Just downloaded Flight and must say, ms developers has a close look at the russian Rise of Flight. Not that it matters, Rof is one of the greatest sim made till now.
Havent been reading all the post in here, but has any other RoF flyers noticed that?

And where do i get the key to go on??

Typical tropical MS 

To hear what they say about Rise of Flight, matters started with the wrong foot with that sim game too.

You MUST be connected to their server to make the thing fly, even if only offline (so if their server goes so goes your sim), few planes at the moment, but FREE new ones incoming... the outside model... because the cockpits to use them ARE PAYWARE (a little like saying: this bike is totally free, but to have the handlebar and the saddle you MUST pay or do without... ouch), and to crown it all... the thing is still in beta, yet is sold too, so if you buy it, you better be aware to having been unofficially named a paying beta tester (a new software developing figure extremely appreciated even by other software houses... one who pays so they can solve their problems in a way that is for them totally free).

Remembers you of something? Sure as hell remembers me of something too... something having to do with ANOTHER new GAME...

pete wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 2:44pm:


When i try to fly the Stearman in the Flight download, i get a popup to type keys, just like fsx!

And andy190
"RoF is actually a sim whereas Flight is a game.

Also all the planes for RoF are worth paying for.

The developers of RoF respect there users because without them they wouldn't have a job."

How you are right. 

"The developers of RoF respect there users because without them they wouldn't have a job."

I must say that this is true! Never have i had contact with anyone, that develope anything, and then listen so much to users as they do. 

andy190 wrote on Apr 7^th, 2012 at 4:52pm:


I wish to correct you here. M$ are not greedy. They are STUPIDLY greedy.

I call as proof of my statement the M$ Flight enterprise. One of the most effective ways to squander the followers base of a brand EVER devised in the last 50 years. I am offending NO ONE by calling what I see with its REAL NAME.

They already had a big downward hit with the unwieldy FSX (in its first years it was, beyond any reasonable doubt, when the hardware powerful enough to make it work decently was not available on the market no matter how much money you wanted to throw at it)... but now with Flight... 90% and mounting of the old followers alternating between being those strongly disappointed and others frothing at the mouth in rage... WOW! What a peerless commercial success... for X-plane.

Anyway, returning to RoF, the fact that they won't allow for freeware WILL put a crimp in its potential success.

As a GAME maybe it won't be hampered, as M$ well knows. But if they have in mind to make a shoot for it to be a SIMULATOR, the absence of freeware won't let it go too far... as M$ has yet to realize.

That and, sorry, I call it a travesty the act to release the models of the planes freeware only to make one pay the cockpits. As already written, give bikes away for free, but make the ones taking those bikes pay for the handlebars and the saddle. More honest it would have been a hard-nosed approach of everything payware. Not unlike M$, who makes you pay the outer model even if with no cockpit fitted. Choosing to "give me for free" the model only to make me pay the cockpit makes me feel mocked.


andy190 wrote on Apr 7^th, 2012 at 4:52pm:


The plane the Ford Trimotor came from, down the line... which remains STRICTLY pre-1935... no, actually it's pre-1930... if not before, even, if I'm not confusing the models.

My question remains and even develops further, as you can read below.


andy190 wrote on Apr 7^th, 2012 at 4:52pm:


Look, I am a LOVER of older planes. I prefer classics MORE than modern kerosene burners. Yet EVEN I from time to time like to wander along the timeline.

I always like to fly the Calclassics Constellations... actually ALL their planes are just sweet (some of them payware grade given away free, those guys are simply GREAT, full stop), but from time to time I throw myself into a jaunt in the Ford Trimotor, on the Ansaldo SVA (mostly the beautiful one made for X-plane 9, but the FS one too it's not half bad), on the P-51D, and from time to time I don't disdain to jump on its jet-powered big bro, the F-86 Sabre, to burn some kerosene in the transonic range of flight speed... and on others too. Be they powered by reciprocating engines, old jet units and even turboprop, and which complete list I don't write here for reasons of time and space.

So you can see, even not having taken the commands of a simulated modern airplane for a while, my interests quite dynamically sweep all the way from 1914 to 1960 and sometimes, though rarely, even beyond this time interval.

