Enter letter code and press the green button below, then on the next page uncheck the "wine glass, explorer icon"-thing (which wants to install a program on your computer) and click the file link for download."
Well, it just goes to show that altitude is life. The opponent was constantly struggling to get up to the level of the SPAD. I liked the no-commms discipline, but yes, I know, that's just me... A bit surprised at how little we heard from the engine, compared to the wind. Seemed strange.
Cool, thanks for posting the full link. I'll try to keep the list updated
Re: the VikS vs. Weeper fight - that video was awesome! Really shows off the use of the custom views too. I haven't heard the audio yet - have to wait to get home for that!
Franksvalli, you should definitely put Neoqb's official youtube channel at the top of your list. I'm beginnig to think that maybe quite a few who follow this forum do not know it: http://www.youtube.com/user/neoqb
And then I think you might as well put your screenshot thread link at the bottom of the list. People know from the title that your thread will mainly be about videos.
Yeah they shut it down . I had some Beatles at Shea Stadium videos up that EMI Music wasn't too happy about, lol. Even though it's not commercially available anywhere.
I suppose I did have some other stuff up there I shouldn't have, so it was just a matter of time really.
Ah, that's a cool video, very slick training interface. Music is a bit dramatic for the mission, but hey... If it was a first circuit by a neophyte pilot, that is probably what best reflects his heartbeat. Landing? Well, you got down in one piece!
some of those video's look very good, thx for posting
one in particular showed what looked like very good ground scenery from about 1500 to 2000 meters altitude, trees, woods, fields and vilages as far as the eye could see !
rather different then the flat empty textures i have seen in most beta youtube's so far
Downloading it now, then going to upload to YouTube (it should have a "watch in HD" option) if you don't mind!
Originally Posted By: rootango
franksvalli,
some of those video's look very good, thx for posting
one in particular showed what looked like very good ground scenery from about 1500 to 2000 meters altitude, trees, woods, fields and vilages as far as the eye could see !
rather different then the flat empty textures i have seen in most beta youtube's so far
Yeah it's nice to see RoF from a variety of "angles", including this one .
Thanks again for posting the video, Egatiro! This is really an awesome clip. Not only do we get to see the rainy weather effects in action, but also the low clouds flying past, with the nice scenery in the background. It looks REALLY good! Probably one of the best vids I've seen so far.
I noticed it was posted directly from the raw Fraps video, so I compressed it down and posted a mirror (see below). The compressed video is at 10,000kbps so it looks very good still, thanks to Xvid compression
Also uploaded it to YouTube - the HD version of the video takes a bit longer for YouTube to process, so it might be about a half an hour or so.
the medium to far away scenery looks ok, the rain and some misting prevent visibility and the effect is quite good, but for nearby objects (the cockpit and aircraft itself) it looks pretty ugly to me. i have been in small aircraft during heavy rain while landing and taking off at smaller regional airfields, none of the nearby scenery or aircraft exterior ever looked like that to me. similarly i have driven in an open top roadster car during the rain with the top down, and the dashboard or car exterior never looked like that either
i'd 2e what the earlier poster said about the same clip, the inside and the outside of the aircraft the pilot is flying looks pretty ugly to me, but the distant scenery reduced visibility looks good
I can image the rain splashing on the goggles while looking straight ahead but for it to be blasting at the same strength while looking sideways or backwards doesn't seem right to me. I'd even go so far as to say that I'd prefer it if the effect was only visible on the windshield.
The Big problem comes from the optometry. A human eye can't accomodate (get focus on) at such close distance as the glass in googles. So the rain drops must be out of focus, unsharp, making picture blurring:) But the illusion looks great:)
The Big problem comes from the optometry. A human eye can't accomodate (get focus on) at such close distance as the glass in googles. So the rain drops must be out of focus, unsharp, making picture blurring:) But the illusion looks great:)
Exactly, if you have a rainspot on your glasses you don't really see it as its so far out of focus, you see these sorts of spots on your car windscreen. Same for the depth of field effects, your brain doesn't process depth of field like a camera, you don't notice the focus change. I hope this sort of stuff can be turned off individually in the config.
As others have said the fog effect in the distance looks quite good, I'm not sure if WW1 flyers would have been airborne in those sorts of conditions though.
Smosh has a point though, if the pilot was to turn his head to one side, the drops would be streaming horizontaly across the goggles - the closer to 90 degrees, also the closer to horizontal the drops would be.
Be that as it may, I agree with Egatiro - and the "effect" is still pretty cool if ya ask me!
Well, it just goes to show that altitude is life. The opponent was constantly struggling to get up to the level of the SPAD. I liked the no-commms discipline, but yes, I know, that's just me... A bit surprised at how little we heard from the engine, compared to the wind. Seemed strange.
I like the look of the terrain in this one, it looks much better from higher alt (as most sims terrain does tbh) Unfortunately its spoilt to an extent by the bizzare rivers which stand out darkly from the terrain drawing you eye to their weird shapes.
