PDA

View Full Version : (POLL) Should PF be made compatible with FB or purely standalone?



Extreme_One
03-31-2004, 09:19 AM

Extreme_One
03-31-2004, 09:19 AM

Udidtoo
03-31-2004, 09:25 AM
Compatable would be nice but either way you know its bound to rock.

..............................
I always have just enough fuel to arrive at the scene of my crash.

tsisqua
03-31-2004, 09:28 AM
Absolutely http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LEXX_Luthor
03-31-2004, 09:29 AM
Compatible...

A5M against I~153

A5M carrier ops launched against China in 1938 (or 39 forgot) saw the greatest loss of Jap planes in 1930s Navy cos the A5M stayed too long to dogfight and they all crashed into water on the way back, but the pilots were saved by destroyers. Sounds like something the internet dogfighters would do on dogfight maps, if they were big enough.

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

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

BaldieJr
03-31-2004, 09:35 AM
It should be an add-on. Splitting the community would not be wise.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
______ _____
(, / ) /) /) , (, /
/---( _ // _(/ _ / __ ,""""]
+----/ ____)(_(_(/_(_(__(__(/____/__/ (__--------,' /---+
| / ( / ,' NR / |
|(_/ ..-""``"'-._ (_/ __,' 42 _/ |
+-.-"" "-..,____________/7,.--"" __]-----+

</pre>

JAS_Gripen
03-31-2004, 09:37 AM
Compatible

necrobaron
03-31-2004, 09:48 AM
Oleg has said in the past that the idea was to make PF compatible with FB. However,FB will not be required to play PF. I guess you could say that the plan is/was to make it "optionally" compatible(if that makes sense). http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

"Not all who wander are lost."

KGr.HH-Sunburst
03-31-2004, 09:51 AM
i hope it will be compatible but if it isnt im gonna buy it anyway

but its not nice to have two seperate games on my HD just to play the PTO and ETO and eastern front

and yes it will devide the community in two and that would be a shame http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

http://www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas/
http://img31.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/sig-97th.jpg

Snoop_Baron
03-31-2004, 09:57 AM
Campatible ofcourse http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

They could make it standalone and compatible, I've seen some other games that did this. Just takes a bit more effort on their part.

s!

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

PF_Talus
03-31-2004, 10:00 AM
Both would be nice. I'm more concerned with getting Pacific Navy and Army ac. I want to strafe barges and crater airfields with B-25's that have those ten forward firing 50's!


http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/Talus/p63-3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
03-31-2004, 10:17 AM
Hello,

It could be like Forgotten Battles, a stand alone that is a Update to IL2, Pacific could be a stand alone that comprize Il2 and Forgotten Battles. Yes, let it be like FB! A dream!

Sensei

http://users.skynet.be/fb314718/images/clock1.gif

tigerroach
03-31-2004, 10:20 AM
I would like to see it as an add-on to FB, but I'll be buying it either way. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Capt._Tenneal
03-31-2004, 10:21 AM
It would be compatible in the sense that PF will be sort of an enhanced FB engine, which was itself an add-on to IL-2 that became it's own sim. But if it does exist in a different folder in your HD, and you have to boot up one or the other to play, I don't mind. It would reflect RL as the European and Pacific theaters were part of a global war but seperate entities anyway.

RidgeR5
03-31-2004, 10:24 AM
Standalone. IL-2 is already moving to the Western Front. I dont know how long it would take to modify FB and all within to support the new changes, versus erasing the board and starting over again. Plus, I think with another game we will soon dominate HyperLobby, muahahahahhaa

S!

Ridge

One13
03-31-2004, 10:33 AM
I hope it will be compatible. It would be silly not to with so many planes in FB that could be used in the Pacific i.e. P38, P39, P40, Spitfire, Hurricane etc.

-----------------------------
One plane we really need.....

http://uk.geocities.com/peter.squire3@btopenworld.com/vampire-sig.jpg

Get my skins at....
http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=one13&ts=1073140490&comefrom=cedits

Health_Angel
03-31-2004, 10:33 AM
The main reason for the incorrect FM's of several planes in FB is the large amount of flyable planes. I prefer a stand-alone-version with less planes but accurate FM's

-Health Angel-

Property of the

http://www.jg27-berlin.de/Downloads/II__JG27_Banner/Bannerengel.JPG (http://www.jg27-berlin.de/)

http://www.uniquehardware.co.uk/server-smilies/otn/violent/bigun2.gif


Zitat:
Karen (Tania) Blixen: "When did you learn to fly?"
Denys Finch Hatton: "Yesterday"
(Out of Africa)

SeaFireLIV
03-31-2004, 10:33 AM
Add-on of course! I`d also pay a full pack price for it if it were compatible. It`s much wiser, bringing those not so familiar with the PAW.

SUPERAEREO
03-31-2004, 10:48 AM
It would definitely be a bonus if it were to be compatible, and, as it has been said, it would keep the community together instead of splitting it.

Such an active and vocal group of people can occasionally be seen as a pain in the neck, but neither 1C nor Ubisoft should forget that a united and strong community means customer loyalty.

S!



"The first time I ever saw a jet, I shot it down."
Chuck Yaeger

Aeronautico
03-31-2004, 10:58 AM
Oleg & Luthier want to make it compatible, ├ la Enemy Engaged, so to speak. It's what they're aiming to.
Whether they'll manage to do it, they yet have to know themselves.

It would be supercool though...

I suspect the flyable B-25 are kept for PF, and we're getting AI only now even if they're ready. Same for other planes (B-24? B-29 later?).


A.

--------------------
Airplanes are now built to carry a pilot and a dog in the cockpit: the pilot's job is
to feed the dog, and the dog's job is to bite the pilot if he touches anything...

- Arlen Rens, Lockheed Martin test pilot

POLISH_PILOT
03-31-2004, 11:06 AM
Compatible and release in the USA and Europe at the same time. (please)

http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/brian/jpgs/blasphem.jpg
Your only making it worse

Bearcat99
03-31-2004, 11:17 AM
I would prefer it to be compatible. IL2 and FB are different since FB has everything that IL2 has and is on a slightly different engine..... but I hope PF is compatible that way you could just boot up one sim and choose your theater from within. Either way It will be on my HD the day it is released in the US.

