PDA

View Full Version : What do you think Forgotten Battles needs most now?



Gunner_361st
02-08-2004, 09:47 AM

Gunner_361st
02-08-2004, 09:47 AM

Korolov
02-08-2004, 09:52 AM
CDM for the Fw-190 is desperately needed.

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

Gunner_361st
02-08-2004, 09:59 AM
Very true Korolov. I am interested to see what more people think as well. So come on folks, feel free to vote and post if you have any comments or questions. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

Extreme_One
02-08-2004, 10:02 AM
How about a more respectful, less inflamatory community! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
(not aimed at any of the current members of THIS thread BTW)

I actually voted for Hurri Ordanance.

S! Simon
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''
Download the RAF campaign folder here (http://www.netwings.org/library/Forgotten_Battles/Missions/index-9.html).

Download the USAAF campaign folder here (http://www.netwings.org/library/Forgotten_Battles/Missions/index-9.html). *NEW* Updated for FB 1.21

http://extremeone.4t.com/images/raf_sig.jpg

Maple_Tiger
02-08-2004, 10:18 AM
Yet again i agree with Korolov with the DM of the FW.

I love the FW i think its a very nice plane. It's the only german plane ill fly on the blue side

Its damage modele is way to simple. Some times it can lose a wing in one burst, and other times it seems almost invinsable. I does lose some manuverablity some times though, this i have noticed.

SeaFireLIV
02-08-2004, 10:29 AM
It has to be the Ordnance. Actually, it`s about time I started whining about it again... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/Harris.jpg

Dmitri9mm
02-08-2004, 10:32 AM
I am only gonna say this once:
Flyable bf110, flyable bf110, flyable bf110,flyable bf110,flyable bf110,flyable bf110,flyable bf110,flyable bf110,flyable bf110,flyable bf110,flyable bf110,flyable bf110,flyable bf110....
FLyable bf110 - crap!

DangerForward
02-08-2004, 10:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
CDM for the Fw-190 is desperately needed.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think many 190 pilots might regret asking for a complex damage model as in general the planes with complex damage models often seem weaker damage-wise. More ways for your damaged control surfaces to auger you into the ground. I'm afraid it wouldn't be the panacea many imagine.

DangerForward

Korolov
02-08-2004, 11:03 AM
Thats the whole point, DangerForward. Right now the 190 almost rivals the P-47 in toughness and durability, and thats not exactly right.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: In a Fw-190, you're either alive or you're dead.

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

Gunner_361st
02-08-2004, 11:14 AM
Exactly Korolov. This sim is designed for realism, so it isn't about if its weaker or stronger, just more realistic and accurate. Don't worry, the FW-190 was not a fragile plane, especially compared to the Me-109. Many people want consistency, and thats why so many want a CDM for the FW190.

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

Diablo_310th
02-08-2004, 11:22 AM
I have to agree....the FW-190 needs to be brought up to snuff in DM. Ohh and the roll rate on the D-27. LOL sorry couldn't resist.

jagdmailer
02-08-2004, 11:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gunner_361st:
Morning gentlemen. This is just a poll I thought might be a good idea, to get a look at what some of the community as a whole desire most. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

They all sound good to me, but if I have to pick one over the others, I've picked it already. and no, I won't tell you what it is I voted for. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. Flyable Bf 110C & Bf 110C-4/B or Bf 110E-1/N/U4 (instead of C-4/B jabo). Available DB601N engines @1200hp option (versus 1075/1100hp for DB601A) on flyable Bf110C & E variants. ie. Make the 2 engines versions available and user selectable.

2. Large ordinance (bombs) for the LW (at least)

- SC1000 and SC1000B "Hermann"
- SD1000
- SD1400
- PC1400
- PC1600
- SC1700
- SC1800
- SC1800B
- SC2000
- SC2500

3. Accurate historically available bombs & large bombs for the LW bombers currenty in the SIM (ie. He 111/Ju 88), dive/support bombers (ie. Ju 87/Fw190F-8) & the upcomings bombers (ie. Flyable Ju 88A-4/A-14, Do 217E-2/E-4, Do 217K-1/K-2, Do 217M-1, He 177A-5, Do 17Z-2....)

4. historically available loadout options for the Bf 109F series. ie. drop-tanks and SC50/SC250 on ETC250 rack

5. Accurate (ie. tame down!) muzzle flash for LW aircrafts, specially Mk 108.

6. DB605DC or DB605ASC @2000hp on take-off/1800hp at rated altitude option for Bf 109G-10 & Bf 109K-4.

7. DB605ASC @2000hp on take-off/1800hp at rated altitude option for Bf 109G-14.

8. Malta map for FB!

9. Focke-Wulf Ta 152C-1 with accurate options.

10. One or several later Dora Fw 190 variants, ie. Fw 190D-12/D-13/D-14/D-15 with accurate options.

11. Flyable & "crewable" Heinkel He 177A-5 (I have access to probably all of the necessary modelling data to make it flyable)

12. An Italian Southern Eastern Front Fighter campaign in Ukraine/Southern Russia circa 1941-1943 using Radek's upcoming flyable Macchi 200 Saetta & 2fast2kill/SternJager Macchi 202 Folgore and using current FB maps.

Ultimately, I would not mind getting a flyable Ar 240C and/or more heavy twins fighters/fighter-bombers in several variants & with accurate loadout options...ie. flyable Me 210C, Me 410A & B, He 219, Ju 88G.....

That is about it for the stuff that just came to mind.......

Cheers,

JagdMailer
Omega Squad

VW-IceFire
02-08-2004, 12:16 PM
I voted FW190 complex damage model. Both as flyer and shooter I'd like to see these guys get more varried levels of damage.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

crazyivan1970
02-08-2004, 12:40 PM
Agreed on 190, flying it is a gamble... either you frastrate opponent and run him outta ammo or die from 1 50cal round http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

190 Gets my vote.

V!
Regards,

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

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

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.

A.K.Davis
02-08-2004, 12:42 PM
Most important: reform padlock.

But a real DM for the 190s is very important also.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

Brian_Atherton
02-08-2004, 01:15 PM
A SPITFIRE OR TWO pLEASE

Chuck_Older
02-08-2004, 01:20 PM
I voted "other"

This post made me think a bit.

What I want is:

A priority list from 1C, based on what the general consensus of players, that gives an outline on what's being looked at, what's in progress, and what's done, in terms of revisions, add-ons, damage and flight models, etc.

Maybe there even IS one already and I haven't found it? But this would help us help them by either shutting up, or making suggestions, about certain things.

*****************************
the sergeant will for, his sergeant's pay, obey the captain 'till his dying day~ Clash

mllaneza
02-08-2004, 01:22 PM
Let's face it, everybody needs flyable bombers, and I'll count bombs for the IIc in that category (the IIc is a fine CAS bird in WW2OL). I do consider the 190 DM to be an aberration, but it's close enough. Flyable bombers are much more important.

Veteran - Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force. 1993-1951.

Gunner_361st
02-08-2004, 02:37 PM
Wait a minute. 200-something views and only 26 votes?! Come on fellas, lets not let democracy fail. Make your voices heard! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

FW190fan
02-08-2004, 02:38 PM
Other.

We need strategic sized maps, hopefully one of the channel front in the west first.

If FB is ever to truly evolve into a Pacific sim as well, a map that is 200km across will be woefully inadequate to simulate the vast distances involved.

Without a strategic sized map, FB will always remain a tactical sim.

