PDA

View Full Version : 'Completing' PF with torp planes, more ships, and maps...



Scrapper_511
06-26-2005, 11:53 AM
I think the consensus is Pacific Fighters is not considered 'complete' due to missing torpedo bombers, numerous ship classes, and maps.

Although I consider PF a great sim, the immersion factor is lacking due to the missing elements mentioned above. Many planes, ships, and locations I've marvelled over in the books I've read and documentaries I have seen are not included!

Some say PF is done for, but I continue to hope that Oleg, his team, or some third party will persevere in delivering the missing elements to be incorporated into this already wonderful title, making it truly the 'IL2 Forgotten Battles' of the Pacific.

Legal issues aside, surely, the current PF engine can allow additional planes, ship classes, and maps, correct???

DuxCorvan
06-26-2005, 01:47 PM
Only thru 1C implementation, but they've yet stated that they won't accept any more models than the ones they have yet in the queue -still unreleased- and no more ships are in it.

The only torp bomber they've been working at is B6N Tenzan "Jill", we'll see it hopefully in the future. There are also a bunch of planes in line, but we're not sure which ones will see the light, if they ever do.

After that, all 1C manpower will concentrate in BoB, their next WIP project.

And, no, not being designed as open-ended, and needing full compilation of sources after every update, the engine can't allow 3rd party to include the stuff themselves.

Talon8452
06-26-2005, 02:32 PM
I know the Arizona was made for PF,I know the guy who made it.I also work with him on some of his projects.The person who made the Yorktown pulled it out because of the trademark issues and I heard Colorado was made.

Nimits
06-26-2005, 07:15 PM
I am 99% sure there should be no trademark issues with the "birdcage" battleships (alot of them were laid down before Northrop-Grumman was even in existance), and anyway, I would just like to see someone try to trademark the Arizona (which just happen's to be an American national monument). So tell me again why we can't have the Arizona?

Obi_Kwiet
06-27-2005, 08:15 PM
There are no trademarks on ships.

Tater-SW-
06-27-2005, 08:23 PM
Guess who bought the Newport News Shipyard?

N-G.

tater

Scrapper_511
06-27-2005, 08:42 PM
The following saw service in considerable numbers and I hope to see them in PF someday:

Kawasaki Ki-45 Toryu 2-engine, 2-seat fighter
Kawasaki Ki-48 2-engine, light bomber
Mitsubishi Ki-21 "Sally" bomber
Mitsubishi Ki-67 Hiryu "Peggy" bomber
Nakajima Ki-44 Shoki "Tojo" fighter
Nakajima Ki-49 Donryu
Aichi E13A Seaplane
Mitsubishi G3M "Nell" bomber
Mitsubishi F1M Seaplane
Nakajima J1N "Irving" Gekko
Nakajima B6N Tenzan
Yokosuka D4Y Suisei "Judy"
Yokosuka P1Y Ginga "Frances" medium bomber
Northrop P-61 Black Widow

Also, maps for Chinese, Phillippines, Solomons
and various ship classes.

Nimits
06-27-2005, 10:48 PM
following saw service in considerable

Let's please not forget the SB2C and the TBD. Their "rights," if owned by anybody would belong to Curtiss-Wright and Boeing, respectively; Maybe there's hope for them?

Atomic_Marten
06-27-2005, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by Scrapper_511:
The following saw service in considerable numbers and I hope to see them in PF someday:

Kawasaki Ki-45 Toryu 2-engine, 2-seat fighter
Kawasaki Ki-48 2-engine, light bomber
Mitsubishi Ki-21 "Sally" bomber
Mitsubishi Ki-67 Hiryu "Peggy" bomber
Nakajima Ki-44 Shoki "Tojo" fighter
Nakajima Ki-49 Donryu
Aichi E13A Seaplane
Mitsubishi G3M "Nell" bomber
Mitsubishi F1M Seaplane
Nakajima J1N "Irving" Gekko
Nakajima B6N Tenzan
Yokosuka D4Y Suisei "Judy"
Yokosuka P1Y Ginga "Frances" medium bomber
Northrop P-61 Black Widow

Also, maps for Chinese, Phillippines, Solomons
and various ship classes.

Uhm. Out of all those planes you mentioned there is only 1 non-Japanese. And that one has already been built.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

P-61 project (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/2551085023/r/2551085023#2551085023)
But will never see 'service' in PF.
--------------------
BTW I'd settle with flyable B5N or B6N and Devastator or Avenger, since we wont have 4-engine bombers flyable.
For me that is enough for PF project. It still has a lot of various objects and other stuff that can keep dedicated player exploring it for a long long time.

