PDA

View Full Version : Luthier, is this true?



crazyivan1970
05-24-2004, 06:48 PM
Youss is pretty reliable source - so if this: http://web1.p15131195.pureserver.info/index.php?page=forum&action=topic&id=1533 true , it`s a big loss for On-Liners IMO http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

Any confirmation on that luthier?

Thanks.

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.

crazyivan1970
05-24-2004, 06:48 PM
Youss is pretty reliable source - so if this: http://web1.p15131195.pureserver.info/index.php?page=forum&action=topic&id=1533 true , it`s a big loss for On-Liners IMO http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

Any confirmation on that luthier?

Thanks.

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.

GT182
05-24-2004, 07:07 PM
Ivan, all thay have is "negative vibes". Lets send in "Kelly's Heros" and straighten em out. LOL http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

"GT182" / "vonSpinmeister"
www.bombs-away.net (http://www.bombs-away.net)
"Fly to Survive, Survive to Fly"

609IAP_Recon
05-24-2004, 07:13 PM
Best they tell us.

Because if this is true, it's really crappy.

Salute!

IV/JG51_Recon

http://www.forgottenskies.com/jg51sig2.jpg

609IAP_Recon
05-24-2004, 07:14 PM
Just sell it for more if it's our money you want Ubi - but don't go split up our small community.

Salute!

IV/JG51_Recon

http://www.forgottenskies.com/jg51sig2.jpg

SKULLS Virga
05-24-2004, 08:08 PM
Yep its true.

Due to increased liability, pressure from lobby groups and the F.A.A., UBI is trying to scrap all of these 60 year old warbirds. Pacific Fighters will feature Cessna 172's painted in Navy blue with white star or Imperial grey with red sun.

http://img68.photobucket.com/albums/v206/SKULLS_Virga/Signature_2.jpg

SkyChimp
05-24-2004, 08:09 PM
Why shouldn't it be a new sim?

Euros *****ed when the Mustang and Thunderbolt were added. They *****ed when the Zero and Frank were added. They said they belonged in their own sim.

OK, now there will be a different sim with American planes and Japanese planes, right where they belong. Now they ***** because there are no Bfs and Fws.

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

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

crazyivan1970
05-24-2004, 08:17 PM
I fail to understand you Chimp, do you play on line? This does not consern those who plays off line, but has direct impact on on-line community.

Let`s say you play on line...Tell me how having FW`s and 109s hurts PF? It doesn`t, unless you join crappy server. AEP could exist within PF and make things easier for everyone who plays on line. Not just my opinion, quiet a few ppl have the same one.

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.

SkyChimp
05-24-2004, 08:23 PM
If you want to fly FW, play FB. If you want to fly Corasirs, play PF.

What's hard about that?

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

Bearcat99
05-24-2004, 08:39 PM
It doesnt matter to me. Id like to be able to jump from a PF server to a FB server but if I cant then I cant. I will still buy and fly PF with no hesitation whatsoever. I will keep on flying FB.. at least till BoB comes out because I prefer the ETO planes and scenery but PF will be on my HD the day it is released regardless.... I dont see how this will be such a bad thing at all for the community. It will split the community for a period.. but there are some simmers who will NEVER like the PTO. There are some who dont care for the ETO... in fact they still fly CFS2 religiously. As long as the product is good, runs good on my rig, and keeps the genre alive I dont care. Like i said Im getting oit regardless to wheter its a stand alone or an add on. Im not a big fan of the PTO... but if i want to fly in the PTO for a spell.. I want to do it in PF. Ive got CFS1,2&3,Warbirds FA,and LOMAC on my shelf... I fly FB. Im a WW2 simfreak.... and FB (and I am 99.8% sure PF will be at least AS GOOD)is my sim of choice........... so bring it on, Im there on day 1.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://magnum-pc.netfirms.com/mudmovers/index.htm)

USE THAT X45 STICK AS A BUTTON BAY!

crazyivan1970
05-24-2004, 08:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
If you want to fly FW, play FB. If you want to fly Corasirs, play PF.

What's hard about that?

_Regards,_
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/hellsig.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You never hosted i take it. Oh well.

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.

Aztek_Eagle
05-24-2004, 08:50 PM
dunno why u guys act like if there was a big surprise as they has always say it will be stand alone.... and they are working may be in a compatible game... but u guys dont seem to understed\nd what a compatible game means, if u have the 2 games they work as one... so.. but if u just want pacific it is ok u dont need fb nor ace expansion pack... but they havent given any official word that they will make them compatible, oleg said they were thinking about it..... but defenetly it is stand alone, but may be compatible...

Aztek_Eagle
05-24-2004, 08:55 PM
and stop the stupidity complaning... ho yea, when il2 was and fb came out, they just made it as a new game to get our money.... ho and they did the same wiht ace expansion pack.... ho and now they just wanna make pacific as a new sim to get our money again.... oleg shuld make a whole new engine to justify to put a price on it.... justify... come on dont be stupid ppl, you guys think a company holds it self togetter by eating air??? how many years has pass since the il2 first came out.. u think evrything must be free... stupid,.... how are they gona pay their employes and future projets, they make something, they sell it to us, u wanna it u buy it... they dont have any obligation to give us free patches...

Obi_Kwiet
05-24-2004, 08:55 PM
It's saying, in the most negativly possible way, that it's stand one PF only. We still have FB. It's just that if it were an add-on you'd have to have FB and Aces, and that'd drive people away. If if were an addon for FB or AEP, then there would be the communities, with: FB only, ACE's Xpack/ PF with FB, and PF with ACES. Making, 4 communities. Now there will Be just the old FB an ACE's community, and PF on the Side, so any one with PF can fly that. Also, if you want a pacific sim you don't want to spen 70 on previous stuf needed to play it. Its realy not economicly feasable to do it the other way. This community is a small percentage of the entire number of people that buy this sim to make it profatable. Oleg always tries to think of us first though. Trust me, it has to be this way.

ZG77_Lignite
05-24-2004, 09:12 PM
Its seemed reasonably obvious to me from the start, I don't see how it would be possible to incorporate the old FB content in with the new PF content (even though thats what I want). Thats just me though, I'm not very imaginative.

Regardless, it would be nice, and fiscally 'smart', to put a decision on this and stick to it, let the chips fall as they will. The sooner its stated publically, the sooner the 'hype' machine can smooth it over (don't mean that in a negative way, thats just what will happen regardless of which decision is made).

Well, if I had a vote, I'd say include all of Il2/FB content with the new PF content and mash it together as neatly as possible, stick it all on a giant CDset/DVD, and sell it for the full $40-50, and don't pay attention to the @#$%^@#$, they are gonna @#$%^ no matter what you do.

CHDT
05-24-2004, 10:11 PM
"Tell me how having FW`s and 109s hurts PF? It doesn`t, unless you join crappy server. "


Is it so easy to find servers which are not "crappy"?

It's rather the rule than the exception to find for instance Normandy servers with Hayate or Pacific islanders servers with Focke-Wulf, of course with wrong or gonzo skins! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Try to find a real FR server without the GPS, with a clever planes choices! Almost impossible!

Ruy Horta
05-24-2004, 11:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Why shouldn't it be a new sim?

Euros *****ed when the Mustang and Thunderbolt were added. They *****ed when the Zero and Frank were added. They said they belonged in their own sim.

OK, now there will be a different sim with American planes and Japanese planes, right where they belong. Now they ***** because there are no Bfs and Fws.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

God you are a obsessed SkyChimp!!

1. It does hurt a flight sim community to be split.

2. It isn't a bad thing if PF is a standalone, as long as it carries the old material with it.

3. Offline you can play the campaign YOU like.

4. Online you can play any type of game offered

- STRICT PTO
- STRICT ETO
- STRICT MTO
- ANY COMBI YOU/HOST CHOOSES

Now personally I am a purist, I like my planesets based on history, but I am not blind to enjoying a fruits of such a broad product.

There is a chance that IL2FB/AEP/PF will become a broad based product, with great depth in what an be done with a little imagination. Now don't let your hatred of Europeans come in the way of simple sense.

Against eachother in free fights, historical match ups AND the latter including the Russo-Japanese campaigns as far as possible.

I am european, I do not whine about US a/c, I in fact love many of the current US types in AEP and I'd love to try all these new a/c. I would not let my dislike of you (as in Harry Monkey) come in the way of enjoying US steel.

You'll see my in virtual Wildcats and Corsairs soon, and today you can sometimes catch me in P-40s and P-38s (the latter is a nice a/c indeed).

So Skychimp, please stop spiking every other post with some stupid comments on Europe, Europeans or our whining on US planes.

If only it were up to me as moderator, I'd have a nice and friendly word with you that you couldn't ignore. You cannot help but be a demagogue...

Ruy Horta

VFA-195 Snacky
05-24-2004, 11:59 PM
Could this whole argument be because of the lack of confidence in the Japanese aircraft vs the US hardware?? Guys want to fly thier 190s and 109s in the Pacific because they are afraid they wont have a chance in a Japanese aircraft. Sounds far fetched, but could be a valid reason why this is such a stink. I can kind of see folks wanting to fly thier favorite planes from the LW or VVS but then I can understand the position of the historical folks who want to keep it accurate. Where do you draw the line?? IL2 started off that way with only the aircraft serving in that theatre being added, but it grew. Perhaps PF will do the same??

http://www.x-plane.org/users/531seawolf/b_a_presidential_first.jpg
"Navy1, Call the Ball- Roger Ball."


**Opinions expressed are not those of UbiSoft or Eagle Dynamics**

H4wkw1nd
05-25-2004, 12:29 AM
The point SkyChimp et al do not understand is that the scuttle-butt is that Ubi is going to cut any further development of FB/AEP so as to increase FP's attractiveness. That means no further patches and no further add-on a/c.

Now if all of FB/AEP's planeset is included with PF, that isn't going to be a problem - well, not unless you don't plan on purchasing FP !

crazyivan wasn't complaining about PF being a stand-alone product. He is worried, like many of us, that if PF doesn't include FB/AEP's fleet of a/c, it is going to fragment the IL-2 community further and to make matters worse, flyable a/c which we have been anticipating like the Spit XIV and Tempest may never see the light of day.

What on earth this has to do with "Euro-whiners" is way beyond me. Sounds like some of us have some serious issues http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ...

H4wkw1nd
05-25-2004, 12:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snacky1:
Could this whole argument be because of the lack of confidence in the Japanese aircraft vs the US hardware?? Guys want to fly thier 190s and 109s in the Pacific because they are afraid they wont have a chance in a Japanese aircraft. Sounds far fetched, but could be a valid reason why this is such a stink. I can kind of see folks wanting to fly thier favorite planes from the LW or VVS but then I can understand the position of the historical folks who want to keep it accurate. Where do you draw the line?? IL2 started off that way with only the aircraft serving in that theatre being added, but it grew. Perhaps PF will do the same??

http://www.x-plane.org/users/531seawolf/b_a_presidential_first.jpg
"Navy1, Call the Ball- Roger Ball."


**Opinions expressed are not those of UbiSoft or Eagle Dynamics**<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Snacky, a/c like the Ki-84 and N1Kx-J are more than a match for any iron the Allies can put up. That said, there will be a period during the middle of the Pacific conflict, before the Frank & George entered service, that the US will have a major advantage.

YouthInAsia
05-25-2004, 12:49 AM
I agree with Bearcat, I'll end up buying it regardless of it's status as a stand-alone or an add-on. I'm relatively new to the IL2/FB/Aces community and when I first got IL2 and even FB there weren't a lot of servers to play them on until you upgraded - which is fair enough. Since I bought Aces it's been easy to find a server to play on, but we're not exactly talking the amount of servers that say a CounterStrike game can be found on - point being that if we don't have an influx of new people into the community then the amount of servers might dwindle. I love the game either way, and the PF screenshots look awesome, but when PF comes out I'll probably play it more than FB - which is unfortunate since I'm only really at the tip of the FB "Iceberg".

Just my 2p http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif

Ruy Horta
05-25-2004, 01:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snacky1:
Could this whole argument be because of the lack of confidence in the Japanese aircraft vs the US hardware?? Guys want to fly thier 190s and 109s in the Pacific because they are afraid they wont have a chance in a Japanese aircraft.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could you please stop thinking in these "national" terms, the concern is continuing the broad appeal of this product in terms of possible a/c, maps etc.

Those who like Japanese planes will fly japanese planes, those who like BnZ birds and fly Luftwaffe in the ETO might very well opt for US crates in the PTO (I know from experience WB).

Why limit choice?

PF a stand alone, fine, most of us will be happy to pay the full price!!

PF a PTO only spin off...that would be a disaster, not to speak a huge waste of resources.

As a community we should give the right signal, not create the opportunity for UBI so that thy can turn out limited spin off product splitting the community and simply limiting your game play experience.

As the update system has worked it was perfect, since each add on or stand alone sequal built upon all that had been created in the original.

A limited spin off is exactly that...LIMITED!

Its nothing about fear of what to fly.

There are late war Japanese ueberplanes, the offline AI can be beaten regardless of what you fly and if you are not limited in "nationlistic bias" you can even fly for the other side...

Me, I'll be flying P-40s, P-38s, Wilcats and Corsairs and even the odd US Naval bomber...but that won't hold me from flying the odd Japanese crate.

Again the thing is about CHOICE.

Lets hope that the men behind PF are wise enough to see that the broad appeal of PF with the "old" AEP map and plane set is far wider than a limited spin off.