<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://www.mudmovers.com/)

GT182
03-31-2004, 11:17 AM
I don't see why it has to be compatable. Maybe it would be a good way to fix all the bugs everyone is b**ching about now. Besides how much can be added to FB before it ends up to big to handle. And everyone will still be here, it won't split anything up. You'll just have more here in the forums is all, everyone will remain loyal to Madox Games no matter what http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I vote separate. But I'll buy it no matter what as long as it has carriers, Corsairs and the rest of the Pacific's warbirds. You never saw the Germam a/c in the Pacific except for the ones sent to Japan for them to copy.

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

JG1_vonPletz
03-31-2004, 11:27 AM
S!
Compatible I hope, but either way, Im buying it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Hptm. Karl "vP" von Pletz
Gruppen IIa Offizier
Chief of Operations
II./JG1 "Oesau"

XyZspineZyX
03-31-2004, 11:31 AM
Hello,

For me the best solution should be a standalone that should also be a update of FB. Like FB was for IL2...

Sensei

http://users.skynet.be/sb314718/images/clock1.gif

zoomar2
03-31-2004, 11:52 AM
I opt for standalone to make sure this game is completely tailored to Pacific theatre strategy, tactics, and AI (like Kamakazi Japanese attacks)

huggy87
03-31-2004, 11:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sunburst-97th:
i hope it will be compatible but if it isnt im gonna buy it anyway

but its not nice to have two seperate games on my HD just to play the PTO and ETO and eastern front

and yes it will devide the community in two and that would be a shame http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Concur. However, if the PTO had much improved programming it would justify a stand alone.

CHDT
03-31-2004, 11:59 AM
The main reason for the incorrect FM's of several planes in FB is the large amount of flyable planes. I prefer a stand-alone-version with less planes but accurate FM's"


Thet's the perfect truth. I by far prefer a sim with only 6 perfectly modeled aircrafts than a sim with 60 strangely modeled aircrafts!

Maj_Death
03-31-2004, 12:16 PM
I want stand alone. The reason is because FB is already at the point where there are just too many planes for all to funtion correctly. Whenever Maddox fixes one plane, they screw another in the process. Less planes means they *should* be able to make all of them work properly at the same time. Also, like AEP you can't play with people using straight FB so even if it was sold as an addon, they still wouldn't be truely compatable. If I want to take an Fw-190 for a spin instead of a zero, I'll just load up AEP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maj_Death here, Stab.I/JG1Death at HL

I build COOPs for CrazyIvan. If you would like some of them you can get them at http://www14.brinkster.com/triggerhappy770/default.htm

I/JG1 Oesau is recruiting axis pilots who prefer to fly maximum realism. We accept both veterans and rookies. We fly in VEF2, VOW and may join other online wars in the future. Go to our forums at http://www.jg1-oesau.org/ for more details and to apply.
http://www.bestanimations.com/Humans/Skulls/Skull-06.gif

Lancelot_ecv56
03-31-2004, 12:31 PM
It depends on what they want to model and how much the FB engine code can handle.

I would prefer to be compatible, but if that's mean we will not have carriers operations on online missions, forget it, give me an stand alones product.
Carrier operations for multiplayer its for me the more important issue. It's the thing i loved most from the Janes FA/18 sim, and decepointed me most from LOMAC.

Si hay que huir, YO PRIMERO!!!

paraglide13
03-31-2004, 12:36 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifYes absolutely , it shold be made compatibile with FB as a some kind of further development to keep both important things: initial IL-2 spirit and community devotion. OLEGS ( & team ) genial ideas and this two mentioned things made this simulation great.

aminx
03-31-2004, 12:44 PM
STAND ALONE
why?
because there is a lot of stuff to squeeze into 2 cd's,then we are going to most deffinitely get an add on and patches not to mention a part two a year later,it's really too much material.then we are going to see a lot of independants as time goes by,the game has too much potential,dont forget we have had a big nothing for 10 years now.
aminx

http://img25.photobucket.com/albums/v76/aminx/zero.jpg

LeadSpitter_
03-31-2004, 12:52 PM
compatible as an addon. I definatly wouldnt buy it as stand alone. I think it would break apart il2fbs small online community as a stand alone game and it would make me not want to buy it.

http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LSIG.txt
VIEW MY PAINTSCHEMES HERE (http://www.il2skins.com/?planeidfilter=all&planefamilyfilter=all&screenshotfilter=allskins&countryidfilter=all&authoridfilter=%3ALeadspitter%3A&historicalidfilter=all&Submit=+++Apply+filters++&action=list&ts=1072257400"target="blank)

SuspectSquirrel
03-31-2004, 01:07 PM
Compatible.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

Speco
03-31-2004, 01:08 PM
Compatible as long as it doesnt request any compromises in game quality and features.

javierlopez1
03-31-2004, 01:14 PM
I have been visiting the forums for a long time but I never decided to register since I've read about this poll. I like FB a lot mainly because of the amount of planes ( appart from realism, etc ). I wish that PF becomes an expansion of FB like AEP or at least, compatible with it, so we can choose between more planes. If I have to choose between a "pacific theater only" game or FB&AEP I'll choose FB&AEP...yes....I could have both but then I have to decide which of them I would play....

The best solution for my be adding all FB&AEP stuff to PF ( like FB and IL2 ) Make this will be the best way to keep the community united too

Sorry about my P3 english level but I hope you understand my point

cya

[This message was edited by javierlopez1 on Wed March 31 2004 at 12:28 PM.]

[This message was edited by javierlopez1 on Wed March 31 2004 at 12:31 PM.]

Lancelot_ecv56
03-31-2004, 01:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Speco:
Compatible as long as it doesnt request any compromises in game quality and features.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My opinon exactly!

Si hay que huir, YO PRIMERO!!!

Tate_Bruce
03-31-2004, 01:23 PM
Compatible at all costs.

Splitting the cummunity would not be a smart move. Imagine the whining and flaming as a result of people from both camps wanting features from each sim in the one they are playing. Yes, they must be compatible as one huge game.

Captain_Hilts
03-31-2004, 01:35 PM
When you say "compatible" with Fb what do most people mean ? I do not think you will able to fly PF planes in FB , for a start there may be engine changes in PF which will not allow integration of planes ie FM changes.