I'd like to see FB grow up.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

Recon_609IAP
02-08-2004, 03:11 PM
more bombers

S!
609IAP_Recon

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg
Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

kyrule2
02-08-2004, 04:23 PM
#1 and #3, but I voted #1 of course.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

3./JG51_Hunde
http://www.jg51.com/

Kwiatos
02-08-2004, 05:00 PM
1. Correct damage model:
- Ju87
- Lagg3, Fw190

2. Correct flight model
- IL2 - too good climb, turn and dive
- P-40 - too good climb, no efect in FM when damage wings
- P-39 - too good roll
- He111 - fly like a fighter no bomber
- BF G-K - too good turn rate compare it to Bf F
- Fw190 - too good roll at high speed

3. Others
- fix stutters- freezes
- fix lags in tracks
- AI behavior (gunners, etc)

AND
- ADD SPITFIRE

AND I WILL BE HAPPY

DangerForward
02-08-2004, 07:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
Thats the whole point, DangerForward. Right now the 190 almost rivals the P-47 in toughness and durability, and thats not exactly right.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wish all the significant planes had complex damage models. In addition to the 190, I'm pretty sure most of the yaks, and the p39 also use the simple model. Ever taken control surface damage in a yak or p39? I guess it's such a big job we'll probably not get it, so that's why I had to vote for the multi-engine bomber option...

Take it easy...

DangerForward

chris455
02-08-2004, 08:27 PM
A FMB with a set of comprehensive triggers.
A Pacific map of the Solomon Islands, New Guinea, and Rabaul.
More Japanese AC of all types. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

SodBuster43
02-08-2004, 11:20 PM
"ONLINE WAR" GAME TYPE

The following game type would be created in the full mission builder just like a cooperative mission would be created. The exception would be that there would always be two teams each with their own objectives. I should think that this might be feasible within the current game engine to do this. The following features would be incorporated into this game play mode:

-Players having the ability to create flights of up to four aircraft during the course of the battle. Aircraft would be drawn from a pool of available aircraft types determined by the map creator. Wingman commands and radio chatter would work just like in a cooperative type game. Also, the ability to jump from one aircraft in your flight to another until your entire flight has completed a sorte and landed or has been completely destroyed.

-Objectives for both teams would be predetermined by the map creator for balanced gameplay. Visible colored markers would indicate locations and types of objectives. Objectives could also appear during the progress of battle by setting the time for the objective later than the map start time. Destruction of airfileds would be possible merely by defining a "destroy ground" objective area around the airfield. The airfield could then change from a colored team designation to a white neutral designation.

-The map round would end when all objectives for one team were completed or all available aircraft were depleted.

This concept would be very similar to the scripted servers we have now but incorporated into the game as a third gametype option. Game rounds could last for hours or even days http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

[This message was edited by SodBuster43 on Sun February 08 2004 at 10:38 PM.]

robban75
02-09-2004, 12:22 AM
I voted for the 190 DM.
But there's quite a few other things that needs some fixing in the FM department.

1.Russian planes need to get their climbrates significantly reduced. Especially at high altitude. The G-2 needs to get its climbrate reduced aswell, not sure about the other 109's, I haven't tested them yet.

2.Overheat times needs a good fixing. Aswell as the ability to cool the engine. Overheating at high altitude must be looked at aswell, as there's no different from low altitude.

3.Almost all planes needs to get their rollrate lowered.
P-51's and P-47's rollrate at high speeds must be increased though.

4.Good divers have no advantage anymore, even the light Yak-3 can almost dive with a D-9 and Mustang. History very much says otherwise.

5.Climbrates for the Fw 190 needs to be increased, especially the A-9's.

6.Turnrates and turntimes for the Russian birds needs to be reduced, same for the G-2.

7.Acceleration for the D-9 needs to be better as it accelerates not much better than the Fw 190A-5.

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

kyrule2
02-09-2004, 01:16 AM
What Robban said exactly, then I will be happy.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

3./JG51_Hunde
http://www.jg51.com/

jurinko
02-09-2004, 02:19 AM
for me, I need just more time to fly http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif but my wife doesn´t think so http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

----------------------
Letka13./Liptow @ HL

VVS-Manuc
02-09-2004, 03:26 AM
We need the FM fine tuning for a lot of planes AND a complex DM for FW 190 (and if possible for ships and tanks, too)

Skalgrim
02-09-2004, 05:16 AM
p47 climb should be fix,

climb similar a9 low altitude, although a9 has over 2000kg less weigh by same power

perhaps climb a9 too to slow.

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Mon February 09 2004 at 05:11 AM.]

HWick
02-09-2004, 07:24 AM
After several atches and tunes, the Flight models wrong for almost all A/C.

-lot of a/c can fly with a smoking emgine without performance losses.

-lot of a/c's climbrate, diverate and zoomclimb abilities wrong

-altitude performances wrong in a lot of a/c

-lot of a/c have wrong topspeed and minimal speed

-overheating and oilradiators not modelled right. ( a/c-s DM not contains it.)


so for me is the main and most important thing is the tune of FM and DM in alll a/c, not just one or two.

ordnances are important too, but not in the first place.

Willey
02-09-2004, 07:51 AM
Other.

First off: Reduce that freaking AI controlled gun accuracy. This means Flak/AAA, Ship guns and tank main guns as well as machine guns mounted on tank turrets. They are really uberized right now... reminds me of 1.0. DISCLAIMER: Now I think they were quite OK back in Il-2, although I also said they were uber at that time.

2nd: Correct those loadouts. This includes vote #3 (Hurri). Butch2k posted some suberb lists of german AC loadouts. Also, those weapons should act realistically. I don't see the sense in an AB-500 container, filled with SD-4 HL bomblets that can't scratch a tank. IRL these bomblets were developed to penetrate armour and kill tanks (after they saw that even a SC-250 5m next to a tank can't really kill it - let's say much higher probability to score a hit). They could even kill T-34s. PTAB-2,5 can do so, so it's a "possible fix".

3rd: Tone down those "uberbig muzzle flashes" :P

Gunner_361st
02-09-2004, 07:52 AM
Checked the thread this morning, coming along nicely, but... 545 views, and only 47 votes? I can only hope its the 47 that voted viewing many many times in a row. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Come on gentlemen, lets make our voices heard! "More Bombers" has taken a surprising lead, but with only 47 votes so far, things could change quickly!

Also, in response to HWick... Do you think there is any point to what you just posted? You said so many things about so many different aircraft are wrong, but you don't mention which aircraft, and which characteristics of the particular aircraft are wrong, or even how. Also the fact that you posted no sources, no books, no websites, and said nothing of yourself, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously? I think more people online should think more before they post. It'd do the forums a world of difference.

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

P.S. - Don't take this as a personal attack Hwick, its not. Read what you posted a few times and you'll see what I mean.

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

Functio
02-09-2004, 08:57 AM
IMHO, the FM still needs some looking at - in particular, the way all aircraft bleed energy during manouevers. At the moment, you can still do various things at high AoA at low speeds and not lose significant amounts of control or overall speed. As a result, real energy fighting is still not possible, and high- and low-speed stalls are a little odd.

I also think some of the guns need looking at - currently, ShKas and UT MGs seem to have little drop off, which allows them to hit targets way out of what is a conceivably normal range. Also, the MG-FF seems a little two powerful - they're much better, for example, at detaching B-17 wings with only a few hits than MG151/20 gun pods (the latter should be significantly better weapons). Some aircraft also seem to be very fragile, in particular the Bf109.

tomwilliams007
02-10-2004, 11:05 AM
Hey, I think the best thing ever would be for Oleg to add a flyable F4-U4 Corsiar seeing as they added Japenese planes. This aircraft is awesome, they had such large propellers the wings had to be bent so they did not catch the ground on landing. It is also rumoured by pilots that if you ever ran out of ammo you could alsways go up behind the enemy and saw off his tail surface!

BfHeFwMe
02-10-2004, 01:25 PM
I'm sorry, but this poll is rubbish. Prove your damage modeling theory, what exactly is simple as compared to the rest, don't buy it. Why bother messing with flight models when the AI is still lacking and can't make use of them any how. We're already getting some bombers so why is this in the poll? You mean the hurri did ground attack, was it any good, does anyone really care?