Ruy Horta

MPortus_
05-25-2004, 01:49 AM
Go home UBI http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Hope the day when developers can publish their work online without the need of third party publishers is not too far away.

arcadeace
05-25-2004, 02:02 AM
Its an interesting discussion with most points of view. Regardless of differences it would remain clarified and to the point(s) if some posts weren't pontificating and condemning. Any excuse for a soapbox to justify a chip on the shoulder http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/222_1082457373_222_1082441075_airaces.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
05-25-2004, 03:11 AM
No, the FP CD should NOT include FB planes or maps because Luthier1 stated that both games will work together if you buy both FB and FP and install both.

But Luthier1 stated that much earlier, when this FP board opened. Something may have changed.

Buying both games and mixing them--maximizing Profit and maximizing Playability for all. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Longjocks
05-25-2004, 03:17 AM
Seriously guys, stop being a bunch of prancing girls. There will be more simulations in the future that will have your precious planes. Play FB until then. Maybe even play a little PF.

You act as if your life is coming to an end. If you see a huge chunk of rock shooting across the sky, say a couple of kilometres across, then start to panic. Your favourite game not doing everything you want it to doesn't rate highly on a normal, intelligent person's give-a-****-o-meter.

http://users.tpg.com.au/mpdeans/misc/midgesign2.gif "Thanks for the inspiration to rise above you all."

Ruy Horta
05-25-2004, 03:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
No, the FP CD should NOT include FB planes or maps because Luthier1 stated that both games will work together __if you buy both FB and FP and install both.__

But Luthier1 stated that much earlier, when this FP board opened. Something may have changed.

Buying both games and mixing them--maximizing Profit and maximizing Playability for all. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd buy into that if that were the case, as long as we get ahead and not loose the versatility offered by this great series.

As for "having a life"

Sure, real life will be just good (or bad) if Ubi & Co. opted to go for the limited spin off way with no AEP competability, but it will limit the marketability of PF...maybe not short term, but these sims work long term.

Sims are not the same as FPS games, you will never make an instant financial hit.

What makes this project so nice is having the chance to have an unprecedented number of flyable aircraft in a single gaming enviorement, on a level only being offered by pay for play products.

Fine if the whole new and improved BoB-engine is going to be a new start, but since PF will be limited in its advances - in effect soldiering on with the old engine - it simply doesn't make any sense other than SHORT term profit for Ubi & Co, without taking any notice of the community and the longer term appeal of this product.

Fine if PF will be a standalone, as long as it is COMPETABLE with or will port the current planes, maps and campaigns.

The series went too far to be trown overboard at 11:50, the word here is "waste"...

Want a clean slate, start with BoB, a really new game.

But yes, life will go on, but this is the Ubi board - not the real life board.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

Ruy Horta

[This message was edited by rhorta on Tue May 25 2004 at 02:58 AM.]

Aaron_GT
05-25-2004, 03:32 AM
Bearcat wrote:
"It doesnt matter to me. Id like to be able to jump from a PF server to a FB server"

Don't see why you won't be able to. If you have an FB/AEP install and a PF install and hyper lobby supports both (let's face it - that's where people play, not Ubi servers) I don't see what the problem is.

Aaron_GT
05-25-2004, 03:34 AM
I hope some planes that are in FB get carried over as PF versions at least (and no reason why they shouldn't).

Blenheim IV
Spitfire
Hurricane
PBY
P36
P40
P51
P47
P39
Buffalo
A6M
etc

NN_EnigmuS
05-25-2004, 03:51 AM
if Pf is non compatible with AEP it will be a shame lol
sorry but some PF plane are awaited for AEP too like bostonA20/B20 who served on eastearn front and in normandy too
i agree with crazyivan on this one as a net player sorry want it with aep or not lol

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

MPortus_
05-25-2004, 05:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:


Don't see why you won't be able to. If you have an FB/AEP install and a PF install and hyper lobby supports both (let's face it - that's where people play, not Ubi servers) I don't see what the problem is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem is if they are not compatible you can't mix them. It should be interesting to match a yak3 with a corsair and things like that.

Besides, it will be annoying to change rooms in HL.

ElAurens
05-25-2004, 05:42 AM
Ivan, the sad truth is that most owners of FB are offliners, splitting up the tiny online community is of no concern to them. This is a very strange point of view, as the offline crowd would never see an out of theatre AC unless they themselves put it in. Bizzare.

Also, I'm sensing a bit of revenge on UBI's part for Oleg having a different publisher for his WW2 RTS.

This may also doom future HyperLobby support as well. driving us back to UBI's gaming "service".

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

HamishUK
05-25-2004, 05:48 AM
The advantage of having a crossover aircraft base for FB/PF I can see is that we can fulfill a small part of our Med theatre. Wildcats and Hellcats operated with the FAA over Europe. I see no reason why there shouldn't be a crossover.

I thought the whole idea of FB/PF is the 'what if' scenerio? All games are in some ways 'what ifs' whether we play Coop or otherwise.

What's saying we can't use the vast plane database that allows Russia to fight Japan (as it really did)?

http://www.blitzpigs.com/photos/Ham1.jpg

AWL_Spinner
05-25-2004, 06:53 AM
PF is not of much interest to me as a concept because I don't have much interest in the theatre. Having said that, I'm going to buy it anyway as I love flight sims, I love carrier ops and it looks beautiful. The IL2 line has given me much more enjoyment per buck than any other game(s) I've owned.

I really don't care if it's standalone and doesn't contain FB material, it's a PTO sim just like the original IL2 was a Russian front sim, hence I don't see any need to include the entire back catalogue in it when you have FB sitting on your computer.

I agree with some of the other posters re: the split community not being as drastic a thing as some make out. At the moment, some nights I want to play DF, some nights online wars. In the future I'll be able to play PF some nights, FB others.

I anticipate waiting around longer for online war missions to fill up, but then that goes with the territory. However I don't think this effect will be too bad - those in the primary interest group for PF probably don't overlap much with those interested in Eastern Front co-ops. I know that's a generalisation, but I suspect there's some truth in it.

What I WOULD be ticked off with is if clearly-FB relevant aircraft in development don't ever get included in FB, instead being locked into a non-cross-compatible PF to heighten it's appeal. Things like flyable B25s, Beaufighters, etc. That's just contemptable marketing and there's no need for it.

If there is one last big patch for FB before PF is released containing all the ETO relevant aircraft, then great, everyone wins. Right? I can see it's about time that 1C:Maddox started concentrating all efforts on BoB, it's got to happen sooner or later, eh? I'd rather see a second tier BoB expansion take in the Med than another extension to IL2.

Cheers, Spinner

http://www.alliedwingedlegion.com/members/signatures/spinner_sig.jpg

CdtWeasel
05-25-2004, 07:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
If you want to fly FW, play FB. If you want to fly Corasirs, play PF.

What's hard about that?

_Regards,_
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/hellsig.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

what if i want to fly a corsair against a 109?

BlitzPig_DDT
05-25-2004, 07:32 AM
The biggest draw for PF for me isn't flying slow prop planes over mile and miles (and miles) of flat ocean. Even if they happen to be Grummans.

No, it's mixing and matching the 2 plane sets as we were told we'd be able to.

No word here from Luthier. What's the situation? PF could be stand alone and allow AEP planes in from people who had AEP. Much like M$ handled the Mech Packs for MW4. In fact, it would be stupid to not do so. You'd buy PF as a stand alone product, and if you want access to the AEP planes and maps for online use, you have to buy AEP as well. win/win for everyone.

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

NN_EnigmuS
05-25-2004, 07:33 AM
and what if you want play a bostonA20 or a beaufighter on western front lol?

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

Ruy Horta
05-25-2004, 08:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CdtWeasel:
what if i want to fly a corsair against a 109?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed...not only the PTO in a narrow sense, but China, Mongolia and the Soviet advance in '45.

FAA against targets in Norway.

USN against targets in Southern France.

USN against targets in North Africa.

The crossover is very interesting indeed, finally enabling some scenarios away from the beaten path.

As long as AEP and PF are compatible you have a win win situation on all fronts.

Don't like mixed servers, play on those that are strictly PTO.

Want a fully mixed set, go to a free for all server.

Want to try some exotic match up, host your own game or find one that matches your taste.

A narrow PF is doable, but a waste of resources and in the end a lost opportunity.

Ruy Horta

FWdreamer
05-25-2004, 09:43 AM
S!
Going to agree with Ivan and the others, 99% of my time is online and losing all the FB stuff for PF will really hurt the onine community. I love the what if scenarios and hopping in my 109 against a hellcat will be great fun. Though to be honest flying my short ranged 109 over endless ocean is a bit unnerving hehe.
If they sell PF as stand alone, hopefully we can do like cfs1 and 2 and swap the planes together.

Fwdreamer

BlitzPig_DDT
05-25-2004, 10:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>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.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=442105223

Simple question - Has this changed?

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

ZG77_Nagual
05-25-2004, 10:24 AM
What I'd like to see is both - in a way. That is that PF could be loaded as an addon to FB or as a standalone product. I have no problem understanding why they wouldn't want to roll FB/aep into it, but it would be cool if PF had the possibility to update and expand FB or run as a standalone. Make the job of writing it harder, but still a cool idea.

Hoping for it to include FB could get to be clunky. It looks to me like the trend is to separate theatres/eras and increase the detail, and precision of the simm

Tater-SW-
05-25-2004, 10:49 AM
This is an issue? Over $40?

For the adults here, that's a few beers, or a dinner. Get over it.

For the kids... pick out a cheaper pair of sneakers, or go mow a couple lawns.

I can't believe $40 is an issue for people that by definition have pretty edgy gaming rigs.

tater

LEXX_Luthor
05-25-2004, 10:57 AM
ZG77_Nagual:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>PF could be loaded as an addon to FB or as a standalone product.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is similar to my understanding from Luthier1's earlier posts. However, he seemed to indicate that FP would not be so much loaded as "addon" but that FP would read FB data files into FP running game.

To do this, you must still buy both products.

Ruy Horta
05-25-2004, 11:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
What I'd like to see is both - in a way. That is that PF could be loaded as an addon to FB or as a standalone product. I have no problem understanding why they wouldn't want to roll FB/aep into it, but it would be cool if PF had the possibility to update and expand FB or run as a standalone. Make the job of writing it harder, but still a cool idea.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BRAVO...I mean are people so narrow minded they cannot follow this line of thought?

As for the money, don't play the "cheap git" card, since it has little to do with it. For Christ Sake for this series I bought 2 PC updates, a Cougar set and literally thousands of dollars worth of books.

I still have a real life, don't worry, and even plenty of spare change left, but a waste is a waste regardsless how you look at it.

Minimally I'd like to see all a/c and the most common maps available.

Best would be a form of compatibility.

Don't want to include FB/AEP, fine, good marketing, have people buy both to have the full functionality, but a least make PF compatible with AEP.

There are so many options to make this work and make it pay in the end as well. Even if you cannot port all the maps, the current online pacific island and desert maps show what can be done with little.

The full a/c set is this series' best asset.

Ruy Horta

crazyivan1970
05-25-2004, 11:26 AM
Just to share some of my thoughts. -

I completely don`t understand people who vouches for pure pacific with 40+ planes and whatever else is coming with it. I don`t see any logical reason separating two sims that based on the same engine and furthermore abandoning one of them. By all means i am not against PTO but... i am against separation. I want to be able to host VFC COOPs for my friends and guests and not to jump from one game to another from one lobby to anyoher, i want to be able to have one big happy dedicated server where i can load different missions from different theaters, PTO, ETO, BOB...etc. For those who playes off line, it doesn`t matter, for on-liners it does. And most importantly, i want all the changes that is being done to the engine in AEP, graphical and whatever else they changing. I just don`t get it, really... why PF can`t be stand alone with 140 or whaterver planes and much more maps? Where is the logic?

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.

DuxCorvan
05-25-2004, 01:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>For those who playes off line, it doesn`t matter, for on-liners it does.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm an off-liner and mission-builder and IT DOES MATTER. The wider the choice of elements, available, the wider the posibilities for mission building.

I also want the Beaufighter in Europe, and the first B-17s. I don't mind fighting a Nate inside a Chinese I-153, or being a Tony pilot defending the Kuriles against Yaks in August 1945.

WW2 was not a closed-compartment ship. And having two separate sims make it also uncomfortable for those who just like every scenario.

- Dux Corvan -
http://www.uploadit.org/DuxCorvan/Altamira2.jpg
Ten thousand years of Cantabrian skinning.

Zen--
05-25-2004, 01:50 PM
For me personally, I don't see any reason to buy PF if it doesn't include AEP and is a non-compatible stand alone game.

I'm not interested in the PF, never have been and probably never will I guess. PF is not going to be a new game, it's going to be AEP in the pacific. Same graphics, same feel, same game, different planes is all.

If they shipped PF with everything that AEP had or at least made it compatible where you could combine the two, then I'd buy it because I could have the whole IL2 universe at my finger tips and could create and play any kind of mission I liked however it suits me personally. Thats value imho.

Paying 40 bucks or whatever for a different planes and maps using the same game engine and same graphics does not sound like value to me, but thats because I don't care for the PF.

If AEP is not included or is not made compatible, I won't be getting PF, I'll stick to AEP.

-Zen-

MetalG.
05-25-2004, 02:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
If you want to fly FW, play FB. If you want to fly Corasirs, play PF.

What's hard about that?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Totally agree.

I prefer having a stand alone Pacific sim without all the maps and planes that do not belong there. I don't mind paying the price of a full game because that is what it will be IMO.

Flakwalker
05-25-2004, 02:16 PM
If that is true, why we can be here, on a Pacific Fighter forum?

