PDA

View Full Version : Much needed updates to set this apart from IL2/FB



peterm1
06-03-2004, 09:31 PM
Despite that fact that there is much to love about IL2/FB there are a couple of things that really, really have started to bug me.

All of these can be called "eye candy" if you wish to trivialise them but in fact are important in terms of player absorption in the game and I for one would DEARLY like to see them rectified iin this sim.

1) The dreaded gun flashes. (No not that again.) YES that again. Depsite me previously haven written in defence of the developers, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that they do detract from the overall realism, not to mention playability of the game. In fact some guns do have large muzzle flashes (judging by WW2 photos I have seen) but these tend to be those guns with LARGE calibre, hot loads and short barrels such as the 37mm monster found in some versions of the IL-2.(Ask anyone who uses fire arms in real life to tell you about muzzle blast / flash in these circumstances. But it is plain wrong to apply this to all guns and all circumstancces since as we know such flashes are also much less visible in bright daylight.

2) Sounds. I am sorry but to my way of thinking the aircraft sounds in FB in most cases are a cross between a mosquito (the insect)and a petrol powered whipper snipper! Talk about nasal! I have used MS flight sims including FS2 and have to say that the sounds available there in general are not just much better they are a quantum leap in realism - aided of course by the software's open architecture and the ability to upgrade sounds to those from real planes. In these sims the sounds for the p-47 for example are a deep throaty roar not someting that sounds like nanny Fine clearing her throat. (Sorry guys you have got sound effects in FB wrong.)

3) The smoky tracers. I love the idea but it has not been well implimented IMHO. Every time I fire a weapon I have the feeling that someone has drawn a line in the sky with a felt tipped pen. The smoke effect is just toooooooo well defined. I hate to draw this comparison but have a look at Stike Fighters Project One. this much maligned sim at least has realistic and very nice looking smoky tracers that dissipate naturally and look REAL. Some would say everything else about it is **** and I once would have agreed but now that it ahs been patched it is actually quite fun to fly (within its limitations.)

4) Finally all of the above could be addressed if the SIM had an open architecture like MS FS2 / FS3 etc. as the community would soon produce enough mods and high quality add ons to keep every one happy. (Being cycnical, I suppose it will not happen however as then UBIsoft will not be able to issue payware updates.) Such is life.

Seriously, this team has a lot to live up to in the wake of IL-2 FB which is really very good. Lets just take the opportunity to make it better.

peterm1
06-03-2004, 09:31 PM
Despite that fact that there is much to love about IL2/FB there are a couple of things that really, really have started to bug me.

All of these can be called "eye candy" if you wish to trivialise them but in fact are important in terms of player absorption in the game and I for one would DEARLY like to see them rectified iin this sim.

1) The dreaded gun flashes. (No not that again.) YES that again. Depsite me previously haven written in defence of the developers, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that they do detract from the overall realism, not to mention playability of the game. In fact some guns do have large muzzle flashes (judging by WW2 photos I have seen) but these tend to be those guns with LARGE calibre, hot loads and short barrels such as the 37mm monster found in some versions of the IL-2.(Ask anyone who uses fire arms in real life to tell you about muzzle blast / flash in these circumstances. But it is plain wrong to apply this to all guns and all circumstancces since as we know such flashes are also much less visible in bright daylight.

2) Sounds. I am sorry but to my way of thinking the aircraft sounds in FB in most cases are a cross between a mosquito (the insect)and a petrol powered whipper snipper! Talk about nasal! I have used MS flight sims including FS2 and have to say that the sounds available there in general are not just much better they are a quantum leap in realism - aided of course by the software's open architecture and the ability to upgrade sounds to those from real planes. In these sims the sounds for the p-47 for example are a deep throaty roar not someting that sounds like nanny Fine clearing her throat. (Sorry guys you have got sound effects in FB wrong.)