Korolov
02-10-2004, 01:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DangerForward:
I wish all the significant planes had complex damage models. In addition to the 190, I'm pretty sure most of the yaks, and the p39 also use the simple model. Ever taken control surface damage in a yak or p39? I guess it's such a big job we'll probably not get it, so that's why I had to vote for the multi-engine bomber option...

Take it easy...

DangerForward<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yaks: Engines will smoke, they can get hit in the oil coolers, engines will catch fire, wing damage makes them just about impossible to fly.

P-39: Engine will catch fire, smoke, etc. Wings will take heavy damage and reduce performance signifigantly.

Fw-190: No engine fires. No heavy smoke (you get the light thin smoke sometimes but it doesn't affect performance). Wounded pilots near impossible to get. Fuselage will take tons of hits before suffering a breakdown.

Most of CDM has to do with engine damage, but theres plenty more like guns jamming and cockpit damage. Yaks and P-39s can get jams and cockpit damage galore, but Fw-190 doesn't get any jams or cockpit damage.

So, I think that you're wrong, and that the yaks and P-39 have CDM.

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

lrrp22
02-10-2004, 02:40 PM
Thank you, Robban! My vote for best post in the thread.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
I voted for the 190 DM.
But there's quite a few other things that needs some fixing in the FM department.

1.Russian planes need to get their climbrates significantly reduced. Especially at high altitude. The G-2 needs to get its climbrate reduced aswell, not sure about the other 109's, I haven't tested them yet.

2.Overheat times needs a good fixing. Aswell as the ability to cool the engine. Overheating at high altitude must be looked at aswell, as there's no different from low altitude.

3.Almost all planes needs to get their rollrate lowered.
P-51's and P-47's rollrate at high speeds must be increased though.

4.Good divers have no advantage anymore, even the light Yak-3 can almost dive with a D-9 and Mustang. History very much says otherwise.

5.Climbrates for the Fw 190 needs to be increased, especially the A-9's.

6.Turnrates and turntimes for the Russian birds needs to be reduced, same for the G-2.

7.Acceleration for the D-9 needs to be better as it accelerates not much better than the Fw 190A-5.

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HellToupee
02-10-2004, 04:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DangerForward:
I wish all the significant planes had complex damage models. In addition to the 190, I'm pretty sure most of the yaks, and the p39 also use the simple model. Ever taken control surface damage in a yak or p39? I guess it's such a big job we'll probably not get it, so that's why I had to vote for the multi-engine bomber option...

Take it easy...

DangerForward<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yaks: Engines will smoke, they can get hit in the oil coolers, engines will catch fire, wing damage makes them just about impossible to fly.

P-39: Engine will catch fire, smoke, etc. Wings will take heavy damage and reduce performance signifigantly.

Fw-190: No engine fires. No heavy smoke (you get the light thin smoke sometimes but it doesn't affect performance). Wounded pilots near impossible to get. Fuselage will take tons of hits before suffering a breakdown.

Most of CDM has to do with engine damage, but theres plenty more like guns jamming and cockpit damage. Yaks and P-39s can get jams and cockpit damage galore, but Fw-190 doesn't get any jams or cockpit damage.

So, I think that you're wrong, and that the yaks and P-39 have CDM.

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

and not to forget with the 190 and dammage to the wings at all makes it almost unflyable, be it visable or not.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

BfHeFwMe
02-10-2004, 04:50 PM
Be careful what you ask for, reduce it's roll rate by half and I'm sure it'll fly like the rest. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Renegade_50
02-10-2004, 05:09 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif It Definatly needs a bombardier position available in coops. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif they must have been crazy not to include this in the game design. It is way to hard to fly the plane zip to the other windows set up bombsight, zoom back fly some more then back and forth you get the idea http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

JG7_Rall
02-10-2004, 06:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I voted for the 190 DM.
But there's quite a few other things that needs some fixing in the FM department.

1.Russian planes need to get their climbrates significantly reduced. Especially at high altitude. The G-2 needs to get its climbrate reduced aswell, not sure about the other 109's, I haven't tested them yet.

2.Overheat times needs a good fixing. Aswell as the ability to cool the engine. Overheating at high altitude must be looked at aswell, as there's no different from low altitude.

3.Almost all planes needs to get their rollrate lowered.
P-51's and P-47's rollrate at high speeds must be increased though.

4.Good divers have no advantage anymore, even the light Yak-3 can almost dive with a D-9 and Mustang. History very much says otherwise.

5.Climbrates for the Fw 190 needs to be increased, especially the A-9's.

6.Turnrates and turntimes for the Russian birds needs to be reduced, same for the G-2.

7.Acceleration for the D-9 needs to be better as it accelerates not much better than the Fw 190A-5<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen..plus the maps need to be MUCH, much larger. I've got all the maps memorized since they're so small...We should have maps like in CFS2...where it just kept generating scenery.

Engrs
02-10-2004, 06:38 PM
More maps.

1. The Dover/Calais area. would easily fit on a map the size of the small online Gulf of Finland map.

2. Non Historical desert with coastline.

3. Non Historial South East Asia.

Just my tuppence worth

Engrs

Aka D13-th_Sapper

Future-
02-10-2004, 11:46 PM
I voted more bombers.

And after about 70 votes have been counted, "more bombers" still LEADS.

Seems your little 190 isn't on top of everybody's list for imporvements. More bombers are needed in FB, since FB mainly has become a fighter sim.
A questionable development, since FB's full name still incorporates "IL-2 Sturmovik", which naturally implies that some more ground attack planes/ bombers SHOULD be present, don't you think?
The game has evolved into many directions, but mainly fighter-wise. Think about this, you will see I'm right here.

S!

Edit: 71 votes counted so far, 38% say "More Bombers", 23% call for "Complex DM for 190", and 18% request "More finely tuned FM for all AC".


- Future

Commanding Officer of the 530th Bomb Squad
380th Bomb Group 5th AF USAAF

http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1083.jpg

Visit us at http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

Korolov
02-10-2004, 11:56 PM
Dogfights are where the action is - that's what sells. There are quite a few bomber fans, but not everybody wants to fly straight and level in a heavy bomber and just let the fighters pounce on you.

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

Functio
02-11-2004, 05:17 AM
Dogfight games are certainly not where the action is. There only a small part of the equation. Already too many people seem to judge FMs by the way things work in DF games, whereas the real problems with the FMs come to light in on-line war situations (VEF2, VOW, etc). A huge amount of people take part in these on-line wars, and people are genuinely trying to recreate a tactical air war situation.

This is why the FMs need to be looked at still, as I've said before in this thread. At the moment, the FM favours DF games because many of the planes tend to fly in the same way and there's a distinct lack of energy retention issues. This means that you can do quite alot of yanking and banking, turn and burn stuff and not have to think too much about the consequences to your energy state. Various planes can do a series of hard manouvers and then hang on their prop for a long time. The worst that happens is that you black out. True energy fighting bcomes almost pointless in this sort of situation. There's no pint tweaking a few planes if the whole FM modelling is not right, as you will always have some planes going out of synch with how they should really perform.

Bombers, etc. should also be developed because Oleg and Co. shouldn't feel that they just have to pander to the DF crowd - it seems to me that there are alot less DF pilots than one would think.

Willey
02-11-2004, 07:22 AM
I'd also wish a Yak DM that incorporates those water radiators... noticed that bullets just go through them as if they were not there (especially Yak-3 and 9U). This could be a nice weak spot, similar to the radiatior of the P-51.

Apart from that... bombers!!! Do-(2)17s, Ju-88 (yeah, we'll get it), Pe-2, Pe-3, Pe-8, Tu-2, Il-4... Il-10!! This game still is called Il-2 Sturmovik... why don't we have an Il-10 then?? It's the direct successor of the Il-2.