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VFA-195 Snacky
05-25-2004, 09:08 PM
What the heck, combine them.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/531seawolf/b_a_presidential_first.jpg
"Navy1, Call the Ball- Roger Ball."


**Opinions expressed are not those of UbiSoft or Eagle Dynamics**

Copperhead310th
05-25-2004, 09:36 PM
No honestly i think that a standalone PF will be Great. After all BoB Holds NO intrest to me at all. & the us fans are gonna be left out of the loop entirely there. so the Euro guys are up in arms again...so what? what else is new?
FW's & Me's don't belong over Iwo Jima. it's that simple. I just think that this is the better way to go. Now if it's NOT a stand alone & they put those stupid http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gifgerman aircraft in a PACIFIC sim....that would keep me from buying it. Like it or lumpo it PF is going to be a stand-alone product & i think that's the best news iv'e heard since they anounced FB.

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.310thVFS.com)

Box-weasel
05-25-2004, 09:42 PM
http://gvtc.com/~thh/teapot.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
05-25-2004, 09:58 PM
SkyChimp:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If you want to fly FW, play FB. If you want to fly Corasirs, play PF.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If you want to fly Swedish Gladiator, play FB. If you want to fly Chinese Gladiator, play FP and load data from FB.

What's hard about that?

Not one reason has yet been given here for no Compatibility. There is however a repeated attempt to define Compatibility as conflicting with Stand~Alone. This is how Desperate some at this webboard are. What they are trying to protect is not known, but may be related to their lack of knowledge of WW2 history and their Fear of talking about it. I dunno.

invun
05-25-2004, 10:26 PM
Horrible news if it were ture http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/1072.gif

faustnik
05-25-2004, 10:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
No honestly i think that a standalone PF will be Great. After all BoB Holds NO intrest to me at all. & the us fans are gonna be left out of the loop entirely there. so the Euro guys are up in arms again...so what? what else is new?
FW's & Me's don't belong over Iwo Jima. it's that simple. I just think that this is the better way to go. Now if it's NOT a stand alone & they put those stupid http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gifgerman aircraft in a PACIFIC sim....that would keep me from buying it. Like it or lumpo it PF is going to be a stand-alone product & i think that's the best news iv'e heard since they anounced FB.
_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Copperhead,

I was looking forward to taking Marlets up in historically based missions against Fw200s and Bf109s. The F6F and F4U were flying with the Royal Navy in the same vicinity as Fw190s and 109s. Even USN Wildcats fought Moraines and Hawks during operation Torch. All good stuff! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

TAGERT.
05-25-2004, 11:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Just to share some of my thoughts. -

I completely don`t understand people who vouches for pure pacific with 40+ planes and whatever else is coming with it. I don`t see any logical reason separating two sims that based on the same engine and furthermore abandoning one of them. By all means i am not against PTO but... i am against separation. I want to be able to host VFC COOPs for my friends and guests and not to jump from one game to another from one lobby to anyoher, i want to be able to have one big happy dedicated server where i can load different missions from different theaters, PTO, ETO, BOB...etc. For those who playes off line, it doesn`t matter, for on-liners it does. And most importantly, i want all the changes that is being done to the engine in AEP, graphical and whatever else they changing. I just don`t get it, really... why PF can`t be stand alone with 140 or whaterver planes and much more maps? Where is the logic?

V!
Regards,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed 100%!!

I dont care if PF includes the campain aspects from IL2FB.. If I want to play OFFLINE Ill just play IL2FB.. But I hope that PF will include the airplanes and maps from IL2FB so we can do as you described... One big happy ONLINE family! The ability to do everthing we have been doing up to now, only we would be doing it from PF enviorment.

That and more... In that now we would be able to pit a F4u againts a Fw190 or Bf109.. Skychimp might not find that of value.. but that kind of thing is what did happen with the Brits use of the F4u...

One of the main things that has made IL2FB so popular and long lasting is the OFFLINE support... I just hope ubi will reconsider and support the OFFLINE crowd now.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

VFA-195 Snacky
05-26-2004, 02:45 AM
Will BOB have Corsairs and Zeros?? just curious.
My conflict is that I understand where Ivan is comming from with wanting everything combined, but I also understand the folks wanting a stand alone sim with historically correct plane sets.
This is more of an online issue than anything else.
The only real way to solve this delima is to let the community vote on it and whatever happens in that vote is final with no whining thereafter. This of course if the Dev team has that option to go either way with PF. If they are already locked into doing a stand alone then all of this is for nothing and we have to deal with it and move on.
If the aircraft from AEP is combined with PF then cool, if PF is stand alone the cool.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/531seawolf/b_a_presidential_first.jpg
"Navy1, Call the Ball- Roger Ball."


**Opinions expressed are not those of UbiSoft or Eagle Dynamics**

LEXX_Luthor
05-26-2004, 03:21 AM
Snacky1:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If the aircraft from AEP is combined with PF then cool, if PF is stand alone the cool.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>From my understanding, FP will be Stand Alone whether it plays with FB or not. You don't need FB to play FP, but if you buy both, you could mix them.

Snacky1:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>but I also understand the folks wanting a stand alone sim with historically correct plane sets. This is more of an online issue than anything else.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is an "online" issue only for the very few "online" pure internet dogfighters who Vote at this webboard. Our FB servers can BAN Ki~84 over the Berlin map if they wish. FP servers should be able to BAN Fw~190 over Guadacanal maps if they wish. We already have our online historical plane sets created by server restrictions.

Currently in FB we can build online "Med" missions involving P~38, yet nothing is stopping us from creating online Finnish/Soviet missions with P~38. We have thus found a contradiction in your statement about historical planesets only in a flight sim. Also, FP working with FB will allow historical plane sets not found in the narrow USA Pacific, such as Japanese Ki~27 against Chinese Gladiator.


Our focus on historical plane sets proves that we Fear the Pacific FP "community" more than we Fear Oleg's FB aircraft. So lets talk about this "community"...

05-26-2004, 03:46 AM
I reckon Pacific Fighters will be the best Sim yet to come out of the 1C gaming house!

I reckon most will jump at the chance to have it in their collection!

I will be spending most of my time using it On and Off line!
I guess so will a great many others.

Split Community? Talk to somebody who cares, it was a BIG Community to start with, I reckon at least 80% of Il-2/FB/AEP community will buy anyway.

Whats the bottom line people ? = $
Are we being ripped off ? = No Way!

We getting the best flight Sim yet = Finances to create Sims comming in the future like BoB.

Nobody loses.

ElAurens
05-26-2004, 04:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snacky1:

The only real way to solve this delima is to let the community vote on it and whatever happens in that vote is final with no whining thereafter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There will be no "voting".

This will strictly be a business decision made by UBI. I am sure the bigwigs in Paris have cringed every time a free aircraft add on has happened in IL2/FB/AEP. Closing the door on the IL2 universe will allow UBI/1C to sell us a "new" sim, Pacific Fighters, and let them set a new precedant of strictly paid add ons, avialable by download only, all under the guise of it being a significantly different game engine that won't allow the old AC to merge with the new sim.

They will then sell us an expansion pack with all of the original FB content at a later date, or, have a "Gold" version that includes PF and FB/AEP that is not compatible with the current AEP, and charge $60 to $80 for it.


Be Sure!!!

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

LEXX_Luthor
05-26-2004, 05:29 AM
El, you know, that is the only reason I have seen yet that I can understand as logical for no Compatibility--a pure business reason. Not that I like it, but I can understand it totally. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Schmouddle-WT
05-26-2004, 06:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
El, you know, that is the __only__ reason I have seen yet that I can understand as logical for no Compatibility--a pure business reason. Not that I like it, but I can understand it totally. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed 100%!

BlitzPig_DDT
05-26-2004, 07:28 AM
As I have mentioned before, El's comment of selling an expansion pack is a great way to go. Ubi gets to charge for code we already have (much of which they didn't get to charge for the first go 'round, some they'd get to charge for a 2nd time). Best part is, we'd be glad to do it. I would. Much rather have choice, even if it means paying a bit more.

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

Copperhead310th
05-26-2004, 10:18 PM
well what ever. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I hate the idea of 109'z flying over the Phill. it just SUCKS. how hard is it to change lobby's on HL? good God man. basically if this happens i quit. After 3 yrs. I will quit if they don't make PF a stand-alone. it'll pi$$ me off that bad. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.310thVFS.com)

Copperhead310th
05-26-2004, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
well what ever. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I hate the idea of 109'z flying over the Phill. it just SUCKS. how hard is it to change lobby's on HL? good God man. basically if this happens i quit. After 3 yrs. I will quit if they don't make PF a stand-alone. it'll pi$$ me off that bad. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

TAGERT.
05-26-2004, 10:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
well what ever. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I hate the idea of 109'z flying over the Phill. it just SUCKS. how hard is it to change lobby's on HL? good God man. basically if this happens i quit. After 3 yrs. I will quit if they don't make PF a stand-alone. it'll pi$$ me off that bad. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Please tell me you are kidding? Or maybe you know something? Or maybe you are confused?

The way I understand it is a 109 flying over Phill will be a choice.. Something you will have to decide to do, not forced to do.

In that PF will be stand alone... The offline play will be historic.. i.e. no 109 flying over Phill.

The only UNKNOWN here is *IF* the aircraft and maps from IL2FB will be included into PF... Not the OFF-LINE campaigns from FB.. just the aircraft and maps. In doing so it would allow the ON-LINE community to remain in tack. It would provide servers a lot of flexibility to make some very cool DF servers that link some EURO and PACIFIC scenarios all in ONE forum (Hyperlobby) all in ONE game (PF) all in ONE session.

Granted, it would also allow some WHAT IF scenarios.. You know.. 109 flying over Phill.. From which I can only assume this is what bothers you... the unrealisticness of the WHAT IF's.. Well.. if that is the case, then you better del IL2FB from your hard drive now.. Because a ZERO over LONDON is as unrealistic as a 109 over Phill

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

LEXX_Luthor
05-27-2004, 12:35 AM
Copperhead310th:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>After 3 yrs. I will quit if they don't make PF a stand-alone. it'll pi$$ me off that bad.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>S! is for See Ya!

They have read these threads, and they Know that Compatibility does not rule out Stand Alone. They have never read in these threads anybody saying they are going to fly Fb109Z over Phillipines but they still claim this is what they don't want to see. And they cannot respond to posts about historical planesets that need planes from both FP and FB that will not be in both.


S! is for See Ya! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JR_Greenhorn
05-27-2004, 12:36 AM
Just when you thought the dead horse had been buried...

Captal_De_Buch
05-27-2004, 05:41 AM
I am principaly an offline gamer, and for me compability matters a lot.

I don't understand all those pseudo realism arguments against flying 109s vs corsairs or hellcats. In the current version of FB-AEP it's already possible to fly lavochkins vs zeros. I don't see where is the problem. If you don't like it, just don't do it.
Think of the big "what if" of history. Flying yaks against japaneese fighters is not so unrealist as you say. And as an aviation fan I want to be able to compare the different FM, no matter if the planes didn't met in reality. Pacific theatre or ETO, all of those planes flied during WWII or just after, so there is no reason to absolutly separate them in 2 different sims.

Losing 100 flying models of FB-AEP because of non-compatibility between the two product would be really NO FUN. All should be under the same roof ! Luthier said the two games will be fully compatible as long as he wan't say the contrary I will consider that a reality.

If the two products were not fully compatible I will continue to fly ETO planes and don't care of Pacific ones. If they are compatible, PF shall be on my HD the day it is released.

Jieitai_Tsunami
05-27-2004, 07:11 AM
So people are worried that PF will be a new game with no Yaks and LA?

I couldn't have even imagined that PF will include all that was in IL2. If LOMAC was made by Olegs team I would not expect to see Laggs and IL2s flying around with me.

If you want to fly Russian aircraft keep IL2 on your drive. What a stupid post on VOW lol! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BlitzPig_DDT
05-27-2004, 07:35 AM
This is a perfect example of why I hate the "anti" mentality, in all it's forms (nevermind that it so often goes hand in hand with a couple of "isms" I'm not exactly a fan of. lol).

So far, all of you anti's have done nothing but throw hissy fits, make assinine claims, and present absolutely stupid "arguments" (like this latest about LOMAC).

Time and again you have been challeneged to come up with a single, good, legitimate reason why it would be bad to allow both plane sets to be available in PF, either through owning both products, or through Ubi selling expansion packs to sell us the planes we had previously gotten for free.

So far a few have made references to buisness decisions, as if somehow, it would lose buisness to allow AEP to be integrated so long as it itself was bought (IOW, both products are purchased - where's the "loss"?), let alone if the same code was repacked and resold to most of us a second time.

Most have gone on at length about how certain battle combos would be unrealistic and they'd hate it. None of these people have come to grips with the fact that they have the power to not find themselves faced with such things, regardless of available planes. They have totally ignored the repeated challenges from Lexx on this matter. Convenient, eh? Furthermore, they demonstrate a lack of knowledge in that some "historical" matchups can only be achieved if we have full access to both plane sets. Again, a constant challenge from Lexx that they have totally ignored. They also show complete ignorance of the fact that simply playing the game is a "what if", and not "history". Their mere presence and the randomness of the AI means that what they are doing is fiction no matter how you slice it. It really is no different than a matchup that never happened. Plus, they also conveniently ignore the fact that we have fictional maps and a plane set in AEP that can allow all kinds of "what if" matchups, yet they still play that...... hmmm....

