PDA

View Full Version : Poll: How many of you feel PF is finished?



ReligiousZealot
06-21-2005, 10:51 PM

ReligiousZealot
06-21-2005, 10:51 PM

ClnlSandersLite
06-22-2005, 12:23 AM
As a global war fighter sim, it's pretty good imo. The pacific theatre tho, needs work to say the least.

ImpStarDuece
06-22-2005, 12:38 AM
Personally I don't really feel like even the original IL2 is properly finished. Where is Poland and the Crimean coast? Why cant I fly the Hs-129 or the Me-210/410, Ju-88, Ju-52, Pe-3? Ect, ect ad nauseum until we are blue in the face.

There will ALWAYS be content that you can add to the sim, regardless of the theatre. We could add further variants of fighters and bopmbers from IL2, FB, AEP and PF as well as more maps, objects, ships, targets. The posssibility of PF being exhaustive is essentially zero.

Maybe if you picked just one theatre and stuck with it for the length of time that IL2 has been around then you could have a COMPLETE but theatre specific sim. However, I really love the spread that it give me. I can fly against the Japanese, Russians, Germans and US all in the one sim. I think if you are sticking to the unmerged form of the game you are REALLY denying yourself a great deal.

I'll hazard a guess that the majority currently want more content and will ALWAYS want more content. Its just in our nature as lovers of WW2 aircraft and aircombat. The phrase "wouldn't having the ******* be cool" will always be with us, even if we get as far down the chain as demanding the Spitfire with Modification XXX (the beer barrel mod).

Guess what though? More content is on the way. I'm sure most posters are well aware of the 'what currently in development' sticky and are busily salivating over the prospect of the potential Pe-2 add-on.

StG77_Stuka
06-22-2005, 12:52 AM
To have anywhere near realistic carrier battles, Pacific-Fighters needs flyable Kate and Avenger. Without them the PF add-on or stand alone is unfinished.
I've said it before, I'd be glad to pay for an add-on that included these 2 aircraft flyable.
If 1:C ends supporting this sim without their inclusion, I won't buy another product from them.

EnGaurde
06-22-2005, 12:55 AM
for me to consider its polished off:

a few more ships of the era blue and red. Specifics can be sqaubbled over later.

VITAL: a good dosing with red and blue torpedo bombers. (im itching to pick my teeth with Devastator body parts.... )

more japanese aircraft. I dont really care which, come one come all.

flyable emily and PBY.

deck action on the carriers; little guys running around on deck doing the stuff little guys running around on decks do. Immersion fluff.

perhaps whilst flying in rain, watching water trails down cockpit windows? Not essential, but the little things....

the ability to man bombers gun stations in multiplayer. Not so much PF, but id lurve to ride top gunner in a B25 and have voice chat with pilot and gunners, calling out those fighters. Or defending your Betty from pesky P40s.

Mangroves... more swamps. Mudflats with clouds of screeching waterbirds. That tangle of roots and assorted foliage that makes them such a unique place. And maybe a heat haze for the distance... reflect that stinking suffocating tropics humidity where apt.

all these changes id certainly pay for in a pack.

i find it a good change from ETO.

( Id actually hoped that BoB would have a full PTO option at some stage. I still hope.....)

SeaFireLIV
06-22-2005, 01:18 AM
If I had bought Pacific Fighters alone I would have to say that I do feel it is unfinished. And I`m no fanatic on the Pacific, I know far less than most people on it. But it seems simple things such as ships circling to avoid bomb strikes should have been in by default in the offline campaign. Couldn`t they have set auto-circling waypoints for each strike mission?

Immersive touches such as air to ground control: There are no landing emergency calls, audible landing help, waveoff calls.

You never get a situation where pilots indicate if a ship has been hit or not. Damage carriers do not carry over damage to the next mission. The only new thing I saw that you can now ask the Carrier if it`s clear to take off and he`ll actually accurately tell you, but that`s it.

All this (and more indicate PF as not really complete).

But add on FB+AEP and for me it`s a different story. No other sim has such a WEALTH of aircraft allowing you to fly in 3 different Campaigns : Eastern Europe, Western Europe(with BOE) and the Pacific. I have almost come to the end of my career over Berlin and as soon as I`ve completed that I`m going to be transfered to the Royal navy piloting the Seafire to see off the Japanese - in ONE WHOLE SIM!

No other game allows you to travel around the world and do so much all in one. I have flown the Hurri, I16, Las, P40, Spit, P39 and have barely touched the whole range of unique aircraft still on offer.

So to conclude:

PF standalone : Incomplete, but still greatly enjoyable.

PF with FB/AEP: An unprecedented simulater that grants a level of playability/ replayability and immersion, featuring more individually characteristic planes UNHEARD of in the history of flight simulation.

We really are badly spoiled.

WTE_Tigger
06-22-2005, 01:50 AM
Without proper Torpedo Bombers and with the continued shortage of Fliable Japanese Aircraft, I would not consider PF finished by any means. IMHO it's very incomplete.