Gunner_361st
02-11-2004, 07:57 AM
Glad to see my thread is still alive and kicking. I hope we get at least 100 votes. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

As for the gentlemen who thinks this thread is nonsense... Asking people what they want is nonsense, especially when they are paying customers? It is easy to say your intentions are pure when your financial success doesn't depend on the thing in question.

Oh, and as for not believing the FW190 does have a complex damage model... Hehe. I invite you to go into the QMB and shoot up a FW190, and then shoot up a ME109. Tell me what you see... In terms of wing damage, fuselage damage, pilot injury/kills, engine damage. Like Korolov said... In the FW190, you are either alive or dead. I believe I also heard Oleg himself admitted that the FW190 has not received the upgraded damage model that many of the others planes have now... and thats one of the things people are asking for.

It is refresing though to see such an interest in bombers. I'm glad we are getting more in the paid add-on. Anyway, S~ fellas.

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

WOLFMondo
02-11-2004, 08:51 AM
I'd personally like to see more maps and the ability to have scripted objects that work in DF maps, not just co-op maps.

Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)

JG53-Falkster
02-11-2004, 10:02 AM
Correct FM and DM for all planes......
Why more bombers if we dont have correct working bombs?
A Focke Wulf 190 without this bar, would be nice to......

Magister__Ludi
02-11-2004, 10:04 AM
Bombers and heavy fighters (twins) all the way!

LuftKuhMist
02-11-2004, 11:11 AM
WE NEED NEW AI!!!

Hello???

Kwiatos
02-11-2004, 03:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53-Falkster:
Correct FM and DM for all planes......
Why more bombers if we dont have correct working bombs?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exacly first correct old bugs than make new plane http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

FM of He111 and Il2 is very "strange" i think.

Korolov
02-11-2004, 03:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Functio:
Dogfight games are certainly not where the action is. There only a small part of the equation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are many people that would highly disagree with that. For example, in most coops I've been in where IL-2s, Stukas, He-111s, etc. have been availible, there are usually only one or two pilots that hop into those planes. Meanwhile, all the fighter slots (especially the LW slots) are totally full before anybody has even hit fly.

You just don't get the same anadrenalin rush flying bombers that you do in fighters. Bombers can be exciting and are essential, but nevertheless fighters *are* what sells the game. Think about it. How many players would we have if there were only the He-111, Ju-87 and IL-2 availible to fly in the game? Most people bought this game probably because they liked the P-39, or the Bf-109. To them, the bombers were just icing on the cake.

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

fight69
02-11-2004, 05:24 PM
Aircraft carriers http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

JG7_Rall
02-11-2004, 05:33 PM
Yes! Aircraft Carriers too! I could use something new to crash into!

Oblt.Emann
02-11-2004, 05:43 PM
I'd love to see a North Africa campaign, get away from the flatness of Eastern Europe and get some mountains and cliffs to crash into and some canyons to do a little wreckless dogfighting through!

Der Oberleutnant

Luftcaca
02-11-2004, 05:58 PM
I cant belive that AI improvement is not in the poll...

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/luftcaca.jpg

Formerly ''known'' as Gunther Aeroburst

LuftKuhMist
02-11-2004, 06:56 PM
Because the important things for most people are historicty and "owning" trigger happy kids online in free for all furballs...

Talk about a paradox.

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/MOMS.gif

waterinthefuel
02-11-2004, 09:19 PM
Two-thirds of all fighters shot down in WW2 were shot down by bombers. I vote for more bombers.

http://www.nissanusa.com/m/static/i/tnav_logo_shift.gif

A.K.Davis
02-11-2004, 11:31 PM
And 2/3rds of those 2/3rds were false claims. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

Luftcaca
02-12-2004, 12:46 AM
very true Davis

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/luftcaca.jpg

Formerly ''known'' as Gunther Aeroburst

Cyrano
02-12-2004, 01:30 AM
CDM for 190. I would also really love to see an official IL2 Compare type of program from the developers with the "official" numbers. Nice charts and everything http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif In the add-on perhaps? yeah right.

WUAF_Badsight
02-12-2004, 02:53 AM
`
. MORE BOMBERS
.

Future-
02-12-2004, 04:02 AM
Quick check on the vote results:

with 37%, the request for more bombers is still leading

in 2nd place, with 22%, the request for a more complex 190 DM

only shortly behind this, at 20%, the request for more finely tuned overall FMs

So far, 91 votes have been counted. If this poll is concluded at 100 votes, I think I already know which request will win http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

S!

- Future

Commanding Officer of the 530th Bomb Squad
380th Bomb Group 5th AF USAAF

http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1083.jpg

Visit us at http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

robban75
02-12-2004, 04:24 AM
Why can't all of them be the winners? I guess we all would like that! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

Magister__Ludi
02-12-2004, 04:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
Why can't all of them be the winners? I guess we all would like that! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again DM for fighters? How about some serious DM for bombers. How do you feel when you pierce every inch of a bomber with bullets and bomber gunners reply happily with fire? A detailed DM for crew is needed, also a panic factor, if the bomber gunners are under heavy fire (or even worse, they are in bombers that already lost wings or crew started to bail out) they should stop the fire.

robban75
02-12-2004, 07:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
Again DM for fighters? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just for the Fw 190! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>How about some serious DM for bombers. How do you feel when you pierce every inch of a bomber with bullets and bomber gunners reply happily with fire? A detailed DM for crew is needed, also a panic factor, if the bomber gunners are under heavy fire (or even worse, they are in bombers that already lost wings or crew started to bail out) they should stop the fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hear ya! I agree fully!

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

Gunner_361st
02-12-2004, 07:59 AM
Glad to see the poll is still going. Maybe someone at 1C:Maddox will notice. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

94 votes so far, alright! I hope we get to at least 100 votes, but if it keeps going, I won't mind.

I'm glad most people have been able to keep a positive attitude here, please understand that I only had 5 entries and stuck in the four biggest issues in my head at the moment, and listed "Other" for things I had not thought of. On the AI issue, smarter AI sure would be nice, but I have almost no understanding of how AI intelligence is programmed in or ways to improve it. According to the Aces Expansion coming out though, it said the AI has been revamped, so maybe it will be better?

Glad to hear from you gentlemen. Lets keep the votes and ideas coming in. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

Fafnir_6
02-12-2004, 10:03 AM
An Hs129B

VOL_Mountain
02-12-2004, 11:01 AM
I voted for more bombers as the VVS needs some twin engine aircraft to complete the original IL-2 theme. My second choice would be to add bomb ordinance for the Hurri series.

Mtn.

starfighter1
02-12-2004, 11:40 AM
hi,
a totally reprogramming + redesign at all !



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Extreme_One:
How about a more respectful, less inflamatory community! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
_(not aimed at any of the current members of THIS thread BTW)_

I actually voted for Hurri Ordanance.

_S! Simon_
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''
Download the RAF campaign folder http://www.netwings.org/library/Forgotten_Battles/Missions/index-9.html.

Download the USAAF campaign folder http://www.netwings.org/library/Forgotten_Battles/Missions/index-9.html. _*NEW* Updated for FB 1.21_

http://extremeone.4t.com/images/raf_sig.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif

Oleg_Maddox
02-12-2004, 12:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gunner_361st:
Morning gentlemen. This is just a poll I thought might be a good idea, to get a look at what some of the community as a whole desire most. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

They all sound good to me, but if I have to pick one over the others, I've picked it already. and no, I won't tell you what it is I voted for. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


It seems that we did most of what you ask in poll. Complex damage of FW is implemented as well.

Oleg_Maddox
02-12-2004, 12:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
Other.

We need strategic sized maps, hopefully one of the channel front in the west first.

If FB is ever to truly evolve into a Pacific sim as well, a map that is 200km across will be woefully inadequate to simulate the vast distances involved.

Without a strategic sized map, FB will always remain a tactical sim.

I'd like to see FB grow up.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FB engine can hangle the wole map of the earth, but it handle your PC?

Really we have no limit in size excet the the limit of PC power and RAM.

