PDA

View Full Version : Bit dissapointed.



Cworth
05-08-2005, 04:30 PM
I just got the game Pacific Fighters after owning IL2:FB and the Aces expansion.
I really looked forward to the game but now that I have it I am really dissapointed in the lack of Japanese items.

Where is the Hiryu,Soryu,Shokaku,Zuikaku,Kaga.
Where are the Japanese Battleships like Yamato for you to attack or protect.

How could they make a Pacific game and not include the major Fleet Carriers of the Japanese Navy,yet include a number of American carriers,Battleships etc.

I love the game,dont get me wrong there just am dissapointed in the fact they did not add more to the Japanese side.

3.JG51_BigBear
05-08-2005, 04:42 PM
Pacific Fighters seems to have been kind of a mistake. For whatever reasons a lot of important pacific theatre aircraft and objects, especially on the Japanese side, were not included. I'm guessing lack of references on a lot of things and all the problems the development team seems to have had with implementing all the third party designs. Even though some development screen shots have shown a few new Japanese planes it seems that there isn't much more for the Pacific. Most of the new stuff is for Europe.

Dunkelgrun
05-08-2005, 05:00 PM
Shokaku and Zuikaku are in the game, but American battleships are not. Suggest that you take another look. Both sides have important ships and aircraft missing, not to mention the poor map selection.

Not that you aren't wrong to be disappointed. As a standalone PF is woeful. As an add-on to FB/AEP I think it was worth it.

Have a look through this board and you'll see many many posts on the subject, plus some reasons as to why it will never be the sim that some hoped.

An expansion too far. Not only that but it's held up Oleg's next project and done his bank balance no good either. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Cheers!

Cworth
05-08-2005, 08:32 PM
I was wrong on some cases..
I was going by what I saw when using the object viewer and the Pearl Harbor scenario.

I finally saw the other carriers,though why they are not in the list in the object viewer is confusing.Also I assumed their were American Battleships because of Battleship row..though again nothing in the object viewer.

Oh well still is a fun game to play online against my friends.Which will be 95% of its use.

fordfan25
05-08-2005, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by Cworth:
I just got the game Pacific Fighters after owning IL2:FB and the Aces expansion.
I really looked forward to the game but now that I have it I am really dissapointed in the lack of Japanese items.

Where is the Hiryu,Soryu,Shokaku,Zuikaku,Kaga.
Where are the Japanese Battleships like Yamato for you to attack or protect.

How could they make a Pacific game and not include the major Fleet Carriers of the Japanese Navy,yet include a number of American carriers,Battleships etc.

I love the game,dont get me wrong there just am dissapointed in the fact they did not add more to the Japanese side.


lol U.S battle ships? wear?

goshikisen
05-08-2005, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by Cworth:
Where is the Hiryu,Soryu,Shokaku,Zuikaku,Kaga.
Where are the Japanese Battleships like Yamato for you to attack or protect.

How could they make a Pacific game and not include the major Fleet Carriers of the Japanese Navy,yet include a number of American carriers,Battleships etc.



It appears to have been a time/project management issue. Time ran out before even a basic representation of the Japanese and American fleets could be built. Unfortunately, talented modellers and funds to pay them with are limited. I'd love to see a Japanese Battleship (Nagato?) and Cruiser (Myoko?) and an American Battleship (South Dakota?) in the game but, unfortunately, that won't happen. The quality of the missions that could be built for the Pacific would be that much better if we had these basic building blocks.

As you say though... for a "flawed" product it's pretty **** good.

Regards, Goshikisen.

jagdmailer
05-08-2005, 10:35 PM
I myself was not going to buy PF originally. I was glad I did not buy it once it started to be known after the release in October that it was a disapointing product.

Then, we were told that if we wanted any more new planes/maps/objects, such as the Ju 88 (which I had been waiting for a very long time), we would need to buy PF. Therefore, I somewhat reluctantly bought PF.

PF stand alone is still a poor product 7+ months after release. However, it is my opinion that the complete set FB/AEP/PF is great and well worth the money, specially if you own BoE, based on a European theatre representation.