3) The smoky tracers. I love the idea but it has not been well implimented IMHO. Every time I fire a weapon I have the feeling that someone has drawn a line in the sky with a felt tipped pen. The smoke effect is just toooooooo well defined. I hate to draw this comparison but have a look at Stike Fighters Project One. this much maligned sim at least has realistic and very nice looking smoky tracers that dissipate naturally and look REAL. Some would say everything else about it is **** and I once would have agreed but now that it ahs been patched it is actually quite fun to fly (within its limitations.)

4) Finally all of the above could be addressed if the SIM had an open architecture like MS FS2 / FS3 etc. as the community would soon produce enough mods and high quality add ons to keep every one happy. (Being cycnical, I suppose it will not happen however as then UBIsoft will not be able to issue payware updates.) Such is life.

Seriously, this team has a lot to live up to in the wake of IL-2 FB which is really very good. Lets just take the opportunity to make it better.

heywooood
06-03-2004, 09:43 PM
Oh... ~sigh~

I wish you had read some posts before you went up like this....and there is something in your tone "sorry guys - you got it wrong".. that prolly wont 'fly' too well..

About aircraft engine sound, what speakers do you have?.. because in Prologic surround it is deep and rummmbly for me. Maybe its the subwoooofer - I dunno.

But I will say this - you've got all the vintage whines on your list....

This sim will not be open source ever BtW.

[This message was edited by heywooood on Thu June 03 2004 at 08:52 PM.]

Bearcat99
06-03-2004, 10:00 PM
I crank up my 5.1 Logitechs when Im alone in my Jug.. and feel that deep throaty roar.. the pulsating desk shaking power.. ump umph umph... D@mn... I need a towel..... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

<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!

peterm1
06-03-2004, 10:38 PM
Nope, it just doesn't do it for me and I have to reiterate that it sounds poor. I have to fess up that I mainly use head phones (as I think do a lot of simmers especially those with a wife and or kids and who live in an apartment.) My wife nearly kills me for spending so much time on the sim anyway and would definitely kill me if I used external speakers. BUT......they are $100 headphones - ie very good quality and with every other sim I have flown in use, they sound just as good as speakers. So if it is the head phones then it has soemthing to do with FB's set up. I should add that I select the headphone option in the game settings to make sure this does nto stuff up anything. Perhaps FB sounds do are not configured to reproduce correctly unless they are run through an amplifier then into a subwoofer and powerful midrange speakers????

By the way I am not whining contrary to the other post. I am making a constructive suggestion - reinforcing the ones made by probably hundreds of other posts. ie This is not just my opinion, it is the opinion of many, many, many simmers I haev hld off posting this to the FB site aas their is no point - we have been told that these issues will not be fixed in that sim. But I am now taking the opportunity to add my weight to the debate as at last we have an opportunity to fix it - one that if not taken now will not come along again in the life of this new sim, if as he said this will "never" be an open architecture sim.

ElAurens
06-03-2004, 10:44 PM
The Merlin sure does not sound like a Merlin to me.

_____________________________

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

BlitzPig_EL

peterm1
06-03-2004, 11:05 PM
Actually on reflection there is one thing in Bearcat's post I agree with. I probably did come across as somewhat too preachy and arrogant about this and for that I apologise. But I just wanted to state as emphatically as I can while I ahev the chance, that these are issues which really, really DO detract from what, in other respects is an excellent sim, with great immersion, not just for me, but judging by the myriad of posts on the topic, for perhaps hundreds of others as well. I work in an environment where custoemr service is all and we try to listent ot the client and do hear what they say. All I am saying is that the development team for the new sim, has a chance to fix something that many clients are unanimous in saying they do not like in the old sim.

Weather_Man
06-04-2004, 01:59 AM
Let's not get carried away with the unanimous. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I disagree with all of it, except the gun flashes. Maybe tone it down by a third next time around. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sounds are great. Terrific, in fact. Tracers are great. The hundred+ planes not developed by the community (and we didn't have to search to download) are great. Oh heck, even the Flight Model is great.