Scrapper_511
06-28-2005, 05:19 PM
Uhm. Out of all those planes you mentioned there is only 1 non-Japanese. And that one has already been built.

So? Aside from the SB2C and TBF (thank you Nimits) what other allied aircraft (in Pac theatre) did I forget to mention that is not already in PF? Again this was a wishlist. So even though the P-61 has already been 'built', you and the thread indicate it won't make it into PF. Thus it stays in the wishlist. Thanks for the link though.

BTW, I'm not wishing for more flyable aircraft. Merely inclusions of several more.

Nimits
06-28-2005, 05:47 PM
Major American Combat Aircraft still entirely missing from Pacific Fighers:

B-26 Marauder
OS2U Kingfisher
SB2U Vindicator
PBM Mariner
P-61 Black Widow
SB2C Helldiver
TBD Devestator
PV1-Ventura

AlmightyTallest
06-28-2005, 06:25 PM
Don't forget the different variants of aircraft missing from PF namely the F4U-4 and P-47N. We already have a map for those two as well. Okinawa

Scrapper_511
06-28-2005, 10:33 PM
While including all variants of a given aircraft would be nice, I think it's more practical to include just the major models. But the exclusion of major aircraft is another thing. I won't even get started on ships...and maps...

Tater-SW-
06-28-2005, 11:02 PM
Nimits, you are certainly right, but we need far more IJA planes than anything else.

Scrapper's list is pretty good.

Nell, Sally, Helen, and Nick, Nate and Ann top my list. I'd love to see a Dave as well.

tater

Nimits
06-28-2005, 11:18 PM
Problem with IJA planes, even if we get them, we don't really have many places to fly them. For the maps we have, an SB2C and SB2U would make as much or more sense as a Ki-21 (though I Nell, which is really IJN, would be most useful for Wake, Singapore, and New Guinea)

Besides, the PTO is the chance for the carrier to shine. Give me a flyable torpedo bomber for each side and a couple more ships to sink, and I will shut up.

You know, every now and then I am still tempted to chuck IL-2 and go back to CFS2; which has: LSOs (after a fashion) dozens of ship classes available, flyable torpedo bombers and late war divebombers, global map with Rabaul, Clark Field, Munda, Lae, etc, and even a decent flight model. If it weren't for the (relatively) superb visual experiance and (overall) excellent flight and weapons modelling in IL-2, I would probably have "defected" already. Actually, to tell the truth, the two things about CFS2 that stop me every time are the roll damge bug and the collision model; despite numerous player-made workarounds, no one was ever able to completely resolve the problem (and in the collision bubble case, its purely a question of poor game design). All well . . . I guess this is as good as its gets.

All I can really hope is that, once Maddox switches full production to Battle of Britain, they can turn the rights over to some third party studie (maybe like Sockwave?) that could add some of the missing ships, maps, and perhaps even planes. Well, that, and I can still dream that Maddox Games is planning one large super-patch with a Central Solomons map, flyable US torpedo bombers, amd the Mogami, Kongo, and Arizona.

Sigh . . .

Tater-SW-
06-29-2005, 12:10 AM
Actually, I'd rather muddle through with some Burma planes on extant IL-2 maps (take one like Kuban and remove all the place names, for example) than more CV stuff.

The naval aspect of the game is sorely lacking. No, it's a plane sim, not a ship sim, but concentrating on ships requires a better ship DM, and some actual AI for ships, otherwise it's kind of pointless. Flyable TBs when the target is always too stupid to comb the attack? What's the point of an anvil attack on ships that never turn... Add to that the nasty issue of AAA making FR unplayable and you have big, juicy targets that cannot evade, and have to have their AAA protection turned absurdly low. Oh, and torpedo drop parameters are not really modelled.

With ya on 3d party, though.


tater

Nimits
06-29-2005, 12:33 AM
I don't know if you ever played Pacific Air War, but I remember flying Devestators and Avengers in that: you had to finesse that torpedo run just right, and even if you mangaged to survive the flack and fighters, and even if you manged to get your Mk XIII dropped without it exploding on impact, chances were that IJN carrier was still going to "comb the wakes." Ah, what a frustratingly authentic, wholly enjoyable experiance . . .

Why can't we have Pacific Air War for Windows XP? Why? Why? Why?

