PDA

View Full Version : Maps in PF



Farkitt_
07-23-2004, 08:05 PM
I understand that there is the limitations of the Engine and such, But Will the PF Maps be Bigger than the FB ones? I think this is Important, because since alot of Navigation is going to be done by Dead Reckoning, We need more Navigational Points per map, which means more of it.

Would it be Possible for PF Maps to cover 2 or 3 times the size of FB ones? or even more? Bearing in mind this theatre was known as "bigger but flatter" than the ETO, I think It could be Quite important.

Also there is the Fact of things like The Battle of Midway, How can you get that historically accurate as to the location of the US and Japanese task Groups day by day on maps the size of the FB ones?

What you boys think?

http://www.jacksonharrison.co.uk/BoB2/Battle_personnel/Profiles/RAF/images/lacey.jpg

Farkitt_
07-23-2004, 08:05 PM
I understand that there is the limitations of the Engine and such, But Will the PF Maps be Bigger than the FB ones? I think this is Important, because since alot of Navigation is going to be done by Dead Reckoning, We need more Navigational Points per map, which means more of it.

Would it be Possible for PF Maps to cover 2 or 3 times the size of FB ones? or even more? Bearing in mind this theatre was known as "bigger but flatter" than the ETO, I think It could be Quite important.

Also there is the Fact of things like The Battle of Midway, How can you get that historically accurate as to the location of the US and Japanese task Groups day by day on maps the size of the FB ones?

What you boys think?

http://www.jacksonharrison.co.uk/BoB2/Battle_personnel/Profiles/RAF/images/lacey.jpg

SkyChimp
07-23-2004, 08:30 PM
Good question. The PTO dwarfed the ETO in area. I mean, the distance between Rabaul and Guadalcanal was about the same distance as 8th AF airbases in England and Berlin. And those were considered close for the PTO! So how do you model island chains as important as the Solomons? How do you model the New Guinea-Bismark Sea-Solomons area? Lay the Crimea map in this area and it looks like a spec.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/signature.jpg

Farkitt_
07-23-2004, 09:07 PM
Yeah, they'd surely have to do maps of a larger area if they were going to do this Properly.

If I had my way It'd Just be one Huge map http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.jacksonharrison.co.uk/BoB2/Battle_personnel/Profiles/RAF/images/lacey.jpg

heywooood
07-23-2004, 09:51 PM
one thing... when you fly off the existing maps in FB - whether over water or land... the land/water goes on and on...forever, no?

So in PF maps, won't the same be true... so even though you cant place objects outside the map area, you can still fly there...so if waypoint paths could be left 'open ended' or if you could name a waypoint 'continue on this heading' (it could work for ships and planes) that would work to increase ocean area around the maps...yes? And since the open ocean is featureless and weather is not dynamic in PF.. you could fly off the map in pursuit of the enemy and then call for vector to base or dead reckon back to the map area... yes?



http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/ac_32_1.jpg
"Check your guns"

Farkitt_
07-23-2004, 09:58 PM
yes, that could work, untill you fly for 100 miles without seeing that Island 50 miles off the map yes?

http://www.jacksonharrison.co.uk/BoB2/Battle_personnel/Profiles/RAF/images/lacey.jpg

heywooood
07-23-2004, 10:12 PM
Well... theres always the risk of death..buzkiller. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

Ofcourse that is correct, but this is a sim, and my idea is only a work around to a possible restriction of the game engine as it is now... better than nothing, no? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/ac_32_1.jpg
"Check your guns"

Farkitt_
07-23-2004, 11:45 PM
Heywoood, together we're genious's

Wouldn't it be better if say four islands in a chain going North East sorrounded by thousands of square miles of ocean, were Mapped into a Map going on a Diagonal just wide enough to fit the Islands in, then they needn't do the Ocean in the map as such, as long as units could still be told to fly over it, Sail through it etc etc.

Yes?

http://www.jacksonharrison.co.uk/BoB2/Battle_personnel/Profiles/RAF/images/lacey.jpg

sapre
07-24-2004, 06:34 AM
is it possible to model taht when you reach the end of the map, the next map will be loaded?
for example, when you reach the eastern end of the Crimea, the Kuban map will be loaded?
ofcourse all other mission objects will be loaded olso.

