PDA

View Full Version : Oleg at simviation: There will be new FM for PF



Werre_Fsck
03-02-2005, 04:55 AM
quote:
" Also especialy for these that has more power PC we soon will release the FM that take more processor time for calculations. I would say it will be pre-BoB FM (for all around the world testing in the current sim series. Currently it is in test by more than 40 pilots and some of them fly WWII aircraft now... Of course there will be not all that user will see finally in BoB). In BoB - more complex computations and more features of the gameplay than in the whole Il-2 series. "

Link: http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=cfs3;action=display;num=1103228895; start=165

S 8
03-02-2005, 06:09 AM
Wonder what a power pc spec is.I know it´s not mine though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I guess 3ghz+

LeadSpitter_
03-02-2005, 07:04 AM
great to see oleg http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The one thing that worries me is the testing of BOB fms in fb aep pf going to be last patch.

VW-IceFire
03-02-2005, 07:37 AM
Interesting....very interesting.

WOLFMondo
03-02-2005, 08:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
great to see oleg http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The one thing that worries me is the testing of BOB fms in fb aep pf going to be last patch. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Speaking as someone who works in software development and testing....

I think 1C:Maddox should simply add in the planes they have that are finished, issue 1 patch of minor fixes afterwards and close the door on all FB/PF development.

Otherwise it will turn FB/PF into an open test beta for BoB technology, then when the BoB graphics engine is ready we might be left with a slightly broke FB/PF which they don't have the time to finish up because BoB is being finished off.

I think if Oleg wants to test BoB technology he should do this seperate to FB/PF but using its graphics engine and do a proper open beta rather than experimentation with an existing product.

AWL_Frog
03-02-2005, 08:48 AM
I would be very surprised, to say the least, if Oleg would release this new FM for the whole sim, as it would mean a complete workover of the flight characteristics for over 200 planes.

I think what we can expect here is some kind of test patch that makes one of the planes flyable with the new FM, just to gather some user input for the development of BOB. (Well, and to give us a teaser for BOB, of course... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

LeadSpitter_
03-02-2005, 09:01 AM
I have to disagree with you mondo, I think its great that fms are getting updated and advanced calculations even if its a test bed for BOB. Maybe bob wont need any fm ajustments out of the box which would be excellent and wont change so drastically as much as fms have each patch.

We definatly needed it for the fb aep pf engine and we are very lucky they spent the time on doing this which im sure was a hell of alot of work.

I think even after bob is out Fb AEP PF will get just as much gameplay as maddox/ubi newest bob sim. Not everyone has the money to runout and buy the latest p4 3.8 or top amd64 along with a $600 videocard etc and still get 40 fps but on perfect aa af and high resolutions. Many cant even do it now.

I just hope if there is any problems missed that they wont ever be fixed, since sturmovik to pf the patches that took longest usually overlook and miss many things but do get corrected later on in a small quick patch.

Reguardless best news around here in awhile.

TAGERT.
03-02-2005, 09:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Speaking as someone who works in software development and testing.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Speaking as someone who works in software development and testing, I have found that Oleg and his team does not fit the *typical* software house when it comes to development and testing. Over the last 15 years no simulation has enjoyed as much continued support from the developer as IL2-PF has from Oleg and his team.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
I think 1C:Maddox should simply add in the planes they have that are finished, issue 1 patch of minor fixes afterwards and close the door on all FB/PF development. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I would agree.. *IF* Oleg and his team were like the *typical* software house, but they are not, thus I dont agree.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Otherwise it will turn FB/PF into an open test beta for BoB technology, then when the BoB graphics engine is ready we might be left with a slightly broke FB/PF which they don't have the time to finish up because BoB is being finished off. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Anything is posiable, in that we can not see into the future, and what force may come into play.. But if we base it off of Oleg and his teams track record then I would not worry about Oleg and the team cut-n-running.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
I think if Oleg wants to test BoB technology he should do this seperate to FB/PF but using its graphics engine and do a proper open beta rather than experimentation with an existing product. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is an option, but I would rather see IL2-PF reap the benifits of his testing. In that IMHO the odds of Oleg leaving us hanging in the wind are low, baased off his track record.

WOLFMondo
03-02-2005, 09:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
I have to disagree with you mondo, I think its great that fms are getting updated and advanced calculations even if its a test bed for BOB. Maybe bob wont need any fm ajustments out of the box which would be excellent and wont change so drastically as much as fms have each patch.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is why I say open beta. Leaving FB/PF finished but allowing those who choose to download an FB/PF (maybe cut down a little) with the new technology. They can still develop there FM's and DM's etc this way without the possibility of causing issues to FB/PF.

