PDA

View Full Version : I have no other choice but make Pacific topic. Post all your Pacific questions here.



crazyivan1970
03-31-2004, 04:20 PM
Now, since i started this topic, if you guys refusing to post your questions and wishes in Pacific Fighters forum...do it here. All other threads regarding Pacific will be moved to appropriate forum. Reason is rather simple...there are few issues that need to be looked at regarding FB/AEP and i don`t want them to be pushed out because of the game that still in development, even that i am as excited about it as you are... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

[This message was edited by crazyivan1970 on Wed March 31 2004 at 03:59 PM.]

crazyivan1970
03-31-2004, 04:20 PM
Now, since i started this topic, if you guys refusing to post your questions and wishes in Pacific Fighters forum...do it here. All other threads regarding Pacific will be moved to appropriate forum. Reason is rather simple...there are few issues that need to be looked at regarding FB/AEP and i don`t want them to be pushed out because of the game that still in development, even that i am as excited about it as you are... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

[This message was edited by crazyivan1970 on Wed March 31 2004 at 03:59 PM.]

crazyivan1970
03-31-2004, 04:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ballbuster1:
Oleg. I just wanted to thank you and your team for all of the hard work you have put into IL-2 and FB. Thank you also for making Pacific Fighters.

I am concenred however regarding the stand alone aspect of this new sim. I had hoped to see that as a "full price" add-on to FB. If that is not possible due to the economic and business issues that may be out of your control, could you at least consider making it "compatiable" with FB. As you are aware many of the US fighters served in many theaters especially the American planes like the P-38, P-47, P-51 etc... I think it would be a shame not to have your products that are released within 18 months of each other not work together, just a shame. This is a beg to make them work together PLEASE!

Thanks for listening and I know you will do your best.

-------------------------
Because I like too! Get a life!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
I suspect it will be a new stand-alone, but since it seems to share the same technology and engine, would it be posible for FB/AEP owners who buy PF, to join all the resources -planes, maps, objects- from both games in one?

This could increase the potential of game enormously, both for FMB fans and DF onliners, and would make it more comfortable than switching between them when playing.

- Dux Corvan -
Ten thousand years of Cantabrian skinning.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FritzFrotz:
PLEASE make the new pacific sim and FB compatible. The eastern front just means so much to me that I´d like to see all improvements to AI and flight models applied to the eastern front FB as well.

How are you going to support two products with patches and additional planes? If someone models for example the Bearcat (assuming it´s not already in PF), will it only appear in FB, PF or both? This kind of merge has been done before with Apache/Havok and Comanche/Hokum -helicopter sims and it was really nice.

It would be great to have british carriers and maybe some really interesting what if -scenarios in Europe 1946 with for example US carriers assisting another beach landing attempt or something... I wouldn´t even mind if PF was released the same way as Forgotten Battles once was, with all the content ofF and PF combined in one package (may I suggest DVD format if you go that route?).

YES I´m happy to finally see the carriers and the pacific, that´s fantastic. I´m just worried about the future of the eastern front FB I like so much...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gato-Loco:
Yes to this!!!!! I'm assuming that there will be some changes in the FB engine to accomodate carrier landings, maybe improved AI, etc. But I think it would be great if you could swap planes, maps, etc. between FB and PF. For exaple, you could use FB's russian planes in PF to model some hypothetical soviet campaign in the Pacific. I hope Oleg and team will make an effort to make planes and objects compatible between engines.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by namhee2:
I believe thas wen Pacific Figther comming out
at standalone is the end of this wunderfull community,german,french,american,britisch,belgium, korean,japan,irland,australien,canadien and I forgotten 100 contrys talk together here.To make extra sim for pacific (New game)is to cut many friends. Everybody like different plans and Battles Fields but IL2 is Russia and now Europe and Y hope in the future Pacific too.
When PF a new game is many friends loose contact.Plaese make PF is a Add on.
Sorry for my englisch i hope it´not to difficult to understand.

http://www.schildersmilies.de/schilder/fluch.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

[This message was edited by crazyivan1970 on Wed March 31 2004 at 03:35 PM.]