Now, my question is: even WANTING to forget the need to be compulsively connected to their server to fly even off line (thing that could spell a premature death to the program, should said server go and remain down for whatever reason) to make the whole thing work, would RoF be able to entertain me the same way, or will it ask me to confine myself and my interests in the matter of flight simulation only in the years BEFORE the first half of the 30ies, if even THAT FAR?

Bass wrote on Apr 8^th, 2012 at 8:28am:


Well, I hope he'll take all the points exposed here in consideration.


Bass wrote on Apr 8^th, 2012 at 8:28am:


I'm not saying that the setting of the sim in the first world war is wrong, but simply that a REAL simulator should have more flexibility and not remain rooted in those years exclusively. If someone would want to, for example, fly a Boeing 787, this someone SHOULD have the possibility.

Personally, also, I never thought of the various CFS franchise as real simulators. More like semi-games derivative from the FS version they were extruded from. I do not mean to belittle CFS, as I like to fly its various versions (all of them beside the 1, that really works bad under my Xp and I am unable to find working patches) from time to time, but here we fall in the ductility of a simulator, where you can fly everywhere, anywhere, and do anything, VS a semi-simulator the like of CFS, where you must follow the guidelines of an "adventure" under any other name.

andy190 wrote on Apr 9^th, 2012 at 12:59am:


He is talking about Flight I think...

Derpy derp. (just kidding)

I just deleted ms flight! Thats not me, yet.

I took a flight with my sopcamel in rof. Luckwise the engine started without blowing up, but i sure hoped i had a parachute after meeting the enemy!! 

Strategic Retreat wrote on Apr 11^th, 2012 at 6:28pm:


Pilots of the RFC weren’t allowed to have Parachutes; the Top Brass thought it would induce cowardice.

German Fliers however were allowed Parachutes but many chose not to have them, not because they thought it was cowardly but because they were very heavy.

In those days, taking the guns off a fighter could increase its performance by 10-20 mph so pilots wanted as little extra weight as possible.

It should also be noted that Balloon Observers on both sides were issued with Parachutes.

andy190 wrote on Apr 11^th, 2012 at 8:53pm:


Some idiots people with too much military power and zero field experience should learn to speak only after having gone a dozen mission themselves.

Really hate the kind of "top brass" like that.

And there's a reason for that personal hatred. I served, in my time, into the Army, and we DID have a lot of idiots people like those here, with too high a military grade and a too low a IQ, back then... and somehow I doubt the trend has changed any significantly ever since 1988. The kind of idiots people, to make myself clear, who think that the phrase "Lead, and I'll follow" can be uttered only while referring to a pub.


andy190 wrote on Apr 11^th, 2012 at 8:53pm:


This I didn't know. Thought it was a very generalized idea of chivalry in air battles. That the <expletive deleted> at the top used to forbid it in some Air Forces while in others were allowed by forward thinking men, I had no idea.


Bass wrote on Apr 12^th, 2012 at 7:59am:


Well, yes, the planes built around the engines had their own quirks, and the quirks of the engine only worsened the situation.

ALL the very aerobatic performance capable prop planes of today are NOT comparable to a Cessna 182, under the point of view od a calm and serene flight, and back then the delta between simple recreational planes and aerobatic and/or military fighter planes was even larger.


Bass wrote on Apr 12^th, 2012 at 7:59am:


Would you care to reword the above quoted, please?

What I understood of the first part is that you believe RoF not to be easy, and here I can believe you, and M$ Flight to be EVEN MORE difficult... thing that leave me like this:

The second part... you mean you have a Sopwith Camel with no armament, and only can shoot from a revolver? I thought the era of revolver and rifles on board to shoot to other planes ended WITH the introducing of the Sopwith Camel and its synchronized Vickers, on that front of the war, if not even before.

Bass wrote on Apr 13^th, 2012 at 7:47am:


Oh God...

Leaving humility in its scabbard for this time, I am among the most pluri-decorated aces of the various virtual campaigns in the Second Wordl War staged in the various CFS over simulated Europe and the Pacific both, and even piloted a Camel or three in Red Baron, never to the extent to make a name for myself though. My favorite plane remains the P-51D Mustang, followed closely by the P-47 Thunderbolt...