AlmightyTallest
06-29-2005, 09:00 AM
I feel your pain Nimits, if only they would take the best lessons from the older Pacific Flight sims like Aces of the Pacific and Pacific Air War, or even CFS2, we'd have the perfect Pacific Flight Simulator.

Here's to hoping. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

lbhskier37
06-29-2005, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by Nimits:
Major American Combat Aircraft still entirely missing from Pacific Fighers:

B-26 Marauder
OS2U Kingfisher
SB2U Vindicator
PBM Mariner
P-61 Black Widow
SB2C Helldiver
TBD Devestator
PV1-Ventura

They are restorying a PV1 Ventura to flyable condition a couple blocks from my house I guess. I have yet to go see it though.

lebobouba
06-29-2005, 03:40 PM
Some of them will be very useful :

US planes

P38 F/G Lightning
A20 C Havoc
P51 Allison engine versions SB2C Helldiver
TBD Devastator

Commonwealth planes

Bristol Beaufort
Lockheed Hudson
CAC Boomerang

Japanese planes

Ki 21 Sally
Ki 51 Sonia
D4Y Judy
G3M Nell
B7A Grace

shinden1974
06-29-2005, 03:56 PM
We should rename this thread...PAW, AOP nostalgia thread...I'm with you nimits and AlmightyTallest...PAW and AOP are to this day the most complete out of the box PW sims ever made. Still, I remember the first time I picked up 1942 fresh off an addiction to AOP: 'only 1942, where's all the planes!!?' they fixed it up pretty good.

I still load up CFS2 with the right downloads it's fine...but there's always something thumping at the back of your head with all the add-ons...whats the standard?

The big complaints about PF from my angle anyway are because it's been so long, and you expect something better...nothing compares to this series of sims and it's heartbreaking to get so close to what you've always wanted and be so far.

I wasn't on these boards when I saw PF at the store...I looked into it a little bit and gobbled it up. It IS a great sim, but only because Il-2 FB is a great sim, none of the features that made the PTO unique were represented as well as I hoped.

I figured that this sim would be improved on and added to the way Il-2 was...and it was heartbreaking to find out all I've learned since I got here...that it was broken from the beginning, that legal issues came up and smashed half the project, that a half-hearted effort in some cases may have hurt PF, and worst of all, the feeling that nobody really cares about this thing anymore, and wants to wash their hands of it...'let's move on!' 'BOB!'

I've given up any hope of getting the PW sim standard from PF, I only hope they add a flyable George, Jack and a few other planes before they end support completely, and that's fading. I do hope that some day, under better circumstances Oleg revisits this theater and makes it all it could be, thanks to him I have an appreciation for the air war in Russia like I've never even considered before, I hope he feels the same way about the PTO.

Scrapper_511
06-29-2005, 07:18 PM
Nicely written Shinden1974. With my ever-decreasing time for computer gaming comes very selective game purchasing. Following the footsteps of IL2, I thought Pacific Fighters was to be the be-all & end-all of PTO sims.

I doubt I'll be in the hobby when a new and improved Pacific Fighters sequel becomes available...after BoB, Mediterranean, ETO, and full circle to an IL2 sequel. So you know how much I'm really hoping that PF has not become the afterthought that I gather it to be around here, and instead there are real efforts to 'complete' it.

Blackdog5555
06-29-2005, 08:10 PM
Just some software developers kits for terrain and map building .... Who knows maybe we will get PF2 after BOB with the new complete map set..Betcha!

charlielima
06-29-2005, 10:42 PM
P-61, PBJ / B-24H, and the PV would be sweet. CL

AlmightyTallest
06-30-2005, 10:26 AM
Well, there's Pacific Storm coming sometime this year. If the flight models are at least like 1942PAW I'd be happy. Combine that with the strategy and gameplay like PTO or PTO2 and I think it would be pretty fun.

Found a video and screenshots of Pacific Storm here if anyone might be interested:

http://www.gamershell.com/download_6918.shtml

Nimits
06-30-2005, 02:26 PM
Well, I don't have any great hopes for Pacific Storm as a flight sim, and no Yorktown, TBF or TBD visible yet, but it looks like a very intersting light wargame, sort a WWII version of Total War or Imperial glory. I will probably pick it up.

Tater-SW-
06-30-2005, 02:47 PM
I think it's important to note that the reason so many of us have issues with PF is that Oleg set the bar so very high. That's the problem with setting a standard---people will expect more of the same from you.

tater

AlmightyTallest
06-30-2005, 02:54 PM
Well said Tater, I saw what was done over the past few years with IL2 then what was added in the AEP addon. Just sort of hoped the Pacific would get the same kind of attention to detail.