PF is so poor because it is missing mostly all of the important ships (ie. no US & Japanese Battleships, no Japanese cruisers, no Yorktown class carriers and mostly all generic ships), missing many of the aicrafts (I guess NG suit did not help), and the relative small selection of maps available is not always the wisest choice that could have been made.

PF should be improved significantly with several new mostly Japanese aircrafts (Ki-21/Ki-100/Raiden/Claude/Nate/Jill ?/George), but it is still missing the NG suit planes, and the building blocks of the pacific war - lots and lots of ships and missing appropriate maps.

After I reluctantly bought PF, I personally was looking for my favorite Japanese A/C which are all missing for PF, with little chance of ever making it that is....: Ki-45 Nick, Ki-44 Tojo & Yokosuka D4Y Judy.....go figure.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Nevertheless, in the end with the new planes coming which will enhance it, I personally think it is the surprising & chronic lack of ships and somewhat to a lesser extent the dubious selection of maps that killed PF.

Regards,

Jagd

SR-71
05-15-2005, 06:20 AM
Hello!

This is my first post, and sorry is to say this, but...

I'm a brand new user of PF but not of IL2, wich I'm a fan. I have not the AEP because it's very difficult to find in Spain, but I'm on it. The problem is that I'm a bit dissapointed like the thread starter: HOW CAN YOU MAKE A PACIFIC WAR SIMULATION WITHOUT TORPEDO BOMBING?????

Torpedo attacks are for me the most interesting part of this combat simulation (and very very important part of this war)... if you cannot fly a Kate or Devastator or TBM... what kind of combat will be this????

Hope will be solved soon, IMHO this game is a little incomplete. And please, when this happens please inform claerly all of us, I'm expecting with passion.

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

Capt.LoneRanger
05-15-2005, 06:39 AM
PF as a stand-alone product is not really thrilling, but as an addon, it's okay. You got to keep in mind, that you do not only pay for the game itself, but also for the ongoing support and considering how many updates we allready got and what major changes the next patch will bring, this is a fair price for the offer.
Please remember: These updates come for free. That doesn't mean Oleg's team programs it in their spare time... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

badaboom.1
05-15-2005, 08:36 AM
This patch is taking the dev.team an extreamly long time,that being said I'm holding on to hope that their will be some surprises for the Pacific Theater!(just my opinion) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SpartanHoplite
05-15-2005, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
PF as a stand-alone product is not really thrilling, but as an addon, it's okay. You got to keep in mind, that you do not only pay for the game itself, but also for the ongoing support and considering how many updates we allready got and what major changes the next patch will bring, this is a fair price for the offer.
Please remember: These updates come for free. That doesn't mean Oleg's team programs it in their spare time... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Ditto. I guess this is the thing that it always seems to boil down to when discussing PF - whether you are a PF stand-alone player, or an FB/AEP/PF player, in which case the PF material (for many but not all people) can be seen as the icing on the cake. Since I'm in the latter group, maybe that lets me take the lumps much more easily.

Although for me, the more disappointing thing about PF is not the missing Navy components, but the super-thin USAAF campaign. I've never been that interested Wildcats, Hellcats, and taking off of aircraft carries, but P-39s, P-40s, and (especially) P-38s and Hurricanes in USAAF and RAF campaigns in the pacific and CTO? Its very thin to non-existant in PF, and that is my biggest disaapointment.

SH

nakamura_kenji
05-15-2005, 11:19 AM
i saw thread which now delte where person post picture of malaya map which i not know about. I also was disapointed as origanlly bought stand alone i not even know it had do anything with il-2 ^_^.

from what i read biggest problem was development leader go alwol i think someone say

i think for pacific theartre in the deleted read me thread leak it had

ki-100, g4m, g4m+ohka
singapore and malaya also it seem

i probably forget something

sasqon also say j2m3 cockpit complete and george nearly i think remember

RangerX3X
05-15-2005, 11:28 AM
Following the general rule that it is generally better to add to an existing post than to go out and blaze your own trail...

I just purchased PF this morning. I did have IL2 a long time ago (two computers ago) but have not played it in well over a year or more I suspect.