Let me ask you a question: Do YOU have any inkling of HOW a air combat is done?

A revolver to shoot behind you?

Manfred von Richthofen is twisting in his grave at this statement of yours. And with him a lot of his comrades and even his allies' foe pilots.

First rule: Never allow an enemy to get your Six 'o Clock. Or above you, for that.

Second rule: putting YOURSELF at your enemy's Six 'o Clock, and/or above him, is PARAMOUNT.

Third rule: should your enemy try to put himself at your Six 'o Clock or try to get the drop on you, you MUST not allow it and MUST at least try to retaliate trying to do exact same thing to him.

Fourth rule: train yourself in the fine art of the deflected shot. Bullets take a certain time to reach a target, and you must lead the other plane, when shooting from its side. If you shoot at its shape, the bullets will never reach their intended target. How much you must lead the other plane in such a situation depends on speed (yours, your enemy's and the one of the bullets), distance and winds. Make a good use of tracers, is the only valid suggestion I can give you here.

There are other rules, mind, but in a dogfight within the reality simulated by a computer, their usefulness is most of the times doubtful.

WHY do you think aerobatic combat maneuvers are made in the air between two fighting planes? To give an amusing airmanship show to the soldiers in the trenches, perhaps?

Of course, the rules of aerial combat changed a bit between the two wars, but I'm quite sure only someone BEGGING to be shot down, back in the first world war, would have tried to shoot behind his fighter plane with a revolver, of all things

The problem with this approach to self defense of yours has two glaring weak spots:

First, and most important, revolvers are NOT machine guns. They are, as a rule, low powered when dealing with anti-material roles. Even today's Magnum series or the famed Desert Eagle .50 do not measure up with machine guns fire. They have about 50 meters of useful range and bad effectiveness against a plane, and back in those time there were no Magnum the like of today's, so cut the range off of at least 10 meters and dial WAY down any amount damage to any plane... THEN you must consider that your slow and almost spent bullets, if caught at the end of their range, almost assuredly were batted away from your enemy's propeller like an annoying fly, or stopped dead by the glass of your enemy's cockpit's wind deflector, or the metal of his rotating engine's casing, or even the rotating engine heads... you should have been SO LUCKY that a bullet from your revolver COULD have SLIGHTLY DENTED the radiator of a water cooled engine powered fighter, IF EVEN THAT.

All in all, unless you have the MASSIVE (here it would have been the ideal place for a slang expression in my language which meaning sadly would be lost in translation, so I'll refrain, writing instead...) STROKE OF LUCK that one of those slow and almost spent bullet would be able to cut one of your enemy wing tiers, thing that would amount to a miracle in and for itself, you're wasting your time, especially because of what is explained in the following paragraph.

Second, to shoot behind you, giving attention enough at what you do to avoid hitting your tail and trying to center a distant, almost assuredly out of range for a handgun enemy plane, you must leave the yoke unattended, giving your enemy MORE EASE at centering your six of clock and stuff your plane full of hot lead (if you're lucky) or, my favorites in those cases, incendiary rounds (if you are NOT lucky).

Forget the puny revolver in the holster. This not being a cowboys' shootout, it just doesn't measure up to the task. Full stop. Your BEST choice is to keep sharp situational awareness, and should an enemy try to take your Six, you MUST prevent that to happen at any cost and align your enemy with your machine guns' line of fire FIRST.

ALWAYS!

Strategic Retreat wrote on Apr 13^th, 2012 at 11:37am:


Holy macro. Thats a lesson to a "first timer" flying combat. 

If you dont understand "first timer", then i must make a new rule:
Seventh Rule: Keep allways humor intact! 

"At the moment at least, it seems no two-seaters are available under RoF, so it's a little redundant... maybe in anticipation of a future new AI plane... but for now... Tongue"

You are so wrong! Why state something you dont know about?

I dont take anything personal, maybe i would, if i got a affront attack.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_Flight:_The_First_Great_Air_War

Quote:


Are you calling the Airco D.H.1 & D.H.2 "doubtful experiments"?

In 1915 they were some of the planes that ended the Fokker Scourge.