BSS_Vidar
06-30-2005, 03:06 PM
Heck, I'ld like to see Pearl Harbor packed with US Battleships lined up in there instead of British and German! Not even one Arizona rendering. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif With that, the Nevada and Pennsilvania could be in the game too because all three were of the same class.

Bolt40
06-30-2005, 07:49 PM
I'd be shocked if we got any addons to PF now ,
it'll be one BS excuse after another ..sound familiar ? all the fanboys say move on to BoB
and wait for the addons to that game engine ..so you're lookin' at maybe a PF sim
around 2010 ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif no thanks ..finish PF with
the essential aircraft / ships and make movable objects in DF servers ..you'll get my money along with many others for the addon disc http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

jalsina
07-01-2005, 11:03 AM
I am relatively new to the FB+PF game system. Sometime ago I tried the early IL-2 and I had really fun for about a couple months. It was the time when CFS3 was collapsing as a game and M$ was making plans to get rid of all their flight simulations.
I also had the misfortune to be a beta tester of CFS3 and the pleasure to do the same thing in CFS2. During that period I had the opportunity to have frequent contact with development leaders at Microsoft Game Division. Lots of features were promissed and the same way they came they went gone sooner than later. Then the quasi total lack of support in CFS2 and CFS3.

It's always the same with these simulations!

There is always lots of things missing. The producers do not understand that to mess with this kind of games they have to be very historically accurate. You can't release a New Guinea or Guadalcanal map the way it was done in PF, or to release a fantasy desert map. And

But their work is about projects with limited resources, a budget and a time-to-market to meet, and once they get to the top, they just end the development and the support and concentrate in the following games.
With Microsoft it was still worse than with Maddox, but not much more.

I wonder why Oleg and his crew do not develop another software package capable of designing aircraft and object models, design their damage profiles and flight dynamics, plus a module to design maps by using universal geographical data. They would sell this by thousands.
I miss the SKDs in M$ Flight Simulator

Besides why this people put their followers to try to find out how to do this and to do that with the mission full editor. For example, the static ships that can be rotated in the FMB in three axes but only get the rotation along the Z axis. What's this? The feature is built into the game. This series of games are left with so many bugs but with the sensation that it's complete due to the big amount of aircraft available both for flying and for IA purposes.

Then the other story (hard to believe by the way), about airplanes that can't be done flyable because of patents or rights or whatever. All the sims before had these airplanes included.

And with all that, we still have a lot of fun.


Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
I think it's important to note that the reason so many of us have issues with PF is that Oleg set the bar so very high. That's the problem with setting a standard---people will expect more of the same from you.

tater

Tater-SW-
07-01-2005, 11:31 AM
Yeah, US BBs would be nice. Without them, the Pearl map was a completely wasted effort, IMO. Every single minute spent on the Hawaii map could have been spent on making a better Slot map or better New Guinea map---2 maps that are actually useful. A pointed example of abysmal management. Spending time and effort on a map with no targets to attack---and even if the BBs were there, no one could fly the real mission anyway, as soon as the AAA came up it's a slideshow.

It would be great to see an "Early New Guinea" map based on the current one (like the "early Guadalcanal" map). Take all the airfields except the biggest in Port Moresby, and either eliminate them, or turn them into a single grass strip with NO buildings, etc of any kind.That would be a great stand-in for the central NG are we lack, and should be a trivial map to make since it involves taking a current map, and SUBTRACTING things.

It's funny. many in here suggest that the real point of PF is the CV battles, nothign could be farther from the truth. No one can play a realistic CV campaign even in single mode, coop or DF is a joke. If AAA is at realistic levels, its seconds per frame, not frames per second. With ships that cannot make evasive action, AAA must be at realistic levels for ships to even have a chance. So right off the bat, CV based campaigns are realistically impossible.

Seriously, the first thing you need to think about in designing the PTO for this engine is to look at the limitations of the engine, and people's hardware, THEN pick a focus for the project that works. PF should have been "Shoestring," "Flying Tigers," "Kenney's Kids" (5th AF NG), or "The Slot"---something like that. Why? Because the early days are the only times where people can really fly historical missions since the number of planes in RL was usually small. Honestly, those operations are ideal for this game, not fleet actions, or massive bomber streams. Single squadrons attacking harbors and airfields, with similar enemy forces flying CAP. It's happenstance that we have the IJN planes to do some of their land-based actions and make these missions. Too bad the maps don't support it well.

tater

jalsina
07-01-2005, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
......and even if the BBs were there, no one could fly the real mission anyway, as soon as the AAA came up it's a slideshow.