Pentallion
07-24-2004, 08:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by heywooood:
one thing... when you fly off the existing maps in FB - whether over water or land... the land/water goes on and on...forever, no?

So in PF maps, won't the same be true... so even though you cant place objects outside the map area, you can still fly there...so if waypoint paths could be left 'open ended' or if you could name a waypoint 'continue on this heading' (it could work for ships and planes) that would work to increase ocean area around the maps...yes? And since the open ocean is featureless and weather is not dynamic in PF.. you could fly off the map in pursuit of the enemy and then call for vector to base or dead reckon back to the map area... yes?



http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/ac_32_1.jpg
"Check your guns"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, but you CAN place objects off the map area!

We've been fighting the North Africa portion of Iron Skies Malta using the OnlineMT map and placing our objects up to 100km off the map edges. In fact, it was 180km from the Italian airbase to the British airbase our last Africa mission, with ground targets to be found 100km south of the shoreline.

onlineMT map is only 50km by 50km.

So the only thing you'd need to expand a smaller map to cover the whole Solomons area would be the Objects needed to create the islands. Right now we have that big Mountain object. We would also need other objects to make the islands ourselves with. Then we could place them wherever we wanted to off the map.

We'd also need to be able to place objects upon objects if we wanted any stuff on these islands. But Harbors would be a sinch if we had the ability to build the islands.

http://www.simops.com/249th/sigs/Wildcard.jpg

Farkitt_
07-24-2004, 08:50 AM
Well if you can place objects off the edge of a map that validates my point further.

The largest Map in Il-2 must be 1000 Square miles right? if we make that a narrow, curving map to follow a string of ISlands with a width of say two Miles, it can be 500 miles long.

I fully trust Oleg to do a good job of it,


FLYING MY AIRCRAFT:
"C O U N T R Y GAL"
http://www.owensvalleyhistory.com/pinups1/elvgren8_thmb.jpg

heywooood
07-24-2004, 08:53 AM
and there you go... we ARE a buncha friggin' geniuses....



http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/ac_32_1.jpg
"Check your guns"

Tully__
07-24-2004, 10:23 AM
Early in this forum's life, Luthier mentioned that the limiting factor for map size was largely (though not entirely?) the number of objects. Open water has very little impact on how the map performs in game. Hopefully there will be maps that allow the sheer scale of the theatre to be experienced.

On the other hand, the number of online pilots who have enough time to fly 2-4 hour coop missions is not that high, so I don't believe that these maps will see a lot of use in the online community. If they do get used they may convince more player to fly in formation though http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

=================================================


http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/sig.jpg

Tully's X-45 profile (SST drivers) (http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/fb.zip)

Salut
Tully

Farkitt_
07-24-2004, 11:52 AM
Yes Tully, but it is a SIM first, if they want to use it for DF then thats fine, but the sim and the environment it's played in shouldn't suffer.

Perhaps People will just have to condense thier flying into a Saturday or Sunday Session


FLYING MY AIRCRAFT:
"C O U N T R Y GAL"
http://www.owensvalleyhistory.com/pinups1/elvgren8_thmb.jpg

Tully__
07-24-2004, 11:56 AM
Why does everyone assume DF every time someone mentions online? Large maps in DF is just a waste of space, but I'd love the oppurtunity to fly long coops. Unfortunately it's hard to get enough interested people who have the time together at one time in order to run one.

=================================================


http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/sig.jpg

Tully's X-45 profile (SST drivers) (http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/fb.zip)

Salut
Tully

Farkitt_
07-24-2004, 12:04 PM
I didn't mean that, I thought since you specifically mentioned a short timeframe, I thought you were referring to DF or similar missions.

Although your right, there can be SHort Co-ops.

I apologise. And your right, you should get the Corsair back in your sig, that P-38 is UGLY!!!


FLYING MY AIRCRAFT:
"C O U N T R Y GAL"
http://www.owensvalleyhistory.com/pinups1/elvgren8_thmb.jpg

Yellonet
07-24-2004, 01:25 PM
It would be fun to get a few really large maps. Start of on a carrier and try to find a small island 500 miles away.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But then again, I guess the earth is flat in IL-2 so... with enough draw distance you could see the island from the carrier http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif Map curvature would be a super thing which we will probably not see in any IL-2 game http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

BTW, I really don't want any scaled down maps.. would just be silly being able to fly from hawaii to japan in 20 minutes or similar stupidness.


