PDA

View Full Version : Burma FMB map



ianboys
09-14-2006, 03:51 PM
http://www.futureastro.com/air5/fb/Burma_FMBmap.jpg

http://www.futureastro.com/air5/fb/vultee.jpg

http://www.futureastro.com/air5/fb/Vc2_ss.jpg

mrsiCkstar
09-14-2006, 03:54 PM
sweet! looks superb http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Aguila_Azteca
09-14-2006, 04:18 PM
thanks for your work!

VW-IceFire
09-14-2006, 04:32 PM
Nice work Ian!

I can already see a few options for online campaigns!

Flying_Nutcase
09-14-2006, 05:50 PM
Can't wait! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

hotspace
09-14-2006, 06:09 PM
Permission to dribble, Sir http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

CapBackassward
09-14-2006, 08:14 PM
Ian! Your just a tease, man!

Rick http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

smokincrater
09-15-2006, 02:42 AM
Where can I get it.

WOLFMondo
09-15-2006, 03:19 AM
Nice work. I can't wait to fly a Spitfire VIII campaign on it.

Vacillator
09-15-2006, 03:37 AM
Please forgive my ignorance and lack of thorough searching elsewhere http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif .

Will the Burma map be part of the Manchuria addon? If not I second smokincrater's question, where do we get it? Presumably it will need full integration into version 4.06 or whatever?

Oh and thanks for the great work as always http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif .

ianboys
09-15-2006, 05:02 AM
Yes, it will be a (free) bonus in SoM (406)

MaxMhz
09-15-2006, 05:17 AM
WOW thanka Ian! looks Superb

... So now the pressure is realy on!
(I'm sure no-one said this before lol Come on with that 4.06 SoM We know how to get 4.05m working now, so... upload 4.06 to Boonty pls people - my money's getting moldy already and Oleg needs a new car if he wants one or not. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

Vacillator
09-15-2006, 06:18 AM
Fantastic Ian, thanks again. I'm ready when 4.06 is!

TgD Thunderbolt56
09-15-2006, 12:29 PM
Cool, now if I could only (fly the) hump...



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

Bartolomeo_ita
09-15-2006, 03:18 PM
great map... i'm sad that I can't say it for an italian map

good help me :|

major_setback
09-15-2006, 03:55 PM
Thanks for all the hard work you've put in. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

LEXX_Luthor
09-15-2006, 05:44 PM
Imphal to Tamu is about 70km. So the map is about 130km x 90km.

Great working airfield placement across the entire map will ensure much use by the community. The expansive unbroken forest looks fantastic, with only a few, and very small, raw open spaces that ruin many older FB Eastern Front and the PF New Guinea maps. Unbroken forest terrain provides a real challenge as the player cannot land safely in forest terrain. Wonderful work on the unbroken forests and sufficient airfield placement. ThankS! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif



Maps ~> http://www.embassyworld.com/maps/Maps_Of_Burma.html

A good detailed map is.... Perry-Castaeda Library Map Collection - Burma - (Political) 1996 (357k)

ElAurens
09-15-2006, 07:05 PM
Can't wait.

sudoku1941
09-16-2006, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Imphal to Tamu is about 70km. So the map is about 130km x 90km.

Great working airfield placement across the entire map will ensure much use by the community. The expansive unbroken forest looks fantastic, with only a few, and very small, raw open spaces that ruin many older FB Eastern Front and the PF New Guinea maps. Unbroken forest terrain provides a real challenge as the player cannot land safely in forest terrain. Wonderful work on the unbroken forests and sufficient airfield placement.

But, it's still a "postage stamp" and misses out a huge portion of the area over which the battles were fought.

No "Hump". No Chittagong. No Lashio. No Magwe. No Akyab. Not even Tuongoo or Rangoon, fer crying out loud. Not even a hint of the Irrawaddy River!!! And you call this "Burma"? You can't even do the "Flying Tigers" era justice with this little "divot" of the battlefield.

Just another extremely limited area on which to get a totally irrelevant perspective of the battle.

ianboys
09-16-2006, 01:53 PM
This is the site of the most important battle in Burma. It stopped the Japanese at the Indian border and turned them back. After Imphal they never stopped running.

Nobody pretended it was the whole country. This is for the Imphal battle - I never said I was doing Rangoon, far less "justice" to the Flying Tigers.

I'll also thank you to remember that I and many others made this map for you for free in our spare time. I also made the Kurland, Murmansk and NWE maps, all of which you have had for free.

I'm not asking for gratitude, just some manners.

What have you contributed to our sim?

ElAurens
09-16-2006, 02:01 PM
Touche' Ian.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Tater-SW-
09-16-2006, 02:17 PM
While I agree with the fact that it was amazingly stupid for PF not to include---indeed concentrate---on the CBI, instead of the many useless PF maps we got, this map looks wonderful. I'll be really happy to see this, not just for the location, but for the obvious attention to detail that Ian's maps have. The worst thing about Ian's maps (and some of the other 3d party maps we have been seeing shots of), is that they really show off what could have been if the lousy PF mapmakers had actualy cared, even a little, about the quality and even the placement of maps given their limited resources.

Rangoon? That is kind of a one-trick pony map for PF. Hell, the Flying Tigers are only 6.5 months of the whole war. Rangoon fell March 8th. ~2.5 months after the AVG's first combat mission (Dec 20, I believe). Besides, we'd need more planes for good early CBI maps (sad, since the fall of Burma, Malaya, and the NEI is a true "Forgotten Battle"). We'd need at least a Ki-30 (or 32), Ki-15/C5M, G3M. OTOH, for PF a map good for 6 months is pretty good. Many of the maps they gave us are only good for a day or two historically.

tater

sudoku1941
09-16-2006, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by ianboys:
This is the site of the most important battle in Burma. It stopped the Japanese at the Indian border and turned them back. After Imphal they never stopped running.

Nobody pretended it was the whole country. This is for the Imphal battle - I never said I was doing Rangoon, far less "justice" to the Flying Tigers.

I'll also thank you to remember that I and many others made this map for you for free in our spare time. I also made the Kurland, Murmansk and NWE maps, all of which you have had for free.

I'm not asking for gratitude, just some manners.

What have you contributed to our sim?

I didn't attack you, either, Ian. I just pointed out the limits of your map, is all. And I'm correct about that.

As for my contribution, it's really irrelevant. I simply have a point, is all.

And, even though it doesn't make any difference to this sim, I'm currently creating a map of the Dutch East Indies and Phillipines... to 1:1 scale. (and all done in MY free time, too, for no remuneration, blah, blah, blah, as if that matters, which it doesn't).

It, too, has a few geography-for-total map size limitations, but far fewer than this one, and those with fewer implications to the air battles which can be simulated. I made my decisions and "cuts" based on the scope of the campaigns I'm simulating, such that you CAN investigate and simulate the campaigns in their entirety, not use one small section as a stand-in for the rest.

And, to be clear about my intentions, Ian, I'm making more a comment about the limitations of the entire IL-2 system, and not to your maps specifically.

@el Aurens: parry, riposte.

Frequent_Flyer
09-16-2006, 07:14 PM
Sudoku,
Why does it seem like every new thread is used by you as soap box to rally against This Sim? Do you play the Sim? Ian's maps of Kurland and Murmansk are IMO the top two maps followed by Normandy.He's done the top two for Gratis. Your perpetual rants seem ,like a borderline personality disorder- no offense intended.

Old_Canuck
09-16-2006, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
Sudoku,
Why does it seem like every new thread is used by you as soap box to rally against This Sim? Do you play the Sim? Ian's maps of Kurland and Murmansk are IMO the top two maps followed by Normandy.He's done the top two for Gratis. Your perpetual rants seem ,like a borderline personality disorder- no offense intended.

Frequent_Flyer, please don't discourage him. Troll sightings have been rare for more than a year and it would be a shame to frighten this one away.

Despite the "limitations" of IL2, which is still heads and shoulders above the rest, it's contributors like Ian that keep it in the number one spot. Thanks Ian http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

sudoku1941
09-16-2006, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
Sudoku,
Why does it seem like every new thread is used by you as soap box to rally against This Sim? Do you play the Sim? Ian's maps of Kurland and Murmansk are IMO the top two maps followed by Normandy.He's done the top two for Gratis. Your perpetual rants seem ,like a borderline personality disorder- no offense intended.

None taken.

Look: I just pointed out a problem with the scope of the map. Got anything to add on that?

Also, anything that is put before the public is open to discussion critique and praise, in equal measure, as is warranted.

The other maps aren't really relevant to the discussion, are they? Or if those other maps are good or bad. It simply isn't relevant to this map.

And, as I noted earlier, this "postage stamp" type of map is not just a problem with Ian's maps, but of many of the IL-2 maps. FACT is, you can't use them to simulate many important battles, simply because they don't cover the areas they need to to do that.

Or perhaps I should ask the question, "Why is it that any critical thought, no matter how correct or on target, is taken as a personal attack?"

VF2_Sarge
09-16-2006, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by Old_Canuck:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
Sudoku,
Why does it seem like every new thread is used by you as soap box to rally against This Sim? Do you play the Sim? Ian's maps of Kurland and Murmansk are IMO the top two maps followed by Normandy.He's done the top two for Gratis. Your perpetual rants seem ,like a borderline personality disorder- no offense intended.

Frequent_Flyer, please don't discourage him. Troll sightings have been rare for more than a year and it would be a shame to frighten this one away.

Despite the "limitations" of IL2, which is still heads and shoulders above the rest, it's contributors like Ian that keep it in the number one spot. Thanks Ian http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Frequent_Flyer and Old_Canuck:

Let€s not lose site of Sudoku's point. He€s not bashing the map itself or the tireless working that must go into making one. I for one have no idea so I can only assume. Also I'm sure it his not his intent to say the sim totally sucks. I am sure that he is only pointing out the fact that for the most part this sim along with its additions are extremely limited and are tragically unfinished. Not that it€s really any ones fault or that it is a bad thing, but weather you like it or not he is entitled to his own opinion; good, bad, or indifferent. What is the point of having a "public" forum if you€re not going to invite a public and open discussion about the topic?

As far as him being a troll, that is a typical Uber answer or response for an honest opinion here in Ubiland. I have found that if you say one little thing to disrupt the Uber peacefulness and tranqillity your marked as a bad and useless person whos thoughts and opinions no longer matter; in my "opinion" that is a worse than having no opinion at all. Granted you're not going to make every one happy but the day everyone starts marching to same drum is the day that I feel this sim and many others will become boring. Believe it or not the developers of these sims listen to our opinions and our thoughts; and the day we stop leaving our opinions is the day that we wait on them to make up our minds for us. Doesn't sound like much fun to me.