I'd download it an play it and give them feedback. I didn't get a X800XT and a 64bit 3500 for nothinghttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:

I think even after bob is out Fb AEP PF will get just as much gameplay as maddox/ubi newest bob sim. Not everyone has the money to runout and buy the latest p4 3.8 or top amd64 along with a $600 videocard etc and still get 40 fps but on perfect aa af and high resolutions. Many cant even do it now.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree to a point but theres a cut off point where they won't support older technology. I think people will mainly still play FB/PF then because there favorite late war planes won't feature in BoB at first. I know I'll still go back to Fb/PF because I like the Fw190's and P47's which certainly won't feature in BoB for sometime.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Speaking as someone who works in software development and testing.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Speaking as someone who works in software development and testing, I have found that Oleg and his team does not fit the *typical* software house when it comes to development and testing. Over the last 15 years no simulation has enjoyed as much continued support from the developer as IL2-PF has from Oleg and his team.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On that I agree there but theres principles of software development which I think have backfired in the case of 1C:Maddox in a few cases because of there process. Its difficult to do what they've done because of all the content additions and changes they've made.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Otherwise it will turn FB/PF into an open test beta for BoB technology, then when the BoB graphics engine is ready we might be left with a slightly broke FB/PF which they don't have the time to finish up because BoB is being finished off. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Anything is posiable, in that we can not see into the future, and what force may come into play.. But if we base it off of Oleg and his teams track record then I would not worry about Oleg and the team cut-n-running.
[/QUOTE]

As I say above, I think its UBI who are the deciding factor.

My main reasons for wanting 1C:Maddox to finish and close the door in IL2:FB/PF is because its going to detract from the time spent on BoB. I personally think they should finish what they started but move on completely.

A new free downloadable beta based on the Fb graphics engine but with new BoB technology tests I think would be a better route.

They can test the technology but bugs, FM issues, Dm issues without having to make adjustments to a entire old engine which is a finished product. Imagine if they made changes to the whole BF/PF sim which created bugs, they would have to fix that and maybe 200FM's or DM's. With an open BoB beta they will not be under pressure to fix them ASAP because its not the final product people have paid for nor will they have the extra work of fixing issues to an old engine which has nothing to do with the new technology in the BoB engine i.e. they would be loosing money and eating up time with no extra benefit to themselves.

TAGERT.
03-02-2005, 10:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
On that I agree there <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, good, because only a cluless fool wouldnt agree.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
but theres principles of software development which I think have backfired in the case of 1C:Maddox in a few cases because of there process. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thier principles have failed, due to thier process? I dont recal them ever stating what thier principles, let alone what thier process is, but, I assume you do. So, with that said could you give me ONE example of how thier principles of software development has backfired due to thier process, then I could coment on that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Its difficult to do what they've done because of all the content additions and changes they've made. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not 100% sure if this was initally intended to be and example of how thier principles have backfired due to thier process.. But Ill assume that it was. Firstly, any flight sim that has many planes is going to be more *difficult* to manage.. But, it is also one of the reason it sells. So, I wouldnt consider *difficulty* to be a good example of how thier principles have backfired.. In that the multi choice of aircraft is probally one of thier best selling points, That and the attention to detail with the FM. Therefore I think thier principles are in tact and thier process if fine.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
As I say above, I think its UBI who are the deciding factor. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So? UBI has been involved with Oleg and his team from the start, and Oleg's track record still stands. So, unless there is some unforseen change in teh future I would expect his track record on not cut-n-running to continue.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
My main reasons for wanting 1C:Maddox to finish and close the door in IL2:FB/PF is because its going to detract from the time spent on BoB. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I dissagree, in that I think using IL2-PF as a test bed for BoB will actually save time in the long run, and at the same time improve IL2-PF.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
I personally think they should finish what they started but move on completely. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>IYHO but not IMHO

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
A new free downloadable beta based on the Fb graphics engine but with new BoB technology tests I think would be a better route. They can test the technology but bugs, FM issues, Dm issues without having to make adjustments to a entire old engine which is a finished product. Imagine if they made changes to the whole BF/PF sim which created bugs, they would have to fix that and maybe 200FM's or DM's. With an open BoB beta they will not be under pressure to fix them ASAP because its not the final product people have paid for nor will they have the extra work of fixing issues to an old engine which has nothing to do with the new technology in the BoB engine i.e. they would be loosing money and eating up time with no extra benefit to themselves. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmmm good point! I can see where that would save some time.. Say you take IL2-PF and strip out all the planes except the BoB types. Then it would reduce alot of the managment of all the planes when you tweak a FM parameter. But, free downloads tend to be very *crippled*, thus not many people play them for very long. I think the real benifit of using IL2-PF as a test bed for BoB is they will get alot of feedback becuse of the number of people that play it.. Hmm on 2nd thought.. That could be a bad thing too, in light of all the useless info and whines that stem from these forums.. Which is why most beta testing is not open to the gen public and just a select few.

Ok you convinced me, it would be beter for BoB to stop with IL2-PF and do the beta thing.. But, I guess Im biased in that I would like to see IL2-PF get more support, in that I dont see myself playing BoB much over IL2-PF due to the limited plane selection.. That and if they dont make MAJOR improvments in the AI and campain play BoB will be a flop!

NerdConnected
03-02-2005, 11:54 AM
That's great news ;-)

He also said some other very interesting new stuff:

"AI doing sometime not so good maneuvers.. Yes. Unless you can repeat them. - they use the same FM as you.... However with new FM they will be not able to make such things (you too)... simply becasue it will be impossible (But I can do so great things with FM and AI of CFS3.....)"

" -torque vanishes once in the air - wrong. it is present all the time. However especially was decreased before other things was solved. wait a bit."

"Campaigns missed for the PF. But it wasn't in plan. Some will be added in add-ons."

" US torpedo bombers there wll be no of them already. (none of them?)
Japanese - Yes. In time"

Thus, AI and FM (and torgue) fix, new clouds and planes and more campaigns/theaters (but maybe not free). Looking very good, but cannot wait to see what kind of system this will need. He said powerful systems, but I think I've got a pretty nice system and in some situations it reaches it's limit. Maybe X86-64? (XP64 will be released next month, hint, hint ;-)

Mark

WOLFMondo
03-02-2005, 12:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
On that I agree there <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, good, because only a cluless fool wouldnt agree.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
but theres principles of software development which I think have backfired in the case of 1C:Maddox in a few cases because of there process. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thier principles have failed, due to thier process? I dont recal them ever stating what thier principles, let alone what thier process is, but, I assume you do. So, with that said could you give me ONE example of how thier principles of software development has backfired due to thier process, then I could coment on that.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Backfired in the respect they started doing a pacific expansion when there commited to doing another sim is one. Its clear from Olegs posts the UBI have put pressure on Oleg to get on with BoB thus taking Olegs attention away from fully completeing PF (in some peoples eyeshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ). There was also clearly a weak testing process (Beaufighter campaign for example).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
As I say above, I think its UBI who are the deciding factor. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So? UBI has been involved with Oleg and his team from the start, and Oleg's track record still stands. So, unless there is some unforseen change in teh future I would expect his track record on not cut-n-running to continue. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah but UBI have put pressure on Oleg, as he's stated to get on with BoB. Ubi are the paymasters.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
A new free downloadable beta based on the Fb graphics engine but with new BoB technology tests I think would be a better route. They can test the technology but bugs, FM issues, Dm issues without having to make adjustments to a entire old engine which is a finished product. Imagine if they made changes to the whole BF/PF sim which created bugs, they would have to fix that and maybe 200FM's or DM's. With an open BoB beta they will not be under pressure to fix them ASAP because its not the final product people have paid for nor will they have the extra work of fixing issues to an old engine which has nothing to do with the new technology in the BoB engine i.e. they would be loosing money and eating up time with no extra benefit to themselves. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmmm good point! I can see where that would save some time.. Say you take IL2-PF and strip out all the planes except the BoB types. Then it would reduce alot of the managment of all the planes when you tweak a FM parameter. But, free downloads tend to be very *crippled*, thus not many people play them for very long. I think the real benifit of using IL2-PF as a test bed for BoB is they will get alot of feedback becuse of the number of people that play it.. Hmm on 2nd thought.. That could be a bad thing too, in light of all the useless info and whines that stem from these forums.. Which is why most beta testing is not open to the gen public and just a select few.

Ok you convinced me, it would be beter for BoB to stop with IL2-PF and do the beta thing.. But, I guess Im biased in that I would like to see IL2-PF get more support, in that I dont see myself playing BoB much over IL2-PF due to the limited plane selection.. That and if they dont make MAJOR improvments in the AI and campain play BoB will be a flop! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

heh..I never quite know if you being sarcastichttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. I'd love to see continued development of IL2:FB and PF, don't get me wrong but resources are finite and BoB is gonna be somthing bigger and better. The IL2 engines really starting to show its limits but doesn't look dated however.

Stiglr
03-02-2005, 01:10 PM
I'm taking a decided wait-and-see attitude towards this news.

If the "new FM" can finally get energy bleed right, works at altitude as well as at the lower bands, and won't have to be whipsawed to incorporate "new" elements* like landing on CVs, I'm all for it.

But a new FM that's as flawed as the current one doesn't interest me in the least.



*By this I mean, the whole dynamics of most planes won't be changed, such as the reappearance of planes that can stand on their tails like UFOs, just because the "entire model" gets tweaked so planes can dirty up to land on CVs; the model should simply work with earth physics across the board.

LilHorse
03-02-2005, 01:15 PM
I have to say that this worries me somewhat. Does this mean that only higher end rigs will be able to run it? At present my rig is sweating and breathing hard (nothing to get excited about here) just to keep up with the present game configuration. I mostly fly online and I'd be very upset if I couldn't do that anymore.

TAGERT.
03-02-2005, 01:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Backfired in the respect they started doing a pacific expansion when there commited to doing another sim is one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, well I dont see that as bacfired, I see that as Oleg and or UBI saw that they had a popular sim engine on their hands and with a little more input (much less input then dev a new engine) they could provide a product people would want and enjoy while at the same time make some money. The flexability of economics! Surlly UBI realises that scheduals for BoB would have to be adjusted due to the team working on PF. So I dont see it as a backfired principle or process, as a mater of fact it shows what a great principles and proceses they have in place to be flexable enough to take advantage of an existing game engine. Most software game companys pray for such situations! In that most of the cost is in developing the engine.. If you can make a few addons to an existing engine, that is easy money!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Its clear from Olegs posts the UBI have put pressure on Oleg to get on with BoB thus taking Olegs attention away from fully completeing PF (in some peoples eyeshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, I dont see it that way. There will allways be pressure from UBI in that sense.. But if Oleg can show them that continued support of IL2-PF does in fact help the development of BoB Im sure they will be flexable on that issue to. Just good business really. Not to mention the amount of user support you gain in doing so.. That is hard to put a dollar value on, but it is worth doing imho. In that people will be more apt to buy your next product if you did a good job of supporting the last product.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
There was also clearly a weak testing process (Beaufighter campaign for example). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Enh! I have done beta testing in the past.. You can never catch everything.. Unless you want to beta test the game for 5 years.. So, there will allways be that associated with game software.. The market just moves too fast. Beter to get it up to a point, release it, and then let the gen public provide you feedback. In that the gen public will do in a week what would take a team of beta testers to do in a year. Problem is trying to sift out all the useless feedback.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Yeah but UBI have put pressure on Oleg, as he's stated to get on with BoB. Ubi are the paymasters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There allways has, is and will be pressure from UBI to do this and that.. Has been there sense day one. Yet Oleg's track record has held, he has not cut-n-run yet and I dont think he will. In that in doing so he will use some of that loyal base. But, we all have to realise there will come a day that IL2-PF gets no more patches.. No mater what the bug is.. That is just the way it is. But, using IL2-PF as a test bed extends the life and thus pushses that *day* farther out.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
heh..I never quite know if you being sarcastichttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What can I say, it's a gift! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
I'd love to see continued development of IL2:FB and PF, don't get me wrong but resources are finite and BoB is gonna be somthing bigger and better. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Depends on how well it can be used as a test bed for BoB. The graphics engine is most likly not very useful.. In that is typiclly the big change between any game. But the internal stuff that makes the flight sim tic.. Like the FM and DM, there IL2-PF could be very useful as a test bed for BoB.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The IL2 engines really starting to show its limits but doesn't look dated however. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Only because IL2 was so far ahead of it time.. It raised the bar.. There are only about two flight sims that can best it in the eye candy dept (LockOn) but overall, no sim is better imho.

TAGERT.
03-02-2005, 01:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I'm taking a decided wait-and-see attitude towards this news. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, when it comes to wait-and-see you are an expert Im sure.. How long have you been waiting for a gnd model to be implimented in Targetware?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
If the "new FM" can _finally_ get energy bleed right, works at altitude as well as at the lower bands, and won't have to be _whipsawed_ to incorporate "new" elements* like landing on CVs, I'm all for it.

But a new FM that's as flawed as the current one doesn't interest me in the least. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Note the total lack of any proff to support his *feelings* on the subject.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
*By this I mean, the whole dynamics of most planes won't be changed, such as the reappearance of planes that can stand on their tails like UFOs, just because the "entire model" gets tweaked so planes can dirty up to land on CVs; the model should simply work with earth physics across the board. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Earth to Stig.. Earth to Stig.. Come in please!

TAGERT.
03-02-2005, 01:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LilHorse:
I have to say that this worries me somewhat. Does this mean that only higher end rigs will be able to run it? At present my rig is sweating and breathing hard (nothing to get excited about here) just to keep up with the present game configuration. I mostly fly online and I'd be very upset if I couldn't do that anymore. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LilHorse.. I feel your pain, but, the day a flight sim starts catering to the min requirments is a bad day imho. This is an expensive hobby.. If you can not afford a new rig, dont blaim a company for adding more! Simply take adv of the options provided and turn down your settings until you can get a new rig. If you cant get a new rig, then I would advise getting a new hobby, becasue sooner than later your going to get upset.

NerdConnected
03-02-2005, 03:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I'm taking a decided wait-and-see attitude towards this news. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, when it comes to wait-and-see you are an expert Im sure.. How long have you been waiting for a gnd model to be implimented in Targetware?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
If the "new FM" can _finally_ get energy bleed right, works at altitude as well as at the lower bands, and won't have to be _whipsawed_ to incorporate "new" elements* like landing on CVs, I'm all for it.

But a new FM that's as flawed as the current one doesn't interest me in the least. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Note the total lack of any proff to support his *feelings* on the subject.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
*By this I mean, the whole dynamics of most planes won't be changed, such as the reappearance of planes that can stand on their tails like UFOs, just because the "entire model" gets tweaked so planes can dirty up to land on CVs; the model should simply work with earth physics across the board. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Earth to Stig.. Earth to Stig.. Come in please! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, he's problably right about one thing. Oleg did'nt say anything about the high altitude model. That does'nt mean ofcourse it's not going to be fixed, since nobody knows ;-) Just wait and see...

Mark

LilHorse
03-02-2005, 03:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LilHorse:
I have to say that this worries me somewhat. Does this mean that only higher end rigs will be able to run it? At present my rig is sweating and breathing hard (nothing to get excited about here) just to keep up with the present game configuration. I mostly fly online and I'd be very upset if I couldn't do that anymore. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LilHorse.. I feel your pain, but, the day a flight sim starts catering to the min requirments is a bad day imho. This is an expensive hobby.. If you can not afford a new rig, dont blaim a company for adding more! Simply take adv of the options provided and turn down your settings until you can get a new rig. If you cant get a new rig, then I would advise getting a new hobby, becasue sooner than later your going to get upset. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I realize that these sims strive to get better and therefore demand more crunching power. But FB is pretty much done. Why drastically change it's underlying structure now? I can see starting with a clean slate for BoB. But I think FB should just be tidyed up a bit and then they should move on. I wouldn't be the only one who'd be left out. There'd be lots of others.

Stiglr
03-02-2005, 03:20 PM
Tagert always takes a "shoot the messenger" approach with me, because he can't refute anything I say. And, in typical f@nboi fashion, he can never show any of his OWN data that shows where Oleg is right (and I admit, there actually are MANY things that the team manages to get right). And of course, he has a backup excuse planned for whenever anyone DOES show any proof. Just goes to show, you can't win with a f@nboi.

Anybody with half a brain who's been around these boards knows that there have been time periods where energy bleed has been known to be way off (usually addressed with a patch), and we are all aware of the "CV landing/TO problems" that had to be "massaged" by way of FM tweaks that helped carrier ops at the expense of overall flight model accuracy. Which is to say, if the FM is correct, and models earth physics, then stall speeds for a given weight, attitude and flap setting will fall into line for the aircraft, no?

These are obvious to anyone with a half-critical eye, and debated ad nauseum here. Nobody needs to break out a slide rule and "prove" anything to Tagert.

Fehler
03-02-2005, 03:33 PM
Oleg is going to do, what Oleg is going to do, whether it makes a great deal of sense to most of us or not.

I wonder what FM changes he is talking about? It would stand to reason that they will be global changes, and not plane specific... But that is pure speculation on my part.

DarthBane_
03-02-2005, 03:36 PM
Aaah, i cannt talk from saliva, sshmm.
That is something i would like to try, my RL flying classes are starting in summer.
I have AMD64 3400, 1gig and 6800ultra. Does my system qualify? Or i have to take one more gig, because i will if necesery.

p1ngu666
03-02-2005, 03:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Oleg is going to do, what Oleg is going to do, whether it makes a great deal of sense to most of us or not.

I wonder what FM changes he is talking about? It would stand to reason that they will be global changes, and not plane specific... But that is pure speculation on my part. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

we will fly what we get, whatever it turns out tobe. and we will whine about it, or lack of it too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

yeah probably global, i guess planes have there own weight, lift etc, but its how they react in the world http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif maybe oleg will change the world http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

NerdConnected
03-02-2005, 04:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Tagert always takes a "shoot the messenger" approach with me, because he can't refute anything I say. And, in typical f@nboi fashion, he can never show any of his OWN data that shows where Oleg is right (and I admit, there actually are MANY things that the team manages to get right). And of course, he has a backup excuse planned for whenever anyone DOES show any proof. Just goes to show, you can't win with a f@nboi.

Anybody with _half a brain_ who's been around these boards knows that there have been time periods where energy bleed has been known to be way off (usually addressed with a patch), and we are all aware of the "CV landing/TO problems" that had to be "massaged" by way of FM tweaks that helped carrier ops at the expense of overall flight model accuracy. Which is to say, if the FM is correct, and models earth physics, then stall speeds for a given weight, attitude and flap setting will fall into line for the aircraft, no?

These are obvious to anyone with a half-critical eye, and debated ad nauseum here. Nobody needs to break out a slide rule and "prove" anything to Tagert. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is Tagert a human being or does he belong to the category "It's life Jim, but..."

;-)

Mark

TAGERT.
03-02-2005, 04:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NerdConnected:
Well, he's problably right about one thing. Oleg did'nt say anything about the high altitude model. That does'nt mean ofcourse it's not going to be fixed, since nobody knows ;-) Just wait and see...

Mark <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True, and the only thing Stig could ever hope to be right about when it comes to the FM is the things that Oleg has allready alluded to.

TAGERT.
03-02-2005, 04:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LilHorse:
I realize that these sims strive to get better and therefore demand more crunching power. But FB is pretty much done. Why drastically change it's underlying structure now? I can see starting with a clean slate for BoB. But I think FB should just be tidyed up a bit and then they should move on. I wouldn't be the only one who'd be left out. There'd be lots of others. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Let me see if I understand this correctly.. We stand the chance of getting more updates and more realistic modling for certain aspects for IL2-PF.. and you dont want that? Are you sure you name is not GiftHorse? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT.
03-02-2005, 04:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Tagert always takes a "shoot the messenger" approach with me, because he can't refute anything I say. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Because you never say anthing that can be refuted! Just you *feelings* of what is or is not, Im not going to sit here and argue with you about just how *fast* faster is when the WWII pilot said faster! You read it and *feel* faster means 32.09mph, someone else reads it and *feel* faster means 102.48mph.

I dont care how you *feel* it should/could be!

So until you bring something to the table that says faster = "some number" that we could then test for, just run along and continue to do your touchie feelie thing you love so much.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
And, in typical f@nboi fashion, he can never show any of his OWN data that shows where Oleg is right (and I admit, there actually are MANY things that the team manages to get right). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Guess you never saw any of my DeviceLink plots and associated data?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
And of course, he has a backup excuse planned for whenever anyone DOES show any proof. Just goes to show, you can't win with a f@nboi. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Excuses? That is funny coming from the KING of fanboi excuse makers! Tell me that one again about how Targetware actually has a gnd model.. but, it is not done yet because the game is still beta.. Even though it has been out for over 4 years. Talk about excuses makers!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Anybody with _half a brain_ who's been around these boards knows that there have been time periods where energy bleed has been known to be way off (usually addressed with a patch), and we are all aware of the "CV landing/TO problems" that had to be "massaged" by way of FM tweaks that helped carrier ops at the expense of overall flight model accuracy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yup, would take a half brain to suck that up as fact.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Which is to say, if the FM is correct, and models earth physics, then stall speeds for a given weight, attitude and flap setting will fall into line for the aircraft, no? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, now present one example of where it does not, oh wait, I forgot Im talking to the *feelings* guy.. So tell me, what speed do you *feel* a F4u should stall at for a given attitude, flap setting speed and weight.

<span class="ev_code_red">PS I love the way out point out all the things needed to actually do a real test.. YET NEVER PROVIDE ANY OF THEM!</span>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
These are obvious to anyone with a half-critical eye, and debated ad nauseum here. Nobody needs to break out a slide rule and "prove" anything to Tagert. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But in your case you couldnt even if you wanted to! Only thing it woudl result in is you getting a splinter in your mouth from sucking on the slide rule.

TAGERT.
03-02-2005, 04:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NerdConnected:
Is Tagert a human being or does he belong to the category "It's life Jim, but..."

;-)

Mark <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Human? sure, give me your mum phone number and Ill prove it!

WOLFMondo
03-02-2005, 04:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
There was also clearly a weak testing process (Beaufighter campaign for example). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Enh! I have done beta testing in the past.. You can never catch everything.. Unless you want to beta test the game for 5 years.. So, there will allways be that associated with game software.. The market just moves too fast. Beter to get it up to a point, release it, and then let the gen public provide you feedback. In that the gen public will do in a week what would take a team of beta testers to do in a year. Problem is trying to sift out all the useless feedback.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Beaufighter campaign was easy to catch, it was virtually the first bug everyone posted, it happened within a few minutes of starting the first mission of the campaign.

