PDA

View Full Version : If you are a fan of the pacific theatre



BaldieJr
03-21-2005, 04:39 PM
and you want this series to grow, you better get yourself to the il2 main page and VOTE for the ki-100. As a matter of fact, you might want to get a few friends to help, otherwise, we'll see nothing but BoB, BoB Gold, and BoB: Gentlemens Expansion.

MEGILE
03-21-2005, 04:45 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Gentlemens' expansion.

Waldo.Pepper
03-21-2005, 06:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Gentlemens' expansion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Silk scarves?

What else?

MiamiEagle
03-21-2005, 06:46 PM
I"am a fan not of the Pacific Theater but a fan of World war two Aviation history. Since I love World war two Aviation Simulation in general I prefer they finished the Pacific Theater before they move on to the Battle of Britain.

It seems to me that this program is way less than finished. I can wait for the Battle of Britain since it has been represented in many other Simulation already.

I"am sure that Oleg will do a great job representing the Battle of Britain and I will probably buy it.

That been said . Do you guys ever get tire of fighting the same enemy. There is EAW, Jane World war two Fighters,CFS1 and CFS3 plus B17 and many more Simulators representing the European Theater. There is the Rowen Battle of Britain and a new one call the Wings of Vitory comming out soon.

Now thats a Saturation of a market of you ask me. Please finnish the Pacific Theater and I and a a whole bunch of guys who really love World two Simulaion and not just one Theater will be very Happy.

I now some of you think the war was fought basically in Europe. Boy are you wrong. The reason they call it a World war was because it fought all over the World.

The Pacific war was as facinating as the European version ever was. Between the both of them is what make this war so facinating for so many people up to this day.

So lets finish this Theater and than lets move on. Lets remember that Oleg will not camo back to this Thearter until the year 2110. Thats a eternity when it comes to Aviation Simulators.

Thank you

Miamieagle

Yog_Shoggoth
03-21-2005, 07:11 PM
But the mosqueto is SOOOOO sexy... How can you resist?

Hendley
03-21-2005, 07:13 PM
Looks like the Mosquito's winning hands down so far... The masses have spoken. <troll>Guess dropping the PTO is the right move.</troll> http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I voted for the Ki-100 though. Love those Japanese planes...

LEXX_Luthor
03-21-2005, 07:15 PM
I already Voted, for B6N. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Do the Voters even know B6N has a cockpit being made right now? (cockpit by Zneg).

Do the Voters even know that B.534 will be AI Only?

Capt._Tenneal
03-21-2005, 09:54 PM
LEXX is right. The B6N fans have to be lobbied too. For all the talk of "Where are the torpedo bombers in PF ? Shame shame", to see the B6N bringing up last place sends a confusing message to the developers.

sapre
03-21-2005, 09:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yog_Shoggoth:
But the mosqueto is SOOOOO sexy... How can you resist? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For me it looks like a over glown wombat with wings.

JR_Greenhorn
03-21-2005, 10:20 PM
Where is CW-21 vote?
Bring on the Demon!
Bring on the CBI!

han freak solo
03-21-2005, 11:07 PM
I voted for the Ki-100, too. I want my full....blown....Pacific Fighters!!!!

Patch 4.0? Good.

A Pacific Fighters Ace Expansion Pack would be better for me. Map the whole Pacific and Indian Oceans. Let us fly and fight in the CBI, too.

I can wait for BOB. As good as it will be, I can wait....

BaldieJr
03-21-2005, 11:12 PM
A lot of people don't want the blues to have a good fighter.

Spectre-63
03-22-2005, 01:27 AM
Why in God's green earth would I vote to include a fighter like the KI-100?? The last thing this game needs is another fighter that saw little, if any, actual combat.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A total of 396 Ki-100s were built, including 275 Ki-61-II conversions, 118 Ki-100-Ib production aircraft built from scratch, and three Ki-100-II prototypes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

source: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki100.html

another aircraft that saw less than a year of service? Personally, I've had enough of "What If?" planes and prefer to fly the real McCoy.

Giganoni
03-22-2005, 01:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spectre-63:
Why in God's green earth would I vote to include a fighter like the KI-100?? The last thing this game needs is another fighter that saw little, if any, actual combat.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A total of 396 Ki-100s were built, including 275 Ki-61-II conversions, 118 Ki-100-Ib production aircraft built from scratch, and three Ki-100-II prototypes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

source: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki100.html

another aircraft that saw less than a year of service? Personally, I've had enough of "What If?" planes and prefer to fly the real McCoy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What if? Whats so what if? Its not the 109Z..its not an uber plane. I don't know why you say "if any combat". 5th, 18th, 59th, 111th, 112th sentais used them, just to give a partial list. It is nothing that will get banned online in DF servers.

Spectre-63
03-22-2005, 01:59 AM
perhaps "what if" was a poor choice of words - hazards of posting after midnight http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

My point is that I'd rather see the resources dedicated to something a bit more prolific than <400 total aircraft built.

...and don't even get me started on the 109Z. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

sapre
03-22-2005, 02:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spectre-63:
Why in God's green earth would I vote to include a fighter like the KI-100?? The last thing this game needs is another fighter that saw little, if any, actual combat.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A total of 396 Ki-100s were built, including 275 Ki-61-II conversions, 118 Ki-100-Ib production aircraft built from scratch, and three Ki-100-II prototypes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

source: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki100.html

another aircraft that saw less than a year of service? Personally, I've had enough of "What If?" planes and prefer to fly the real McCoy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only about 600 FW190D were produced, so are saying you don't want 190D?

