Rise of Flight following on SimHQ

[TAIPAN_]

Any idea on why Rise of Flight simhq forum has 27 viewing, when FC2 & DCS only have 10?

 

Also even though Rise of Flight is new, it has 46,000 posts, double that of Lockon and FC...

 

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/forum_summary.html

 

Is it just because the ED forums are quite good and therefore we don't need SimHQ forums?

 

Or do you think there are more players for ROF and they like it better?

 

I don't understand it, I've tried ROF and there is no comparison. It just doesn't hold the attention and multiplayer is too hard to get into.

Edited May 6, 2010 by TAIPAN_

[71st_Mastiff]

nah, why would we be posting over-there when we have everything over here? it just means one more page I need to go digging around for information on, when I just need one site "ED".

[Huckle]

Maybe it's already possible to do (via RSS or something similar) but I'd like to be able to see my own forum all on one site. So I'd have one page with selected topics/sections from DCS, RoF, simhq, UBI etc. It would keyword search on previous topics I'd selected, etc, automatically ignore certain users based on IP address, and it wouldn't be banana yellow.

My PC is subpar for RoF, but it will be the first thing I'll install with next upgrade... lots of potential.

[Kuky]

Should compare how many posts there are here about RoF and you'll get the opposite (multiplied by 10 :D)

[Boberro]

More people like to play older planes. Similar situation to IL-2 on HL - LO about in max 50 players, where IL-2 max above 1000....

 

About forum... I think this is good.... SIMHQ section is not nessecery.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Boberro

[TAIPAN_]

More people like to play older planes. Similar situation to IL-2 on HL - LO about in max 50 players, where IL-2 max above 1000....

 

About forum... I think this is good.... SIMHQ section is not nessecery.

 

Nice new avatar Boberro!

 

Yeah I think you're right actually. It is probably the simplicity of it. Hardly any keys to learn, no targeting systems and radar warnings, no SAMs to worry about, and no BVR deaths.

 

That means it's easier for a gamer, rather than a simmer, so their market is gamers + simmers.

 

Where DCS is pretty much mostly simmers, gamers with no patience give up quickly.

 

I agree what all said too, I love the ED forum it's easy to use easy to read and I get weekly updates I can read on email/iphone without having to even connect.

 

SimHQ updates absolutely suck, I was getting emails for every single post instead of a weekly digest.

[sage0030]

Any idea on why Rise of Flight simhq forum has 27 viewing, when FC2 & DCS only have 10?

 

Also even though Rise of Flight is new, it has 46,000 posts, double that of Lockon and FC...

 

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/forum_summary.html

 

Is it just because the ED forums are quite good and therefore we don't need SimHQ forums?

 

Or do you think there are more players for ROF and they like it better?

 

I don't understand it, I've tried ROF and there is no comparison. It just doesn't hold the attention and multiplayer is too hard to get into.

 

 

 

its obvious that its a better sim, I have it I play it way more then dcs, fun factor and realism is alot more, :music_whistling:

[Feuerfalke]

its obvious that its a better sim, I have it I play it way more then dcs, fun factor and realism is alot more, :music_whistling:

 

 

Yeah...

 

let me introduce my AI-wingman, returning to home safely after a fierce battle: :music_whistling:

 

[Lulac]

Hey deadly snake,

...It is probably the simplicity of it...

- this is joke, right !?

 

...if it's not, then You just declare war with piston aviation :pilotfly:!!!

Edited May 7, 2010 by Lulac

[Feuerfalke]

Hey deadly snake,

 

- this is joke, right !?

 

...if it's not, then You just declare war with piston aviation :pilotfly:!!!

 

It's not the point that flying a piston-engined plane is easier to fight with than a jet, it's the fact that IL2 and RoF, both even with CEM and complex DM do not model the complexity of flight. In both cases, it takes like 2 keystrokes at maximum to join the fight. Failures are minimal, some systems are not even modeled (like the legendary non-existing cooler of the Spitfire) or simply disabled in 99% of the MP-servers (Like engine warm-up or manual navigation).