Smosh has a point though, if the pilot was to turn his head to one side, the drops would be streaming horizontaly across the goggles - the closer to 90 degrees, also the closer to horizontal the drops would be.
You still wouldn't see them. They should be on the windscreen deffo, not on the goggles unless its a mild fogging effect.
Smosh has a point though, if the pilot was to turn his head to one side, the drops would be streaming horizontaly across the goggles - the closer to 90 degrees, also the closer to horizontal the drops would be.
You still wouldn't see them. They should be on the windscreen deffo, not on the goggles unless its a mild fogging effect.
Heya Mogster,
Actually, yeah, I believe you would see it. But let me explain why... I mean I get what you are saying. If the pilot was focused on what was in front of him then the drops would be "out of focus and not really visible".
I suspect, riding a motorcycle on the freeway in the rain is very similar to being in an open cockpit in the rain. And the blurred effect that ROF has (again, when looking strait ahead) is a very accurate representation. But when looking to the side while on the freeway, on a motorcycle, with goggles on, you can see blurry rain streaks going from side to side on the goggle's surface. Not the blur, but trails of rain...
I can't see why it would be very much different in one of these birds.
Well, it just goes to show that altitude is life. The opponent was constantly struggling to get up to the level of the SPAD. I liked the no-commms discipline, but yes, I know, that's just me... A bit surprised at how little we heard from the engine, compared to the wind. Seemed strange.
Dart could easily add this video to his new WWI energy-management tutorial.
thank you guys....I really enjoyed. We saw first kill and aerobatics. The sim is great..FM, DM, graphics,...but sounds are really great...in IL2 they were so poor...
I have an interesting question for ROF owners...Do you find ROF planes easier or more difficult to fly than planes in Il2? I know that Im comparing "apples and pears" but...
stacks of wheat changed during the installation of last patch the game. Perhaps the developers will change it again. Graphic Design is not stopped.
I manage the aircraft is not difficult because I am used to real aircraft before. In RoF aircraft made very similar to the present and during the flight to feel good. Of course, I fly with rudder. Feeling of flying is the most enthusiastic.
From my experience, flying the Fokker D7 is not an easy task, since it tends to lift the nose up, when the engine runs close to or at full power. You always need to push the stick from you. And during combat you always fly at full power, so there is a big problem with precise aiming at the target... You aim and then nose goes up, you push the stick, target goes up in gunsight... Terrible experience... So you fire as if you are using a fire hose:)
From my experience, flying the Fokker D7 is not an easy task, since it tends to lift the nose up, when the engine runs close to or at full power. You always need to push the stick from you. And during combat you always fly at full power, so there is a big problem with precise aiming at the target... You aim and then nose goes up, you push the stick, target goes up in gunsight... Terrible experience... So you fire as if you are using a fire hose:)
The Fokker D.vII was design like that. Most WW-1 aircraft were design for quick climb at full power.
Some pilots used a make-shift elevator trim control, a few bungee cords fasten to the control stick. The FM is correct on this.
Smosh has a point though, if the pilot was to turn his head to one side, the drops would be streaming horizontaly across the goggles - the closer to 90 degrees, also the closer to horizontal the drops would be.
You still wouldn't see them. They should be on the windscreen deffo, not on the goggles unless its a mild fogging effect.
Heya Mogster,
Actually, yeah, I believe you would see it. But let me explain why... I mean I get what you are saying. If the pilot was focused on what was in front of him then the drops would be "out of focus and not really visible".
I suspect, riding a motorcycle on the freeway in the rain is very similar to being in an open cockpit in the rain. And the blurred effect that ROF has (again, when looking strait ahead) is a very accurate representation. But when looking to the side while on the freeway, on a motorcycle, with goggles on, you can see blurry rain streaks going from side to side on the goggle's surface. Not the blur, but trails of rain...
I can't see why it would be very much different in one of these birds.
A crash helmet visor is quite a way from your eyes though compared to the glass in a a set of goggles. If you hold your hand in front of your face you can focus on it down to about an inch, after that you just get blurring. A set of goggles would be closer to your eyes than this so you'd never be able to focus on the raindrops. If you wear specs you can't focus on any imperfection on the glass, you might notice if they're very dirty but you can't focus on anything that close. It is a cool effect but its not realistic, you shouldn't see the sharp rainspots, just blurring.
171 Mb, 1280x720, Video report on flying the Balloon Attack mission that comes with Rise Of Flight 1917 game produced by Neoqb company.
I have uploaded it to Youtube, but it spoils the quality:( So only direct download.
Egatiro, you have to get yourself a TrackIR
What I found very interesting was how much the SPAD exhaust could be used to find him, when he was flying down low on the deck. Many times I lost sight of him, but the exhaust smoke gave him away. I wonder if that is real, if there have been historical accounts mentioning that. As always, that question goes to FR or maybe JFM?