I do not think maddox will spend time fixing bugs because of imcompatibility.You really dont want to compromise functionality of PF just so you can fly FB planes? The relevant aircraft from Fb will be included,maybe even enhanced!

On the other hand it will be a good idea to make skins compatible as we can utilise the large amount of great skins already out there.

I dont think the community will be split , most people here will play both , as we are all maddox games fans .

bird_brain
03-31-2004, 02:10 PM
It should be compatible because the only planes we are missing in the Pacific are those already mentioned, F4F,F4U,F6F,P47N,Betty,Kate,Hind,B25 etc.
It would make no sense at all to drop half of the planes already created to have the other half available.
Besides, they said "improvements to the IL2FB game engine" in the press release which tells me it is more or less the same animal.
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://hstrial-jyarbrough.homestead.com/Jug.jpg

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

nsu
03-31-2004, 02:11 PM
Compatible = IL2FB live http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

STAND ALONE = IL2FB is dead http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
for Oleg and his Service



STAND ALONE for BoB is OK !a new Time for the Flight Sim !

Gru├č NSU http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

JR_Greenhorn
03-31-2004, 02:12 PM
I very much so want to see the two games compatible.

To me, compatible in for these games means that if you bought PF but had no FB or AEP, the game would play as intended.
However, if you've been an Il-2/FB player all along, I would like to see those players rewarded by being able to use as much as possible from the previous versions of Il-2, FB, & AEP.

Perhaps they could announce a "freeze" on development for FB, and then as much as possible from FB could be used in PF, but the developers wouldn't have to worry about keeping up with FB stuff after the initial PF release.



My eyes glaze over at the thought of pitting F4Us vs. FW 190s, tipping V-1s with F2Gs or FD-1s, sprinting to intercept kamakazis with Tempests and Furys, fighting with both MC.202s and Ki-61s in the same game, interecepting B-29s with Ta 152s, fighting early Japanese planes with early Russian ones, trying the Bf 109T on a carrier...

Kernowpaul
03-31-2004, 02:18 PM
The ideal would be compatabile with FB, but useable as a stand alone.

One of the things missed by the majority of RAF 662 is the carrier landings, hence the vengance island mission, with a small aircraft carrier type small island landing strip.

So compatability with FB would be an additional bonus for us as we could utlise the FB aircraft for carrier landings. Not necessarily strictly histroical but good fun, or so I am led to believe.

XyZspineZyX
03-31-2004, 02:24 PM
Yes, yes, more planes, more and more planes and options. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

Sensei

http://users.skynet.be/sb314718/images/clock1.gif

MustangWZI
03-31-2004, 02:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
compatible as an addon. I definatly wouldnt buy it as stand alone. I think it would break apart il2fbs small online community as a stand alone game and it would make me not want to buy it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I got the same feeling, Along the lines of "United we stand, Divided we fall." Can only hope it's compatible.

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/MustangWZI-sig5.JPG
Like the moon over
The day, my genious and brawn
Are lost on these fools
~Haiku

Captain_Avatar
03-31-2004, 03:00 PM
Well's it's quite simple. I think it should be a stand alone game with the ability to "import" planes and maps from an installattion of FB/AEP .

A stand alone product could attract customers who are interested in the Pacific war. Maybe they would at some point get interested in all the other maps and planes everyone else has and buy IL2FB GOLD!

Personally I would hate to loose any of the aircraft I have available in AEP. 'Cause you know that PF will have planes that flew in the ETO/WTO and vice versa.

Cossack13
03-31-2004, 03:07 PM
For me, it is very simple: if it is not compatible, I will not buy it.

I used to love Close Combat (from Atomic Games/Microsoft). Unfortunately, every release was not backwards compatible with any prior release. So, as the game got better with release 2 and 3, you could never go back and play the old maps using the new, improved engine.

As a result, when the released Close Combat 4 it sold less than 3 had and 5 sold even less than 4. There will never be a Close Combat 6.

The development path of Il-2/FB has meant that we could switch maps around, add new object, planes, whatever we wanted. And we've kept buying.

If they want to move away from that model, I'll probably move away from their game.

http://www.tolwyn.com/~cossack/White13.gif

olaleier
03-31-2004, 03:39 PM
Standalone.

Put the dev work in making PF a good sim, not trying to plug it on to FB.

Aerodynamics and general FM could be better...if you want improvement, you can't have compatibility.

==================================
http://img2.photobucket.com/albums/v30/olaleier/cobrasig.jpg
==================================
Marvin in hyperlobby

Chuck_Older
03-31-2004, 03:41 PM
I question the wisdom of shackling a new sim to an old engine.

Without the constraints of FB's engine, PF could benefit from hindsight much more easily, and would be a better product, potentially.

Get the branding Iron out, and call me a heretic, but I want PF to be more than FB can be. I want it to be a new generation, not FB in a different set of clothes.

I vote standalone http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif Don't make PF live under FB's shadow. let it be more, don't suffocate it. "Compatible" options would be short term goals, limited goals. Standing pat with the FB sim, set in the Pacific, is a mistake if you care about good sims

*****************************
Wave bub-bub-bub-bye to the boss, it's your profit, it's his loss~ Clash

WTE_Tigger
03-31-2004, 03:50 PM
Please ensure that Pacific Fighters is compatible, though I am sure it will be great, I would hate to see the IL2 community split and playing two games that are not compatible.

S!

WTE_Tigger

NegativeGee
03-31-2004, 04:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
I question the wisdom of shackling a new sim to an old engine.

Without the constraints of FB's engine, PF could benefit from hindsight much more easily, and would be a better product, potentially.

Get the branding Iron out, and call me a heretic, but I want PF to be more than FB can be. I want it to be a new generation, not FB in a different set of clothes.

I vote standalone http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif Don't make PF live under FB's shadow. let it be more, don't suffocate it. "Compatible" options would be short term goals, limited goals. Standing pat with the FB sim, set in the Pacific, is a mistake if you care about good sims
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree..... stand alone all the way.

Now, where do I sign to get a player flyable Ki-44 Shoki? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

IIJG69_Padbol
03-31-2004, 04:01 PM
COMPATIBLE!!!!!

(or Standalone like FB was for IL2)

I WANT TO KEEP MY STUKA!!!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

IvanPutski1
03-31-2004, 04:12 PM
I would like to see it as standalone

CHDT
03-31-2004, 04:12 PM
Standalone!