The Betty and the Ki100 hardly address the issue of JA aircraft. Afterall the Betty should have been in the game on release and the model provided didnt carry torps, and the Ki100 is 1945. There are very many missing JA aircraft and still none of the carrier borne Torp Bombers.

Till thats rectified -if ever- i dont think anyone could call PF finished.

IMHO

WTE Tigger

AVG_WarHawk
06-22-2005, 02:03 AM
Carrier based torpedo planes mainly Avenger & Kate are a must. I could name dozens of should've been included items, but those two aircraft are sorely needed.

Nimits
06-22-2005, 02:10 AM
Carrier-based torpedo planes (one for each side minimum) AND a some new ships (bare minimums: a US battleship and cargo ship, an IJN battleship, heavy cruiser, submarine, and cargo ship. an RN Hheavy cruiser and destroyer). New torpedo bombers will only take half the cake while they lack suitable targets to torpedo.

HotelBushranger
06-22-2005, 03:15 AM
It;s like the great economic problem:

Unlimited wants, limited resources.

theDutchman1962
06-22-2005, 03:38 AM
Time to move on to BoB,which no doubt will have expansionpacks,i wouldn't be surprised if this was the final patch for FB/AEP/PF and it should!
That way Oleg and his complete team can concentrate on BoB!
So stop asking for more,it will only delay BoB..

Tobus75
06-22-2005, 03:47 AM
IL2: fine, there are enough aircraft and maps to make it feel "whole".
PF: it needs more maps and at the very least some torp-planes for both sides. More ships/fleets would be nice, but I don't really care about individual models, aka, generic ships would be fine by me.

PF is still an unfinished product IMO, but I do enjoy playing it nonetheless, it's just not that complete as IL2FB is/was.

Bearcat99
06-22-2005, 06:21 AM
PF needs a flyable Kate and Avenger IMO as well. However... even if there were no more forthcoming from 1C I would still not be dissatisfied with what I have.... while not being wholly satisfied either.... and I would still have the next 1C sim on my HD on the day it is released sight unseen.

There could always be more... more ships.. more maps... more planes... but I do feel that as it is, it is at the very least a very well rounded sim even if some things arent there.... but then I remember using Pe-8s as simulated B-17s and The Crimea as a simulated WTO... so..... You use what yoiu have and try to enjoy it as best you can.. thats my philosphy.. andit works for me.

Endy1
06-22-2005, 06:54 AM
Bearcat99 wrote-

Posted Wed June 22 2005 05:21
PF needs a flyable Kate and Avenger IMO as well. However... even if there were no more forthcoming from 1C I would still not be dissatisfied with what I have.... while not being wholly satisfied either.... and I would still have the next 1C sim on my HD on the day it is released sight unseen.

I agree 100%

VT-51_Razor
06-22-2005, 06:55 AM
My vote was #2. I do not feel that PF is anywhere near finished. Having said that, I will say that I enjoy it immensely and can find few faults with the game as a whole. No other game allows you to travel to so many different theaters of operations with so much detail. The shame of it is that so much more detail is needed to really call this game "finished".

I would no more call FB, or AEP finished, given the lack of the JU-88 and Pe-2/3, or the absence of a good Med map than I would PF, with it's glaring absence of good maps of the Solomans and Philippines, or it's lack of carrier borne torpedo planes.

But over all, I can't complain too much. I wish 1:C would continue to support this game with paid add-ons. I think there is a huge untapped market out there that will carry this game for quite some time after BoB is out.

goshikisen
06-22-2005, 07:12 AM
Overall I think all of Oleg's sims are great... and no one could say that every one of them is absolutely complete but I think PF is the neglected child of the family.

Some of the issues with PF:

1. Naval Torpedo Bombers - HUGE hole in the sim.
2. Simple AI for ships - need to turn properly and evade attack.
3. Baseline ship representation - One BB for each side, CA for IJN, CL for both sides.
4. Maps - missing a proper map of the Solomons, Burma, China, etc.
5. Ki-45 Toryu, Ki-44 Shoki... IJA bombers.

Of course, everyone's idea of what constitutes a proper representation of the Pacific is different but I'd like to think that there are certain non-negotiables that a developer has to bring to the table in order for the sim to be branded a "Pacific Theatre" sim. A Pearl map without the Arizona. Very strange.

I wouldn't say my answer is represented in the poll... I do enjoy PF but I don't think it's fully realized yet.

TgD Thunderbolt56
06-22-2005, 07:19 AM
PF is nowhere near finished as an entertainment option on my pc. It is hands-down the best and while i too would like to see further additions, I can honestly say that if there was nothing else forthcoming I could fly this sim for a few more years to come. If for no other reason than the sheer volume and scope of what we currently have.

Sure, there are things that can still be added to make it even better (ala Avenger http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif), but given the limitations of pc hardware and the vast differences in the pc's people around the world play with, the dev team has done us all a wonderful service.

I can easily list a handful of things I'd still like to see added (some almost a necessity) but if not, my pleasure will not be jeopardized in the least. In their effort to make this a truly global sim (in both it's inclusions AND customer demographic), 1:C has set the bar high...be sure.