Also the exhaust smoke (oil, I guess) only came once in a while, but maybe the SPAD was running rough?
The smoking of the balloon looked very convincing, what we could see of it anyway, too bad it disappeared out of sight below the nose of the Fokker. I didn't see any crew members bailing out, that would be a nice touch. The smoke lingers in the air for too little time, it would be nice to have it there for some minutes, dispersing slowly. A great touch would be for the balloons to start being winched down at the sight of enemy planes. That would be realistic, and give fighters less time to kill them.
But when looking to the side while on the freeway, on a motorcycle, with goggles on, you can see blurry rain streaks going from side to side on the goggle's surface. Not the blur, but trails of rain...
I can't see why it would be very much different in one of these birds.
A crash helmet visor is quite a way from your eyes though compared to the glass in a a set of goggles. If you hold your hand in front of your face you can focus on it down to about an inch, after that you just get blurring. A set of goggles would be closer to your eyes than this so you'd never be able to focus on the raindrops. If you wear specs you can't focus on any imperfection on the glass, you might notice if they're very dirty but you can't focus on anything that close. It is a cool effect but its not realistic, you shouldn't see the sharp rainspots, just blurring.
Nobody said anything about a crash helmet visor. I was speaking specifically about when I wear goggles. I wear goggles for eye protection any time I ride on the highways. And my eyesight is 20/20 and I do not require prescription glasses.
...but in any case, I agree with you, that the effect ROF has is cool!( no matter how real or unreal it may be). I am also glad the effect can be toggled on or off.
From my experience, flying the Fokker D7 is not an easy task, since it tends to lift the nose up, when the engine runs close to or at full power. You always need to push the stick from you. And during combat you always fly at full power, so there is a big problem with precise aiming at the target... You aim and then nose goes up, you push the stick, target goes up in gunsight... Terrible experience... So you fire as if you are using a fire hose:)
I had noticed the bouncing in the user D7 videos, the nose seems to be constantly pitching up and down as if the pilot's fighting the aircraft 100% of the time.
Apparently there's no stick setup response curves to edit?
Porpoiseing yes on the enemy plane. Who's complaining
In WW1 real life there's a pilot-installed bungie holding the stick forward for a sort of trim elevators but the pitching will be something we'll learn to compensate for perhaps, like when we found that scary yawing going down the runway on Oleg's planes after an update. Pilot-induced oscillation perhaps
The controls look hyper sensitive, that's were response curves come in.
It sounds odd that aircraft would be trimmed to climb, nose up. You'd have thought that trimming for fast cruise speed, say 70-80mph would be appreciated by the pilot. I wonder if the bungee was something that the pilot removed once they'd reached patrol alt.
You're right Mogster, trimming a plane to be nose-up wouldn't be appreciated by the pilot. But they're saying its nose-up at (or almost at) full throttle, not at fast cruise. Which is what WF2 is suggesting is common.
Judging by the D.VII video(s), it looks to be trimmed (for level flight) at the speeds you suggest. Although that's kinda' hard to verify when there is no airspeed indicator in the D.VII's cockpit.
I'm probably the source of the bungee cord trimming anecdote, as it comes from flight impressions contained in an excellent article about flying an authentic/remaining Dutch Army Air Force Fokker D.VII contained in an issue of Air Enthusiast magazine (Jan-April 1989).
My D VII was rigged for a pilot weighing about 154 lb (70 kg), and there was, of course, no elevator trim, so we had adopted the practice of carrying a piece of elastic in our flying suits, using this to trim out the stick forces. We tied the elastic between the control column and the instrument panel or our safety harness to produce a crude, but nevertheless effective means of trimming.
If you happened to weigh near to 154 lb, then the Fokker D.VII would proably fly level nicely without undue stick pressure required. Due to the light weight of all these early aircraft, ammo and fuel loads could alter the trim conditions of flying, and with fuel expentiture changing the trim condition over the course of a flight also.
I've not flown in WW1 planes but I've been in a few open-cockpit Wacos and while flying there was very little wind in the cockpit--so little that I could have easily lit a cigarette in there. Stick your hand beyond the windscreen you felt the air rushing by but behind the windscreen it did just that: screened the wind quite effectively.
Now, would this also block rain from hitting the pilot? Or would there be enough impact splashing that water droplets eventually landed on the goggles? I'm inclined to think that if the slipstream is blocked by the windscreen than the rain would be blocked, too, and not impacting goggles directly, but all my flights were always CAVU so I've zero experience with open-cockpit weather.
Anybody recall any pilots commenting on this, or have personal experience? (WF2?) Offhand, all I recall now is after Richthofen's second thunderstorm flight he wrote that hail turned his prop "into a sawblade." Wouldn't hail like that play havoc with one's goggles--or face? Surely if rain could reach a pilot than hail could, too. Yet no mention of harmful physical effects at all.