I don't see anything needing "fixing", because I don't see anything broke. There is always room for enhancement or tweakage, but I'm not going to pretend I don't enjoy the heck out of this game as it is.

Art-J
06-04-2004, 04:09 AM
Eh... the digital synthesized engine sound system in FB will never be as good as the one using samples recorded from real planes, like in FS/CFS series. I agree with Peterm on this one. Weather_Man, try to listen to real Merlin or Allison sound clips, available on net and compare it to lawn-mowers in FB. Will You still consider them "terrific" after that? Maybe. I do not.

On the other hand, we can at least use subwoofers, bass headphones and proper settings to make FB sounds more "groovy" and "serious". Then we get impression of sitting behind sth big & powerful. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/Haribo-Zeke_small_3_txt.jpg

[This message was edited by Art-J on Fri June 04 2004 at 03:19 AM.]

DuxCorvan
06-04-2004, 12:15 PM
It's gonna be set apart from FB... by force. Just by not including FB stuff in it. Don't expect much changes -except carrier operations, but I don't expect this to be working as fine as many people like to believe.

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

I'll be satisfied as long as the carriers move... because with the actual engine, we could get FIXED trips, only with carrier-like external look... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

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

ucanfly
06-04-2004, 02:51 PM
I agreed with original post right up until the open architecture thing.

For those that think the sound is terrific - hmmmm, I have five year old sims that sound more realistic, especially 50 cal and Merlin, and yes I have shot a 50 cal IRL and heard a Merlin up close.

peterm1
06-04-2004, 06:19 PM
For anyone who still thinks that IL-2 / FB sounds realistic or even sounds particularly good (and who I assume has not experienced any of the very wide range of MS FS sounds that are available) click on this link and have a listen to a few real WW 2 warbirds fly past. There is no comparison I am afraid. I don't wish to offend anyone, but I just think it is so true that I cannot help stating it emphatically.

http://www.lsss.homestead.com/Sounds1.html

On another point I can understand that this sim will be based on the IL-2 / FB engine and will therefore not be open architecture, but I cannot understand why some people in this community seem to have a set against open architecture sims. Such sims create the opportunity for community members to tweak perfomance, appearance, effects etc so that the sim meets their particular needs and tastes (so there is no need for "whining" as some put it.) These sims also create and sustain communities which are active and vibrant - which is good for both the community and the developers, and in general people who have experience of such sims seem to like the idea. I don't think there is necessarily a performance overhead associated with this architecture, 9we are basically talking object oriented programming) so why do some seem so distainful? The only downside I can think of is potentially one for the developers as such sims can take a long time to die as people may be reluctant to upgrade to new sims as they come online (especially if the new ones are below par - look at CFS2 still going strong a couple of years almost after CFS3 was launched.)

I am just curious as to whether I am missing something.

ucanfly
06-04-2004, 06:55 PM
There is nothing wrong with open architecture per se, but as evedenced from other sims the quality of online play is very suspect when you fly against someone's dreamed up FM (with all the inherent cheats possible) and at least in MS method, the qulaity of the sim is very low and depends on others to raise it.


WHat makes FB/AEP so unique is despite the fact that there is a huge planeset and there were 3rd parties involved we all have the same game and are talking apples aand apples when we discuss planes and FMs, DMs etc. Maybe if all the open architecture stuff is isolated to offline play...

ElAurens
06-04-2004, 09:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by peterm1:
I am just curious as to whether I am missing something.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, Corsairs that weigh 25 pounds, have 7000HP. and 12 .50s on each wing, cause that's what you end up with in an open architecture game, sooner or later.