So, in closing. Ian, THANKS FOR YOUR CONTRIBUTION. Sudoku, thanks for being honest and not following the typical "Great Job", "Your neat'o" response. Frequent_Flyer and Old_Canuck, thanks for stomping the Uberness back into our lives.

Cheers.

Wtornado_439th
09-16-2006, 08:43 PM
Very nice Ian

Kurland and Murmansk are by far the
the nicest maps of this sim

I can't imagine the work involved
just to make this one.

You notice the detail and the work
involved when your making a mission.

Just the airport detail is amazing enough
for me as a mission builder. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

sudoku1941
09-16-2006, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by VF2_Sarge:

Frequent_Flyer and Old_Canuck:

Let€s not lose site of Sudoku's point. He€s not bashing the map itself or the tireless working that must go into making one. I for one have no idea so I can only assume. Also I'm sure it his not his intent to say the sim totally sucks. I am sure that he is only pointing out the fact that for the most part this sim along with its additions are extremely limited and are tragically unfinished. Not that it€s really any ones fault or that it is a bad thing, but weather you like it or not he is entitled to his own opinion; good, bad, or indifferent. What is the point of having a "public" forum if you€re not going to invite a public and open discussion about the topic?

As far as him being a troll, that is a typical Uber answer or response for an honest opinion here in Ubiland. I have found that if you say one little thing to disrupt the Uber peacefulness and tranqillity your marked as a bad and useless person whos thoughts and opinions no longer matter; in my "opinion" that is a worse than having no opinion at all. Granted you're not going to make every one happy but the day everyone starts marching to same drum is the day that I feel this sim and many others will become boring. Believe it or not the developers of these sims listen to our opinions and our thoughts; and the day we stop leaving our opinions is the day that we wait on them to make up our minds for us. Doesn't sound like much fun to me.

So, in closing. Ian, THANKS FOR YOUR CONTRIBUTION. Sudoku, thanks for being honest and not following the typical "Great Job", "Your neat'o" response. Frequent_Flyer and Old_Canuck, thanks for stomping the Uberness back into our lives.

Cheers.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif Well, lookee here... got us another of them thar free thinkers...

Well met, VF2_Sarge! <S> to you!

HotelBushranger
09-17-2006, 01:21 AM
There's a difference between free thinkers and gratitude...

I think the problem here is that the way you construct your argument, which you're entitled to, is bad. I trust that when you say you don't mean to offend Ian that you mean it, however the words you chose are definitely not the best and inadvertently offend the man. So, yes you have your opinion and it's great that you express, but try and be a little more...diplomatic http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

In any case, ianboys should still be thanked for putting his own time into making a map for the community...Thanks ian! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Enthor1
09-17-2006, 07:57 AM
I didn't attack you, either, Ian. I just pointed out the limits of your map, is all. And I'm correct about that.

"And you call this "Burma"? You can't even do the "Flying Tigers" era justice with this little "divot" of the battlefield."

Not an attack?

"As for my contribution, it's really irrelevant. I simply have a point, is all."

Good one, and so true to form.


"And, even though it doesn't make any difference to this sim, I'm currently creating a map of the Dutch East Indies and Phillipines... to 1:1 scale. (and all done in MY free time, too, for no remuneration, blah, blah, blah, as if that matters, which it doesn't)."

So why bring it up?

And, why are you here bashing others work and not off working on your so, so much bigger map?
When is your map going to make its debut, and where?

You do make for an amusing waste of a few minutes though.

ianboys, thank you for all your additions to this hobby of ours and please do not let the comments of our resident malcontent dissuade you from continuing.

Enthor1, aka resident appreciator of small maps and non freethinker.

sudoku1941
09-17-2006, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by Enthor1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I didn't attack you, either, Ian. I just pointed out the limits of your map, is all. And I'm correct about that.

"And you call this "Burma"? You can't even do the "Flying Tigers" era justice with this little "divot" of the battlefield."

Not an attack?

"As for my contribution, it's really irrelevant. I simply have a point, is all."

Good one, and so true to form.


"And, even though it doesn't make any difference to this sim, I'm currently creating a map of the Dutch East Indies and Phillipines... to 1:1 scale. (and all done in MY free time, too, for no remuneration, blah, blah, blah, as if that matters, which it doesn't)."

So why bring it up?

And, why are you here bashing others work and not off working on your so, so much bigger map?
When is your map going to make its debut, and where?

You do make for an amusing waste of a few minutes though.

ianboys, thank you for all your additions to this hobby of ours and please do not let the comments of our resident malcontent dissuade you from continuing.

Enthor1, aka resident appreciator of small maps and non freethinker. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, let's see...

1) I confined my comments about the map, saying absolutely NOTHING against Ian. Thus, it's not an "attack".

2) I notice you have the least to say about my having a relevant point. That, is also "true to form" for this community's self-admitted "non-free thinkers".

3)Why bring it up? To counter the usual, and irrelevant, "so, where's YOUR [whatever]?", as if it makes any difference to the argument. But just to shut up the people who think it does require a creation in order to comment on any other.

4) I'll pass on mentioning where this map I'm working on will make its debut, as anyone who's around these boards knows where to find it. (Or if you're really interested, PM me and I'll hook you up.) I also avoid any charges of grandstanding for what I feel is a superior simulation http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

At any rate, I can guarantee you that my map will, in fact, do justice to the subject matter it covers, in fact in TWO different phases of the war.

Now, a question from me to you: how come any critical or reasoned thought is so resented here?

Enthor1
09-17-2006, 02:00 PM
Well, let's start at the bottom: I do not believe that critical or reasoned thought is resented here.

I do, however, believe that some here (you included) actually consider their endless ragging on most things Ubi, Oleg, IL2 or the lack of this or that feature or map or size of same to be just critical or reasoned thought.

Some here may disagree.

OK, now this:
"At any rate, I can guarantee you that my map will, in fact, do justice to the subject matter it covers, in fact in TWO different phases of the war."

Does that imply that the work of others does not do justice to the subject matter it covers?

4) No necessity to hook me up, I know from whence you come and in some circles the remainder of that paragraph might be seen as doing exactly what it purports to not.

3) I think many here, probably most, do not feel it requires a creation from a critic to enable same, but if one is forever critical it might justify some interest in the contributions or motives of the critic.

2) As far as I know, I am the only self admitted non freethinker in the community and appearantly you missed the point entirely there.

I have nothing to say about you having a relevant point because you do not.


1) Did Ian make the map?

Chuck_Older
09-17-2006, 02:31 PM
I do not agree with the coinage of the term "non-free-thinker" being used to describe anyone with a differing viewpoint from one's own, and the term "free-thinker" being used to describe a defense for ones words.

If the reasons given, for example, for why we cannot do a proper AVG scenario in regards to what this map does and does not allow is an example of "free-thinking", then whatever "free-thinking" means equals not knowing your subject matter very well.

The reason we cannot do a proper AVG scenario has precisely zero to do with this map. For starters, the AVG did not use any plane in this sim except for the P-40E; the H81A-2 was not the model plane made by Curtiss from the block of planes AK100/570, or AM370/519, which ended up going to the AVG. That model plane, the model that ended up going to the AVG, had a distinct Curtiss model number, and was by some sources the H81A-3, by others the H81-3A, and still others the H81-A3. In any case, clearly not the H81A-2. These planes had externally self sealing fuel tanks, which were rejected by the British and then used anyway as the planes were to go to China, a more powerful and hand-fit version of the Alison engine, and the armament was non-standard to boot, as was the radio equipment

The argument that a bad map of Burma, a good map of Burma, or any map of Burma makes or breaks an AVG scanario in this sim is unfortunately false. The lack of the correct plane is the culprit. Our AVG planes were added last-minute according to Planeater, who claims he had to tell Oleg about the Flying Tigers, and hammerd, who tells me he was rushed on the paint scheme, which is why a compromise was made on the skin- which shows elements of all three AVG squadrons- low fuselage number from 1st Squadron, blue band from 2nd Squadron, and Hell's Angel from 3rd Squadron. We were lucky to get any AVG content.

If anyone wants a map that goes South to Rangoon, North to Kunming, West to Akyab and East to Tak more than me, please step forward and be recognised. The AVG was not the whole story in the war in Burma, they were active in combat from Dec 20th 1941 to July 3rd 1943- less than 8 months. The map is not intended to be used for AVG scenarios and this is plainly stated. If any map was made for the AVG, it would likely be the Salween Gorge, not Rangoon, as the actions at the Salween Gorge were much more decisive than those over Rangoon- which were heroic and iconic, no question.

sudoku1941
09-17-2006, 02:48 PM
Tell you what, Chuck:

You go pick up a copy of Air War For Burma by noted historian Christopher Shores, take a look at the scope of the action, and then come back and edit your post some.

In addition to just planeset, you'll see that the map itself only covers a small area of the action in Burma, AVG excepted. It doesn't do proper justice to the '42 - 44 fighting on the CBI front that involves, chiefly for the Japanese the Ki-43, and for the Allies, all types of planes, both in the set (Spits & Hurries, P-38s, P-51s, etc.) and not (Vultee Vengeances, Japanese Nells and Sallys [Sally soon set to appear with the Manchuria add-on, correct?).

Then, go read my post again and take note of areas of action that are not covered. That list is not even exhaustive; but some of the omissions from that are pretty important ones.

Chuck_Older
09-17-2006, 02:51 PM
Air War for Burma is in my hands right now. Don't try this on me, I've told you I'm not putting up with nonsense. Air War for Burma does not concern itself with the AVG, it is the story of the USAAF's and RAF's actions. My post is not about the RAF or the USAAF, I did not mention the RAF or USAAF, and I do not need to edit a thing. You need to get yourself on track here. Nowhere do I claim that this map does anything more or less than what it's creator intended. I do not argue the validity of his decision. If you read and digest what I posted, that will be painfully clear to you

And once again, you blithely ignore most of a post to concentrate on what you choose to address

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-17-2006, 02:53 PM
Looks great! Post some more. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Im abit confused though with these new maps people are working on and announcing. When and how will they be added to this sim? Did I miss something?

sudoku1941
09-17-2006, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by Enthor1:
Well, let's start at the bottom: I do not believe that critical or reasoned thought is resented here.