I really don't know; I have no experience flying in hail, for obvious reasons.
I've not flown in WW1 planes but I've been in a few open-cockpit Wacos and while flying there was very little wind in the cockpit--so little that I could have easily lit a cigarette in there. Stick your hand beyond the windscreen you felt the air rushing by but behind the windscreen it did just that: screened the wind quite effectively.
Looking at a lot of vintage pictures (and modern ones), many pilots' (especially American ones it seems) faces do not appear very protected by the windscreen. Take a look here -- http://memorial.flight.free.fr/ -- and please note the PHOTOS link on the left. There is a good rear-view of a Spad taking off and where the pilots 'goggles' would be in regards to the slipstream. Also note the SE5 image.
Originally Posted By: JFM
Now, would this also block rain from hitting the pilot? Or would there be enough impact splashing that water droplets eventually landed on the goggles? I'm inclined to think that if the slipstream is blocked by the windscreen than the rain would be blocked, too, and not impacting goggles directly, but all my flights were always CAVU so I've zero experience with open-cockpit weather.
Aye, good question. I agree that most of the pilot's body as well as instruments and other cockpit related items out of the slipstream would not be nearly as affected by rain. But as far as the face goes and goggles in particular - I would still defer to you Jim, as I have *zero* open cockpit experience in aircraft. But over 25 years of "open-cockpit" on a motorcycle in all forms of weather.
Originally Posted By: JFM
Anybody recall any pilots commenting on this, or have personal experience? (WF2?) Offhand, all I recall now is after Richthofen's second thunderstorm flight he wrote that hail turned his prop "into a sawblade." Wouldn't hail like that play havoc with one's goggles--or face? Surely if rain could reach a pilot than hail could, too. Yet no mention of harmful physical effects at all.
I really don't know; I have no experience flying in hail, for obvious reasons.
I can only add, that even rain at freeway speeds of 65 miles per hour stings when hitting the unprotected face. Like flying through a swarm of bees! I could only imagine how much more intense that would be at over 100mph!
Hail on the other hand? I've always worn a balaclava, 1/2 or 3/4 helmet and goggles, with my head tucked down. And not at freeway speeds. You can see what hail is capable of doing to an automobile roof or hood. I wouldn't want to subject my body to that. Perhaps the lack of pilot comments on this would be a good indicator that early pilots came to this same realization.
I so enjoy thought provoking discussions! Thanks Jim.
Good stuff, WWB! And I don't have any answers. Indeed, that rear SPAD view you mentioned showed the pilot's eye level above the windscreen, and then another front view showed the pilot's looking through the windscreen. Same with the SE5a, and photos of period SPADs. Some appear higher with respect to the pilot, and in that photo of Harmon Rorison (p.15, SPAD 13.C1, Windsock Datafile 32) he's engulfed in the cockpit and seems just able to see anything forward at all. I don't know if seat height was adjustable, although it doesn't appear so in the San Diego restoration SPAD VII.
I'm guessing there'd be an aerodynamic flow up the windscreen and over the cockpit, but how this would interact with the upper wing downwash I don't know. One would think that a windscreen is there to screen wind, natch, and if it didn't then why bother with the weight and expense? That thought proves nothing, however.
My open-cockpit "experience" amounts to a few joyrides in Maui. All my real flight time is in closed cockpit machines and although I've flown through some hard rain I stayed dry as a bone (and I'm not nuts enough to ride a motorcycle, even in good weather! ) At our FBO we had a C-172 that endured hail damage and was named, natch, "Hail Mary." It flew like any other normal 172 but its aluminum skin looked like a golf ball. I do not know if this damage was incurred during flight or on the ramp; it was among the fleet prior to my being hired. All our planes were hangared and I don't know its prior history.
I think WF2 has real open-cockpit time so she should be able to lend some credible comments.
I loved the video. I am hesitant to fly the DVII. The SPAD has advantages in, speed, climb, dive, and in max ceiling. Taking vertical maneuvering room from a SPAD could even the odds. Robbing the SPAD 13 of a vertical advantage seems easier said than done. If I am correct, the SPAD 13 can out climb a DVII at all altitudes and speeds above 60 mph, no? If the DVII starts with a vertical advantage, then the DVII can make a real impression on a SPAD 13 driver.
During the real war, the DVII would be a great choice. Inexperienced pilots, east of the lines, would take to the DVII quickly. SPAD neophytes would face a steep learning curve. Time permitting, the SPAD 13 drivers could make use of the advantages inherent in the SPAD 13 design, but only if they lived long enough to learn the tricks of the trade. Virtual pilots do live long enough to master the SPAD 13. I imagine that the SPAD 13 will dominate online competitions. -MJ
I've not flown in WW1 planes but I've been in a few open-cockpit Wacos and while flying there was very little wind in the cockpit--so little that I could have easily lit a cigarette in there. Stick your hand beyond the windscreen you felt the air rushing by but behind the windscreen it did just that: screened the wind quite effectively.