For the real and so rare pleasure of coherence: the right planes on the right places.

I'm tired everyday on Hypperlobby to search so long for servers without Zero over Normandy or Messerschmitt over the Pacific!

CHeers,

p1ngu666
03-31-2004, 04:38 PM
gotta be compatible. now heres food for thought. who do U think is improving the game code?. u need a russian with experience of the engine id imagine. remmber what luther said of making maps, it would point to oleg and co doing the changes imo. luther is doing maps, models, textures, litriture and many other things.. id be amazed if he could code. and if he would survive and not go "kaboom".
and the fm brigade, wouldnt those changes be globel? if it wasnt, the german planes would lose out, and russian too. brit and usa would benifit cos they be in the pacific (and jap planes).
a game with all theaters is what we dream of tbh, this is getting close http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. just need a med map http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

SgtWalt65
03-31-2004, 05:08 PM
Whats a Pacific Campaign without the Chance Vought Corsair series, such as the F4U-1A up to the F4U-4 series?.....hehe http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I am fairly sure its being considered...so no...I am not a Corsair whinner...yet. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But lets not forget the Dauntless, Devastator ( not utilized much after a large number where destroyed during the Coral Sea and Midway battles as they became obsolete death traps from what I herd ), the TBM ( TBF also ) and Helldivers.

TBM Avenger was built by Grumman.
TBF Avenger was subcontracted out by Grumman to General Motors I think. Hense the Code change. Both were identical I think, except one had a extra gun pointed down through the lower window aft of the rear hatchway.

[This message was edited by SgtWalt65 on Wed March 31 2004 at 04:17 PM.]

adlabs6
03-31-2004, 05:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
I question the wisdom of shackling a new sim to an old engine.

Without the constraints of FB's engine, PF could benefit from hindsight much more easily, and would be a better product, potentially.

Get the branding Iron out, and call me a heretic, but I want PF to be more than FB can be. I want it to be a new generation, not FB in a different set of clothes.

I vote standalone http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif Don't make PF live under FB's shadow. let it be more, don't suffocate it. "Compatible" options would be short term goals, limited goals. Standing pat with the FB sim, set in the Pacific, is a mistake if you care about good sims<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some good points. I myself tend to doubt the devotion that is being put behind PF as a truly "new" sim, given the prospect that Maddox Games could have the much more anticipated BoB on the selves within six months of PF's release. That's just too short a shelf life for PF to realisticly be given, if it were totaly stand alone.

I've wondered if the cloudy nature of compatibility with FB has come from the very complex nature that FB itself is now in. Will the buyer of PF take the box home to a fresh FB only install? To an AEP install? Building a product that can install over either will serve to divide FB more than it is now, buy adding a "FB-PF" and FB-AEP-PF" to the "FB 1.22" and "FB-AEP" flavors that already exist. Yikes.

So, I'm figuring that the PF package will be designed to do a scan for AEP, just as AEP now scans for FB. If PF finds AEP, then it would install and integrate, creating a seamless game. If just FB is found (no AEP) then a standalone PF will install.

This process will keep just two mainstream titles in circulation... FB-AEP-PF, and PF. This method would also permit those new the the series to still have a usable game, without going back and buying FB and AEP, in addition to the new PF box.

I hope that makes sense.

http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/sigUBI.GIF
My FB/FS2004 Pages (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com) | OMEGASQUADRON (http://777avg.com/omegasquad/) | ScreenshotArt.com (http://www.screenshotart.com/)

Kasdeya
03-31-2004, 05:24 PM
Call me Crazy, but PF could be an add-on to help us cope with our soon to be blown out of the water by BOB inadequate machines. Like Adlabs has mentioned, BOB is gonna be out in 2005 and PF is to be released later this year, so add it up. The timeline just doesn't make sense for a stand alone sim.

Cheers,
Kas

http://www.HouseofKasdeya.com/demon.jpg (http://www.361stvfg.com/)

LeadSpitter_
03-31-2004, 05:28 PM
if its a stand alone its going to be like lomac on HL less then 50 players on the weekends.

I mean how much can you platy without getting bored of 8 flyable aircraft and a few maps.

Even with il2 FB alot of us are tired of the same maps and even the same planes and we all want more. We bought il2 sturmovik il2 fb aep what happened to a couple free planes and maps? I also donated to the pby and know we are going to have to buy another game. I also read rumors on simhq that the b25 pby and tempest are going to this game and not to il2fb.

Luthier and gibbage if you read this and its not too late please addon. the poll even shows it

http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LSIG.txt

crazyivan1970
03-31-2004, 05:46 PM
Lead, they just a rumors http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

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

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

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

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

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

heywooood
03-31-2004, 05:56 PM
obviously we all Want them to be compatible..
But I'm not going to quit one for the other.

I think it will be good to switch from one theatre to the other.. How many of our actual aces did just that? Who can list all the US pilots that fought in both theatres?..I know from reading FB forums that a lot of you guys can. How about re-enacting those careers?

Please - this only looks good to me.
Maybe it was the pony I got for Xmas when my stocking was full of fertilizer that one time..
But I only see positives here.

An improved FM - new maps - carrier ops - and all those beautifull new planes. awesome

E_Temperament
03-31-2004, 05:59 PM
I can't see how you can intergrate PF's game engine with FB/AEP game engine, the former has Carriers and the later doesn't. Also this revamped engine will more than likely rectify the high altitude issues that FB/AEP has, it may even have moving clouds and the fisheye lens effect at high altitude may even be sorted out. Then there is the issue of adding arrester hooks to existing aircraft. Whatever happens I'll be buying it, I can't wait and I hope there will be maps of Queensland and New Guinea and of course some Aussie aircraft, please, please.

carguy_
03-31-2004, 06:06 PM
Even though adding a PTO to AEP exceeds possibilities of my imagination,I`d like it compatible.

If it`ll be a standalone it will have a separate HL room.IMO in the first PTO days AEP will lose up to 50% players but after few months 20% will come back.

For me,where Me109 is,I am.From my perspective my squad will lose some pilots and online wars will be torn of it`s competitors.

Hardly a good future image,I`m afraid.