However with the pacific there are not any great poblem to make big maps.. Simply due to water that take most space of area.
This eat much less than ground with the cities, roads, etc, etc, etc,

A.K.Davis
02-12-2004, 12:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gunner_361st:
Morning gentlemen. This is just a poll I thought might be a good idea, to get a look at what some of the community as a whole desire most. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

They all sound good to me, but if I have to pick one over the others, I've picked it already. and no, I won't tell you what it is I voted for. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


It seems that we did most of what you ask in poll. Complex damage of FW is implemented as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Mr. Maddox is truly a god amongst we mere mortals. Thank you.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

Oleg_Maddox
02-12-2004, 12:08 PM
I think you are definitally very clever.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
a totally reprogramming + redesign at all !



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Extreme_One:
How about a more respectful, less inflamatory community! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
_(not aimed at any of the current members of THIS thread BTW)_

I actually voted for Hurri Ordanance.

_S! Simon_
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''
Download the RAF campaign folder http://www.netwings.org/library/Forgotten_Battles/Missions/index-9.html.

Download the USAAF campaign folder http://www.netwings.org/library/Forgotten_Battles/Missions/index-9.html. _*NEW* Updated for FB 1.21_

http://extremeone.4t.com/images/raf_sig.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

JorBR
02-12-2004, 12:22 PM
Other: improved AI.

"Never wrestle with a pig; you both get dirty but the pig enjoys it!"

clint-ruin
02-12-2004, 12:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:

It seems that we did most of what you ask in poll. Complex damage of FW is implemented as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks! And thanks again for letting us know.

Now, how do we go about implementing the communitys personality transplant? :&gt;

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

starfighter1
02-12-2004, 03:07 PM
hi,
and here the way to do the job in better and quicker way...

http://www.care-t.de/download/OOMethod.pdf



[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
I think you are definitally very clever.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
a totally reprogramming + redesign at all !

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif

starfighter1
02-12-2004, 03:13 PM
re,
the paradigm change:
http://www.care-t.com/html/technology.htm


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
and here the way to do the job in better and quicker way...

http://www.care-t.de/download/OOMethod.pdf



[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
I think you are definitally very clever.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
a totally reprogramming + redesign at all !

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif

Pentallion
02-12-2004, 05:34 PM
I voted Other:

Malta map, we have nearly everything else we need for the campaign.

Carriers. I know what Oleg's said, but find a damn way to have carriers. Otherwise, don't waste time in the Pacific at all.

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

jayarbro
02-12-2004, 05:54 PM
More maps...Pacific,Med,North Africa,China, Phillipines, English Channel with both shores

"Go in close, and then when you think you are too close, go in closer."
Major Tommy McGuire, USAAF ~ 38 victories in the PTO

Gunner_361st
02-13-2004, 06:58 AM
Alright, 104 votes! Glad we met the benchmark. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Thanks for the response Oleg! You've definitely been tuning the FM for many aircraft for some time (and yet, some people still whine) and more bombers are on the way after Aces Expansion, right?

I also heard that the AI are revamped in Aces Expansion. Thats good.

But out of curiousity, how has FW190 CDM been implemented? I've never been able to see through the wings, like the Me109 or P47 Thunderbolt, etc, etc. I have never seen semi-engine damage, only total engine damage.. I have seen fuel tank fires, which is cool.

I use version 1.22. If you could explain to me how the ways FW190 CDM is implemented, I'd appreciate it. If not, I can always do some more tests and see what I find. Thanks for your response. ~S~

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

Future-
02-13-2004, 07:34 AM
I think Oleg was partly referring to the upcoming Ace expansion when he stated that many of the requested features already have been taken care of.

Let's see what 1C packed in for us!

- Future

Commanding Officer of the 530th Bomb Squad
380th Bomb Group 5th AF USAAF

http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1083.jpg

Visit us at http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

Jettexas
02-13-2004, 09:41 AM
S! And thanks for the response from "The Man" himself.And to the community thanks for yet another well thought out series of mature responses to a worthwhile thread.

Looks like at least in ORR, the community "personality transplant" is well underway.

http://home.austin.rr.com/davislanedavis/il2sig4.jpg

kwaichain888
02-13-2004, 12:00 PM
I think IL2FB needs to pitch a slightly larger tent! I am very, very new to Flight Sims I bought this one because I heard it was the mother of all Sims. Although I can agree it is awesome, as a person who has spent much less than three hours a day every day for the past five years playing flight sims, I think a bit better training session is needed. Explanations of the physical operation of planes is great, but a practice sim would make it better!

It is unnecessarily complex to need to write down, or memorise "training" instructions and then only get to practice what you've learned in an operational mission. Please note, I am not asking to make the missions simpler. It would be groundbreaking and attract less hard core sim jocks to the game. Note, you hard core nuts can skip these "easy" training sessions that I am suggesting, make the difficulty settings at the most difficult. Meanwhile more casual people could become excited because "Hey I can actually take off when it matters." and/or "I can actually execute turns and other physical manuevers without crashing/spinning/constantly stalling in operational missions".

I've never seen a game with such a "training" component, which is why I'd guess it would be groundbreaking. But with a game with such complexity, and potential engrossment, surely something that allows the "rookie" gamer to practice in a practice environment would make it (even) more addictive?

I hope to get some thoughtful comments, not just attacks on my comment. Finally, no I do not want anything to make the operational missions easier.

Jetbuff
02-13-2004, 12:23 PM
AI http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

http://members.rogers.com/teemaz/sig.jpg

ucanfly
02-13-2004, 12:37 PM
Flight model accuracy is it for me. Without it we might as well play just about any other sim instead.

For all those that voted for more planes instead, are you going to buy BOB? This will have far less flyables yet more accuracy.

Accuracy and authenticity is what makes this game special. More planes with questionable FMs you can get from "other" games.

BfHeFwMe
02-13-2004, 01:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gunner_361st:
Glad to see my thread is still alive and kicking. I hope we get at least 100 votes. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

As for the gentlemen who thinks this thread is nonsense... Asking people what they want is nonsense, especially when they are paying customers? It is easy to say your intentions are pure when your financial success doesn't depend on the thing in question.



<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Problem is, you didn't ask people what they wanted, you threw up a few of your pet issues as the sole choices. So what good is the poll, very clever to than label the thread as "your choices" and than force feed the choices. That also explains why so few people responded compared to views, most people can figure out they're being played on your issues.

I'm sure the rest of us could easily each pick five other totally independent issues that have nothing in common with 'yours' as being more important.

Your poll is irrelevant, except for your issues, in no way does it make them the leading issues. But nice try. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

kyrule2
02-13-2004, 02:32 PM
Thank you for the replies Oleg, and thank you for letting us know about the complex DM for the FW-190. Great news for an even greater product.

Since I know that the 190's complex DM is in, I would like to change my answer to #3. Specifically the climb-rates of the FW-190A, especially the A-9 (actually just climb-rates in general). Sorry, had to get that in there.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

3./JG51_Hunde
http://www.jg51.com/

robban75
02-13-2004, 02:45 PM
Don't forget the too high rollrates. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

Magister__Ludi
02-13-2004, 03:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
Don't forget the too high rollrates. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Roll rates are too high only at high speed.

But there is one thing even more important for Fw-190: please fix the lateral instability, it should be neutral, now is very much negative (wing continues to roll after there is no input from the aileron).
190 never suffered from this problem (check the dihedral).

190 is the only plane from the whole plane set that exhibits this behaviour, and coupled with the high roll rate makes maneuvering very unpleasant. It was not the case with the real aircraft. Oleg please look for the pilot accounts in regard to lateral stability.

robban75
02-13-2004, 03:37 PM
I meant that rollrates are too high for most planes. 160-180deg/sec can be managed(without rudder input) in the P-39, P-40, P-51, Bf 109, La-7, all Yaks. Now these planes shouldn't be able to match the rollrate of the Fw 190, but they do, taking away an otherwise major advantage of the 190. And yes, its rollrate at high speed is too fast also. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

starfighter1
02-14-2004, 06:01 AM
hi,
to start with a redesign and reprogramming of the 'old camera view system ' (gnomish view system)to the virtual pilot could be a first step to fix old problems of some cockpits views(FW-190 as an example + some more) and a better platform to import the new planes in the last patches and future Addons.