Now, would this also block rain from hitting the pilot? Or would there be enough impact splashing that water droplets eventually landed on the goggles?
I only have a few open cockpit flights when it was raining, these were in the Stearman and GreatLakes. In the Great Lakes I would be pelted on the upper half of my face if I sat normally in the airplane, the Stearman has a bit better protection but I did get rain on my face, though it wasn't quite the beating that I took in the Great Lakes (which has a windscreen of similar dimensions to the SPAD, the DVII would do almost nothing to protect you). I've flown the WACO YPF5C which is the most wind protected of any open cockpit airplane I can think of, I haven’t flown it in the rain, but I could imagine that at higher speeds you might avoid getting all that wet. . . though I would have to see someone light a match to believe it, there is still a lot of swirling air that comes from the back of the cockpit forward, but it’s not the face lashing that you get in the Great Lakes. In any case, none of these WWI fighters have the deep, wide protected cockpits that the WACO does though, so I’d fully expect to have rain on the goggles in most of them.
The dogfighting looked great, even though I'll have to recommend that RD uses a bit more of a wide-angle view to improve his situational awareness...
Also that hissing sound from the engine would be a good signal to turn homewards, I should say. It seems the SPAD didn't feel like dogfighting more either. I wonder why he started flying just straight and level like that, and hope it was because of some plane damage.
I was disappointed to see that a landing amid all those craters could be pulled off so easily. That texture should go together with a sure-fire broken undercarriage for anybody trying to land on it. I realise it would be a bit much to ask for that many 3D craters, but at least the coding could connect that texture with "very rough terrain" that one couldn't land on. Would give all pilots a much better incentive to break off fights and try to get across to their own side, if necessary.
Also, in general, I feel that that texture is a bit over the top, to signify no-man's-land. Yes, in the mud at Paesschendale it did indeed look like that, but I don't think no-man's-land all along the front was so peppered with shell-holes.
Those are all details, in general it was a great movie, and the balloon blowing up looked very good.
Well, I just got done watching the videos and I have to tip my hat to the programmers - This has got to be the prettiest damn sim I have ever seen.
Hopefully my system can run it (at close to max settings) if the single player component merits a purchase. Hell, I may end up buying it just for the ambiance of flying around all by myself.
And a third vote on the pilot to plane ratio. I first noticed this in some screen shots a while back.
True, it doesn't seem like it should be so easy to land on that area. If you can see just up ahead though, there's a bunch of dead trees that you can definitely run into. I've been unlucky enough to try to land there a couple of times, but for some odd reason my engine doesn't like getting a branch stuck in its crankshaft.
Thanks ft and TX for your input. Nice to have feedback born from firsthand (or should that be firstface?) experience!
I agree with Freycinet re: the front. In some WW1 photos, No Man's Land just looks like grassy fields. I also like (and dread, if it comes to fruition) the arty coming down on your crash-landed machine. MG fire, too, if close enough, a la Karl Schäfer's forced landing near the lines.
Did he shoot a flare off after that dead stick landing? Shouldn't that have brought loads of enemy artillery shells raining down on his head . I will admit this is one very very good looking sim, with some very impressive flight physics. Just watched a video on the RoF Ni-17 and was impressed to see the control stick actually shaking from the buffeting of a high speed dive. But some things of this sim are not so good like that perfect dead stick landing in a crater filled landscape and the flare thing with no response from the enemy, like "no mans land" is more like "no one is there land", this sim have me so confused
Also was that a SPAD? The profile looked like a Ni.28 to me.
Well, it should be doable to "mark" terrain as rough even when there's a simple texture instead of real 3D craters involved. This is already implemented from the first IL2.
If you try to take off or land on a random field, anything more than 50km/h gives you such a bumpy ride that a lot of times you'll end up crashing. Some planes can take off that way by dropping flaps and rotating before the optimal speed, but it's way too difficult managing to land on such terrain in IL2. Maybe this could be done in RoF too.
Yep, but nevertheless the pilots in Rof look, at least to me, a little small, when compared to actual pictures.
Indeed. . .and comparing screenshots to photos it's even more obvious in the case of the SPAD.
I think this should be quite easy, for the dev team, to correct it. Just take the pilots 3d models, expand them by about 10%. Done. I can't run the beta anymore, but if some players could take some external screenshots at normal focal (around 50mm), this could be also easy to make some comparisons with actual pictures.
