PDA

View Full Version : Things don't look good for NORWAY map...



goshikisen
05-13-2006, 08:24 AM
A quote from Ian Boys over at SimHQ:


Given the length of time for Burma to be released (it was finished a couple of months ago), it is looking less likely that Norway will make it, esp. if BoB is due in November. Added to that, Oleg has no plans for a late-model Mossie with rockets, so 90% of the rationale for the Norway map disappears. My feeling is that without rockets on the Mossie, I'm not too sure what the Norway map would be for.

The Norway and Slovakia maps were going to be state of the art for the IL2 series... I really hope Ian is wrong on this and that we see his map made part of the game. Imagine spending months of your life building a map and then have the fruits of your labour off-handedly dropped in the trashcan.

Project Management!?!???!! The Ghosts of PF rear their ugly head.

VW-IceFire
05-13-2006, 09:10 AM
Thats dissapointing...I thought we were good to go for a rocket armed Mossie and the Norway map.

HotelBushranger
05-13-2006, 10:09 AM
I'd take it rocket Mossie or not!

Archer_F4U
05-13-2006, 11:50 AM
I was looking forward to Beaufighter strikes along the coast of Norway http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

marc_hawkins
05-13-2006, 12:01 PM
Well, sad news. But never say never...

Still, if it does pan out that way, i guess there must always be sacrifices in war, and so the possible early release of BOB that pleases us also denies us all these goodies. Can't have it all i guess....unless somebody gets a blackmail photo of Oleg and a booth babe 'discussing' his future developments??? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

ElAurens
05-13-2006, 12:53 PM
Hang in there guys.

Lots of strange info is flying around at the moment. Wait till the dust settles from E3.

Oh, and there is no way in hell that BOB will make a November '06 release date.

mrsiCkstar
05-13-2006, 01:21 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

LEXX_Luthor
05-13-2006, 04:54 PM
The 1944 west euro aircraft in Aces Expansion Pac are supposed to be used on the old FB 1.0 Eastern Front maps.

Dropping the hottest high terrain elevation map ever made because of one airplane's weapons is cancelled? Something else is going on. Whatever the reason, its probably a good one (lack of time, needing rework, starting a BoB project, etc...), but rocket free Mossie is not the reason.

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
05-13-2006, 05:27 PM
Awww Nuts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif I hope if it doesn't make it into FB its because their planning to use it in BOB. Still wait and see I guess

Adam906
05-13-2006, 11:36 PM
You have to kidding me, right? First the He 115 gets dumped from ages ago, now Norway - I suposse there are people out there who really don't want the far north campaigns realised...

I am so disappointed. I was hanging out for Norway - ion fact that's the only reason I've kept up to date with all the patches and add-ons was so when it gets here I can have it. I have some of the war diaries for Luftflotte 5 and some other primary sources and was looking forward to making an historically accurate campaign for the Gemans against the PQ convoys!

Nuts to this!

JG52Uther
05-14-2006, 02:41 AM
A disapointment for sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

major_setback
05-14-2006, 02:44 AM
Gladiators flew in Norway too. Aircraft carriers were used too. I'd like to see these maps come into use.

lowfighter
05-14-2006, 04:23 AM
I hope it's not true http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Airway_
05-14-2006, 04:55 AM
We were so happy as we heard that a Norway map will come.
The pics were so amazing so that i can´t live with the news that the map will not come because there is no rocket mossie.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

JG301_nils
05-14-2006, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by Adam906:
You have to kidding me, right? First the He 115 gets dumped from ages ago, now Norway - I suposse there are people out there who really don't want the far north campaigns realised...

I am so disappointed. I was hanging out for Norway - ion fact that's the only reason I've kept up to date with all the patches and add-ons was so when it gets here I can have it. I have some of the war diaries for Luftflotte 5 and some other primary sources and was looking forward to making an historically accurate campaign for the Gemans against the PQ convoys!

Nuts to this!

Ehemm, you already have the far north Map in place, The Murmansk map, which is suited for convoy attack missions.
THE Norway map we are talking about here is a piece of the west coast, far away for the northern operations.
Me more than many, would have liked to see my houses in it's right envirorment, but please, remember Ian Boys and team is doing this freely and totally on their spare time. So just let us see what happens, if the map makes it, Hooray!! if not well bad luck, but no hard feelings. Life is like that sometimes...

joeap
05-14-2006, 12:01 PM
Ahh scuttlebutt.

VF2_Sarge
05-14-2006, 01:51 PM
Lets face it guys. It is possible that the IL2 series has finally started its trek to the back burner. After the next 2 installments of Pe-2 and with the up coming release of BoB, I wouldn't expect much out of the 1C folks for this game. Of course I have felt this way since the release of PF with no flyable torp planes, but we've been that horse dead haven't we. Just my opinion. S~

goshikisen
05-14-2006, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by VF2_Sarge:
Lets face it guys. It is possible that the IL2 series has finally started its trek to the back burner.

I have no problem with that... it's the way things work in the gaming industry. The only problem I have is that a team of individuals had to spend hour upon hour of their free time developing this map. It might have been better if these folks were told that their content would have been discarded at the beginning of the process as opposed to the end.

RamsteinUSA
05-14-2006, 03:11 PM
I think that would really suck and sets a precedent that in all future fligth sims people would refuse to volunteer their time to make much desired additions. Once people saw that in the recenet past volunteers were burned, losing a year or so off their life only to have their work trashed would make all future builders say no way! As it is, afrer al the people extrmely dispointed by many missing cockpits we got a Pe-2 !

We are baffled and confused on who makes theyse decisions and what happned to completions of what we already have? Why and who would trash al the wonderful work that's either completed or almost completed? Like I said, in the future people will say, no way I can risk being burned.

There are hundreds of us that would gladly make addons if we knew they would be included, but would never get over having work thrown away and trahsed, that would be at the top of things that suck.




Originally posted by goshikisen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VF2_Sarge:
Lets face it guys. It is possible that the IL2 series has finally started its trek to the back burner.

I have no problem with that... it's the way things work in the gaming industry. The only problem I have is that a team of individuals had to spend hour upon hour of their free time developing this map. It might have been better if these folks were told that their content would have been discarded at the beginning of the process as opposed to the end. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

JG53Frankyboy
05-14-2006, 03:25 PM
wonderung where all these hundreds of people were in the last 4 years..........

i see no
MS 406
Hawk 75
B-17
Me210C
pits for example.
as the Macchie and Oscar II pits are showing if people meet together and are making thier work Maddox says seldom NO .
sure with PF we got the "NG"- proplem http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif and now in 2006 we are close to the end of the IL2 series Dev lifetime. but there was enough time in the past....................

WTE_Galway
05-15-2006, 01:34 AM
Much as it would be nice to see FB expand to map most of the world and cover nearly every aircraft that ever flew in WWII its not going to happen .. at some point people will need to migrate to the new BoB. Firstly because it will be a more up to date platform and secondly so Oleg can get a full return for his work rather than have it sucked out by US corporations.

It is however a dreadful shame to see virtually completed work miss the boat. Especially something radically different terrainwise like Norway .. let us hope it squeezes in.

joeap
05-15-2006, 02:14 AM
Anyway, Much as I am looking forward to BoB I really don't think it will come out Nov 2006. Well you know one has to say it, Nov + 2 weeks be sure. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Beaufort-RAF
05-15-2006, 07:02 AM
Doesn't surprise me in the slightest were not getting a rocket equipped Mosquito.

The modeller merely stated his hope it would come in a future patch and that was misconstrued as an assurance it would.

It€s obvious they just threw the Mossie in and gave it about 2 minutes thought.

They included the restricted early series, labelled it a 1942 aircraft even though it only rolled of the production line and into service in 1943, and failed to notice a huge bug with an invisible hit box above the airframe.

RamsteinUSA
05-15-2006, 02:42 PM
They (IL-2 team) only took a limited amount of volunteer cockpit modelers. Many if not all of us are not experienced modelers, but would have done the work.. with assurances our work would have been used. There was a selection process which was maxed out. From what I understood that those that volunteerd must buy their own software. And, there was lot of wokr done, finished, sent in and was turned down, and the modelers were told to fix problems, and many of those problems were fixed and the work was resubmitted. Again, these are only rumors, as no one that I know of from the IL-2 team actually told us what happend to those completed models. Most of this info is from forums over the years in the hyistory of IL-2. There wre lots of us flight sim fans that would have helped build the cockpits and planes, but have no experience at building them. Many of us would have needed help to get started. But we are out here. There was also confusion on which modeling software programs were necessary. There were no facts, only rumors of what was needed.

IMHO




Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
wonderung where all these hundreds of people were in the last 4 years..........

i see no
MS 406
Hawk 75
B-17
Me210C
pits for example.
as the Macchie and Oscar II pits are showing if people meet together and are making thier work Maddox says seldom NO .
sure with PF we got the "NG"- proplem http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif and now in 2006 we are close to the end of the IL2 series Dev lifetime. but there was enough time in the past....................

goshikisen
05-15-2006, 07:54 PM
Happy to provide another quote from Ian Boys over at SimHQ



The chap who did the fantastic Imphal airbase for Burma has offered to do 3 of the textures so we're back on again, it would seem.

So the thread title should, in fact, be "Things look good for NORWAY map..."

StG77_Stuka
05-15-2006, 10:56 PM
I confess, you really had me going there goshikisen http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Norway map was the one content I was most looking forward to in this series of updates. A map of this quality has been sorely needed.

SaQSoN
05-15-2006, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by RamsteinUSA:
Many if not all of us are not experienced modelers, but would have done the work.. with assurances our work would have been used.

Such assurance is not possible. How could 1C give assurance to a modeller, who is not able or not willing to follow the modelling rules and requirements? If such assurance would be issued to a such modeller, that means, to fullfill it, 1C would have to correct all errors on it's own and for free. Are you seriously insist, they should do so?


Again, these are only rumors, as no one that I know of from the IL-2 team actually told us what happend to those completed models.

Not true. It was said many times, what happened to those models, that were actually complete and submitted to the 1C.
Those models are Fokker D.XXI, CW-21 and Avia B-534 with cockpits and Letov S-328 as AI. There were no other 100% complete models supplied to the 1C, which are still not in the game.


There was also confusion on which modeling software programs were necessary. There were no facts, only rumors of what was needed.

Not true. The complete modelling guide, issued by 1C along with other usefull advises and guides (including those from the developers) are still can be found at the old Netwings forum. This info available for more then 5 years now. There were also a number of sample 1C models issued to different modellers to help them.

To conclude.
If there is anyone to blame for this or that user model not being included - it would be the author(s) of the said model.

Tooz_69GIAP
05-16-2006, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by SaQSoN:Those models are Fokker D.XXI, CW-21 and Avia B-534 with cockpits and Letov S-328 as AI.

Interesting that all four of these are early war/cr@ptastic aircraft!!

Didn't Oleg say that the guy who sticks these into the engine prefers the late war/uberified birds, so leaves the others til last? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Anyway, very interesting to see that all of the models submitted to 1C bar these four have been put in the game!! Good stuff!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

(however, see my sig below http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif )

NN_EnigmuS
05-16-2006, 12:36 AM
I don't know if some of plane submited to oleg were not 100% finished SaQson but it's too bad JU88C6 and Mossie with bubble canopy not in

Anyway we must be very gentle as we finally get Pe2/3 and because we have more than 200 flyables planes lool

ImpStarDuece
05-16-2006, 02:04 AM
Bubble-canopy Mossie?

Sorry, but no operational Mosquito ever had a bubbletop canopy, and I don't think one was submitted to 1C either.

Prangster modeled a Mosquito B Mk IV and a Mosquito FB Mk VI, and nothing else. Check his website ( Prangster's Mossie Page (http://www.ijeremiah.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/mossie/Prangster%22s%20Mossie%20page.htm) ) for details.

The FB Mk VI could be updated to late 1944 model with rockets, Merlin 25 engines and no exhaust covers. It would be 10-20 mph faster at low level than our current Merlin 21/23 engined variant, but thats about as far as it goes. There is a picture on Prangster's web-site of a Mk VI with a rocket loadout.

NN_EnigmuS
05-16-2006, 05:00 AM
yeah i know i made a mistake it's bubble noise and not canopy lol

(P.S.i'm not that good in english oops)

TheGozr
05-16-2006, 11:43 AM
SaQSoN

Such assurance is not possible. How could 1C give assurance to a modeller, who is not able or not willing to follow the modelling rules and requirements? If such assurance would be issued to a such modeller, that means, to fullfill it, 1C would have to correct all errors on it's own and for free. Are you seriously insist, they should do so?
Good communication of what to do and not guide is a must that eliminate that problem. never seeing something in that matter. You would of get help FOR FREE.
To post 3D guide for il2 should be in main stream forum not netwings pure and simple.
Do not agree with what you say.

If they are problem is just pure and simple of Your fault of miss comunicating guide and explaination.

Sorry i don t have the 3D guide in 1c site or UBI's where it should be. If you do please unlight us and post it where it should be here.
" 3d Guide for il2 modeling "

To me it's yes your fault not to have taken the good way to do it.


Thank you to take charge on that matter and i hope that You will do the same with BOB.

On that matter please give us a direct link to teh download of the guides il2/BOB and no other forum.

Thank you very much.

( been asking for this for ever and a pure example of total lack of researches on cockpits is a pure example like ALL the yaks serie with wrong or generic cockpits that could of been fix instead of some other non sens never flew aircrafts )
===
ON that matter if some 3D modeller want to help in a speacial sim contact me and lets work on something

SaQSoN
05-16-2006, 02:19 PM
On that matter please give us a direct link to teh download of the guides il2

Those, who seek - will find (sorry, don't know, how this phrase sounds correctly in the English-language source http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ):

http://www.netwings.org/dcforum/DCForumID43/380.html

This info will not be posted on the official site for one OBVIOUS reason. The IL-2 models are not being accepted for more then a year now.
Same, OBVIOUSLY, for the BoB, whose specs will not be released until the game is actually out.

P.S. Those, who seek for excuses will end with nothing.

TheGozr
05-16-2006, 04:21 PM
SaQSoN
Those who seek? What? that pretty bad more models you guys have more choices, more infos for models more responses and less mistakes.. If mistakes or not correct 3d is also because of the guide.. so i repeat again more great ( serious )guide better results.
More output free from outside, less work for you guys just put up good details of what you need, work with the community, there are an enormous source of help.
For BOB since it will be out in November from Oleg mouth there is no point not to give details of how to built the models.. comon please lets start something for next year then that mean lets do the 3 D's now.

Please Saqson no exuses then.. and please why in Netwings? I still do NOT anderstand why not in the main forums... "The IL-2 models are not being accepted for more then a year now"... what a bad excuse.. i can't beleive that.. we want this in teh IL2 forum not some other forum.. clear simple no mistake.. and me too english is not my first language it doesn't matter i just hope to be anderstood enough and yes sometime i appear very raw.

Best regards,

SaQSoN
05-16-2006, 05:42 PM
Those who seek? What?
Whatever they struggle to find. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


For BOB since it will be out in November from Oleg mouth

Never seen Oleg post anything about the release date so far. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


there is no point not to give details of how to built the models
Since BoB is supposed to support 3rd party objects independently from 1C (like it is in the MSFS series), I guess, the guides, instructions, tools and samples will be released with the game. Until then, there is a point in not disclosing the details.


"The IL-2 models are not being accepted for more then a year now"... what a bad excuse.. i can't beleive that..
You may not believe in certain facts, but that doesn't make them less, er... factual. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I mean, you may believe, that the Earth is flat, but that wouldn't change the fact, it is a geod. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Please Saqson no exuses then.. and please why in Netwings? I still do NOT anderstand why not in the main forums...
Because, the "main" forums never was suited for discussing the 3D modelling. This guide was posted on the main IL-2 modders site, the IL2center.com more then 4 years ago. And was there until recently, when IL2center was closed. The Netwings also was, at some time, one of the centers of IL-2 modding comunity, thus you still can find there many interesting advises and articles, including that guide.

TheGozr
05-16-2006, 06:00 PM
Well then SaQSoN this clarify at list that noise going around forums, and this mean that BOB will not be realesed on November 2006.

It is easy to request a forum special support to the game maker , now we need to ask the admin of this site to add an official corner for 3D modelers and i think it's perfectly suitable since it doesn't depend of any body else server in case of crashes or been turned off .
Thinking in advance it's always a good way, so if BOB need One year to add models better start early. globaly what you say is that everything we will look for for like a good yak9U or Fw190's etc.. will take us maybe around 2008 easly ?
Well... i hope you anderstand the meaning of all that. because to us ( me ) it's still so unclear.

RamsteinUSA
05-16-2006, 06:07 PM
Hi,
I wasn't picking a fight, I just remember confusion, lots of people volunteering, but being told no, they had enough and then we heard lots of confusion... and now I and othe rlook back and are a little sad because of missed opportunities..

Thank you for always being very good at explaining.. and you are very nice and veyr helpful.. a pleausre for you to take your time to straighten us out..



Originally posted by SaQSoN:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RamsteinUSA:
Many if not all of us are not experienced modelers, but would have done the work.. with assurances our work would have been used.

Such assurance is not possible. How could 1C give assurance to a modeller, who is not able or not willing to follow the modelling rules and requirements? If such assurance would be issued to a such modeller, that means, to fullfill it, 1C would have to correct all errors on it's own and for free. Are you seriously insist, they should do so?


Again, these are only rumors, as no one that I know of from the IL-2 team actually told us what happend to those completed models.

Not true. It was said many times, what happened to those models, that were actually complete and submitted to the 1C.
Those models are Fokker D.XXI, CW-21 and Avia B-534 with cockpits and Letov S-328 as AI. There were no other 100% complete models supplied to the 1C, which are still not in the game.


There was also confusion on which modeling software programs were necessary. There were no facts, only rumors of what was needed.

Not true. The complete modelling guide, issued by 1C along with other usefull advises and guides (including those from the developers) are still can be found at the old Netwings forum. This info available for more then 5 years now. There were also a number of sample 1C models issued to different modellers to help them.

To conclude.
If there is anyone to blame for this or that user model not being included - it would be the author(s) of the said model. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

SaQSoN
05-16-2006, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by TheGozr:
Well then SaQSoN this clarify at list that noise going around forums, and this mean that BOB will not be realesed on November 2006.

This just clarify, that the only person, who may give a more or less correct date of the release, is Oleg. And he, so far, did't say anything about that.
However, I don't see, how you can make your own asumption about the date from that fact. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


so if BOB need One year to add models better start early.

Starting modelling for BoB before it's release hardly would be better. But, if you are too eager to start, why woudn't you read through all the advises at the Netwings and/or learn something about 3D modelling in general? You won't need any tech requirements to do that.
Or, you may try building models for MSFS - it also would be quite usefull for you, in terms of earning experience. Moreover, in this case you'll be able to use your models later for BoB with some modifications.

SaQSoN
05-16-2006, 09:40 PM
lots of people volunteering, but being told no, they had enough and then we heard lots of confusion... and now I and othe rlook back and are a little sad because of missed opportunities..

Look, those models, that were built at reasonable quality standards and were correct from technical point of view, all were accepted by 1C. Some of them - even after the deadline.
If a model was not accepted, that is because it wasn't complete or was built incorrectly (with erros).

In the very beginning of the IL-2 series, when there were very few volunteer mdellers, many models were accepted by 1C in incomplete/incorrect state and were rebuilt/finished by 1C. But, closer to the end, when a number of user-made models become overwhelming, the requirements become more and more strict. Thus ony really good and really finished models would be accepted.

And finally, as everything in this world, the support for the 3rd party models came to an end a year ago. The deadline was declared by Oleg almost 2 years ago.


I really don't see, why there should be any confusion about that.
If someone failed to finish his/her work before this deadline - it's strictly his/her problem.
And the only missed oportunity is that he/she didn't start earlier, or didn't work fast enough.

So, as my conclusion goes:

If there is anyone to blame for this or that user model not being included - it would be the author(s) of the said model.

And there is nothing to regret about - we always have to leave something behind in our lives...

TheGozr
05-16-2006, 10:19 PM
With all my respect, Well thank you for the advices Saqson but i rather use the real ones first. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif you see unlike you i ask questions even if i sound not quite all there but at list i ask questions for many others members that wonder, i don't think just for me , i may know the answer but it is always better to hear them from better knowledgable peoples like you in some matter.

About giving us a date or a hope of a date then that way it will be no more asumptions clear and simple should be easy for you ..
About a 3D modeler corner in UBI ?
Why do you need a thrid party forum ?
Do you have something against UBI?
Why not answer to those questions and stop the vague answers, call me stupid but it's still unclear.

Best regards,
Always nice to talk to a Oleg's team member.

SaQSoN
05-16-2006, 11:10 PM
About a 3D modeler corner in UBI ?
Why do you need a thrid party forum ?
I don't need any. Basically - I don't care at all about this.

I just advise you to go to the old Netwings forum (as this is the only place left with the info from the good old days) and read all the usefull stuff there, if you are going to start any modelling for BoB or IL-2.
Because, you won't find this info anywhere else.

Do you have something against UBI?
Obviously - no.

TheGozr
05-17-2006, 01:01 AM
I don't need any. Basically - I don't care at all about this./ Good old days
Too sad. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif certainly not satisfactory, All too sad to see this management. Well in the futur i hope to have more input for the UBI and less to 3 dr party other forums. This smell bad to me.. I hope the Oleg's team doesn't feel the same way..

best Regards,

WTE_Galway
05-17-2006, 01:39 AM
Originally posted by TheGozr:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I don't need any. Basically - I don't care at all about this./ Good old days
Too sad. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif certainly not satisfactory, All too sad to see this management. Well in the futur i hope to have more input for the UBI and less to 3 dr party other forums. This smell bad to me.. I hope the Oleg's team doesn't feel the same way..

best Regards, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I remember correctly there were at least two other requirements that cropped up for legal reasons ... you must own a legitimate licenced copy of 3D MAX (several thousand dollars) and in addition the modeller must be over 18.

JG301_nils
05-17-2006, 05:26 AM
It seems the discussion on this topic has lost it's track, not that it's not interesting read but still.
I read in the sister thread at Simhq that it might not look too grim for the Norway map, after all. Ian has got some help and it all looks more promising he states. (posted may 15)

mrsiCkstar
05-17-2006, 07:05 AM
yay! looks like there is yet hope for the Norway map http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

TheGozr
05-17-2006, 10:16 AM
I hope the map will make it, it seems to be the best map ever for il2 it also seems that Ian put a lot of work into this one, mossie or not i really hope to have it.

Beaufort-RAF
05-19-2006, 04:15 AM
New development pics (http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=144;t=004955)

ouston
05-19-2006, 04:38 PM
I never know quite what to think with this sim. We have maps that range from the Solomons to Murmansk and aircraft from the TB-3 to the P-80. Quality ranges from good to excellent. There are many whiners for many things but I do wonder on the logic of a '46 what if add on when many of the "well- they actually happened" aircraft are missing. The principal one is the Gloster Meteor, the Allied jet that actually saw active service in World War Two. Many of the aircraft gaps are British, French or Italian and it is a shame that they will not be dealt with in this sim.

The Tirpitz is great but a British destroyer, a Flower class corvette, some British MTBs would be useful, some US battleships, some Japanese cruisers - the list goes on.
I hope that Bob will have many add ons and that it will deal with the Med in the way that it should be simulated.

However I fervently hope that I shall be virtually riding two Merlins and a load of plywood and balsa down a fjiord before the end of Il-2!

Ouston

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-19-2006, 04:47 PM
Great post, Ouston http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

goshikisen
05-19-2006, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by ouston:
The Tirpitz is great but a British destroyer, a Flower class corvette, some British MTBs would be useful, some US battleships, some Japanese cruisers - the list goes on.
I hope that Bob will have many add ons and that it will deal with the Med in the way that it should be simulated.


You'd think that there would have been more content added that no one would have ever questioned. Why add a rocket plane when you can add a Typhoon or a Hs123. Some people may not have been big fans of these aircraft but I don't think anyone would have asked themselves "Why would they add that?" like they might a Bi-1 for ex.

Japanese Cruisers = a big yes.

Regards, Goshikisen.

darkhorizon11
05-21-2006, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by goshikisen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ouston:
The Tirpitz is great but a British destroyer, a Flower class corvette, some British MTBs would be useful, some US battleships, some Japanese cruisers - the list goes on.
I hope that Bob will have many add ons and that it will deal with the Med in the way that it should be simulated.


You'd think that there would have been more content added that no one would have ever questioned. Why add a rocket plane when you can add a Typhoon or a Hs123. Some people may not have been big fans of these aircraft but I don't think anyone would have asked themselves "Why would they add that?" like they might a Bi-1 for ex.

Japanese Cruisers = a big yes.

Regards, Goshikisen. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again,this has been rehashed over and over... many models are third party meaning 1c didn't necessarily decide they should be modeled... It was that or nothing...

LEBillfish
05-21-2006, 04:10 PM
Well, my 2 cents worth......

I'd love to get all the potential new content that has been mentioned over the past couple years and more. I'd love to see the new maps (though Norway of little interest to me, what interests me of little to others so fair is fair) Norway one of those.

It has also been encouraging to see all the third party developers and their almost seeming excited words and obviously sincere efforts. Thanks guys for that.

However, I cannot help but feel after the "player griping" over 4.05 (and I do not mean BoontyBox) and having to pay a tiny sum of money or griping that the content was not what "they wanted" so try instead to inspire dissent......That it would only seem reasonable that Ubi, 1c, Maddox Games, and the Third Party folks would be left with a bad taste in their mouths.

Personally, if I was a third party developer and had after my hard worked efforts "unpaid" had that probability of a reception to look forward to from the players here........I'd simply look at my work for the FB/AEP/PF series one last time....Then save it to CD to never be looked at again.

Everything we got in 4.05 the community begged for.........and you can call me "fangoil" or others "fanbois", but the hopes at a little bit of gratitude goes a long way.

Things don't look good for the Norway Map? After the 4.05 response the chance of getting anything IMLTHO rests now soley on those who did the work not wanting it wasted......Yet want to put this series of sim behind them once and for all.

Maybe those of you that want Norway so bad need to get on the Fanboi band wagon....and the next go round of ungrateful pi**ing, need to shut down the whiners as well.

-HH- Beebop
05-21-2006, 05:18 PM
However, I cannot help but feel after the "player griping"...[about]...having to pay a tiny sum of money...

This "gets" me too. After all the free stuff we've gotten.

goshikisen
05-22-2006, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
Again,this has been rehashed over and over... many models are third party meaning 1c didn't necessarily decide they should be modeled... It was that or nothing...

This approach to content inclusion doesn't seem problematic? It being rehashed again and again... that doesn't mean something? At the risk of sounding crude, is there no way to strike a balance between a broad vision of the sim (and it's success) and a modeller's vanity project? I hope BoB lays out a criteria that allows for the creativity and generosity of the third party modeller's while also keeping the success and viability of the series in mind.

For the record, I thought the content of 4.05 was great and I gladly paid my money to include it. The Pe-2 was a pivotal aircraft of the Second World War and you'd have to be out to lunch to question it's inclusion.

SaQSoN
05-22-2006, 11:15 AM
This approach to content inclusion doesn't seem problematic? It being rehashed again and again... that doesn't mean something? At the risk of sounding crude, is there no way to strike a balance between a broad vision of the sim (and it's success) and a modeller's vanity project?

Aha, next time we will ask you, Goshikisen, to go and tell this Johnny Dow, that he have to abandon work on his favorite Hru-134A-6 in favour of your favorite something else. And not only you will have to ask him, you also will have to make him do so. Certainly, you will have then to oversee his work on the model, you suggested, and make him finish it up to standards and in reasonable time.
Oh, and one more thing. You will be doing that not only to that Johnny, but also to a dosen of other enthusiast modellers.

Hope to see you eagerly enlisting to this job (which you will do for free, offcourse), as soon, as the BoB's out.

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

csThor
05-22-2006, 11:37 AM
Vladimir - with all due respect ...

This sim (and BoB I guess) wants to be a historically accurate representation of WW2 air combat (as far as our PC's allow, that is). So why is the "KeWl-factor" still more important to external plane development than history? Why cannot Maddox Games lay out a "Master Plan" with a very specific list of aircraft models which do have a place in the game speaking of features and historical importance? Why not saying "Here's a list of potential planes. Take one and get it ready, if it's good enough we'll incorporate it." ??

It's not about laying modellers on a chain, but giving them some more in-depth guidance. Modelling talent is rare enough and I hated to see it wasted on weird and obscure planes in the past.

goshikisen
05-22-2006, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by SaQSoN:
Aha, next time we will ask you, Gohikisen, to go and tell this Johnny Dow, that he have to abandon work on his favorite Hru-134A-6 in favour of your favorite something else. And not only you will have to ask him, you also will have to make him do so. Certainly, you will have then to oversee his work on the model, you suggested, and make him finish it up to standards and in reasonable time.
Oh, and one more thing. You will be doing that not only to that Johnny, but also to a dosen of other enthusiast modellers.

Hope to see you eagerly enlisting to this job (which you will do for free, offcourse), as soon, as the BoB's out.

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

SaQSoN,

I think you've missed my point... I don't want my favorite aircraft modelled. I personally can't wait for the Ar-234B but I could easily see arguments against it's inclusion in favour of, say, a Hs-129 cockpit. I'm not necessarily interested in the Hs-129 but it is an important aircraft that is suited to the sim and the Eastern Front.

I don't want to step on anyone's toes... I know how hard it is to model these aircraft and objects (the ship examples you sent me made that perfectly clear). This isn't about me... it's about giving this sim and BoB a long life. I'd like to think that there are aircraft that are important beyond subjective opinion.

At the end of the day you want to get the product bought and used by as many people as possible to ensure its continued existance. Why focus on the obscure when it potentially limits your market and, in turn, your livelihood?

The modellers are free to make what they will and I will, most likely, continue to buy whatever is released. I just don't quite understand the rationale behind the decisions... it's like the sim is being intentionally hobbled.

Regards, Goshikisen.

SaQSoN
05-22-2006, 02:51 PM
I think you've missed my point
May be, I did. I thought you were talking about future directing of the 3rd party modelling comunity for the BoB, so people would do "right" (historically correct, important, your favourite, 1C's favourite - call it whatever you want) planes, instead of what they want.
If this is what we are talking about - then, as I said, I'd like to see, how you, or csThor, or anyone else will do such direction.

If you are talking about selection of models, that were added to the IL-2 game through it's lifetime with the help of the 3rd party - then, again, what, you think, 1C should do? Reject a model (say, Tempest) just because it doesn't fit to the Eastern front or Pacific, no matter how good it's done? They should do so, right?

Now, if you are talking about the recent and coming commercial add-ons content, then, may be, you should take in account that this content was selected to make the add-ons sell better? May be guys at 1C think, VVS/Luft'46 planes will sell better, then 39-42 cr@p planes?

And finally, Oleg and co also may have their own favourites, which they always wanted to see in the game. So, why they can't do a favour to themselfs in the end?

In either case, I don't see any reason to criticize 1C for their decisions in the past or now, regarding models selection in the game.

If there is no aircraft, or ship, or something that you think, should be there - it's only you to blame. Because you didn't make it, or didn't find someone who will do it for you, while there still was time for that. And now it's too late.
As for the future, as I said, you have all the way to do right decisions and make people accept and follow them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Hope, you will succeed in this. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tooz_69GIAP
05-22-2006, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by SaQSoN:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think you've missed my point
May be, I did. I thought you were talking about future directing of the 3rd party modelling comunity for the BoB, so people would do "right" (historically correct, important, your favourite, 1C's favourite - call it whatever you want) planes, instead of what they want.
If this is what we are talking about - then, as I said, I'd like to see, how you, or csThor, or anyone else will do such direction.

If you are talking about selection of models, that were added to the IL-2 game through it's lifetime with the help of the 3rd party - then, again, what, you think, 1C should do? Reject a model (say, Tempest) just because it doesn't fit to the Eastern front or Pacific, no matter how good it's done? They should do so, right?

Now, if you are talking about the recent and coming commercial add-ons content, then, may be, you should take in account that this content was selected to make the add-ons sell better? May be guys at 1C think, VVS/Luft'46 planes will sell better, then 39-42 cr@p planes?

And finally, Oleg and co also may have their own favourites, which they always wanted to see in the game. So, why they can't do a favour to themselfs in the end?

In either case, I don't see any reason to criticize 1C for their decisions in the past or now, regarding models selection in the game.

If there is no aircraft, or ship, or something that you think, should be there - it's only you to blame. Because you didn't make it, or didn't find someone who will do it for you, while there still was time for that. And now it's too late.
As for the future, as I said, you have all the way to do right decisions and make people accept and follow them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Hope, you will succeed in this. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is an issue I have discussed with some, and thought about a lot as well. I feel that 3rd party additions could have been a lot better organised.

If I understand what you're saying Saqson, is that models were accepted by 1C:MG for the sole reason that they were presented to you. They were not solicited, or "wanted" for inclusion, they were just available, so they were inserted into the game. Is that right?

Aircraft such as the Mustang, Spitfire, P-38, B-17, Zero, 109Z, Go-229, et al, which had little, if anything to do with the Eastern Front, were added for no real reason other than "the cool factor http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif" as far as I can tell.

But missing from the sim were flyable aircraft like the Pe-2, IL-10, U2VS/Po-2, Hs-129, Ju-88, and so on. Aircraft which were important to the order of battle of many areas on the Eastern Front, and which have been requested and discussed for years now!

Unfortunately, some of these aircraft were stopped and started for whatever reason, and were never completed. Lack of resources, of time, or simple cannot-be-ars-ed-ness, whatever, and not until recently have some of these gaps been filled (Pe-2/3, Ju-88, IL-10 - all fantastic additions!!).

I just feel that if 1C:MG had been more focussed on how they wanted to develop the sim by having a list of aircraft they would want to have in the sim, such as aircraft fighting in the Russo-Finnish and Continuation wars, main Soviet and German frontline bombers and fighters (Fighters are well represented though, as flyables), etc. Then these talented guys who create all thes great models could pick the ones they liked the most, and finish them up.

Problem with that was that some modellers would "reserve" a certain aircraft, start it, but never finish it (tis what happened with the Pe-2 and IL-10 I believe?) and so the amount of aircraft left on this list becomes smaller, so then someone decides to model some other aircraft not on the list.

What happens then, is that 1C:MG wants to add more stuff to the game, to attract new players, etc, and hold the current fan base, but they are lacking in aircraft models. So they take a model submitted to them like a P-51, or Spitfire, or something, and bring that in.

What happens then, is the fan base go "oooh, aaah, coool!" and then start saying, "well, they have this in game, so they should have that - and have that, so maybe they'd accept this - and if so, then they absolutely gotta have that!" and so it continues until we have a whole lot of stuff with nothing to do with the original theme, original theatre, and still more and more clamouring for new and different content.

Yes, it becomes difficult to know what to do about it all, and to figure out when and how to stop the snowball effect this creates.

Don't get me wrong, I love everything that's been added to the game, from crazy fantasy stuff, to slow flying coffins, and ships, and vehicles, and tanks, and all that stuff. More of it anytime you like is fine by me!

But the problem is that much of it is out of place in the game. There are maps missing, or the ones we have are too small, or unrepresentative. There are some large gaps in certain theatres/time periods, such as the 39-40 Winter War, there are many problems with Pacific content in regard to ships and maps, and so on and so forth.

It is not up to the fans what goes into the sim, that decision is made by the developers. I think perhaps that has been confused a little along the way over the last few years. Yes, you must strike a balance to where you add content that will make the product popular, and hopefully retain the attractiveness to expand, and hold, the customer base. However, some control must be exercised over the acceding to the will of that fanbase, otherwise your product becomes comprimised.

I really do hope that in the Storm of War series, there is some kind of long term plan which incorporates certain controls over 3rd party involvement.

-HH- Beebop
05-22-2006, 05:49 PM
SaQSoN;
First thank you for all your input on the upcoming Storm of War/Battle of Britain.
I hope I'm not hijacking the thread here but since you brought up how the community asked for things too late for FB/PF I thought I would bring up some thing I, and I think others, would like to see in SoW/BoB.
I will be pleased with whatever plane selection is offered knowing that it will look much better and I assume fly better than what we have now. In that regard I want the best possilbe flight model/damage model that can be appiled with the new engine.
As a mission builder I am wondering if you could comment on the maps and objects planned for the inital release of SoW/BoB. How many maps will be in the intial release? I have seen some general screenshots of WIP I believe. Will there be a Channel map with the cliffs of Dover? I am guessing that the Battle of France, or at least some of it, will be in the intial release? Will there be a separate map for Northern France?
As for objects, what I've seen so far look fabulous! I'm assuming some, if not all, of London will be on a map as where else do they use double decker buses? (pardon my ignorance, I know little of WWII ground transport in pre/early war England).
As you know there have been many "concerns" for a wider variety of ships. Being as an important part of the war was protecting shipping, how many varieties of ships are being planned?

Thanks in advance for any light you can shed on these matters.

P.S. As a side note, I didn't mind a bit paying for the Pe-2 addon considering all that we have got for free. At this point I don't mind paying for any addtional content. Most companies would have charged for each and every "patch" we got, because almost every "patch" has contained new planes/maps and objects.

Tooz_69GIAP
05-22-2006, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by -HH- Beebop:
SaQSoN;
First thank you for all your input on the upcoming Storm of War/Battle of Britain.
I hope I'm not hijacking the thread here but since you brought up how the community asked for things too late for FB/PF I thought I would bring up some thing I, and I think others, would like to see in SoW/BoB.
I will be pleased with whatever plane selection is offered knowing that it will look much better and I assume fly better than what we have now. In that regard I want the best possilbe flight model/damage model that can be appiled with the new engine.
As a mission builder I am wondering if you could comment on the maps and objects planned for the inital release of SoW/BoB. How many maps will be in the intial release? I have seen some general screenshots of WIP I believe. Will there be a Channel map with the cliffs of Dover? I am guessing that the Battle of France, or at least some of it, will be in the intial release? Will there be a separate map for Northern France?
As for objects, what I've seen so far look fabulous! I'm assuming some, if not all, of London will be on a map as where else do they use double decker buses? (pardon my ignorance, I know little of WWII ground transport in pre/early war England).
As you know there have been many "concerns" for a wider variety of ships. Being as an important part of the war was protecting shipping, how many varieties of ships are being planned?

Thanks in advance for any light you can shed on these matters.

P.S. As a side note, I didn't mind a bit paying for the Pe-2 addon considering all that we have got for free. At this point I don't mind paying for any addtional content. Most companies would have charged for each and every "patch" we got, because almost every "patch" has contained new planes/maps and objects.

I'm not Saqson, but here's some answers for you based on announcements and postings on SimHQ and here:

There will be one map covering from the Midlands in England down to Northern France, with parts of western Holland I believe so there will be the Channel, and Cliffs of Dover, etc.

I don't think there will be any Battle of France content upon release. There is a project that has been going for some time that is creating content for a Battle of France add-on for BoB. You can see the info on this at the France Simulation website. There was also a parallel project going on with content for a Polish campaign expansion, although the website for this project seems to have gone down(?) so I don't know if this is still going or not.

The idea for this (Oleg posted about this, I think, around 18 months ago?) was said that these two projects would be combined to create a prequel add-on to BoB called "Blitzkrieg". This was by no means definate, but both teams were in contact with Oleg.

Apart from that, I don't any more really, than what has been released in the E3 interviews and dev updates thus far.

-HH- Beebop
05-22-2006, 07:32 PM
Thanks for the info Tooz. Much appreciated. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

BTW, was I dreaming this or did I see somewhere a Storm of War Forum?

Tooz_69GIAP
05-22-2006, 08:05 PM
Yup, there's a SOW:BOB forum over at SimHQ:

http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=152

goshikisen
05-22-2006, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by SaQSoN:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think you've missed my point
May be, I did. I thought you were talking about future directing of the 3rd party modelling comunity for the BoB, so people would do "right" (historically correct, important, your favourite, 1C's favourite - call it whatever you want) planes, instead of what they want. If this is what we are talking about - then, as I said, I'd like to see, how you, or csThor, or anyone else will do such direction.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This may sound unconventional but how about just telling them what you need? Would all third party modellers leave in a huff if they were given suggestions as to what aircraft would benefit the project most? I can't see how any reasonable person would respond to this negatively.

Structure and direction... there are all kinds of volunteer efforts and organizations out there where people willingly give of their time and talent. Do these people take offense at being managed? A not altogether inappropriate example: The RCAF Museum in Trenton, Ontario just recently finished a Handley Page Halifax restoration. Did veteran tradesmen just walk in and dictate what part of the project they wanted to work on without any direction or overall plan? Of course not.

I don't know... I can't see how a plan and some kind of management in this regard is a bad thing. Surely there is a way to match a modeller with an aircraft that both interests them and also benefits the sim as a whole. Is this not common sense?

-HH- Beebop
05-22-2006, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by Tooz_69GIAP:
Yup, there's a SOW:BOB forum over at SimHQ:

http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=152

Thanks again! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif So I wasn't dreaming!
At this rate I'll owe you my first born son! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

SaQSoN
05-22-2006, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by Tooz_69GIAP:
If I understand what you're saying Saqson, is that models were accepted by 1C:MG for the sole reason that they were presented to you. They were not solicited, or "wanted" for inclusion, they were just available, so they were inserted into the game. Is that right?

Basically - yes. At some point some 1C modellers also did few planes, that they thought were cool. But there was no strict and clear plan even for the AEP content. Most ofit was gethered on "stuff there what we already have in some form" basis. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
As for the user supplied models, that were added in free add-ons, they, obviuosly, weren't requested by 1C, just were added upon being available.


But missing from the sim were flyable aircraft like the Pe-2, IL-10, U2VS/Po-2, Hs-129, Ju-88, and so on. Aircraft which were important to the order of battle of many areas on the Eastern Front, and which have been requested and discussed for years now!

Unfortunately, some of these aircraft were stopped and started for whatever reason, and were never completed. Lack of resources, of time, or simple cannot-be-ars-ed-ness, whatever,

Now read again, what you have posted above. You answered your own question. How can you relay on some guy, who says "I'll do the IL-10", but then drops this project due to some personal reasons? You don't have any means to force him finish it. You can't cut his pay, you can't fire him, you can't even beat him. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Any direction means planning, but how can you do planning, if people, you relay on can not be trusted in terms of following your plan?


I just feel that if 1C:MG had been more focussed on how they wanted to develop the sim by having a list of aircraft they would want to have in the sim,

Ok, we have a list. But how can we deny someone to do aircraft not from this list? And if he finishes it, should we reject his work?
How can you direct someone, who can not be controlled?


Then these talented guys who create all thes great models could pick the ones they liked the most, and finish them up.

Again, it all sounds nice theoretically, but here you have a real life situation: Jhonny Dow says, he will do Hs-129, which makes Vasia Pupkin (who also wanted to do this plane) to do something else or leave. But in the end, Jhonny fails to complete, what he started. And what now? Where is your direction?

And that is what happened to, say, Ki-44, I-15bis, and could happen to Ki-61, just to name a few...


Problem with that was that some modellers would "reserve" a certain aircraft, start it, but never finish it (tis what happened with the Pe-2 and IL-10 I believe?) and so the amount of aircraft left on this list becomes smaller, so then someone decides to model some other aircraft not on the list.

And here you go again and answere your own question. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I don't see, how you can avoid such situation with enthusiasts...


Yes, it becomes difficult to know what to do about it all, and to figure out when and how to stop the snowball effect this creates.
And so? You may start figuring out that right now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Because this is the main problem. But I doubt, there is a solution, except start paying for the models. But even in this case, it doesn't solve the problem completely. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


However, some control must be exercised over the acceding to the will of that fanbase, otherwise your product becomes comprimised.

Yeah. There's only one small problem left here - how exactly this coontrol should be exercised. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Unfortunately, until we solve it, we wont go anywhere.


I really do hope that in the Storm of War series, there is some kind of long term plan which incorporates certain controls over 3rd party involvement.

As far, as I understand, BoB will be open-ended, just like the MSFS. Players will be able to add their own units to the game without help of 1C. User planes will be added to an "unofficial" selection and them some of them, which are well done and fit the game theme will be added bu 1C to the "official" selection. This is, probably, the only way to avoid "wrong" planes and not piss off their authors. But that doesn't ensure, that we will get what is really needed. It only ensures, that we will not get what we don't need. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SaQSoN
05-22-2006, 10:05 PM
This may sound unconventional but how about just telling them what you need?

And how you will ensure, they are going to listen to you? You think, it wasn't said 5 years ago?


Structure and direction... there are all kinds of volunteer efforts and organizations out there where people willingly give of their time and talent. Do these people take offense at being managed? A not altogether inappropriate example: The RCAF Museum in Trenton, Ontario just recently finished a Handley Page Halifax restoration. Did veteran tradesmen just walk in and dictate what part of the project they wanted to work on without any direction or overall plan? Of course not.
In your exhample the situation is as follows: you either do what you being told to, or leave.
Which, in terms of the discussed matter means, that you would have to reject models and modellers, who are not aligned with your plan.
Believe me, with such approach you will end with no one at your side...

chris455
05-22-2006, 10:06 PM
As far, as I understand, BoB will be open-ended, just like the MSFS. Players will be able to add their own units to the game without help of 1C. User planes will be added to an "unofficial" selection and them some of them, which are well done and fit the game theme will be added bu 1C to the "official" selection. This is, probably, the only way to avoid "wrong" planes and not piss off their authors. But that doesn't ensure, that we will get what is really needed. It only ensures, that we will not get what we don't need. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Saqson,
Does this solution allow for the future inclusion of A/C which are, for now, unable to be modelled for legal reasons?
In other words: Is it possible that in a future installment of SoW:BoB we may again see US aircraft?

SaQSoN
05-22-2006, 10:08 PM
-HH- Beebop,

I am not involved in the BoB development, so I hardly know more, then it was said in Oleg's posts and public announcements.

But Tooz already told you pretty everything, that I know.

SaQSoN
05-22-2006, 10:23 PM
Saqson,
Does this solution allow for the future inclusion of A/C which are, for now, unable to be modelled for legal reasons?
In other words: Is it possible that in a future installment of SoW:BoB we may again see US aircraft?

Well, from where we stand now, it will only allow to add them in the "unofficial" list, which will be created wihout any involvement from 1C. This won't solve the problem for an "official" list though.
But, if Oleg and Ubi are really going to expand the SoW series beyond the BoB setting, they will have either to do something about it, or abandon the US market. Which is not an option, if they want to stay afloat with that title.
I have not a slightest idea what they doing about this right now, but I guess, it is a "wait and see" situation so far. There is no need in NG-related planes for the BoB or Blitzkrieg, or even for the early Mediterranian theaters. And when it will come to the Pacific or Europe again, we will see, into what it will turn then...

Tooz_69GIAP
05-22-2006, 11:30 PM
Saqson, thanks for the reply. Yes, I answered many of my own questions (that was the point sorta - was making rhetoric http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ).

I have known about these problems for some time. I don't know the solution to it, or if there is one. I just hope more thought is going into the process, which sounds like from what you said, there are some new-ish ideas going about.

I suppose we'll just have to wait and see how things go.

chris455
05-22-2006, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by SaQSoN:

Well, from where we stand now, it will only allow to add them in the "unofficial" list, which will be created wihout any involvement from 1C. This won't solve the problem for an "official" list though.
But, if Oleg and Ubi are really going to expand the SoW series beyond the BoB setting, they will have either to do something about it, or abandon the US market. Which is not an option, if they want to stay afloat with that title.
I have not a slightest idea what they doing about this right now, but I guess, it is a "wait and see" situation so far. There is no need in NG-related planes for the BoB or Blitzkrieg, or even for the early Mediterranian theaters. And when it will come to the Pacific or Europe again, we will see, into what it will turn then...

Thank you for the info, Vladimir.
A glimmer of hope is still hope- I'll keep my fingers crossed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JG301_nils
05-23-2006, 02:24 AM
A long time ago (it seems) long before Netwings famous pages, we had something called IL2Center, active, sadly it was hacked and destroyed. But this web site really had all what has been requested here, an official IL2 plane list, with listing of model status, what plane was reserved and by whom, plus a huge database for thev most actual planetypes and info about the "thoughts" for the IL2 future.
Maybe, if there are plans of adding 3D parties, this site or similar should be put up again.

But I sometimes think it looked like someone had said: "some types must never be included"
I mean types like JU88 and He111, U2, Storch and all the early Soviet planes, should have been flyable from the very beginning. They were the most important types on the Eastern Front, but strangly never added... OK I know tiny details for some cockpits were missing on some types, but strangly others were built and completed, which probably never had a finished cockpit fitted not to mention never saw any active service. I'm not critisising that, just sometimes puzzled by the focus and direction the game took. But I also must add that never have I enjoyed something I've owned fom such a long time.
I'm tempted to use Churchill's famous word:
"Never was so much owed by so many to so few" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Let's get IL2Center up and running again....

WOLFMondo
05-23-2006, 02:39 AM
Originally posted by SaQSoN:

As far, as I understand, BoB will be open-ended, just like the MSFS. Players will be able to add their own units to the game without help of 1C. User planes will be added to an "unofficial" selection and them some of them, which are well done and fit the game theme will be added bu 1C to the "official" selection. This is, probably, the only way to avoid "wrong" planes and not piss off their authors. But that doesn't ensure, that we will get what is really needed. It only ensures, that we will not get what we don't need. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Already prepared for the incoming USAAF UFO's.

JG53Frankyboy
05-23-2006, 03:47 AM
so the hopes for Mustang Mk.I , Curtis fighters and Bostons are not dead http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

-HH- Beebop
05-23-2006, 06:10 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
...Already prepared for the incoming USAAF UFO's.
In CFS2 there's a "1% Club" I have heard, where the planes are required to be modelled within 1% tolerances of official specs. IIRC these planes have almost the same strenghs and weakness of the real thing. I stopped flying CFS2 before I got to explore that aveneue due top my discovery of the original IL-2.
Without a doubt someone would make a IL-2 Sturmovik than perfomed like an F-15, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif however those 1% models would be more like what we now have in FB/PF.
It's a price one pays to be able to have the ability to make the correct aircraft.

csThor
05-23-2006, 08:45 AM
Vladimir - again with all due respect (I seem to use that phrase quite often http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif ).

Why does Maddox Games and persons having one or another connection to them automatically switch to defensive mode when someone mentions the words structure, guidance or project management ? I've seen more than one post from Oleg saying pretty much the same things as you did - either leave the choice of planes open to 3rd Party Modellers or they'll leave. Really?
I just can't see all modellers be such primadonnas with a Death-Star-sized ego. I don't think all of them would see a basic list of aircraft / ground objects / ships / whatever as reason to leave. Some would do so, of course, but all?

If we look at the whole life of the Il-2 series we always had weird/useless planes well before historically important types. With the initial Il-2 we got the MiG-3U which was produced in 6 versions and the Bf 109 G-6/AS (which is not a real G-6/AS but let's ignore that for now) which doesn't fit the eastern front, either. Then 3rd Party modellers came into the equation. Let's forget for the moment who did them and how good they are and look at some of those projects and what they did for the game (as they come to my mind):

Bi-1 - Hangar Queen. Anyone seen/flown one within the last 6 months?
Go-229 - Hangar Queen. Banned online for obvious reasons, not present in Online Wars, no offline campaigns or missions known to me.
Bf 109Z - Hangar Queen. Aside some "Quake-in-the-Air" Servers I haven't seen it used anywhere.
YP-80 - Hangar Queen for the most time. I know of one short campaign, but that's it.

Those are just the most glaring examples, but to make things worse Maddox Games has also added quite a few "oddities" to this mix: I-185 (a tribute to someone but where's the value for all players?), Yak-9UT, Yak-3P, Me-262 A-1/U4 (built in 2 examples of which only one was flown in combat) and with PF some ultra-rare A6M variants (the A6M-7s). But we still don't have quite a few aircraft of historical importance (either flyable or as AI):

B6N2 (about to be added as AI), D4Y (not in sight), Ki-48, SB2C, Devastator (may both fall under the "Grumman Issue", though), Hs-129 (now if there's a counterpart to the game's namesake ...), Hs-123, later He 111 and Ju 88 variants, Do 217 ... Should I go on?

For me it's a fact that with a project management, a little will on MG's side and a strichter handling of external development BoB and beyond could certainly be brought closer to the ideal of a historically accurate simulation of air warfare in WW2 - instead of a "free-for-all-air-quake-********-at-500feet-near-your-airdrome" shooter. Because that tendency was certainly introduced and supported by Maddox Games's lax handling of plane development and their own weird plane choices (which are about to be transported into BoB, too - that weird Avro autogyro, the Fw 200 ... ) ...

My 2 cents ...

EDIT: I certainly hope that BoB does not become like the M$F$ series as I hope the official content will be locked as tightly as in Il-2. I will certainly ignore unofficial planes - too many "But I've read ..." experts around here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

RamsteinUSA
05-23-2006, 10:51 AM
Yeah, that was great work and we were sad when it was gone.. that is the best example of an active list of what was being developed... but after that chaos, we were left wondering if we would end up missing much needed planes... and that's exactly what happened..


I remember there was many months of warning asking others to take the website over and keep it alive.. but it finally died..


What happened to all the planes and cockpits that were never included... it's like no one will fess up..



Originally posted by JG301_nils:
A long time ago (it seems) long before Netwings famous pages, we had something called IL2Center, active, sadly it was hacked and destroyed. But this web site really had all what has been requested here, an official IL2 plane list, with listing of model status, what plane was reserved and by whom, plus a huge database for thev most actual planetypes and info about the "thoughts" for the IL2 future.
Maybe, if there are plans of adding 3D parties, this site or similar should be put up again.

But I sometimes think it looked like someone had said: "some types must never be included"
I mean types like JU88 and He111, U2, Storch and all the early Soviet planes, should have been flyable from the very beginning. They were the most important types on the Eastern Front, but strangly never added... OK I know tiny details for some cockpits were missing on some types, but strangly others were built and completed, which probably never had a finished cockpit fitted not to mention never saw any active service. I'm not critisising that, just sometimes puzzled by the focus and direction the game took. But I also must add that never have I enjoyed something I've owned fom such a long time.
I'm tempted to use Churchill's famous word:
"Never was so much owed by so many to so few" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Let's get IL2Center up and running again....

SaQSoN
05-23-2006, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by csThor:
Why does Maddox Games and persons having one or another connection to them automatically switch to defensive mode when someone mentions the words structure, guidance or project management ?

Only in your mind. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


I've seen more than one post from Oleg saying pretty much the same things as you did - either leave the choice of planes open to 3rd Party Modellers or they'll leave. Really?
Yeah, really? Show me the quote, where he says that, please.

What I am trying to say, that despite of all your (or anybody else's) lists of "imortant" objects, there always will be a lots of people, who will not follow your list, thinking thier objects are more imortnat.

And what should 1C or Ubi, or you, as public project manager (which title we will gladly lay upon you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) do to this people?
Should we say them "go away, we don't need your stuff!", even if their models will be superb quality? Or what? Tell me.


If we look at the whole life of the Il-2 series we always had weird/useless planes well before historically important types. With the initial Il-2 we got the MiG-3U which was produced in 6 versions and the Bf 109 G-6/AS (which is not a real G-6/AS but let's ignore that for now) which doesn't fit the eastern front, either. Then 3rd Party modellers came into the equation. Let's forget for the moment who did them and how good they are and look at some of those projects and what they did for the game (as they come to my mind):

Bi-1 - Hangar Queen. Anyone seen/flown one within the last 6 months?
Go-229 - Hangar Queen. Banned online for obvious reasons, not present in Online Wars, no offline campaigns or missions known to me.
Bf 109Z - Hangar Queen. Aside some "Quake-in-the-Air" Servers I haven't seen it used anywhere.
YP-80 - Hangar Queen for the most time. I know of one short campaign, but that's it.

Those are just the most glaring examples, but to make things worse Maddox Games has also added quite a few "oddities" to this mix: I-185 (a tribute to someone but where's the value for all players?), Yak-9UT, Yak-3P, Me-262 A-1/U4 (built in 2 examples of which only one was flown in combat) and with PF some ultra-rare A6M variants (the A6M-7s). But we still don't have quite a few aircraft of historical importance (either flyable or as AI):

B6N2 (about to be added as AI), D4Y (not in sight), Ki-48, SB2C, Devastator (may both fall under the "Grumman Issue", though), Hs-129 (now if there's a counterpart to the game's namesake ...), Hs-123, later He 111 and Ju 88 variants, Do 217 ... Should I go on?

That's all is extremally interesting. But tell me one thing: where was you, when this models were being made? Why didn't you direct them blind modellers into a right way?
I am not even asking, why didn't you made the "right" models yourself, mind you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


For me it's a fact that with a project management, a little will on MG's side and a

Blah-blah-blah. That's just talk. Everyone can be a genius strategist in the other men's war.

But did you yourself ever tried to manage people, to whom you don't have any means of control?
In other words, did you ever participated successfully in a public project management of similar scale to the IL-2 modding?

If yes - we want to hear your suggestions on how it should be handled right. I already said about your possible title. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

If no - then what is it we're talking about at all?

WTE_Galway
05-24-2006, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by SaQSoN:
As far, as I understand, BoB will be open-ended, just like the MSFS. Players will be able to add their own units to the game without help of 1C. User planes will be added to an "unofficial" selection and them some of them, which are well done and fit the game theme will be added bu 1C to the "official" selection. This is, probably, the only way to avoid "wrong" planes and not piss off their authors. But that doesn't ensure, that we will get what is really needed. It only ensures, that we will not get what we don't need. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Well in many ways that path immediately makes BoB a lot lot less interesting to me ... but if it's what marketing show the average user wants .. so be it (I almost certianly would still buy it regardless).

WOLFMondo
05-24-2006, 04:29 AM
Originally posted by -HH- Beebop:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
...Already prepared for the incoming USAAF UFO's.
In CFS2 there's a "1% Club" I have heard, where the planes are required to be modelled within 1% tolerances of official specs. IIRC these planes have almost the same strenghs and weakness of the real thing. I stopped flying CFS2 before I got to explore that aveneue due top my discovery of the original IL-2.
Without a doubt someone would make a IL-2 Sturmovik than perfomed like an F-15, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif however those 1% models would be more like what we now have in FB/PF.
It's a price one pays to be able to have the ability to make the correct aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This was my concern for Storm of War. But with CFS who decided what that 1% is? Right now, I see 3 camps here. 1 is the Unidenified United States Fighter objects who think there is an anti US conspiracy and all German planes are overmodelled and US planes undermodelled, 2 the guys who thing everything is fine (the majority) and 3 the luftwaffles who think US planes are overmodelled and German planes undermodelled. It hate for groups 1 and 3 to dictate whathappens in this next sim

I decided when Oleg first siad there would be an official list, I'd stick to that version only.

-HH- Beebop
05-24-2006, 06:17 AM
I was going to craft this long explanatory post on how you could have "1%" planes in the sim but the more I wrote the more problems I saw. Servers having to set acceptable planesets, monitor same, mission builders having to supply planes as well as skins for a mission leading to HUGE downloads etc., etc., etc.
As a skinner I can always repaint (hack) a skin as I have done a couple of times for the Kate. As a mission builder all I really want are map-making and object making tools. Those two things in themselves would add at least 5 years (or more) to the life of FB/PF. Look at Falcon 4.0. Still going strong long after it's normal shelf life had expired.

I too will probably stay with the "official" list.

csThor
05-24-2006, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by SaQSoN:
Only in your mind. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Nope. The first time I noticed it was with Luthier, when Il2Center was still fresh and strong. Then I noticed it with Oleg and you've shown the same defensive mechanism in this very thread. Hardly just imagination on my part http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


Originally posted by SaQSoN:
What I am trying to say, that despite of all your (or anybody else's) lists of "imortant" objects, there always will be a lots of people, who will not follow your list, thinking thier objects are more
imortnat.

Uhm ... last time I looked this engine was still property of 1C:Maddox Games. If I'm not completely mistaken they can call the shots, can't they? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
So what keeps them from putting together a list of planes, ground and sea objects that would be useful? I'm not saying this should be a short list or even a narrow focus, maybe even forecasting into the planned future of the series.


Originally posted by SaQSoN:
And what should 1C or Ubi, or you, as public project manager (which title we will gladly lay upon you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) do to this people?
Should we say them "go away, we don't need your stuff!", even if their models will be superb quality? Or what? Tell me.

Nope. They should simply remember that there are as many or even more offline players which have no use for hangar queens or Online-Dogfight-Fetish-Toys while historically important aircraft are missing totally from the campaigns.
Secondly I think adding objects regardless of their "fitting" into the game (modelled timeframe and region etc) is equally problematic (in my eyes even downright wrong). If a person modeled a marvelous P-51D while the game was still displaying the BoB the P-51 still doesn't belong there - it's simply 4 years (of war) too early! In this case say "Thanks. We'll add it as soon as it fits the modeled timeframe."

You seem to mistake my intention of pushing through my personal favourites. Quite the contrary - I'm simply lobbying for more support for the least vocal part of the community which (according to Ubisoft and Maddox Games) is still the largest one: the offline players which never step online. In the whole Il-2 line additional planes were issued without regards to the usefulness of these in offline campaigns.


Originally posted by SaQSoN:
That's all is extremally interesting. But tell me one thing: where was you, when this models were being made? Why didn't you direct them blind modellers into a right way?
I am not even asking, why didn't you made the "right" models yourself, mind you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Simple. When this game came out I was a simple player with a basic knowledge of history and no knowledge of 3D modelling or skinning at all. I've intensively studied history in the past few years and I've learned how to skin aircraft. When this game came out I just couldn't offer input as I was merely a "dweeb", one of the "uninformed masses" (no disrespect to anyone) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
But back then I also had a different POV on the game. I was an online player imbedded in an active squadron. Today I have switched to offline flying for a lot of reasons and the squad has been dissolved years ago. Back then history was the fundament for my enjoyment of simming, today history has a far greater importance to me than flight simming per se. I'm no longer online everyday flying with my friends, I'm more often breeding over books, making skins, fiddling with the FMB offline or enjoying a good mission before going to bed.

As I said when this game series took off I wasn't in the position to offer help. Now I am and I am helping (guess where the german unit emblems in BoB will come from? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif). I have discussed the problem of external plane development with Oleg a few times already, so I'm without illusions about what he'll do. I will, however, not refrain from voicing my opinion that history should be the great denominator when designing a historical combat flight sim.


Originally posted by SaQSoN:
But did you yourself ever tried to manage people, to whom you don't have any means of control?
In other words, did you ever participated successfully in a public project management of similar scale to the IL-2 modding?

If yes - we want to hear your suggestions on how it should be handled right. I already said about your possible title. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

If no - then what is it we're talking about at all?

Don't give me that "high-and-mighty" attitude, Vladimir. It doesn't suit you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

No I haven't managed a project that large, but quite honestly - how can you claim that someone has "managed" the external development? Luthier has founded his own company, but I remember a lot of "not so friendly" posts by 3rd Party Modellers about his tendency to disappear. In my eyes the external development was a free-for-all ******** with only technical rules and no regard to the usefulness of the plane for all of the game's customers.

ElAurens
05-24-2006, 11:04 AM
As I understand it the "unofficial" planeset will only work offline. All online activity will require the "official" set of aircraft.

I sure hope this is how it works anyway.

JRJacobs
05-24-2006, 07:43 PM
ahhhh-mmmmm so how is THE NORWAY MAP comming?

WTE_Galway
05-24-2006, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
As I understand it the "unofficial" planeset will only work offline. All online activity will require the "official" set of aircraft.

I sure hope this is how it works anyway.

Possibly the best solution, though if the majority of the US plane set are "unofficial" due to the NG legal nonsense there is sure to be a lot of unrest amongst the troops if unofficial planes cannot fly online.

darkhorizon11
05-24-2006, 10:35 PM
Your on the right track about improving leadership, teamwork, and management to increase productivity and get more aircraft, but theres a couple things I think you've overlooked. I don't model myself but I've been on this forum a few years now and heres what I've picked on with the whole 3D party models thing.

First of all, there are people working on this game ALL over the world. Most have never met, I wouldn't be surprised if I walked by someone thats posted in this forum and never batted an eye because I had no idea, the internet is an amazing thing isn't it?

Also people have their own lives. The majority of people that mod probably work 40+ a week and spend there Saturdays and Sundays in the Winter on the computer with 3d max. Not only does it take time to model these aircraft but life gets in the way too. How many times have we heard the story of so-and-so was working on the <insert plane here> but then they dissappeared and the last dev. updates are 8 months old??? People dissappear, things happen, and accountability is rare, ESPECIALLY over the internet.

Also AFAIK all the third party models have been done for free. Maybe Oleg and 1c will shoot em a free copy of BoB when it comes out for the plane they modeled but thats about it. Nothing against the team its just that Ubi wouldn't be too fond of free copies flying off the shelf.

Therefore, its a labor of love. They modelers of these planes often model these aircraft because of affinity for them, not so much because the game needs them. Ask Gibbage about the Do-335 and the Go-229 (although we all know he's a red flyer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) or the guys in club med who gave us a half a dozen Italian planes, or Rola who did the P.11c... Do we have maps that specifically support any of those aircraft? Theres a Med map about the size of my left nut and no Polish maps at all, early war or late... again, whats the point? its a labor of love.

Beggars can't be choosers you can't tell someone volunteering thousands of hours exactly what to do and at any time can say I QUIT. Keeping in mind you've never met them IRL and they live halfway around the world speaking your language secondary. Don't take it the wrong way I tip my cap to Ian Boys, Jurinko, Luthier, PlaneEater, Saqson, Rola, Gibbage, (and anyone else I missed) who put in time for the game.

Lastly, some models appear out of the blue. A gentlemen (forgive me I can't remember his handle) suddenly showed up on Netwings saying he contacted Oleg and had almost finished modeling a complete IK-3 for FB. Everyone was a bit skeptical, and then sure enough he posted a slew of WIP pics of the aircraft, this was last fall I think and well past the deadline. He sent the plane in and Oleg said it was too late for FB but a possibility if he could increase the polycount and quality for BoB. Like I said there was really no warning, it just happened so for 1c it was that or nothing, there was really no choice or no chance to redirect this time somewhere else since the project was done. As for the project now... I haven't heard from it in over 6 months though the guy did post some advanced WIP shots of it being remodeled for BoB so who knows? Maybe its already been sent in, I'll keep my fingers crossed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif...

Anyways, my point is as much as we love 3rd party its not a smart business decision to rely it, we more or less just have to accept it with open arms and give credit where its due... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

browright
05-25-2006, 11:04 AM
I have to say i am totally sympatetic with Saqson's view on 3rd party developers management, I also understand where Thor comes from.

I donno if something like that would work:

MG together with Ubi and 1C Announces Plane Modeller Competition:
1. Plane-X
For this plane model, the following teams have chosen to participate:
- team AustralianRu
- team CanDucks
...

2. Plane-Y
...

Winner in each category gets a free platinum copy of the game and NVIDIA http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cheers

DuxCorvan
05-26-2006, 06:56 PM
I don't like this 'external plane' approach. Prepare for one good half-acceptable plane for every 1.000.000 low quality botchy my-fav-UFOs with right-from-my-a$$ cockpits, square fuselages, zoom-wow FMs and hiperblaster guns. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

JRJacobs
05-27-2006, 12:24 PM
Many years ago I played a game called B-17-II and I remember many posting from an unknown aeronautical engineer named Oleg, who was working on an as-yet unreleased sim "IL-2"

Many conversations with Oleg talked about how he HATED, LOATHED, DESPISED even the HACKED Super-duper Uber-planes in M$ online.

His solution was to encrypt the FM and I think all subsequent developments with 3rd-party modeling has little to do with prejudices and economics and everything to do with Super-duper Uber-hacks


Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
I don't like this 'external plane' approach. Prepare for one good half-acceptable plane for every 1.000.000 low quality botchy my-fav-UFOs with right-from-my-a$$ cockpits, square fuselages, I can live with this (not like it mind you) ugly-plane syndrome


zoom-wow FMs and hiperblaster guns. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif Should not be tolerated. I hope the FM remains out-of-touch from the user end.

PlaneEater
05-27-2006, 09:36 PM
There's a very simple solution, Vladimir. It doesn't take a rocket scientist, either.

Prioritization. Oleg controls the engine and the Stamp of Offical-ness. It's completely within his power to make a list of aircraft that are needed most, aircraft that are simply needed, aircraft that are just novelties, and finally aircraft that will not be included (for whatever reason).

Keep that list somewhere accessible, so modelers can see it. If one wants to work on a plane, they adds their name to the hat for that aircraft. The can contact other people working on it, if there are any.

Oleg gets final say on anything submitted to him, based on quality and priority. The 'fun' stuff can be accepted, but everybody will know ahead of time that it goes on the back burner until the priority aircraft on hand are done.

Really not that hard. If Oleg is so concerned that a simple, logical system like that is suddenly going to have people sticking their noses up and walking off, he needs to grow some huevos.