And a few have had the "brilliant" (yeah, right) idea to suggest that perhaps all games ought to be mixed. Somehow they try to equate J8As in LOMAC to combining the AEP and PF planesets. I have to wonder if they are for real. If they could actually beleive the tripe they are posting, or if they are actually consciously aware of their control freak nature and doing this intentionally.



All of you - step back, take a breath, dunk your head in some ice water if need be, and relax. Try to think (for a change. lol) about this. It's going to be alright if people are able to fly F6Fs against Yak's and La's if they want to. Remember, you don't have to, and won't be affected by others having this choice.

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

HamishUK
05-27-2004, 07:58 AM
Well 4 pages later I think we will have to wait and see!

No point in dwelling on the what if's as Luthier obviously is very busy at the moment and webwatching is not on his current agenda.

El is right UBI may decide to change their stance on free add-ons. Does UBI really care what we think? It is a company trying to make money and not a charity case.

Ideally I would like both to be compatible. The options for a huge online campaign with Beufighters fighting in a 'Channel dash' or the Japs fighting the Russians over the steps allows endless possibilities.

http://www.blitzpigs.com/photos/Ham1.jpg

Huxley_S
05-27-2004, 08:42 AM
If PF comes with all the maps and aircraft from AEP2.01 as well as all the missions and campaigns but with the improved engine of PF (i.e. realistic water, carriers etc) and all the great new Pacific Theatre stuff and an improved FMB (please)...

Imagine how cool that would be!

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_huxli.jpg (http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap)

FB Music and Campaigns @
http://www.onemorewild.org/huxley

DuxCorvan
05-27-2004, 10:02 AM
BlitzPig, don't waste your time.

They're the same people who just fly the aircraft made in their countries, and have not even a bit of curiosity about the other ones.

They don't like aviation, really.

We could argue a whole century about how compatibility would make us win a lot, and make them lose absolutely nothing.

It's like the new Iran Ayatollah visiting Madrid last year. He was invited to an official dinner. He being a muslim, couldn't drink any wine, and that's totally respectable. But he forbade any wine to be served on the table to the rest of guests, threatening not to assist if they did.

In Spain we call this attitude the 'market gardener's guardian dog' attitude. He just can't eat the vegetables, nor let any other do.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

- Dux Corvan -
http://www.uploadit.org/DuxCorvan/Altamira2.jpg
Ten thousand years of Cantabrian skinning.

Tater-SW-
05-27-2004, 10:31 AM
This is such a non-issue, IMO.

If I understand the thread, people are annoyed because in addition to theose matchups that will certainly cross over (because the planes were actually there) in the ETO, Med and PTO, you are bent out of shape that you might not be able to have IJN/AF planes in the same place as the LW?

Only thinking about unique plane types below...

Countries with planes in the PTO:
Japan
Dutch (not sure they have any unique planes, but wtf)
China (not sure they have any unique planes, but wtf)
UK/Commonwealth
US
CCCP
France (Indochina)

In the Med:
Germany
US
UK/Commonwealth
France
Italy
Hungary
Rumania
(miss any?)

ETO/Eastern Front
Germany
US
UK/Commonwealth
France
Italy
Hungary
Rumania
Finland
Dutch?

So the only matchups that can't happen are Hungary/Rumania/Italy/Germany vs Japan, right? (Finland uses other people's planes)

Those are the only match ups you can't make as they move forward with BoB, PF, and maybe a separate med sim. Am I missing something?

If I'm not missing something, then explain why 109s vs A6M5s is a big loss?

tater

BlitzPig_DDT
05-27-2004, 11:00 AM
Because some of us may want to do that....

The onus is on you to show how allowing that to be possible would be a bad thing.

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

Korolov
05-27-2004, 11:42 AM
Ok folks, here's the way it is (from a pure online perspective):

We host a 28 player coop, running FB. First thing we run is a MTO scenario, pitting P-38s and Spitfires against Fw-190s and Bf-109s, with B-25s as a side order. Next thing we run is a limited set CBI scenario, with P-38s and P-51Bs squaring off agains Ki-84s and A6M5a's.

After that, we run a west front scenario, with P-47s and P-51s in the Ardennes against Fw-190s and Bf-109s. Then we can run a east front scenario, featuring P-39s and La-5s agains Bf-109s and Ju-87s.

Now, if we want to run a carrier scenario, with F4U Corsairs and F6Fs against Tonies and Vals, we'd have to load up a completely different gameset, change lobbies, and regather folks - since not everybody will have PF or will want to go to the trouble of switching lobbies. If PF, in some way, simply made it so we could fly those planes and use those maps in FB, we wouldn't have to bother switching games around - just use the stuff in FB and have at it.

If we want a dogfight server with PF planes, we have to go there. If at any time we want to switch over to a MTO or east front setup, we'd have to shut down the server and restart it in FB. This means loosing the players we had, going to more hassle, and having a few unhappy folks because we don't have a F4U or F6F availible in our FB server.

There's more harm from having a stand alone PF without anything from AEP, then having a stand alone PF that includes everything from AEP, FB and IL-2.

Nothing is forcing you to use a 109 in a pacific scenario, or a F6F in a east front scenario, or a A6M5a in a Ardennes scenario - the key point is to have the choice of what front you want to play, without the hassle of loading up a different game.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
05-27-2004, 12:08 PM
Great points Korolov, well said. But FP should not have to "include" FB on CD to be Compatible, but, and I was just thinking, if FP did include everything from FB on CD, they could keep the overall price higher for longer...possibly, mmm -- I can't argue against UBI about any businiess descisions they make, as long as it is what Oleg and Luthier want.

...and wow, thanks DDT. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DuxCorvan is on to something interesting... <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>BlitzPig, don't waste your time.

They're the same people who just fly the aircraft made in their countries, and have not even a bit of curiosity about the other ones.

They don't like aviation, really.

We could argue a whole century about how compatibility would make us win a lot, and make them lose absolutely nothing.

It's like the new Iran Ayatollah visiting Madrid last year. He was invited to an official dinner. He being a muslim, couldn't drink any wine, and that's totally respectable. But he forbade any wine to be served on the table to the rest of guests, threatening not to assist if they did.

In Spain we call this attitude the 'market gardener's guardian dog' attitude. He just can't eat the vegetables, nor let any other do.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>mmm, the part about Hating aviation hits home over here in USA. We do that alot. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I would suggest however that the FP Ayatollahs are not flying only the aircraft of their own countries, but are all brat USA simmers who either fly (very late war) USA planes only or fly (very late war) Luftwaffe planes only. This ties in with my earlier theory that most, if not all, wimpering LuftWhiners are USA simmers.

However, I must admit SkyChimp has a brutally logical point:: Luthier1 named the game "Pacific Fighters" and this is primarily a USA playground, especially when it comes to carrier warfare (Pacific Brits get Prince of Whales and Repulse http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif). Now if there were Compatibility, we could see FP Brit carriers used against FB German and the new Italian Macchis and SM.79 (if it makes it in FB).

However, FB went beyond Easter Front, so FP can go beyond Pacific Front. In fact, teh USA brats and USA LuftWhiners are Happy to see late war Western Front USA/Luftwaffe planes in [formerly] Eastern Front FB.

Worse, these airplane Haters have no complaint about our current ability in FB to mix Finnish P~38 against against Soviet P~38 in a fake Winter War scenario. Its possible, nobody does it, nobody is Whining. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tater-SW-
05-27-2004, 12:15 PM
How about they make BoB and PF different enough it doesn't work with FB/IL-2 at all.

Do the ETO planes in BoB, and PTO in PF. You can load up planes in either, but you'd have to buy BOTH.

I can;t tell if the whine is some kind of "I want to fight zeros with 109s if I feel like it" or if it's "I'm too cheap to spend an extra $40." In the latter case, tough. In the former case if it's just a matter of them being able to charge for both, figure out a way to have all planes available, but check for ownership of PF and BoB to let it happen. Anyone who can afford a flight sim rig that won;t spend $40... Don't drink your next few beers out, or get a slightly less expensive pair of sneakers.

tater

LEXX_Luthor
05-27-2004, 12:31 PM
Oh, DuxCorvan thanks for that story about Ayatollah visiting Spain.

BlitzPig_DDT
05-27-2004, 12:48 PM
It's actually kinda sad to be getting away from my 1776'th post. lol

Anyway though, Lexx, Frey is from europe. There's much more to it than just plane haters and the US crowd. There are the worshippers, and the commies (who want nothing more than to restrict the choices, opportunities, and freedoms of others). Harsh choice of words? Maybe - but they deserve it.



Tater, you failed reading in this thread, you get an F- and have to take it over again. :P lol

You apparently didn't bother to read my post a few posts up where I referenced the assinine behavior you just exhibited.

Pacific Fighters [i]is[/s] AEP. Different maps, different planes, and about 2 new mini-features (carriers and canopies) added that don't have to interfere with anything else. Luthier himself stated they are compatible from a technical standpoint, thus re-inforcing what the rest of us already knew.

BoB on the other hand is practically a total re-write. It's not even close to the same thing when it comes to such discussions. Adding AEP planes to PF would take practically nothing. Adding them to BoB could not be done, they would need to be re-made from scratch.

Can you not see the difference, or is this an intentional tactic on your part?

And - once again you fail to provide any legittimate reason why allowing AEP and PF plane sets to coexist would be a bad thing. You faild to meet any of the challenges. You have conformed to the pattern of your group.

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

Tater-SW-
05-27-2004, 01:20 PM
My group? what, pray tell, is my group?

I was under the misunderstanding that PF was more than just FB/AEP in the PTO, I thought it was an improved/different engine (I haven't read all the way back in this forum, so I haven't seen the dev posts that say that this is just FB with new planes and CVs, sorry). I also can't claim that CVs and canapoies are easy add ons---I don't write code for a living, and I don't know their code. None of us can presume what they can and can not do easily.

Frankly I don't care either way, ubi/oleg need to make money, period. That's all that matters. The only issue is which way they make more money. If you can argue they'd lose money not being compatable, then they should listen if it's true. I'm for whatever choice makes them the most cash. I have no dogmatic issues about it--though to be fair were're only talking about axis planes vs axis planes as the loss here. And all of this is predicated on FB/AEP and PTO being fully cross compatible, but intentionally kept apart.

tater

LEXX_Luthor
05-27-2004, 01:31 PM
Tater:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I was under the misunderstanding that PF was more than just FB/AEP in the PTO, I thought it was an improved/different engine<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Right! It is the exact same basic engine, to the point where Luthier has stated he is limited by it, but new features still possible such as carrier ops, although serious limitations on this. A sim designed from the begininning to use carriers is needed--Oleg plans on this after BoB and The Meds...several years from now. I too was wondering if FP open canopies and stuff would begin to interefere with Compatibility, but apparently not. Its a UBI business descision alone.

Many of our FB aircraft are being directly imported into FP, such as P~51 and Zero.


* * and congratulations DDT on post 1776 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Well Done!

DuxCorvan
05-27-2004, 01:32 PM
Tater, PF will use a lightly improved AEP engine. But that's not an issue.

PF aircraft models, including DM and FM scripting, just have the same requirements that AEP ones. This means you can import all AEP aircraft in PF without having to change a line of main code. Just having them available for Quick missions or Mission builder.

OK, you won't be able to open canopy in the older models, like the Russian ones. But you don't have to renounce to any improvement or feature intended to be in PF.

What it is more, you could benefit of former AEP stuff using some of these new features.

That's why we don't understand this anti-compatibility attitude. Because they don't have nothing to lose. Just benefits are on the balance, and a decision to split games completely could only be justified by -objectable and solvable- marketing reasons.

To be more clear, imagine PF as FB/AEP v.3.00 with new maps, planes and campaigns, and previous stuff scrapped. Do you want to be able to import previous stuff into it, or not? If you don't, then I can't understand it.

- Dux Corvan -
http://www.uploadit.org/DuxCorvan/Altamira2.jpg
Ten thousand years of Cantabrian skinning.

Tater-SW-
05-27-2004, 01:48 PM
Ah, I looked around before, but are there any overview posts by the devs someplace in here?

If that is the case, then it's only if there are technical reasons (more than just dumping the planes in I guess) to not use the old stuff, like if backwards compatibility would eliminate new features globally in some areas.

The talk about muzzle flash is what made me assume that it was more than AEP since I remember an oleg post about it in IL-2 where he said the engine didn;t allow them to mess with it. The fact people were even talking about it made me assume the old engine was off the table.

tater

PS--I guess this means my improved FMB ideas are probably moot. :-(

BlitzPig_DDT
05-27-2004, 02:15 PM
Tater, this is Luthiers statement -

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>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.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Found here - http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=442105223

Basically they added a few small things to the AEP engine, tweaked on a few others, and most likely allowed higher poly models in to account for increased processing power.

And as Lexx mentioned, several models such as the Mustang and Zero are direct ports anyway.



Lexx, thanks on the congrats. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif The next important post number is 1787. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

Captal_De_Buch
05-28-2004, 07:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Oh, DuxCorvan thanks for that story about Ayatollah visiting Spain.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let the Ayatollahs tell us stories. We will drink the wine. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BSS_Vidar
05-28-2004, 10:44 AM
I,i,i,i... DO NOT,not, not, not!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif want to see a Yak, 109, FW and Me 262 flying over The Solomon "Slot",Midway or Pearl Harbor. Besides, how could they get there. They're not carrier based.
Splitting up the community? C'mon, No one complained about the development of LOMAC. Please... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
Those guys are land-locked Euro-fans afraid to get their feet wet.
When PF comes out I AM quiting FB/AEP. I never agreed with the flight models for the German and Russian planes. Just a bit too good to be true IMHO.

S!