I bought PF as a stand alone game, and as such I am seriously disappointed in what I have. Having recently purchased Silent Hunter III, I was somewhat encouraged by the packaging being very similar between the two games. Being thoroughly pleased with SH3, I was looking forward to what PF had to offer.

Aside from comparable product packaging, that is where the similarities end for me. There is no joy to be found in this otherwise "IL2 Redux".

I am completely miffed I cannot play MP (page 44 of the manual says this can be done on UBI.com, but offers absolutely no assistance in getting where you need to be). This game was released in late 2004 - it should not have been hard to integrate an in-game browser capability. This in and of itself is a game killer for me.

And also for a game released not 8 months ago, the graphics are sub par at best - certainly looks nothing more than IL2 reincarnated. I mean come on, as a stand alone product, at least be inventive enough to change the interface so it doesn't seem so blatant.

I should be used to such drivel from Uber Suck. The screenies look great, but the SP missions and in game graphics simply are dated. It is a competent flight program, however I am glad I got it at Wallyworld for $19.99 - sadly to say (because I have a ton of respect for Maddox Games) - it is not worth that price.

Pretty lame when you have to jump through hoops just to play online.

Bearcat99
05-15-2005, 12:41 PM
Get the FB GOLd pack and do the merged install. It will give you more options.

LuckyBoy1
05-15-2005, 12:45 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

More options? I think Bearcat's been a mod too long. He's understated that so much as to almost make it a lie of ommission! The combined install will keep you busy for at least 2 years and that's without any more patches than we already have.

Patches?.. We don't need no stinking right now patches! Give us thr right patch Gringo! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

nakamura_kenji
05-15-2005, 12:57 PM
not forget hyperlobby ^_^

showboat1971
05-15-2005, 01:12 PM
The combined game is, I think, pretty good. Of course, I only started playing a month or so ago so its still basically a new game for me. I wouldn't have bought it without the PF side of things. I agree that it needs ALOT of new ships and objects and some new planes. I've d/l'ed a TON of campaigns, missions, skins, etc., but I'm wondering if there are modders ready to start making these things or are we beholden to 1C and Maddox Games for our additions. I know Matrix Games (God Bless 'Em) has made some expansions, but they are only missions and campaigns. What's the deal guys?

Enforcer572005
05-15-2005, 01:54 PM
The lack of ships is the biggest problem, by far, as there doesnt seem to be much possibility of a few more, even user adon apparently, but i hope i am wrong about that. I want 1c to make money so they can keep giving us the best sim series in the world, but this is obviously a result of coorporate suits who used the microsoft policy of marketing sims before completion. 1c always seem to fix stuff liek that, but to not add any ships or encourage user adon ships seems to be an incredible mistake.

I saw a cruiser and yamato done by a japanese fellow that was incredible, and i know there are others out there who would give us a few mroe combat vessels.

a review of CFS2 would show that there was a cruiser and destroyer and battleship class for each country. there really should have been a class of each (including light and heavy cruisers). We have the coral sea and midway maaps,but what can you really do with then w/o the Yorktown class or an adequate escort for the japanes vessels? alot of us are very familiar with the history of htis conflict, and just cant handle a king G-V BB as japanese or american. and pearl harbor populated by such ships-even MS didnt go that far. Just one of the old battlewagon classes could have sufficed.

We can improvise alot with the russain ships from FB, as the marat will look alot better on battlship row than KG-V, but there isa limit.

What amazes me is that htere is no encouragement from 1C for users to correct this ship deficet, or any addressing of this at all. this is totally unlike them.

If we wait for the new engine/generation of sim they are doing to fill this in, we will always be waiting, for by the time they get to it, it will be time to replace it again. i really wish they could correct this and give us the definitive sim, or allow others to help them with that. 8-12 more ships would really help this. as would some correct versions of other planes, like the P38F and B24D, P47N. most of the work is already done on them i think, since they require minimal modification to exist.

I would pay for such an adon.....i still love this series of sims and am grateful for oleg's efforts and his employees, but this is a bit like microsoft, not 1C. as i said, I would be more than willing to pay for an adon htat would correct much of this, and im sure there are guys that would love to help.