Just consider the P-47 would be modeled in IL2 as it is in A2A's P47 Razorback, with a 15min startup-procedure and warm-up, with keeping track of all these engine parameters manually while in combat, structural failures and jamming guns. Playernumbers using this setting probably would be as high (or rather low) as current playernumbers of DCS or LO/FC.

 

And just to make it perfectly clear: I don't think that either simulation is better or worse. They just have different goals, a different focus and a completely different setting.

 

So let's not compare apples and oranges.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Feuerfalke

[Lulac]

... startup-procedure and warm-up, with keeping track of all these engine parameters manually while in combat, structural failures and jamming guns...

 

. . . but all that is there in RoF . . . and many more, like navigation in Nieuport without compass, beautiful countryside, wind in the hair . . . How come You didn't notice that !?

 

And the Il-2 the "mother of all...". We shell see what will finally come out from Oleg's kitchen . . . younger brother of Il-2, BoB SoW . . .

 

I think the number of flyable plains is crucial for success one of simulation ! ! !

 

More different types of plains more players - very simple :D

[TAIPAN_]

Hey deadly snake,

 

- this is joke, right !?

 

...if it's not, then You just declare war with piston aviation :pilotfly:!!!

 

You missed the rest of that line: "Hardly any keys to learn, no targeting systems and radar warnings, no SAMs to worry about, and no BVR deaths."

 

This is what I was talking about. No LCTRL this and RCTL that.

 

A few keys to learn and then it's all about the flying. There's nothing simple about the flight models in ROF, but the systems are simple, no avionics and missiles etc.

 

It is easier for a gamer to get into, you don't need to program ALL hotas buttons + have a touchbuddy screen or something like that.

 

Regarding Oleg's SOW BOB, I would love for this to come through this year. The amount of detail and the fact it has a whole new DX10/11 engine means it will hold the genre up for years to come like IL2 did.

 

Rise of flight countryside can be nice, flying along rivers and such. But the frontline is absolute boring. Just a bunch of brown and some fake explosions. Troops/convoys are almost non-existant, the world feels dead.

 

They can improve that, not sure how much slowdown there is in adding more ground units in though. But ground strafing is good sport :joystick:

[Lulac]

Ok, Taipan, I understand what You won't to say ! I just won't to say what would happen if that post see some hard core Il-2 ace !!!!

 

. . . piston aviators are very sensitive to their beloved IL-2 . . . just like we on LOFC :smilewink: !

Any idea on why Rise of Flight simhq forum has 27 viewing, when FC2 & DCS only have 10?

 

Also even though Rise of Flight is new, it has 46,000 posts, double that of Lockon and FC...

 

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/forum_summary.html

 

Is it just because the ED forums are quite good and therefore we don't need SimHQ forums?

 

Or do you think there are more players for ROF and they like it better?

 

I don't understand it, I've tried ROF and there is no comparison. It just doesn't hold the attention and multiplayer is too hard to get into.

 

My opinion differs. ROF is probably the most sophisticated and detailed WWI flight simulator ever made. Details to flight model, damage model, atmospheric modeling, audio are unsurpassed by any other simulator. I guess those high views in SIMHQ come from people like me who appreciate such beautiful works.

[element1108]

I don't think it can even be argued that ROF is the best WWI flight sim on the market HANDS DOWN. But BLACK SHARK is the best helicopter simulation on the market HANDS down in it's own right. LO/FC has some competition with FALCON so that's a little more debatable...but why are we even comparing WWI aviation to helicopter/jet fighter combat? You can't even compare WWII to WWI. They're modeling totally different aspects and technology of a plane/balistics etc/avionics (or lack thereof).

 

If you read the blue prints of a KA-50 BLACK SHARK vs a SOPWITH or ALBATROSS you'd see a clear difference in engineering complexity.

 

So if I'm a WW1 aviation nut (there are LOTS of them by the way) then I'll most likely choose ROF over LO or BS...but I personally am not a huge fan of WWI air combat (much respect to it, but from a sim point a little dry for me). It doesn't really have anything to do with "realism" or whatever and more on personal preference.