BSS_Vidar

[This message was edited by BSS_Vidar on Fri May 28 2004 at 09:55 AM.]

ElAurens
05-28-2004, 11:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
I,i,i,i... DO NOT,not, not, not!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif want to see a Yak, 109, FW and Me 262 flying over ...Blah...blah..blah...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Such vitriol.

Who says you will see Yaks or Bf109s over the Solomons? Are you an online type or offline? It's just a matter of picking your servers carefully, or better yet, hosting yourself.

I don't like the idea of you saying what I can or cannot do with a sim/game that I purchased.


A closed mind is a frightening thing......

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

Gato-Loco
05-28-2004, 11:17 AM
Great Vidar!! Your position is clear. But it sucks that you want to forbid other people from flying Yaks over Midway. Another Ayatollah, as posted by DuxCorvan. If you don't want to see those planes, you don't have to. But I do want to be able to combine planes and maps from FB and PF. I do, do do DO WANT to do it!!!!!!
I also tend to like historical realism. But 1944 US vs Japan was not the only air combat that happened on WWII. As LEXX_Luthor pointed many times, there are multiple historical settings that could be recreated if both planesets and maps could be combined for mission building (both online and offline).

To me this is a no brainer. Even from a business point of view. PF should be a stand alone product (and I'll be the first one to pay full price for it!). But if you buy both PF and AEP, PF should be able to "read" the contents (planes, maps, objects, etc.) from your AEP folder and make it available in the PF engine. With this approach everyone is happy. Except Vidar and a couple of other "Ayatollahs".

Just my two cents...

TAGERT.
05-28-2004, 11:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
I,i,i,i... DO NOT,not, not, not!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif want to see a Yak, 109, FW and Me 262 flying over The Solomon "Slot",Midway or Pearl Harbor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It is clear to me that you are either confused, or a hypocrite.

Know this, OFFLINE CAMPAIGN play in PF will NOT have Yaks, 109s, 190s, etc over the Solomon.

Know this, ONLINE DF, ONLINE COOP, might.. it is up to the server. At which point it is UP TO YOU to fly there or not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
Besides, how could they get there. They're not carrier based.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This makes me think you are a hypocrite, in that we now have ZEROS over Frankfurt.. Yet you are still playing IL2FB AEP

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
Splitting up the community? C'mon, No one complained about the development of LOMAC. Please... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What part of JET sim do you not understand? What part of LOMAC not being an Oleg product do you not understand?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
Those guys are land-locked Euro-fans afraid to get their feet wet.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmmm I guess Ill have to add troll to the list of confused and hypocrite?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
When PF comes out I AM quiting FB/AEP.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm sorry... where you under the impression that anyone cares?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
I never agreed with the flight models for the German and Russian planes. Just a bit too good to be true IMHO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmmm yes I do need to add troll to the list

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

BSS_Vidar
05-28-2004, 02:45 PM
Nice name calling. Must have hit a nerve. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I consider myself a re-enactor, not just a gamer. I like re-flying history gents. My feelings are opinions, not dictation to others. So don't make me out as the bad guy here. If you want to mix-and-match outside the realm of history... by all means knock your selves out. After all... It's only a game.

BSS_Vidar

TAGERT.
05-28-2004, 05:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
Nice name calling. Must have hit a nerve. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I consider myself a re-enactor, not just a gamer. I like re-flying history gents. My feelings are opinions, not dictation to others. So don't make me out as the bad guy here. If you want to mix-and-match outside the realm of history... by all means knock your selves out. After all... It's only a game.

BSS_Vidar<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, ok, our bad.. We didnt realise that when you said I,i,i,i... DO NOT,not, not, not!!! want to see a Yak, 109, FW and Me 262 flying over The Solomon "Slot",Midway or Pearl Harbor. you were just talking to yourself in public... In fear that you might be tempted to make use of the option and... how did you say it mix-and-match outside the realm of history Maybe they can add an option for people who are too weak to fight off the temptation and remove it from the menu? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

nearmiss
05-28-2004, 05:42 PM
I'm thinking the PF is going to be an extended version just like AEP. My logic...it took years to build the stable of aircraft, maps and objects we have in AEP.

The PF is being released this fall. I just don't see how 1C:Maddox can do enough fast enough to release an all new PF sim.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif I'm going to continue to expect an upgraded IL2-FB-AEP called Pacific Fighters.

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

heywooood
05-28-2004, 08:24 PM
I'm with nearmiss - on this.

It is a modification of FB -albeit a heavier one than Luthier thought it would be- but a mod nonetheless. The need for standalone is a fiscal decision as well as a way to emphasize the different character of the conflict (vast oceans, carriers and ships, etc...) vs the ETO/Eastern front variation. But time constraints dictate that it must be compatible with FB to some degree. So I expect at least one more patch for AEP before PF is released that may include aircraft but will be more geared towards FM's etc.. to tie it in with PF.

We're getting a two for one here, sort of, and I think it will be a good thing. I'll pay for it because I think Luthier et al will have more than earned it.

[This message was edited by heywooood on Fri May 28 2004 at 07:37 PM.]

Ruy Horta
05-29-2004, 02:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nearmiss:
I'm going to continue to expect an upgraded IL2-FB-AEP called Pacific Fighters.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Regardless of what you hope for or expect, this will be exactly what you get. Not because I say so, but because of what Luther has reported.

PF will be FB/AEP in the pacific, the main addition (limited) Carrier ops, new maps and objects and a supporting campaign structure.

It will not be a new game, but a pacific spin off.

Most of us are content with new a/c and maps, so we'll buy it ASAP, the whole argument is about a form of compatability, a way to use ALL the a/c and ALL the maps and combine them in any way we see fit.

After a week of forum whining either way, its about time we get some official clearification on this matter.

Although I really want to support the developers by buying my game(s), I would be rather pissed off if I'm later forced to buy extra addons that simply recycle a/c (to enable cross overs - lets say RAF in the Pacific, or VVS in the Pacific, to name but a possibility).

Ruy Horta

LEXX_Luthor
05-29-2004, 03:11 AM
If Luthier Patches a Flyable Ki~27 I will pay extra to match Chinese Gladiator with Ki~27 in historical matchups. For me, and me alone, FP+FB together is my chance at simming China if SaQson's FB Mongolia addon does not make it. Many many others would enjoy FP RAF Beaufighters stirred into the FB pot to spice up the historical European Front matchups.

BSS_Vidar:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I consider myself a re-enactor, not just a gamer. I like re-flying history gents.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

SkyChimp
05-29-2004, 01:09 PM
I have to admit, I sure would like to blow the hell out of the KMS Graf Zeppelin with my Avengers and Helldivers.

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

Copperhead310th
05-29-2004, 02:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
Ok folks, here's the way it is (from a pure online perspective):

We host a 28 player coop, running FB. First thing we run is a MTO scenario, pitting P-38s and Spitfires against Fw-190s and Bf-109s, with B-25s as a side order. Next thing we run is a limited set CBI scenario, with P-38s and P-51Bs squaring off agains Ki-84s and A6M5a's.

After that, we run a west front scenario, with P-47s and P-51s in the Ardennes against Fw-190s and Bf-109s. Then we can run a east front scenario, featuring P-39s and La-5s agains Bf-109s and Ju-87s.

Now, if we want to run a carrier scenario, with F4U Corsairs and F6Fs against Tonies and Vals, we'd have to load up a completely different gameset, change lobbies, and regather folks - since not everybody will have PF or will want to go to the trouble of switching lobbies. If PF, in some way, simply made it so we could fly those planes and use those maps in FB, we wouldn't have to bother switching games around - just use the stuff in FB and have at it.

If we want a dogfight server with PF planes, we have to go there. If at any time we want to switch over to a MTO or east front setup, we'd have to shut down the server and restart it in FB. This means loosing the players we had, going to more hassle, and having a few unhappy folks because we don't have a F4U or F6F availible in our FB server.

There's more harm from having a stand alone PF without anything from AEP, then having a stand alone PF that includes everything from AEP, FB and IL-2.

_Nothing is forcing you to use a 109 in a pacific scenario, or a F6F in a east front scenario, or a A6M5a in a Ardennes scenario - the key point is to have the choice of what front you want to play, without the hassle of loading up a different game._

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

NO BUT YOU WILL SEE FREAKING 109'S OVER IWO JIMA IN DF SERVERS EVERYWHERE. AND IMO IT'S BULLSH*T! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.310thVFS.com)

Copperhead310th
05-29-2004, 02:41 PM
Now i've said my mind & i'm finnished with this topic. I would expect PF to be a stand alone & if it's not i would be very surprised. UBI isn't in the business of giving anything away for free guys & if not for Oleg we would get NOTHING.
no patches, no free new planes...NADA.
so as long as ubi is involved you should expect them to do the most profitable thing. Make PF a stand alone product. And you can't argue with the logic of bottom line profits. it's that simple.

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.310thVFS.com)

x__CRASH__x
05-29-2004, 02:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
I have to admit, I sure would like to blow the hell out of the KMS Graf Zeppelin with my Avengers and Helldivers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am totally with Ivan on this. It's not that you WOULD throw a big mess of aircraft up at any time, it's that you COULD play scenarios that didn't exsist in the real world. How would a bf-109 flown by me fair against a Hellcat flown by DDT? We all know the answer, DDT would get owned like always! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif But the point is that we would like the OPPORTUNITY to explore the possibilities.

I personally will mainly fly the two seperate of each other. My online team is already making preparations to branch into U.S. Navy fighter squadron for PF. I am already formulating ideas for Ghost Skies that will treat PF as a seperate league.

I think that by seperating the games you will split our community of virtual pilots by forcing them to choose. Sure they can switch back and forth, but I think that most won't. They will fly the one they prefer, and the other side won't hear much from them again.

Ghost Skies. A Premier IL2FB Dogfight League. (http://www.ghostskies.com)
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/crash2.gif (http://www.ghostskies.com/)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum)

BlitzPig_DDT
05-29-2004, 04:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
How would a bf-109 flown by me fair against a Hellcat flown by DDT? We all know the answer, DDT would get owned like always! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just like last time we met online?

You know.....when I wasted you in your 109, and one of your teammates in a 109Z in my Jug. And the slug bubble top at that. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


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

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

BlitzPig_DDT
05-29-2004, 04:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
Now i've said my mind & i'm finnished with this topic. I would expect PF to be a stand alone & if it's not i would be very surprised. UBI isn't in the business of giving anything away for free guys & if not for Oleg we would get NOTHING.
no patches, no free new planes...NADA.
so as long as ubi is involved you should expect them to do the most profitable thing. Make PF a stand alone product. And you can't argue with the logic of bottom line profits. it's that simple.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Alright Copper - Get over yourself. And while you're at it, learn to read, even if just a little, ok? Maybe if you calm down, and read a bit, you might be a little less inclined to be waving the hammer and sickle all over (not holding my breath, but still.....).

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

x__CRASH__x
05-29-2004, 04:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
How would a bf-109 flown by me fair against a Hellcat flown by DDT? We all know the answer, DDT would get owned like always! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just like last time we met online?

You know.....when I wasted you in your 109, and one of your teammates in a 109Z in my Jug. And the slug bubble top at that. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes, you did take a slash at me while I was TnBing with a Yak. I remember that now. Got me when I was fighting with someone else. You are the master. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif


http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Ghost Skies. A Premier IL2FB Dogfight League. (http://www.ghostskies.com)
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/crash2.gif (http://www.ghostskies.com/)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum)

LEXX_Luthor
05-29-2004, 05:29 PM
Copperhead310th:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>NO BUT YOU WILL SEE FREAKING 109'S OVER IWO JIMA IN DF SERVERS EVERYWHERE. AND IMO IT'S BULLSH*T!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Who cares about dogfight servers here? Anyway they will still be able to BAN your Ki~84.

Your problem is with teh people you play with, not Oleg's airplanes. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BlitzPig_DDT
05-29-2004, 05:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
Yes, you did take a slash at me while I was TnBing with a Yak. I remember that now. Got me when I was fighting with someone else. You are the master. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif


http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excuses, excuses.

You started it pal. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

TAGERT.
05-29-2004, 06:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
NO BUT YOU WILL SEE FREAKING 109'S OVER IWO JIMA IN DF SERVERS EVERYWHERE. AND IMO IT'S BULLSH*T! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Did you even read what he wrote? Your problem is the servers you choose to play on.

Dont punish everyone for what a few people do.. Including the aircraft and maps from IL2 into PF will allow servers to do thi... Oh god.. What am I wasting my time for.. You didnt read what Korolov wrote.. what makes me think you will read this... Or did you read it and just not understand it? If so, feel free to PM me and Ill set you strait offline

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

LEXX_Luthor
05-29-2004, 06:53 PM
mmm, you know the lack of response makes me think the ones spamming NO FB109 OVER JAPAN are the same ones flying Fb109Z in the DF servers.

Copperhead? Fb109Z Ace? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


btw, Japan purchased three Fb109s from Germany, I believe Emails, and test flew them over.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifmmm

DuxCorvan
05-30-2004, 01:14 PM
Lexx... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

Although FB is a great game, I don't think they made any real 'FB' 109 during WW2... and sending 'E-mails' to Japanese -surely for greeting them in Xmas- didn't boost much their war effort... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Now, seriously, Copperhead, relax.

PF is gonna be stand-alone. NO ONE HAS SAID OR PROPOSED ANOTHER THING. In fact, we all knew this since the beginning. The question is: Is going this STAND ALONE game to be able to load the stuff previously released in FB/AEP?