VOL_Mountain
03-31-2004, 04:44 PM
~Salute~ All,

A question for The Developers:

Will the Pacific Sim be an add-on (as AEP is) or a new, stand-alone game?

namhee2
03-31-2004, 04:47 PM
Sorry, but where is the oleg maddox´s ready room in PF?

http://www.schildersmilies.de/schilder/fluch.gif

crazyivan1970
03-31-2004, 04:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by namhee2:
Sorry, but where is the oleg maddox´s ready room in PF?

http://www.schildersmilies.de/schilder/fluch.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As you noticed, i copied quote of your thread in.. so it wont get lost. It`s much easier for Oleg to answer all questions about PTO in one thread then in 4-5 diffrent ones, especially when they all are on the same subject "Addon or Stand alone" Ya know what i mean? All for your own benefit http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

namhee2
03-31-2004, 04:57 PM
Merci beaucoup,IVAN THE TERRIBLE...MODERATOR


and the patch???OK I go out.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

http://www.schildersmilies.de/schilder/fluch.gif

Ballbuster1
03-31-2004, 05:02 PM
Thanks Ivan for your even handed and intteligent handling of matters in the forum. ~S~

-------------------------
Because I like too! Get a life!

WTE_Tigger
03-31-2004, 05:47 PM
S!

I am thrilled to see that we will eventually have carriers and pacific opps fully covered. Really very excited.

I am very concerned about the effect that having this game as a non-FB compatible component. I trully believe this would seriously divide the online community and be more harmfull than good.

Please ensure Pacific Fighters is cross compatible with FB or visa/versa.

Creating two flight simes for wwII in seperate theatres will admittabley increase profits, and may be sound economically.

But it means we are going to have to choose between playing FB-AEP or PF enevitably this will mean less people playing the same game.

I recall SFC2 & 2 and being able to copy aircraft from the European based CFS1 into the Pacific Based CFS2. It worked but it was messy.

I understand that the flight/world engine would have to be different in FB to PF due to carrier's and such, but can we please see such innovations either encorperated in such a way to make both games compatible.

I am quite sure we would all pay full price for PF if this was the case. If it was stand alone as well as compatible with FB (ie you can play PF as a seperate game or play FB-AEP/PF) This I think would be the best course of action.

Regards

WTE Tigger
WTE 68th Sentai OIC

Snoop_Baron
03-31-2004, 05:48 PM
Please make the Pacific Fighter compatible with IL2-FB/AEP.

I would be willing to pay twice as much just for the fact that it was compatible.

Just sell two versions one that comes at it discounted price but requires IL2-FB/AEP to work and one that costs more but includes IL2-FB/AEP.

Price it so that the version that requires IL2-FB/AEP costs the same as what you would have charged for a regular standalone PF. And then charge that plus the cost of IL2-FB/AEP at the time of release. This will allow you to make just as much money and more likely more. It will also make support for patches easier (one version instead of two) and will make your customers very happy!

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

:FI:Snoop Baron
http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_01.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
03-31-2004, 09:00 PM
(1) Standalone can be Compatible.

Its been said that PF will be complete stand alone game, but will be compatible. But until Oleg or Luthier confirm the compatible part, we don't know yet.

(2) The amateur internet dogfighters are already Whining about Compatibility because they don't want to see Fw190 in the dogfight servers over Coral Sea. They are Whining we should not be able to mix the planes from FB with the planes of PF...now...

(3) Where is Luthier getting his Spitfire, assuming he has a Spitfire? Did Luthier make his own Spitfire? I don't think so. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

(4) The ideal mix for FB and PF planes are A5M and Ki~27 and YES even Zero against I~16, I~153, SB2 (both versions) and DB3. And...the Hiryu I believe launched A5M (and bomber) carrier ops against Soviet built Chinese planes in 1939.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

jgur1
03-31-2004, 09:12 PM
Ok you got the topic, but where the heck can I submit my request for beta testing?

crazyivan1970
03-31-2004, 09:20 PM
Read think Link guys: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=442105223