I do, however, believe that some here (you included) actually consider their endless ragging on most things Ubi, Oleg, IL2 or the lack of this or that feature or map or size of same to be just critical or reasoned thought.

Some here may disagree.

OK, now this:
"At any rate, I can guarantee you that my map will, in fact, do justice to the subject matter it covers, in fact in TWO different phases of the war."

Does that imply that the work of others does not do justice to the subject matter it covers?

4) No necessity to hook me up, I know from whence you come and in some circles the remainder of that paragraph might be seen as doing exactly what it purports to not.

3) I think many here, probably most, do not feel it requires a creation from a critic to enable same, but if one is forever critical it might justify some interest in the contributions or motives of the critic.

2) As far as I know, I am the only self admitted non freethinker in the community and appearantly you missed the point entirely there.

I have nothing to say about you having a relevant point because you do not.


1) Did Ian make the map?

Whew...some real gaps in your logic there, ol' chum. I suggest Debate 101 for you.

First off, I challenge you to disprove my assertion that the map doesn't properly cover the area it's purported to, and then we can even begin to lock mental horns. But you can't, and you won't, so where does that leave your entire cheerleader post? Nowhere, buddy, that's where.

Yes, that statement does imply that this map, and others in the IL-2 collection, don't properly cover their intended areas. As I have already said a few times, if you're paying attention, this is a common problem with many of the maps, Pacific ones in particular. Not just Ian's.

As for your third point, then why is the most common counter-argument (if you want to call it that) the usual, irrelevant, "What maps have YOU created?" Or perhaps you're now mad because you've learned that I am creating a map, and maybe I do know a bit of what I'm talking about???

As for reasoned thought and debating skills, the ease with which I'm fending you Einsteins off, only proves once again that there's a decided lack of critical thought, and almost a kneejerk resentment of same.

Let me ask you this: if someone else had brought up the point, would you be attacking HIM so vociferously?

sudoku1941
09-17-2006, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Air War for Burma is in my hands right now. Don't try this on me, I've told you I'm not putting up with nonsense. Air War for Burma does not concern itself with the AVG, it is the story of the USAAF's and RAF's actions. My post is not about the RAF or the USAAF, I did not mention the RAF or USAAF, and I do not need to edit a thing. You need to get yourself on track here

And once again, you blithely ignore most of a post to concentrate on what you choose to address

Nonsense? I quote from pg. 423:


23rd Fighter Group
Based in Kunming, China, from the remnants of the American Volunteer Group (the 'Flying Tigers'), the unit did not operate over Burma, but was frequently in action against the JAAF units based there. It is therefore referred to within the text, and details are included here for that reason

In the history preceding that, they definitely touch on the efforts of this unit and the effects it had on the Burma conflict.

Furthermore, when they were the AVG, they most certainly did fly over Burma, unless Rangoon suddenly isn't a part of what was Burma? 3rd Squadron of the AVG. Check it.

And, you also can't discredit the FACT that the earlier part of the war fought over the same Burma did encompass the areas I pointed out earlier in this thread. In fact, you'll find those in the earlier editions of the Bloody Shambles series, of which Air War Over Burma is the third volume. Again, it points out that this map, while certainly representative of some of the Burma conflict, and in fact, covering one of the major battle areas, falls short of truly covering the fighting there in its entirety.

And finally, why are you off on this Flying Tigers kick anyway? That unit doesn't define "Air Combat in Burma"; but it is definitely a PART of it...which, of course goes directly to my POINT. I'd say that a city as major as Rangoon does "define" Burma, though.

How's that for having one's facts straight, chief?
In yer FACE, Chuck... in... your... face. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Art-J
09-17-2006, 03:10 PM
1) Jeeez, Who the hell said this map is supposed or is NOT supposed to be made for AVG scenarios in the first place? There are just a few screenies without any commentary in the first post and You guys are adding all drama to it... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

2) Sudoku, You got a point here, man, but the choice of words You used in Your first reply (and in some later ones, for that matter) make You look like trolling "Einstein" yourself

Cheers - Art.

sudoku1941
09-17-2006, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by Art-J:
Sudoku, You got a point here, man, but the choice of words You used in Your first reply made You look like trolling "Einstein" yourself.

Cheers - Art.

I know I am on the right side of this one, Art, that's why I posted.

I only need to get "salty" to fend off the usual cheerleaders. I won't take stick from them, because I know what they're about: pom-pom waving and trying to shout down anything that doesn't fawn and kowtow to Oleg. I simply won't cede the field to that sort; and actually it's fun to watch them scramble to win a debate with me. But, they seldom do.

Chuck_Older
09-17-2006, 04:03 PM
Oh my, you have just dug quite a hole, Sudoku http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif Let's do this systematically and in order, shall we? I'll start from the top.

Firstly-
You mention this book as if I need to get my facts straight. Let me ask you- where do I get info about ANY of the things I mentioned in my post in the book "Air War for Burma"? Please give me the page numbers.

You, in typical form, tell me to get a reference book which has NOTHING to do with what I was talking about. patently nothing. This book contains NO info about the things I posted. None. You prove it does, I am calling you out- you tell me how Air War for Burma refutes or even backs up anything in my post.

You can't do it. You know why, don't you? You tell me to read Air War for Burma to allow me to edit a post about the AVG. You poor slob. Have you read the book? You have, really? Then tell me how it relates to my post about the AVG without your fingers crossed. If you say you can, you're a liar, because this book does not do it

Second, here's your knockuot, in-my-face blow:

Nonsense? I quote from pg. 423:

quote:
23rd Fighter Group
Based in Kunming, China, from the remnants of the American Volunteer Group (the 'Flying Tigers'), the unit did not operate over Burma, but was frequently in action against the JAAF units based there. It is therefore referred to within the text, and details are inicluded here for that reason

Do you know what that quote you provided means? Do you read well? Obviously not. The reference is to the 23rd FG, not the AVG, you poor slob! In addition, your very own quote admits the 23rd, the unit the quote you offer up, which the book does concern itself with did not operate over Burma, so how does a quote about the 23rd support your Burma arguments! The quote is ABOUT the 23rd, not the AVG! This is your proof? This is your knockout punch? The quote gives background of the inception of the 23rd with a mere fact: The AVG was it's basis. Poor, poor choice of something to crucify me with! And, in addition, the object of the quote ("It is therefore referred to within the text, and details are inicluded here for that reason") refers to the 23rd. The 23rd is the "it" in that quote, not the AVG. I realise that English can be confusing and that it's not everyone's first language, but that doesn't make ME ignorant of it's use. One final hole in this part of your moth-riddled point: Appendix 11 is "United States Army Air Force Units Operating In the India-Burma Theatre". One one hand, this proves that the subject of the references made is to the 23rd and not the AVG, and on the other, the AVG was NOT part of the US Army! The military pilots (some were civilian!) were from the Army, Navy and Marines, and RESIGNED from the US armed forces prior to signing with CAMCO. Several used this tactic to literally jump ship and be legally guilty of nothing more than breach of contract, instead of desertion. Did you have any inkling of that from Air War For Burma? page number, please. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Here's a good vague one:

In the history preceding that, they definitely touch on the efforts of this unit and the effects it had on the Burma conflict.

Well hooray. The book does not concern itself with the AVG. they are a footnote as it were. Your own post proves you wrong: "they definitely touch on the efforts" is your exact words. Touching on their efforts. Hmmm. Does this sound like the book concerns itslef with the AVG? No? How odd, it doesn't seem that way to me, either. So we both agree then: The Book Air War for Burma does not concern itself with the AVG. Thank you for seeing reason at long last!

Here's your flaw in this case: you think I mean "Does not make mention of" when I post "Does not concern itself with". Please, strive to learn from this mistake, will you? When I wish to say that the book makes no mention of (which is a much stronger dismissal of the book, for future reference, by the bye) a thing, I will post it. I can scan the index as easily as you can http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

This next point is nice. I like this:

Furthermore, when they were the AVG, they most certainly did fly over Burma, unless Rangoon suddenly isn't a part of what was Burma? 3rd Squadron of the AVG. Check it.

Whooo! This would be quite a blow to me, if I had said anything that contradicted this, ever in my life. Why don't YOU "Check it"? You, per usual, have put words in my mouth. NOwhere, EVER, in this thread or anywhere else in the whole wide world, did I ever say or even suggest that the AVG did not fly, live and die over Burma. I never ever once ever in any way shape of form even mentioned ANY part of the world in which they served. You, sir, have just told a fib, and where caught at it. Naughty, naughty boy. I told you before not to play these games with me

next:

And, you also can't discredit the FACT that the earlier part of the war fought over the same Burma did encompass the areas I pointed out earlier in this thread. In fact, you'll find those in the earlier editions of the Bloody Shambles series, of which Air War Over Burma is the third volume. Again, it points out that this map, while certainly representative of some of the Burma conflict, and in fact, covering one of the major battle areas, falls short of truly covering the fighting there in its entirety.

This is quite fascinating, as my comments have nothing to do with this in the slightest! If I HAD tried to discredit the fact, you'd have a point. As it is, you have...fluff filler. You often pick a tack that makes it seem as if I have said various things, when I have indeed never made mention of them. Restrict you comments to what I have talked about please. You cannot make the discussion go into these areas as if I had mentioned them simply because you'd like to talk about them. This is a phantom argument you're making up; nothing I have posted supports or discredits this, because I've never made mention of the scope of the Bloody Shambles series

What this part DOES do is back up my arguments rather nicely:

Again, it points out that this map, while certainly representative of some of the Burma conflict, and in fact, covering one of the major battle areas

So, again, you agree with me: Ian Boys made this map to represent a certain thing, which it does. The end. Sorry. Sorry! You posted it- the map's logic has it's place, it was done for a reason, you posted the reason yourself, and you claim it's true. Don't go reversing your statements again, we both know how that turns out for you

Oh, and the end. A classic:

How's that for having one's facts straight, chief?
In yer FACE, Chuck... in... your... face. Wink

It is, singularly and spectacularly, very poor indeed as an example of having your facts straight...superstar http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif You begin with a discourse on how a book that makes ZERO mention of anything I posted would 'help me edit' a post on the AVG. You dredge up a single mention of the AVG being the basis for the 23rd fighter group, and link these gossamer facts together to present the quote as boeing about a group which it is NOT. Then you claim I say many things which I did not say. Then, you wrap things up with a nice little "in yer face". Oh my, what a tangled web we weave, eh?