Remember in CFS2? Was the same with the Pearl Harbor mission. Totally unuseful! Another "past" slide show.

It would be great to see an "Early New Guinea" map based on the current one (like the "early Guadalcanal" map). Take all the airfields except the biggest in Port Moresby, and either eliminate them, or turn them into a single grass strip with NO buildings, etc of any kind.That would be a great stand-in for the central NG are we lack, and should be a trivial map to make since it involves taking a current map, and SUBTRACTING things.

Yeah! You read my mind! RAAF 75, 22nd BG, 49th FG, 8 FS, 80 FS, etc..
BTW, same story as in CFS2: You could not remove the airfield default objects. People never learn, in spite of loud complaining by users

It's funny. many in here suggest that the real point of PF is the CV battles, nothign could be farther from the truth. No one can play a realistic CV campaign even in single mode, coop or DF is a joke. If AAA is at realistic levels, its seconds per frame, not frames per second. With ships that cannot make evasive action, AAA must be at realistic levels for ships to even have a chance. So right off the bat, CV based campaigns are realistically impossible.

Not only this! In New Guinea during 1943 and 1944 5th AF made more sorties than in the complete carrier force during the war. The great Pacific War stories are from the Slot and in New Guinea

....Too bad the maps don't support it well.

But IMO it was really a lack of history knowledge. This people who managed in a magnificent way the Eastern Front, could not achieve the same job with the Pacific Theather.

It's a pitty that PF will not yet be "THE PACIFIC WAR GAME", and for me it hardly will replace CFS2, specially with the large amount of add-ons available in the M$ game.

Blackdog5555
07-01-2005, 10:40 PM
I agree Jalsina and Tater. The lack of correct maps is a major problem.. IMO, The lack of historical accuracy in the campaign really is unforgivable..That really destoyed a lot of the fun for the offliners. I cant stand taking poetic license with the hisory of the war. The game is enjoyable with the addon missions developed by fans. "Cactus Diary" is how the developers should have looked at game development. I can be sympathetic to a point. Current CPU/GPU wont support correct rendering of a real battle situations. Maybe with the use of a PhysX chip?

Anyway, Oleg and team are working on Whirlwind vietnam. I hope he gets his jungle textures down. If anyone can put a chopper war sim together, it would be 1C. x-plane and MSFS2004 choppers are fun to fly but really hard to land ...need autoland,...LOL.

you wanted a online european game...you got an online european game.

Talon8452
07-01-2005, 11:00 PM
With the new technology Pearl will no longer be a slide show in CFS2 and you will have the right BBs in harbor.I've done some missions for it and have over 80 ships in harbor with 49 kates attacking and it runs like a charm.Also the torpedo exploding when it hits the water in the harbor has been fixed.
I also fly and do missions for PF.

Nimits
07-02-2005, 12:35 AM
You the same Talon that made the Marianas campaign for DCG?

You have your Pearl missions available for download somewhere?

Talon8452
07-02-2005, 07:05 AM
I did the Marianas campaign and helped with the Marianas DCG.The Pearl Scenery is not finished yet so missions aren't up.Hopefullt it should be done by December.

Talon8452
07-02-2005, 07:05 AM
I did the Marianas campaign and helped with the Marianas DCG.The Pearl Scenery is not finished yet so missions aren't up.Hopefully it should be done by December.

Tater-SW-
07-02-2005, 07:37 AM
I have a historical mission I've messed with for Foss's attack on low level Betty bombers armed with torpedos over the Sealark Channel the 13th of November. The enemy planes came around north of Florida Island, and attacked the shipping off Tulagi/Guadalcanal from the East that day. Foss, et al was at 29,000ft when he spotted the bombers, and lead the F4Fs and P-39s screaming down to attack them. 8 F4Fs, 8 P-39s, 16 G4Ms, as many zeros, and I put all the appropriate US ships in the harbor (I had to guess their locations and arrangement). They had warning of the bombers from coas****chers, so they were actually steaming.

Long story short, even with the AAA turned down a little it's brutal on my rig and can get kinda choppy.

tater

Scrapper_511
07-02-2005, 10:40 AM
I just realized that the lack of aircraft could be a direct result of lack of maps where such planes historically operated. In which case, I reiterate my wish for MORE MAPS.