- Yellonet

[This message was edited by Yellonet on Sat July 24 2004 at 12:36 PM.]

Owl_NZ
07-24-2004, 06:05 PM
Ones I think would be feasibile are:

Bougainville - the whole Island, as the Allies only occupied a small area of it and it was an ongoing action holding down the garrison all the way to the end of the war (the RNZAF and RAAF played major role there BTW).

Could do Rabaul, with Allies getting bases on New Britain and Green Islands.

New Georgia is another one. IIRC luthier said they couldn't do the whole Solomons/Slot from Rabaul to Guadalcanal & Espiritu Santo, but there were major islands where fighting continued for ages. And not having Rabaul in PF would be a big travesty as it was the principal South Pacific base for the Japanese.

Judging by what we've seen so far though, the bulk of the maps support the principal focus of PF - carrier battles. I think land-based battles are going to come a very poor second in this to the Island-hopping aspect.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Alexander_Seil
07-25-2004, 01:20 AM
Aren't we making too many assumptions here and doing all the thinking for Oleg here?

What's the problem with having big maps? Afraid the mappers don't have a good scaled map of endless blue ocean? It sort of looks the same everywhere you look, if you ask me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The amount of actual land and objects in Eastern Pacific should guarantee us some very smooth gaming and some very long missions.

Also, why assume that it's going to be a "carrier-based" game? Australia didn't have any carriers, neither did the Netherlands and most of the British operations in the area were strictly ground-based affairs, mostly up in Burma (which I'm pretty sure would/should be mapped at least partially). If they were going to make a carrier-based game, the Netherlands, Australia and UK/CW would have nothing to do there...it would be just your average IJN vs USN flight simulator, been there done that. Besides, if Aussies are in, so is New Guinea, I think we can safely make that assumption.

Capt._Tenneal
08-05-2004, 09:56 AM
There was some news about PF map size (among others) in a post by Starshoy (DGEN author) in a simhq post :

http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=011735

the PF related comments :

" BTW, there will be sometimes airstarts in Pacific Fighters too. No map can include both Rabaul and Guadalcanal, and, in fact, very few people would like to fly over water for many hours.

Even Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor offers some problems. In this case I can place carriers in historical position. I actually did. But is it a long way! "

JG53Frankyboy
08-05-2004, 03:40 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Good question. The PTO dwarfed the ETO in area. I mean, the distance between Rabaul and Guadalcanal was about the same distance as 8th AF airbases in England and Berlin. And those were considered close for the PTO! So how do you model island chains as important as the Solomons? How do you model the New Guinea-Bismark Sea-Solomons area? Lay the Crimea map in this area and it looks like a spec.


Guadalcanal - Rabaul (~ 1000km) considered close , i doubt that , even for the Pacifik ! it was one of the biggest distance flown from tactical planes (no B29 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

its one of the big question how huge the maps will be.
the whole "Slot" would be gourgous , not to speak from the eastern part of NewGuinea from Holandia to Milne Bay !
ore a map with Timor and Darwin.

we have to wait http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

BSS_Vidar
08-05-2004, 03:47 PM
You can fly the entire "Slot" up the Solomon Chain in CFS2. Hopefully, we'll get the same in PF.

BSS_Vidar

Tater-SW-
08-05-2004, 04:37 PM
Personally, I'd like to see the slot and even eastern new guinea modeled completely in as few maps as possible. They can always make smaller versions by chopping it down to a rabaul map, and a guadalcanal map, etc.

Even if the bulk of the other islands are just covered with trees. Clear flat bits, and place an airfield marker (for AI to consider it home) but build no fields---let mission builders make their own. Might be a FR pig, but a couple years from now it'll be entry level.

tater

PS-as an aside I'd prefer to see airfields be as simple as possible in PF for the most part, I need to scan more fields, but it would be better to have not much more than a strip with bermed revetments for most fields---let mission builders make em look fancy.

Robert Edwards
08-05-2004, 04:38 PM
In CFS2 You can fly anywhere you want.I can leave Henderson field and go to Hawaii and not have to start in the air but on the ground.If PF is not going to have a world map I think I will pass on it because it is not as real as can be done.If M$ can do it in CFS2 which is over four years old then it should be done with this sim.