[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
I think you are definitally very clever.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
a totally reprogramming + redesign at all !

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif

Nambo1
02-14-2004, 12:21 PM
I would like to see more life in FB, things like herds of cattle and sheep that you can buzz and see scatter, young boys rideing thier bikes in the countryside waving as you flu past, other civilian traffic on the roads and buxom young farmgirls in gingham dresses working in the fields.

Also, considering there is a war going on, aprt from the planes, there doesnt seem to be much other evidence of this, how about more bombed out buildings and troops of soldiers, in fact I would love to see the day when the ground effects are so good that Oleg could release a tank simulator add-on so you can have the choice of playing FB not only in your 109, but in your Tiger tank as well!

Nambo

nearmiss
02-14-2004, 12:53 PM
The IL2-FB Full Mission Builder (FMB) needs a workover and new tools.

The FMB is just barely capable. We need the ability to capably use the already great objects, aircraft, maps in the IL2-FB.

We need triggers, events, flags, alternative waypoints, de-spawn waypoints, etc. Tools like those provided within the Jane's WW2 Fighters, MSFT CFS2, Jane's F/A-18, and Falcon 4.0 to build exciting, immersive missions.

We need the ability to alter missions as they progress. We need comms that have direct application to the ongoing mission. Comms working with triggers to notify the player of changes in the mission, or allows the player to change the mission as it progresses.

I'm not just squawking for a better FMB for Offline players. A competent mission tool would open up this sim to be the very best software application for re-playing historical aerial combat events of all respective war theatres.

A campaign generator is for nothing but fly and shoot players. Timing of events and building exciting missions are just a happen stance effect (or luck) with a campaign generator.

BECAUSE I DO HAVE A BRAIN...I DON'T NEED THE DARN COMPUTER CREATING MISSIONS THAT REGULARLY WASTE MY TIME AND IN GENERAL JUST MAKE A FOOL OUT OF ME AND QUASH MY EFFORTS AT ENJOYING THE IL2-FB SIMULATIONS!

I spend hours just building one mission that is immersive and exciting. The key to exciting missions is having events occur for the players maximum benefit. All the objects needed at any time are ONLY those needed for the players' enjoyment at the place and time they're needed and ONLY at that time.

Even now, with the lousy (FMB)mission builder the IL2-FB is the best WW2 combat flight simulation software available. I can just imagine what it would be like, if we could really competently apply the objects, aircraft and maps we currently have.

A good weather module that would allow weather changes within a mission. I do appreciate the fact we can fly above weather, but it's totally unrealistic to fly for half hour at 300 KPH and have the same weather all the time. It would be good to have weather, which could vary dependent upon location. This might be accomplished via circular defined areas like target objects are defined now.

It would be nice to have the weather set by triggers. It would be great to have the first 5 minutes in a blinding rain storm, knowing that soon you'd be flying in bright sunlight after the rain had ceased.

Time changes actually affecting the mission as it is plays through. An example, If the aircraft takes off a 2PM during the winter in fact the sun would set at 3PM in Russia. The daylight would be only a few hours during different times of the year in the areas covered by the IL2-FB maps.

Time needs to play through, not be static. I seem to take off in as much daylight as I land, even if I leave at sunset and I'm in the mission for over an hour.

I flown from one side of a map to the other and used a full tank of fuel. When I landed I had as much daylight as when I took-off. That is, even when I took-off at sundown.

We don't have to have everything at once, but it would sure be great if 1C:Maddox could start working in some viable Mission Builder tools as each patch or add-on is released. Eventually, the FMB would be an outstanding tool with incremental changes being applied regularly.

The QMT "Quick Mission Tuner" is an excellent example of the greatest help to mission builders to-date. The QMT is just a tool that allows updating and editing of the already created missions. It doesn't create anything, it just allows the mission builder to flexibly alter things within previously created missions. THis tool is not a biggy application that required and enormous amount of coding. It is simply a flexible text file editor with some spin boxes, and lookups to facilitate changes within the missions.

The QMT makes such a difference in mission building and yet 1C:Maddox has ignored any simple or even basic editing of missions outside the poor FMB tool itself. I don't understand that kind of thinking!

I'd really like to know someone from 1C:Maddox really wants our input, which is provided by the thousands of postings on these boards. My gosh, most software companies would be thrilled to have users that are so responsive and vocal about a software.

--------------------- http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[This message was edited by nearmiss on Sat February 14 2004 at 01:34 PM.]

nearmiss
02-14-2004, 02:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by A.K.Davis:


Mr. Maddox is truly a god amongst we mere mortals. Thank you.

--AKD <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


IT'S GOTTA BE AN EMBARRASSEMENT FOR OLEG TO READ SUCH COMMENTS!

--------------------- http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

[This message was edited by nearmiss on Sat February 14 2004 at 01:55 PM.]

A.K.Davis
02-14-2004, 03:00 PM
If only you knew how long I've been asking for a new 190 DM. Divine intervention must have played a role. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

nearmiss
02-14-2004, 03:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
If only you knew how long I've been asking for a new 190 DM. Divine intervention must have played a role. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe I was outta line. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I kinda get turned off by the GOD thing, and you certainly aren't the first one who has made that kind of comment.

Regardless...It's good to hear from Oleg on the boards and I understand your enthusiasm!

--------------------- http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Urist
02-14-2004, 03:21 PM
Atmosphere..

Take equal parts of EAW and IL2:FB and you have the ww2 simulation to end all ww2 simulations.

The game needs a mjor overhaul for what happens when your NOT flying. This is something EAW did very well, everything from the Campaign breifings to the settings screen was literally dripping with ww2.

That and the interaction between wingmen and other freindly aircraft needs a serious overhaul and could add even more to the games overall atmosphere, making you feel like you in a massive battle with other real pilots.

DedEyes
02-14-2004, 04:31 PM
I voted other as I would like to see som of the sea planes made available .

In addition the 190 DM and more big bombers too .

http://warbirdsart.freewebspace.com/images/pearl_harbour.jpg

wideblade
02-14-2004, 05:54 PM
I think its a good moment to give a step further in the cockpits modelling,those indicators that seem not to be modelled ...etc.Perfect cockpits at the 109 190 ...etc should be fine.

Gunner_361st
02-15-2004, 12:22 AM
I am very happy to see that the thread is still going, gathering votes, and a few people suggesting nice ideas to help out mission builders! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I am glad to see the thread has remained positive and relatively forward-looking. I wish I originally had more than 5 choices to work with, but that might have made people's desicion even harder.

S~ Gents.

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

P.S.- I find it very amusing a few people actually took the time to criticize this thread http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

JG5_Emil
02-15-2004, 02:57 AM
A decent High Altitude Model

Nikodemus-LH
02-15-2004, 07:17 AM
Better chat console .
And at least couple of subchannels to both sides.

Mr0blongo
02-15-2004, 08:07 AM
MORE CLOUDS!!!

starfighter1
02-15-2004, 12:43 PM
hi,
indeed..
the virtual pilot cockpit view(game's engine view system) is one of the important feature in every flightsim even in a pc-based WWII combat flightsim.
Many users(remember the discussion about the FW-view + some more) are waiting for many fixes in this field since IL-2 was released first.
Meanwhile some other points are more on the patch list. I wonder why ?
A real advanced and serious developer should work also strong at this sim features and a update.
But..? OK: maybe this is not so important from a 'view of arcade flightsimers' and a developer who is not interest to fix it, because it's to much rework to make a quick dollar with such pc-game.
remember all the nice design views in the last updates and the users commentshttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_redface.gifoh.aah...etc..
..it's kiddy to look only to nice outside and some fine panel designs..