Allow me to also clarify that my wish-list of planes (pp.1 of this thread) need not necessarilly be flyable. That'd clearly be asking too much! But at least give us them planes as targets for user missions.

Lack of major ship classes very annoying in PF as well!

Blackdog5555
07-02-2005, 12:18 PM
Olegs objects use massive GPU. I have a fairly high end system and it stutters on the Tarawa invasion when a lot of palm tree objects are used. So, to fix the problem Oleg doesnt draw then until after you are right over them. Games need a better objuect drawing program that has a better olgorithms in in object drawing...When you dont use palms of course you then have a desert island.

I love CFS2.The one glaring flaw with CFS2 f or me, are the bad 3D cockpits (horrible)..the DM are arcadish too. But its still fun to play. But its landscape textures are better than 1C IMO.

Bearcat99
07-02-2005, 02:20 PM
While it would be nice to see all that "missing" content..... including at least 7 more maps of the PTO, ETO and Med it is doubtfull that it will happen. It amazes me... when we had IL2... and Forgotten Battles was barely a rumor... everyone got along fine... I flew my Redtail Yaks and Las.... we used Pe8s as stand in B-17s.... Gulf of Findland map for The English Channel... the Crimea for Normandy.... and it wasnt "accurate" but we made do and it was tolerable. I suggest we take that same attitude and apply it here because although I would not be surprised at all if we managed to actually get some of the stuff tat is "missing" I doubt if we will ever see the full blown PTO sim that so many of you seem to feel we need... and it's OK... If we could have at least 4 AI planes made flyable and a few more maps Id be happy. To expect this sim to cover even 90% of the PTO or WW2 for that matter is asking quite a bit but frankly I think it does a great job of covering the war from several different fronts and in more graphical detail than anything smoking to date.... but hey.. Im not too hard to please.

Scrapper_511
07-02-2005, 03:51 PM
I never complained about the IL2 series. An Eastern Front sim was long overdue and Oleg delivered in aces! I think most all combat aircraft that served in the theatre were included in it and in subsequent patches and expansions, plus ETO planes as a bonus.

I got Pacific Fighters to play in the PTO. In it, I don't want to recreate battles over the English channel, escort B-17s over Berlin, or fly close-support during Overlord. If you want to do all that with an Eastern Front sim then everyone should 'get along fine'. But why should we settle for English ships in Pearl Harbor??? I do think PF is a very good sim and the best in the market for PTO, but I do not think it too much to ask for more maps, ships, and planes that actually existed in the PTO and in considerable numbers. At least give us the right to express our disappointment about it.

|CoB|_Spectre
07-02-2005, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by Nimits:
I don't know if you ever played Pacific Air War, but I remember flying Devestators and Avengers in that: you had to finesse that torpedo run just right, and even if you mangaged to survive the flack and fighters, and even if you manged to get your Mk XIII dropped without it exploding on impact, chances were that IJN carrier was still going to "comb the wakes." Ah, what a frustratingly authentic, wholly enjoyable experiance . . .

Why can't we have Pacific Air War for Windows XP? Why? Why? Why?

I've asked myself that same question Nimits. On the whole, PAW Gold was, IMHO, ahead of its time. Features that have been requested for this sim were present in PAW several years ago. If someone like Shockwave were to undertake updating the graphics engine and FM/DM modeling to today's computer capability, I think "PAW II" could succeed handily. I lamented the inability to play PAW on later operating systems, it was such a fine work.

Tater-SW-
07-02-2005, 09:16 PM
One, most islands were covered with jungle---real trees, not palms. Dense jungle right to water's edge.

Two, many plams were crops planted in neat rows.

It wouyld be easy to make huge palm forests and jungle for PF right now. It will take 4 new polygons TOTAL. Yes, 4.

One, a palm grove object like the current stacked 2D forests that cover much of the maps. Even rows of fronds from above. They would be stacked with only the top few layers getting fronds. Two, the remaining layers have brown circles for trunks. Make sure the total layers are slightly LOWER than the existing palm tree objects so you can put some "real" ones along the edge.

Three, a SIDE view of a palm grove poly. This would be put inside the forest edge by a mission builder. It would be evenly spaced palm trees from the side.

Four , a single poly side view of jungle that is as high as the extant 2D forest objects.

There, done. 4 objects, and all the textures can be done using screenshots of existing 3D objects already in game.

tater