Sudoku1941:

You do not know anything about the AVG. I do not claim to be an expert but your lunatic fact and manic discourses off topic prove but one thing: you do not know what you are talking about. When you don't know what you're talking about, you should remain silent. This should be easy considering the number of feet in your mouth, but I congratulate you on your prodigious powers of ventriloquism in producing these fever dreams and ramblings. It must be hard not to lose a lie when you open your mouth. I warned you not to try and trade this type of thing with me, and now your sophomoric BS is here for all to see. Say goodnight, Gracie http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

darkhorizon11
09-17-2006, 04:25 PM
Awesome Ian I've been supporting this baby for a long time! You guys are truly unsung heroes in this game donating thousands of hours out of pure satisfaction! Don't hesitate to brag and add more screenshots I think the community will agree that we definitely pheeen for those!

PS I'm a CFI so if your ever in the Grand Forks, North Dakota area PM me and I'll take you up to see some real scenery!

sudoku1941
09-17-2006, 04:31 PM
Chuck's patently ridiculous challenge:
You tell me how Air War for Burma refutes or even backs up anything in my post.


What, then were you "talking about," Chuck? Let me refresh your memory for you:


The reason we cannot do a proper AVG scenario has precisely zero to do with this map. For starters, the AVG did not use any plane in this sim except for the P-40E;


The argument that a bad map of Burma, a good map of Burma, or any map of Burma makes or breaks an AVG scanario in this sim is unfortunately false.


...The map is not intended to be used for AVG scenarios and this is plainly stated. If any map was made for the AVG...

So, that's three quotes from your very first "contribution" to this thread that show that, at least, YOU are the one fixated on the AVG. When I mention that unit in my original post, I only use it as ONE example of Burmese action that can't be simulated on this map (and one, I might add, that most people here would identify with). And we've already ascertained that, yes, the earlier Battles for Rangoon (and for China, by extension) does, in fact, constitute part of the action over Burma.

Then, if you'll re-read once again that excerpt of Air War Over Burma, you'll see that the unit in question was formed from remnants of said AVG. It was renamed to incorporate it into the USAAF, since, when it was formed as the AVG, it was a "covert" unit and not officially a part of the then-noncombatant US forces.

So, I was not talking ONLY about this map being unable to simulate AVG action; I was talking about it being inadequate to properly cover Burma, or the CBI. You do know that that acronym stands for "China/Burma/India." right? Is all that clear enough for you now? And does it also put paid to the fact that, yes, I DO know at least a little something about the AVG, despite what you say?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif And you're asking ME if I can read and comprehend? And is that all you got to try and disprove my line of reasoning? You embarrass yourself.

Don't go up against me unless you can come correct. I'll make you look like a fool every time. But, I still can't do a better job of that than you can yourself.

Chuck_Older
09-17-2006, 04:33 PM
Did your nose grow at all just now? I make use of the AVG exclusively because the post you tried to "get" me on was ABOUT the AVG, exclusively. You want a ladder to climb out of that hole now, or do you think digging another few feet won't hurt?

You just gave me quotes about how what I posted was backed up or refuted by Air War For Burma...and they do not!

First quote: About the planes. Gee, where in Air War for Burma does it tell us about that, except for the "P-40"? Well, the P-40 is the model BEFORE the P-40B. There WAS no P-40A. So they say "P-40". You do know how many major variants there were, right? I can wait for you to look it up...

Second: Air War for Burma talks about maps for this sim? Incredible! Where? pages please

Third: Air War for Burma talks about what maps SHOULD be made for this sim! I am speechless! Which pages? In an appendix maybe??

You need to stop mixing OTC meds. You do not use these quotes in the manner you claim!

I like this:

"I'll make you look like a fool every time. But, I still can't do a better job of that than you can yourself."

I'm sure I do most things better than you, so I'm hardly surprised! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

sudoku1941
09-17-2006, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Did your nose grow at all just now?

That's your only retort?

Go home, little man, you've been thoroughly whipped. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

edited, based on the non-existant references, non-sequitirs and supposed quotes added by Older in the above post....

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif ...this guy needs help, seriously... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Chuck_Older
09-17-2006, 04:40 PM
?? You just told me that action over China equals action over Burma. Beddie-bye time, Gracie! Don't tell me my business and you'll do much better next time. Do you read what you post?

I am home, it's where my ref is http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Where's yours...Pluto, perhaps? I am a little man, as well...but more of a man than you, my old son http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

sudoku1941
09-17-2006, 05:01 PM
I merely stated that, for a time, action over China and Burma were related; go back again and read what CBI means. Then, read about that theatre from a 1937-1945 standpoint and maybe... just maybe... you'll be prepared to discuss it on any more than a superficial level.

Chuck, you seem to do this a lot: you enter a thread with an eye towards deflecting the relevant discussion with a "quasi-related" nitpick point, and then you're flat out WRONG on all the facts you use to support your partially irrelevant arguments.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gifWill somebody please stop this guy from making a total lummox of himself? He's boring the hell out of me...

Chuck_Older
09-17-2006, 05:12 PM
Do you honestly beleive what you post? Your arguments are not quite the straw man

You take an issue, or rather take offense to an issue. You reply to me about what I posted, and start bringing all sorts of things I did NOT say into the mix, and act as if I DID say them

You then build up phantom arguments around what you would like me, or you imagine me, to have said.

I have asked you time, and time again here to back yourself up. You have declined to do it. Instead you shift the focus to where you want it to be. instead of saying, 'well here is where the book references that fact', you shift gears and try another angle.

Seriously, all this post BS aside, whatever is wrong with you is not something you need to live with. Whatever makes you think these things you drag into our conversation are things I have posted, there are ways to deal with it medically. If you are on medication, I strongly suggest you to talk to your doctor(s) and discuss why your mental state urges you to act as if arguments you invent yourself where introduced by others. You are making this stuff up. You must see that, can't you? You say that I try to discredit the scope of a series of books...it didn't happen. You say I indicated that the AVG didn't see action over Burma...it didn't happen. therer are other examples as well, and just in this thread. Yet you can keep posting this stuff, which are tantamount to lies. Surely you can see that you are inventing these things? Anyone could see that. Get off the program you're on and get one that works with you better chemically. For-real. You act insane. You don't have to live like this

sudoku1941
09-17-2006, 05:23 PM
Meanwhile, back on topic... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Anyone have anything else relevant to add to the discussion?

OMK_Hand
09-17-2006, 05:42 PM
ianboys, thank you for this free bonus to the game.
Sudoku1941, where's yours?

Frequent_Flyer
09-17-2006, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
Meanwhile, back on topic... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Anyone have anything else relevant to add to the discussion? Did you have a point? Because if it was suppose to be, the maps in PF are lacking. That point has been made many times over since its release. Until there is legitimate competition we are stuck. As a new project BOB will be the focus of Oleg and team. No amount of pedantic pontification is going to change this Sim. Its up to third party modellers from this point foreward.

OMK_Hand
09-17-2006, 05:55 PM
This game is SO bad, SO ****ing appalling that I am going to spend the REST of MY LIFE here, on these FAN FORUMS trying my VERY BEST to point out to you SAD TWITS how MISERABLY misguided you are in even THINKING that this **** is worth the effort.

There.
Does that sum it up?

sudoku1941
09-17-2006, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by OMK_Hand:
This game is SO bad, SO ****ing appalling that I am going to spend the REST of MY LIFE here, on these FAN FORUMS trying my VERY BEST to point out to you SAD TWITS how MISERABLY misguided you are in even THINKING that this **** is worth the effort.

There.
Does that sum it up?

You said that, not I.

But, just by omission, you and your cheerleader "spotter" pal, FrequentFlyer are conceding that you have really, NO REPLY to my original criticism.

Y'know, this would be a GREAT segue for Ian to come back into this discussion and educate us all as to what limits there actually ARE to game maps?*

Are they limited to a certain sq. km size? Or is it limited based on something else? I'd seriously like to know that.



*One of these limits being, players can't create their own; only those people, like Ian, who are in the inner circle, can get access to the tools to create terrain files. This also answers the juvenile and otherwise irrelevant, "Where's YOUR Burma map?" challenge flung my way by at least two people in this thread. The answer is, I couldn't make an IL-2 map if I wanted to.

OMK_Hand
09-17-2006, 06:07 PM
Chuck - he's on something, for sure.

sudoku1941 - The second juvenile and otherwise irrelevant response being from ian? You, sir, are a tit.

VW-IceFire
09-17-2006, 06:34 PM
Chuck, I think its best to just give it up at this point. That Sudoku guy has lost what little respect once carried. He's obviously a troll. Let it be.

sudoku1941
09-17-2006, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by OMK_Hand:
Chuck - he's on something, for sure.

sudoku1941 - The second juvenile and otherwise irrelevant response being from ian? You, sir, are a tit.

Once again, show me where I said anything about Ian's response being juvenile; actually I was referring to Hand's and Older's ranting. Do you guys even READ any before you go putting your feet in your mouths??

As for you IceFire, you're typical of the bunch who calls a "troll" anybody whose views you don't agree with and (more important) that you can't debate. You're frustrated because you know I have a point and you just can't stand it. Well, tough. Develop a point of view of your own, get some smarts, or keep your mouth shut.

Frankly, I don't NEED any respect from people with so little on the ball that they need to resort to constant name-calling in lieu of anything relevant to say.

Tater-SW-
09-17-2006, 10:39 PM
sudoku says that the small map won't even do the AVG justice (using it as an example of a small portion of the war in the CBI).

chuck says the map is the least of the problems with doing the AVG in PF, but goes on to say the war was far more than the AVG in the CBI.

sudoku basically agrees that the war was far more.

The back and forth seems to be about the AVG, but the whole point of the AVG in this thread was that even a tiny part of the CBI, the stuff the AVG did, doesn't get a map in PF, much less the entirety of the CBI.

I think you guys are talking in circles.

1. Everyone agrees that the map choices in PF were abysmal.

2. Everyone agrees that the quality of the PF maps (notwithstanding them being lousy choices) are pretty bad---and really really awful if Ian's maps are used as a standard.

3. The size of the maps is an issue of manpower in general according to Ian. You'd have to search back to find the right threads, but there was some detail about the process. The saddest thing regarding stock PF maps was that the use of roads, etc, is apparently time consuming, and many of the PF maps have roads where they really are not needed, and much of them could just be jungle anyway (making the right choices easier to do, even if far bigger in size).