Atomic_Marten
05-15-2005, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
i saw thread which now delte where person post picture of malaya map which i not know about. I also was disapointed as origanlly bought stand alone i not even know it had do anything with il-2 ^_^.

from what i read biggest problem was development leader go alwol i think someone say

i think for pacific theartre in the deleted read me thread leak it had

ki-100, g4m, g4m+ohka
singapore and malaya also it seem

i probably forget something

sasqon also say j2m3 cockpit complete and george nearly i think remember

Other than new a/c
KI100
G4M
G4M+Ohka
there was also mentioned
two new Spitfires MK.V C models
Tempest V
IIRC
______________________________________

BTW I don't really care that much about Pacific theatre of actions in IL-2 serial, but I had no doubts whatsoever in decision to buy the PF add-on(game).
IMO it was good decision http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. FB was taken on a level higher with the new expansion.
And we haven't seen the last word of it yet. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

danger13
05-15-2005, 05:40 PM
lol, the "combined "thing again......
think about it for a min http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif to buy all four games would cost over 100 gbp, how can you justify that a man/woman who buy's PF, should go and buy il2 fb and aces just to get a "better" selection??? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

VW-IceFire
05-15-2005, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by danger13:
lol, the "combined "thing again......
think about it for a min http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif to buy all four games would cost over 100 gbp, how can you justify that a man/woman who buy's PF, should go and buy il2 fb and aces just to get a "better" selection??? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
FB Gold Edition can be had for $30 Canadian. Thats probably around 15 or 20 Euros (although I really don't know). Thats all you need to get aside from PF.

Going out today, buying PF for $30 and FB Gold for $30...so $60 (which is what you'd spend on the average X-Box game) and you get a HUGE game to play. Thats not all that unreasonable here...I'm not sure elsewhere...but really.

As for PF content, there sounds like some good stuff on the horizon. Mentions of the N1K-2J flyable, J2M3, Sally AI bomber, and the coming Ki-100 make me somewhat excited. As does the new map...which actually looks to cover some decent territory and be useful. Unfortunately, Rabaul or something else would have been better...but eh.

jarink
05-15-2005, 06:04 PM
I could go to a store right now and get the FB Gold pack for $20US and PF for the same amount. The only hard part there is actually finding a store with FB Gold Pack in stock! (buy it online for basically the same amount)

It may seem unreasonable to some, but it's currently the only way of getting more aircraft, maps, etc. in the game.

Looking at the PF box right here at my desk, the ONLY thing missing is a flyable Betty. Nowhere does it state on the box that it covers all the major battles, include all the 'important' aircraft, or models of all the major ships!

Ever hear the saying "buyer beware"? One of it's many meanings is to read reviews before buying a computer game. Don't complain because something wasn't exactly what you thought or hoped it was without even trying to find out more about it than what's printed on the box.

I'll be honest; I bought it on a whim without any research. I had a bunch of Best Buy gift cards from Christmas and happened to see it on the shelf. The reasons I bought it were that I knew the IL2 series was considered an excellent sim and I hadn't bought a flight sim for about 4 years. After installing it, I was hooked. Finally doing some research, I had to get the FB Gold Pack.

I'm so very glad I did. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Bearcat99
05-15-2005, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by danger13:
lol, the "combined "thing again......
think about it for a min http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif to buy all four games would cost over 100 gbp, how can you justify that a man/woman who buy's PF, should go and buy il2 fb and aces just to get a "better" selection??? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

I did it.. I am satisfied. You may not want to hear this but those are the facts. Get over it. And for those who keep comapring this to CFS2 as far as ships and maps go... get over that too. This isnt CFS... period. We may never get the added ships that some of us seem to feel will improve the sim so much... and yes it would definitely not hurt. Id love to have a complete set of ship classes for at least the Pacific theater nations... but I dont. I have fun with what I have which is still miles above anything else on the market in this genre.


I can understand being disapointed though. Like I said I wish we had more... Id love at least 3 more flyable bombers...... Id love to have a rocket loadout for the P-51s..... Id love to see troops running from the convoys I starafe...