Strategic Retreat wrote on Apr 14^th, 2012 at 6:09pm:

The  DH.2 was a very successful fighter in its time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airco_DH.2

Other examples of RFC aircraft with that configuration were the FE.2b & Vickers Gunbus

Considered and tested, maybe. Even used, like the DH2 (but only as a stop gap solution, because at the time the synchronizer was not available and it was a decision on the line of: "wanna shoot at yer enemy? This is what we have. Ye dun like it? Tough biscuits!"), yet no real...

And I mean REAL design was made that showed itself better than the tractor design, that has instead made history in the field.

Now, I am willing to consider a reluctance to invest money (in a period like the one after the first world war and before the start of the second, of recession not so much different than nowadays, but with the not little difference that THAT recession, back then, actually left people STARVING in the streets) to invest into perfecting a design that may have or may have not had promises, when they had already a proven functional design in the tractor propeller... yet, allow me to remember you that history, as a rule, is not made of "if", and this debate is getting us mired on "ifs", here.

Let us leave the "probably good but never explored as it probably should have deserved" for theorists of parallel worlds and realities and let's continue on our previous tracks, shall we?

By the way... what were we talking about before? I forgot.

Strategic Retreat wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 7:15pm:

I know this is an old post, but I just now read it, since I haven't had anything to do with MS Flight until today (and already uninstalled).
Anyway, you are not telling the truth here. I have had RoF since the day it was released. When it came out it was a full and working flight sim. It needed a couple small patches to fix some unexpected issues and one of those was to correct Vert- on triscreen systems.
About it being a beta, it IS NOT. The UPDATES and ADDITIONS are beta tested each and everyone of them, however that is done behind the scenes and the normal public IS NOT part of that process. Much has been added to the sim since release and that was the plan all along and was spoken of by the devs many times before the first release.

The planes are there for use in the game even if you don't buy them. You will fight with them on your side or as your opponent. You buy them if you think you would like to FLY them. You have a choice. But they are still added to everyones sim when they are ready.
You can play offline, though some of the features are disabled. It has been said that should the servers close, a final update will be released to un-bind the sim to the current copy protection method so no one will lose anything. In other words, if the company was to close or at the end of RoF's life cycle, it will be fixed so it no longer requires connection to work in full.

The development of RoF began around 2003. Release was 2009, I believe it was. The payware planes have helped fund further development and the sim has grown to be quite massive. Something that would have been impossible without payware additions. There has been tons of content added for free over the years since release.

Did you play a game with expansions you had to buy to play? RoF is the same thing, in a way. Only it's expansion plans are added without cost, you decide if YOU want to buy them or not. It is a continuing development game. If you don't want to buy it, that is fine, but you should not spread mis-truth about it simply because you don't agree with it's marketing. It is the best sim out right now. More advanced than anything I know of for the home PC. And I know how dedicated the devs are to this. I was very involved in the project for quite a while. These guys have a passion to create the worlds leading flight sim and that cost money. A few dollars for planes is how they fund it. You think they should work for free????

And as for MS Flight. I have NOTHING against their marketing. I am against the consolitus the game has. Terrible control options being the main thing. It is a cross bread, so PC users suffer because of it. Might work fine for a gamepad player, but lacks too much for a serious simmer with multi-function flight sim equipment. Kinda like Wings of Prey (only a bit worse than it is) and in the car games, Test Drive Unlimited 2. CONSOLITUS is a terrible disease.

Rise of Flight is a WWI flight sim. It isn't suppose to have Merlin powered monoplanes, jets of any type, etc. It isn't in any way limited as a simulator for what it is marketed to simulate, which again is WWI air combat around the front lines of France. Land area is growing, but the era is the same.
It has expaned some since release, but I don't think there will ever be Spitfires in it. That would be for either another sim or some major expansion.

Strategic Retreat wrote on Dec 19^th, 2012 at 3:14pm:

Maybe one day, I don't know. It would be a different title though, of that I feel pretty certain. Personally I would hope their next sim be Koran War era. Both land based and carrier planes. I would love a really good sim with the F-9F Panther, MiG 15, F-86, F-4U, F-51, etc, etc.

I know there was one in the works but was put on hold for Storm of War. I don't know if that project has been taken back up or not. Anyway, it is something I would simply love. But I don't think it would cover the entire world, just the Korean peninsula and surrounding seas, most likely.