(re:my above thread answer to O.M. to reprogram + redesign the camera view system first)




<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wideblade:
I think its a good moment to give a step further in the cockpits modelling,those indicators that seem not to be modelled ...etc.Perfect cockpits at the 109 190 ...etc should be fine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif

GINNER_SK
02-15-2004, 02:35 PM
fb need a new (finaly a at least nearly real) fm of focke wulf. it is too famous aircraft to cut its performace so badly.

robban75
02-15-2004, 03:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>fb need a new (finaly a at least nearly real) fm of focke wulf. it is too famous aircraft to cut its performace so badly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's more the opposition that is overmodelled. And mostly it's in climbrate. The Fw 190A lacks in climbrate, whereas the D-9 lacks in acceleration. The Fw 190 is more correct than most other planes.

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

JHAT__
02-15-2004, 08:44 PM
It seems like Oleg has FB to online play only, because the AI isn t really intelligent. I think what FB needs most now is a better AI, besides some other small things that could be done easier like yall said.

I m tired of having to reengage a 109 that sees through his head plate everytime I close in from his 6 low and reach 200 mt behind him. The AI also performs some Su27 like manouvers that sure weren t possiblem with those planes...

JHAT

WUAF_Badsight
02-15-2004, 09:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
It's more the opposition that is overmodelled. And mostly it's in climbrate. The Fw 190A lacks in climbrate, whereas the D-9 lacks in acceleration. The Fw 190 is more correct than most other planes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



i agree

Recon_609IAP
02-15-2004, 11:00 PM
"Dogfights are where the action is - that's what sells. There are quite a few bomber fans, but not everybody wants to fly straight and level in a heavy bomber and just let the fighters pounce on you."

Zzzzz... maybe for the ones who don't give a rats you know what for a true sim.

Tell a squadron of bomber pilots that and they will chew you up and spit you out for breakfast. If there aren't more bomber squadrons it's probably due to Oleg's poor choice in the direction of the sim and he's chased a few good bomber groups away, that is for sure.

The He111 setup is a beautiful thing, only lacking in payload - and those that take the time and energy to learn it know that it is as addictive to hit your target as any easy dogfight kill thrill http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Course it's taken 3 patches to fix all the bugs out of it due to it's low priority.

More effort should be given to bombers and even more so - good bomber targets. Oleg needs to add structures that make more sense to bomb and so get credit for doing so.

Hopefully in BoB we will see this.

S!
609IAP_Recon

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg
Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem
http://www.jarsofclay.com/

Recon_609IAP
02-15-2004, 11:05 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=339108502&showpollresults=Y

S!
609IAP_Recon

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg
Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem
http://www.jarsofclay.com/

clint-ruin
02-15-2004, 11:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

More effort should be given to bombers and even more so - good bomber targets. Oleg needs to add structures that make more sense to bomb and so get credit for doing so.

Hopefully in BoB we will see this.

S!
609IAP_Recon

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg
Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem
http://www.jarsofclay.com/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The forthcoming Ju87D5 looks like a nice ride to play with. The 2x 7.92mms on the current bomber 87s aren't really up to destroying much in the way of ground targets, 20mms should make a nice change.

Always found dive bombing hugely entertaining :&gt;

Oh! And the Ju88 too.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Korolov
02-15-2004, 11:07 PM
Most bomber pilots are like that. You can say that fighters are nothing, serve no purpose, etc. but the fact is, that's what sells this game.

I wouldn't be unhappy if this game were all bombers, but remember that is a niche market for a vocal few. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

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

Recon_609IAP
02-16-2004, 12:41 AM
I wouldn't go as far as to say they are 'nothing' but certainly flyable bombers should have a higher percentage available than they currently have.

How would you know based on this game? Bad comparision. There are so many fighter jocks in FB because that is about all you CAN be- LOL

S!
609IAP_Recon

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg
Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem
http://www.jarsofclay.com/

Siege_Dog
02-16-2004, 02:10 AM
FW190fan is right, a strategic map to show a campaigns overall progress would be excellent, even if only limited campaign changes could be made it gives you an excellent perspective. Also adding a Korean Peninsular Expansion would be excellent! As the late model Russian and American prop and some of the early model jets have already been created for IL2 & FB by Oleg and Co. all that would be required are the maps, some more early model jets (hopefully including flyable versions of the often neglected early US Navy jets)*oooohh Carrier Landings!!!*. I don't think it's possible to make too many WWII flight sims but it's time to add more variety to the marketplace and force other flight sim companies to compete. The other benefit of a Korean War sim by Oleg is that it's prior to effective air-to-air missiles so you still have to get in close where you can marvel at the superb visuals.

Manos1
02-16-2004, 03:59 AM
What I reaaaly need is the good ole

auto levelling function

again http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I do not care if people cheat (then make it kick in after a longer delay).

It gets on my nerves flying these long distance VEF missions with the hand on the Stick without having the possibility to ease off a little (the refridgerator is far away...).

I know it is not very realistic but, I still want it!

http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr/pilotsforum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr/temp/4th_FG2_new1.gif
Hellenic-SQN (http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr)

DjTeD
02-16-2004, 04:17 AM
Personnally, I would have the possibility to fly floatplanes, and some special planes (which already are AI in the game) like the Ju52, DC3, Li2 and Fi 156 Storch.

Also, some more maps would be welcome :


-Spain (for the SCW...),
-Malta,
-North Africa,
-Italy and Sicily,
-well... the all Mediterranean theatre !!!

And triggers in the FMB.

DJ TeD aka Gaston

Avoir la foi, c'est ªtre plus sr d'une chose que la raison ne le permet.

Tooz_69GIAP
02-16-2004, 07:17 AM
I've posted elsewhere about bombers, and I voted for bombers here.

I understand that bombers don't sell a game like this. But certainly, for things like Frogotten Skies, and possibly Scorched Earth where GA and tactical bombing is so important having even one bomber on the allied side that flies faster than 170kph in level flight would be nice.

WWII was not a fighter's war, it was a bombers war. The BoB, the Blitz, Pearl Harbour, the Doolittle Raid, the massive bombing campaign of RAF Bomber Command and the US 8th Air Force, Caen, Cherbourg, Dresden, and the beginning of the nuclear age was heralded by bombers.

On the Eastern Front, in terms of the germans, yes it may have been a fighter's war, but on the Russian side, it was most certainly a ground attack war. They didn't even have an air force!! It was merely a section of the army under the direct command of generals of specific army groups, used as flying artillary!!

But anyway, more bombers are required, even if it is just one decent allied medium bomber that is added (B-25, A-20, Pe-2/3, any of these). Other than that, add as many fighters as you want.

Tooz

whit ye looking at, ya big jessie?!?!

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_tooz.jpg
Za Rodinu!