TB

PapaG39
06-22-2005, 08:04 AM
For me il2+aep+pf has been just something to pass the time now & then for over a year. It is better to fly then CFS3 or that ms 2004 thing, At this time it is the best flying WWll game out there so I mess around with it now & then.

Oleg & crew just keep putting on more & more planes that I will never fly or couldn't care less about.They have never...NEVER! made any ship that explodes with a big bang & burns..like that submarine silent hunter game...
they have never made any trucks, tanks or any other ground item that goes "BIG BANG" when it explodes & it never burns more then 1-3 seconds...no smoke worth a cr*p either except for an aircraft that has crashed ...no ground attack fun either...

All olag & his crew know how to do is put together new planes that all have the same horrible engine noise that sounds like a tennis shoe banging around inside of a washing machine...

If CFS3 had a better flight modeling it would be 10 times the game that olags il2 has ever been.

of course this is just my humble opinion & possibly not shared all...

ReligiousZealot
06-22-2005, 11:55 AM
I agree with the whole idea of an untapped market with the paid expansions, but as I said before I'll take what I can get.

Some of you may recall that I've posted previously about wanting more, but after playing 4.01m online a bit more I've come to realize (with the help of some people on this forum as well) I am really happy with this sim the way it currently is. Granted, if there were any type of pay add on that adds more than just campaigns, I would gladly fork over my hard earned cash for it.

I really hope Oleg and team can either train a new team to make an add on (maybe with Oleg over seeing the final product making sure the aircraft are up to his standards) or spend some time to create more aircraft, ships, maps, etc. Personally, I think the idea of training a team to create a pay add on while the Oleg and crew moves full steam towards BOB would be a good idea. Hey, at least then they could license those American planes from the greedy American corporate types. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

And yes, I am an American and I think it's stupid. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Tully__
06-22-2005, 12:39 PM
Finished = complete: It will never be. There just isn't the market to finance the development required to model all that is desirable in this type of sim in a product cycle that makes business sense.

Finished = we have the last patch: Very likely.

LEXX_Luthor
06-22-2005, 12:42 PM
R-Z:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I really hope Oleg and team can either train a new team to make an add on (maybe with Oleg over seeing the final product making sure the aircraft are up to his standards) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
crazyivan used to mumble on about "official" or "trusted" 3rd Party team taking over FB/PF as Oleg moves onto BoB and Beyond. It could happen, especially if the two don't step on each other. The 3rd Party could focus on Pacific or 1946 stuff for example.

Think of Mumbles (Dustin Hoffman) in the D_ick Tracey movie (Warren Beatty, Maddona)-- that is crazyivan dropping hints of future stuff. We are Tracey's men, putting Mumbles under the heat lamp.

Atomic_Marten
06-22-2005, 01:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
PF needs a flyable Kate and Avenger IMO as well. However... even if there were no more forthcoming from 1C I would still not be dissatisfied with what I have.... while not being wholly satisfied either.... and I would still have the next 1C sim on my HD on the day it is released sight unseen.

There could always be more... more ships.. more maps... more planes... but I do feel that is it is it is at the very least a very well rounded sim even if some things arent there.... but then I remember using Pe-8s as simulated B-17s and The Crimea as a simulated WTO... so..... You use what yoiu have and try to enjoy it as best you can.. thats my philosphy.. andit works for me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I agree with your observation on matter completely.
The only thing currently missing is to make B5N (or somewhere mentioned B6N) and Avenger (Devastator?) flyable.
With that I feel that the PF game can be complete.

BTW voted 3rd option.

ddsflyer
06-22-2005, 01:46 PM
Il2/Aces is still unfinished. Why include planes that nerver were a factor such as Gotha jets and P-80s while leaving out the Tempest and late model Griffon engined Spits? It makes no sense.

PF is very unfinished with its lack of torpedo bombers and a variety of Japanese aircraft.

Philipscdrw
06-22-2005, 02:06 PM
No matter where the developers draw the line, there will still be vital things that almost got included which people will beg and whine for. We can't have the Kate because there isnt' enough cockpit references surviving. We can't have the Avenger or Devastator because Son of Grumman is being a money-grabbing b*****d and/or Ubi's lawyers only qualification is reading lots of John Grisham novels. We won't get many new maps because coding them is a nightmare, apparently, unless you're the programmer who wrote the map-creator program, in which case it's a long and tedious process.

I think we won't get any more free gifts from Ub1C:. We hopefully will get the Pe-2 addon in Westernised form, then onwards and upwards to BoB (where we will get a smaller, more detailed, aircraft set).

Dexmeister
06-22-2005, 02:11 PM
To me, PF is finished. It'll take a new sim in a new box to get me to invest the time and effort of getting it all going again. PF has been an exercise in futility (to me, not to all you who love the sim, sorry).

I could get pretty excited at the sight of BOB on the shelves, or I could just grab X-Plane and get excited instead.

One thing for sure is I'm no longer interested enough in sims to spend months waiting for the next patch after the last patch, rinse & repeat.

So yes, to me, PF is "done".

Nimits
06-22-2005, 02:54 PM
While people will always want more and new material can always be added to the other branches of IL-2 (as long as development continues) Pacific Fighters seems unfinished in a whole other way. IL-2FB has, more or less been "finished" in the sense we are talking here since the day of its initial release. While there will always be room for more, IL-2 presented as complete a version of the tactical air war on the Russian Front in terms of planes and maps as any sim has ever done of any theater. Notwithstand many did not like the default DGen campaigns, neither shipped and user-created missions and campaigns ever suffered from lack of ground objects or aircraft. We had MiG-3s, LaGG-3s, La-5s, I-16s, YaK-1s, YaK-3s, YaK-7s, YaK-9s, Il-2s, TB-3s P-40s, P-47s, Hurricaines, Bf-109s, Fw-190s, Me-262s, Ju-87s, He-111s from the get go (and 2 or more versions for most), representing most major combatants, and those arecraft not available flyable were at least available as targets. Sure their were some small whole, specifically in the Russian bomber career and a lack of maps for the northern battles, but all in all, if one wanted to refight the Russian front air war from a fighter or tactical bomber, one could do so with very few compromises or limitations relative to any other computer sim ever produced.

AEP/BOE, on the other hand, while even less finished than Pacific Fighters, was never really intended as anything more than a semi-historical play ground for the numerous American and British aircraft that had worked their way into the game. I do think, in retrospect, one or two larger, better designed maps should have been included. Yet, wile I strongly wish more (and more useful) Western Front maps were included and would gladly pay for some better channel maps, a map of northernwester Europe, etc, I also understand that BOE/AEP was more a secondary add-on to a Eastern Front sim. It wasn't great, but for its purpose, I guess it was good enough.

Pacific Fighters, though, was supposed to be a stand alone Pacific flight simulation using the IL-2FB engine and some of their models to simulate a new theater, and, even after a couple of patches, Pacific Fighters still fall well short of the mark. True it has more flyable planes than CFS2 (its much derided nearest competitor), but Pacific Air War and Aces of the Pacific, the previous standards of a PTO flight sim both included flyable torpedo bombers, flyable late war dive bombers, and a ship set including at least one of each type of major combat vessel for each side. PF, on the other hand, completely lacks a flyable carrier-based torpedo bomber while including multiple versions of the Seafire (which saw only limited combat in the PTO) and the Hawk-81 (which doesn't have a map) to fly it on. It's ship (i.e. ground target list) is worst of all, lacking even representative types for most major warship classes. In a war where only the aircraft carrier superceeded the importance of combat effectiveness of the heavy cruiser, and where battles and campaigns revolved as much around sinking troop transports as capital ships, we have no IJN or RN cruisers and no Allied or IJN tankers or transports at all, a situation akin to if Forgotten Battles tried to simulate both T-34s and Panzer VIEs using Churchills. What's more than its lacking flyable plane list, PF, unlike IL-2FB, was did just in the non-flyable area. Finally, while PF does give us maps for some of the carrier battles and several Marine landings, we lack suitable maps for Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz, (2 of the 5 carrier v carrier battles fough in World War II), we have no maps of Rabaul or Lae (the two major foci of the air war over New Guinea and New Britain), no maps of the Slot or even of the islands and ocean north of Guadalcanal (and if there was any campaign that suited itself to the IL-2 style sim and campaign generator, it was the battles over the Slot), and we have no map of Leyte Gulf (largest naval-air battle in history). In short, we lack the planes to fight half the battles in the PTO, the maps to fight the other half, and the ships to fight any of them. Where IL-2FB was nearly complete as released, the content of Pacific Fighters, in terms of continuity and representativeness, pales compared even to CFS2.

Tachyon1000
06-22-2005, 11:32 PM
One question I have is why PF was even produced in the first place. Was it merely to raise revenue to dump back into BoB development? Considering the amount of development done to bring PF to market would their time have been better spent on BoB? With PF feeling like an imcomplete product with legal entanglements to make torp planes happen as well as the possibility of the need to create a better ship damage model, is it worth putting more time into it?

What I feel this whole series has lacked, PF especially, is the scale of aerial and sea battles. IL2 essentially supports something more like a skirmish-level conflict, and PF really cannot handle or simulate the scale of a real naval battle, as far as I can tell. For all the eye-candy we've been given, I'd almost rather see development effort put into recreating the scale of WWII engagements with hundreds of planes in the air, etc. Development of the sort that would either set up missions to simulate that scale of battle or to give players real tools to develop those types of scenarios.

Philipscdrw
06-23-2005, 12:17 AM
Disclaimer: I am sleep-deprived and under the influence of caffiene...

Yes, I think that PF doesn't really fit the 'Forgotten Battles' ethos. The PTO, being mainly America's war, is as non-forgotten as it gets. As Nimits states, I don't think that PF standalone is complete as a sim. While it's a great add-on for Il-2, it's not great as a standalone product. I reckon it probably was intended as a quick and easy project to get extra revenue. But that's not a bad thing. It's a free-market economy, there was no deception in the advertising (except for the delayed Betty), reviews were available - people knew what they were buying. While PF is the weak link in the Il-2 family, we can't blame 1C or Ubi.

(I'd have been much happier with a mediterranean add-on to succeed FB - but nevermind.)

Sturm_Williger
06-23-2005, 06:16 AM
I like PF despite its shortcomings / lacks. Futile to complain about elements lacking though, after all, thanks to it, we have more than we had before.

But I agree most with Phillipscdrw - if the resources that went into PF had gone into Med theatre - maps, Italian planes etc. I would be a much happier bunny.

Bearcat99
06-23-2005, 06:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
Disclaimer: I am sleep-deprived and under the influence of caffiene...

Yes, I think that PF doesn't really fit the 'Forgotten Battles' ethos. The PTO, being mainly America's war, is as non-forgotten as it gets. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Mainly America's war? Hmmmmmm so the Austrailians,British,Dutch,Canadian and New Zealand armies were just sitting around sipping tea and eating crumpets under mosquito netting.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I think not..... and I just mentioned some of the other players but there were others. People have the mistaken notion that because of Pearl Harbor the PTO was "America's war".. truth be told it was anoither act in the GLOBAL conflict that was WORLD WAR 2.

Philipscdrw
06-23-2005, 06:28 AM
Yes, I know that the Australians, British, Dutch, Canadians, Kiwisians, et. al. served in the Pacific... my grandfather was one of them. I was thinking (out of my backside) of what the American perception of the theaters is. Although I don't really have a clue about marketing or 1C: or Ubi or America, I thought that a sim of the Pacific theater is probably the most attractive to the people of the USA.

Bearcat99
06-23-2005, 12:15 PM
Dont think Luke...... use the force........

EnGaurde
06-23-2005, 05:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The PTO, being mainly America's war... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

wtf ???

What the hell do they teach you people in school over there???

Americas huge military resources overwhelmed the Japanese in the Pacific especially once the European threat had been largely dealt with. I hope, this is what you mean.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

what would have happened in the west should the battle of britain been lost and engalnd was invaded?

or russia stayed out of it in the east as was originally intended?

or, once the germans had consolidated their grip on the british isles and presented an armoured face to the atlantic already brimming with wolfpacks, leant their intelligence and military know how to the japanese. No? So the Ki100 didnt benefit fromn the FW190? The japanese didnt have Komet technology? The Ki61 didnt have german cannon mounted in its wings? Think of a unified german and japanese presence in the PTO. Think of how close that came to being.

what star blinded banner gems like that statement tend to ignore is all the breaks that america was handed early on in the piece, to give it time to wind up its industrial war winning might.

as soon as the US got going, it was unstoppable. Then, as now.

the fact it was allowed to get to that stage had a terrifyingly regular dependance on pure, unadulterated good old fashioned luck.

Nimits
06-23-2005, 06:18 PM
The PTO was primarily America' show; the Aussies and other Anzacs made important and herioc contributions, but there efforts would have been meaningless and futile without American military and logistic support. The British were pretty much driven out of the Pacific by 1942, and were never a significant player outside the CBI. After the fall of Java, the Dutch presence, never large to being with, was reduced to little more than a token force, while the French never even had the nerve to fight the Japanese. Britain, France, Holland, even Australia and New Zealand to a degree, were too cought up in the ETO to make a significant contribution to the PTO. Numbers tell most of the story here, wher ethe vast majority of men and equipment and almost all the major surface vessels came courtesy of the United States. The United States could have won the war in the Pacific without any of the other Allies, but none of them (or even all of them combined) could have done anything to seriously threaten Japan without American support.

EnGaurde
06-23-2005, 06:38 PM
indeed.

the best thing that came out of it was that due to the supply situation for both sides, the bleeding felt by american forces could be stemmed much faster and the keenly balanced replenishment chain for the japanese could not.

interestingly enough, the bombing effort over germany denied germans their war material and was the single most effective way of stopping the war on the ground.

the supply chain interdiction and island hopping strategy in the PTO denied the Japanese their war material.

coincidence? hehe.

*adopts classic Thinker pose*

perhpas that the great strategic secret of any warfare.... put just enough in front of your enemy to stem his advance and cost him resources. Put most of your efforts into denying him the ability to replace what you destroy on the front lines.

aah the big questions of todays living.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BBB_Hyperion
06-24-2005, 01:55 AM
When finished its dead. Let us hope that day never comes but with all things it is so .

airdale1960
06-24-2005, 11:11 AM
Can't we just all get along? LOL!

Firebird350HO
06-25-2005, 07:21 AM
I'm glad that we have PF, but do agree with the others that it is more an expansion pack than a standalone. I've had it as a merged game since Day One and enjoy the new a/c and maps immensely. But as a standalone, I don't believe it wouldn't be worth the admission price.