I know you can't catch every bug, thats an impossible task but some of the ones they missed were easy to spot and could have been picked out with a well thought out testplan and test script and a small team of dedicated testers. Remembering beta is essentially compatibility testing, functional and content is alpha.

Stiglr
03-02-2005, 05:16 PM
Exactly. There have been too many obvious errors to "give them a break" and assume they'll get it right.

I have never SEEN any FM get so many fixes and tweaks to it, such that the same plane in one version of IL-2 will fly VERY, VERY different from that same plane in another version.

Sure, small changes are to be expected, but planes going from dog to world-beater don't bear out a "tweak"; that's a pretty big change.

TAGERT.
03-02-2005, 05:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The Beaufighter campaign was easy to catch, it was virtually the first bug everyone posted, it happened within a few minutes of starting the first mission of the campaign. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ok, was it anything like the A20 campain where the AI ran into the mountian?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
I know you can't catch every bug, thats an impossible task but some of the ones they missed were easy to spot <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well hind sight is 20:20, and easy is a relitive term. People who love the Beaufighter were sure to spot it.. So maybe none of the beta testers were Beaufighter lovers?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
and could have been picked out with a well thought out testplan <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Test plan.. sure, but imagine now, one guy per each campain, per each plan, per each rank, per each year start point, for the total lenght of the campain. That is alot of man hours!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
and test script and a small team of dedicated testers. Remembering beta is essentially compatibility testing, functional and content is alpha. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I dont think a script would catch these types of errors.. You literlly have to sit down and run them in real time with real people making real choices.

TAGERT.
03-02-2005, 05:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Exactly. There have been too many obvious errors to "give them a break" and assume they'll get it right. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><span class="ev_code_red">LOL! I love the way you point out all the things needed to actually do a real test.. YET NEVER PROVIDE ANY OF THEM!</span>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I have never SEEN any FM get so many fixes and tweaks to it, such that the same plane in one version of IL-2 will fly VERY, VERY different from that same plane in another version. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Boy.. Oleg is DAMMED if he does and DAMMED if he dont. In that some simp like Stig is going to complain about getting a patch! I guess Stig would be happier with buying a sim like CFS2 that gets only one patch! That must mean it is a better sim! Right? In that they never had to fix it very much! Couldnt be that they just didnt give a rat a$$ about the customer and realised they allready had you money in thier pocket.. No, couldnt be that.. Has to mean it was a bug free sim and therefore a better simulation! What a flawed line of reasoning and logic! Which does shead some light on *why* Stig *thinks* Targetware is a better sim.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Sure, small changes are to be expected, but planes going from dog to world-beater don't bear out a "tweak"; that's a pretty big change. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><span class="ev_code_red">LOL! I love the way you point out all the things needed to actually do a real test.. YET NEVER PROVIDE ANY OF THEM!</span>

Charlie901
03-02-2005, 07:20 PM
Sounds like good news to me but I'm nervous about the extra CPU calculations and hope it doesn't introduce any more bugs, that keep us on the "Hurry the next patch up", bandwagon.

Stiglr
03-02-2005, 08:07 PM
Tagert of course neglects to mention that, in some of these cases of "obvious" error, others did put up exactly the kind of documentation and proof that he says he requires (only to dig up some other f@nboi excuse after it's presented). I don't always have to produce it myself. And certainly not because Corsair-boy here demands it.

TAGERT.
03-02-2005, 09:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Tagert of course neglects to mention that, in some of these cases of "obvious" error, others did put up exactly the kind of documentation and proof that he says he requires (only to dig up some other f@nboi excuse after it's presented). I don't always have to produce it myself. And certainly not because Corsair-boy here demands it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<span class="ev_code_red">LOL! I love the way you point out all the things needed to actually do a real test.. YET NEVER PROVIDE ANY OF THEM!</span>

Werre_Fsck
03-02-2005, 11:46 PM
I for one am all for new FM and continuing support for PF. I'd probably buy a commercial addon for PF even if BoB came out tomorrow.

Why? Because BoB will have less planes, less maps. I like eastern front and Finnish Gulf missions. All PF needs are some tweaks, some missing important flyables and a fixed MG-151/20...

I'd almost go as far as to say BoB should keep all planes and maps from PF as an option. If the new physics engine is that good, it should be pretty trivial to add new planes when all the 3D work is already done. It would of course be nice to get revamped 3D model for MiGs and improved textures for all 109s and so on.. but I doubt they have that much time.

In an ideal world we would get one more megapatch with the new FM and then some time in the future (when BoB is out and PF sales are virtual zero) the PF encryption would be removed to allow user mods and addons. In closed communities cheating would be no problem.

Stiglr: Your points are spot on. Both in MG-151/20 threads and this one.

Fehler
03-02-2005, 11:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NerdConnected:
Is Tagert a human being or does he belong to the category "It's life Jim, but..."

;-)

Mark <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Human? sure, give me your mum phone number and Ill prove it! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

tagert, the mom comments are never called for. You want to fling insults, fine, but family comments are never in vogue.

TAGERT.
03-02-2005, 11:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
tagert, the mom comments are never called for. You want to fling insults, fine, but family comments are never in vogue. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>mom comments? All I did was ask for a phone number to prove Im human.

Fehler
03-02-2005, 11:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
tagert, the mom comments are never called for. You want to fling insults, fine, but family comments are never in vogue. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>mom comments? All I did was ask for a phone number to prove Im human. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, cloak and dagger cr@p again. You know what I mean, keep the mom comments out of it please, they are of no real value at all. Even you can be at least that civilized, correct?

WTE_Ibis
03-03-2005, 01:53 AM
no



-

Capt.LoneRanger
03-03-2005, 02:22 AM
Werre_Fsck, I'm with you in parallel existence of PF and BoB, but I doubt that will be possible. After all, who knows if BoB will be released in a year from now?
I'm personally looking forward to the update of the flightmodells, especially since I love the P38 and would really like to see it correctly modelled in IL2.
Beyond that, as the upgrade will be a little part of the step in the direction of BoB, it makes me again wonder how big BoB will be. Not in terms of numbers of planes perhaps, but I honestly don't play the game because a single fighter is modelled, but because there's nothing similar in terms of realism. To get it a LOT more real, as stated, with less, but far more detailed planes is a step forward, not a step backwards.
Besides that, as allready mentioned in that very informative thread over there, there are allready plans for making addons. I doubt it'll be long after BoB to see some really nice other war theaters become available.
And I promise all who where against BoB will play it until they get squared eyes and bloody hands. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

TAGERT.
03-03-2005, 08:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
OK, cloak and dagger cr@p again. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What a vivid imagination you have!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
You know what I mean, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No I don't, and I can see you don't know what I mean either.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
keep the mom comments out of it please, they are of no real value at all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No more value then questioning someone humanity, I just wanted to speak with this guys parent.. His mom, to let her know what her kid it up to at night while she is at work. At which point I'm sure she could have gone into the next room and given him a spanking, thus proving my existence and humanity.. In that I cared enough to get involved and try and help this kid. I would have asked to speak to his dad, but it is clear that he comes from a single parent type upbringing. So, just what was it you *thought* I was saying? Is your mind in the gutter again?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Even you can be at least that civilized, correct? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What is a better example of a guy taking time out of his day and trying to help a single parent get their kid off of the path to destruction? I'm a friggin saint!

NerdConnected
03-03-2005, 12:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>No more value then questioning someone humanity, I just wanted to speak with this guys parent.. His mom, to let her know what her kid it up to at night while she is at work. At which point I'm sure she could have gone into the next room and given him a spanking, thus proving my existence and humanity.. In that I cared enough to get involved and try and help this kid. I would have asked to speak to his dad, but it is clear that he comes from a single parent type upbringing. So, just what was it you *thought* I was saying? Is your mind in the gutter again?

What is a better example of a guy taking time out of his day and trying to help a single parent get their kid off of the path to destruction? I'm a friggin saint! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When do you take that vacation?

Mark

TAGERT.
03-03-2005, 02:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NerdConnected:
When do you take that vacation?

Mark <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Usally in the summer time.. I like to take my boat out to the lake, or the horses for a ride up in the mountains. Why do you ask?

Stiglr
03-03-2005, 02:44 PM
...because we wish it was starting NOW, that's why.

TooCooL34
03-03-2005, 02:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
...because we wish it was starting NOW, that's why. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif ..and I wish it to be very long vacation..

TAGERT.
03-03-2005, 02:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
...because we wish it was starting NOW, that's why. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I know.. I too wish summer was here too.. Im tired of all this rain and gray skys.. Oh well.

Call_me_Kanno
03-03-2005, 04:44 PM
May have been already said but Mr. Maddox is using the I-85 as the BoB test plane in FB from what I read in a post by him.

Nubarus
03-03-2005, 05:41 PM
I wonder how many complain threads we will get from famous FM whiners after this new FM will be released and transform their FM whining into performance whining.