Bobhegf

Baco-ECV56
08-05-2004, 05:06 PM
Well Pal I gess we will no tbe seeing you arround. PF is based on FB engine, if you want a new engine wit till 2006 or more...

You must realice what this proyect is, and not ask for more thatn it can be done.

Besides even tow I love log coops, to fly from one point of Crimea to the other is a two oure flight. few people endure such a flight. Its a pitty but it is the way it is.

For one thing I hope every aircraft has a detailes fuel gauge http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

WereSnowleopard
08-05-2004, 07:24 PM
May problem on online as may so difficult to do without get disturb at home (phone ringing, door knock, friend show up, and other stuff) when flying for two hours or so!

For offline, maybe new add is X16 time or whatever. Never know!

Cheers
Snowleopard

Robert Edwards
08-05-2004, 08:39 PM
It is not the fact that there are going to be long flights it is the fact that it just does not feel right to start in the air.The longest flight I have ever made in CFS2 was about 8.5 hours in real time.I have the auto pilot set so I used it and went to work around the apartment and keep checking on it to make sure I was still going in the right direction.About eight and onehalf hours later I landed at Midway.The trip was from Ford Island to Midway.CFS2 is over 4 years old which is even older Than IL-2.The point is the tech. is there now to support this type of world map.

Bobhegf

JG53Frankyboy
08-06-2004, 04:51 AM
"Starshoy
posted 08-05-2004 13:52
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparing to all existing maps in IL2 they are very big. Of course, we'd perefer to have one map for Solomon Islands. But it is impossible now, Bougainville and Guadalcanal cannot be on the same map"

from SimHQ http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Nanuk66
08-06-2004, 05:35 AM
'Bearing in mind this theatre was known as "bigger but flatter" than the ETO'

You mean the PTO was even BIGGER and FLATTER then the Russian Steppes!!!

Ah Bollox!!!

-----------------------------
English lesson 101:
The word is 'Lose' not 'Loose'. e.g.
That IL2 is gonna lose the fight against that 109.
That IL2's wing looks loose, its gonna fall off.
If i dive too vertically i will lose my wing. k thx.
------------------------------

Tater-SW-
08-07-2004, 10:10 PM
I'd really hope to have New Guinea in there, the hunting grounds of the RAAF and the 5th AF are critical.


tater

nearmiss
08-08-2004, 09:28 AM
We need maps that overlap dynamically.

When you fly to the outermost edge of Map A then overlapping map B takes the place of the previous map A.

This could probably be coded easy enough.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/sonar.gif

http://avsims.com/portal/modules/liens/images/banner.gif (http://avsims.com/portal/)

initjust
08-08-2004, 11:11 AM
The potential problems extend well beyond just the size of the maps (although this is a significant issue in my opinion).

It will also be, in my opinion, a significant issue if you can not fly over an island, open an atlas of the real world and identify the island by its shape.

It is a fact that the amount of time any pilot actually spent in combat when compared to the amount of time he spent getting to the target area was a very small percentage of the total mission time.

That being the case if PF doesn't allow for the need to do real world navigation using clock, compass and airspeed and needing to take into account air density and it's affect on the IAS/TAS/GS relationship together with wind drift (will PF even allow for wind?) and magnetic declination it will severly miss the mark as a PTO simulator.

After all, if a pilot in the PTO couldn't navigate his way to the target area and then back to his carrier or his land base he did not make many sorties.

There are some who relish the challenge of plotting a course, taking into account all of the above mentioned dimensions that impact a flight, taking off, spending several hours in flight not really sure whether or not the target (ship or fleet) would be there or whether their nav calcs were good enough to get them to the land target on time.

Then once you find the target and it's time to RTB (especially if you are trying to return to a moving carrier) your survival will depend on how well you calculated the return trip.

In my opinion if PF does not allow for all of this, and more, it will simply be another aircombat game with a PTO theme.

It may well prove to be a very good game and do a great job of allowing the user to 'simulate' the actual combat dimension of the air war in the PTO but, in order to simulate the entire PTO experience it will need much more in the way of weather, maps, real world geography and the elements that make real world navigation possible than the current IL2 series of games provides.