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

julien673
03-31-2004, 09:36 PM
Its is the Luthier projet ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

crazyivan1970
03-31-2004, 09:41 PM
He`s a producer as far as i understood

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

VW-IceFire
03-31-2004, 09:45 PM
The SIMPLE fix for dogfight servers is to actually use historical planesets...its really quite that simple. I don't consider that argument valid.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

WUAF_Badsight
03-31-2004, 09:55 PM
can FB v1.22 play with FB v2.0 ?

no

why ask for FB to play with PB ?

its just not going to happen

crazyivan1970
03-31-2004, 10:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
can FB v1.22 play with FB v2.0 ?

no

why ask for FB to play with PB ?

its just not going to happen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

luthier says: "Nothing has been decided yet to the best of my knowledge. The only thing I can say at this point that the two products will be fully compatible and there's no technical limitations in the engine that would prevent a Bf-109 from flying over Iwo Jima or an Aichi Val over Leningrad."


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

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

WWMaxGunz
03-31-2004, 10:28 PM
I wonder how many people have given thought to maybe FB and PF won't be compatible for real reasons and it's not about money?

FB isn't an addon to IL2. The change was too big.

D'ya think maybe it's possible that....?


Neal

WUAF_Gen_Falco
03-31-2004, 10:36 PM
Hello.. I'm very glad to hear about this PF project... but one question comes to my mind..

How big will the maps be?

When we talk about the Pacific.. we talk about vast areas..right ?

PLEASE.. I beg you to make maps large enough to fly for at least 2 hours.. that's just water and some islands...

I don't wanna fly on a map that i can't get lost over the water.. you know, if you calim that PF will be immersive.. it must have maps large enough to get lost on it.. lose headding.. not coming back home.. just like too many pilots did in WWII (sadly).

If i wanna fly over small maps and land on a carrier.. i'll pick a plane in Battlefield 1942 and land on a carrier. In PF.. i wish to make huge island hop.

My sugestion would be this: Create maps large enough to contain at least the main group of islands such as Carolina islands.. Marshal islands.. New guinea and so on.. that would be fair enough to me.

CFS2 was made 3 years ago and you can travel through the whole pacific (i did it from Lae to Wake in a few island hop..took me like 8 hours of flight) isns,T it wonderfull.. so i wish i could do at least the 1/4 of it in a 2004 game.. no?

Well up to you.. but when me and my friends are talking about the pacific.. it means LARGE AREAS.


S~



http://wuaf.com/images/Falco/Header-2.jpg

World United Air Forces
www.wuaf.com (http://www.wuaf.com)

crazyivan1970
03-31-2004, 10:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Gen_Falco:
Hello.. I'm very glad to hear about this PF project... but one question comes to my mind..

How big will the maps be?

When we talk about the Pacific.. we talk about vast areas..right ?

PLEASE.. I beg you to make maps large enough to fly for at least 2 hours.. that's just water and some islands...

I don't wanna fly on a map that i can't get lost over the water.. you know, if you calim that PF will be immersive.. it must have maps large enough to get lost on it.. lose headding.. not coming back home.. just like too many pilots did in WWII (sadly).

If i wanna fly over small maps and land on a carrier.. i'll pick a plane in Battlefield 1942 and land on a carrier. In PF.. i wish to make huge island hop.

My sugestion would be this: Create maps large enough to contain at least the main group of islands such as Carolina islands.. Marshal islands.. New guinea and so on.. that would be fair enough to me.

CFS2 was made 3 years ago and you can travel through the whole pacific (i did it from Lae to Wake in a few island hop..took me like 8 hours of flight) isns,T it wonderfull.. so i wish i could do at least the 1/4 of it in a 2004 game.. no?

Well up to you.. but when me and my friends are talking about the pacific.. it means LARGE AREAS.