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

JG53Frankyboy
03-31-2004, 06:09 PM
the point is that you just have to start one game, to visit one hyperlobby room !

if the host choose a pazifik map, the pazifik part is loaded for the clients, if classic FB well ,the clients gets classic FB

im sure there will be lot of planes twice - dont think they will make such planes like P38 ,P40, P36, P51 , Spitfire/Seafire , C47 , B17 , Zero, Ki84 again!
"just" with FM/DM tweaks.

as misisonbuilder , only on the Pazifik maps the new features are available, that would mean no Carriers on the old FB maps http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

why not.

but i doubt it, BUT still hoping for it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

and "some" thing to think about :
the allies should have the blue color and the Japanes the Red color, dodnt they - thazt would be the opposite of FB http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

nevertheless, the info from UBI is bad and late as always - so we have to wait

JG53Frankyboy
03-31-2004, 06:13 PM
and dont forgett , "they" made a totaly new extra forum for it !

not the best hint for a kompatible game http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

MPortus
03-31-2004, 06:13 PM
Think about it being only add-on. Then, how can Ubi sell an add-on, that needs another add-on and a full game to work. That's asking too much to the new costumers.

And if you have FB and not Aces? Then what? With who you are compatible, there will be online rooms for FB only, FB+AEP, FB+PF, and FB+AEP+PF? No way.

Besides, if it's stand alone they can charge full price.

So, IMHO, PF will be build as stand alone, *and* Oleg will try to make it compatible for FB/AEP owners. This would be the ideal solution.

The big online community will remain FB/AEP+PF, with few people playing PF as stand alone. Is the only way I see the thing possible.

JG53Frankyboy
03-31-2004, 06:18 PM
remeber the FB history.

first it was announced as AdOn - then became stand alone BUT with all IL2 things included !

that would be fine , bit i doubt it will happen, to much proplems

NegativeGee
03-31-2004, 06:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
I mean how much can you platy without getting bored of 8 flyable aircraft and a few maps.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know, how long can you fly without getting bored? If PF has 8 new flyables thats still more than CFS 2 shipped with http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Even with il2 FB alot of us are tired of the same maps and even the same planes and we all want more. We bought il2 sturmovik il2 fb aep what happened to a couple free planes and maps? I also donated to the pby and know we are going to have to buy another game.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you donated to the PBY, well good on you. However, it was money too Gibbage to keep him "motivated" during the job (or as he put it once, "Keep me in Beer and Porn" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif).

Even if PF only has 8 new flyables and is stand alone, it will still be a cracking product based on Maddox's previous output.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

[This message was edited by NegativeGee on Wed March 31 2004 at 05:53 PM.]

IV_JG51_Razor
03-31-2004, 06:24 PM
Compatible, and as Udidtoo said, "...either way, you know it's going to rock" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Razor
IV/JG51 Intelligence Officer

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

Lt.Davis
03-31-2004, 06:43 PM
standalone!

Cause if it's a addon for FB/AEP all the ship, verhicle have to redo it in 1/1 scale.

Don't tell me the carrier also reduce scale!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

"Biar berputih tulang, jangan berputih mata"
Translated:
"Let the whites of your bones, but do not show the whites of your eyes"

belairpost
03-31-2004, 06:57 PM
Hope it's compatible, Oleg has created an unpresidented approach for the flight sim community with expansion to a base product. I would buy add-on's to version 1.2999999999!

Bearcat99
03-31-2004, 07:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MPortus:
Think about it being only add-on. Then, how can Ubi sell an add-on, that needs another add-on and a full game to work. That's asking too much to the new costumers.
And if you have FB and not Aces? Then what? With who you are compatible, there will be online rooms for FB only, FB+AEP, FB+PF, and FB+AEP+PF? No way.
Besides, if it's stand alone they can charge full price.
So, IMHO, PF will be build as stand alone, *and* Oleg will try to make it compatible for FB/AEP owners. This would be the ideal solution.
The big online community will remain FB/AEP+PF, with few people playing PF as stand alone. Is the only way I see the thing possible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Keep in mind that the AEP is an UPGRADE for FB. It is not a seperate sim. It is still FB. Just because some people are too cheap or shortsighted to buy it doesnt mean that the rest of the community should be held back in any way because of it. The AEP is FB 2.0... I hope that PF will be FB 3.0... I am hoping that they will modify the FB engine in upcoming patches so it can handle the things that PF will have..like carrier landings, flyable bombers etc. I cant see Oleg & 1C working on 3 different FMs at once. Eventually the FB 1.22 rooms will disappear. I do agree with Portus about the best solution being PF as a stand alone/add on. If they made it with the modified FB engine...that we will probably have or be moving towards in the upcoming patches..... so that it could function as a stand alone. As far as IL2 goes.... stick a fork in it. It is still a great sim but its user base has dwindled and Oleg already said there would be no more support for it so it is done. There may be some diehards who fly it still or who may want to go back for Ss & Gs but IL2 has seen its heyday. FB and hope fully PF are where it will be till BoB.

<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://www.mudmovers.com/)

FBLover
03-31-2004, 07:13 PM
That's really a tough choice ! I'd like to see non-linear campaigns and Pacific terrain as well as ALL the aircraft used during that conflict. To do this I think it would be wise to make it a stand alone. The only reason I could see a compatibility issue would be in the aircraft already functional that could fit in this new simulation without much coding or rehashing tech issues of the plane(s).

Cage50
03-31-2004, 07:17 PM
Stand alone or add-on/compatible is fine with me. I'm just excited to get a Pacific Theatre, planes and carriers.

JG54_VV
03-31-2004, 07:22 PM
Hope it is compatible, or an independent game including everything of FB and AEP!

WUAF_ZeroPilot
03-31-2004, 07:48 PM
Howdy, Unless I've missed it the South Pacific didn't have Fws,yaks,Bfs or IL2s. Which if made compatible that's what we have FB in the Pacific area.

Hoping to have a stand alone version and maybe a different game engine to boot!

Perhaps a bigger maps would be great, longer flying times.

Maybe Pacific Fighters in its own folder within Ubi Soft folder if not stand alone.

uncage
03-31-2004, 08:14 PM
Compatible, but preferably stand-alone.

Make it compatible in the way that Microsoft FS200X series aircraft are back compatible. So you can import FB aircraft, maps and maybe missions into PF, but not vice-versa.