Time will tell whether PF will be a game or a simulator.

China Flanker 1
08-08-2004, 11:30 AM
the biggest flight sim map i played is fs2004,it''s all the world,if il2 could fly all the world ....... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/smileys-gun2.gif

http://www.chinapro.com/888/dngs.gif

Tater-SW-
08-08-2004, 11:41 AM
As cool as it will be to have Guadalcanal, the best bang for the buck map-wise would probably be part of Papua/New Guinea. Port Moresby, Milne Bay, Lae, Buna, Dodobura, Wewak. Its a big place, has mountains in the middle, and can be covered mostly with IL-2 style forests (deciduous trees in jungle, not palms). Best of all, the Allies and Japan both had air bases on the island at the same time, with raging land battles. Sometimes the fields were 40 miles apart. The 5th AF used air supply for forward fields, great supply interdiction missions for IJN planes from Lae. The IJN used sea transport and barges, great hunting for the USAAF and RAAF (I think RNZAF, too).

tater

Capt._Tenneal
08-09-2004, 08:22 AM
IMHO, a game or sim with the complex navigation and weather of a FS2004 with pretty good combat models (flight, damage, guns, AI) is still a pipe dream or years away. Do all that and still make it playable on mid-range PCs, and you'll have a product costing way over $ 100 .

For me the deciding factor is : is it fun ? . If it is then if PF will "..simply be another aircombat game with a PTO theme. " , it will have to do for me.

initjust
08-09-2004, 09:48 AM
"IMHO, a game or sim with the complex navigation and weather of a FS2004 with pretty good combat models (flight, damage, guns, AI) is still a pipe dream or years away. Do all that and still make it playable on mid-range PCs, and you'll have a product costing way over $ 100 ."

Well, most of what you have said there already exists.

All the complex navigation and weather is already possible in CFS2 right out of the box off the stock CD.

Wind drift, magnetic declination and the effect of air desnity on the IAS/TAS/GS relationship are ALL in CFS2 today and have been from the beginning.

And in Single Mission or Campaign modes the combat models and weapons load outs are not bad.

The stock flight models may be a different issue but that can be solved by using the excellent 1% aircraft developed by the Avhistory guys.

AI is pretty much a joke in any game available today so that may well be an issue no matter what game you use.

Multi-player has a few serious drawbacks in CFS2 that are, in my opinion, the only things that motivate me to be looking for something to come along that offers all CFS2 does today but with an improved MP engine.

You are correct, it is all about the enjoyment we are looking for.

For you enjoyment may not come in the form of flying over virtual islands that are at the correct Lat/Lon as they are in the real world and can be identified by comparing their shape to what you see in an atlas of the real world.

Enjoyment for you may not be needing to spend a few minutes calculating course speed and heading to get from point A to point B to point C in a specified amount of time to rendezvous your flight of escorts with the PBYs on an SAR mission or a flight of SBDs on an attack mission or to get into position to intercept enemy bombers.

You may not find any enjoyment in needing to factor wind drift, mag declination, air temp/humidity, altitude and IAS/TAS/GS in your navigation calculations and then need to worry about fuel conservation as you embark on a several hundred mile flight over the blue waters of the vast Pacific Ocean searching for the enemy task force you HOPE is where the scouts reported it to be.

The challenge of making the scouting flight and being able to report, with the accuracy required so the attack flights can find, attack the fleet and then return to their own carriers, introduces several other different aspects of navigating over open ocean that require keeping track of where you are and where you've been.

These are what I find enjoyable AND what, in my opinion, allow a game to become a simulator.

ALL of this is ALREADY possible, if you want to take advantage of it, in CFS2 and it is more than 4 years old! In CFS2 you can use as much, or as little, of the available complexity as you like.

However, I don't expect you or anyone else to agree with my definition of "fun" but if PF does not provide all of this I am still of the opinion that it will simply be another game with a PTO air combat theme.

That is not to say that PF won't be "fun" from a purely combat perspective. It most probably will do a really good, if not great, job at simulating what happened at the point of contact between opposing forces in the PTO.

Hoever, the time spent in actual combat was an almost infinitesimally small amount of time when compared with the time spent getting to and from the target or combat area.