S~

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


You guys are something else http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

"Now, the project is a giant undertaking. We're doing over a dozen large maps with nearly a hundred new building types, many dozens new ground vehicles for four different countries, a very long list of ship classes with several ships often modeled in a class, and certainly way more than 10 NEW flyable aircraft, plus a very large number of applicable flyable and AI aircraft carried over from FB."
Posted by luthier at Pacific forum... link above in this thread

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

SKG10_Oiink
04-01-2004, 12:24 AM
To make sure that there is a sort of balance in the game, please put in the George in the mg / cannon version and the all cannon version otherwise you will have a zero /Ki43 vs p51`s game...because the KI84 will proberbly be bandet from servers(unless you can put in bad production / reliability) in the planes

WUAF_Badsight
04-01-2004, 04:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luthier1:

The slowdowns on FB maps come from nothing but buildings - Finnish Gulf with two huge capital cities and an untold number of smaller towns and villages has several hundred thousand buildings! In contrast, even a heavily populated area like Hawaii has nothing of the sort.

In other words, it's not the map size that taxes your resources, it's the objects that are on the map. A lot of Pacific maps have such tiny landmasses that they have less objects on them than your average online map - thus the loading time and resource impact is more comparable to them than to the Finnish Gulf<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ZG77_Nagual
04-01-2004, 09:41 AM
Kin we fly nekked?

XyZspineZyX
04-01-2004, 10:33 AM
Couldn't post a reply in the "merge" thread....

Instead of some theoretical Russian carrier mission in The Pacific, how about getting carriers in the north atlantic ??

rick_475
04-01-2004, 01:27 PM
What can we expect from the campaign department? How many fighter / bomber campaigns are they planning to do? How LONG will they be (30, 60, over 150 missions)?

GAU-8
04-01-2004, 01:51 PM
i dont mind if PF is not compatible with AEP.. but at least make it like AEP in that ALL PREVEIOUS aircraft are available to play!

if not, were really splitting the group here if its a paific stand alone only.

leave it to the servers to make historical maps, and plane sets. let us define who or what we want to fight. splitting us up into FB or PF only is BAD BAD BAD!

WUAF_Gen_Falco
04-01-2004, 02:05 PM
Totally agree with Badsight.. due to this.. then we should have larger maps than the finland gulf then.. sounds logical.. no ?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luthier1:

The slowdowns on FB maps come from nothing but buildings - Finnish Gulf with two huge capital cities and an untold number of smaller towns and villages has several hundred thousand buildings! In contrast, even a heavily populated area like Hawaii has nothing of the sort.

In other words, it's not the map size that taxes your resources, it's the objects that are on the map. A lot of Pacific maps have such tiny landmasses that they have less objects on them than your average online map - thus the loading time and resource impact is more comparable to them than to the Finnish Gulf<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



http://wuaf.com/images/Falco/Header-2.jpg

World United Air Forces
www.wuaf.com (http://www.wuaf.com)

AirOficer
04-01-2004, 02:11 PM
We need a ship like i seen in old documentary. A ammunition ship was hit by a dive bombing japanese plane, WOW what a big bang it made. toustes of realism http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

WUAF_Badsight
04-01-2004, 11:10 PM
Falco .... if it wasnt clear ....... that was posted by one of the Producers of Pacific Battles

Luthier

Blackjack174
04-02-2004, 05:01 PM
will there finally be a NEW demo for this new sim ?

A mission with carrier and intercept torp. bombers sort of thing to see what we pay for would be nice.

The standard sentence "when il2 was good il2fb will be good , and this asures you 100% PF will be mucho better" sux http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

DravenXIII
04-02-2004, 10:17 PM
Before I begin, I'd just like to say that I'm qualified in digital media production specialising in 3D graphics and animation, although I don't work within the games industry I do hope to do so one day!

After buying IL2 FB AEP and starting to produce some custom skins, myself and may other skinners in the modding community have found the UVW texture coordinates on some the new planes to be appalling. One plane in particular is a nightmare to produce skins for, due to the distortion and badly aligned seams.

The skins themselves are good although I've found some to be more detailed than others. While I'm at it, I'd also like to mention the lighting in IL2. I've never really felt that it does its job as well as it should do. At times, the planes can look flat; this tends to be more noticeable on the wings and the underside.

Despite this, overall I'd say that I'm fairly happy with IL FB AEP and I'm really looking forward to Pacific Fighters.