Thats life.

bird_brain
05-16-2005, 06:25 AM
Call me fanboy if you want, but I think PF was worth it just to get the Carriers.
Obviously the map selection is limited, but you just have to be creative in how you use them. I have not run out of things to do with it yet and it has been about 3 years now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
I still have a list of stuff I am working on that is not done yet.

showboat1971
05-16-2005, 07:32 AM
The more that I read and think on the topic I am beginning to feel that the biggest let down is the lack of maps. Where is Rabaul? Where are the Northern Solomons? Where are the Philippines? Where is Rangoon? Where is Hong Kong or Kunming or other places in China? What about Singapore and Malaysia? Forget the ships for a moment, there was plenty of land based air warfare to go around int he Pacific, if only we had the maps.

DarthBane_
05-16-2005, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by bird_brain:
Call me fanboy if you want, but I think PF was worth it just to get the Carriers.
Obviously the map selection is limited, but you just have to be creative in how you use them. I have not run out of things to do with it yet and it has been about 3 years now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
I still have a list of stuff I am working on that is not done yet.

I agree on the first part concerning carriers, it was worth it to get tham. However, nobody said that 6800 ultra and 3400 AMD with 1gb 400 cannot give you the satisfaction to play the game in axeptable frames on water=3, screenshots of that were posted everywhere even on nvidia site. Shader 3.0, stinking slideshow.
Waste of time and money. Also some AC cockpits look awfull, looks like programers did the textures, not artists?????
Lying about third disc and phrases like 'comming realy soon, be shure' with stories about who is sick and who isnt, who got out of bed on wrong foot, got drunk and didnt come to work or maybe have problems with wife, kids or mistress, who wears women clothings when nobody sees him and so.
I have interest in WW2 aircraft, i pay for my hobby and i dont care for stinking soap series.
Instead of development update and patch we got inside look on developers RL problems. Strange addon to WW2 sim dont you think? We got that for free, but i am not sure i ever wanted to know about it.

Vigilanty
05-16-2005, 09:47 AM
3d Ship models are not that hard to make. No cockpits, no need to make individual flight or damage models. If the game was being supported properly a hundred fans would be cranking out ship models right now.

Blackdog5555
05-16-2005, 10:35 AM
As for value, the Gold pack is the best value for any combat sim on the market today. MSFS2004 for $24.00 is probably best pure value but you cant blow things up. PF is worth it for me just to land a F4U on a carrier, a beautifully rendered Essex.

But with that said I agree tht the lack of maps and ships and no decent single player mission/camps and dated poorly rendered islands and the fact that most of WWII in PTO/SWP is missing is disappointing. Need a new pit for the P47 too!

showboat1971
05-16-2005, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by Vigilanty:
3d Ship models are not that hard to make. No cockpits, no need to make individual flight or damage models. If the game was being supported properly a hundred fans would be cranking out ship models right now.

And why aren't they? What's the hold up? I, for one, don't have the skill necessary to engage in that kind of activity (but I do have the time). Just how hard is it? What sort of special software do you need? For that matter, how hard is it to make a new map?

VW-IceFire
05-16-2005, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by showboat1971:
The more that I read and think on the topic I am beginning to feel that the biggest let down is the lack of maps. Where is Rabaul? Where are the Northern Solomons? Where are the Philippines? Where is Rangoon? Where is Hong Kong or Kunming or other places in China? What about Singapore and Malaysia? Forget the ships for a moment, there was plenty of land based air warfare to go around int he Pacific, if only we had the maps.
Hit the nail on the head...thats the worst part of it.

Asgeir_Strips
05-16-2005, 11:18 AM
the only positive thing about PF is Carrier Ops. (with those few carriers that we have)

showboat1971
05-16-2005, 02:10 PM
The carriers are a plus as are the new targets for anti-shipping strikes. However, I still see the lack of MAPS as the greatest downfall right now. Map additions would do wonders for improving the game.

SaQSoN
05-16-2005, 02:41 PM
3d Ship models are not that hard to make. No cockpits, no need to make individual flight or damage models.