An SBD crew would make a single dive bomb run and then egress at max speed to try and get back to their carrier. Total time in combat maybe 2-3 minutes (if they survived).

Total time spent flying to and from the target?

Lets just say the distance between their carrier and the enemy was 150nm (round trip of 300nm). The speed the SBD would cruise at was somewhere around 140kts. This would mean, if we ignore any wind and assume IAS=TAS=GS the total flight time would be about 128 minutes (2hrs 8mins) IF they flew directly from their carrier to the enemy!

So, 2-3 minutes in combat compared to 128 minutes getting to and from the target or about 2% of the total mission time was actually spent in a combat environment.

Again, I'm not saying that you, or anyone else for that matter, should find enjoyment in what I find enjoyable. I am only saying that if a game DOES NOT provied the required elements for this level of immersion AND allow those of us that are interested in it the option to use them it is a game and not a simulator.

triggerhappyfin
08-10-2004, 11:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by initjust:
"IMHO, a game or sim with the complex navigation and weather of a FS2004 with pretty good combat models (flight, damage, guns, AI) is still a pipe dream or years away. Do all that and still make it playable on mid-range PCs, and you'll have a product costing way over $ 100 ."

...........................................

Again, I'm not saying that you, or anyone else for that matter, should find enjoyment in what I find enjoyable. I am only saying that if a game DOES NOT provied the required elements for this level of immersion AND allow those of us that are interested in it the option to use them it is a game and not a simulator.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well you have atleast one person(me) on your side in this matter.

The maps included in IL-2FB/AEP ARE too small.

Perhaps except for the Crimea map and Finnish gulf.

The small maps result in online playing mostly dealing with furballs defy the existance of methods to set objectives and missions(scripting)on servers.

This in my opinion is to deny this excellent peace of simulator software itâ´s rightly earned status as a simulator and too often turn it into a archade kind of game, also with some inclination towards first shooter games.

Lots of ppl online want the airfields near eatchother to make the transport flight to furball as short, if not non existant, as possible. These ppl donâ´t want a simulator they want a RL-like first shooter game.

My intent is not to ridicule any desire and aspect of the game, because they can co-exist.

The small size of most of the maps makes it almost impossible to carry out any proper bombing missions. They lack free space with no or only a slight chance of threat to bombers straving for altitude.

We need bigger maps for us who want simulation.

Thereâ´s allways room for nearby hostile airfields on bigger maps letting us simulator fans co-exist with the triggerhappy first shooters http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif.

For AEP we need maps featuring most of the Europe.

Letâ´s hope IL-2FB/AEP/PF will have a lifespan of CFS-series and not tossed in a premature grave of virtual kind(as itâ´s precursor IL-2).

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v257/Triggerhappyfin/ace1_copy.bmp
Heads-on firing was not a safe practice after all ?
Jussi Huotari: It was not specially recommendedâ.....
And later, as the Russians were armed with 20mm cannons, it was unwise to meet them heads-on

PBNA-Boosher
08-10-2004, 02:46 PM
If the range between islands is really as large as you talk about, and since there will be an addon option for FB/PF, I don't think we'll be seeing too many Bf-109's in the air... Something just makes me think they'd be a failure in the pacific theater....

Boosher
_____________________________
"So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you..."
-Gandalf

Tater-SW-
08-10-2004, 04:00 PM
The best fighter with a water cooled engine to fly over water in ww2 would be a P-38. It's good to have a spare engine a few hours from land over shark infested waters---that or a radial that works all shot up.

tater

Baco-ECV56
08-10-2004, 04:52 PM
I would still love to see the shrinked map option become a reality.....

Wuth shrinked maps we could get al the necesary Historicalgeographical locations, in the current FB engine, so we could make historical acurate missions and on line wars...

I donâ´t mind having to fly 45 min. for the distance that took about 3 houres in RL. If we can get the mayor bases we could still do more apelaing historical missions, thhn on a full size map with less terrein represented.

besides I have teh feeling that Il-2/FB/AEp maps are not scale 1:1... so wahts wrong with doing a full pacific maps on scale 1:2 ?

I hope its not too late to see this implemented.

triggerhappyfin
08-10-2004, 04:53 PM
One more thing that comes in my mind, talking of simulators is that we should have some kind of Ground control function.

