at times.

Campaign. Again I'm with Space Ghost. I tried to get BOB sorted but kept having ground graphical anomalies so I gave it up but..for such a early phase WOTR looks like it'll continue just like WOFF did. Its campaign is very very good. And with extra craft/phases planned it'll get better and better IMO.

Il use a phrase that was written a while back and just replace ROF and WOFF with IL2Box and WOTR.

If you want to feel what it's like to fly a WW1/WW2 craft and enjoy MP then the box series and ROF is unsurpassed (even if I Personally didn't like some of the ROF FM,s) If you want to feel what it's like to be part of a squadron,where you genuinely care about your fellow flyers,you want to see your wingman coming home with you. Part of a "war" and enjoy SP flight then with WOFF/WOTR IMO you can't go wrong. Is WOTR perfect? No it's not..Am I really enjoying it? My god absolutely I'm having a blast. I'm certainly looking forward to what OBD bring next. Also you get OBD,S incredible service they've been around a while and are very active here on the forum

Regards Adger

A lot has been said in the previous posts here but one thing the track record shows is that the OBD that are responsible for the release and ongoing development of WOFF and WOTR are bar none the most committed to providing ongoing support and development. Just browse the WOFF forums and you can readily see that the Dev Team do not sit on their laurels. Ten plus years of support and development and no end in sight is enough to make me buy into the products. Both sims keep getting improvements to all aspects of play. WOFF now is light years ahead of what it started out as back in the day. All this keeps me flying their sims.

If all this is important to you in your purchased sim products then you can rest assured it is a good investment

Best Regards

Well Said Robert and I will drink to that.

I know of one flight sim that I tried several times over a period of 4 years.
Sometimes on take off, the flight lead and every one but you goes into an endless circle.
Or after the end of a mission, you land and every one else crashes.
I never saw this fixed.

I'm not getting on that merry go round anymore.

OBD would have been all over that and resolved the AI problem.

OBD is the best and they have the track record to prove it.

Best Regards.

Tango

As far as recommendations go, OBD's products come fully recommended by PC Gamer, Rock Paper Shotgun, Armchair General, Flightsim.com, PC Pilot, and the Royal Flying Association, to name but a few. The Flight models are less cinematic than other games, but are largely based on historical data and thoroughly researched. The graphics are in line with most commercial products, when appropriately enhanced. The campaign system is widely regarded as the best available in any flight simulator, and the ai is programmed to behave appropriately for the period . Leave your perceptions, expectations and past experiences at the door, you're in a safe pair of hands right from the start.

Real pilots fly these games, the oldest players veterans of the actual conflict or the immediate period.
OBD delivers in the one area you really want, the single-player experience, designed for it, from the ground up.
I know of no other contemporary product with that singular focus or historical data-driven development, built on a body of similar quality past work.

Many people took one look and consigned it to the trash heap at first glance, but we have accrued supporters and converts from all other contemporary sims, and when you consider the budget and dev team, that's not an unremarkable achievement.

It is early days to judge WotR, but my thoughts so far in comparison to CloD and BoM mainly (I have no experince of Bob2wov):

FM - Lacking in a lot, especially compared to BoM, it feels 'easy'. I don't know if a Hurricane should be able to, but trying a snap roll just smoothly moved me around in the sky, in a BoM/S (VVS fighter) aircraft it will snap you quickly. Saying that, for me, as someone who doesn't know how aircraft should fly, this doesn't actually bother me that much, of course I want a real FM, but my focus is on enjoyment and the overall experience, not doing an accurate assessment of a FM. It did seem however that when I opened my 109 canopy (and it didn't rip off ) it ddn't seem to affect the flight of the aircraft, that was a disappointment. Also haven't noticed any impact of fuel weight, but that might be there.

DM - Good that there are system failures, I just had one for what seemed like 'no reason', also had a wing tip shot off in another mission that I could 'feel'. I like the engine losing power effect too, it is a really good feeling to hear something is up, and see your boost slowly dropping, you check fuel mix etc. but still it is going down, love that. But as Adger said, it is perhaps too early to tell overall. What I don't like however, is the collision effects, it often is just a jump to an explosion, even sometimes with a soft touchdown. Also in water there was no sinking when I put own, just an explosion and my pilot was dead with the career over, I think I will always bail over water in future. I suspect this can never be improved and is just the limit of the old engine, a shame if it is the case as staying 'alive' is what playing this is all about. The 109 canpoy not coming off when I opened it at >200kmh was a surprise and disappointing.

Graphics - I'd like the buildings to be a bit dulled down, they stand out a bit too much in colour and look more 'boxy' in my opinion, but otherwise terrain looks nice down low and it is suprisingly acceptable to the eye generally. Clouds look a bit poor up close and there are a few glitches with them for me but when seen from a distance they actually look rather realistic. Jumps between weather are poor, like in FSX. Aircraft are fine externally (except having the same numbers/letters on them), and internally totally fine, but perhaps lacking a few control animations.