_____________________________

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

BlitzPig_EL

LEXX_Luthor
06-04-2004, 11:15 PM
I JAM stereo when playing FB so I never even bothered with sound--don't even have speakers.

peterm:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I am just curious as to whether I am missing something.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, Oleg is the Community. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

I could see the peterm Me262 Mod out-turning Gladiator. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Still, for offwhine play only I would love to add my own MiG~I224 FM to MiG~3 cockpit if I can't make my own cockpit. But the Spit~9HF will have to do I guess. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif It would be cool to do this for offwhine play--obviously this won't satisfy the onwhine FM Cheaters.

heywooood
06-05-2004, 02:05 PM
I have heard the Merlin engines real song and if you think the sound in FB is that far off -through your tiny earphone speaks or some cheezy lil' $10.00 no name desktoppers then good on ya' - Heywoooods neighbors love the FB
'specially when I am blasting away with my .50 cals....

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/3tbm_avenger.jpg
Goin'fishin'

Hunter82
06-05-2004, 08:11 PM
Bingo... I came from CFS played CFS and then CFS2....jeez there were me and 3 other people on the zone when cfs2 came out and MS opened the rooms...... After the 'mods' hit the scene again it just wasn't worth it. A level and controled playing field is needed not open arch which any nimrod with basic xml skilz can edit a fm/dm and create whatever they choose....shall we add hitboxes the size of a small country also? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by peterm1:
I am just curious as to whether I am missing something.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, Corsairs that weigh 25 pounds, have 7000HP. and 12 .50s on each wing, cause that's what you end up with in an open architecture game, sooner or later.

_____________________________

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

__BlitzPig_EL__<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

==============================
Mudmovers (http://www.mudmovers.com)
ATI Catalyst Beta Tester
Catalyst Feedback (http://apps.ati.com/driverfeedback/)
Catalyst Driver Download (http://www.ati.com/support/driver.html)
==============================

Cpt_Jack
06-06-2004, 07:55 PM
I understand the problem with open architecture and online play, but otherwise I agree with Peterm completely. The muzzle flashes and tracer smoke are way overdone. The spiralling smoke from cannon rounds looks realistic - the German and Japanese machine gun fire looks awful.

The sounds may be good enough or "cool," but they are not very realistic. And it's not the speaker system. I fly with good stereo headphones as well as desktop speakers with a subwoofer; the sound effects in CFS 2 are better either way. Even the original IL-2 had better engine sounds. Listen to the P-39 and I-16 in IL-2, and then in FB. Don't forget, the sound engine in FB had to be patched a couple of times just to sound like it does now.

And the weather, too, could be greatly improved. Even CFS 2 had a better setup, where you could choose the amount of cloud cover, and even the rate of precipitation. In FB you really only have three options: perfectly clear skies, overcast with rain, or good weather with some cottonball clouds floating at low altitude. Considering how weather played a vital role in operations in the Pacific, we really need better weather options - larger clouds, more cloud cover at higher altitude, anything would help.

It seems like the developers don't bother to fix some basic things that really need improvement. But when the weekend update comes around, we are supposed to be impressed by a shot in Perfect mode (which a lot of people won't fly in anyway, online or offline), where you can see a completely unnecessary reflection of a Hellcat as it flies low over the ocean. Why bother with eye candy that you will not even SEE inside the cockpit, when just improving the tracer smoke a little would greatly improve the game?

While I'm whining, how about that mission builder? CFS 2 had an extensive mission editor where you could create triggers and random events, time delays for aircraft, events, and objects - even the type of formation for each flight, fingertip, shotai, etc. Does FB have a FMB like that? Nope. Will Pacific Fighters? So far I've read that it will not. So why not?

No, I'm not just trying to be negative. FB is an outstanding simulation - the best so far, by far. And Pacific Fighters is honestly a wet dream for me. Ever since the original IL-2 first came out, I was wishing for a Pacific sim of the same quality. And now Oleg and team are making it for us. So I want to say, Thank You. I just think that some of us have some very legitimate suggestions and concerns. And I hope that when we post these thoughts, we are being heard, and that it is not too late to tweak some things in the game, because it would make it so much better.