4. As I recall (correct me if I'm wrong, someone), the Burma map was constrained to be "online" sized from above---which is probably good (for Ian) since Ian is doing it for free <S>.

Long story short, the PF map choices were poorly made (the entire lack of focus in the POF project, honestly), and the PF maps are of low quality. We would have been better served with a few really really big maps, even if empty of many villages, etc, than what we got.

For me, the dead horse of the crappy PF maps comes up when I see what could have been in Ian's pretty maps...

tater

sudoku1941
09-17-2006, 10:58 PM
Thank you, Tater, for making the first level-headed post in some time on this subject.

However, I must point out that the Title of this topic is, "Burma FMB map"; this, to my jaundiced eye, suggests a map that encompasses action in Burma (or, to stretch it some, CBI). If it'd been called the Imphal map, I'd have not said a thing about it.

For my money, if you're going to call a map a "theatre map", you have to be able to cover the lion's share of that theatre. Or, if you have a "battle map", then it needs only cover a more restricted area.

Is it not a REASONABLE whinge to suggest that a "Burma map" without even Rangoon is a bit, uh, shortsighted?

And, even metioning any more on the AVG stuff is just showing that Older has succeeded in deflecting your attention from the salient and relevant points of the discussion. I've already squashed his illogic anyway, so we need not even touch on it.

Going back to Ian, his effort is naturally admirable, but it doesn't completely isolate him from pointed criticism. I just won't apologize for that. It is NOT the same thing as "a personal attack on Ian".

The whys and wherefores of the limitations of IL-2 maps is probably more of a relevant place for this discussion to lead.

TheGozr
09-17-2006, 11:06 PM
IMO they could make more land around the bases.. ahh i new it, something was missing.. there is nothing worse that to land on a base in the edge of a map with missing texture or relief, well on that one they are all on the edge. I am desapointed by Ian as i was mentioning before for this map..

Remember..

Don't take it wrong it's great to have new maps even fabulous, fantastic cosmicly awesome.. but still.. no land around the base one square more on edges would of been perfect.. even with teh poor land of Il2.

Tater-SW-
09-17-2006, 11:13 PM
Well, the naming could have been better, perhaps. Heck, we have a map called "New Guinea" but the entire region on the map is actually Papua. <SHRUG>

I wouldn't get too concerned about the semantics of the naming. Honestly, given what luthier has said about 3d party stuff, and what we might (not) see in the future, this is very likely the only Burma map that will ever be seen, sadly.

This really demonstrates why map making at the very least, should be made more open to 3d parties. Before Ian's maps (and the screenies of slovakia and bessarabia that are upcoming), I considered the most Il-2 maps to be nearly interchangable. Slight differences, but the same 3-4 airfields in green areas with the odd forest, etc. Then we get people like Ian who really try to break the software and take the maps to the bleeding edge of what they are allowed by the code to do---and we see these masterpiece maps.

It's just like the really good mission/campaign authors. Chuck's WTCF or bird_brain's Cactus Diary, are awesome, and they push what the FMB is capable of to the edge (part of the reason they are so good). Imagine what such people could do with a map making toolset, it boggles the mind.

tater

sudoku1941
09-17-2006, 11:13 PM
...and as for the map choices in PF.

Well, I don't think the CHOICES were abysmal. The problem is that the entire map concept, if you will, should not be the same for Russia, or even much of Europe, as it is for the Pacific, just for the distances involved.

In Russia, airfields were skant kilometers from the front at times; in Europe, too, at times.

But in the Pacific, as a rule, range was an OVERRIDING concern almost 100% of the time. So, a small area map isn't even a consideration for PF, because you can't ever have maps where both combatants can take off from home bases at the same time unless one side takes off from CVs that moved within range of the enemy.

Thus, you have a Guadalcanal map without Rabaul (or even Bougainville). A map with Port Moresby on it...but not all of New Britain or even most of New Guinea. So, you can't even begin to construct any of the battles.

And, this isn't just a PF problem. Come on, don't you just CRINGE every time you fly the IL-2 Normandy map and take off from the "land CV" conveniently pasted into the North Sea??? Doesn't that completely blow any sense of realism (even as bad as the fact that you can't see anything below you if you do make it over France)? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

And, IL-2 lacks the capacity to even factor in the range of these far-off home bases in the fuel states of planes entering or trying to leave distant areas... this is something that Targetware (http://www.targetware.net) DOES factor into their Target:Rabaul scenarios. So, you don't have to actually fly a Zero or a Betty 3 hours each way from Vunakanau to Henderson... but you do have to be sure to save enough fuel to make the simulated trip back or you're considered to be lost with your plane. And, going further, you do at least have the OPTION to design missions with all the needed bases (and attendant flight times) on the same map. And, this all affects the way you fly. A Zero with drop tanks and leaned back at half throttle sure flies different than one set for combat, but you'd hardly ever know that flying PF. And, as yet, you don't get much sense of the relatively short legs of the Bf109s, simply because the map sizes don't ever force you to come to grips with it.

Tater-SW-
09-17-2006, 11:23 PM
The disangagement circle and remaining fuel calc is pure gold in TW. It should be stolen by anyone with any sense doing a flight sim, IMO.

As I said above, it is my uderstanding that there is no fundamental limitation on map size, just human labor. I've posted diagrams before showing what they could have done, even with the same size footprint that was used on other PF maps in the SWPA, and also for the CBI. PF would have been great with just 3 maps had they been placed right.

1 PF Hawaii sized map would go from Guadalcanal to Rabaul, for example. No roads, and they need only put a handful of villages on the entire map, almost all inland (right from the surf) would be jungle.

Another Hawaii sized map would do Port Moresby to Hollandia (!). Ditto the roads. Few to none needed, 90%+ jungle.

A map that size would do most of Burma and get parts of China and India into the bargain. You could get a lot of action into a map twice the size of the "NG" map.

tater

TheGozr
09-17-2006, 11:53 PM
Well as well for free some of us can make maps for you all as many others could, we just need the tools and we can send it to maddox, than he will have a great deal of choices and work done. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
In the other hand lucky Ian is here and have access to those tools to work on something.

But enough with il2 now we need BOB.

triad773
09-18-2006, 12:14 AM
Hi Ian- the map looks great. I think it will be an impressive addition to the sim. I think you know that it will be aprecciated by the target audience, those who already value this sim, and share your enthusiasm for it.

Me among them. No on-line subscriptions to maintain, and the freedom to play single player or internet.

Thank you and regards

Triad

Oz_Canuck
09-18-2006, 01:41 AM
Gosh....why would someone make combat flight sim and not include every square mile of the earth, every aircraft ever invented and a campaign for every skirmish or battle ever fought...what a waste of time and my money. Try a bit harder next time, will ya?
It will only take me about 15 years to play all the possible scenarios in the current game. I need more!

OMK_Hand
09-18-2006, 03:09 AM
sudoku, you're right.

What do we do about it?

JG53Frankyboy
09-18-2006, 03:54 AM
looking forward to when Ian will post his Norway map picture here and the map will be bashed because Scotland is to close to the Norwegian coast !

i know the limitiations of the Burma map, it was mentioned since a long time that this will be a map around the Indian-Burma border - no south or central Burma on it.........
but still there can be made some nice missions on it !
i realy say thank you to Ian for spending his time doing such maps !
and i realy cant understand from where he is getting his motivation, reading this topic here - but anyway , not all is "Ubi-Zoo" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

jasonbirder
09-18-2006, 04:28 AM
Ian...fantastic map, i've been looking forward to this one as my Grandfatehr served in the RAF in Burma.
Now...who wishes the C47 was flyable so we could fly them into the "Imphal Box" ?

Tater-SW-
09-18-2006, 07:46 AM
Awesome site filled with pictures on the Burma Banshees:

http://www.pbase.com/tinpan/burma_banshees&page=all

sudoku1941
09-18-2006, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by OMK_Hand:
sudoku, you're right.

What do we do about it?

Well, for one, admitting there could be improvement, such as we've seen on this last page, is a start.

Once discussion centers on that, instead of defensiveness and kneejerk attacks, perhaps discussion of what could be done if only people had the tools to create maps might spur some interest at Maddox. Naturally, I can't promise anything on their behalf, but perhaps Ian could. Let's see if he might pop back in here and weigh in.

csThor
09-18-2006, 09:43 AM
You're mistaking the idea of a widespread use of the mapping tools (which won't happen for various reasons) for a load of new maps. In the end of the day it's still Maddox Games who has to import the map into the engine. There's no way around that - the software was written that way.

Ian could produce maps until he turned green, but at some point (which is going to be rather sooner than later) Maddox Games will simply call it a day and drop any support for this engine completely. That's the way this industry goes - has happened in the past, will happen in the future.

EDIT (since I've got to kill time):

The mapping tools per se were never meant to be used outside of Maddox Games itself. This has lead to them being "not particularly user-friendly" (to put it mildly). While this could be overcome by training, this would put an enormous stress on Maddox Games as the finalization of the map, the bugfixing etc can only be done by them with their development tools (as the mapping tool was never meant to be a complete package - just a part of the whole development toolset). So training, bugfixing, troubleshooting etc would result in effectively binding one or more Maddox Games team member(s) to this task alone. I guess everyone understands that this won't work as they'd not be doing work for $ but for nil (while still wanting their pay at month's end, of course).
The second reason for them not releasing the tools is keeping business secrets. Oleg has put an enormous trust on those few folks who have been allowed to use the mapping tool. While for 99% of us the way the tools work would be as incomprehensible a navigation is to a cow, they still might give potential business rivals an insight into Maddox Games's development process and some of their technical secrets.
But these - in spite of being serious reasons - aren't the biggest obstacles. The tools were developed with money from BlueByte. So they were developed by money Ubisoft paid to accquire BlueByte. This makes Ubisoft the owner of the rights. They have the final say and they've never strayed a micrometer from their "what's mine is mine" attitude.

sudoku1941
09-18-2006, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by csThor:
You're mistaking the idea of a widespread use of the mapping tools (which won't happen for various reasons) for a load of new maps. In the end of the day it's still Maddox Games who has to import the map into the engine. There's no way around that - the software was written that way.

Ian could produce maps until he turned green, but at some point (which is going to be rather sooner than later) Maddox Games will simply call it a day and drop any support for this engine completely. That's the way this industry goes - has happened in the past, will happen in the future.