Wow! Really?
But then, can you explain a paradox: I did at least 4 ship models for the FB/PF and near a dosen of planes, and still think the ships are substantially harder to build and implement into the game engine, then an aircraft models.


If the game was being supported properly a hundred fans would be cranking out ship models right now.

I wonder, what do you know about the "proper support" and what those "fans" can do?

heywooood
05-16-2005, 09:03 PM
I dont think it matters to 1c's core fans whether it is harder to model planes or ships or maps for this sim....

What I, for one, wonder is...why begin the PF project at all if there is no serious commitment to it?

If 1c intended it to be an interesting addon to Fb/AEP which would include one or two Pacific maps - a couple of PTO aircraft - a couple of carriers - and a couple of maps, with some 'starter' campaigns and missions then THAT is what they should have represented it as.

Asking the community whether it should be an addon or a 'standalone' simulator was a mistake, given that 1c meant 'standalone' in the sense that the consumer would not need FB/AEP to run PF...but that they did not mean 'standalone' in the sense that PF would not need FB/AEP to be viable.

I don't believe 1c purposely misled us...I think there was an internal breakdown between Oleg and Ilya as to how much could be done, and how much time they had. Then there were some major code issues to resolve related to carriers, carrier planes, water, etc...and then there was the whole copyright fiasco that broke the camels back.

In the end - time ran out and PF was short sheeted.

We have a modest diversion from the more developed Eastern and Western fronts, an abridged and abrogated PTO, which does not 'standalone' at all well.

It would probably help if 1c and the people that moderate these boards would try not to dismiss everyone that recognises this unfortunate aspect of PF....

I should be clear that I dont think that telling new PF customers that come here to ask where the rest of their Pacific Theater is to 'buy FB/AEP - you wont be sorry' is done to be rude....a few months ago, I was suggesting it myself. But after further review, I think that is a little too dismissive of the fact that PF isn't all that it should have been - or was hyped to be.
And that consumers looking for a Pacific Theater combat flight simulation who were sold on PF by what 1c published in the past and what UBI advertised, then and even now, have every right to come here looking for the rest of it.

1c should do whatever it can - traffic accidents and office relocation and employee turnover and corporate litigation be ****ed - to make PF more complete...no matter how long it takes (get well Oleg), if it wants to realize BoBs full potential.

Vigilanty
05-17-2005, 07:56 AM
3d Ship models are not that hard to make. No cockpits, no need to make individual flight or damage models.


Originally posted by SaQSoN:
Wow! Really?
But then, can you explain a paradox: I did at least 4 ship models for the FB/PF and near a dosen of planes, and still think the ships are substantially harder to build and implement into the game engine, then an aircraft models.


The holdup with the flyable planes - reportedly - has generally been a lack of sufficiently detailed reference sources for the cockpits. This is not a problem with ships. The exterior models on ships are more complicated but they also tend to be modular - one pom-pom looks much like another at this scale and poly count - so that once a base of models is built up others can be added more rapidly, building on what has been done before. Finally, although it would be nice to impliment separate fire and damage models for individual classes of ships, this is not strictly necessary - and an Alabama-class battleship model will at least look like an American battleship.


If the game was being supported properly a hundred fans would be cranking out ship models right now.


I wonder, what do you know about the "proper support" and what those "fans" can do?

I know what kinds of miracles fans perform with 3DSMax when the game allows them to add their own models. There are scores of games where this has been done successfully. I'll be glad to post links with pics if you'd like.

As far as proper support goes - I'm an absolute expert in that field, because I'm a customer who has purchased literally scores of flight-simulator games from many different companies. Sierra, Microprose, and many other companies had a go at this market niche and now they're gone. And, watching them come and go over the past twenty years or so, I've noticed that each of these companies became less and less responsive to reasonable user requests and wishes once they had decided to get out of the flight sim business.