We should have an easier time of making measurements in RoF than we had in Il-2, the RoF developers are interested in hearing constructive comments. We are much closer to Russia now than we were when Il-2 came out
When there was chat about the relative size of objects in Il-2 I think it was Saqson made a 1m reference cube to make measurements in-sim, lining up the concrete cube with planes and vehicles. Not sure how that panned out
But it is rather like an artist showing us a painting and someone gets out a ruler and starts measuring objects within the painting. "There may be some artistic licence, where is your soul?" I might say if I was the artist's spokesman. And that would be the end of that
Watch the memorialflight videos that ROSS_DiFiS posted, there's a good profile of the pilot sat in the D7 as it taxies past. These are tiny aircraft.
The ROF pilots do seem a bit small and sat too low in the aircraft. If the pilots were bigger and sat up further then the animations and hand jestures would be easier to spot also.
Edit, here's a screenie from the memorialflight video. Notice how the pilots shoulders are above the level of rear of the cockpit.
In this ROF screenie the pilots are sat well down in the cockpits and look small by comparison.
Nice gameplay vid, in fact I'd say its the best that's been posted. Its nice to see the D7 instead of the Spad or NP17.
If you don't mind me asking what PC do you have and what settings was that recorded at? I get some regular stuttering in the vid but that could be the video encoding, do you get playable frame rates in game? In fact smoothness is probably more important than out and out frame rate, I can fly DCS BS at 20fps but there's no stuttering so its quite playable.
Very nice videos thanks! Your balloon mission movie is especially exciting Red. I like the way you land, wait for a radiator cool-down and then try the engine again
Ross: did you set this mission up so that the AI planes you were shooting at would take no defensive action? They just keep flying straight like nothing is happening.
I learn the editor RoF for making of missions. In this mission is no enemies. I have learned to control the forces within the mission. The Bots have not had a job to attack anybody. Only fly on the route. At the same time, I train in the shooting. I think bots have been surprised by my aggressiveness:)
That's usually how you set up target practice in the quick mission builder in Il-2 as well. Set up a flight of friends and shoot them to smithereens. Only in Il-2 they will keep shouting at you over the radio. No radio in RoF
Just noticed that IGN have an oficial ROF trailer up, its not new but I don't remember seeing it. The in game stuff at the end is worth a watch, the Breguet looks beautiful.
Yes you can line up your sights perfectly and blast away with your MG`s
My setup is an old, heat damaged AMD 4200+ X2 socket 939, 2gb OCZ ddr-dimm ram, and Nvidia GeForce 8800 GTX 768mb (Which is probably the reason the game runs so good.)
FPS, With TrackIR, and constant looking around: My max is about 45 fps if I`m looking up in the air after enemy plane during dogfight, with the ground in the backround at high alts while looking after enemy plane, it`s about 30 fps, but at lower alts, it`s around 15-20, but gameplay is still very much playable and very smooth
I`m in the making of another video, still needs some ironing out but should be up on youtube soon.
Yes you can line up your sights perfectly and blast away with your MG`s
My setup is an old, heat damaged AMD 4200+ X2 socket 939, 2gb OCZ ddr-dimm ram, and Nvidia GeForce 8800 GTX 768mb (Which is probably the reason the game runs so good.)
FPS, With TrackIR, and constant looking around: My max is about 45 fps if I`m looking up in the air after enemy plane during dogfight, with the ground in the backround at high alts while looking after enemy plane, it`s about 30 fps, but at lower alts, it`s around 15-20, but gameplay is still very much playable and very smooth
I`m in the making of another video, still needs some ironing out but should be up on youtube soon.
Thanks for posting your system spec, ROF does look great from your vid.
Is that medium or high terrain? the colours look great, better than some other vids, do you have one of the post processing filters applied?
I've noticed in all the screens and videos that there is no 'simulated' pilot holding the control stick.
Is this being added later? It just looks funny watching the controls move around in an 'empty' cockpit.
Also, it would be nice to have an 'unrated' version or patch that would show blood and guts in the cockpit from being hit. When the damage model of aircraft and objects is to such detail, it shouldn't be that hard to model a pilot being shot up really bad (instruments being wrecked, windscreen shot away)...ie with spatters all over the cockpit.
For some, this type of immersion might make them less brash when going into combat hehe because the simulated posibility of actually being shot up in a kind-of graphic manner would be unpleasant. Things like pilot screams when going down in a burning airframe..etc.. now THAT is simulation.
I believe that thought about including a plastic bag and a pack of dry ice in the boxed version, so you'll be sure to get the full effect of WWI flying.
Thanks MG - I saw that you said you use TrackIR 5 -- yet while fighting you used the coolie hat. Do you only use TiR while NOT in combat? Or still getting used to it?
I had forgotten to load the software during the session with the dogfights that I recorded. Otherwise it was used in the other footage including the bomber and balloon attacks.
The hat is obviously nice for the most predictable snap views, but the TrackIR is superior for overall awareness.
I see... Aye, I still use both. I predominantly use TiR to freely look around....and coolie to "glance" at something. Not sure if that is because I am still getting used to TiR, or if old habbits are just a little difficult to unlearn... Thanks again for the video.