Agreed, so the only question is, "How hard IS IT to import a map?" Especially one that re-uses stock terrain types and objects. I'd argue that a system so inflexible that it can't do that without a lot of handwringing isn't "all that".

csThor
09-18-2006, 09:59 AM
See my edited comments. Making maps is not simply copying some stuff from a previous map - the way the map system in Il-2 works it's pretty much starting from scratch for each and every map. It's a time consuming and highly frustrating process (I could not repeat some of Ian's comments when he made the Kurland map - they'd not be suitable for some readers here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) and takes more or less constant consultation with Maddox Games. For example there's one bug in the Kurland map we could not get rid off (a texture flickering of a runway) - in the end a developer took a long look at it (several hours as I was told) and couldn't completely cure it, either.

So if people wish to make historical and largely faultless maps it will take cooperation by Maddox Games, even more when you're not familiar with the mapping tool. Since the end of Il-2's commercial life is in sight it's - in my opinion - unthinkable that there will be any more maps beyond what has been announced.

crazyivan1970
09-18-2006, 10:37 AM
Great job Ian! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



p.s.
@Stigler,
I am seriously after you. You negativity is starting to frighten me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I believe you should consider relaxing a bit, because I don€t want you to pop a vain or something. If you don€t listen to your doctor (me in this case) I will forcefully send you on vacation. Consider it as a friendly warning http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

@Others,
Please stop participating in whether it`s right or wrong discussions.... this is a new map anouncement and personally i have nothing but appriciation to what Ian does, and i could care less whether you like it or not. Make at least 1 map by yourself first, then we`ll talk about it, ok?


Good day.

sudoku1941
09-18-2006, 11:13 AM
Well, Ivan, we both know that had I done anything wrong, you'd have done something already. But I didn't, so you haven't.

Notice how this thread started some constructive ideas as soon as the usual knee-jerk sniping from the pom-pom crew abated?

As far as "popping a vein", you give my detractors far too much credit. Their feeble attempts to discredit my posts didn't even warrant getting mad.

Why don't you issue warnings to Older, or Hand, both of whom were far more abusive than I ever was? Why is that? Thier posts were brim full of "negativity" and even namecalling. One even called me, "a tit". My posts were actually full of correct information and very on-target critque.

As moderator, your job is to be impartial, don't you think? Certainly it shouldn't be telling people what discussions they "should or shouldn't participate in"???? Or, if you're REALLY out to "curb negativity", why not go after the real offenders?

By the way, Ivan, if you'd been paying attention, you'd know your "make a map yourself" comment is pretty irrelevant. We can't attempt it, because the tools aren't released for us. And, even if we could, it doesn't require you to be a developer to make a comment about the development. You really need to work on your critical thinking skills.

OMK_Hand
09-18-2006, 01:37 PM
I'm not calling you names when I say you are a tit.

Chuck_Older
09-18-2006, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Great job Ian! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



p.s.
@Stigler,
I am seriously after you. You negativity is starting to frighten me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I believe you should consider relaxing a bit, because I don€t want you to pop a vain or something. If you don€t listen to your doctor (me in this case) I will forcefully send you on vacation. Consider it as a friendly warning http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

@Others,
Please stop participating in whether it`s right or wrong discussions.... this is a new map anouncement and personally i have nothing but appriciation to what Ian does, and i could care less whether you like it or not. Make at least 1 map by yourself first, then we`ll talk about it, ok?


Good day.

You are in the right of it Ivan. Last night I realised that I am feeding the fire because of my passion about certain subjects. I will not continue to be an enabler

crazyivan1970
09-18-2006, 03:18 PM
Glad to see you got my point there Chuck. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LEXX_Luthor
09-18-2006, 07:09 PM
I was hoping some discussion of the Forbidden Topic of map size would ensue, that's why I poasted the map dimensions without comment. Didn't know it would be this "in depth." Thanks Stiglr and Tater! And thanks csThor for the information.

I would however like to repeat my thanks for IanBoys in minimizing the European River Plains and so maximizing Unbroken Jungle.

They *are* listening to us, or are starting to *think* independently.

Tater, recall how we would poast ideas to Simplify PF maps to enable much larger map size? They used one of those ideas (probably independently) in the Kurland map -- no Building Objects for the majority of the Kurland map, except inside the inner Online Dogfight box at the map center.

But, the lack of airfields outside the Dogfight box makes at least half of the Kurland map unusable. This was not the best use of map simplification. When you take away Building Objects, you don't take away the airfields -- you leave the airfields for the air forces to operate from. Still, Kurland was at least a start towards map simplification that can be used for much larger maps. Perhaps we will see more of this in BoB And Beyond.

Question -- I heard a new method of map design was used in Kurland...and it causes the map to be very dark (and somewhat unplayable its so dark). Will the Burma Map be as dark?

Bearcat99
09-18-2006, 09:55 PM
Thanks for the map Ian.... I would prefer it to the Burma map we now have.... Hope we get the whole 9 soon.

One thing I dont understand..... why complain about things in the sim that everybody knows will not change? Whats the point? To point out that the glass is 1/4 empty as opposed to 3/4 full? To hear oneself talk? I have never in my life seen so much constant negativity out of one person. It is relentless, and it is very very old. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

sudoku1941
09-18-2006, 10:08 PM
One thing I don't understand... why settle for things in the sim that are subpar when you know they could be better? What's the point in "polite silence" and "taking what's shoved your way" with a deferential "Thank you, Sir, may I have another"? Why always take the side "everyone else" takes, fearful of having an opinion of your own, and simply attack someone else for daring to have an opinion? Why attack the person, simply because you can't attack the idea or the facts supporting it? I have seldom in my life seen so much constant groupthink, pom-pom waving and fanboiism from one community. It is relentless and it is very, very old. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Bearcat99
09-18-2006, 11:01 PM
Yeah but as much as you complain you are still here. Why, just to complain? What do you hope to accomplish? It can't be the betterment of the sim..... at least you dont act like it.

Your complaints do nothing but promote discord in the forums.... if you feel this strongly then perhaps you should devote more time to making that better sim that you constantly promote so faithfully and less time filling these baords with your opinions that really will add nothing to the equation.

It could all be better... so can your project...... none of them are perfect... but this sim is not a bad product... and you spend so much time ****ging it every chance you get and you have done so fanatically for years..... if you really wanted to make any kind of change you sure do know how to alienate the developer... now thats a way to get your point across and your great ideas implemented into the product right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Who says just because many people chose to see the glass as 3/4 full rather than 1/4 empty they have to be "pom pom waving fanbois" as you so condecendingly put it or people incabable of thinking for themselves? Who says that just because so many dont agree with you and that they actually appreciate the sim for what it is that they are "taking whats shoved thier way".... or "fearful of having thier own opinion" .. just becasue they don't share yours? As if this were some kind of life and death scenario where people had to choose between good and evil. Give me a break man..... You constantly pi$$ in the beer and then start calling people names to boot.. talking down to anyone who doesn't share your disdain for this sim... but in all these years you havent gone anywhere.. you have created multiple accounts ad gone across flight sim boards on your crusade.... as if you were some erudite flight sim developer/engineer/programmer and overall all knowing guy who had all the answers and had already accomplished the very things you rag 1C about so vehemently. From where I sit you havent done that yet.... TW is a good product... better than some that I have seen.... but I like many others prefer this.. that doesnt make me and those like me brainless boobs suckered in by the whiles of 1C.... and you dont see these people coming over to the TW forums.. or SHQ or any other forums ****ging TW do you? It all just seems like a wasie of time. Why?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

-HH-Quazi
09-18-2006, 11:16 PM
Thank you Ian m8! The map wil be well put to use. Thanks to you and all the contributors that have freely given of their time over the last 5 years to make this sim what it is, the best the world has to offer imho. Kudos sir! ~S~

Targ
09-19-2006, 12:25 AM
Goodness,
What a sorry thread hijack. I feel ashamed at what has happened here and I feel compelled to apologize to Ian.
Thank you Ian for the update on the Burma map and I hope you understand that many of us are very excited and appreciate what you have done for us, the IL2 community.
Goodbye once again stiglr...

LEBillfish
09-19-2006, 12:27 AM
IMLTHO.......it's long past time to shun Stigler. He tries to be banned to be martyred and the "woman once scorned routine" does not suit him.

VF2_Sarge
09-19-2006, 06:34 AM
I may have missed it.(sorry) But does any one know how big the map is? Its going to be part of the SOM addition, right? Are there going to be any new A/C with addition? When is it going to be out? (Wait don't answer that, I already know the answer [2 week]). Where can I find all this information?

Oh and Ian. Looking forward to seeing your map bud. Once again, thanks for all your hard work and contribution to this great but incomplete sim, not that I coulc make a better one or anything I haven't got a clue what it takes but I still have an opinion. People like you give people like me hope that one day it'll all be alright.

Chuck_Older
09-19-2006, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by VF2_Sarge:
I may have missed it.(sorry) But does any one know how big the map is? Its going to be part of the SOM addition, right? Are there going to be any new A/C with addition? When is it going to be out? (Wait don't answer that, I already know the answer [2 week]). Where can I find all this information?



Oh and Ian. Looking forward to seeing your map bud. Once again, thanks for all your hard work and contribution to this great but incomplete sim, not that I coulc make a better one or anything I haven't got a clue what it takes but I still have an opinion. People like you give people like me hope that one day it'll all be alright.

It's buried somewhere within the thread...I think it's something like 130km by 100km? I'll have to wade back through it all to find the exact numbers but it's here- somewhere

There are new aircraft with SOM, such as the Ki-27 (flyable) and Ki-21 (AI). Ki-43II is also included (flyable) I beleive. As far as I know, this Burma map is for SOM, I can't imagine it being for the '46 add-on http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

csThor
09-19-2006, 08:29 AM
Though I do have said my parts on Stigler's comments I'd like to take up his underlying questions again (to make a point and to raise some questions):

Why has Ian chosen to make such a "small" part of Burma? Couldn't he have gone for a larger map?

Answer: Sure, if we cloned him ... say ... three times and deleted some very basic necessities of the human race http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Ian did and does maps in his free time - which is severely limited being a shop owner, husband and father of a baby daughter. There shouldn't be a question where his priorities are.
I did give some hints about the problems of map making and how time-consuming it is (not mentioning the research before the first pixel is drawn!). It took him 14 months to complete Murmansk and another 9 months for Kurland (the latter was a joint effort between him, yogy and myself - so add another 3 months of research and prep work by me and yogy). How long have the slovakian guys been working on their Slovakia map?