Six pages of argumentation and the boy has not understood a single word... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

What is computer age making with our kids? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif

- Dux Corvan -
http://www.uploadit.org/DuxCorvan/Altamira2.jpg
Ten thousand years of Cantabrian skinning.

Spectre-63
05-30-2004, 02:07 PM
There is one VERY good reason I can think of to not have the FB/AEP planeset compatible with PF: if having compatibility would prevent Luthier and his group from resolving some of the issues currently affecting FB/AEP. I'm not interested in backward compatibility if it prevents Luthier from addressing issues such as yawing on twin-engine aircraft and the damage model irregularities we're seeing with the current patch.

In addition, I'm not interested in having that backward compatibility come at the cost of programming time that could be used for further theater-specific enhancements (most notably fixes to how the AAA currently affects framerate). My opinion is that they should try to have the planesets interchangable but compatibility should not come at the cost of enhancements that are specific to PF. Personally, I'd be perfectly happy if they came out and said "The old planes MIGHT work but we're not sure and they're unsupported." If the work, great; if they don't, I'll get over it and endure the pain of clicking three or four times to go from one room to another in HL. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

There seem to be a lot of people up in arms at the end of development on FB and AEP. If I'm not mistaken, Oleg has always said that there was a finite amount of time he was going to spend on patches for these products before moving on to something bigger and better. The free work on AEP was never going to go on forever, because doing so introduces more red ink onto the ledger and prevents Oleg and his team from getting to work on BoB.

http://home.comcast.net/~mjmcmahon672/images/Sig_Small.gif

WOLFMondo
05-30-2004, 02:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Just to share some of my thoughts. -

I completely don`t understand people who vouches for pure pacific with 40+ planes and whatever else is coming with it. I don`t see any logical reason separating two sims that based on the same engine and furthermore abandoning one of them.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've got to agree there, there is no logic in seperating them.

Keep them together. With all the new content i'd happily pay for PF if its the same price as a full game despite being an addon.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)

Ruy Horta
05-30-2004, 03:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spectre-63:
There is one VERY good reason I can think of to not have the FB/AEP planeset compatible with PF: if having compatibility would prevent Luthier and his group from resolving some of the issues currently affecting FB/AEP.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I remember correctly its the PF-dev team (or Luthier) themselves who said that apart from Carrier ops and some limited enhancements, the new coding will have to be very limited. With other words: PF will be VERY limited in really new coding...

That's not a bad thing per se, but it does guide us to what we can realistically expect.

IMHO if we assume that this will be the basis of PF its also realistic not to expect too many enhancements other than new a/c, maps and objects. It also makes the case strong for a compatible product.

PF as a limited stand alone will be bought by the hard core fan, it will be bought by a number of new buyers, but it will not have the same product life and appeal as FB/AEP if its not compatible - period.

Let BoB be a new product, with new marketing ploys, but to start a new spin of at the eleventh hour is nonesense, even commercially.

Ruy Horta

BlitzPig_DDT
05-30-2004, 03:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spectre-63:
There is one VERY good reason I can think of to not have the FB/AEP planeset compatible with PF:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you can't.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>if having compatibility would prevent Luthier and his group from resolving some of the issues currently affecting FB/AEP. I'm not interested in backward compatibility if it prevents Luthier from addressing issues such as yawing on twin-engine aircraft and the damage model irregularities we're seeing with the current patch.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you just proved it here.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In addition, I'm not interested in having that backward compatibility come at the cost of programming time that could be used for further theater-specific enhancements (most notably fixes to how the AAA currently affects framerate). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And here again.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>My opinion is that they should try to have the planesets interchangable but compatibility should not come at the cost of enhancements that are specific to PF. Personally, I'd be perfectly happy if they came out and said "The old planes MIGHT work but we're not sure and they're unsupported." If the work, great; if they don't, I'll get over it and endure the pain of clicking three or four times to go from one room to another in HL.

There seem to be a lot of people up in arms at the end of development on FB and AEP. If I'm not mistaken, Oleg has always said that there was a finite amount of time he was going to spend on patches for these products before moving on to something bigger and better. The free work on AEP was never going to go on forever, because doing so introduces more red ink onto the ledger and prevents Oleg and his team from getting to work on BoB.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A lot of people "up in arms" huh? Quite apparently there are even more people that don't FECKING READ!

Good god people! What the bleedin' 'ell is wrong with you?!

I'm not just singling you out Spectre63, yours just happened to be the most recent post in this vein.

All of you that are on "that side" of this, take just a few minutes out of your busy day and read a little bit on these forums, and spend another few trying to understand it. That's all we ask, really.

Look - PF IS FB:AEP. The only way to change things like torque reaction and similar is to rewrite part or all of the physics engine. That is NOT what PF is or was ever intended to be. Several of the planes are coming straight from AEP as well.

The only changes (apparent at the moment) are opening canopies, carrier ops, and possibly running a higher poly count for new models to account for increased PC power.

Luthier himself says (please, for the love of god, read this) -

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Source - http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=442105223


Furthermore - again you guys come back with this "can't expect to keep getting stuff for free" bull$hite. NOBODY has suggested, or implied, that there would, or should, be anything "free" involved in allowing AEP planes to work with PF.

Think about this for just a second. If one must buy both products to use all the planes - what is "free" there? What is being given away?

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

Spectre-63
05-30-2004, 05:27 PM
Thanks, Blitzpig...guess I missed the sign that said the only opinion that counted was YOURS http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

apparently, your reading skills could use some work of their own. At no time did I say that I was against backward compatibility. What I did say was that I would be opposed to it interfering with PF being the best it could possibly be. In fact, you quoted me saying that <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>My opinion is that they should try to have the planesets interchangable but compatibility should not come at the cost of enhancements that are specific to PF. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'll be the first to admit that I don't have an unlimited amount of time to read these forums (as you apparently do) to keep up on the limited amount of information that Luthier has published on what PF's make-up will be. Shame on me for working for a living, apparently.

When I was talking about the end of development on FB and AEP, I was referring to one post made earlier in this thread where someone was implying that the patches for FB and AEP would be going on indefinitely.

You said yourself, DDT: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The biggest draw for PF for me isn't flying slow prop planes over mile and miles (and miles) of flat ocean. Even if they happen to be Grummans.

No, it's mixing and matching the 2 plane sets as we were told we'd be able to.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why be so abrasive to those who do want as realistic a theater as possible just because your desires aren't a match for theirs???


Thanks to RHorta for responding without feeling the need to degrade the opinions of others http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://home.comcast.net/~mjmcmahon672/images/Sig_Small.gif

[This message was edited by Spectre-63 on Sun May 30 2004 at 04:47 PM.]

[This message was edited by Spectre-63 on Sun May 30 2004 at 05:04 PM.]

BlitzPig_DDT
05-30-2004, 06:11 PM
Get real dude.

You stated that you could think of a "good reason" for a lack of compatibility, showing you didn't bother to read the thread. Period.

You also came of sarcasticly in regards to "freebies", which was equally off base.

BTW - a number of "historical" scenarios can only be re-created if the plane sets can be mixed. So get off your high horse.

You then glossed over the bit about me not singling you out. Apparently you decided the shoe fit. http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/shrug.gif

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

[This message was edited by BlitzPig_DDT on Sun May 30 2004 at 05:42 PM.]

LEXX_Luthor
05-30-2004, 06:52 PM
Luthier1's FP RAF Beaufighter would be most eagerly adopted by simmers/simmerettes for extensive use on Oleg's FB maps against FB Ju~88.

Spectre-63
05-30-2004, 08:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:

Get real dude.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spoken with the intellect I would expect based upon your posts so far...http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You stated that you could think of a "good reason" for a lack of compatibility, showing you didn't bother to read the thread. Period.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, it shows that I had read the thread. I was responding to your point that you felt that people were failing <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>to provide any legittimate reason why allowing AEP and PF plane sets to coexist would be a bad thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If development of PF is hindered one iota by concerns over backward compatibility that, in my opinion, would be a good reason why allowing the planesets to coexist would be a bad thing. IF Luthier had the ability to incorporate ANY other change that would make Pacific Fighters a more realistic representation of the WW2 PTO experience (i.e. realistic AAA around the carrier group and not have it cause a huge framerate hit) and had to choose between doing that OR maintaining backward compatibility with FB/AEP then, IMHO, it's in his best interests to scrap backward compatibility in favor of having a better stand-alone product. Production decisions should be made based upon what's good for Pacific Fighters, not what's good for FB/AEP.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You also came of sarcasticly in regards to "freebies", which was equally off base.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hrmm...would you care to point me to the "sarcastic" portions of my post? here it is, for your convenience...feel free to highlight the "sarcastic" portions.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>There seem to be a lot of people up in arms at the end of development on FB and AEP. If I'm not mistaken, Oleg has always said that there was a finite amount of time he was going to spend on patches for these products before moving on to something bigger and better. The free work on AEP was never going to go on forever, because doing so introduces more red ink onto the ledger and prevents Oleg and his team from getting to work on BoB.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>BTW - a number of "historical" scenarios can only be re-created if the plane sets can be mixed. So get off your high horse.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wasn't aware I'd climbed onto a horse...while it'd be nice to recreate these "historical scenarios" you refer to, if they're at odds with the goals stated in the initial announcement:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Pacific Fighters gives players the opportunity to participate in the most compelling air battles of World War II. Players can jump into the cockpit of the several U.S., Japanese, Brittish, or Australian aircraft.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...how does that help the product? You'll notice that they specifically did not say that players could plan to jump into Russian aircraft or one of the three BF-109's Germany sent to Japan.

Here's a chance for you to do some brushing up on your own reading skills: I have no problem with the planeset in PF being backward compatible. I'm simply saying that backward compatibility should be way down on the list of things that are important to accomplish with Pacific Fighters. No new features should be sacrificed for the sake of compatibility. If backward compatibility becomes the driving force in development, the developers become hindered by other people's oversights. What may not be important in a primarily land-based simulation, like FB/AEP, is VERY important in a primarily carrier-based simulation. Demanding that Luthier limit his team's abilities because of a statement made early in development is a good way to ensure that few real advancements are made in the way that the aircraft are modeled. Sometimes it's necessary to scrap the old to allow new improvements to take place.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You then glossed over the bit about me not singling you out. Apparently you decided the shoe fit. http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/shrug.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I simply felt that you saying "I'm not singling you out" after going thru and quoting me nearly line-for-line (unfortunately without apparently comprehending my points) was contradictory and, as such, not worth paying attention to. Don't piss on my head and then try and tell me it's raining.

http://home.comcast.net/~mjmcmahon672/images/Sig_Small.gif

BlitzPig_DDT
05-30-2004, 08:20 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I love it. So typical. You mis-read and glossed over things, and felt that you alone were being spoken to because obviously it was hitting close to home. And now that you've been called on it, suddenly you whip out the "intellect" insults (You do need to demonstrate some before hand to have that ploy have any credibility, you do realize that, don't you? For that matter, you need to demonstrate some after the fact as well. Neither of which have you done).

Ok. 1 more time - Luthier has stated what most of us have known. PF can not be anything more than FB with more planes and maps and a few basic features for the new planes that have no impact on the existing planes (including the ones from AEP that are being imported).

Thus, the entire crux of your post is invalid. Making one wonder why you'd bother, but, proving that, if you did "read" the thread, you only skimmed it and/or didn't understand the whole thing. Else you'd've realize in advance how pointless it was to go on about all that.

I suppose I shouldn't be surpirsed that you are either unaware of what sarcasm is and where it is in that post, or, of the fact that, assuming the previous wasn't the case, you are attempting to bait me.

Yes, quite typical indeed.

You are either with us or against us. No middle ground, and all else is irrelelvant, including this little battle you wish to engage in.

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

Spectre-63
05-30-2004, 08:31 PM
Interesting how, while accusing me of misreading and glossing over things, you seem to be guilty of doing exactly the same thing. While you may not agree with my points, that has no effect upon their validity.

good day...

http://home.comcast.net/~mjmcmahon672/images/Sig_Small.gif

BlitzPig_DDT
05-30-2004, 08:40 PM
Riiiiiight.

You don't have to admit you were wrong. It's irrelevant. Just stop pushing the issue, that's all.

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

Spectre_USA
05-30-2004, 09:40 PM
Post Script.

His name ain't BlitzPig, we all are. But DDT IS the captain of our debate team. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I like the nick, Mr. 63...

___Edit___ Ooo, cool. Cherry!

http://www.toptastes.com/images/cherry.jpg

http://www.BlitzPigs.com/SpectresStash/Spectre_AEP_Avatar.gif
CombatSim.com Forums Moderator (http://WWW.CombatSim.com)
BlitzPigs Co-WebMaster/Moderator (http://www.BlitzPigs.com)

Copperhead310th
05-31-2004, 12:02 AM
Basically DDT you & Lexx Both can shove it up your.....nevermind.

1. YES i did READ what the man posted.
2. I almost never fly german ac of ANY kind.
reason. 1 i don't like them. i think thier noob-ish. & 2. i just like all the other planes better. so chances of seeing me in a 109Z on any server is slim.

As for me responding to anything here in a timley manner....
I'll just quote Spectre-63 since he summed it up pretty well....
Spectre-63
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'll be the first to admit that I don't have an unlimited amount of time to read these forums (as you apparently do) to keep up on the limited amount of information that Luthier has published on what PF's make-up will be. Shame on me for working for a living, apparently.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.310thVFS.com)

Copperhead310th
05-31-2004, 12:02 AM
Basically DDT you & Lexx Both can shove it up your.....nevermind.