I really like the CP details, the vibration of the gun mounts and the animation as they're fired. Damage modeling is also terrific, can't wait to fly it. Sounds are top notch and believable. As before, the lighting on the plane is great and the clouds and haze look really good. The landscape seems to vary in effectivenes from video to video, sometimes it looks outstanding, other times, like here it looks just OK to me and I've never thought the trenches/nomans land looked that great, to uniform in appearance. What still bothers me are the rivers in some of the videos. You can especially notice the problems near the start of this video with strange dead end appendages, twists, etc. I'm sure they will get around to working on it, but right now they really look odd to me, where as the effect of the water at low altitude is pretty amazing.
Too, whenever we watch these videos you hardly ever know the graphic settings, game settings, and system specs used (evidence the mixed use of TrackIR and the hat switch).
There's also some prolonged MG firing in the video without jamming that one might assume shows standard gunfire in the sim, when instead it may be a result from setting options like "unlimited ammo" having been chosen.
Rise Of Flight must be experienced to understand its depth, but screenshots and videos certainly have helped.
The game details were maxed out at 1920x1200. The only thing that wasn't on was Old cinema and DOF (DOF can only be activated if AA is off). Everything else was 100% maxed. My system specs are in the Youtube profile, it's a pretty beefy system.
In terms of assists, every clip had radiator control on, and fuel / oil pressure (if that's what it's called, I can't remember) on. I had issues at the start with blowing engines out because I wasn't sure how to control all of that just yet. Otherwise the rest of the assists were off with the exception of that one flight where I kept having the AI outrun me time after time. In those clips (same ones where I forgot to load the TrackIR software prior to playing), I had unlimited ammo on. I had literally spent at least 10 minutes hunting him where I was being conservative on ammo, but he'd only give me a moment or two to get some close range shots if he decided to circle around before he'd run off in the distance again. For the sake of my sanity, I had to spam him a bit. Honestly though, when carrying 1000 rounds I probably would have been able to fire that long regardless.
The guns were jamming all of the time, even in that extended fire video. Turbulence was also on, making it much harder to line up. If you watch the guns, sometimes they'll stop firing and you'll see me pull the levers to unjam. At some points, I was unjamming them several times in a row in a very short time.
The game is definitely beautiful. I haven't noticed any issues with the streams, perhaps it's harder to pick out minor flaws when it's there in front of you in motion.
The Youtube popup should say the correct release date. It does for me at least.
Nice video MG. Damage modelling looks awesome, crashes look quite correct now, to my untrained eye anyway. The long periods of blazing away at non responsive targets looks a bit odd though, unlimited ammo? AI set to low or guns empty?
As others have said low down the terrain looks a bit.. well.. average, not bad but just OK. As Rabu says the rivers are a problem, they look very IL2 and IL2's rivers always spoiled the landscape to a degree. Although As FR says I don't know what the gfx settings are in the vid.
Edit....... Typing as MG posted
It looks like some detailed engine management tutorials are needed. I'm sure it can't be that hard, there's not that many adjustments. I can imagine that there could be problems in the aircraft with limited instruments though, you can't smell the burning oil sat behind a PC screen.
Glad you guys like the video, I figured I'd throw something together while I was testing.
I've been meaning to do the training sessions, although I've in a bit of a crunch for time. I'm testing the TrackIR 5 with several products, so far ArmA 2, Black Shark, and Rise of Flight. Black Shark is kicking my butt silly with its learning curve in sim mode. Chopper sims have changed since the old Longbow / Comanche / Gunship days, that's for sure. I also missed out on all the cool World War I sims too since Red Baron and Origin's Wings of Glory. Luckily though Rise of Flight is very playable without training with just those assists on.
Once I'm done fully digging into all the cool ways the TrackIR can be used, I'll get more serious about learning the ins and outs of things like oil and radiator control in Rise of Flight.
Well, TrackIR takes some getting used to, particularly the part of having to turn your eyeballs in the opposite direction that you turn your head to keep the monitor in sight. Some people have also reported getting motion sickness initially. It's an individual experience, it got me about 2-4 hours to get really comfortable when i got mine close to a year ago, then i edited a couple of response curves in the profiles and it got even better.
I've been waiting for some game to come along and get me back into the flight simulator scene... and I dare say this is it! That last video is just phenomenal!! The damage model looks outstanding! Definite must buy.... once I get a joystick again. >>
I was quite surprised how easy it was to become familiar with my TIR and I'm someone that has problems with motion sickness. A couple of evenings tweaking response curves and I could usethout thinking. As it says on the website if you have to think about using it then its not set right for you.
I wouldn't go as far as to say that its changed my whole sim experience but it is very very good.
What still bothers me are the rivers in some of the videos. You can especially notice the problems near the start of this video with strange dead end appendages, twists, etc. I'm sure they will get around to working on it, but right now they really look odd to me, where as the effect of the water at low altitude is pretty amazing.