Making maps that are large and historical takes months and months - given the coming "dead end" for the Il-2 engine it's rather questionable if such a full-sized project would have seen the light at all.

The second question is how large maps can be. Some PTO maps range up to 1000x1000km, but these are mostly showing water, which is apparently not as taxing as land. Take for example the Kurland Map and look at the memory used - and we had to cut objects in it to make it playable at all (a full-blown representation of Riga [comparable to Leningrad] would have pretty much dragged any computer to its knees). And there seems to be a second factor for limiting map size - the woods. While still clever and light on memory they seem to cause fps drop when being predominant on larger maps.
Now some folks suggested simplified maps without roads, settlements etc. Can't comment on the technical stuff, but I'm not sure everyone would accept it. As it is to me a lot of maps aren't detailed enough, but that's just my unimportant opinion.

There's a lot more I'd like to say, partially concerning the choice of the PTO for the engine, partially concerning the map choices and partially concerning the way this whole game series was made larger, but as I've said that before, as it's not going to change anything and as this engine is near the end of its life I'll keep myself quiet. Thanks.

Tater-SW-
09-19-2006, 09:24 AM
csThor, to be fair, I don't think anyone suggested that Ian should have made a bigger map. It has been pretty clear that it is a bear to even make a small map, particularly at the quality level of the maps Ian (and you and yogy) have been involved in. It really was the (very very) dead horse issue of the original choices for maps with PF---totally unrelated to the 3d party mapmakers. It came up in this thread because Burma and the CBI is clearly one of the few places where map making really should have been focused in PF since it is compatable with the game engine in terms of campaign play and even online play (historical locations with airfields available for both sides on the same map). I'd add that the sight of such a truely beautiful Burma map by Ian made me feel like beating the **** out of the dead horse in frustration http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

As for the "simplified map" issue, it's not a matter of players wanting more detail---the detail frankly doesn't exist in RL in many of the places I'm talking about in the SWPA. There were no roads outside of Port Moresby very far, for example (the airfield names were based on milage out of town on the 1 road). None. The Kokoda Trail was a footpath hacked through the jungle barfely wide enough for 2 men to walk side by side in most places. Papau/New Guinea could realistically be done with no roads outside of the few decent sized important towns. People might expect roads, but they'd be wrong to. (Ian said once at simhq that things like roads were a major manpower issue in maps as I recall).

The current "New Guinea" map (really Papua) has little villages equally spaced along the coast in huge plains. What villages there were on the coast would be hard to spot in RL since the jungle goes right to the water. This is possible in the game engine since there are islands in game with woods right over the water in places. Mission builders could throw a handful of huts in anyplace they wanted to make a village. So I'd maintain that it would be more realistic to have had "simplified" maps in the SWPA than the NG and Guadalcanal maps we got.

I have a huge respect for the good mapmakers, I only wish the people making maps for PF in the first place had been as open with the community, they might have been convinced to make better choices (though the will to push the envelope on what the dev tools would allow to make such gorgeous maps likely wouldn't have been there).

tater

csThor
09-19-2006, 09:44 AM
Knowing Ubisoft and Maddox Games the whole concept (including map choice) was cut & dried well before the announcement of development was made.

And concerning "being open" - Ubisoft's NDA basically makes such a thing impossible. You can't do anything unless Ubi allowed it. While this is customary throughout the gameing industry getting an OK from Ubi is like trying to get a straight answer out of politicians - d@mn near impossible.

Tater-SW-
09-19-2006, 10:00 AM
Yeah, you are right. Asking people who actually know the war in the Pacific might have been a good idea, however. Looking at the PF maps you get the feeling the PF map makers were not even familiar with "google."

Heheh.

tater

VF2_Sarge
09-19-2006, 10:17 AM
As far as the size of the map is concerned it really doesn't matter to me. I'll fly it either way. I just wanted to know what the fuss was all about. If you have read this discussion from the start (like I have, twice, for what every reason I still don't know) I defended Sudoku or Stigler (what ever his name is) mainly because it did seem like there was a slew of users after him, and not knowing him before I defended that becaue I thought that his orginal point was lost. Some where around page 2 of this thread I lost track of what we were talking about because of all the degrading comments and he said she said stuff. Oh well.

At any rate, I'm just happy to be getting anything out of this sim since it is on it's way out the door.

BTW, csThor, thx for your contribution also love your work, please continue to support this sim and keep it alive for as long was we have it. Any one who has read some of my previous post knows that I am not a big supporter of the upcoming BoB, mainly because I don't like to leave things unfinished and I'm a carrier guy. I feel that this sim is tradically unfinished and I don't believe correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any carriers in BoB; so once again I and my brothers are SOL.

Understandably of course, because of the detail and work that goes into each of the maps I understand why they are small and limited due to constraights they have to be. But that ok I guess. I just wish we could have more pacific maps and planes.

Cheers

LEXX_Luthor
09-19-2006, 10:24 AM
Thank you Tater_SW. Yes, Pacific theater maps are historically realistic without all the European Road, European River, and European Building Object "details."

Bearcat, we sometimes return to this subject because the same map disaster may happen to BoB And Beyond, and serious combat flight sim customers may again be forced to abandon their interest Maddox Games's sim as they have FB/PF over many things such as failed map design.

Oleg's 10 year plan for BoB And Beyond seem to assume that customer interest will grow from the beginning, and keep growing (ie...increasing sales). This is totally unlike what happened with the FB/PF series over even just 3 short years, and BoB And Beyond is supposed to last 10 years? Oleg opening full size maps to modding is the only way to ensure the FB/PF map disaster will never happen in BoB And Beyond.

csThor, if Kurland is "historical researched," why the focus on tiny Historical Building Objects inside the arcade Online Dogfight Gaming Box at the map center, and there are NO historical operational airfields for the rest of the Kurland map? Did the Luftwaffe and VVS have no airfields outside of the historically realistic 1944 Online Dogfight box? I don't know. Maybe that was the case historically, and I am learning something very new indeed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Tater::
As for the "simplified map" issue, it's not a matter of players wanting more detail---the detail frankly doesn't exist in RL in many of the places I'm talking about in the SWPA. There were no roads outside of Port Moresby very far, for example (the airfield names were based on milage out of town on the 1 road). None. The Kokoda Trail was a footpath hacked through the jungle barfely wide enough for 2 men to walk side by side in most places. Papau/New Guinea could realistically be done with no roads outside of the few decent sized important towns. People might expect roads, but they'd be wrong to. (Ian said once at simhq that things like roads were a major manpower issue in maps as I recall).

The current "New Guinea" map (really Papua) has little villages equally spaced along the coast in huge plains. What villages there were on the coast would be hard to spot in RL since the jungle goes right to the water. This is possible in the game engine since there are islands in game with woods right over the water in places. Mission builders could throw a handful of huts in anyplace they wanted to make a village. So I'd maintain that it would be more realistic to have had "simplified" maps in the SWPA than the NG and Guadalcanal maps we got.
Thanks again Tater! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

LEBillfish
09-19-2006, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
Yeah, you are right. Asking people who actually know the war in the Pacific might have been a good idea, however. Looking at the PF maps you get the feeling the PF map makers were not even familiar with "google."

Heheh.

tater

Oh, I disagree, and you know me....I want ALL of New Guinea and New Britain. Yet really to be honest and I don't care where you are speaking of be it the Soviet Union, Europe or the Pacific, NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE here is going to fly 8+ hour missions 1 way for 5 minutes of action to fly 8+ hours back with any regularity to justify it.

In kind such vast area's though the war were indeed rolling fronts really had just certain high point area's, the rest the bulk of it....More so you're talking of mapping half of the planet, and no govenment has even done that still focussing on spots as far as I know it so daunting.

So missions starting "in flight at map edges" and ending once in a safe zone I have no problem with in any form.......and find the concept of "half scale maps" so distasteful I'll not even mention it past the point that those that scream for accuracy the loudest suddenly compromise there....Go figure.

We don't have the planes with the range (most were modified in the field), no one here has the time or patience to fly them let alone make such things........So in the end I'm just grateful for what we get.

Thanks IanBoys for all your hard work. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

VF2_Sarge
09-19-2006, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
Yeah, you are right. Asking people who actually know the war in the Pacific might have been a good idea, however. Looking at the PF maps you get the feeling the PF map makers were not even familiar with "google."

Heheh.

tater

Oh, I disagree, and you know me....I want ALL of New Guinea and New Britain. Yet really to be honest and I don't care where you are speaking of be it the Soviet Union, Europe or the Pacific, NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE here is going to fly 8+ hour missions 1 way for 5 minutes of action to fly 8+ hours back with any regularity to justify it.

In kind such vast area's though the war were indeed rolling fronts really had just certain high point area's, the rest the bulk of it....More so you're talking of mapping half of the planet, and no govenment has even done that still focussing on spots as far as I know it so daunting.

So missions starting "in flight at map edges" and ending once in a safe zone I have no problem with in any form.......and find the concept of "half scale maps" so distasteful I'll not even mention it past the point that those that scream for accuracy the loudest suddenly compromise there....Go figure.

We don't have the planes with the range (most were modified in the field), no one here has the time or patience to fly them let alone make such things........So in the end I'm just grateful for what we get.

Thanks IanBoys for all your hard work. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could agree with you more LEBillfish. I really hate flying in more than 10 minutes with no action; I know I'm not the only one. So I really don't see what the big deal is any way. Its not like if we had half the world mapped, you could fly from Port Morseby to Guam and then onto Iwo Jima, you can't refuel any of that stuff. I just simply wish we had more maps. The Philippines would be one a good one.

csThor
09-19-2006, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
csThor, if Kurland is "historical researched," why the focus on tiny Historical Building Objects inside the arcade Online Dogfight Gaming Box at the map center, and there are NO historical operational airfields for the rest of the Kurland map? Did the Luftwaffe and VVS have no airfields outside of the historically realistic 1944 Online Dogfight box? I don't know. Maybe that was the case historically, and I am learning something very new indeed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


I don't know what you're trying to achieve, Lexx. Trying to get a rise out of me? Trying to make fun of everyone who disagrees with you? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

OK, let me repeat: The Online Maps are simply maps with a reduced object load for ONLINE DOGFIGHT PURPOSES. Ian did not want to cut the map dimensions so he simply limited any objects (including airfields) within the red rectangle. The "Kurland Autumn" and "Kurland Winter" are the historical maps - the other two are compromises for people who like to host DF servers but wish to evade performance problems. I have no use for them - I'm not flying on DF servers.