1. YES i did READ what the man posted.
2. I almost never fly german ac of ANY kind.
reason. 1 i don't like them. i think thier noob-ish. & 2. i just like all the other planes better. so chances of seeing me in a 109Z on any server is slim.

Copperhead310th
05-31-2004, 12:03 AM
Basically DDT you & Lexx Both can shove it up your.....nevermind.

1. YES i did READ what the man posted.
2. I almost never fly german ac of ANY kind.
reason. 1 i don't like them. i think thier noob-ish. & 2. i just like all the other planes better. so chances of seeing me in a 109Z on any server is slim.

LEXX_Luthor
05-31-2004, 12:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>chances of seeing me in a Fb109Z on any server is slim.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>deny Deny DENY http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

T_O_A_D
05-31-2004, 01:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Just to share some of my thoughts. -

I completely don`t understand people who vouches for pure pacific with 40+ planes and whatever else is coming with it. I don`t see any logical reason separating two sims that based on the same engine and furthermore abandoning one of them. By all means i am not against PTO but... i am against separation. I want to be able to host VFC COOPs for my friends and guests and not to jump from one game to another from one lobby to anyoher, i want to be able to have one big happy dedicated server where i can load different missions from different theaters, PTO, ETO, BOB...etc. For those who playes off line, it doesn`t matter, for on-liners it does. And most importantly, i want all the changes that is being done to the engine in AEP, graphical and whatever else they changing. I just don`t get it, really... why PF can`t be stand alone with 140 or whaterver planes and much more maps? Where is the logic?

V!
Regards,


VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Agreed!

Have you checked your Private Topics recently? (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=ugtpc&s=400102)
My TrackIR fix, Read the whole thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=49310655&m=15310285&p=1)
131st_Toad's Squad link (http://www.geocities.com/vfw_131st/)
http://home.mchsi.com/~131st_vfw/T_O_A_D.jpg

Spectre-63
05-31-2004, 02:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spectre_USA:
Post Script.

His name ain't BlitzPig, we all are. But DDT IS the captain of our debate team. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the Mass-Debate team, I presume...http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

my apologies for associating the name of your team with this individual. It appears that at least one of the members has a reasonable amount of manners. My apologies for whatever harm to your reputation may have come as a result of associating this individual with the team as a whole. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://home.comcast.net/~mjmcmahon672/images/Sig_Small.gif

WOLFMondo
05-31-2004, 03:20 AM
Is any Ubi/1C/PF crew gonna comment on this? We are the paying customer after all in if the product doesn't suite are needs or fullfil are demand....

Sounds harsh but thats what it is when it comes down to it.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)

DuxCorvan
05-31-2004, 03:20 AM
Well, Spectre, if that's what worries you, I think that it's clear by Luthier's comments that they won't have to renounce any improvement in PF to put AEP planes in.

In fact, it looks more like an export/import files and encrypt them question. Nothing that affects the main engine code.

As I've said a million times, it's not making PF back compatible with AEP. It's more like making AEP FORWARD compatible with PF. Do you understand the difference?

PF IS COMPATIBLE WITH AEP STUFF YET, THE ONLY QUESTION IS: ARE THEY GOING TO INCLUDE ALL THE AVAILABLE STUFF OR JUST THE FINAL ADDITIONS.

Please, it's not that hard to understand it... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

I think LeXX idea is the best. FB/AEP and PF, separate stand-alone games. But if you have both, you can import FB/AEP stuff -planes, maps, campaigns- into PF, maybe using a tool packed in PF retail CD -or DVD. So you can have all the stuff together -and only mixed at your own wish.

Please, how can someone ask not to be given such an interesting feature?

- Dux Corvan -
http://www.uploadit.org/DuxCorvan/Altamira2.jpg
Ten thousand years of Cantabrian skinning.

[This message was edited by DuxCorvan on Mon May 31 2004 at 02:30 AM.]

Bremspropeller
05-31-2004, 05:33 AM
German planes n00bish ?

It's the pilot, not the plane http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

But back to the topic:

There were ineed some 109s and at least one 190 at Japan for tests.

And like Tagert already said, a 109 over Iwo Jima's just as realistic as a Zero over "London".



Just one question at copperhead:
Don't you like the REAL a/c 'cause they are noobish or rather the in-game a/c for being noobish ?



EDIT: Almost forgot to say...
When a 109Z already bothers you..what would you say to a MISTEL Kamikaze-attack ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.ccbirding.com/thw/id/peregrine2--hwi.JPG
Da B&Z bird !

http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

LEXX_Luthor
05-31-2004, 06:48 AM
mmm, if I call it Fp109, they will Squeal like pig.

Spectre-63
05-31-2004, 07:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Well, Spectre, if that's what worries you, I think that it's clear by Luthier's comments that they won't have to renounce any improvement in PF to put AEP planes in.

In fact, it looks more like an export/import files and encrypt them question. Nothing that affects the main engine code.

As I've said a million times, it's not making PF back compatible with AEP. It's more like making AEP FORWARD compatible with PF. Do you understand the difference?

PF IS COMPATIBLE WITH AEP STUFF YET, THE ONLY QUESTION IS: ARE THEY GOING TO INCLUDE ALL THE AVAILABLE STUFF OR JUST THE FINAL ADDITIONS.

Please, it's not that hard to understand it... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

I think LeXX idea is the best. FB/AEP and PF, separate stand-alone games. But if you have both, you can import FB/AEP stuff -planes, maps, campaigns- into PF, maybe using a tool packed in PF retail CD -or DVD. So you can have all the stuff together -and only mixed at your own wish.

Please, how can someone ask not to be given such an interesting feature?

- Dux Corvan -
http://www.uploadit.org/DuxCorvan/Altamira2.jpg
Ten thousand years of Cantabrian skinning.

[This message was edited by DuxCorvan on Mon May 31 2004 at 02:30 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dux,

that was respectfully written and very well put. It's apparent from your post that you took the time to read and understand what I was trying to express and I appreciate the effort. When you put it that way, I have absolutely no objections.

It's entirely possible that I've developed some unrealistic expectations of what will be added as a part of PF. Can you point me to some threads that will give me more of an overview?

Thanks again for alleviating my concerns. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://home.comcast.net/~mjmcmahon672/images/Sig_Small.gif

BlitzPig_DDT
05-31-2004, 09:14 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif



Also - Hey Copper, you can actually call LW planes "n00bish" with a straight face? Damn, your misplaced hatred of all things German is way overblown and out of control. News flash, commies are the true evil. They just won the war so get a pass on the nasty rep in history. Furthermore, anyone with half a brain and the slightest capability of being objective knows that "noobish" is yank 'n bank. And that is what the VVS and IJ planes are. You must be smoking something. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

SkyChimp
05-31-2004, 09:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:

EDIT: Almost forgot to say...
When a 109Z already bothers you..what would you say to a MISTEL Kamikaze-attack ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.ccbirding.com/thw/id/peregrine2--hwi.JPG
Da B&Z bird !

http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Wouldn't bother me too much, seeing how the Germans had a hard time hitting huge stationary objects with it.

But, again, I'd sure like the opportunity to put a few 1,000 lb'ers down the stack, or torps into the side, of that half-baked German carrier http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

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

ElAurens
05-31-2004, 11:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spectre-63:
my apologies for associating the name of your team with this individual. It appears that at least one of the members has a reasonable amount of manners. My apologies for whatever harm to your reputation may have come as a result of associating this individual with the team as a whole. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Not to worry...

It's hard to hurt a Pig... and as far as our reputation goes......

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif

Hee.....

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

DuxCorvan
05-31-2004, 02:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spectre-63:
It's entirely possible that I've developed some unrealistic expectations of what will be added as a part of PF. Can you point me to some threads that will give me more of an overview?

Thanks again for alleviating my concerns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, Spectre, maybe this thread has gone a little harsh due to misunderstanding. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

You see, in one of the first sticky posts that appeared in this PF forum, Luthier asked our opinion about this.

Unfortunately, I can't find that post, and that can mean that he's made his mind yet.

In that post, similar to the poll-thread Ivan posted and that's still stuck on top of the forum, Luthier stated rather clearly that, in spite of any improvement -as carrier ops, etc.- PF would use the whole bulk of AEP engine, and it was completely posible to include AEP stuff -this is, planes, maps, etc.- along with the new PF stuff.

Even so, he also said that PF was going to be stand-alone, this is, able to run without having FB, and sold separately.

It was also suggested that this was also subject to UBI/1c decision.

But it looks like PF will be able to use -without any concesion to previous technology- the material we had in AEP, unless they prevent so by intentionally keeping it out.

Since we know UBI is unlikely to include all AEP in PF -due to marketing reasons, what we want know, we owners of FB/AEP retail game, is to have the chance of import AEP stuff we own into PF somehow.

Why? To have a wider scope of choice, using FB and PF material to build less-known historical campaign and missions or just making 'what-if' combats and comparatives. WE could also benefit of any improvement made to PF, and also get still support in the future -because IL-2 is not supported anymore... but it's inside FB.

Not to mention the comfort of not having to quit and run any time we want to change scenario, and the expense of HD space, due to redundant material.

'Purists' can still limit the use of ETO stuff in PTO easily, by not choosing it, or using restricted servers if they're online, just the same way we do now to avoid experimental aircraft or non-contemporary engagements.

The only reason for asking UBI not to allow this is, misunderstanding of facts, or simple egotist attitude. Because the ones that want a 'pure' stand-alone, wouldn't lose anything with this. They would get exactly the same. It's the rest of us who can lose a lot.

- Dux Corvan -
http://www.uploadit.org/DuxCorvan/Altamira2.jpg
Ten thousand years of Cantabrian skinning.

Korolov
05-31-2004, 02:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
_NO BUT YOU WILL SEE FREAKING 109'S OVER IWO JIMA IN DF SERVERS EVERYWHERE. AND IMO IT'S BULLSH*T!_ http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not if you ban them. Or if you don't play on servers that have them with that map. Try it now - ban all the german planes, allow only the Japanese planes coupled with USAAF and RAF/RAAF planes. That is, unless you're already doing that.

Customizing a planeset for a dogfight map isn't THAT hard. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
Basically DDT you & Lexx Both can shove it up your.....nevermind.

1. YES i did READ what the man posted.
2. I almost never fly german ac of ANY kind.
reason. 1 i don't like them. i think thier noob-ish. & 2. i just like all the other planes better. so chances of seeing me in a 109Z on any server is slim.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you'd read a little bit closer, you'd notice that you alone control what planes you allow on your server and what servers you play on.

As to your #2 point, you really ought to try them sometime. It helps to fight them after you've flown them for a bit.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
05-31-2004, 03:14 PM
All real life USA fighter pilots wanted to get their hands on German fighters and try them out.

mmm...I meant real life

Bandit.426Cdn
05-31-2004, 03:35 PM
I don't have an issue on whether PF is released as an AEP style add-on to IL2FB, or as a standalone product, playable on it's own. I do have an issue with UBI if it's a non-compatable product to IL2FB-AEP. If i am to buy it, it needs to be compatable/data importable from IL2FB-AEP to use the aircraft that we've seen already. If it is non-compatable, screw it, i will not buy PF, or any other simulation put out post PF, ie. BoB.

This is the reason.

I'm already feeling short-changed, in the IL2FB-AEP dept. I don't fly fighters, i fly bombers, and i fly almost exclusively online. With the release of PF announced a few months back, i believe that the focus on IL2FB-AEP has already been shifted to PF, to the detriment of development of bomber based aircraft in IL2FB-AEP. I really should have been able to have played in-cockpit games with some of my favorite bombers - instead, i have to bomb outside of the cockpit, using my less than accurate Mk 1 eyeball to judge range, altitude, and speed. Where's my B25 cockpit? It's not in IL2FB-AEP, i don't know if it will be in IL2FB-AEP, but it'll be in PF, i've been told. Will i be able to fly the B25 in the European sector when PF is released, or will i be denied, because IL2FB-AEP is not compatable with PF?

I don't care about the historical realism of servers, i don't care about uber-euro planes going against uber-pacific planes much to the horror of purists. I just want to fly, and fly as much of a variety of aircraft as i possibly can, whether Euro, North American, Japanese .. whatever. If it's got wings, it's got as realistic a FM as is possible 60 years after the war when these planes existed in numbers, then it is all good. If the purists are horrified by the thought of putting a Corsair F4u up against a FW-190 online, then the choice is simple, join or (better still) contribute, and run your own purist server online! Don't limit the rest of us who really could care less.

Since PF is supposedly built on the IL2FB engine with a few tweaks, then it should be made compatable with the extended IL2FB-AEP series. There is no logical reason from a gamers viewpoint that it should not be made so. BoB we've all heard of as being a non-compatable, new generation, flight simulation engine. That has been known since it's announcement from day one, and is totally acceptable. To release PF as a non-compatable, standalone flight simulation though, is a poor marketing decision at best, and stinks of a UBISOFT cash grab if a deliberate attempt to bring to a premature end the IL2FB series. Why would anyone, as a gamer, plunk down their $$ for a game in this genre that will have limited lifespan, limited playability, and fractured online appeal, when they know that the next generation BoB is just around the corner?

/end of rant

[This message was edited by Bandit.426Cdn on Mon May 31 2004 at 02:51 PM.]

Bremspropeller
05-31-2004, 03:55 PM
Well the Germans had problems hitting objects like little bridges across the Oder river.

The Misteln initially were developed to make a huge strike into Scapa Flow and not for bridge-busting.

A ship is nearly a hundred times (if not more) bigger than a bridge across the Oder.

http://www.ccbirding.com/thw/id/peregrine2--hwi.JPG
Da B&Z bird !

http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

SkyChimp
05-31-2004, 04:16 PM
Ships were taller, but probably not as long. Or as fragile. Or ringed by screening ships and tremendous amounts of AA guns.