I absolutely understand the company policy of maintaining control of what aircraft and 3D representations thereof will be allowed to be added to the game. This is necessary to maintain standardization and quality control of elements that are at the heart of the game. The same policy does not apply with equal force to peripheral elements like ships. This is something that fans should either be allowed to add on their own or, that failing, should be actively assisted in adding if they desire to do so. That, in my expert opinion, is proper customer support for a viable game of this nature.

showboat1971
05-17-2005, 09:13 AM
I've come to a conclusion that this will probably be the last product I buy from 1C. This has just been nothing but a headache from the start. I came in thinking how wonderful this game would be, only to hear nothing but excuses. Well, excuse me, but I can spend money elsewhere. I will continue to play PF and hope that something will be done to advance it along some, but as for buying new games from these guys, no thanks.

Atomic_Marten
05-17-2005, 09:44 AM
Oleg Maddox: "I'm almost back!" (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/9761008123/p/1)

SaQSoN
05-17-2005, 10:23 AM
Vigilanty, I always admired the people, who can talk with extremally smart face about things, they have no idea of. If I say, IT IS HARDER to CORRECTLY build a warship for the PF, then to build an aircraft for the same game, then IT IS SO. Because I did both things and more then once.


I know what kinds of miracles fans perform with 3DSMax when the game allows them to add their own models.
Yeah, I know too. For I seen them a lot. And spent a lot of headachy hours fixing and rebuilding and straightening those "Miracles".
As did guys at the 1C. So we say: "We had enough of this sht!"
And belive me, a 3rd party modeller will NEVER be able to do the proper model for this engine, because it was never meant to directly support 3rd party models.

Vigilanty
05-17-2005, 12:04 PM
And I've always been astonished by people who expect me to believe what they say just on their say-so. So you're a professional who has spent many a "headachy" hour fixing the amateur efforts of fans? Well, that's good, I assume that you were paid for that. All in a day's work. Because, Vladamir, you're working for us. If you've really "had enough of this sht," I wish you the best of luck in your new job.

The game was quite obviously never meant to directly support 3rd-party models. That was A-OK with me so long as new models were forthcoming from the developer. Free, paid - I don't care where it comes from, there's a big demand for new product that is not being met. And that is absolutely not the fault of what's left of an increasingly irate and disgusted community of one-time fans of this project.

And for the record, I'm not a whiner. For years I've been a big booster of this game. Right now, though, I sincerely hope that y'all get some competition in this market so that I can patronize a company that appreciates my business more than you do.

Atomic_Marten
05-17-2005, 12:32 PM
Yeah SaQSon is one of the developers of the game and you are a fan of the game like me, Vigilanty.
I really don't know why you approach with that attitude to SaQSoN -- he clearly said that it is harder to implement ships in game than aircrafts -- I believe him because that is not "say-so" like you said -- I call that *first hand info* http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Vigilanty
05-17-2005, 12:59 PM
Simple - I take that attitude because I no longer give the developers of this game the benefit of the doubt. They have destroyed their credibility by being untruthful with us about Pacific Fighters from the get-go. He may be right, but he has given no reason for his statement other than his authority as a developer, and that means nothing to me at this point. Why is it more difficult?

He also disparaged the efforts of fan modelers in general, implying that their efforts were flawed and not worthwhile. Should I believe that too on his say so? Then what should I make of this fan-made additional aircraft for SFP1?

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y93/vigilantefromvenus/F-84G.jpg

I may be ignorant, but that looks OK to me.

DRB_Hookech0
05-17-2005, 01:18 PM
Well I'd guess that being as this is the end of the road for PF et al then what the hell is the big deal with people wanting to extend the life of the project by our own hands...SaQSoN wouldnt have to spend "headachy" hours fixing our mistakes for something he has moved on from. If some of the game was opened up...mainly maps and some objects...and it didnt meet SaQSoN's standards from on high then....he could just not download it couldn't he?

:::::edited out my pitthy come back...it's not needed::::::

Sharkey888
05-17-2005, 01:29 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SaQSoN:
If I say, IT IS HARDER to CORRECTLY build a warship for the PF, then to build an aircraft for the same game, then IT IS SO. Because I did both things and more then once.

[QUOTE]

If this is so, how in the Heck did PF get the green light as a standalone game? That's just ridiculous!! Pacific=Ships!

Enthor1
05-17-2005, 02:13 PM
Pacific=Water!