Sweetiecakes
03-31-2004, 08:26 PM
Stupid for them not to make it "CLEAR" by saying it will not work with FB. Whatever http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

No limpeys please

T_O_A_D
03-31-2004, 08:28 PM
compatable it would be nice to only have to chase one quality sim. And all the missions and stuff would still be available, and not loose all this good work do to obsoletness

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 Thu April 01 2004 at 05:49 PM.]

Bearcat99
03-31-2004, 10:37 PM
The poll is moot..............

Originally posted by luthier1:
The forums's desire to overreact in the most dramatic fashion continues to amaze me.

First of all, I highly recommend for you NOT to take at heart everything you hear from somebody working on the project. I have never given Gibbage detailed project plans and feature lists, and very few people besides myself, Oleg and Ubi top brass are fully aware of everything that we're going to have in this project. Please, if it doesn't come directly from the people running the project, just take it with a grain of salt

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

Why you guys started running around with 10 flyable aircraft is beyond me, since the official announcement clearly lists the number of flyables as "over 40".

So, anyone believing that this project should be an add-on as opposed to a stand-alone product needs a serious reality check.

And before you begin to run around with your hair on fire and worry about splitting the community, whoever said that we're going to do such a thing? Nothing has been decided yet to the best of my knowledge. The only thing I can say at this point that the two products will be fully compatible and there's no technical limitations in the engine that would prevent a Bf-109 from flying over Iwo Jima or an Aichi Val over Leningrad.

That answered all my questions so far....... hope it answers yours.

<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://www.mudmovers.com/)

RicknZ
03-31-2004, 11:14 PM
Who gives a toss if luthier thinks the point is moot?
A developer who ignores the opinions of his customers doesnt stay in business long.

A seperate, il2 engine sim is stupid and crass.\ regardless of how stubborn luthier and ubi-soft top brass are.

I dont know about you guys but i can only play one sim at a time and can only be in one clan.

Il2 AEP is where ill stay along with my 120+ planes ive bought and paid for.
This new sim will be a gimmick only with a limited plane set and of course carriers.

Just charge full stand alone price for the new sim but make it a add-on. Money and sense.
One community, one game.

RAAF_Furball
03-31-2004, 11:23 PM
Let's not split the community .........

_RAAF_Furball, CO

click below for _RAAF_ website

http://members.optusnet.com.au/raafgames/crest.jpg (http://www.raafsquad.cjb.net)

click below for Fur's website

http://members.optusnet.com.au/nfurball/Images/plane_md_wht.gif (http://www.fur.cjb.net)

5SA_Zippy
04-01-2004, 12:44 AM
I vote for the stand-alone option.

I think is better have 3 different simulators for example: one for the estaern front, one for the BoB and one for the Pacific, instead of have one simulator created for the eastern front and then modified with some addons.

I think that a stand-alone project can reach an higher quality than an addon.

Extreme_One
04-01-2004, 12:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:

Originally posted by luthier1:
.... The only thing I can say at this point that the two products will be fully compatible and there's no technical limitations in the engine that would prevent a Bf-109 from flying over Iwo Jima or an Aichi Val over Leningrad.

That answered all my questions so far....... hope it answers yours.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

S! Simon
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''
Download the USAAF & RAF campaign folders here (http://www.netwings.org/library/Forgotten_Battles/Missions/index-10.html).

Download "North and South" including the Japanese speech-pack here (http://www.netwings.org/library/Forgotten_Battles/Missions/index-12.html). *NEW*

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/simplysimon-raf_sig.jpg

von_Albert
04-01-2004, 01:05 AM
The notion of having different games for the different theatres is, to put it bluntly, rather dumb. Every time that happens the developers always support only the latest version with improved graphics, featurs, etc. The other theatres (i.e. previous games) receive no support, slowly lose their audience (save for a small number of die hard fans), and then all of the past research and development that went into the older products is wasted. This in turn means that companies must reinvent the wheel every few years since there are demands to once again be able to fly - insert pet airplane here - and thus it starts all over again with a tiny plane set and the same endless debates about wheather or not damage model, flight model, cockpit view, etc is correct. Is it not better to continue to slowly improve these things in the existing game? Why would everyone think that Oleg, or any other developer would suddenly be able to get every last detail correct and bug free right from the start this time around? To get it all correct is a long and slow process. Also, just because the game code is expanding doesn't make it suddenly too confusing to be correct. If it is done correctly, there is no reason you can't model additional aircaft, new vehicles, etc. The basic structure of the game and priciples of flight don't suddenly change because there are palm trees instead of pine trees below you. So, with all that in mind, I say to the people who want seperate games; stop trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater!

RAAF_Furball
04-01-2004, 01:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luthier1:
(snip)
.... a very large number of applicable flyable and AI aircraft carried over from FB ....

(snip)
Nothing has been decided (as to Stand-alone or Addon) yet to the best of my knowledge. The only thing I can say at this point (is) that the two products will be fully compatible and there's no technical limitations in the engine that would prevent a Bf-109 from flying over Iwo Jima or an Aichi Val over Leningrad.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Noting "fully compatible" .......

If I'm understanding posts by our PTO Crew Chief/PF Head Mechanic (luthier1) correctly, some FB aircraft and "things" will be transferred (copied) into PF if PF is released as Standalone.

(Is this correct?)


Why not simply release PF as an addon to FB?

Then there is no need to "re-create" parts of FB by adding "things" into PF - they are already in FB/AEP.

To ensure adequate reward for the excellent hard work, can I suggest that PF be a purchased addon, as was AEP.

Could I also suggest (dons fire-******ant pants) that BoB be a pay-for addon to FB also?

We would all then only need to launch one great game, rather than 3.

Thank you for taking the time to try to clarify things for us, luthier1

Whatever happens, we Aussies are REALLY looking forward to seeing Pacific Fighters released !!

_RAAF_Furball, CO

click below for _RAAF_ website

http://members.optusnet.com.au/raafgames/crest.jpg (http://www.raafsquad.cjb.net)

click below for Fur's website

http://members.optusnet.com.au/nfurball/Images/plane_md_wht.gif (http://www.fur.cjb.net)

[This message was edited by RAAF_Furball on Thu April 01 2004 at 01:00 AM.]

belzebub1
04-01-2004, 02:18 AM
What is an Add-On ?