I say bring on the Mistel. And the KMS Graf Zeppelin.

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

heywooood
05-31-2004, 04:22 PM
this thread has it all... its almost epic.

I don't remember whether I put in my nickle yet and I'm too lazy to look so... err..

Forgot what the hell I was gonna say...oh yeah-

It is what it is and what it is is what it is. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
profound,yes?.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

SkyChimp
05-31-2004, 04:36 PM
Yeah but Heywood, wouldn't you like to stick it to that German carrier, too? Give it a couple of torps right up the ole kazoo?

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

heywooood
05-31-2004, 04:55 PM
Yes!! Skychimp - you and I agree on many topics here.. As I have said many times - One of the best things about FB or 1c or AEP or whatever is the range of aircraft and scenarios that the end user has to work/play with. And you can select or de-select to your hearts desire! Why people constantly complain about this I will never understand. If you want historical accuracy - select it. Fly only on those servers that support you. If you want the 'what-if' scenarios - fly on those servers.

And if you are offline like me - use FMB to do whatever you like. I'm happy. I don't care whether 1c wants PF to stand-alone or be a paid add-on or even be compatible. They created it - that gives them license to do whatever they want. The fact that they even ASKED us is so impressive to me my jaw still doesn't close properly.

heywooood
05-31-2004, 05:00 PM
BtW - Skychimp - your new sig is very cool.

DuxCorvan
05-31-2004, 05:13 PM
Heywood, SkyChimp, you just look like the two old guys making comments at the end of every 'Muppet Show' in the 80s... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

I guess I'm Kermit... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

- Dux Corvan -
http://www.uploadit.org/DuxCorvan/Altamira2.jpg
Ten thousand years of Cantabrian skinning.

LEXX_Luthor
05-31-2004, 06:03 PM
Great, now heywoood comes in and throws Water on the whole Debate. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

mmm, but that KingFisher makes me thirsty for real wavy blue water as much as um...I forgot...oh yes--"clouds"--yes I remember now.

Just wondering--you know how when you taxi fast or take off from open landscape you get the Big Bumps, and they are random bumps not related to anything on the [pure] flat landscape. Now if you taxi the new Kingfisher on water, and you Bump, are the bumps mapped with the grafix waves, or are the bumps random? mmm This is where heywoood's Tugboat Sim and Flight Sim meet together, on planes that can land on water.

FB compatible Kingfisher will be useful for those wanting to insert "Ar~196" into FB campaigns...like they used to do with Yak~1 for "Spit~I" in the Dark Ages BS (Before Spit)....until we get a real Flyable Ar~196. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

heywooood
05-31-2004, 09:11 PM
Dux -
Its time to put on makeup - its time to dress up right - its time to get things started on the Muppet show tonight.

Diss-Lexx-ic ... now we see Arados where there should be Kingfishers?.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I imagine the 'bumps' will be random.. it would save time over actually synchronizing the waves to the floats.. besides, even in real life you can look out the window of your Beaver http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif and not know the difference.

Ruy Horta
06-01-2004, 02:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
I say bring on the Mistel. And the KMS Graf Zeppelin.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Mistel is a weapon of dispair, and not a really effective one at that. However for the original use, to attack powerplants in Russia, it might just have succeeded - relatively big and soft targets where you would create a lot of damage by blast effect alone.

Bridges and ships were neither targets of first choice.

If FB/AEP and PF are at least compatible you will have your Mistel...

The Graf Zeppelin is something else. Technically it would be feasible to make it work. I've got a full set of drawings, very detailed fascimile blueprints (with numerous cross sections. A 3d modelmaker could do a good job with these (you'd even be able to do a perfect DM).

The Bf 109T could be part derived from the current E-7 and some material could be taken from its handbook (if no better material is available). I've got a Ju-87C datenblatt (which has all the basic performance figures and graphs).

The a/c would be fairly easy, the ship according to Luthier is comparable to creating a detailed a/c.


BUT it would be as WHAT-IFFY as the much maligned (and IMHO rightly so) 109Z. Although I'd love to see the 109T, which saw operational service in various guises up to 1944!

The Graf Zeppelin would be no match against a Essex class carrier. It might have been a good fleet carrier during the first half of the war, against British material. But strategically it was a ship in a vacuum. It might have been able to cover a TF consisting of the new Battleships and heavy cruisers, do some damage in the Atlantic vs convoys, but for fleet action it would have been heavily outnumbered by the RN. Also one fails to realise that in (a western) harbor the ships would come under constant air attack from mainland Britain and to reach the open ocean, you'd have to pass by several choke points all under reach of British land based assets. The KM surface fleet had a strategic role as a fleet in being to keep pressure on the RN, but otherwise it was a white elephant.

IMHO its a good thing to have compatibility between FB/AEP and PF, so we can create historical crossovers. Since I am a purist I won't be interested in 109s in the Pacific, although I'd love Hellcats in the Med, Corsairs off "Norway", Wildcat vs Condor.

OTOH if some free for all dogfight server wants to pit the best vs the best, why not allow it? Having said that, I just look for those servers which suit my (historical) taste.

Ruy Horta

PS. Rather than seeing a Graf Zeppelin I'd love to see as many a/c as possible which served in the PTO. Plenty of types which would serve both games well!

Ah, and I really want to see flyable Ki-44 I/IIs and J2M2/3s. These types that tickle my fancy more than the Graf Zeppelin, by a long shot.

LeadSpitter_
06-01-2004, 02:28 AM
Most of us own il2sturmovik the orginal, fb, aep, and some of the mission and skins packs along with many other ubisoft games. What i want to know is what idiot thinks you can only charge $30 for a addon, They can charge whatever price they want. Or charge 50 and incorporate all the aircraft and maps of il2fb/aep into the new engine. I think i will stay with il2fb/aep, more aircraft. and will not buy this product ubi if this is true, im sure many others will but alot will stay in FB/AEP being most of the bouyers are not from the us or jpn.

Ubi should listen to oleg and luthier. Dont ruin the ammount of hardwork put into the il2 series and engine becuase of 10 bucks. I say we all boycott if stand alone to let ubi really know how it will ruin the community.

Charge 50 for it as long as all il2fb/aep maps and aircraft are all in one large sim and community. I really want to support luthier an team for so much work thats going into PF, far more then that AEP shiesty addon. But if its not all in one NO DOE FROM ME AND MANY OTHERS.

being stand alone and not incorporatinga ll fb/aep planes and maps is going to make many leech it.

PF is just a slightly tweaked engine keep them all together, BOB should be a standalone you want us to buy that right. Listen to the polls ubi

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

[This message was edited by LeadSpitter_ on Tue June 01 2004 at 01:42 AM.]

IV_JG51_Razor
06-01-2004, 08:08 AM
I think you all need to get a grip! 8 pages and 149 posts based on CrazyIvan's (you ought to know better than that) request to Luthier that he resqond to a post in another thread by some guy that probably isn't any different that any of us, i.e. not a member of the development team. Notice that neither Luthier, nor Oleg has responded to any of this nonsense in either thread. So just relax guys, "two weeks" is a long, long time from now, and alot can happen between now and then. There's much more weighty subjects to argue over in here, like FMs for planes not yet even flying, or AI for ships, or the proper color for the A6M2.

So Leadspitter, and all the rest of you knotheads out there, there's no need to go off making threats you know you can't keep anyway. There's no way you're going to be able to turn your backs on this sim, regardless of what shape it takes. Just relax, and see what happens. LOL! I'll bet this is the first time in the history of gaming where some of the fan base were actually saying thet are willing to pay more for a sim!!

Please disregard all the above if that Youss guy is actually on the development team. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Razor
IV/JG51 Intelligence Officer
www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"

WOLFMondo
06-01-2004, 08:13 AM
Its Ubi your talking to. Hell will freeze over, windows will become freeware/opensource, political discussion will disappear from the HL chat http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif before Ubi starts listing to the people that buy there games. Even EA have more interaction with there customers. Whats missing here is were not a bunch of whining kids (well some are http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) but were paying customers.

Theres a term...don't bite the hand that feeds you. I think Ubi should start thinking about that when they have there board meetings and make descisions without even thinking about the concequences.

I'll happily pay for PF...if its an addon.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)

Ruy Horta
06-01-2004, 08:30 AM
Dunno about Ubi, from their POV it makes sense.

1. IL2/FB/AEP have run their course and are not even in the mind of the developer anymore, since Oleg is looking ahead with his new engine and other products

2. Anything relating to this product that sells, especially at low investment cost, is an extra

3. PF will sell regardless of compatibility. Most of us who are critical of non-compatibility will buy it anyway, since we are hooked. The general public will buy it to the limited extend they buy flight sims. The subject will guarantee sales in the US and Japan, period. Of course no compatibility will restrict the duration of sales compared to FB and the fact that BoB is on the horizon ensures its not going to get most ongoing support. IMHO even a limited PF will get its investment back if they can get it on the market before Christmas.

Ubi caters to the paying masses, not the critical niche market that we are. OTOH, its the critical niche that ensures long term sales.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif
Ruy Horta

BlitzPig_DDT
06-01-2004, 08:46 AM
Don't forget Ruy, that all these people going on about "buisness decisions" and "no more freebies" have thus far been totally unable to answer the simple question - How does Ubi stand to lose money if people need to buy all 3 products (FB, and AEP and PF) to have the complete plane set?

Likewise, they have been unable to answer the question of how they would indeed not make more money by having it work that way, since many new comers getting PF as their introductory product would then go back and get the other 2 in order to get all those additional planes added in.

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

Ruy Horta
06-01-2004, 08:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
How does Ubi stand to lose money if people need to buy all 3 products (FB, and AEP and PF) to have the complete plane set?

many new comers getting PF as their introductory product would then go back and get the other 2 in order to get all those additional planes added in.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Personally I think they have some Joker up their sleave. IMHO after a couple of months of PF they will publish some sort of GOLD PACK, combining all the a/c in a single product and charge for a full product...that's my take. Ubi&Co isn't as crazy as we think, this way they'll get more mileage and generate a nice buffer for BoB dev. work.

IMHO a second release further down the road can be the only logical explanation to this whole debate.

1. the investment cost will be practically zero
2. the sales will be on top of FB/AEP & PF
3. it will a placeholder until we get BoB, so lets say FB/PF-GOLD Pack for 2nd Q 2005 (if PF is 4Q 2004).

Not too bad judging by the source code game IL2 being how many years old by now?

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif
Ruy Horta

PS, I do agree with you though, I hope you haven't forgotten that, just thinking about the "why" etc etc etc

General_Lee
06-01-2004, 08:57 AM
Glad to see so many names from Il2 here.

LEXX_Luthor
06-01-2004, 12:56 PM
hmmpfh, they got us chained here and they know it.

I agree with rhorta, they can releace non~compatible FP on CD in fall 2004, then later, say summer 2005, change one line of code http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif and releace FP+FB complete compatible package CD with everything working together. Whatever it takes to get there is fine with me.

LeadSpitter_
06-01-2004, 04:01 PM
lexx go play with your teletubbis, theres no threats just what will happen from many, maybe if you flew more you would know what the people are saying.

Its simple we want to support luthiers and his teams hardwork, but if the old aircraft and maps are not compatible with PF which is the same game engine an can easily just be imported into the new engine from our FB/AEP why buy PF becuase of an ubi decision to split the small community. Then what PF has only a 5-6 month play life when BOB comes out.

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

heywooood
06-01-2004, 07:23 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/1241.gif Bob will be delayed.. PF will run looong because it will OWN the PTO - no other sim developer can lift the jockstrap of 1c to coin a phrase.. Leadspitter - I love your skins - cant wait to see your work applied to some US Navy Warbirds.. but your posts?...

PF will fill the longer than expected void between now and BoB for some - but for the rest of us, it will be much more. At least until the NEW improved PF after BoB.

BlitzPig_DDT
06-01-2004, 08:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by heywooood:
PF will fill the longer than expected void between now and BoB for some - but for the rest of us, it will be much more. At least until the NEW improved PF after BoB.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah - IF we can get the AEP planes and maps in there, regardless of how it's done or how much we have to pay.

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

heywooood
06-01-2004, 09:23 PM
regardless... its more about the carriers than the FB maps but if we can import those too - so much the better. I don't really care because I will have both whether I have to switch CD's or not.( I have two drives so thats not an issue either)

"and thats all I have to say about that"
Forrest Gump

crazyivan1970
06-01-2004, 11:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IV_JG51_Razor:
I think you all need to get a grip! 8 pages and 149 posts based on CrazyIvan's (you ought to know better than that) request to Luthier that he resqond to a post in another thread by some guy that probably isn't any different that any of us, i.e. not a member of the development team. Notice that neither Luthier, nor Oleg has responded to any of this nonsense in either thread. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um, excuse me...obviously you don`t really know Youss and believe me, i wouldn`t post this just for the hell of it... i know something as well. All i needed is an official confirmation and reason why. If UBI refuses to comment i kind of hoped that Luthier will.

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.

IV_JG51_Razor
06-02-2004, 07:14 AM
"Please disregard all the above if that Youss guy is actually on the development team."

Obviously I don't know who he is, and from the length of this thread, it appears I'm the only one who doesn't know who he is. Would you care to enlighten me so that I too can get all worked up?

Razor
IV/JG51 Intelligence Officer
www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"

DuxCorvan
06-04-2004, 12:17 PM
Bump! Before another thread on the same topic will prosper... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif