PDA

View Full Version : Pacific Fighters needs alot of work



Gantoo
11-12-2004, 05:53 AM
That said I hope it gets it. I hope that this is not some way for 1C to get some food on the table until the release of BOB. If PF is given the same amount of suport that Il2 has gotten it could really be a great sim. As of right now though it is really flawed.

For one thing, I don't think that the dynamic campaign is appropriate for the Pacific Theater. It worked on the eastern front because the missions there were more routine. In the Pacific theater intricate battles are being played out. The dynamic campaign (random mission generator - had to say it) really fails to realize this concept. Besides being blatantly historically inaccurate, the missions seem to have little to do with one another and often defy logic. One mission you are looking for the enemy fleet, find the fleet, only to look for a downed pilot in the next mission. Why are we not attacking the fleet. A really well produced set of static missions would tremendously improve Pacific Fighters.

For two the AI is really lacking. I have flown about 30 missions so far and have not been shot down yet (I crashed a few times though). And oh how I have managed to rack up alot of kills. I will routinely get seven kills in one mission, cutting up those zeros like they were clay pigeons in a shooting gallery. All this is done in a wildcat flown by me (I am not that great of a pilot), just does not add up.

For three, I got to say the flight models feel a bit arcadish. This has been discussed to no end, so I will say no more.

Finally, Pacific Fighters just needs more detail. For example, it needs more original ships, the generic ships look so, well . . . generic. Takes you out of the game a bit. If Pacific Fighters was as fleshed out and detailed as Il2 is today, it would be one h*ell of a game.

What scares me is that Pacific Fighters will not get the attention that it deserves because too much recourses are being put towards BOB. Personally I would rather see BOB delayed than Pacific Fighters not get the support that it so desperately needs.

Gantoo
11-12-2004, 05:53 AM
That said I hope it gets it. I hope that this is not some way for 1C to get some food on the table until the release of BOB. If PF is given the same amount of suport that Il2 has gotten it could really be a great sim. As of right now though it is really flawed.

For one thing, I don't think that the dynamic campaign is appropriate for the Pacific Theater. It worked on the eastern front because the missions there were more routine. In the Pacific theater intricate battles are being played out. The dynamic campaign (random mission generator - had to say it) really fails to realize this concept. Besides being blatantly historically inaccurate, the missions seem to have little to do with one another and often defy logic. One mission you are looking for the enemy fleet, find the fleet, only to look for a downed pilot in the next mission. Why are we not attacking the fleet. A really well produced set of static missions would tremendously improve Pacific Fighters.

For two the AI is really lacking. I have flown about 30 missions so far and have not been shot down yet (I crashed a few times though). And oh how I have managed to rack up alot of kills. I will routinely get seven kills in one mission, cutting up those zeros like they were clay pigeons in a shooting gallery. All this is done in a wildcat flown by me (I am not that great of a pilot), just does not add up.

For three, I got to say the flight models feel a bit arcadish. This has been discussed to no end, so I will say no more.

Finally, Pacific Fighters just needs more detail. For example, it needs more original ships, the generic ships look so, well . . . generic. Takes you out of the game a bit. If Pacific Fighters was as fleshed out and detailed as Il2 is today, it would be one h*ell of a game.

What scares me is that Pacific Fighters will not get the attention that it deserves because too much recourses are being put towards BOB. Personally I would rather see BOB delayed than Pacific Fighters not get the support that it so desperately needs.

TgD Thunderbolt56
11-12-2004, 06:08 AM
rest assured, it will be fixed and will get the support that will make it an excellent addition to the IL2 family.

Athosd
11-12-2004, 06:20 AM
While the dynamic campaign engine isn't quite random (it keeps track of material available for both sides), I agree its not an optimum solution for many of the Pacific battles.

The game also supports fixed campaigns where you can step through a selection of hand made missions. I believe it would have been worth the effort to develop a couple of these to go with the release (some choice missions could thus have been available as singles as well). Some community built campaigns may already be available.

The campaign you are flying would probably benefit from upping the difficulty to Hard - more Ace enemies then.

Arcadish flight models - hmmm I'll pass on that one.

I'm confident PF will receive the needed support - the first patch will likely give an indication of what can be expected in the future.

Athosd
11-12-2004, 06:37 AM
Update - check out Oleg's announcement in the Ready Room:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=5061038042

Chuck_Older
11-12-2004, 10:28 AM
Hard flight model= accurate flight model then, eh? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

The190Flyer
11-12-2004, 10:37 AM
I agree with ya's Gantoo and Thunderbolt, I've uninstalled PF for now cause its givin me a little trouble, i've decided to wait until a patch comes out. Im for sure with a couple of patches PF will be the game everybody is hoping it would be!!!

S! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

a.k.a. BIFF P-51 PILOT in ubi.com lobbies

Stiglr
11-12-2004, 12:02 PM
Chuck Older wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Hard flight model= accurate flight model then, eh? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not necessarily. But there is a reason why people don't walk off the street into the cockpit of a plane and start doing touch and gos.

There seems to be a bit of evidence to suggest that PF has another one of those Maddox-patented 1.0 "wrong E-bleed, alternate Earth physics" flight models. I don't quite understand why the entire FM seems to change just because new planes are added or a new box appears in stores, since if the basic flight model is right, the additions of new planes should not require it to be tweaked; but it's an observable phenomenon.

fordfan25
11-12-2004, 12:10 PM
how do you up the diffuculty in the campaigns? to make the enemy tougher?

JorBR
11-12-2004, 12:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gantoo:
For two the AI is really lacking. I have flown about 30 missions so far and have not been shot down yet (I crashed a few times though). And oh how I have managed to rack up alot of kills. I will routinely get seven kills in one mission, cutting up those zeros like they were clay pigeons in a shooting gallery. All this is done in a wildcat flown by me (I am not that great of a pilot), just does not add up.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I found great improvements in AI behaviour, the missions I flew were really tough. It took me some parachute time to adapt to AI new deflection shooting cappability.

About FM: ease to complain, hard to prove.

Slammin_
11-12-2004, 05:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The190Flyer:
I agree with ya's Gantoo and Thunderbolt, I've uninstalled PF for now cause its givin me a little trouble, i've decided to wait until a patch comes out. Im for sure with a couple of patches PF will be the game everybody is hoping it would be!!!

S! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

a.k.a. BIFF P-51 PILOT in ubi.com lobbies <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Wow, either you play in a flight suit, are out of disk space, or you are really hard core and slam your head into a wall when you crash. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

gonzieman
11-12-2004, 05:41 PM
The AI is and always has been the biggest problem for me in IL2 based games.

My pet peeve is how stupid they all are when it comes to landing, 10 planes all trying to land at once , the lucky one gets permission to land, the rest just go around, over and over and over again.

They could order them selves a little better so you don't have to wait an hour to land.

Air traffic control is terrible too.

Slammin_
11-12-2004, 05:47 PM
You think the AI is bad, you should try online! I can't count how many times I've been rammed by a team mate on the runway. Hope there is a patch for that!

Chuck_Older
11-12-2004, 07:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Chuck Older wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Hard flight model= accurate flight model then, eh? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not necessarily. But there is a reason why people don't walk off the street into the cockpit of a plane and start doing touch and gos.

There seems to be a bit of evidence to suggest that PF has another one of those Maddox-patented 1.0 "wrong E-bleed, alternate Earth physics" flight models. I don't quite understand why the entire FM seems to change just because new planes are added or a new box appears in stores, since if the basic flight model is right, the additions of new planes should not require it to be tweaked; but it's an observable phenomenon. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, agreed.

But when I read something about the modelling, it's nice to hear a reason other than "to me it seems wrong", a little example is nice. Even something like "I read that (blank) happens in this book by (blank)", because then you can talk about it

Personally, I wish that some of the warbird pilots from the last 10 years or so who died were still around, most notably Mark Hanna. When I read his articles, it was like he gave a history lesson and his impressions of flying the plane all at the same time, and he would also point out what he knew the plane could do in manuevers he executed, and what he expected the aircraft to do, based on his expreiences with similar aircraft and his interaction with veteran WWII pilots, in some of the outer regions of the flight envelope. Very articulate man, it's a shame he died on too many levels http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif He was quite objective in his assesments of aircraft and loved to share his knowledge and first hand experiences. His take on the Il2 series would have been interesting

Claynation
11-12-2004, 08:02 PM
The quick missions builder is a little lacking too. Why can't your target be a ship convoy or an aircraft carrier? Why can't you use all the maps that are avialable in single missions or campaigns? Also for a pacific game it seems to be missing aircraft that can drop a torpeedo.

killer2359
11-12-2004, 08:33 PM
I really only have 2 beefs:

1. FM's need to be fixed - ie. Wildcat vs Zero has been confirmed by a guy who flies both IRL to be not right - and there are complaints from others about the F4U.

2. Dynamic trim and trim control system are a BIG problem to me.

Athosd
11-12-2004, 08:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Claynation:
The quick missions builder is a little lacking too. Why can't your target be a ship convoy or an aircraft carrier? Why can't you use all the maps that are avialable in single missions or campaigns? Also for a pacific game it seems to be missing aircraft that can drop a torpeedo. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It takes a lot (a big lot) of effort to configure a map for use in the QMB. Spend a few minutes reading up on the Full Mission Builder (refer manual.pdf in your game directory) and you can do whatever you like on any map you like, and it only takes a few moments to set up.

Both the A-20 and Beaufighter can carry torpedoes. The G4M Betty, soon to be available in the patch, will also carry torps.
Carrier based flyable torpedo planes are in the works.

Personally I think the flyable B25, A20 and Beaufighter are a worthy trade off - much more versatile.

Athosd
11-12-2004, 08:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by killer2359:
I really only have 2 beefs:

1. FM's need to be fixed - ie. Wildcat vs Zero has been confirmed by a guy who flies both IRL to be not right - and there are complaints from others about the F4U.

2. Dynamic trim and trim control system are a BIG problem to me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Zero and other Japanese types have been worked over in the patch.
IL2 is not modified by complaint - proof must also be provided, there is generally an abundance of whinging and a drought of proof.

Why do you have a problem with dynamic trim? Do you want a one key trim setting such as in PAW? Suggest away - but be ready for the flames.

Athosd
11-12-2004, 09:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fordfan25:
how do you up the diffuculty in the campaigns? to make the enemy tougher? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The DGEN 3.11 beta readme could certainly have been a little more specific.

Add the difficulty commands to your main conf.ini file (there is no longer a separate one for DGEN) under the heading [DGEN]. You'll most likely have to add the heading item yourself.

Example:

[DGEN]
CampaignDifficulty=Hard

Cheers

Athos

killer2359
11-12-2004, 10:00 PM
An auto trim system wouldn't work for me because it's the effect of the trim on the primary control input that I have a problem with - this is NOT implemented right (makes control input take trimmed value plus input value = oversensitive/twitchy control in direction of trimmed control and undersensitive/mushy control in direction opposite of trimmed control).

I think my complaint is QUITE detailed.

Bearcat99
11-12-2004, 11:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gantoo:
That said I hope it gets it. I hope that this is not some way for 1C to get some food on the table until the release of BOB. If PF is given the same amount of suport that Il2 has gotten it could really be a great sim. As of right now though it is really flawed.

For one thing, I don't think that the dynamic campaign is appropriate for the Pacific Theater. It worked on the eastern front because the missions there were more routine. In the Pacific theater intricate battles are being played out. The dynamic campaign (random mission generator - had to say it) really fails to realize this concept. Besides being blatantly historically inaccurate, the missions seem to have little to do with one another and often defy logic. One mission you are looking for the enemy fleet, find the fleet, only to look for a downed pilot in the next mission. Why are we not attacking the fleet. A really well produced set of static missions would tremendously improve Pacific Fighters.

For two the AI is really lacking. I have flown about 30 missions so far and have not been shot down yet (I crashed a few times though). And oh how I have managed to rack up alot of kills. I will routinely get seven kills in one mission, cutting up those zeros like they were clay pigeons in a shooting gallery. All this is done in a wildcat flown by me (I am not that great of a pilot), just does not add up.

For three, I got to say the flight models feel a bit arcadish. This has been discussed to no end, so I will say no more.

Finally, Pacific Fighters just needs more detail. For example, it needs more original ships, the generic ships look so, well . . . generic. Takes you out of the game a bit. If Pacific Fighters was as fleshed out and detailed as Il2 is today, it would be one h*ell of a game.

What scares me is that Pacific Fighters will not get the attention that it deserves because too much recourses are being put towards BOB. Personally I would rather see BOB delayed than Pacific Fighters not get the support that it so desperately needs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How were you flying? Icons or no? Open or closed pit? If that is the case then you need to edit the mission and increase the skill of the AI... I keep hearing all this stuff about how bad PF is and I just dont see it. Arcadish FMs? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif Some of them may not be 100% accurate according to some sorces but arcadish? Not hardly........ Who says hard FMs are realistic? From what I have heard from a source that has flown several of the major birds in the sim, although some of the FMs arent dead on several of the ones in PF... Hell cat and Corsair in particular oare pretty darn close. I cant get over all these people who find so much fault with the sim..... I just dont see it.

actionhank1786
11-13-2004, 12:20 AM
Arcadish, i dont think so.
The flight model feels right to me
Put some fact where your mouth is.
If you guys want change you need facts not just "well my gut says that the F4U didnt fly like that"
Oleg and Team used US, and Japanese data to model their corrosponding planes, and therefore it should be pretty **** close.

RepublicofTexas
11-13-2004, 12:24 AM
PF is a **** good sim. My one big complaint is the model effects of the .50cal. Oleg seems to have the cannon effects correct (based on guncam film) but the tracer rounds of the .50 are off. If you ever watch good quality guncam film you can see 1) not every pilot wanted a tracer every 10th or so round, should be a choice i.e. low, medium or heavy trace 2) IMO the round does not look big enough like the 13mm 3) when it hits a plane at distance you should see the flash which we do, but at close range we should see a poof of white smoke. Also how about a few tracer rounds bouncing of water, ship armor, etc. The Targetware folks have the .50 cal FM pretty **** accurate if you have ever see it. thx

Athosd
11-13-2004, 12:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by killer2359:
An auto trim system wouldn't work for me because it's the effect of the trim on the primary control input that I have a problem with - this is NOT implemented right (makes control input take trimmed value plus input value = oversensitive/twitchy control in direction of trimmed control and undersensitive/mushy control in direction opposite of trimmed control).

I think my complaint is QUITE detailed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suggest you revisit your control sensitivity config in hardware options.

killer2359
11-13-2004, 04:11 AM
Tried it - didn't help - turning down my joystick sensitivity doesn't help the fact that the game is INCORRECTLY responding to my input!.

Chuck_Older
11-13-2004, 07:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Claynation:
The quick missions builder is a little lacking too. Why can't your target be a ship convoy or an aircraft carrier? Why can't you use all the maps that are avialable in single missions or campaigns? Also for a pacific game it seems to be missing aircraft that can drop a torpeedo. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The classic "Why is the QMB so limited" question. An oldie but a goody.

It's "Quick Mission Builder". The game is designed so that the QMB allows you very basic, ie: quick aerial actions over certain maps with the QMB. PF has basically the same lineage as Il2, and got it's user interface structure. That structure was not intended for PF. PF wasn't even an idea then, most likely.

In the QMB we have limited maps. Why? Well, for two reasons. One, if we had more maps, and more options, and more aircraft and so on, it wouldn't be the quick mission builder anymore, now would it? We have a complex mission builder already, it's the FMB. the other reason for limited maps is game performance. Have you thought about why those maps in QMB were chosen? Folks with slower PCs can use the maps in the QMB without a huge performance hit. Now toss the Gulf of Finland map in there, or Berlin. Suddenly the QMB losses a lot of attractiveness for some folks because their PCs can't handle the QMB smoothly

The reason that the QMB is limited is because of it's nature. For more comprehensive missions and scenarios, the FMB is available and while not perfect, it takes very little time to make a simple mission in which a 4 plane element lead by the player targets an aircraft carrier. the FMB seems to be a difficult thing, and sometimes it's nuances can be aggravating. But to make the kind of simple mission you wish the QMB could do, the FMB is the correct tool and is simple to use for that mission. One ship, a couple waypoints, one flight, set altitude, speed, a few waypoints, and save the mission. That's all it takes.

learning the FMB trakes less time than it takes to learn to fly some of the aircraft in FB/PF but many players can't intuitively understand the FMB and give up on it. Spend 15 minutes checking out the manual and asking questions on the Mission Builders forum and you will be making more complex missions than simple "bomb the ship" missions in not time flat.

As for torpedo planes that we can fly, some are indeed missing, but I think you haven't looked hard enough yet http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Gantoo
11-13-2004, 05:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:

I cant get over all these people who find so much fault with the sim..... I just dont see it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The fact that so many see fault with sim means that the sim has problems. If it was near perfect, like the current state of Il2, there would not be this level of controversy. I think that the problems could be fixed with just a little more polish. I want to like it, I really do, and I am sure after a few patches Pacific Fighters will be a great sim, it is just not there yet.

killer2359
11-13-2004, 07:55 PM
Something I'd like to say on this: when one finds a "problem" (or thinks one has) and identifies it, the response from certain quarters is quite overboard ("how DARE you criticise!") - so the original attempt to identify something that could be improved becomes a defensive exercise which in turn alters the whole slant into a complaint - when the whole intention from the beginning has been in the first instance to try to get some sensible feedback on the issue in case it isn't actually a real defect and then in the second instance get it fixed.

Gantoo sums up my feelings on PF exactly.

dannyworkman
11-13-2004, 10:50 PM
hey actionhank1786 thats not burt Reynold thas Ron Jeremy

Chuck_Older
11-14-2004, 07:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by killer2359:
Something I'd like to say on this: when one finds a "problem" (or thinks one has) and identifies it, the response from certain quarters is quite overboard ("how DARE you criticise!") - so the original attempt to identify something that could be improved becomes a defensive exercise <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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


"how DARE you criticise!"

Pot, kettle, black?

Not only are you over-exaggerating to an extreme, but you've just said that nobody should criticise anyone who criticises, because you feel one side has a better opinion than the other. Sounds like a double standard to me.

Do a search under my username. You'll find many instances of me arguing (sometimes nonsensically) with members here over nothing, or sometimes about something, you'll find examples of me saying certain things in FB/PF are wrong, you'll find me saying certain things are right, and also that certain things need to be compromised. You'll also find me helping new players, old players, and confused players. You may even find stupid name-calling matches involving me. What you will have a very hard time indeed finding is me saying anything like "How dare you!"

So I hope you can understand that I'm not just bashing you here. You're saying "Do as I tell you, not as I do".

The people who say this or that is wrong can do that all they like, but if I or anyone else says "no it's not" just as vehemently, then the person that refutes that is wrong, by your logic http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif that's crazy

DarthBane_
11-14-2004, 09:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by killer2359:
Something I'd like to say on this: when one finds a "problem" (or thinks one has) and identifies it, the response from certain quarters is quite overboard ("how DARE you criticise!") - so the original attempt to identify something that could be improved becomes a defensive exercise <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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


"how DARE you criticise!"

Pot, kettle, black?

Not only are you over-exaggerating to an extreme, but you've just said that nobody should criticise anyone who criticises, because you feel one side has a better opinion than the other. Sounds like a double standard to me.

Do a search under my username. You'll find many instances of me arguing (sometimes nonsensically) with members here over nothing, or sometimes about something, you'll find examples of me saying certain things in FB/PF are wrong, you'll find me saying certain things are right, and also that certain things need to be compromised. You'll also find me helping new players, old players, and confused players. You may even find stupid name-calling matches involving me. What you will have a very hard time indeed finding is me saying anything like "How dare you!"

So I hope you can understand that I'm not just bashing you here. You're saying "Do as I tell you, not as I do".

The people who say this or that is wrong can do that all they like, but if I or anyone else says "no it's not" just as vehemently, then the person that refutes that is wrong, by your logic http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif that's crazy <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Man, sometimes your right but about QMB your not. There should be more options and maps, like mountains and desert. Take off should be allowed. Ships to chose present. Do with your time what ever you desire, one look on FMB is enough for me, and i dont wont to see it ever again. Uberdemons software is great but not present for 3.0. QMB needs serious work. And it would be great to see some.

Chuck_Older
11-14-2004, 10:21 AM
...because you find the FMB confusing and you can't learn to use it, that means that your personal problem with the FMB means that it should be changed?

It also means that of all the reasons I gave about the QMB being so limited are irrelevant because you choose not to explore your options with the FMB?

What you have just said, Darth, is 'I never bothered to play with the FMB, I think it's too hard to learn, and because of that, the QMB should be expanded to include all sorts of other stuff'

Despite that being exactly what I was talking about, do you realise that you're putting your own personal choice of not using the FMB as priority Number One that the QMB should be changed?

My being right has nothing to do with it, the QMB is limited on purpose, it's not my rules we are following.


I'm not really able to agree with your arguments, because you have admitted you leave the FMB alone without giving it more than a glance, and because of that, you say that I'm not on solid ground with my assesment. maybe if you try out the FMB and then can at least talk about why it's hard or confusing, we could debate the QMB expansion, but by your own volition, you don't even know what the FMB really does other than 'it makes missions' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif Sorry, I can't agree with you until you have something better than "it's too hard but I never really tried it" as an argument.

DarthBane_
11-14-2004, 10:33 AM
Man read it: i said do with your time what you desire. I edit when i get paid for it. I start FB/AEP/PF when i feel the need for flying, shooting and droping bombs. No need to insult me with thoughts like it is difficult for me to understand FMB. You can edit as much you want, me and meny people DONT CARE ABOUT EDITING. And thats why i wish better and more detailed QMB. You can go back to having fun in FMB as much as you wish. My idea of fun is DIFFERENT than yours. And you dont have to agree, because it is irelevant if you agree or not, agreed?

Chuck_Older
11-14-2004, 10:52 AM
Wtf?

You are the one who said, and I quote:

"one look on FMB is enough for me, and i dont wont to see it ever again"

And then you tell me why I am not seeing the issues. You don't know half of what you're talking about, and you admit it!.

Then I say that until you do, I can't agree with your arguments. What the hell am I supposed to do, take you by the hand, teach you the flippin FMB and then talk about it?

You yourself admit you don't know about the FMB, you took one look and couldn't be bothered to look again, and now you're mad at me because I said "it's too hard for you to learn?" That's not an insult, it's what you just told me happened!

Man are you out of line here. I had tried to have a rational adult conversation but that's out the window it seems.

Would you have been happier if I had posted this, Darth?

" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif lol noob thinks FMB is too hard an wantz QMB to do it all, don't worry, tears on a pillow dry, lil boy"

Have you noticed I don't ever post anything like that, Darth? If I wanted to insult or make fun of you, you'd be very well insulted or made fun of. You want somebody to be mad at for that post? Go look in a mirror. You said what you're angry about, not me. I said it in a softer way than you did, but you're mad at me?!

MK2aw
11-14-2004, 11:50 AM
Gantoo do you have 3.11 DGENBETA installed?

DarthBane_
11-14-2004, 12:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Wtf?

_You_ are the one who said, and I quote:

"one look on FMB is enough for me, and i dont wont to see it ever again"

And then you tell me why I am not seeing the issues. You don't know half of what you're talking about, and you _admit it!_.

Then I say that until you do, I can't agree with your arguments. What the hell am I supposed to do, take you by the hand, teach you the flippin FMB and then talk about it?

You yourself admit you don't know about the FMB, you took one look and _couldn't be bothered_ to look again, and now you're mad at me because I said "it's too hard for you to learn?" That's not an insult, it's what _you just told me happened!_

Man are you out of line here. I had tried to have a rational adult conversation but that's out the window it seems.

Would you have been happier if I had posted this, Darth?

" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif lol noob thinks FMB is too hard an wantz QMB to do it all, don't worry, tears on a pillow dry, lil boy"

Have you noticed I don't _ever_ post anything like that, Darth? If I wanted to insult or make fun of you, you'd be very well insulted or made fun of. You want somebody to be mad at for that post? Go look in a mirror. You said what you're angry about, not me. I said it in a softer way than you did, but you're mad at me?! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is mad at you? You seem to be provoked here. Again you mention LEARNING the FMB and HELPING to learn, while i said at the first place that i dont intend to spent seconds in editing, exept when it is something intligently built like Uberdemons generator=no manuals needed.It is low to kiss developers a$$ whenever you smell the chance. Why do you even try to defend the following: THE QMB SERIOUSLY LACKS OPTIONS! It cannot be defended, like you sitting in a pony, and somebody pressing fire button in me262 with your a$$ in the croshair. Dont be a kissass it is discusting. Some things needs alot of work. Like QMB.

heywooood
11-14-2004, 01:03 PM
Ok - someone is missing the point of QMB..it is not supposed to be highly detailed - highly scalable - broad in scope and diversity...that is what FMB is for -

QMB might be a misnomer..maybe it should be called 'instant fly' or something besides 'mission builder' as some people want to do FMB in the QMB interface and, sorry, thats not what it is for. That would be redundant.

QMB is for quick - instant flying action that is lightly scalable for the user to try new skins, new tactics either for air to air or ground attack, and for whatever else you want to try...thats why you can save and load your preferred QMB layouts...so you can 'quickly' hop in a different plane than say your online one or your campaign one...and fly different profiles 'quickly' without having to take a longer time in set-up of the FMB.

Why is this such a difficult idea I dont know...maybe they made QMB too flexible and people got the wrong idea...or maybe FMB looks too intimidating...I thought so too until I just made up my mind to take a good long look at it. The FMB is an awesome tool - just as much fun for me as flying the missions and that is no lie.

Gutang
11-14-2004, 01:20 PM
I dont even think its a misnomer, I think he's just missing the point entirely..

QMB is for building quick and simple missions, which it does. FMB is for building full, complex missions, which it does. Its that simple...

Darth, you only belittle yourself by attacking others in such a manner that you demonstrated in your last post.

tcsank
11-14-2004, 01:31 PM
I don't think anybody's asking for the QMB to be anything like the FMB. Would adding more maps, the option to take off and land, and more targets really turn the QMB into something sooo complicated? I don't think so.

Chuck_Older
11-14-2004, 02:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Wtf?

_You_ are the one who said, and I quote:

"one look on FMB is enough for me, and i dont wont to see it ever again"

And then you tell me why I am not seeing the issues. You don't know half of what you're talking about, and you _admit it!_.

Then I say that until you do, I can't agree with your arguments. What the hell am I supposed to do, take you by the hand, teach you the flippin FMB and then talk about it?

You yourself admit you don't know about the FMB, you took one look and _couldn't be bothered_ to look again, and now you're mad at me because I said "it's too hard for you to learn?" That's not an insult, it's what _you just told me happened!_

Man are you out of line here. I had tried to have a rational adult conversation but that's out the window it seems.

Would you have been happier if I had posted this, Darth?

" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif lol noob thinks FMB is too hard an wantz QMB to do it all, don't worry, tears on a pillow dry, lil boy"

Have you noticed I don't _ever_ post anything like that, Darth? If I wanted to insult or make fun of you, you'd be very well insulted or made fun of. You want somebody to be mad at for that post? Go look in a mirror. You said what you're angry about, not me. I said it in a softer way than you did, but you're mad at me?! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is mad at you? You seem to be provoked here. Again you mention LEARNING the FMB and HELPING to learn, while i said at the first place that i dont intend to spent seconds in editing, exept when it is something intligently built like Uberdemons generator=no manuals needed.It is low to kiss developers a$$ whenever you smell the chance. Why do you even try to defend the following: THE QMB SERIOUSLY LACKS OPTIONS! It cannot be defended, like you sitting in a pony, and somebody pressing fire button in me262 with your a$$ in the croshair. Dont be a kissass it is discusting. Some things needs alot of work. Like QMB. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You told me I was insulting you. Now you say I am provoking. You're either off your rocker, or you have poor reading comprehension, because you haven't understood very much of what I have posted.

And now, you're calling me names. Very nice. You've gone from "I don't intend to learn that" to "you're a kissass". Super for you.

Nice example, with the pony, by the way. Clear as a mudpuddle.

Don't dimiss your options without bothering to explore them. It's disgusting. A lot of things need work, like your open-mindedness

Mjollnir111675
11-14-2004, 02:59 PM
Betta Simma Down Nah............................ or this thread will get Masterlocked!!!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

hobnail
11-14-2004, 03:04 PM
Want to attack a carrier in the QMB? Select the Coral Sea map and make the target €œairbase€. The map will then feature two opposing carrier groups for you to play with.

The Pacific Islands map features 2 unescorted cargo ships and I think that there€s a destroyer squadron sailing close to the coast on the Crimea map.

XyZspineZyX
11-14-2004, 03:21 PM
Hmmmm
Trim has been admitted to being "fixed", to prevent it being unfairly used in dogfighting.
It, as well as what Killer is alluding to&lt; is far too slow to settle into level flight, that is if level flght can be achieved at all. Level flight can be gotten pretty close to true but it ATM doesn't seem to be able to be use as it in IRL as the vernier it is meant to be.

Flaps can be mapped to a slider, rendering that function able to achieve settings that weren't available for many of the planes ingame but trim was fixed to prevent "(?) cheating (?)".
This leads to another error.
Some of the US planes had flap setting available that were more incremental that the three or one (full) setting that is ingame. Look at the Flap Position Gauge that is on the flight panel where available.
Not all trim is available there for some planes where aelieron trim was available.



CFS2, CFS3 and I'm sure some of the other sims also had their RL experts and vets state that the sim they looked at was "pretty much spot on."

Chuck_Older
11-14-2004, 03:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hobnail:
Want to attack a carrier in the QMB? Select the Coral Sea map and make the target €œairbase€. The map will then feature two opposing carrier groups for you to play with.

The Pacific Islands map features 2 unescorted cargo ships and I think that there€s a destroyer squadron sailing close to the coast on the Crimea map. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Xiolablu3
11-14-2004, 05:44 PM
Remember that PF is the last game using the IL2 engine so the graphics arent gonna be improved anymore until we get BOB.

Im not sure whether BOB is a complete engine rewrite or a major overhaul using the existing engine but whichever it is it will incorporate all the new effects seen on new gfx cards.

PF is having to use old technology to do its best on the old engine.

As for the bugs, I dunno I havent played it yet.

Snootles
11-14-2004, 06:02 PM
BoB is brand new matieral. Expect improvements in far more areas than just graphics...

Athosd
11-14-2004, 06:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by killer2359:
An auto trim system wouldn't work for me because it's the effect of the trim on the primary control input that I have a problem with - this is NOT implemented right (makes control input take trimmed value plus input value = oversensitive/twitchy control in direction of trimmed control and undersensitive/mushy control in direction opposite of trimmed control).

I think my complaint is QUITE detailed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've never encountered that in the game, just checked to be sure (note - I'm not saying this doesn't occur for you). Full nose up trim did not noticably alter the rate of change for pitch up or down with stick movement (X45 with wretched centering spring), no mushiness at all.
Your comments are also the first time I've seen this brought up - I'm certainly interested to know if this is peculiar to your setup or if others have complained about it previously.

Salute Chuck_Older - have you seen anything about this one?

killer2359
11-14-2004, 07:20 PM
I agree entirely - I'm keen to know if it's just my setup as well - but trying to get considered opinion seems a bit difficult - and I have to admit that I've ended up cornering myself into pushing a position VERY vigorously that to be blunt I'm still not completely certain I'm right about!! - tho I'm sure I notice more jumpiness with trim applied vs no trim used - and it seems to correlate as I said with the trimmed value being added to the subsequent controller mapped value.

Your comment/feedback is much appreciated. I'd have no problem at all if several people came back and said - "no, I don't see that happening" - or even if the dev team came back and said "no that's definitely not happening". I'd then know it was something in my setup.

If that ends up being the case - ie. no actual FM flaw - then I'd go back to yes, asking for an auto trim option (hold the button for trimming to be automatically carried out to current aircraft situation) or an option to turn off dynamic trim changes being applied to the FMs because as it operates, my aerial gunnery is suffering hugely - maybe it's one of those things like situational awareness (being able to physically twist head to look outside) that simply can't be expected to be duplicated properly in a sim so can justifyably be turned off.

And in the broader "realistic" picture I think enough unrealistic aspects have been identified that a reasonable precedent is established for more - especially if they're in the interests of an ultimately more realistic experience. -ie. in the absence of an actual trim control wheel/crank right next to my desk chair that gives precisely finite adjustment and thereby precise stick control - then having a simplified auto trim or not having to worry about trim at all and thereby having nice precise stick control would be a better option than messing about with tapping buttons on the keyboard and wrestling with jumpy control response.

T3h-N1nj4
11-14-2004, 09:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slammin_:
You think the AI is bad, you should try online! I can't count how many times I've been rammed by a team mate on the runway. Hope there is a patch for that! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif hahahahahahahahahahahahaha -takes breath- ahaaahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Wow, sounds like something I would do.

Gantoo
11-14-2004, 10:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MK2aw:
Gantoo do you have 3.11 DGENBETA installed? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I don't. What is it?

Athosd
11-14-2004, 10:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gantoo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MK2aw:
Gantoo do you have 3.11 DGENBETA installed? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I don't. What is it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its an updated version of the dynamic campaign generator (DGEN).
Here is a link:
ftp://ftp.ubi.com/emea/pf/downloads/DGen/DGenBeta311.zip

You can find the original article/announcement on the home page in the news archives (look in October).

Cheers

Athos

killer2359
11-15-2004, 06:32 PM
That 3.11 DGENBETA is a very good thing - makes a huge improvement - and if it's the sort of improvement we can expect to happen to all sorts of aspects of the game with upcomming patches (as I understand it is) then the future is bright and no one should give up on PF yet.

I still think Ubi have been .... less than decent in rushing the product out when they did - I feel for Oleg and his people for being put in the position of releasing the game in a state that was inevitably going to generate gripes.

Personally I think game publishers need to wake up that nowadays it's never going to be about customers buying "our" game or "their" game - generally punters will in the long term (ie. within a few months) have BOTH games on the shelf.

Mind you, tho I'm not into piracy myself I do realise the imperative with timing placement of the product might be to do with the idea that the punter will buy the original of the first game out then source a pirate of the second game they want - I'd hate to think that's the reality of the situation tho :-(

Athosd
11-15-2004, 06:55 PM
When Forgotten Battles was released there was a positive storm of complaints. Flight models were attacked relentlessly, and the choice to publish it as a separate game had many parties tearing their hair and clothes, eating dirt, and babbling obscenities from their foaming mouths.

Eventually the patches came and things settled down (though there were delays). IMHO Pacific Fighters has been comparatively very well received by the community http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

I expect we'll see several patches and possibly another payware add-on in the vein of the Aces Expansion (which will also be supported with patching if required).

Its all good http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Cheers

Athos

Mjollnir111675
11-15-2004, 07:01 PM
If it isn't in the all informing read me or the totally user friendly users manual I simply dont believe it!!

"being put in the position of releasing the game in a state that was inevitably going to generate gripes." http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

What position?Are they Jenna Jamison now?This is a good one!!

"game publishers need to wake up"
So how loud is that alarm clock gonna have to sound off in their ears and fer how long??Last time I heard it was years ago!!The only reason Any game has gotten as far as it has is BECAUSE of flight sims.All of the graphics pushes can be attributed to flight sims.I can remember days gone by when my father on a dos 3.0 sys and mono chromatic tube was playin flight sims.But can you really back up the actual business practices of most any game developer/publisher?I cannot nor am I willing to find the least of holes fer this rabbit to run thru!!I have heard everything from blaming controllers,publishers,game mag reviews to consoles for the loss of business for pc games as a whole.But lemme say this :if it weren't fer the shady business ways of most ALL developers/publishers then the pc game market would be alot better off than it is now.And IF I could find the subject content on a console as I find on the pc I wouldnt be here now.If they want a future than they better start gettin it right the first time!!..or the first and a half(readhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gifatch) or even first plus one(patch redeux).

Athosd
11-15-2004, 08:28 PM
No sim worthy of the name has ever been released bug/issue free. They all require the user to read the manual, configure their settings, program controllers - and download patches. Those who want an easier fix have an abundance of games to choose from. Good sims are complex, and those who like them like them that way.

Consoles aren't a good comparison to the PC environment - all PS2s/Xboxes are essentially identical and use the same extensions and peripherals.

How many units would a PC developer sell if they stated that only certain specific brands of CDrom, Ram, Graphics card, Sound, mainboard, Joystick etc etc (throw in specific drivers as well) would work with the game. My guess is not many.

Consoles provide the software developers with a fixed standard that changes in rigid steps as each new generation enters retail.
PCs with their evolving, flexible technology offer more but are much harder to support.

Pacific Fighters works - it was released as a stable product. It has some warts, and the developers are working on fixing them and adding new content. No other sim series I can recall has ever received this level of support - those who are looking for a paradigm shift in the way the industry operates should open their eyes, its right in front of them.

Cheers

Athos

Mjollnir111675
11-15-2004, 09:50 PM
@ Athosd

I cant refute what you say.But if you can look beyond the actual platform variable it becomes not an issue of one ,two or a hundred developers on whatever platform but becomes one of simple business practice.I will not go into how I percieve the industry as a whole cuz I have caused one thread to be locked.SIT FIDO,SIT!! Or so they told me. Mod= http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif=Mjollnir1116
Frizzle Frap!!
Ubi implanted micro-chip..causing thought control...oh no... here they come........

killer2359
11-16-2004, 09:05 PM
I think I've clearly indicated that from MY point of view I'm cool with the way PF will be supported etc. - but I'm a fairly hard core flight simmer.

There's no getting away from the fact that an off the street punter would be (and they have been in fact) terribly disappointed with what they've ended up with once they got their AU$90 game home and installed - and I'm just talking about the lack of single missions and the Dynamic Campaign Generator, not the outright bugs.

And as I said - this I blame on UBI, not the development team - and I'm left then wondering WHY the publishers do this sort of thing.

And who on earth is "Jenna Jamison"? - my point is that I can't believe Oleg and his people could have been entirely happy shoving PF out the door with so much stuff not finished and incorporated (ie. torpedo bombers and important maps) - they were obviously told to get what they had together into a working game which could be put on sale ASAP.

IMO in the long run it'll backfire - I've had two friends already ask me whether it's a must to stampede out and purchase PF immediately - and I've not been able to say "YES! - do it now!" - instead I've explained the whole situation (including the perspective that if they do buy it now then at least they're supporting the developers and in the long run will help it be even better) - and they've both decided to wait till it's a budget title or at least has more guts to it (both stunned at no torpedo bombers).

TacticalYak3
11-17-2004, 06:00 AM
While I'm enjoying PF a little more each night, though still prefer to wait for the patch before starting any campaigns, I wonder if a world-wide release of PF with 3 CDs (and more beta-testing/polishing) say mid-November would have been better for both the publisher and development team.

s.bush
11-17-2004, 10:36 AM
ATT ATHOS D


"CARRIER TORP PLANES ARE IN THE WORKS"
------------------------------------

Where did you get that info from?
s.bush

jjan
11-17-2004, 06:47 PM
it is a cool game but if I could get my $50 back it would be better!
I'm a 1st person shooter gamer,this is my attempt to try something else and the sad thing is I bet this is the best sim of it's kind.
ain't belly-acheing but the shooter games that come for $50 are worth it,this game is worth $20, seriosly.
Where do I find out what is a HVAR missile?
Why on "many aircraft" do I "push the throttle farther than combat mode..."which aircraft are they?
Why "many aircraft modeled in the game have special systems allowing the engene to gain..." which aircraft?

it goes on and on, I am not a historan,I am a gamer who gets happy fantasing about killing people,that is what 90+ % games are about.
My $50 should at least have covered a comprehensive list of each aircrafts spec. that I do not have to dig through the view object menu to see and hope the aircraft I'm reading about is in fact in the game and flyable so the info pertains to me.
I would like to know,everything,without having to read old books and hope the developers read the same books while making the game.
and yes,I did read the readme,the readme and every thing I could find cause I like this game,it could be great.
realy great.
but it is not.
it is still under development.
that is not cool.

Athosd
11-17-2004, 07:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by s.bush:
ATT ATHOS D


"CARRIER TORP PLANES ARE IN THE WORKS"
------------------------------------

Where did you get that info from?
s.bush <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just from reading the forums (here, SimHQ, Netwings), from the bits and pieces I've seen the Avenger is planned to be flyable (also mentioned in the PF review on France Simulations site).
Sorry - no concrete "Oleg told me so", but the collective impression I have is that flyable carrier torp planes are as desirable for the devs as they are for us. Shortage of reference material for some important types - Kate, Devastator etc - has also been a real issue.

Cheers

Athos

Chuck_Older
11-17-2004, 08:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jjan:
it is a cool game but if I could get my $50 back it would be better!
I'm a 1st person shooter gamer,this is my attempt to try something else and the sad thing is I bet this is the best sim of it's kind.
ain't belly-acheing but the shooter games that come for $50 are worth it,this game is worth $20, seriosly.
Where do I find out what is a HVAR missile?
Why on "many aircraft" do I "push the throttle farther than combat mode..."which aircraft are they?
Why "many aircraft modeled in the game have special systems allowing the engene to gain..." which aircraft?

it goes on and on, I am not a historan,I am a gamer who gets happy fantasing about killing people,that is what 90+ % games are about.
My $50 should at least have covered a comprehensive list of each aircrafts spec. that I do not have to dig through the view object menu to see and hope the aircraft I'm reading about is in fact in the game and flyable so the info pertains to me.
I would like to know,everything,without having to read old books and hope the developers read the same books while making the game.
and yes,I did read the readme,the readme and every thing I could find cause I like this game,it could be great.
realy great.
but it is not.
it is still under development.
that is not cool. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you though that maybe this type of game really isn't your thing? Nothing can be what everyone wants, it's just life. maybe you should play a game that suits your tastes better than PF does. nothing wrong with that

Athosd
11-17-2004, 08:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jjan:
it is a cool game but if I could get my $50 back it would be better!
I'm a 1st person shooter gamer,this is my attempt to try something else and the sad thing is I bet this is the best sim of it's kind.
ain't belly-acheing but the shooter games that come for $50 are worth it,this game is worth $20, seriosly.
Where do I find out what is a HVAR missile?
Why on "many aircraft" do I "push the throttle farther than combat mode..."which aircraft are they?
Why "many aircraft modeled in the game have special systems allowing the engene to gain..." which aircraft?

it goes on and on, I am not a historan,I am a gamer who gets happy fantasing about killing people,that is what 90+ % games are about.
My $50 should at least have covered a comprehensive list of each aircrafts spec. that I do not have to dig through the view object menu to see and hope the aircraft I'm reading about is in fact in the game and flyable so the info pertains to me.
I would like to know,everything,without having to read old books and hope the developers read the same books while making the game.
and yes,I did read the readme,the readme and every thing I could find cause I like this game,it could be great.
realy great.
but it is not.
it is still under development.
that is not cool. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Jjan,

Agreed the documentation for PF is lacking quite a lot of information useful to the new sim pilot.
However, I don't see any benefit in reproducing the contents of the object viewer in the manual.

All sims are work in progress - some get no support, this one gets a lot.
From what you're saying this type of game may not be your thing. However if you do decide to stick around there is an abundance of info available in these forums and on many fan sites.

Cheers

Athos

jjan
11-18-2004, 06:07 PM
hi, yea,I hear you both,I just get realy frustrated when I spend ages looking at the game info on a plane,decide from the view object area which one to learn only to find it isn't flyable.
and as for things needing work,I was doing target practice on a flying boat and shot his tail right off and he didn't crash! the gunners eventualy shot me down,but that boat just stayed on leval flight.that was a disapointment.
but never fear,I plan to shoot yall's tails off too and see if you can still fly! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
but 1st I must work on my skill.
one thing I can't find out though,is there a missile I can set the fuse to? a rocket exploding at 50 ft. would be sweet but would that be a exploit or something?

Athosd
11-18-2004, 07:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jjan:
hi, yea,I hear you both,I just get realy frustrated when I spend ages looking at the game info on a plane,decide from the view object area which one to learn only to find it isn't flyable.
and as for things needing work,I was doing target practice on a flying boat and shot his tail right off and he didn't crash! the gunners eventualy shot me down,but that boat just stayed on leval flight.that was a disapointment.
but never fear,I plan to shoot yall's tails off too and see if you can still fly! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
but 1st I must work on my skill.
one thing I can't find out though,is there a missile I can set the fuse to? a rocket exploding at 50 ft. would be sweet but would that be a exploit or something? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds like you shot off his rudder or elevator, that will have made him a lot less manoeuvrable - could even lead to a crash landing.
lots of bits and pieces can come off a plane in this sim without it immediately plunging earthward.
Be very careful about sitting on a bomber's six - the gunners will drill you quite handily, its best to make fast passes and try to hit critical areas.

You can set the fuse timings on HE rockets (not sure if this ability varies with nationality, but I don't think so) - AP rockets (shaped charge HE for penetrating armour) don't respond to the fuse timing, they only explode on impact.

Probably the easiest way to see which types are flyable is go into the Quick Mission Builder - you will only be able to select flyable types as your ride.

Quick mission builder is the best place to sharpen your marksmanship - setup some friendlies and hose em down.

Cheers

Athos