Yeah I tend to agree. The map as a whole is modeled after the real map, but there are a lot of peculiar things like you pointed out. Seems like it's an easy fix, so I guess they must have more pressing issues at the moment.
The area modelled has and had (in WWI) some of the most regulated river courses in the world. I am guessing that what some people consider strange river courses can in some cases be attributed to human intervention, canals, basins for river barges, etc, etc. In that case, there is an issue with the map of course, if it doesn't show the adjacent buildings, so it looks like a natural river bed in the map though it isn't.
They are not able to model, I believe, constructed river banks with wooden or metal caisson sides, as you see often in Belgium, Northern France.
Try to follow along the courses of the rivers/canals in the Google-Maps-link, they look quite unnatural in very many places (because they are).
I've looked at actual WWI maps showing rivers and see none of the peculiar appendages and dead ends I've seen in ROF in many of the videos, don't know where you are getting your information from.
I doubt you'll find these odd looking river features in these screens on Google Earth either. I'd like to know what's behind ROF's odd looking rivers, maybe there's an engine limitation that means they have to be a certain width, maybe they are simplifications of real but much finer features. Whatever, It'd be nice to hear the reason from someone on the dev team.
the grass isnt the right shade of green or bumpy enough...ive seen grass...in fact i can see some grass right now...and its much more bumpy and green...cancelling pre-order(if i had pre ordered which i havnt...but if i had i would cancel it)
Hay, guys, you know what?.. you all sound like you are paranoid about any kind of critical observations that are brought up and use this rebuttal accusation that one is criticizing only to encourage others not to buy ROF.
I've been here the whole time, since ROF/Knights of the Air started and I've seen very few people say that they aren't buying ROF, or encouraging others not to buy it for any of these criticisms except for some who complain about the on line requirements.
Here are a few of my "negative" observations from what I have seen so far in many videos (not in all, but in many) They've been brought up by me and by others:
The AI being pursued don't seem to take very aggressive evasive action.
The rivers look really weird and un-natural.
The pilots look too small and out of scale in their planes.
The rivers look way too clean, they weren't pristine like that and rarely that clear. It's a neat effect, but it doesn't look believable.
The battle ground terrain tiles look like they need a lot more work and are monotonous patterns.
There is too much grass on runways and other areas in many shots.
There appears to only be scripted missions possible.
The game is being released with very lean content of flyable planes, etc.
Most of these things can be fixed or will be hopefully added to.. not sure about the on line requirement, the AI or the lack of a dynamic campaign, I'll wait till I get ROF to pass judgment.
Yep, I said I would wait till I get ROF, I ordered it when it was first put up, have no regrets and have encouraged others to buy it too.
I've also waxed enthusiastic over all the positive things I've seen so far.. most of the graphics are superb.. the lighting, the feeling of being up there, the clouds, the sound and ambiance, the CP details, the damage model details, what I've seen of the apparent attention to the fm of the planes and how they interact with air turbulence, etc.
I'm very eager to get ROF, I'm also eager to see them improve some things so far that I, and others, see as less then well done, or just not looking right.
Thanks for your post, rabu! Putting all of your concerns into one post gives a lot of people on the fence some objective material to make a decision with before buying.
Thanks for your post, rabu! Putting all of your concerns into one post gives a lot of people on the fence some objective material to make a decision with before buying.
Really, the only thing on this list that I really think is going to make some people shy away from purchasing ROF is the lean content and the on line requirement.. and maybe the off line experience, but we don't even know for sure yet about that. For those few hesitating, they just need to wait and then read the feedback that will start coming in from those who play the game off line and can give an objective comparison to other known WWI sims like RedBaron, OverFlandersFields, First Eagles, and the new IL2 WWI sim when it comes out.
I think most are going to buy it now though.. think about it, if you really don't like ROF you can always sell it on Ebay for not much less then you paid for it. I doubt you will see too many listed though.
As stated by FlyX ROF will be a continual work that will have patches and add ons, so we can expect a lot of fixes, improvements and add ons over time as long as they can stay in business, so, I say, support them.
I think most are going to buy it now though.. think about it, if you really don't like ROF you can always sell it on Ebay for not much less then you paid for it. I doubt you will see too many listed though.
But can it? we have to register the game serial on the web which is linked to our email address and user name when logging in as far as i can gather, so can it be re-registered??
Read an account of a high wind ascent of a WWI British aircraft, where the plane remained motionless (to the ground) as it took off and stayed airborne.
A bit surprised at how little we heard from the engine, compared to the wind. Seemed strange.
. I had some Beatles at Shea Stadium videos up that EMI Music wasn't too happy about, lol. Even though it's not commercially available anywhere.
thank you guys....I really enjoyed. We saw first kill and aerobatics. The sim is great..FM, DM, graphics,...but sounds are really great...in IL2 they were so poor...