Loki-PF
06-06-2004, 08:46 PM
Very mush agree with most of whats been said up to this point.... Particularily regarding the sound effects. Those in this thread that are defending the engine sounds in IL2, I'm willing to bet have never played another "modern" WWII flight sim.

I also want to be very clear that this is "constructive criticism" only. IL2 FB ACE is the best WWII FS I've played.... And I go back alllll the way to "Aces over the Pacific".

No ones going to buy this kind of sim just for the sounds, thats a given. But it is one of the very few ways that this wonderful game could be improved.

Just my 2p

Alyssa1127
06-06-2004, 08:51 PM
---Quote From Art-J---
Eh... the digital synthesized engine sound system in FB will never be as good as the one using samples recorded from real planes, like in FS/CFS series. I agree with Peterm on this one. Weather_Man, try to listen to real Merlin or Allison sound clips, available on net and compare it to lawn-mowers in FB. Will You still consider them "terrific" after that? Maybe. I do not.

On the other hand, we can at least use subwoofers, bass headphones and proper settings to make FB sounds more "groovy" and "serious". Then we get impression of sitting behind sth big & powerful.
----------------------

Well said. Besides, given the serious rarity of some of the Japanese birds, I can imagine that actual sampling of engine noise would indeed be quite a feat.

I've never been one to imagine that the sounds are even close to 100% accurate, but it does at least give the impression.

I think the only sound set in a flight sim to impress by sheer accuracy is that of the MAAM's B-25J 'Briefing Time' for FS2002/2004. I had the honor to go up in a 25 a couple years back, and I can honestly say that when I fired BT up, I had a severe sense of deja vu.

Alyssa

heywooood
06-06-2004, 09:18 PM
Hey - everyone has so many opinions about the sound effects and muzzle flash and the difference between 'eye candy' and necessary visual elements.. oh and .50 cal dispersion and the size of Sand Island..damn, all these issues that will never be corrected EVER.(some of these are very much 'personal preference' type issues where the developer may actually LIKE these effects-ever think of that?) ummm
Except for the fact that this is a work in progress (WIP)... and that all of 1c's works so far have been patched with new FM's and DM's and new maps and new flyable planes etc... with great regularity and often free of charge!
And just so we understand each other - I think the sound effects are less than perfect, so am I, but they are designed for very high end machines to run so each of us might be getting drastically different results.

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/3tbm_avenger.jpg
Goin'fishin'

[This message was edited by heywooood on Sun June 06 2004 at 09:23 PM.]

[This message was edited by heywooood on Sun June 06 2004 at 09:24 PM.]

peterm1
06-06-2004, 11:52 PM
I think some of you guys are getting a bee in your bonnet over nothing. The point is that IL-2 /FB is a great sim - which is not perfect. There are MANY players who recognise certain limitations with it. These players (and it goes without saying that I am one) would like to see the sim (or this new one) evolve into something even better as the opportunity presents itself. That is how great products become even greater. So, for those of you who are being affronted by antything I have said, remember I am being constructive in my comments. Kindly do not start flame wars and try to shout down anyone who expresses an opinion contrary to yours. It is a bad form old chap and just not cricket.

BPLIzard
06-07-2004, 01:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
The Merlin sure does not sound like a Merlin to me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah! Sounds more like a Harry Potter.

http://img48.photobucket.com/albums/v147/BPLizard/Lizard/BlitzPig.jpg (http://www.blitzpigs.com)

[This message was edited by BPLIzard on Mon June 07 2004 at 01:08 PM.]

heywooood
06-07-2004, 05:44 PM
No one is shouting anyone down- you can say what you like. I can disagree with it.

I matched your inital tone is all and you didn't like it... around here we play baseball-not 'cricket', chappie.

Some call it hardball when you pitch inside.
step out of the box if its too hard for you.
...or not, your choice.