CAPT_COTTON
03-22-2005, 08:10 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif
at the battle of midway the japs droped 1000 lb bombs on the carrier Yorktown and sent torpedoes at her causing her to be abandoned and when they went back aboard to try to get her back to dock and save her a jap sub found her and sank the esscort destroyer in 3 mins with nearly all hands and the rest died in water when the carrier yorktown blew up and sank
On dec 7 1941 they dropped torpedoes and 1000 pound special bombs and sank our battleships and killed 2500 people.
all the above was done by the VAL so why is there no bombs and torpedoes in game for jap flyers
so to fly a game resepeting 1942 is not good for japs they cant sink carriers and if the 100 was in there the host would turn it off like ki84c
the planes produced at time of war and in the most numbers won the war oh yea the pilots helped too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

sapre
03-22-2005, 08:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CAPT_COTTON:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif
at the battle of midway the japs droped 1000 lb bombs on the carrier Yorktown and sent torpedoes at her causing her to be abandoned and when they went back aboard to try to get her back to dock and save her a jap sub found her and sank the esscort destroyer in 3 mins with nearly all hands and the rest died in water when the carrier yorktown blew up and sank
On dec 7 1941 they dropped torpedoes and 1000 pound special bombs and sank our battleships and killed 2500 people.
all the above was done by the VAL so why is there no bombs and torpedoes in game for jap flyers
so to fly a game resepeting 1942 is not good for japs they cant sink carriers and if the 100 was in there the host would turn it off like ki84c
the planes produced at time of war and in the most numbers won the war oh yea the pilots helped too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What the hell are you talking about?

JG53Frankyboy
03-22-2005, 08:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CAPT_COTTON:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif
at the battle of midway the japs droped 1000 lb bombs on the carrier Yorktown and sent torpedoes at her causing her to be abandoned and when they went back aboard to try to get her back to dock and save her a jap sub found her and sank the esscort destroyer in 3 mins with nearly all hands and the rest died in water when the carrier yorktown blew up and sank
On dec 7 1941 they dropped torpedoes and 1000 pound special bombs and sank our battleships and killed 2500 people.
all the above was done by the VAL so why is there no bombs and torpedoes in game for jap flyers
so to fly a game resepeting 1942 is not good for japs they cant sink carriers and if the 100 was in there the host would turn it off like ki84c
the planes produced at time of war and in the most numbers won the war oh yea the pilots helped too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

so far i rmemeber these "special" bombs (modified artilerie shells) were carried by B5Ns - that is not only a Torpedobomber , also a level bomber ( the man in the middle handles the bombsight)

Spectre-63
03-22-2005, 11:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sapre:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spectre-63:
Why in God's green earth would I vote to include a fighter like the KI-100?? The last thing this game needs is another fighter that saw little, if any, actual combat.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A total of 396 Ki-100s were built, including 275 Ki-61-II conversions, 118 Ki-100-Ib production aircraft built from scratch, and three Ki-100-II prototypes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

source: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki100.html

another aircraft that saw less than a year of service? Personally, I've had enough of "What If?" planes and prefer to fly the real McCoy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only about 600 FW190D were produced, so are saying you don't want 190D? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

couldn't give a **** less 'bout the FW190D...

unseen84
03-22-2005, 12:14 PM
I voted for the B6N.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> That been said . Do you guys ever get tire of fighting the same enemy. There is EAW, Jane World war two Fighters,CFS1 and CFS3 plus B17 and many more Simulators representing the European Theater. There is the Rowen Battle of Britain and a new one call the Wings of Vitory comming out soon.

Now thats a Saturation of a market of you ask me. Please finnish the Pacific Theater and I and a a whole bunch of guys who really love World two Simulaion and not just one Theater will be very Happy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you here, though I would say that this applies to more than just flight sims, but to shooters and RTS's also. After PF and MoH:Pacific Assault, its all Germans, all the time.

goshikisen
03-22-2005, 12:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spectre-63:
My point is that I'd rather see the resources dedicated to something a bit more prolific than <400 total aircraft built.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the Ki-100's inclusion has everything to do with resources... the Ki-61's cockpit can be adapted to portray that of the Goshikisen. Pretty easy decision to add an aircraft that has most of the preliminary work already done.

I too have questioned (but also welcomed) some of the aircraft decisions in the series but the Ki-100 is a worthy addition. Just ask Yohei Hinoki!

Regards, Goshikisen.

JG53Frankyboy
03-22-2005, 12:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by goshikisen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spectre-63:
My point is that I'd rather see the resources dedicated to something a bit more prolific than <400 total aircraft built.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the Ki-100's inclusion has everything to do with resources... the Ki-61's cockpit can be adapted to portray that of the Goshikisen. Pretty easy decision to add an aircraft that has most of the preliminary work already done.

I too have questioned (but also welcomed) some of the aircraft decisions in the series but the Ki-100 is a worthy addition. Just ask Yohei Hinoki!

Regards, Goshikisen. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and it will sure not be an über plane.

SeperateCheck
03-22-2005, 06:12 PM
go B6N!!

i wanna fly this:

http://www.netaxs.com/people/ebailey/xf5u.html

i like the funnies.

eddiemac0
03-22-2005, 06:32 PM
i've been off the boards a bit...

WE CAN VOTE FOR THE PLANES WE WANT???

If yes, where?

LEXX_Luthor
03-22-2005, 07:52 PM
MiamiEagle:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'am a fan not of the Pacific Theater but a fan of World war two Aviation history. Since I love World war two Aviation Simulation in general I prefer they finished the Pacific Theater before they move on to the Battle of Britain.

It seems to me that this program is way less than finished. I can wait for the Battle of Britain since it has been represented in many other Simulation already.

I"am sure that Oleg will do a great job representing the Battle of Britain and I will probably buy it.

That been said . Do you guys ever get tire of fighting the same enemy. There is EAW, Jane World war two Fighters,CFS1 and CFS3 plus B17 and many more Simulators representing the European Theater. There is the Rowen Battle of Britain and a new one call the Wings of Vitory comming out soon.

Now thats a Saturation of a market of you ask me. Please finnish the Pacific Theater and I and a a whole bunch of guys who really love World two Simulaion and not just one Theater will be very Happy.

I now some of you think the war was fought basically in Europe. Boy are you wrong. The reason they call it a World war was because it fought all over the World.

The Pacific war was as facinating as the European version ever was. Between the both of them is what make this war so facinating for so many people up to this day.

So lets finish this Theater and than lets move on. Lets remember that Oleg will not camo back to this Thearter until the year 2110. Thats a eternity when it comes to Aviation Simulators.

Thank you

Miamieagle <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well said. I *now* think Oleg jumped the Shark when he did Western Europe AEP. He should have moved straight to Pacific and done it right. But that is hindsight, so lala...

FB Eastern Front proved you can attract large numbers of western simmers to unheard of Theaters if you do it right, and FB Eastern Front was done right!

Last year I was not too interested in Pacific, and saw PF as a way to simulate Russia vs Japan 1941+ ...greatest story never told--until now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. But I was (choke) wrong, and now I am deeply into Pacific. What interests me most is the vast island hopping campaigns.

At the beginning of the Pacific war on the morning of 8 December (http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif), Saburo was based in Formosa (Taiwan) for flights against the Phillipines, then moved to eastern Borneo and covered Balikpapan landings (southern Borneo). Then Saburo moved into captured Balikpapan and covered the invasion of Java. From there, Saburo moved to Bali in Java. After that, instead of going home on Leave he was ordered across the ocean to Rabaul and then to Lae in New Guinea. All this in about 4 months.

Yes, with realistic map simplifications that Fit for the Pacific theater, they can easily make maps for doing this kind of stuff in PF--if they want to.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aero_Shodanjo:
I think you'll find this interesting:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v351/Aero_Shodanjo/ww220asia20map2010.jpg

WW2 Maps http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/web03/atlases/ww2%20pacific/ww2%20pacific%20war%20index.htm

<span class="ev_code_yellow">Dutch East Indies campaign</span> http://www.geocities.com/dutcheastindies/


~ http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=2011003982&p=2
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Latico
03-22-2005, 07:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CAPT_COTTON:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif
at the battle of midway the japs droped 1000 lb bombs on the carrier Yorktown and sent torpedoes at her causing her to be abandoned and when they went back aboard to try to get her back to dock and save her a jap sub found her and sank the esscort destroyer in 3 mins with nearly all hands and the rest died in water when the carrier yorktown blew up and sank
On dec 7 1941 they dropped torpedoes and 1000 pound special bombs and sank our battleships and killed 2500 people.
all the above was done by the VAL so why is there no bombs and torpedoes in game for jap flyers
so to fly a game resepeting 1942 is not good for japs they cant sink carriers and if the 100 was in there the host would turn it off like ki84c
the planes produced at time of war and in the most numbers won the war oh yea the pilots helped too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think ya got your history a little off. Scroll down about 3/4 way on this link and cna read about the sinking of the Yorktown.
DANFS - Yorktown (http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/carriers/cv5.htm)

The first attack came around 1400 hrs on the 4th. Vals made it through CAP and hit the Yorkkktown with 3 or 4 bombs, shutting down several of her boilers. After some of them were brought back on line she was able to make 20 knots and launched fighters to intercept another group of attackers at 1600 hrs. A few Kates made it through and 2 hit the Yorktown with torps, bringer her dead in teh water and listing bad. the CV was abandoned, but the escort DD's stood by during the night. On the morning of the 5th it was decided to try salvage ops and the USS Hamman (DD) pulled along side to furnish pumping and power. that afternoon the I-158 fired 4 torps from the CArriers Starbord beam. One hit the Hamman midship, causing it to jacknife and sink within minutes. 2 of the torps hit the Yorktown, while the 4th missed just off the stern. After the Hammans stern sank below the surface a huge explosion errupted (believed to be the depth charges of the DD) killing many of those in the water and violantly shaking the Yorktown, causing varius enjuries to those on board. Again the CV was abandoned. But the Yorktown remained afloat through the night of the 6th and 7th, finally roling over and slipping below the waves at 0701 of the 7th.

I aggree that there are holes that would sure be good to get filled.

BaldieJr
03-22-2005, 08:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by eddiemac0:
i've been off the boards a bit...

WE CAN VOTE FOR THE PLANES WE WANT???

If yes, where? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On the right-hand side of the main page you'll find the polls. Ubi/whomever changes it every so-often.

The last big poll was for the theatre. The pacific won by a landslide, even though a lot of forum regulars expressed interest in the med.

Personally, I always felt the med was a better choice, financially. Everyone wants to fly for thier nation, so the med would have targeted a far broader market.

Oh well. Maybe we'll get lucky and see pf balanced for playability. Of course, it probably wont matter because the server admins always find a way to nerf the blues side.

MiamiEagle
03-22-2005, 11:41 PM
What makes World war two so facinating to me is its diversity. It was the first real World war. It was fought in two huge Theater of war by two formidable enemies against the rest of the World. It was really a war for World domination.

It was NOT Germany against the World but the Axis against the World. The two wars are forever Link in infamy.

To those that say that Oleg should have developed the Med instead of the Pacific Theater. I say you guys are wrong. He did made the right decition. How can you compare the Med to the Pacific Theater.

Its the same as saying they should have made a sim about the CBI instead of the Eastern Front.

Thats simply wrong. As much as would like see a sim dedicated to the Med or CBI you cannot compare them to Pacific Theater or the Eastern Front.

I heard some complain about the decition to build the Ki100. Saying that the Ki100 had very little participation the war.

So it should not have been build. I agree with you to certain degree. I wished He had build a flyable Gearge instead.

But to say it should not have been build because its involvement in the war was minimal its simply wrong.

How would you guys like it if the Me163 or Me109G10 or K had not been builded because their influence in the war not great.

Lets not forget that the Fw190D was build in small numbers as well and its mark on the European Theater was insignificant.

There are about ten different varients of the Lag3. Most of them made no signficant influence on the comduct of the Eastern Fron as well.

Am I upset about this, no way.I beleive the more planes you have representing any Front the merrier.

If you are going to make a Sim about a Theater of war you should include most if not all planes involved in that Theater of war if possible.

While most of the planes involve in the Eastern Front have been builded. Their is a large amount of Pacific Plane still missing.
1.Avenger
2.HellDiver
3.B26
4.Ki27
5.Ki43II
6.Ki44Tojo
7.Ki45 Turyo
8.Irving
9.Claude
10.George
11.Nell Light Bomber
12.Sally Medium Bomber
13.B24
14.Ki28
15.Ki46 Flyable
and this just the short list.


Since their is only one other Sim dedicated to the Pacific Theater I hope and wish Oleg will only finish this project as understood.

Thank you

Miamieagle

goshikisen
03-23-2005, 06:54 AM
Just breath deeply, relax and repeat the mantra with me... "One Japanese CA, One Japanese BB, One US BB"

Capt._Tenneal
03-23-2005, 09:13 AM
Just "setting the record straight", all lists given of planes that saw limited production always seem to omit 2 that stand out like a sore thumb : the B1b rocket plane and the I-185 which was included as a "thank you" to a Russian supporter. From the ver 2.01 readme :

Additional Information about the I-185

We€re including these two aircraft as a token of gratitude to V. Loginov - the founder of the sukhoi.ru resource that was very supportive throughout the year of creation of the Il-2; and with esteem to his grandfather, who had the honour of test-flying these two. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

csThor
03-23-2005, 09:27 AM
Several people seem to have a short or selective memory. Oleg (read: Maddox Games) did not start development of PF and I'm sure if the decision had been theirs it would have never happened. It was Luthier who started the project as mainly 3rd Party Project with support by Maddox Games, but it ended up with Maddox Games being forced to take it over completely just to make sure it would be released at all!

Which means all the objects we might get in 4.0 had been started way before PF was conceived and now they are ready to be included. Additional PTO objects/aircraft do not seem to be ready for inclusion and Maddox Games has stated more than once that they have switched over to BoB completely. They need to pay their bills and the wages for their employees after all - they're not the Salvation Army.

And last but not least my 0,02 Euros. I freely admit that I'm biased - the PTO leaves me cold. I bought PF because I wanted to support Maddox Games and I also wanted a few objects coming with PF for using in ETO/EF missions. Aside that I truly believe that the PTO was the worst choice of theater for the Il-2 engine as it highlights the weaknesses of said engine and negates the advantages. The engine itself is geared toward the short-range tactical air war of the Eastern Front and this is where the game really shines. It's not able to simulate the strategical aspect of the air war that was so dominant on the Western Front and the PTO does have the nasty habit of combining the tactical part of the Eastern Front with the distances of the strategical air war in the West (even greater distances). The Maps cannot simulate that - a full map of "The Slot" is out of question, same goes for other key parts of the PTO. People might talk about smaller scaled or less detailed maps, but I can't see Maddox Games accepting them - even if someone made one.

JG53Frankyboy
03-23-2005, 10:05 AM
after the experience the last months im also on the opinion that Maddox Games should have never touched any western ore pacific (even it was at the beginning luthiers baby) front stuff.

they should have concentrated all that manpower on the eastern front stuff - imagine how it could look like today.
more maps (still lot of very interesting ones are missiing), planes (also to get some as flyable much earlier like Pe2 , Ju88 ore some at all like Hs129 pit, Hs123 , Il10 ), overworked weaponloadouts , overworked FMs and DMs and and and..........
and there would be still some of western build (that came with PF) lend and lease planes in it:
P-40B/C
A-20
B-25

btw i have to say that i like the western/med and pacific stuff (VOW2 pacific campaign is in general my "baby" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) in general more than eastern stuff - i just look at the game.

SaQSoN
03-23-2005, 10:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I hope and wish Oleg will only finish this project as understood.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah, I hope that too. I also hope, MiamiEagle
will fund Oleg and his Maddox Games, so they will be able to accomplish this task.
It wouldn't take much - just a pathetic 1/4 million USD and from 6 to 10 monthes.
Heck, you could even make a profit from this enterprise! So, what do you think, M.Eagle?

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

goshikisen
03-23-2005, 10:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by csThor:
And last but not least my 0,02 Euros. I freely admit that I'm biased - the PTO leaves me cold. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That statement says everything... and underlines, at least for me, why some folks here insist on labelling others as misinformed whiners. Flipside of the coin is impassioned enthusiast... you can paint that picture any way you like. I'm tired of the "whine whiners" and their litany of apologist excuses. I AM AN 1C ADVOCATE... I AM AMAZED BY OLEG's WORK and I WILL BUY BOB WHEN IT COMES OUT. Now that that's clear... let the PF advocates have their say!

I am fully aware of the situation you've described in your message Thor. I know about Luthier and the debacle that PF became (the limitations of the maps, the lawyer conspiracy, the sick developers, what's next? Black Russian Terrier masticating 1C's server?) but 1C being a commercial venture, excuses have little pull when it comes to the hand reaching for the wallet. 1C is not the Salvation Army... well put, but if they aren't they should also be willing to stand up to the criticisms of their clientele. Oleg isn't a philanthropist... this is his JOB. If he wants to leave a project half-finished... that is his prerogative. Think about it from my perspective... I've been waiting for a Pacific iteration of the IL2 series since the day Sturmovik came out. The Pacific doesn't "leave me cold" and I know many out there feel the same way.

Who had the final say in the PF decision? 1C didn't have Luthier holding a gun to their head. They, of their own free will, decided to embark on this venture.

I'm somewhat ambivalent when it comes to support... I think the new content will kick a$$ but, at the same time, I don't see PF given its proper due. A Pacific Theatre sim requires all kinds of objects and I far from expect them all... but no Battleships and Cruisers (Japanese and American... not British) just doesn't cut it. Beyond the carrier they were the meat and potatoes of the Naval Aviator's world... whether as targets or protectors. A WW2 fleet isn't a fleet without these. It's like a freakin' car driving around with 2 wheels missing.

I know time is almost up if not already up for new objects for PF... and that's what burns me about this. I had a longgggggg (started back in November) thread in Oleg's Ready Room asking about ships and it wasn't until the eleventh hour that I got any kind of official response. You know... I still would have bought PF but I would have liked it if they had told us from the begining that the pre-prelease dev shots with KGV at Pearl Harbor and Pre-war Lex config. were going to set the tone for the sim. It's just half-baked.

I fully expect the righteous indignation crew to do their best to put me in my place... I couldn't care less about the "you should be grateful for what you get" chorus that always strikes up when people express contrary points of view. I am in 1C's corner whether you believe it or not. PF is half finished and I'm calling it like it is. If you call that complaining... fine. Like water off a duck's back.

One Japanese Cruiser, One Japanese Battleship, One US Battleship... I have references and I'm willing to share them.

Regards, Goshikisen.

csThor
03-23-2005, 11:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>That statement says everything... and underlines, at least for me, why some folks here insist on labelling others as misinformed whiners. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where did I say "misinformed whiners"? I said "selective memory" (and I didn't have you in mind when posting, you just had the bad luck of having posted the previous one). Maddox Games had started work on BoB well before PF was even conceived. In the end they had to change their development plans to get PF out at all. If anyone is to blame for the inconsistence of the objects pool it's Luthier and/or the folks which were assisting him for making questionable or poor choices. The only thing I "blame" on Maddox Games is that they have given their OK for this even though they did already have bad experiences with 3rd Party Models before. If I knew in advance that I'd have to deal with a lot of erroneous models in a project that relies on 3rd party by nearly 100% I'd say "No, thanks." - especially if I already have another project in the making already.
And secondly I have to stress the point of in inablilty of the basic engine to really display the characteristics of the PTO. If I know that Maddox Games does know it even better. It's their "kid" after all and they know what it can do and what not.

Again: I see your point when you're talking about the lack of certain classes of ships, but Maddox Games is the wrong tree to bark at. They have other priorities, priorities also dictated by the contract between them and Ubi. I don't know what happened to Luthier (but I can't imagine him disappearing because of unimportant reasons) and I won't speculate here, but in the end he is the one responsible what is in PF and what's not.

LEXX_Luthor
03-23-2005, 12:12 PM
csThor:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I freely admit that I'm biased - the PTO leaves me cold. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Early last year, I too was not very enthusiastic about Pacific (my favorite Joke last year was PF only needed land campaign because Marines Beat NAVY). And, I saw FB/PF Merged as possible method to simulate Russia vs Japan 1941+, and that made PF just "acceptable" to me.

That was then. The more I learn about the truly bizzare and unique Pacific war, thanks to Oleg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif the more I find the FB engine a good engine for Pacific flight simming -- if the Developers treat the Pacific environment realistically and not make the maps look like European maps. To do this requires PF maps that have...

Few Roads (Pacific has few roads)

Few Rivers (most Pacific streams not seen from the air inside jungle)

No Building Objects (Pacific is NOT Europe and mission creators can place just the few needed Building Objects where needed in a mission)

No Airfields (mission creators can be more historically accurate in airfield dates than the Developers...which is why we have two (2) Guadacanal maps for example)

No Palm Tree Objects (FB Eastern Front maps have no Pine Tree Objects placed by the Developers, so no, Oleg does not need Palm Tree Objects dragging down the Pacific map makers.

Thor, Oleg's Eastern Front has proved that a flight sim Developer can attract simmers to a New Theater they never heard of before, if that Theater is done right, and I feel Oleg did Eastern Front right. But, I think Oleg "jumped the shark" by doing Western Europe, and should have started Pacific development with AEP, and do it right.

In the other thread, you Refused to talk with us about the PF maps, and their huge potential for Pacific simming. We shall try to talk with you again, if you wish. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Thanx~

goshikisen
03-23-2005, 12:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by csThor:
Where did I say "misinformed whiners"? I said "selective memory" (and I didn't have you in mind when posting, you just had the bad luck of having posted the previous one). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My apologies Thor... I wasn't refering to you directly when I said "some folks".

btw. your skins are outstanding.

Regards, Goshikisen.

csThor
03-23-2005, 12:18 PM
Lexx - I know your "enthusiasm" about PF maps, but aside Luthier noone makes them. I was part of the team that did Kurland and I know what is involved if you want a decent amount of accuracy. Ian has the tools but he was asked not to make any maps outside of Europe (and none of MTO or Channel etc). I - frankly - don't see a chance if Luthier doesn't pop up all of a sudden with a load of new maps.

LEXX_Luthor
03-23-2005, 12:41 PM
csThor:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Lexx - I know your "enthusiasm" about PF maps, but aside Luthier no one makes them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We think Luthier just "popped up"....SUMATRA coming in PF Singapore MAP
~~> http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=7791081792

Thor:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Ian has the tools but he was asked not to make any maps outside of Europe (and none of MTO or Channel etc). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In all your posts claiming this exactly worded Quote ("Ian was asked not to") , you have never stated that IanBoys cannot be asked to make Pacific maps--if somebody wants him to.

Thor:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I was part of the team that did Kurland and I know what is involved if you want a <span class="ev_code_yellow">decent amount</span> of accuracy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then we can talk about how the Pacific environment does not need the Detail of the European environment. Lets talk. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

GregSM
03-23-2005, 01:23 PM
"PF is half finished and I'm calling it like it is."

No, you're calling it like you see it. I can see means of rendering very different appraisals of PF's completeness. For instance, it might be related to a precedent like CFS II or the IL2/FB/AEP series. In relation to the former, I see PF as very handsomely complete, while I consider it substantially incomplete in relation to the latter. Arbitrarily dismissing the positive interpretation isn't necessary, isn't "like it is"; it's a choice.


"If you call that complaining... fine. Like water off a duck's back."

If you're unwilling to hear challenges to your position why reveal it, if not to merely complain?


Cheers,


Greg

LEXX_Luthor
03-23-2005, 01:31 PM
I gather from the CFS2 boards that they never had working carrier ops except for Player plane--AI planes had to air-start over the carrier. True? False?

I for one am totally Stoked over Oleg's work extending FB over the carriers. Well Done!

GregSM
03-23-2005, 03:53 PM
"I gather from the CFS2 boards that they never had working carrier ops except for Player plane--AI planes had to air-start over the carrier. True? False?"


This is true, and probably of necessity as the AI planes would regularly crash during takeoff or landing from conventional land bases.

But I didn't mean literally to write the thing off - it had certain features that today's designer would do well emulating, I think. Its mission building tools were very comprehensive and very well executed, for instance.


Cheers,


Greg

goshikisen
03-23-2005, 05:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GregSM:
For instance, it might be related to a precedent like CFS II or the IL2/FB/AEP series. In relation to the former, I see PF as very handsomely complete, while I consider it substantially incomplete in relation to the latter.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

CFS II is an "old" Microsoft product... it's like saying a Mercedes is good because an AMC Gremlin isn't. The only valid comparison to be made is between PF and its 1C brethern and it appears you agree that PF doesn't fare too well on that count.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GregSM:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by goshikisen:
"If you call that complaining... fine. Like water off a duck's back."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you're unwilling to hear challenges to your position why reveal it, if not to merely complain?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm perfectly willing to hear challenges if a challenge constitutes something above and beyond "you should be thankful and shut up". That line of "argument" has become very popular on this board as of late... and is nothing more than an attempt to stifle an opinion as opposed to constructively counter it.

Regards, Goshikisen.

Sharkey888
03-23-2005, 06:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by csThor:

If anyone is to blame for the inconsistence of the objects pool it's Luthier and/or the folks which were assisting him for making questionable or poor choices. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Alot of this blame goes straight to Oleg and 1C. Didn't he (Oleg) get any updates about what was going on with PF!? He had to see that things were going badly, with bad models, bad map sizes and selection, lack of models etc.

Excuses about sickness do not jive, if I am sick it is for a day, then back to work.

Excuses about lack of resources are also jive. There is plenty on the interior of the "Kate" or "Devastator", or IJN BB Kongo, or USN CV Lexington in correct WARTIME refit.

Excuses about lack of space on the 2 CD's don't jive. You have to know how large each aircraft file is and the maps etc. even before you start something like this. It is in STONE-2 CD's!

Excuses aout legal issues are also jive. Mistakes were made with the box by Ubi, who didn't know US copyright law, who took $$ from 1C and ultimately Luthier etal. The $$ changed hands. It still seems "odd" to me that nobody knew this or should I ask, "who actually proofread the box?"

And excuses about lack of time? Couldn't an approximation about the development time been made with all the knowledge from IL2, so it wasn't cut off at the knees by Ubi to get it released!!??

Sorry, this will be my last RANT about PF http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LEXX_Luthor
03-23-2005, 07:30 PM
Thanks GregSM. I went looking at CFS2, and its sad Microsoft wasn't interested in giving it the Oleg~esque support something that vast required.

Iggy-Snaps
03-23-2005, 08:36 PM
S! I love PF because I love Carrier ops. Nothing is as good as landing back on the carrier after a good dog fight or ground attack mission.

http://www.geocities.com/335th/pirate2.gif

Spectre-63
03-23-2005, 09:21 PM
Very well thought out posts, Goshikisen...my thoughts exactly! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

GregSM
03-23-2005, 09:37 PM
Hi Goshikisen,



"CFS II is an "old" Microsoft product... it's like saying a Mercedes is good because an AMC Gremlin isn't. The only valid comparison to be made is between PF and its 1C brethern and it appears you agree that PF doesn't fare too well on that count."

I agree partially. That is, comparing PF to its IC predecessors is fair, but not when it's posited as the end of discussion. PF exists in a market, and the market has history and traditions to which fair and comprehensive criticism of PF will refer. And, of course, in practical terms, I cannot put aside my copy of PF and instead play my copy of "PF: As I think it Could and Should have Been". I could play CFS II.


"I'm perfectly willing to hear challenges if a challenge constitutes something above and beyond "you should be thankful and shut up". That line of "argument" has become very popular on this board as of late... and is nothing more than an attempt to stifle an opinion as opposed to constructively counter it."

"You should be thankful and shut up" is no better at stifling discussion than its antithesis, "PF is incomplete and shut up".


Cheers,


Greg

GregSM
03-23-2005, 10:01 PM
Hi Lexx Luthor,


"Thanks GregSM. I went looking at CFS2, and its sad Microsoft wasn't interested in giving it the Oleg~esque support something that vast required."


You may find that it's still worth looking at, especially if you like tinkering with special effects, flight modelling, weaponry, etc.

It's true that it always lacked the professional class of support we're used to here, though.


Cheers,


Greg

csThor
03-23-2005, 11:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
csThor:: [
We think Luthier just "popped up"...._SUMATRA coming in PF Singapore MAP_
~~> http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=7791081792 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but doesn't the term one Dutch airfield on Sumatra ring a bell? Have you checked how large that island is? How much is a single airfield in relation to that? I'm not trying to say anything, but don't get your hopes too high.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In all your posts claiming this exactly worded Quote (_"Ian was asked not to"_) , you have never stated that IanBoys cannot be asked to make Pacific maps--if somebody wants him to. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ian was asked (or advised) my Oleg himself not to make any maps outside of Eastern Front or Europe within the known limitations. I don't know the reasons for it, but I think the separation between PTO and ETO/EF is quite clear to me. And again - Maddox Games is committed to BoB and runs FB/PF development if there is some free time - it's basically a sideshow.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Then we can talk about how the Pacific environment does not need the Detail of the European environment. Lets talk. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It might be true in regards to villages/towns and such things (bridges etc), but you grossly underestimate the amount of work that is required for very basic things like terrain altitude or coastlines. I did the basic work for Kurland, outlining the coastline, rivers and lakes and it took me over two weeks. J¶rg did the work for terrain altitude and he was busy over two weeks (and Kurland is not the Owen Stanley Ridge).
Last but not least you must include airfields and roads as these are a requirement for any DGen campaign. You see it's not "Leave out the details and you get a map in two days".

csThor
03-23-2005, 11:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sharkey888:
Alot of this blame goes straight to Oleg and 1C. Didn't he (Oleg) get any updates about what was going on with PF!? He had to see that things were going badly, with bad models, bad map sizes and selection, lack of models etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well - PF is not Oleg's kid and he only promised "technical support". Specification of the object pool is the work of the project manager - which was Luthier.
If I had to do such a project I'd put up a list of "must have's" which have 110% priority before we get any obscure planes, ships or ground objects. These objects must match the maps the team can do and not the hopes and wishes for the project. Take a look at the planetable of PF - Haw 81, Spit VIII, Tomahawks ... Do we have a CBI map? Do we have Burma/India? The map pool doesn't match the planes we have and the planes do not match the maps we have. It's quite clear to me that PF was supposed to be much bigger, but for whatever reasons it didn't work out.

Unfortunately - and here I agree - Maddox Games did not raise a warning finger when Luthier came forward with his plans. To me - and I am doing mere guesswork here - it seems as if Luthier just wanted too much or drastically misjudged the available/necessary ressources.

LEXX_Luthor
03-24-2005, 12:14 AM
Thanks Thor, that was helpful.

Yes, we learned long ago to expect the mimimum from PF maps--a little slice of Sumatra--but its the water we must cross reach whatever is there, operating from another landmass from across the water, a rare feature in PF maps. The PF map situation reminds me of Hans Rudel's writing of being so hungry behind Soviet lines that simple bread offered by an old Russian woman was the best meal he ever ate. Thor, you don't seem to know what we are thinking, please don't assume you do know. Thank You. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The coastline mapping:: Is the hard part getting exact accurate geographical mappings? If so, how were the "fantasy" maps made, like the original AEP Pacific Island map? That could be an Option, because we really need multi~island maps -- but with a more simplified coastline if that would help, and none of the grafix killing shallow water Green stuff (I assume that makes things more complicated too).

And...we can use less fine coastline detail. For a "fantasy" map (large, not dogfight map), we don't need any geographical correctness, just multi~island archipelago with enoug map size to force us to move air bases forward (or retreat). Again, if possible the map makers can reduce the coasline detail...we don't need it.

I now begin to see why you say 1:2 scale won't simplify anything, as the detail is reduced, but more detail comes from farther away terrain packing into the map. We didn't think of that.

If the maps must be totally flat, or have very minimal terrain elevation features, we are fine with that. This is better than no multi~island jungle archipelago maps at all.

Interesting info on DGEN needing airfields and roads, although I would not use them myself. Or if the map makers can do it, adding some small grass strips for DGEN will work.

We just see you as negative on more Pacific maps because you said last page that you are personally "cold" toward the Pacific (and "warm" to Kurland we assume). Not that there is anything wrong with that, as I too favour Eastern Front above all else, but Pacific offers the exact opposite type of warfare of the Eastern Front, and in being the exact opposite, comes around to match the vast expanse of Eastern Front.

Somebody out there may want to do this, and yes, if Oleg wants to, he can ask IanBoys or somebody to do something. And, I suggest UBI sell PF map CD, if possible.

Thanx~

csThor
03-24-2005, 12:34 AM
Lexx - I have zero, null, nada, niente influence on what's being done so I'm merely stating my very own opinion. No more, no less. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You may of course lobby for your map as much as you want, but I doubt anyone is listening. All I know is Ian was asked (advised) not to make PTO maps, Maddox Games is working full-time on BoB and Luthier ... well.

LEXX_Luthor
03-24-2005, 12:38 AM
Thor:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Maddox Games is working full-time on BoB <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So the Italian planes, Ju~88A4, B6N cockpit, and Russian Addon CDs, are all for BoB?

What you may not be telling is that Maddox Games may *also* be working part time on FB/PF.

csThor
03-24-2005, 12:41 AM
It's more like "free time sideshow" ... if you understand what I'm trying to say http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LEXX_Luthor
03-24-2005, 12:48 AM
understood http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Old_Canuck
03-24-2005, 01:09 AM
I vote for one of these on floats.
http://www.futurshox.net//planes10/ra-storch2.jpg

csThor
03-24-2005, 01:42 AM
What a disgrace! A Storch without Argus engine http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

ImpStarDuece
03-24-2005, 01:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by csThor:
What a disgrace! A Storch without Argus engine http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehehe

I was just about to post the same thing.

What type of engine is that? Looks like a P&W or a Ghnome Rhone to me. But then again, what do I know!

Sharkey888
03-24-2005, 07:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by csThor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sharkey888:
Alot of this blame goes straight to Oleg and 1C. Didn't he (Oleg) get any updates about what was going on with PF!? He had to see that things were going badly, with bad models, bad map sizes and selection, lack of models etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well - PF is not Oleg's kid and he only promised "technical support". Specification of the object pool is the work of the project manager - which was Luthier.
If I had to do such a project I'd put up a list of "must have's" which have 110% priority before we get any obscure planes, ships or ground objects. These objects must match the maps the team can do and not the hopes and wishes for the project. Take a look at the planetable of PF - Haw 81, Spit VIII, Tomahawks ... Do we have a CBI map? Do we have Burma/India? The map pool doesn't match the planes we have and the planes do not match the maps we have. It's quite clear to me that PF was supposed to be much bigger, but for whatever reasons it didn't work out.

Unfortunately - and here I agree - Maddox Games did not raise a warning finger when Luthier came forward with his plans. To me - and I am doing mere guesswork here - it seems as if Luthier just wanted too much or drastically misjudged the available/necessary ressources. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the "civil" reply to my RANT http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And also thanks for all your work in IL2!!!

LEXX_Luthor
11-07-2007, 12:34 AM
*bump* for comparatively easy to make 1000km mostly ocean Pacific island maps of less humoid populated areas like the Slot-Rabaul. Somebody poasted that a 3rd Party company could make some addons. Here are the specific ways, some of them used to greatly simplify the work needed to make the Kurland map and provide more extensive forest coverage for the Burma map...


(1) Few or No Roads -- Pacific has few roads. The ocean and seas were the great road.

(2) Few Rivers -- most Pacific streams not seen from the air inside jungle, and the less the jungle is broken by the wide FB European River Plains.

(3) Few or No Building Objects -- Pacific is not Europe and mission creators can place a few village or colonial Building Objects where needed in a mission since the map can be so large.

(4) Few to No Airfields -- using Test Runways or even better a 3rd Party company's FMB placeable airfields in mission files, mission creators can be more historically accurate in airfield dates than the Developers...which is why the developers had to make two (2) Guadacanal maps for example.

(5) No Palm Tree Objects -- Its just too many trees as individual Objects for map makers to worry about, and they kill the framerates. Vast stretches of high performance jungle 3D pancake texture can do the job.

(6) Simplified Coastline -- complex convoluted coastlines are hard to make according to csThor. Smooth the coastlines to some degree.


--

Focus on the Pacific Air War -- not the European surfing simulation.
(although that would be cool to see a Surfin Sim but not here)

DKoor
11-07-2007, 02:36 AM
http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Confused/crazy.gif

Lurch1962
11-07-2007, 04:47 PM
I'm with ya, LEXX!

I've always hated the super-wide, constant-width, always-at-sea-level rivers. (A *few* aren't so bad). The Hawaiian islands' coastlines look atrocious because of this.

Not so sure about the smoothing of coastlines, myself; as long as it's not *too* smooth, I guess it's OK.

And the hated large patches of palm trees! It would be great if the capability existed for the user to switch between those and the "blanket" forest pattern (or the base map itself). Failing that, 'yes' on nixing the palms.

--Lurch--

LEXX_Luthor
11-07-2007, 05:36 PM
You can eliminate the palm trees. In the Full Mission Builder (FMB), use the Destruction slider to take them out. Nothing is left, not even rotting LoGGs. The palm trees are "objects" like map building objects, so they can be "destroyed" -- they vanish.

crazyivan used to say this trick did not work for Online maps, so maybe it works for Offline play only. I dunno.