One or some guys should be enable to participate online as Ground control - having information by recce flights and raports from pilots seeing something of interesse.

This ground control function would have the overall view of the battle and direct the forces in the most effective way to try win the battle.

The community has a greate tool in the scripting system with the ability to assign a surtain amount of fighters and bombers to a map. And a time span for the battle.

The ground control should assign any pilot of there liking to perform a mission needed to fullfill the major plan of the GC in order to make sucsess.

Orders given and orders taken http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif.

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v257/Triggerhappyfin/ace1_copy.bmp
Heads-on firing was not a safe practice after all ?
Jussi Huotari: It was not specially recommendedâ.....
And later, as the Russians were armed with 20mm cannons, it was unwise to meet them heads-on

wavy navy
08-11-2004, 08:36 AM
I'm with Initjust on this one. CFS2 is old and the graphics could be better but it models the global environment. YOu can simulate a complete navigational/historical experience, which to me is where most of the interest lies. It's very satisfying to set up virtual wind, plot the drift, allow for it, fly to target and get back to a moving carrier in real time.It's a complete simulation (boredom n' all) and it's a shame that 4-5 years on PF will be less realistic in this sense.Does il2 even have wind? I don't know, I don't have it.
CFS2 keeps soldiering on because it has global historical appeal, you can model any campaign, for any nation in any location.Your imagination has to make up for the indifferent graphics.The thought of substituting one location for another in PF really grates.e.g We'll get Illustrious and the seafire beautifully modelled but I doubt we'll see any locations they actually operated.

BBB_Lionman
08-12-2004, 12:26 PM
Another interesting thread chaps.

On the map issue, if MS can produce true to sacale real world environments with wind etc with their clunky old CFS 1,2,3 series, how come it is being made such an "unclimbable Everest" by the redoubtable Oleg's team, who have otherwise tackled and beaten MS in every realm of combat simming? That holy grail of a synthesis between the global modelling and dynamic real-time weather of MS FS9 A Century Of Flight and Combat sim flight models and game play like FB+AEP is what everyonme in both markets wants. If Maddox games (or indeed Ubisoft if they control the money & marketing) make this their goal, they will certainly come to monopolise the market even more than they already do. I believe that the MS civilian Flight Simulator series of programs are the most successful in their whole portfolio next to Microsoft Office. That is serious money.

Oleg's great strength is his fanatical attention to aircraft detail and accuracy of flight models. To reign supreme he needs to ensure thbat his team become equally obsessive about the terrain mapping and dynamic weather realism.

That idea for "ground controller" being a new potential role (at least in multiplay online) is a fantastic and most imaginative suggestion! In PF it could be essential to have any chance of navigational accuracy. In Battle of Britain it could be modelled with fascinating accuracy. REALLY "talking to ground control" in real-time online would be utterly gripping and most immersive. Espceially as they could up date one on possible directions from which to expect threat through collating incoming data from all pilots. At long last simualted "Recon" flights would become exciting and functionally useful, especially in co-ops.

Tater-SW-
08-12-2004, 03:11 PM
In CFS are all the towns/cities populated by hundreds or thousands of 3d building objects? How about the trees, are the trees objects, or just a texture. If it isn;t like that, perhaps that is part of the problem with map size in Il-2. If CFS uses 3d building and trees (many many thousands on each il-2 sized chunk-o-map) then I dunno what the problem is.

tater

Baco-ECV56
08-12-2004, 03:21 PM
And maybe, just maybe, the CPU cyacles and RAM are used for the Grate DM and quite good FM IL-2 has..

Remember IL-2 has an FM that models the behaviour of a solid moving inside a fluid (Air) while CFS2 and 3 has tables to determine what the plane should be doing... A simplified (but quite convincing) model that just gets "confused" when it need to determine what happens in a stall or spin...

Donâ´t get me wrong CFS series have a good FM inside the envelope, but in combat you donâ´t stay too long inside your planes envelope...Or just bearlly really.

(Envelope is the curve that defines your planes flight caracteristics) inside the envelope you are in what is known as controled flight, out side, well, either you brake it or loose control http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) But hey who here hasnâ´t used a Stall or a spin as a defensive move ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif:

[This message was edited by Baco-ECV56 on Thu August 12 2004 at 02:33 PM.]