I personally feel it is time for Oleg & Co. to allow 3rd party input into the coding via a licensing agreement. It appears that the emphasis will now be on BoB. That's fine and best wishes to all parties involved for great success. Personally, I doubt I'll buy it because of the anticipated hardware requirements and, for me, a general redo of what we already have in Aces. Flying a Spitfire I against Do-17's would be nice, but I won't lose any sleep over it either. There are too many other things like cars, firearms, hunting and my first child on the way (not necessarily in that order http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ) to even think about a serious 'puter upgrade just to play a game an hour or two per week.

So for me, 3rd party input (beyond skins and missions, of course) is important. Not just for PF, but for the ETO as well. I certainly agree that the lack of flyable torpedo bombers is tantamount to neglect when it comes to PF. But so too is the lack of a flyable B-17, Tempest, Ju-88, and Pe-2. And then there are many historically important and interesting a/c we don't even have as AI, let alone as flyable- the Mosquito, B-26 Marauder, P-61 Black Widow and A-26 Invader immediately come to mind. A wider variety of ship classes and maps would be welcomed improvements. Significant variants of existing types such as the P-47N are also sorely missed. And while some lambast the inclusion of types that never flew or saw very limited service in WWII, I for one would be happy to pay for a flyable Bearcat, Meteor, Vampire, Ar-234, P-82 Twin Mustang, FW Triebflugel, etc. The "what if" scenarios are great fun and keep the game fresh.

In short, the potential for 3rd party add-ons is incredible. Oleg, please seriously consider this suggestion as you move full speed ahead in your other endeavors.
http://www.gunpix.com/gallery/Miscellaneous_and_Oddities/2twocents.gif

d9720267
06-25-2005, 08:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ubi's lawyers only qualification is reading lots of John Grisham novels. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

deathping---
06-25-2005, 11:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by theDutchman1962:
Time to move on to BoB,which no doubt will have expansionpacks,i wouldn't be surprised if this was the final patch for FB/AEP/PF and it should!
That way Oleg and his complete team can concentrate on BoB!
So stop asking for more,it will only delay BoB.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll buy bob when its around 9.95.

deathping---
06-25-2005, 11:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EnGaurde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The PTO, being mainly America's war... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

wtf ???

What the hell do they teach you people in school ove
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

what would have happened in the west should the battle of britain been lost and engalnd was invaded?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What a lovely thought. Too wonderful to contemplate.

F4U_Flyer
06-25-2005, 11:28 PM
yup , really lovely you fool! How many tho , er millions of innocent people would have been slaughtered by the nazi and japanese killers who killed for no particular reason and sometimes very particular reasons! People with your kind of thinking scare the hell out of me!!! Learn your history instead of being ignorant about it!!!!

F_vonIzabelin
06-26-2005, 02:25 PM
hehe ,PF is not a Pacific SIm, it was no pilotable torp bomber

joeap
06-26-2005, 05:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F_vonIzabelin:
hehe ,PF is not a Pacific SIm, it was no pilotable torp bomber </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Ok, so what are the Beaufighter, A-20 and now Betty? Carrier based torpedo bomber yea sure.

Copperhead310th
06-26-2005, 11:42 PM
Not finnished.
was sold as an INCOMPLEATE PRODUCT&gt;

period.

The Producer (and by that i mean luthier)
did a horable job in managing the 3rd party work he was tasked with managing. or IMO Mis-managing. So from my point of view most of the failures of PF rest soley with him. THAT IS MY OPINION.

what's missing? many maps. far to many to even list. aircraft in PF are inconsistant over the course of the war in a manner unlike the previous releases of the sim.

Compleate lack of Key aircraft for both sides.
(both late & early war)

Several minor features still are not working, or are not working properly.
Is PF finnshed? IMO no it is not finnshed.
while i'm sure we've pretty much seen the END of the FB/PF engine & patches the Overall product was sold incomplete by the standerds set by all previous vertions of the sim.

I'm not knocking Oleg or 1C. they did an outstanding job. Just wasn't completeated.
I'll blame part of that on poor prodject managment by the Procucer. the rest i'll blame on the luft-loving LW whiners & Euro-fan boys who never wanted PF to begin with and therefore never suported the product. IMO they are against ANYTHING that would bring more American Aircraft into the sim. Period. Even going as far as saying that the PTO was "America's War" to make excuses for it to be excluded.
SO the basic battle cry is now "Screw the PTO. lets get on with BOB where we can fly our BF-109's & Spitfires and no have to deal with the yanks. lol

Ok i've said my peace.....i'm finnehed here.

fluke39
06-27-2005, 01:18 AM
I agree that PF is very weak as a standalone product, and therefore isn't really "finished" as it is.
As an addon to FB i think then yes it probably is finished - it rounds of FB(as someone said as a global sim) nicely by adding the last of the main theatres of air war (ie russian front, western front & pacific) - i know there were several more but these i consider to be the main 3.(ok maybe Med/Africa too)

However it wouldbe nice to see at least a couple more planes before it all ends (flyable tempest & avenger?) but im sure eveyone would like to have their own preference in planes added so i have little hope of getting anything more.
However even though we may not get anything more i feel very satifised (if not spoilt) by the huge selection of planes already.

269GA-Veltro
06-27-2005, 03:56 AM
Torpedo carrier bombers.....

Treetop64
06-27-2005, 08:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
PF needs a flyable Kate and Avenger IMO as well. However... even if there were no more forthcoming from 1C I would still not be dissatisfied with what I have.... while not being wholly satisfied either.... and I would still have the next 1C sim on my HD on the day it is released sight unseen.

There could always be more... more ships.. more maps... more planes... but I do feel that as it is, it is at the very least a very well rounded sim even if some things arent there.... but then I remember using Pe-8s as simulated B-17s and The Crimea as a simulated WTO... so..... You use what yoiu have and try to enjoy it as best you can.. thats my philosphy.. andit works for me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ditto! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Obi_Kwiet
06-27-2005, 08:22 PM
As a multilayer dogfight game, it's incredibly good. For SP it stinks. SP is pretty much non-existent. If you want to play MP you have to have:

A) Lots of time to practice and learn how to fly full real
B) The patience to fly in a game for an hour doing nothing
C) Money for all the accessories that everyone uses.

Nimits
06-27-2005, 10:51 PM
Put in a carrier torpedo bomber for each side, and IJA bomber, a Central Solomons and Burma/China map, and a two more battleships (IJN and USN) and heavy cruisers (IJN and RN), and I'd call the game complete in the basic since. There would still be much more room for improvement, but at least you would have plausbile simulation of the Pacific War.

jamesdietz
06-28-2005, 12:59 PM
I'd settle for an Avenger...I really would ...oh and some U,S battleships...maybe a Kingfisher ...yeah ,that would be nice..now in Forgotten Battles ...first the Ju-88,,,and then....

jamesdietz
06-28-2005, 01:02 PM
Maybe the wind in my hair ( or at least the sound of it) when I'm tooling around with the canopy open...A few seagulls around the ship or over the pounding surf of the Island.....that would be nice...

CRSutton
06-28-2005, 02:19 PM
PF was and is not a finished product. Kind of dissapointed about it in that it still costs a lot. Altogether though the complete series has been great with great support and nice ad ons. Yes, I would like to see a better PF but all in all I am pretty happy with what I got for my money. It they ended it today, I would not feel cheated.

EiZ0N
06-28-2005, 05:47 PM
As an addon, it was finished. To be honest with you, I've not even played the Single Player, only multiplayer.

woofiedog
06-29-2005, 02:45 AM
Quote from goshikisen

Overall I think all of Oleg's sims are great... and no one could say that every one of them is absolutely complete but I think PF is the neglected child of the family.

Some of the issues with PF:

1. Naval Torpedo Bombers - HUGE hole in the sim.
2. Simple AI for ships - need to turn properly and evade attack.
3. Baseline ship representation - One BB for each side, CA for IJN, CL for both sides.
4. Maps - missing a proper map of the Solomons, Burma, China, etc.
5. Ki-45 Toryu, Ki-44 Shoki... IJA bombers.

Of course, everyone's idea of what constitutes a proper representation of the Pacific is different but I'd like to think that there are certain non-negotiables that a developer has to bring to the table in order for the sim to be branded a "Pacific Theatre" sim. A Pearl map without the Arizona. Very strange.

.................................................. .

Pacific Fighters is still Very Much incomplete. While being a Excellent start... many of the Ships, Aircraft, Maps and Etc are missing.
As in Il-2FB and Ace's many of the important pieces are still missing.
Hopefully Oleg will continue adding these pieces to all of these [IL-2FB/Ace's/PF]over time to complete this Masterpiece of WW2 Air Warfare.

Benhur_C6
06-29-2005, 06:32 AM
Do you think a game, simulating some battles ("Forgotten Battles") is finished when you cant interdict the use of runways or carriers by droping bombs on them ?

sapre
06-29-2005, 06:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Benhur_C6:
Do you think a game, simulating some battles ("Forgotten Battles") is finished when you cant interdict the use of runways or carriers by droping bombs on them ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You can do that already.

Tater-SW-
06-29-2005, 07:57 AM
Oh? The craters last indefinitely now, or at least 10-15 minutes?

tater

ordway
07-01-2005, 02:43 PM
For me, the whole middle Pacific war is missing with the critical island hopping, war-turning Rabul campaign which is missing in action.

This is as if IL-2 missed Kursk or D-day. Midway knocked the Japanese Empire down. The Rabul campaign bled them dry. By the end of it, there was little doubt that the Japanese Empire was finished. It's critical.

Please, Please, Please.

-Richard Ordway

Tater-SW-
07-01-2005, 02:50 PM
Rabaul itself (Simpson Harbor) would only be a so-so map to do unless it was done RIGHT. Even then, it might end up pretty marginal in actual play.

Why?

Because it is ONLY good for airstart/CV allied missions, and defensive japanese missions. On top of that, with the airfields, and all the ships normally found there, it would be nearly impossible to fly from a FR standpoint unless the AAA was turned waaay down. It's basically another Pearl Harbor.