AI - A real strong point so far, especially decisions. Time will tell if I notice any odd quirks or bugs, but so far it is just so much fun dogfighting the AI, and, the 'easy' FM actually may help this feeling in that the scraps feel more 'choreographed' perhaps, it feels like you're up against an 'equal'.

Campaign - So far this absolutely SHAMES the others I've played. I am utterly perplexed by how others can't get this right, WotR shows exactly how it can be done. It is the campaign that has me here in the first place. Atmosphere is great, named pilots, a sensible layout, music, old photos, no space-age font and theme to the UI, kill claim system etc. Time will tell if there is depth to it, and when multi crew aircraft are here I hope it tracks the crew of at least the players aircraft, and, there are a few cosmetic things I would change (but there always will be, that's just the nature of users!)

Some things worth mentioning:

Flak is a real treat in this game.
I miss being able to set convergence to my choice.
AI flies nicely together, they don't bounce all over the place, it makes forming up easier and therfore much more immersive.
I want to come back for more!

Overall, WotR is a bit of a GTA San Andreas compared to a GTA IV, a bit dated in some ways but just so enjoyable, whereas other Sims may look better but you may end up just frustrated beyond enjoyment.

Eisenfaust, welcome to WOTR. As I am not a pilot, I will not comment on flight models. It feels “real” enough to me. Like yourself, I am SP only and can tell you WOFF and WOTR are the best bar none. Nothing is scripted so it never gets old. I seriously doubt you will be let down. As others have stated, OBD is solidly behind there product anD there support is first rate. Hope to see you in the skies soon.

Chief;

I beg to differ on your above statement. I can consistently ditch in the water and survive without engine explosion. I made a vid which is at the following link that demonstrates this:
click to view

Purely subjective of course, old chap but "lightyears"?? when was the last time you flew a real Hurricane?

That is really cool to know, my experience must have been the exception to the rule so to speak. There's no need for evidence, I totally accept your experience. It is early days still so difficult to know what is the norm. Good to know I can try to ditch in future.

As opposed to when the last time all the others posting their opinions flew real Hurricanes...?

I can tell you first hand, as someone who has trained and worked on aviation and military flight simulators, as well as actually flying real aircraft, that the FMs in these sims often seem to leave a bit to be desired.

But some others are definitely more "realistic" than what the older CFS3 platform seems to be able to provide, even with more recent enhancements (whatever was involved).

But, more to your comment...maybe we should do a poll to see who has actual flight experience, (real) simulator training/experience, etc?

Hence why I said "cinematic". Whilst a weighty, lag-based model might feel like the plane is pushing and fighting the air and therefore how you might imagine flight to be, they're not actually based on the performance of said aircraft in that environment.
If you're going to have historical accuracy, it's better to have the flight models based on the historical records and flight testing data, rather than simply design a animation system that plays to expectations. The comments of real pilots, and combat veterans, are the proof of the pudding as far as that goes.
I spent ten years designing and programming games for paradox and others, as a side interest.

yes, kksnowbear, most companies fudge their physics. Let us know when you purchase WotR.

To stay on course, here, I was responding to the point raised about real flight experience. Strictly.

Seems there's a double standard: If you agree with the ardent supporters, your opinion is valid, regardless of experience.

But if you don't agree, then even actual experience doesn't count, because of 'fudging' physics and so on.

(BTW, have you actually piloted an aircraft, Matt? Not a big deal to me, just wondering - you know, because the question was raised, after all. I didn't bring it up, so don't blame me).

KKsnowbear;

Your experience on flight sims and aircraft are a valuable resource and therefore it would be greatly appreciated if you would put your practical experience in play by flying the sims in question and commenting on their pros and cons. It would be appreciated by all here I'm sure.

Best Regards;

+1

Stop acting like somebody is beating your dog, Matt.

It's just silly.

Yes, the FM is lightyears behind currently competing products.

This stalwart defensiveness is hilariously unbecoming.

hehe, i get asked that all the time. Partly because a fair few musicians take to the skies, as a hobby, and partly because I score these things, plenty of pilots talk about my music creating the sense of flight, which is ideal really. Done some gliding, but I do not have a further urge to sit in a cockpit, I'm a sea-faring fellow.
I'm happy that veterans of ww2, korea and vietnam respond positively to our products, those comments are what i'm after. The "why am i here" attitude from some new arrivals is even better, as I know we have what they're looking for underneath ^^.

FM is very subjective, for some it is about their real flying experience, and for others it is comparative gameplay experience. One is more science and the other more art . Opinions from the different approaches are not likely to be able to be held against each other in any detail, but both are valid customer opinions, albeit from different perspectives.

The OP asked fora comparison with other games, not with real life, maybe they meant reality, but that wasn't specified.