GINNER_SK
02-17-2004, 03:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
[QUOTE]fb need a new (finaly a at least nearly real) fm of focke wulf. it is too famous aircraft to cut its performace so badly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's more the opposition that is overmodelled. And mostly it's in climbrate. The Fw 190A lacks in climbrate, whereas the D-9 lacks in acceleration. The Fw 190 is more correct than most other planes.

probably you dont know that in germany exist a comapny that has a flyable fw a8 a they also cann build a brand new for a costumer. they are not satisfied with fw in fb, but madox doesnt care. the question is why??? fw is unreal in fb. really undermodeled

GINNER_SK
02-17-2004, 04:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GINNER_SK:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by robban75:
[QUOTE]fb need a new (finaly a at least nearly real) fm of focke wulf. it is too famous aircraft to cut its performace so badly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's more the opposition that is overmodelled. And mostly it's in climbrate. The Fw 190A lacks in climbrate, whereas the D-9 lacks in acceleration. The Fw 190 is more correct than most other planes.
-------------------------------------------------
probably you dont know that in germany exist a company that has a flyable fw a8 and they also cann build a brand new for a costumer. they are not satisfied with fw in fb, but madox doesnt care. the question is why??? fw is unreal in fb. really undermodeled. we pay for this game and its should be serieous from 1cmadox to hear to people they fly real fw! and get this real model to this game!!! with fly model that is in fb will be fw never in history so famous. may be only famous for that that it so easy to shoothim down or worst turn aircraft in the history http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Von-Wand
02-17-2004, 12:32 PM
Hi All,
Just finished looking through all these posts and some people are really missing the point, im not really sure how accurate IL2 FB is, and i havnt sat here for an hour, flying an aircraft at 300km/h to see if it actually flys 300km. Has anybody in these posts flown any of thes aircraft in a combat situation, and then compared them??. I think the most important thing is to get the flight models more finely tuned in comparison, and not in overall performance. There must surely be enough information available to make this possible. In a sim like this bias shouldnt come into it, the main argument seems to be about the FW190, if it did perform much better than it does( i dont know, ive never flown one) then just make it so.If it kicked *** in the war, why not in the sim!



"Meine ehre heisst treue"

robban75
02-17-2004, 01:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GINNER_SK:

probably you dont know that in germany exist a company that has a flyable fw a8 and they also cann build a brand new for a costumer. they are not satisfied with fw in fb, but madox doesnt care. the question is why??? fw is unreal in fb. really undermodeled. we pay for this game and its should be serieous from 1cmadox to hear to people they fly real fw! and get this real model to this game!!! with fly model that is in fb will be fw never in history so famous. may be only famous for that that it so easy to shoothim down or worst turn aircraft in the history http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, AFAIK the Flugwerk Fw 190A-8 hasn't flown yet, so I don't think the Fw 190 FM debate will benefit from that project any time soon.
I've ben flying the Fw 190 since the beginning from IL2. And believe me when I say that the 190 isn't an overnight-flyitright machine. It takes time to learn her strengths. It's an outstanding BnZ machine, much thanks to its armament and perhaps this is the best way to use it, but, should you want to turn'n burn, you'd be amazed what combat flaps can do for the 190's dogfighting abilities. All you need is a light hand, no rapid yanking and banking.
Now, dogfighting offline against the AI in a Fw 190 is not a good comparison as the AI can do some ridiculous stunts. Online however, a cleverly flown 190 can be a menace. And hopefully the Wurger and the VVS fighters will get more realistic climbrates, the 190 will benefit more from this than any other fighter! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
There are many FW 190 experten on these boards, and I know most of them are eager to share their experiences in the Wurger with others, all you have to do is start a thread that says "Fw 190" something, and I'll guarantee you there will be answers! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

Korolov
02-17-2004, 03:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Recon_609IAP:
I wouldn't go as far as to say they are 'nothing' but certainly flyable bombers should have a higher percentage available than they currently have.

How would you know based on this game? Bad comparision. There are so many fighter jocks in FB because that is about all you CAN be- LOL
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you forgotten about the Il-2 and Stuka? Those two pretty much fill the bag for ANY ground attack, come to think of it.

Remember, bombers are more or less strategic, and this game is tactical. But to say that you can only be a fighter in this game is, well... Off. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

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

Punik
02-18-2004, 01:27 AM
Voted for the yell "Bombs away!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I wanna fly da big brothers... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

------------------------------------
Online cheating kills online gaming! Death to all online cheating suckers!

Greetings to all who fly better than me, honor to all who ate my lead. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

T_O_A_D
02-18-2004, 02:11 AM
I would like more control in FMB.

I want to make my AI taxi before take off. So I can place them in several areas other than right on the strip.

I would also like to be able as host to force them to land and taxi at end of mission aswell. And not dissapear from tarmac, after so many seconds.

More customizable voice commands with my AI's

I would like to have moving gound vehicles in the Dogfight servers. To enhance the Scripted stuff.

I would like to lean out my cockpit when taxing. With that the ability to lean in the cockpit. Of course this would all mean sliding cockpits too.

Carrier's

Oh and yes Bombers more of them flyable.

And again Thanks Oleg for what you have done and will do for us S!

Have you checked your Private Topics recently? (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=ugtpc&s=400102)
131st_Toad's Squad link (http://www.geocities.com/vfw_131st/)
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)
2.11 drivers (http://home.mchsi.com/~131st-vfw/NaturalPoint_trackIR_2_11.exe)
http://home.mchsi.com/~131st_vfw/T_O_A_D.jpg

[This message was edited by T_O_A_D on Wed February 18 2004 at 11:18 AM.]

xolox
02-18-2004, 02:12 AM
I think there is no ground effect now in FB,isn't it?

PikeBishop
02-18-2004, 04:33 AM
I would like more flyable Japanes (and U.S.) types particularly from the first six months of the pacific war. These could also then be incorperated in a Sino-Japanese senario (eg A5M Claud's and Ki27 Nate's v 1-15's and 1-16's. Even P26's and P35's.
SLP

KG26_Oranje
02-18-2004, 02:42 PM
Flyable bombers , flyable transport plane`s , flyable reconplane`s and many more buht no new fighters for the moment.

S! I/KG26_Oranje

Tooz_69GIAP
02-18-2004, 06:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PikeBishop:
I would like more flyable Japanes (and U.S.) types particularly from the first six months of the pacific war. These could also then be incorperated in a Sino-Japanese senario (eg A5M Claud's and Ki27 Nate's v 1-15's and 1-16's. Even P26's and P35's.
SLP<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought IL-2 Sturmovik, and Forgotten Battles were supposed to be eastern front games. I would also like to see aircraft from other theatres, but not at the expense of aircraft which could be included which "should" there, like the Pe-2, the Hs-129, and others.

Anyway, maybe this other project which is being worked on is a Pacific theatre sim, so you will get yer nippon planes, but I am really really hoping it is gonna be a Mediterranean theatre, as that is FAR more interesting, and full of character. Far more than the Pacific IMVHO.

whit ye looking at, ya big jessie?!?!

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_tooz.jpg
Za Rodinu!

BaneTheEvilOne
02-18-2004, 07:31 PM
We need do335, hs129, ju88/188, greif and arado blitz, graphic improvment with more eye candy, quick mission builder with ALL maps and options and the most important thing: FM correction for all allied Tie interceptors, curently they could take part in StarWars.

Albtraum23
02-20-2004, 06:24 AM
I dream ! Coop missions with RESPAWN for LAN 10/100 ! It`s possible or not ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

KG26_Oranje
02-23-2004, 02:33 PM
is it possible ?
Flyable bombers , recons , transports or seaplane`s.

I/KG26_Oranje
http://www.freewebs.com/kg26/

JG77_Tintin
02-24-2004, 04:52 AM
Resolve the padlock / radar issue as it divides the online flying community. Still think it should be available to simulate head movement in tracking targets at close range, but please limit it's lockable distance to about a kilometre and get rid of the green triangle altogether. Another is damaged A1 not seeking to ditch in clearings. More maps and earlier models of existing aircraft for phoney and prewar scenarios. Thanks.

WOLFMondo
02-24-2004, 08:21 AM
I know FB is all about the eastern front but I'd really love to see many more aircraft in the FB engine. Its almost a waste to make it eastern front only when the game engine is really quite superb.

Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)

jamesdietz
02-25-2004, 12:41 PM
Landing light would be nice for coming back to those dark airfields,after missions....???

Baltar
02-25-2004, 01:20 PM
I voted more bombers, though I do think 190 DM and Hurricane payloads are very close second & third...

Blackjack174
02-26-2004, 10:43 AM
true anamorphic screen support , classic il2 did well in rendering non 4:3 picture formats, FB screwed me a bit now http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG6_Oddball
02-26-2004, 11:07 AM
HE 100 D http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif