PDA

View Full Version : OT:Looks like TargetWare is shaping up...here is new Italian bomber.



MichaelMar
07-25-2005, 04:47 AM
http://www.targetware.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=P...ile=viewtopic&t=8006 (http://www.targetware.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=8006)

Just thought you flight sim guys might be interested. TW graphics have sure come a long way and the FM and DM I would would say are on par with IL2 if not better. TW claims to have better, much more realistic, FM then IL2...so we will see.

Of all the mods I say TW Tobruk looks the nicest.
enjoy.

269GA-Veltro
07-25-2005, 11:51 AM
I will test this mod for sure....waiting for THE MED after BoB!!!!

ytareh
07-25-2005, 12:31 PM
Having slated Targetware in the last 24hrs I have to say that looks VERY promising...!

Stigler_9_JG52
07-25-2005, 12:47 PM
Targetware is most certainly progressing, albeit slowly. The lead coder had an unfortunate incident happen to him in London, and development of core code has had to stop for a time.

But, in the mean time, the player/contributors are doing what they can to move all the projects forward, in terms of 3D modeling, 2D artwork and terrains, and :Tobruk is one that is in high gear. It will most certainly feature the most complete Italian planeset seen anywhere, with actual Italians leading the charge (apparently, Italians with good sources, too!)

However, don't overlook Target:Rabaul. That particular flavor of Targetware is, IMHO, much better produced and researched than PF. I've recently seen signs of CVs appearing (and the possibility of player-controlled ships in several classes), and the map already allows a far greater degree of accuracy and ability to encapsulate the middle parts of the Pacific war. New Guinea/Port Moresby campaign, Guadalcanal, the island hopping up the Slot, the Battle of the Bismarck Sea, the siege of Rabaul, all can be explored with all the proper considerations of plane range, mission parameters, etc.

Hoarmurath
07-25-2005, 01:46 PM
Totally uninteresting imo.

First, it is an online only game, all you can do at home is flying alone in big maps.

Second, as there are no AI, it is a dogfight style game. Cooperative flying is severely limited by this aspect.

Third, grfx are quite ugly.

Fourth, i could not stop laughing last time i tried. While doing some low level flying in target rabaul (alone), i noticed that the trees were only for eye candy. I finally landed in the jungle, and continued my way on ground for a while, among trees.

About the research, as it is done by the players themselves, you can easily imagine what it can give by having a look at some of our "researchers" around here.

I would add that it is an open game, allowing modification by users. Definitely a "no, no" for a game that is intended for online game only.

Stigler_9_JG52
07-25-2005, 05:34 PM
Firstly, not everyone is so shortsighted or tight-pocketed as to dismiss online-only sims out of hand. It can be a successful business model, and sims like WWIIOL, Aces High and earlier, Warbirds prove that. The value per dollar will be pretty high, although obviously not as high as "buy the box and that's all. And you'll get more than just a few theatres of WWII with Targetware; you'll get Korea, WWI, and at some point, Vietnam, Spanish Civil War and more for the same price.

Secondly, cooperative flying is actually enhanced by the existing game design, rather than limited by it. Also, the game structure is being revamped so that there is even more control and immersion built in. But that's for the future, so no more comment on that.

Fourthly, you must not have known that it's beta, and the ground model and collision code aren't there yet (well publicized; it's not an omission or a bug). It is not expected that you can't collide with trees once it goes gold.

As for research, if you'd bother to get involved with that community, you'd find they're more thorough, more knowledgeable and MUCH less given to political bias and outright ERROR than this sim's design team and community track record indicates. There's very little whining about "porked" or "overmodelled planes" and even when those debates do surface, they're approached from both sides with a sense of, "Well, let's look at it and get it right", not "whose side will benefit". As just one example, the Target:Rabaul P-39/P-400 has stayed pretty steady in performance since it first appeared: it hasn't gone from unstable snap-staller to worldbeater UFO to mediocre fighter plane, depending on version. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

And, if you'd do some research of your own as to the effects of the open nature of the code, and how that translates to a level playing field, you'd see that it is very tight "sandbagging wise" and security-wise for the "official" server, yet allows anyone with, er, other interests to go in and make relaxed flight modes, toy with weapon systems, get stupid with fantasy stuff, etc. Or even to create their own biased view of reality. Of course, then you have to attract like-minded fliers to YOUR server. Only the "accurate as possible" variety will be on the official server.

neural_dream
07-25-2005, 06:20 PM
i find it particularly ugly, similar to the CFS series. However, the fact that it has WWI and it is an actual sim and not arcade like Wings of War or all the others, that is great.

Stigler_9_JG52
07-25-2005, 07:43 PM
That's a personal taste, and you're entitled to it. Frankly, I'd rather have a better simulation of flight and combat than a pretty picture (especially when the price you often pay for the pretty picture is the inability to see properly, which is critical in air combat). But both have their merits, though. Visual beauty is one thing IL-2 is clearly better at, I'll grant you.

Hoarmurath
07-25-2005, 11:08 PM
Stigler, you should have a look at sfp1... This sim is open, you can fly online, in dogfight and coop games, there is a ww2 mod, a ww1 mod is being prepared, and all wars from 1946 to 80s can be simulated.

More, sfp1 allow for much better offline experience, as it has AI, campaign mode, etc...

The only downside is that, like targetware, it is that old ugly cfs/eaw technology for ground texturing. And collisions with ground objects aren't implemented either.

But honestly, i prefer to fly sfp1 rather that targetware, without any hesitation.

Stigler_9_JG52
07-25-2005, 11:40 PM
Good timing; Target:Tobruk just went open beta:

Target:Tobruk (http://targettobruk.twsim.net/)

As for SFP1, Huarmuth, no way. That game and that community are a joke. They have NO regard for anything resembling accuracy. They can't even get the '60s jets right, and they're already trying to do WWII. To them, if a plane looks like a plane, but has a grafted on flight model (and cockpit) from some placeholder aircraft, it's still the plane they purport it to be. They started modeling a Harrier without even checking with the developer to see if VIFF technology was supported.

They are prolific, but quality control and accuracy is VERY low. Even worse, the clique there are all so complimentary toward each other that they won't even stand for a healthy examination of the data; you so much as mention something might not be correct, and even if you provide proof of it, you'll be drawn and quartered for not joining the circle jerk and oohing and ahhing over every half-conceived release.

Also, SFP1 is basically only offline. The developer refused to bring the online capabilities up to any kind of standard, and that's why it never got any chance to develop a following on HyperLobby or anywhere else. All you can really do is play offline and tell lies online in forums about how you did. That and take screen grabs. IMO, any game that has no online head-to-head, online wars and co-ops is IRRELEVANT.

No thanks.

VT-51_Razor
07-26-2005, 01:02 AM
As soon as TR gets a carrier working in the game, I will take a much closer look at it. Up until then, I can't be bothered.

Gatt59
07-26-2005, 01:34 AM
Hoarmurath,

as far as researches are concerned, having helped those guys to dig out hard datas, I can assure you that they have the biggest collection of original italian flight manuals (with performance data) I have ever seen. I mean, they have contacted manufacturers and got the original manual even for single instruments and dials.

And yes, the screenshot is not a nice one. Graphics are better. Much better than WB2005 and AH2.

Cooperative flying severely limited? Dogfight style sim? Have you ever flown a mission or a scenario in a *real multiplayer* (I mean not 8 or 16 players but 200-300) sim? C'mon http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

csThor
07-26-2005, 01:50 AM
Well ... I wish you guys all the best with TW, but I must admit it leaves me cold. The MTO could actually rouse my interest, but the time where I might have thought about pay-to-play has gone by already.

Maybe I'm just desillusioned with the attitude of the players, but I have always - even during my time as CM on the german WB Server - found that most people would not even think about historical gameplay, the necessity and importance of bombers and transports and such things. Even for scenarios we had the greatest problems of filling non-fighter slots.
Same goes for my experience with Il-2/FB/PF - Online Wars degenerate into series of dogfights and turn out like a sportive competition between two teams. If I wanted that I'd play e-sports. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Even though I'm planning some event for a the community of a german Il-2 site atm I don't know if flying Online will take up more time in the future again. Offline has a big big advantage - even though the AI is not perfect by any standards it doesn't have an ego that needs to be stroked. It will fly bombers, transports and ground attack planes without moaning and *****ing why it can't have the latest über-plane. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Abbuzze
07-26-2005, 02:40 AM
Originally posted by csThor:
[..] but the time where I might have thought about pay-to-play has gone by already.


Yes that´s it. I think if this sim will be finished it will be good, but I will not pay for playing online neither for Targetware games nor for UBI-soft games in future.

GoToAway
07-26-2005, 03:27 AM
TW turns me off for two reasons.

1: Online pay-to-play. Not interested.

2: The fact that Stiglr has been shoving it down everyone's throat on an Il-2 forum since times immemorable.

269GA-Veltro
07-26-2005, 08:15 AM
We can only hope in MED after BoB as Oleg said.........if there will be "an after BoB"...
...Ubi could ask Oleg to work for a new "Prince of Persia" chapter.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

FabriKA
07-26-2005, 08:22 AM
I'm part of the TT developping team (i care about 3d and FM).
I'm not writing to say TT is better than PF or IL2 series i love too this series of games they are absolutly wonderful immpossible to say that's not so.
But till now Mediterranean Air war was not taken in consideration (no games do it) that's why we had dcided 2 years ago to start develop our own MOD we had tried to do our best to make it a good sim and we hope that some of you will invest part of his game time tring TT and also if you dislike it please say wy so we can improve aspect that are still not OK.
Everi comment will be useful after all it's free http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://utenti.lycos.it/fabriziowwiiol/TT/sm79.jpg
http://utenti.lycos.it/fabriziowwiiol/TT/dardo2.jpg
http://utenti.lycos.it/fabriziowwiiol/TT/dardo8.jpg
http://www.4stormo.it/public_archive/new_city_in_malta_1.jpg
http://www.4stormo.it/public_archive/over_t2.jpg
http://utenti.lycos.it/fabriziowwiiol/TT/boston2.jpg
http://utenti.lycos.it/fabriziowwiiol/TT/seaglad1.jpg
http://utenti.lycos.it/fabriziowwiiol/TT/saetta1.jpg

269GA-Veltro
07-26-2005, 08:44 AM
Have you got pics with the cockpit's view? SM 79 and Macchi are really amazing!

Gatt59
07-26-2005, 09:38 AM
Well, at least they care about the MED theatre and its a/c.

As I pointed out many times North Africa, Malta, Sicily and the invasion of Italy involved the RAF, SAAF, Luftwaffe, Regia Aeronautica and the USAAF. From 1940 up to 1945, with heavy bombers taking off from South Italy and bombing North Italy and Germany.
Add to this the convoy war from Alexandria and Gibraltar to resupply Malta and from Italy to resupply Axis forces in NA. Add special missions like the Ploesti low level raid.

Five air forces, aerial naval engagements, a lot of fighter bomber activity. A *NEW* thatre of ops. Not even BoB would have had a chance againts a well done MED stand alone sim from O.Maddox http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

csThor
07-26-2005, 09:59 AM
Gatt - What you're missing is the little negligable fact that Maddox Games has to write the basic engine, too. For that purpose (developing and introducing a new engine) I think the BoB is a far better choice than the Med, because it is limited speaking of planetyapes, ground and sea objects and especially timeframe. The Med is planned for a later stage - when the engine has matured and more work can be put into the different aircraft/ground and sea objects/maps/etc ...

269GA-Veltro
07-26-2005, 10:01 AM
Five air forces, aerial naval engagements, a lot of fighter bomber activity. A *NEW* thatre of ops. Not even BoB would have had a chance againts a well done MED stand alone sim from O.Maddox http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif


Gatt if i'm not wrong in the next years we should have BoB, a North African addon for BoB, and a MED stand-alone sim...all by Maddox Games. We need MED...but i agree with the Oleg's decison to make Battle of Britain first: it's THE begin, and it will be the best test for the next sims....MED first of all.

Only my speculations....off course.

Stigler_9_JG52
07-26-2005, 10:03 AM
VT-51_Razor wrote:

As soon as TR gets a carrier working in the game, I will take a much closer look at it. Up until then, I can't be bothered.

Well, that€s a pretty dismissive little swipe, isn€t it? It shows you have just as little grasp of the Pacific as Oleg€s team has. Yes, Midway, Coral Sea and a couple of other pivotal battles were HUGE and revolved around CVs, but€¦

Did you know the rest of the Pacific War was fought without them (seeing as so many had been lost in the aforementioned early battles culminating in Midway)? Guadalcanal, New Guinea, the Slot, Bougainville, much of the siege of Rabaul, all of these major campaigns were fought with land-based aircraft only, including US Navy, Marines, and IJNavy. CVs didn€t star in the show again until about 1944 in the Marianas, after both sides had had time to refit and build new ships. So, while CVs are nice to have as an option to take off and land from, they are far from critical. Plus with spawning issues, and the lack of working elevators and flight deck ops, they aren€t €œsimulated€ correctly anyway. As an example, if someone managed an online Midway, the situation where the Japanese admiral made a critical decision to rearm Kates with bombs instead of torps, and left a deck full of munitions just when the Dauntlesses arrived overhead, that would never happen, because €œreal€ flight ops aren€t simulated.

Also, in PF, CVs are often brought well within 100km of each other or close to targets just so the pilots don€t have to deal with the distances and the navigation issues. In the major battles, they didn€t often come within 200 nautical miles of each other. So, CVs aren€t so crucial, gameplay-wise, except as targets to bomb or defend. Many of the CVs are there as targets in :Rabaul.

269GA-Veltro
07-26-2005, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by csThor:
Gatt - What you're missing is the little negligable fact that Maddox Games has to write the basic engine, too. For that purpose (developing and introducing a new engine) I think the BoB is a far better choice than the Med, because it is limited speaking of planetyapes, ground and sea objects and especially timeframe. The Med is planned for a later stage - when the engine has matured and more work can be put into the different aircraft/ground and sea objects/maps/etc ...

Perfect!

This is the reason, i think, we'll have (better...we should have) also the italians in the Maddox's BoB (the italians flyable in a WW2 sim? A miracle!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif).....G-50 and CR-42 are good not only for the Battle of Britain but also for an early North African addon.

If Ubi agree and if we'll support Oleg buying the BoB....we'll have a superb MED sim after BoB.

Atomic_Marten
07-26-2005, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
First, it is an online only game, all you can do at home is flying alone in big maps.

Second, as there are no AI, it is a dogfight style game. Cooperative flying is severely limited by this aspect.

Third, grfx are quite ugly.

Fourth, i could not stop laughing last time i tried. While doing some low level flying in target rabaul (alone), i noticed that the trees were only for eye candy. I finally landed in the jungle, and continued my way on ground for a while, among trees.

About the research, as it is done by the players themselves, you can easily imagine what it can give by having a look at some of our "researchers" around here.

I would add that it is an open game, allowing modification by users.

Every single point that you have made is valid. 100%.

Biggest flaws from my POV are lack of AI (for offline and practice) and open source; particularly open source is instant online death for a game. Maybe not, some may say, but after they experience FB I doubt that they will disagree. That is quite bad for online only game.
That is why it is also not interesting to me either.
IMHO will never be even close to FB.

But on the other hand it is good to play with some rare WW2 birds.

csThor
07-26-2005, 10:42 AM
Personally I think we will see some other additions before the Med (which will probably be a much bigger project):

1.) Extension of Channel War into 1941-42
2.) If the teams can produce the needed quality the introduction of the Poland 1939 and France 1940 projects.
3.) Perhaps MG will introduce some US Aircraft which also served in the Med for the Western Theater (to get a few things ready before tackling the Med itself).

Just my impression ...

269GA-Veltro
07-26-2005, 01:28 PM
I've tested it offline....is true, not bad. Good FM.

Is the firs time i've the plesure to flight an italian fighter, thank for this guys! Very good the flight's sensation and yes....good FM.

http://ourworld.cs.com/veltrof2/MED/001.JPG

http://ourworld.cs.com/veltrof2/MED/004.JPG

http://ourworld.cs.com/veltrof2/MED/003.JPG

FabriKA
07-26-2005, 04:51 PM
Whel is not PF graphic but IMHO not bad
http://utenti.lycos.it/fabriziowwiiol/TT/79_burn.jpg
http://utenti.lycos.it/fabriziowwiiol/TT/79_form.jpg
http://utenti.lycos.it/fabriziowwiiol/TT/directhit.jpg

269GA-Veltro
07-27-2005, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by FabriKA:
http://utenti.lycos.it/fabriziowwiiol/TT/79_burn.jpg

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

Yes is very different from FB, and is a beta...but IS NOT Aces High! TT is much better than AA.
I like the flight's sensation. Very good the pilot's head movement in the cockpit, and nice cockpits!

Is not FB....but is a very good work, with a very good FM!

Pay to play online....... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

VT-51_Razor
07-27-2005, 12:53 AM
Well, that€s a pretty dismissive little swipe, isn€t it? It shows you have just as little grasp of the Pacific as Oleg€s team has. Yes, Midway, Coral Sea and a couple of other pivotal battles were HUGE and revolved around CVs, but€¦


Stiglr, it was, by no means meant to be a dismissive swipe. I was merely expressing my preferance for flying off of a carrier for my simming experience. I have no illusions about Oleg's omissions in PF, but it's the best there is out there right now. And I have no desire to go through the learning curve for TR until there is something in it to attract me.

As for your contention that carriers didn't play a major role after Midway, I suggest that you do a little more research on the matter. Look up the Battle of the Eastern Solomons and the Battle of the santa Cruz Islands, and their role in the Guadalcanal campaign. Also, I don't believe that we ever landed on a single island in the Pacific without the cover or prep from carrier based aviation. Granted, the carrier vs carrier war was, for all intents and purposes, over after Santa Cruz, and that would make for a pretty one sided online gaming experience, but that's not what we're talking about here is it?

Stig, your adherance to reality in computer simming, although admirable, can sometimes be quite borish. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

LEXX_Luthor
07-27-2005, 01:06 AM
csThor::
Offline has a big big advantage - even though the AI is not perfect by any standards it doesn't have an ego that needs to be stroked. It will fly bombers, transports and ground attack planes without moaning and *****ing why it can't have the latest über-plane. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Well said. War is a social event, and until a human player miltary style "culture" is supported by Online sim programming, Offline holds the potential for greatest realism. The problem is the Devs don't see the need for expanded Artificial Intelligence efforts. And that's sad, as AI is one of the classic elements of computer science. The best PC sim Flight Models make arcade X-box style games if we just score Dogfight brownie points over the internet.

FabriKA
07-27-2005, 02:40 AM
For a long time (until open beta end) you'll can fly online for free all the TW mods ,you just have to make a free account.

neural_dream
07-27-2005, 03:11 AM
Sure, but why should i stop playing FB which is free and much more polished for this one? I still don't get it. Oh i see, for the MTO and the WW1 mod http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif.

269GA-Veltro
07-27-2005, 09:12 AM
Thank FabriKA.

Who is the modeller of this Folgore? It's simple a perfect C 202, really a superb model! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

http://www.4stormo.it/public_archive/c202_ebola_7.jpg

http://www.4stormo.it/public_archive/c202_ebola_9.jpg

FabriKA
07-27-2005, 09:29 AM
3d and FM of 202 are mine and textures are from Ebola.
I've made also 3d (internal and external ) and FM for:

C200
C205
Re2001 (not yet released)
Re2005 (not yet released)
Cr42 (FM by Zorr)
SeaGladiator

269GA-Veltro
07-27-2005, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by FabriKA:
3d and FM of 202 are mine and textures are from Ebola.
I've made also 3d (internal and external ) and FM for:

C200
C205
Re2001 (not yet released)
Re2005 (not yet released)
Cr42 (FM by Zorr)
SeaGladiator

Very good work mate!!!

The wing attachment in the C 202 fuselage is a work of art! My congratulations!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

http://ourworld.cs.com/veltrof2/202.JPG

269GA-Veltro
07-27-2005, 01:11 PM
The dynamic reflection on the C 200 glasses is simple incredible!!!!

http://ourworld.cs.com/veltrof2/MED/006.jpg

Some other nice pics.

http://ourworld.cs.com/veltrof2/MED/007.jpg

http://ourworld.cs.com/veltrof2/MED/008.jpg

http://ourworld.cs.com/veltrof2/MED/009.jpg

http://ourworld.cs.com/veltrof2/MED/010.jpg

http://ourworld.cs.com/veltrof2/MED/012.jpg

Hoarmurath
07-27-2005, 01:25 PM
show us the ground so we can have a good laugh...

neural_dream
07-27-2005, 01:37 PM
lol

Stigler_9_JG52
07-27-2005, 02:08 PM
show us the ground so we can have a good laugh...

And compare it to IL-2, which puts all of North Africa in about a 30km by 30km square, and I'll join in the guffawing...

The terrain textures can always improve (and this is naturally in the works). But at least there's a REAL Mediterranean to fly over, and not some afterthought of a postage stamp to "pretend" represents about a 1000km coastline spanning 3 (then 4) countries.

MichaelMar
07-27-2005, 02:42 PM
If some people would stop considering OLEG as some God and look at the beauty and work placed in other flight sims then the entire flight sim market might improve some.

Yes, some of TW graphics are not are pretty as IL2, but TW is still in beta and there are works on improving the graphics as we speak.

Hoarmurath
07-27-2005, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by MichaelMar:
If some people would stop considering OLEG as some God and look at the beauty and work placed in other flight sims then the entire flight sim market might improve some.

Yes, some of TW graphics are not are pretty as IL2, but TW is still in beta and there are works on improving the graphics as we speak.

Go reread my posts... i suggested that people interested in an open flightsim with good offline play, and limited, but not pay to play online play, and expanding its planeset from wwI to 80s, should have a look at SFP1, were the plane are at least as good as those from TW, and the ground at least as awful.

I don't remember Oleg being involved in SFP1... Anyway, anyone coming in this forum to show us another flightsim is clearly asking for a comparison. So let compare... TW planes are nice, cockpits are not so nice, ground is awful. PF planes are nice, cockpits are gorgeous, and the ground, even if not perfect, is light years in advance to the one in TW.

If the point was only to speak about TW without comparing, there are multisims discussion boards, where such presentation will probably be welcome.

Stigler_9_JG52
07-27-2005, 07:29 PM
Hoarmaruth hallucinated:


...where the plane are at least as good as those from TW...

Not even CLOSE. SFP1 is by their own admission a "sim light", and doesn't pay nearly as much attention to getting the flight modeling right, or even the details of anything other than the external 3D model.

It's not all visuals, man; that's just a part of simulation. A pretty looking turd is still a turd.

Stigler_9_JG52
07-27-2005, 07:36 PM
Also of note from one of those screen grab galleries: Note that big display of red debug type. In there, you'll find nearly all the parameters of the plane in flight, so you can easily test all kinds of performance parameters and the operations of many systems. No "secret sources", no "trust me", no "is right, be sure". It's all there on the table for everyone to see.

Of course, after beta, this won't be available online, but probably offline for testing purposes.

Hoarmurath
07-27-2005, 08:13 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Hoarmaruth hallucinated:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...where the plane are at least as good as those from TW...

Not even CLOSE. SFP1 is by their own admission a "sim light", and doesn't pay nearly as much attention to getting the flight modeling right, or even the details of anything other than the external 3D model.

It's not all visuals, man; that's just a part of simulation. A pretty looking turd is still a turd. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wake up stigler, we were speaking about graphics...

And frankly, for your flight modelling accuracy, i will continue to have great doubts, especially since i learned that hayateace was happy with them. And we all know how fond he is of accurate flight models.

I gave a try to this "sim", and i was certainly not impressed.

Obviously, i'm not the only one.

Anyway, once it will go pay for play, i can tell you that whatever the price will be, it is going to be overpriced imo...

Stigler_9_JG52
07-27-2005, 11:17 PM
You looked at it for five minutes, couldn't figure out any of the engines, and just gave up. Many do. They expect to just be an ace in five minutes, and to tool around at 100% throttle every second of every sortie.

Targetware at least demands that you give it time to get your gear set up, learn about the intricacies of some planes' engines and operation and actually learn to fly somewhat. You can't judge it with a few minutes or a few hours' time. That is, if your idea is to give it a fair shakedown cruise.

And clearly, you're one of those "graphics ueber alles" guys, who can't see beyond "purty pictures" in a simulation. Pity. You're missing out on a whole different world.

Ah well. To each his own. I fly both TW and IL-2, and get some things out of both.

Gatt59
07-28-2005, 01:09 AM
Obviously this is an *off-topic* thread. Not difficult to understand. The main reason to post it (I guess) was that an online sim has introduced many new italian birds and the north african theatre of operations. The same theatre of ops many of us wanted instead of the third or fourth BoB sim.

Obviously TW and the TT mod are *not comparable* with Il-2 series for *many* reasons. Another thing not difficult to understand.

Some ppl fly both and are happy. Big surprise.

However, guess what!, some cheerleaders come out and post things like: "First, it is an online only game, all you can do at home is flying alone in big maps. Second, as there are no AI ... it is a dogfight style sim ..." http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

269GA-Veltro
07-28-2005, 01:57 AM
How many polygons for the TT C 202?

neural_dream
07-28-2005, 04:32 AM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Good timing; Target:Tobruk just went open beta:
Target:Tobruk (http://targettobruk.twsim.net/) I bet you had no idea http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

As for SFP1, Huarmuth, no way. That game and that community are a joke ...

It shows you have just as little grasp of the Pacific as Oleg€s team has.

You looked at it for five minutes, couldn't figure out any of the engines, and just gave up. Many do.

And clearly, you're one of those "graphics ueber alles" guys, who can't see beyond "purty pictures" in a simulation. Pity.

Mate i think i see what the following was for.


Originally posted by GoToAway:
... b) The fact that Stiglr has been shoving it down everyone's throat on an Il-2 forum since times immemorable.

I admit that without you i would probably not know that there is such thing, and i too find particularly interesting that there is an MTO and a WW1 mod which are considered decent and that the team behind it tries for maximum realism. That is great, but you don't have to attack every person with a hint of a negative remark against the product you are advertising.

Ugly_Kid
07-28-2005, 05:03 PM
Frankly, I don't know what's your disable. TW, at least with, or without, Stigler'S input leaves a good impression, it just isn't finished yet and there's noone really playing it at the moment but I am patiently and curiosly waiting to see how it will shape up and hoping I'll be positively surprised. For me it doesn't matter if the sand dust from the tyres really go in the wind direction or not and whether the japanese gunners were historically correct uniforms or not as a sim I have high expectations concerning TW. I like IL-2 and so on, but I think I am hardly going to fry in hell for admitting something being also lucrative - after all competition is what makes these things blossom - now this might shock you, I have also linux installed besides my windows...

neural_dream
07-28-2005, 06:01 PM
Linux is free and better, and i don't know what "what's your disable" means sir.

Stigler_9_JG52
07-28-2005, 07:51 PM
neural dream wrote:

...you don't have to attack every person with a hint of a negative remark against the product you are advertising.

Well, I also don't have to let comments stand that indicate the usual attention-deficit mentality of some folks, who don't give a sim any kind of chance (or themselves even a period of time to "get used to it"), don't look at anything beyond the visual facade, don't read the README, and fail to even understand what a sim is all about.

TW is full of things that either aren't finished, or aren't everybody's cup of tea, I'll freely admit that. But I'd like to see it fairly represented, and for some here, if it simply doesn't "look as good or better" as IL-2, which is in many respects a graphic watershed, it must not have any value at all. Hoarmurath's comments, in particular, if unchallenged would lead a person to have a pretty inaccurate view of what Targetware is (or isn't, as the case may be).

As for "advertising", well, I didn't start this thread...I'd call it more "defending" or perhaps "advocating"..... or "evangelizing" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ashley2005
07-28-2005, 08:17 PM
looks good in my oppinion ..ill be trying ..

mortoma
07-28-2005, 09:15 PM
I have no use for an online-only sim. What makes Oleg's sims so successful is the fact that it please both online and offline types, plus those that like a little of both worlds. When will Targetware developers get the message and develop an offline game engine for it?? I find online gameplay disappointing, even after having been on braodband for the last 3 years. Offline has limitatitions but at least I have fewer stutters, better frames, no lag/warping and can play at any time. Unlike online, where you can't play at times due to few others being online with you, such as the wee hours of the morning. It's been proven that slightly more than half of flight combat simmmers prefer the offline world, like me. I've tried online play for years, going back to ancient times with sims such as Airwarrior and Aces High back when it first started, had some fun but learned to love offline much more. Any time I tried to play FB/AEP/PF online most of the servers were boring dogfight servers and coops always made me do more waiting than flying!!! I hate the onine world!!

Stigler_9_JG52
07-28-2005, 11:00 PM
C'ya then. The rest of us will enjoy the challenge of virtual fighting against real "live" competition.

While your points may be valid, I find a game without an online component to be as good as useless. AI is problematic even in its best incarnation, and the more you play, the more its patterns become evident. On the other hand, you never know WHAT a guy online will do. All offline stuff, campaigns included, are just sideshows compared to facing human competition online.

Having flown TW for quite some time now, I can tell you that it's pretty smooth, even during times when many dozens of people were on (usually right after big releases). It has its hiccups now and then, and still a few issues to work out... but it's got less warping than I ever remember with Warbirds or Aces High.

csThor
07-28-2005, 11:41 PM
Stig - See my first post in this thread. The menthality of the people will keep numbers of bombers/transports etc lower than fighters - even if that's the greatest load of bollocks I've ever seen. I want a War Simulation, not a dogfight simulation which strokes the egos of folks who want to be a fighter pilot.

That is why I think AI modules are necessary, at least for bomber/dive-bomber/transport formations to populate the battlefield with a believable mix of planes and not just the "random ******** at 500ft between F4 and F9" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gatt59
07-29-2005, 02:51 AM
Originally posted by csThor:
That is why I think AI modules are necessary, at least for bomber/dive-bomber/transport formations to populate the battlefield with a believable mix of planes and not just the "random ******** at 500ft between F4 and F9" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

This will probably be the future of massive online sims. AH2 for example is developing such a mix: AI controlled missions/raids with real players joining them. Actually, AI is quite good as far as bombers are concerned, but it is simply awful when fighters are concerned. After playing online, I find IL-2 offline AI predictable, not challenging and often cheating.

And yes, "the random ******** between F4 and F9" made me take a one year leave from AH2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

csThor
07-29-2005, 03:14 AM
I hope not only for the Pay-to-Play MMP Sims, but also for "BoB" and beyond.

In my case the "********" killed my fun in the main arena on the german server. I mean it was fun once a while to shove up your killstreak from 4 or 5 to some thirty in just one night, but it became boring as it was highly repetetive. This - and because of the menthality of many players which influences the setup of online wars - is the reason why I gave up online.

Tater-SW-
07-29-2005, 08:50 AM
I agree with the necessity of some AI aircraft to ever have a truely immersive experience short of a pre-organized scenario event (S3, etc). It's already understood that AI is needed for gunner positions on bombers, having AI bombers is also pretty much required at some point as well, IMHO. Particularly in a setting where you might only see a small number of players.

To be fair in the other direction, I think Il-2 has artificial limits on online play given the coop/DF dichotomy. A little too "all or nothing" in terms of limitations. I'd like to see DF have limited moving objects (ships at the very least are required for PF). Basically a hybrid coop-DF system where respawn places are there (DF), but the other elements of the coop system are possible (like moving objects), and only limited based upon concerns about FR.

tater

Stigler_9_JG52
07-29-2005, 10:27 AM
I happen to agree with you, Thor (and others). For example, even a dogfighter purist should be able to see the value in having AI formations for offline, just to be able to practice gunnery passes and other tactics.

TW does have AI gunners, and in the near term, there are some changes planned which are going to change a LOT of the AI vs. real player paradigm. I hope it does extend to offline play, although you can easily see that, for an online sim to create and maintain critical mass, offline utility has to be curtailed, so that AI doesn't create just as fun an experience offline. You want people to fly online, not "hide" offline against only AI adversaries.

mortoma
07-30-2005, 03:36 PM
You may want people to fly online with you and there's nothing wrong with that Stigler, but as for the developers, they "want" people to fly mostly online so they can pry your $$ from you in thier greed. I'm just glad that Oleg's sim not only does not charge for online play for those that like it ( and even I fly online at times ) but it's also a well developed offline game engine for people who like that too. Why do you have to be so narrowly focused Stigler? I don't understand that. I agree that AI fighters are somewhat predictable, but it still can be a challenge and great fun for many of us offliners.

One misconception that continues to be perpetuated is that people who fly mostly offline are not as talented as online pilots, supposedly because real human pilots are better. That may be true to a small extent but I have proven myself worthy many times in the rare instances I fly on HL. I have flown against some very well know sim pilots and have done quite well, thank you very much!! I have beaten or held my own agianst most of them, and of course have been shot down a few times too!! Not bragging but flying mostly offline over the years has made me a good sim pilot, believe it or not.

By the way, I don't feel flying offline is "hiding" from anything or anybody, it's just I feel it's a better experience for me personally, whether you like it or not. You have never accepted the fact that most of us like to fly offline. I always feel a need to defend offline play, and the players.

Stigler_9_JG52
07-30-2005, 05:49 PM
I'm just expressing my opinion, is all.

Whether you feel the need to 'defend' offline play is up to you.

But, I don't feel you will get "as good" flying offline only as you will by flying online. No scientific evidence for this, mind you, but I believe it to be true nonetheless.

As for the value of online play, if it's a quality experience, I have no problem paying for it. Like almost anything else, "you get what you pay for". And, it's not just GREED on the parts of online devs. If they keep something like WWIIOL (or anything massively multiplayer) online and constantly developed, they also keep staff and invest a lot of time and effort into it, and I feel they have a right to be compensated for it.