After being bitterly disappointed by another Pacific WWII Sim released by another very well known Software company some years a go, all be it because of a joystick bug, I have high expectations for Pacific Fighters. Moreover, please spare a thought for us skinners in the modding community.

[This message was edited by DravenXIII on Fri April 02 2004 at 11:33 PM.]

AirOficer
04-03-2004, 12:24 PM
I here by request for the pacific maps , that you do two different variations of the same map.
1 small and 1 big of the same map, to make happy booth end users,
[high and low computer power ], too keep everyone happy?
maybe you can give opions at the loading in screen. only an idea? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Oso2323
04-03-2004, 04:34 PM
If there are signifigant improvements to the engine (i.e. weather,AI routines, etc...) there will be a general outcry of "why can't we have that in FB?" I suggest making the two games as compatible as possible to avoid this.

bjoseph
04-03-2004, 07:26 PM
Great news on the Pacific , but what happened
to the Battle for Britan,or at least flying
American missions from the British bases?
When is update for AEP? THANKS,for the best
games in the world! -Joe

XyZspineZyX
04-04-2004, 07:07 AM
Obviously the bean counters will want to make PF as a standalone, (it's a natural approach in they are here to make money). Though to release as such will cause division, unfairly so.
Release PF as a stand alone but keep the engine compatible with FB and let the servers sort it out.
A must be, to look after your customers would be to allow the integration of FB and PF

Luftkillier
04-04-2004, 12:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vagueout:
Obviously the bean counters will want to make PF as a standalone, (it's a natural approach in they are here to make money). Though to release as such will cause division, unfairly so.
Release PF as a stand alone but keep the engine compatible with FB and let the servers sort it out.
A must be, to look after your customers would be to allow the integration of FB and PF<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I paid $75.00 US dollars for Falcon 3.0 when it was first released(bugs and all). I would pay that much for PF AS LONG AS I GET TO USE EVERYTHING I ALREADY HAVE IN FB/AEP http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

04-05-2004, 07:47 AM
Hi!
I live on the Pacific Rim and I enjoy FB/AEP very much.
However I really do not want to see any German aircraft, ships, tanks, vehicles, in Pacific Fighters at all.
I dont want to see any Russian Aircraft, or equipment in Pacific fighters either until the extreme late Pacific War period.

Was a different theatre altogether, there are plenty of RAF and USA planes served in Both in Europe and Pacific.
That makes Pacific Fighters easier to Build, not a Valid reason to include 109 however.

Its in the Name of the Game, Pacific Fighters.
Engine in Pacific Fighters may be modified perhaps ? For Carrier Operations means perhaps = Not Compatible with FB?

Big Deal !! Plenty of People in Europe purchased CFS 2, while still using EAW.

Same story, you dont like Pacific fighter = you dont buy.
Plenty people buy Pacific fighters for Carrier Operations and campaigns as well as Pacific land based campaigns.
Split in Community = does not matter, reality check = Most of the Worlds population lives on the Pacific Rim = Whole new Community.

Check out the downloads area of Net Wings to see how popular Pacific Sims are with only Pacific Fighters in them. ( pardon the Pun)

Cheers

WUAF_Gen_Falco
04-05-2004, 10:33 AM
TOTALLY agree with JG77_GK !!!

The Pacific has nothing to do with Europe theather.. anyway.. the 109 could not even stand as long as the Corsair over the water..since he doesn't have enough fuel.. good reason ?

If you guys are anxious about.. how many player will play PF.. don't worry.. i'm pretty sure that if the game is really nice (With big maps... the engine is already awsome) people from CFS2 will switch to PF.

That will make a lot more to play against. There are plenty of pilots that still flies CFS2.

I trully wish not to see any European aircrafts in PF.. that would just be UNREALISTIC. I wish to have big maps too and good carriers missions..all this..and a good multiplayer system for the game would be 200% perfect. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


S~



http://wuaf.com/images/Falco/Header-2.jpg

World United Air Forces
www.wuaf.com (http://www.wuaf.com)

crazyivan1970
04-05-2004, 10:39 AM
I`m going to let this thread go, by now everybody is confortable with Pacific Fighters forum, so anything PF related will be safely moved there.

Ok? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.