Smaller anchorages in areas with more possible to and fro flying might make more sense (Wewak&lt;--&gt;Lae&lt;--&gt;Finchaven area) since each individual area is smaller, and would be more playable. That said, better Rabaul than nothing.

I'm still waiting for sapre to tell me how you can interdict a runway in PF right now, I'm genuinely curious.

tater

Nimits
07-01-2005, 09:43 PM
Rabaul would be fun for the battle of Solomon Sea (of course, we would also need some IJN cruisers to dive bomb), and if you could figure a way to stretch the map southwest to include some 5th AF bases, you could include some 5th AF action. Otherwise, a New Guinea map featuring Wewak and Lae, and Solomons map stretch from Henderson to Bougainville (or at least from Munda to Bougainville) would be extremely useful.

I do disagree about the suitability of Pearl Harbor and the carrier battles. If done right, Pearl Harbor could be fun (one mission, I know, but what a mission!), and the carrier/anti-shipping action is what makes the PTO unique. A handful of exra ships (3 more would have done it) and a very simple ship AI (if the tanks can drive around objects, why can't ships be made to do simple evasive manuavers?) would have amde everything work right. I do agree, though, PF suffers from "more than I can chewitis." Instead of simulating one aspect (i.e. Carrier War, CBI, New Guinea/Solomons) well, it tries to do everything, and ends up doing everything badly.

That, and we need a flyable carrier torpedo bomber . . .

Tater-SW-
07-01-2005, 10:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nimits:
I do disagree about the suitability of Pearl Harbor and the carrier battles. If done right, Pearl Harbor could be fun (one mission, I know, but what a mission!), </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, it's all the work required for one mission that no one has the computing power to play without the number of planes, and AAA turned waaaay down. I'm fine with it being cool, but it's a huge workload for little reward. Right now ZERo reward since there are no US BBs to attack, making the entire point moot.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and the carrier/anti-shipping action is what makes the PTO unique. A handful of exra ships (3 more would have done it) and a very simple ship AI (if the tanks can drive around objects, why can't ships be made to do simple evasive manuavers?) would have amde everything work right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally agree here. Heck, make the ships do a circle once targets get inside some range (2.5 to 5 km). Give all ships a fixed turning radius for somplicity. Make it up to the mission builder to make sure they don't collide by proper spacing. For fleets, I'd make a few that act like the convoys and move/evade as one.

tater

Snootles
07-01-2005, 11:04 PM
Thing is, although I believe PF is missing a great deal of material critical to the PTO, I don't want 1C breaking their backs adding this material.

They should focus on their new engine now and complete BoB. Maybe we'll return to the Pacific later, with an engine more suited to the demands of naval air combat...

Nimits
07-02-2005, 03:16 AM
Maybe we could get Shockwave to update Pacific Air War for Windows XP. It would only take a totally new game engine, flight engine, and graphics engine. but hey, at least they would already have the name . . .

Recon_609IAP
07-02-2005, 07:29 AM
Agree to above post - move on.

I'd like to see PF finished with the BoB engine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

|CoB|_Spectre
07-02-2005, 08:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Snootles:
Thing is, although I believe PF is missing a great deal of material critical to the PTO, I don't want 1C breaking their backs adding this material. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seems to me it wouldn't take all that much to reasonably satisfy many of the requests. Some additional maps of areas with historical importance which wouldn't require many roads, rail systems or detailed cities due to the nature of jungle island warfare. A few more ships to more accurately represent the combatants. I may be wrong, but the ships all seem to share the same AI, so the 3D modeling and moveable gun emplacements would require the most effort. These additions shouldn't infringe on any trademark issues, so there's one less obstacle. Basically, this looks like a project that would not drain resources from the core 1C development team. We've seen what people like Ian Boys can do and now that he's gained experience in map modeling, perhaps some "3rd party" talent could be called upon.

On the subject of maps, I'd be interested in some opinions regarding compromises. I enjoy building missions for online co-op and one thing I take into consideration is transit time. I think most online players are not amenable to long duration transit times of more than about 15 minutes one-way. They want to get into the action. After all, they come for the air combat, not cross-country jaunts. With that in mind, recreating some historically accurate battles such as those with flights from Port Moresby to Lae, become difficult simply due to the distances involved. The Singapore maps, I think, had an interesting idea whereby one historical depiction and one with "special" airfields could be used. Maybe the same could be done with other areas to facilitate gameplay. Of course one can always set one of the temporary airfields where ever needed. I don't know how many players of this sim are willing to invest transit times of an hour or two, to-and-from the action area.

Nimits
07-02-2005, 12:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">subject of maps, I'd be interested in some opinions regarding compromises. I enjoy building missions for online co-op and one thing I take into consideration is transit time. I think most </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Starshoy already built "short" versions of the carrier campaigns in DGen. The only other map that really requires an inordinate flight time is New Guinea, but there's only so much you can do there. We already have a map with less than half of what should be there, an alot of people still find it too long.