By the same token, I've ponied up @$40 for each of Oleg's 4 titles, and not *****ed about it. I think he's entitled to charge for that, too. Different "pricing scale", but same concept.

WB_Outlaw
07-30-2005, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by mortoma:
...but as for the developers, they "want" people to fly mostly online so they can pry your $$ from you in thier greed. I'm just glad that Oleg's sim not only does not charge for online play for those that like it...

What an ignorant thing to say. Is your ISP greedy for requiring you to pay for your service? Is the phone company greedy for charging you for service? Do you work for free? If not, then STFU about "greed" when it come to pay for play. Don't pay for it if you don't want to, that's your choice, but don't whine about how horrible and evil the developers are for charging for their service. Do you have even the slightest idea of how much real bandwidth costs? What about redundant bandwidth, guaranteed power, servers with hot spare everything, servers with a service agreement, office space, talented modelers, programmers, etc???? I didn't think so.

Of course 1C doesn't charge for online play because THEY DO NOT PROVIDE ANY ONLINE SERVICE you igmos!!!

-Outlaw.

neural_dream
07-30-2005, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by mortoma:
One misconception that continues to be perpetuated is that people who fly mostly offline are not as talented as online pilots, supposedly because real human pilots are better

In every game online gamers are significantly better than offline gamers (flight sims, RTS, FPS, whatever). There are a few exceptions (of gamers not games).

LEXX_Luthor
07-30-2005, 09:14 PM
Talent or skill in Dogfight gaming may not be what mortoma is posting about. The basic internet Brownie Point score may be the most appropriate, and perhaps today only, measure of Online gaming skill, but is not what some simmers like csThor are looking for. They have a different goal and look for a different experience like, as Thor says, air warfare simulation as opposed to The Dogfight(tm).

The best potential for Online play is AI being used to fill out the ranks. So, we see that AI is not a Offline vs Online issue, as the same AI programming developments in the future would benefit both.

Stigler_9_JG52
07-31-2005, 11:01 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

D'oh!

I'm in agreement with Luthor??? :faints dead away:

*thud*

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

LEXX_Luthor
07-31-2005, 05:33 PM
http://www.boardy.de/images/smilies/ylflower.gif

mortoma
08-03-2005, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mortoma:
...but as for the developers, they "want" people to fly mostly online so they can pry your $$ from you in thier greed. I'm just glad that Oleg's sim not only does not charge for online play for those that like it...

What an ignorant thing to say. Is your ISP greedy for requiring you to pay for your service? Is the phone company greedy for charging you for service? Do you work for free? If not, then STFU about "greed" when it come to pay for play. Don't pay for it if you don't want to, that's your choice, but don't whine about how horrible and evil the developers are for charging for their service. Do you have even the slightest idea of how much real bandwidth costs? What about redundant bandwidth, guaranteed power, servers with hot spare everything, servers with a service agreement, office space, talented modelers, programmers, etc???? I didn't think so.

Of course 1C doesn't charge for online play because THEY DO NOT PROVIDE ANY ONLINE SERVICE you igmos!!!

-Outlaw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>How ignorant are you for attacking me for posting my opinion? Which I'm entitled to and I still feel the same way, despite your mentally deficient retort. You can pay all the hard earned dollars you want to, playing and paying when there are great sims that can be played online for free. So bite my butt you sorry *** mealy-mouthed jerk!! Where did you get you manners and ettiquette?? Were you improperly brought up by your parents?? And who is ignorant?? I bet I have a much higher I.Q. than you do any day!!!

mortoma
08-03-2005, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by neural_dream:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Originally posted by mortoma:
One misconception that continues to be perpetuated is that people who fly mostly offline are not as talented as online pilots, supposedly because real human pilots are better

In every game online gamers are significantly better than offline gamers (flight sims, RTS, FPS, whatever). There are a few exceptions (of gamers not games). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Bullkrap!! There is nothing magical about playing online that makes your reflexes or timing or anything else better for that matter. You are entirely discounting natural talent, which could make someone good no matter what limitations they may place on themselves, such as playing aginst AI. You are also over-generalizing.
For me, playing against AI has been sufficient and I have proven to myself I'm as good as any pure onliner out there!! The only reason I play online ( in rare instances ) is for the sole reason of proving to myself I am as good as any of the big online guns. I have fought most of them, in dogfight rooms and coops both. So i should know how well I compare to any of them.

neural_dream
08-03-2005, 05:33 PM
There are a few exceptions (of <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">gamers</span> not games)

mortoma
08-03-2005, 05:35 PM
Alright then, your point has been made. No problem as long as you understand that.

mortoma
08-03-2005, 05:39 PM
By the way, I'm sick of the elitist attitude the onliners usually have, whereby they make sport of us offliners. We never make fun of you online guys. Not talking about you neural_dream, or any one individual in partticular.