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/3tbm_avenger.jpg
Goin'fishin'

peterm1
06-08-2004, 11:00 PM
I have only one thing to say......


http://lsss2.homestead.com/SB2C.html

peterm1
06-08-2004, 11:03 PM
Or perhaps I should have said...........


http://www.lsss.homestead.com/Spitfire.html

heywooood
06-09-2004, 09:03 PM
FB engines sound way better'n that noise.

http://www.snakelegs.net/chittychitty/headerhi.jpg

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif hahahaha petey!

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/3tbm_avenger.jpg
Goin'fishin'

[This message was edited by heywooood on Wed June 09 2004 at 08:12 PM.]

peterm1
06-10-2004, 03:49 AM
Oh YOU guys! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

aaltomar
06-11-2004, 07:23 AM
I HATE the tracer smoke. Too solid... and perfectly straight.

peterm1
06-11-2004, 08:54 AM
THANK you aaltomar. My point precisely. (I don't know that I exactly hate them but I do dislike them.)

Cossack13
06-11-2004, 09:08 AM
If the day ever comes that they go to open architecture, I'm taking FB off the hard drive. I've seen the sort of **** some of these losers will try to pass off as a "mod."

heywooood
06-11-2004, 10:00 AM
THANK you - Cossack13

A small worm or two in an otherwise tasty apple is fine with me.. especially as there is NOTHING else to eat. Besides - if you start cutting the apple to pieces looking for worms - pretty soon you are left with nothing again.
Give me the tracer smoke,long, stiff and straight, like my Johanssen.~cheers.

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/3tbm_avenger.jpg
Goin'fishin'

Hunter82
06-13-2004, 10:09 AM
I have no problem with changes to the game, sounds,visuals, etc. BUT as long as they are hard coded and not open for edit in any way like now http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

We don't need another CFS series... Microshaft is just fine for that.

==============================
Mudmovers (http://www.mudmovers.com)
ATI Catalyst Beta Tester
Catalyst Feedback (http://apps.ati.com/driverfeedback/)
Catalyst Driver Download (http://www.ati.com/support/driver.html)
Magnum PC (http://www.magnum-pc.com)

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

Spectre-63
06-13-2004, 01:39 PM
Having come from the Falcon 4.0 community, I tend to agree with those coming down against open architecture. Even if the mods are carefully managed and handled only by groups with sufficient capability to test them for accuracy, you'll still wind up with people who have different opinions on how something should perform. You want divisiveness in the community? Institute an open-architecture and watch as people separate into different patch sects.

Oh, and then you'll have a whole other problem: how to make the patches function together online. Pretty soon, you'll have the exact situation that finally made me uninstall Falcon: a 3 hour install process that was of questionable stability at best that had to be tweaked, massaged, and prayed to to get it to work properly online.

Open architecture, no thanks!

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

peterm1
06-13-2004, 04:34 PM
Given todays technology, it is hard to see why it would not be possible to create a sim solution that meets both agendas. For example, some parts of the game could be open (much like it is with skins in FB) but with planes flight charactersistics / weaponry locked down to prevent online cheating. That way those who want to, could mod effects and eye candy to their hearts' delight while the fighter jocks could get their rocks off on shooting each other online. Or in a fully open architecture solution, safeguards could be built in to ensure that only stock planes can fly online. One that comes to mind is digitally signing the flight model of planes so that only original planes can play on co-op servers. Adopting a black and white all or nothing attitude is nuts. There are plenty of people out there who do not fly online but to whom other things are important. If Ubi is keen to maximise market share there are plenty of examples of firms using technology in innovative ways to appeal to a wider audience.

WereSnowleopard
06-13-2004, 07:33 PM
Don't forget...light AA guns seem like star war with laser-like firing as even machine gun can reach and hit far-high plane from patrol boat. It should have realistic firing with ballastic and limited range.

Regards
Snowleopard