Forgotten Battles wasn't really an Add-On. It's been a stand alone version - and this is the way, Pacific Fighters should be too.
The reason is, that Maddox itself already mentioned the possibility of a lot of improvements in game-engine, graphics and features. To consequently do this and to set up a new star on flight-sim-heaven, a stand-alone version seems to be the right way.

5SA_Zippy
04-01-2004, 02:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von_Albert:
The notion of having different games for the different theatres is, to put it bluntly, rather dumb.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
First of all respect others opinions.

Then, let me explain better:
I don't think that a simulator must have just one front.
I think that a simulator like IL2 thought and born just for one front (eastern one) must have just it, because the future addons are limited by the orginal IL2 project.

If someone want to create a simulator with many theathers i think he has to start the project with this idea and call the sim something like "battle over skies".
I would like to have a sim with for example 3 maps of the eastern front, 3 of the western, 3 of pacific and 3 of med. Every map planned with the right planes, and maybe an online map where is possible to use all the sim plane.

What i don't like is a product like IL2, thought just for the eastern front and the filled with some adds. You should agree with me that a project started with one idea and then adapted for others things is not the best way.
I think that the best way to get the higher quality for a product are: or the project start with the idea to support many theathers, or separate the theathers in different sim. And not force the new theathers in a sim born with other idea. Force something is never the best way.


PS: sorry for my english

5SA_Zippy
04-01-2004, 02:29 AM
Let me add...

This was my opinion and no one says that everyone must thinks like me.
We are here for discussing and find the best solution. That's all.

BigBoy01
04-01-2004, 04:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
I question the wisdom of shackling a new sim to an old engine.

Without the constraints of FB's engine, PF could benefit from hindsight much more easily, and would be a better product, potentially.

Get the branding Iron out, and call me a heretic, but I want PF to be more than FB can be. I want it to be a new generation, not FB in a different set of clothes.

I vote standalone http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif Don't make PF live under FB's shadow. let it be more, don't suffocate it. "Compatible" options would be short term goals, limited goals. Standing pat with the FB sim, set in the Pacific, is a mistake if you care about good sims<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right on target.

P4C800 3.2EE/2048Corsair Twin X/2 X 80GB Raid 0 HDs/9800XT/CH HOTAS & Rudders.
AMD-(due for upgrade) 1.6/1024Ram/80GB HD/GeF3 500Ti/Evenstrained Hall Sensored Cougar#0047 with CH Rudders. Backup Cougar #11103.
XP Home /SP1a with most updates.

javierlopez1
04-01-2004, 06:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von_Albert:
The notion of having different games for the different theatres is, to put it bluntly, rather dumb. Every time that happens the developers always support only the latest version with improved graphics, featurs, etc. The other theatres (i.e. previous games) receive no support, slowly lose their audience (save for a small number of die hard fans), and then all of the past research and development that went into the older products is wasted. This in turn means that companies must reinvent the wheel every few years since there are demands to once again be able to fly - insert pet airplane here - and thus it starts all over again with a tiny plane set and the same endless debates about wheather or not damage model, flight model, cockpit view, etc is correct. Is it not better to continue to slowly improve these things in the existing game? Why would everyone think that Oleg, or any other developer would suddenly be able to get every last detail correct and bug free right from the start this time around? To get it all correct is a long and slow process. Also, just because the game code is expanding doesn't make it suddenly too confusing to be correct. If it is done correctly, there is no reason you can't model additional aircaft, new vehicles, etc. The basic structure of the game and priciples of flight don't suddenly change because there are palm trees instead of pine trees below you. So, with all that in mind, I say to the people who want seperate games; stop trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

good point. You are right. IF PF doesn't support FB&AEP someway all the work putted into those game would have been for nothing...lots of models, maps, high quality community skins, missions, etc

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Captain_Avatar:
Well's it's quite simple. I think it should be a stand alone game with the ability to "import" planes and maps from an installattion of FB/AEP .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the best idea for me. They should consider this seriously

[This message was edited by javierlopez1 on Thu April 01 2004 at 05:29 AM.]

RAAF_Furball
04-01-2004, 08:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SA5_Zippy:
I don't think that a simulator must have just one front.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SA5_Zippy:
I think that a simulator like IL2 thought and born just for one front (eastern one) must have just it, because the future addons are limited by the orginal IL2 project.

If someone want to create a simulator with many theathers i think he has to start the project with this idea and call the sim something like "battle over skies".
I would like to have a sim with for example 3 maps of the eastern front, 3 of the western, 3 of pacific and 3 of med. Every map planned with the right planes, and maybe an online map where is possible to use all the sim plane.

What i don't like is a product like IL2, thought just for the eastern front and the filled with some adds. You should agree with me that a project started with one idea and then adapted for others things is not the best way.
I think that the best way to get the higher quality for a product are: or the project start with the idea to support many theathers, or separate the theathers in different sim. And not force the new theathers in a sim born with other idea. Force something is never the best way.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe that IL2FB (with it's magnificent engine and graphics) could handle these as addons. The idea of having a choice of, for example:

- game 1 - Eastern Europe map, or
- game 2 - Pacific map, or
- game 3 - over London

really appeals to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SA5_Zippy:
PS: sorry for my english<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
np - it is good (enough)

_RAAF_Furball, CO

click below for _RAAF_ website

http://members.optusnet.com.au/raafgames/crest.jpg (http://www.raafsquad.cjb.net)

click below for Fur's website

http://members.optusnet.com.au/nfurball/Images/plane_md_wht.gif (http://www.fur.cjb.net)

Bearcat99
04-01-2004, 08:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von_Albert:
The notion of having different games for the different theatres is, to put it bluntly, rather dumb. Every time that happens the developers always support only the latest version with improved graphics, featurs, etc. The other theatres (i.e. previous games) receive no support, slowly lose their audience (save for a small number of die hard fans), and then all of the past research and development that went into the older products is wasted. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not so.... look at CFS 1& 2. IL2 and FB put more of a dent in ther CFS series than anything else. PF will polish off the PTO crowd who only hang on to CFS2 because they just prefer the PTO. THAT is why PF needs to be a stand alone...because the markets are different like it or not. As long as they are compatible it is fine by me.

<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://www.mudmovers.com/)

BlitzPig_Ritter
04-01-2004, 09:43 AM
Compatability has my vote. I wanna fly a Wildcat against a 109.

______________________________
Formerly Known as: Die_Ritterkreuz
http://img41.photobucket.com/albums/v126/Ritterkreuz/Sig.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=Ritterkreuz&ts=1067024271&comefrom=credits)
Now with 40+ skins and counting!

nygmechanist
04-01-2004, 10:05 AM
Compatible i say http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Would be grate fight against Japan whit China and China has RUSSIAN and American planes at this time.

AK-Rocket
04-01-2004, 10:06 AM
ADD-ON, ADD-ON, ADD-ON, ADD-ON!!!!!
I could care less about the "hold outs" still playing CFS-2, they can stay were they are if they aren't smart enough to see the light without the separate game

Taylortony
04-01-2004, 10:19 AM
Whilst i agree the game will probably be to large to be an add on and will probably end up as a separate release it would be nice to be able to link between both versions and fly all the aircraft etc in each version, a bit like the UBISOFT Silent Hunter and the destroyer game if that makes sense both are different games but can connect together, but either way its early days so i'll just be happy to have it in anyform http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Hats off to everyone involved http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Lt.Davis
04-01-2004, 10:24 AM
1. There's different style of DF i believe (AI)where Japanese Pilot will try to avoid letting their plane get hit. Unless the Ai being programme that TNB fighter will only try to turn when enemy on his 6 or BnZ fighter will try get advantage height and dive when in danger.

2. Scale problem; I still don't like the scale down on vechicle, building and ship. Imaging the Carrier are actual size and the escort ship are scaled down size.

3. More feature such as open conopy while landing or take off from carrier, a feature that can move your head to left or right for you to see the signer or at least see the carrier while landing on carrier.

4. More intelligant control tower.

"Biar berputih tulang, jangan berputih mata"
Translated:
"Let the whites of your bones, but do not show the whites of your eyes"

LuckyBoy1
04-01-2004, 10:32 AM
I really believe in my heart that making the Pacific thing less than "fully comaptible" would be a big mistake. UBI would be missing a golden opportunity to finally leave all other flight simulation games like Cousin Billy's Combat 3.0 and whatever! Having the Pacific thing as a stand alone would make it just another one as far as most consumers are concerned. This would lead to further splits in the community which I believe up to this point have been minor since ACE was released. I actually think that making it at least capable of being an add-on would actually strengthen the community and pull in many people. I'd still like to know what "fully compatible" means. Does it mean we can use the Pacific game as a stand alone or as an add-on depending on our how we want to set it up? If not, what are the limits here?

Oleg and UBISoft needs to see passed the smoke people are blowing about buying whatever game at whatever price UBI wants to charge. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular in this or any other post. However, if you broke down the groups into two groups...

1) This group says they have some concerns about the game before they'll buy it.

2) This group will buy whatever game at whatever price UBI dictates.

I think you'll find group 2 has a whole lot more people who don't care exactly how they get the game because they're going to pirate it in the first place! I hope UBISoft is smart enough to figure this much out.

For those of you with the smoke and wind to say it was never said to be an add-on, well, see this from Oleg himself...

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=693107852

Yes, I know you can find a thread where he says it's a stand alone thing, but I can match you at least 4 threads to 1 on that subject! We have at the very least a misunderstanding here to put it mildly.

To say that 40 planes makes it impossible to keep it all in 1 game is rediculous! What, you can't add a 3rd CD to the game for installation purposes. As far as load time goes, well it might add another 10 seconds to my PC and I can live with that.

For you realism people, nobody says you have to host a game with KI's on a Normandy map, but that's what we've got now. So the whole seperate game thing seems so much bull to me. If I'm wrong, please explain if you would be so kind.

So you're going to add more eye candy and it won't impact PC performance much? Fine, I guess, but then again, I challenge anyone to join me at HyperLobby for a 1 on 1 dogfight. You get to use whatever uber FW or KI as long as it's a prop plane and I'll take like a P-40 or Hurricaine. The only catch here is you get to use only the computer UBI says makes the bare bones minimum specs to play this game. I get to use my very average PC. Any takers? It's this sort of nonsense that will keep flight simulation games in an obscure corner of the market instead of the leading position this game so richly deserves.

All this goes down just as I talk a few of my old "real, licensed" pilots to buy PC's capable of doing the game justice just so they can play this game with me (yes, I know, just 4 sales, not very impressive) and they won't put up with this degree of deception or poor quality lies. When you tell a poor lie, you imply that the person hearing it is stupid enough to believe it! Whatever happened to quality is job 1?! Maybe I am stupid for ever believing in this game. After all, it is just a game. UBIFolks, try to remember in your corporate games that people like me actually like, buy the game. The choice is yours.

Solutions for internet security & spyware problems... http://www.geocities.com/callingelvis911/s_s.html

Luckyboy = Senior hydraulic landing gear designer for the P-11 & Contributing Editor to Complete Users magazine.

crazyivan1970
04-01-2004, 10:44 AM
Guys, please vote in the first sticky thread. Exteme_One, sorry i had to start another one with different guestion and letting this one go. Pacific will be stand alone...BUT... It may or may not include AEP features, planes...etc. And i believe we can make difference. At least worth of shot. Let`s vote folks http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=363100423

V!
Regards,

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

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

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

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

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

[This message was edited by crazyivan1970 on Thu April 01 2004 at 10:07 AM.]

Spectre_USA
04-01-2004, 12:03 PM
Y amight want to un-stickify this one then CI...

http://www.blitzpigs.com/images/BP_Spectre_A-10_sig.jpg
CombatSim.com Forums Moderator (http://WWW.CombatSim.com)
BlitzPigs Co-WebMaster/Moderator (http://www.BlitzPigs.com)

RAAF_Edin
04-01-2004, 07:28 PM
I'll buy this sim compatible or not with curent IL-2/IL-2FB

Oleg, you rock! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

tolwyn.com
05-24-2004, 12:16 PM
Please tell me where you got THIS load of bull****?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Health_Angel:
The main reason for the incorrect FM's of several planes in FB is the large amount of flyable planes. I prefer a stand-alone-version with less planes but accurate FM's
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Barkhorn1x
05-24-2004, 02:38 PM
Oh god - please let this thread die the natural death it deserves.

Barkhorn.