LEXX_Luthor
09-19-2006, 10:41 AM
Thanks csThor. Taking away Building Objects is exactly the simplification method needed for Pacific type maps that hopefully we will see in the future when BoB And Beyond returns to that theater, or for very large European maps that may be needed eventually also.

---


A dynamic campaign could make use of map areas that were not used Hristo-ically. SaQSoN supports the half-scale map idea for very large map areas, and I do agree with him/her although full size would be "nice," the half-scale would ease both map maker and players job.


BillFish::
So missions starting "in flight at map edges" and ending once in a safe zone I have no problem with in any form.......and find the concept of "half scale maps" so distasteful I'll not even mention it past the point that those that scream for accuracy the loudest suddenly compromise there....Go figure.
Go figure indeed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif That's the TargetWare method of Instant HyperSpace Jump Gate. A dynamic campaign may see Japanese succeed in "building" airfields in map area where they did not historically, although I think the Space Warp method could handle this, it can't handle concurrent missions flown by different units in different areas during Air War simulation, as the sim must calculate combat results outside your own formation. That's why we never got a real Instant Warp jump in this sim, as this sim *is* realistic in requiring AI to actually perform their mission.

csThor
09-19-2006, 10:49 AM
That has nothing to do with making realistic PTO maps, Lexx. It was simply a way to produce a map suitable for a lot of players on a DF server without too much workload.

I do agree, on the other hand, that the PTO maps would need a different way of detailing them. Roads ... some would be necessary, but not too many. Rivers ... depends. Towns or villages - much smaller than depicted (not more than a few huts here and there).
But on the other hand the few airfields and harbor installations would need to be detailed very thoroughly, as they were probably the most obvious impact of the war on the modelled area. They would be targets of highest priority.

Tater-SW-
09-19-2006, 11:06 AM
The larger maps required for the SWPA don't automatically require 8 hour flights, airstarts are still allowed on larger maps, you know. It does, however, allow the flow of the war to take place, at least for a few units for a time period that exceeds the couiple of months allowed by current choices.

Lets see, Hawaii map, which is HUGE, but is playable for ONE MORNING of the war.

Midway? 2 days (easy map so I have no problem with Midway, actually, ditto Wake).

The Papua map? 6 months (but very poorly done)? (best in PF map at 6 months).

The Japan map? Dunno, that's good for a while I guess (i'm so disinterested in late war stuff I forget about that map).

If the Papua (calld "New Guinea") map had been done well, it would be a terrific stand in for the rest of NG. It was done so poorly though. (it needs far fewer roads, jungle to the water most places, fewer rivers inland (the 1 river width means many modelled at navigable width are streams I could piss across in reality)

tater

LEXX_Luthor
09-19-2006, 11:09 AM
Thanks csThor.

I recall now -- Oleg's Team's early experimental "Pacific Map" in AEP was actually quite nice, excepting the Palm Tree Object framerate disaster (what happened there?). And I can see the "hobby" enjoyment of making Online Dogfight maps, but its not helping Oleg build customers, although that would matter less if Oleg could make Pay-To-Play work for Online play.

I guess its a mass contradiction -- we need large map sizes, and we want minute detail. I have always said, make the map size first, then fill in what detail we can. Dynamic campaigns or a long Online War may require target or operational areas not in the historical places. Even in a "historic" static campaign, you don't want a massive USAAF Port Moresbury SuperBase paved over the jungle in mid-1942. That's why Luthier had to offer multiple Guadacanal maps, for differing times of War, because the Building Objects and Airfields were fixed on the map by the map designer. A terrain creation tool that offered end users or a dynamic campaign generator the ability to add/remove target area objects and airfields would not require multiple maps to cover different months of War.

Tater-SW-
09-19-2006, 11:12 AM
As I said before (BTW, these suggestions have zero to do with Ian, and any of the add-on mapmakers, I'm thinking for the future with BoB), one thing that really deserves to be borrowed from TW in terms of map making is the "disengagement circle." This gets dropped on the map like a target area does in the Il-2 FMB. Planes that reach the edge of the circle with no enemy aircraft within some range are assumed to RTB---assuming they have enough fuel. This latter bit is critical. The engine assumes maximum fuel efficiency flight for the aircraft, and calculates the range remaining in the tanks (including leaks). This is such a cool feature, BoB would be smart to think of somethign like this.

tater

Tater-SW-
09-19-2006, 11:45 AM
Port Moresby in game is huge compared to the village it was in RL. And in game it is flat, lol.

Virtually everythign about PM in the PF map is wrong, it's like they didn't bother to google, you can find many ww2-era pics very quickly in google images.

tater

Bearcat99
09-19-2006, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by csThor:

Why has Ian chosen to make such a "small" part of Burma? Couldn't he have gone for a larger map?

Answer: Sure, if we cloned him ... say ... three times and deleted some very basic necessities of the human race http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Ian did and does maps in his free time - which is severely limited being a shop owner, husband and father of a baby daughter. There shouldn't be a question where his priorities are.
I did give some hints about the problems of map making and how time-consuming it is (not mentioning the research before the first pixel is drawn!). It took him 14 months to complete Murmansk and another 9 months for Kurland (the latter was a joint effort between him, yogy and myself - so add another 3 months of research and prep work by me and yogy). How long have the slovakian guys been working on their Slovakia map?

Making maps that are large and historical takes months and months - given the coming "dead end" for the Il-2 engine it's rather questionable if such a full-sized project would have seen the light at all.

The second question is how large maps can be. Some PTO maps range up to 1000x1000km, but these are mostly showing water, which is apparently not as taxing as land. Take for example the Kurland Map and look at the memory used - and we had to cut objects in it to make it playable at all (a full-blown representation of Riga [comparable to Leningrad] would have pretty much dragged any computer to its knees). And there seems to be a second factor for limiting map size - the woods. While still clever and light on memory they seem to cause fps drop when being predominant on larger maps.
Now some folks suggested simplified maps without roads, settlements etc. Can't comment on the technical stuff, but I'm not sure everyone would accept it. As it is to me a lot of maps aren't detailed enough, but that's just my unimportant opinion.

There's a lot more I'd like to say, partially concerning the choice of the PTO for the engine, partially concerning the map choices and partially concerning the way this whole game series was made larger, but as I've said that before, as it's not going to change anything and as this engine is near the end of its life I'll keep myself quiet. Thanks.

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

Right..... we dont know what all this entails..... and we certainly dont know the limitations of all this on the existing engine.... I have seen templates with so much stuff on them for accuracys sake.. but they drag the frames down to a crawl on the average rig.

Thor a question..... How feasable would it be to create transition maps.... even if it were just 4... one all snow.. one all water... one all desert... and one all grass.... with no objects... for the sake of connecting maps..... even if it is not 100% realistic.. it would be great if, if we wanted to we could say connect two maps for a long 8 hour mission ..... which we really cant do at the moment. Would it be possible to have these trasition maps load at a certain distance off the map... or would that cause too many problems as each persons plane crossed the "map spawn" point at various times? I dont have a clue so I dont know how all this stuff works.... I just know some of what I would like to see and I realize that this engine is nearing the end of its life as far as direct 1C support goes.

OMK_Hand
09-19-2006, 02:57 PM
Ian makes maps etc. in his own time using his knowledge of the mechanics of the game, and the reportedly unforgiving tools he has no doubt earnt the right to use, and we the users have more toys to play with.

Sudoko etc. play mind games in the forum, no more and no less, and we are entertained.

Our moderators keep the faith.

All is well.

TheGozr
09-19-2006, 02:57 PM
I hope BOB will have more tweakable settings like in LO. I hope it will not fail to do so.

near_clip = 3.6;
middle_clip = 5.;
far_clip = 60000;
structures = {80, 8000};
trees = {100000, 9000};
dynamic = {300, 24000};
objects = {3000, 60000};
mirage = {4000, 16000};
surface = {14000, 60000};
lights = {140, 60000};
lod = 1.;

LandDay
{
L01 = 10000;
L12 = 20000;
}
LandNight
{
L01 = 5000;
L12 = 15000;
}
Map
{
L01 = 50000;
L12 = 122000;
L23 = 200000;
L34 = 300000;
L45 = 400000;
}
MapAlt
{
L01 = 50000;
L12 = 120000;
L23 = 200000;
L34 = 300000;
L45 = 400000;

csThor
09-19-2006, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Thor a question..... How feasable would it be to create transition maps.... even if it were just 4... one all snow.. one all water... one all desert... and one all grass.... with no objects... for the sake of connecting maps..... even if it is not 100% realistic.. it would be great if, if we wanted to we could say connect two maps for a long 8 hour mission ..... which we really cant do at the moment. Would it be possible to have these trasition maps load at a certain distance off the map... or would that cause too many problems as each persons plane crossed the "map spawn" point at various times? I dont have a clue so I dont know how all this stuff works.... I just know some of what I would like to see and I realize that this engine is nearing the end of its life as far as direct 1C support goes.

I don't think it's possible. Even if it was technically posible (which I doubt - it would collide with Il-2's mission system) it would still require Maddox Games to code it. And that won't happen, not a Snowball's chance in Hell.

Bearcat99
09-19-2006, 10:03 PM
rgr.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

GonFlying
09-25-2006, 04:00 AM
Well said Ian mate. Your work is bloody brilliant and I'd like to say, on behalf of the vast majority, THANKS for all your hard work.
I can't believe the insensitive idiots that post negative bunk like Sudoki1941.
I'm actually an aviation historian with a particular interest in the Burma campaign and what you say is spot-on. Yes the Imphal campaign was the crucial turning point in Burma, and it's iconic air battles have NEVER been mentioned in any combat flight sim EVER.
Both the RAF and USAAF were the forgotten airforces in this region. The much earlier "Flying Tigers" are certainly not forgotten! I should imagine that there will be plenty of terrain suited to them in the Manchuria release anyway.
So well done for not falling into the trap of just pandering to the oft-exaggerated "Flying Tigers" bandwagon.
What is going to be especially brilliant is that we will be able to actually fly the Spitfires Vb/c and V111 over historical scenery against the Japanese at last, plus Hurrie 11c's, Beaufighters, Mossies and P-47D's too! The USAAF pilots (who didn't receive bounty payments for shooting down Jap planes) can at last get some recognition too, with P-38's, P-51D's, B-25's etc. Although RAF aircraft always outnumbered the USAAF in this British controlled sector, the USAAF did some sterling work, and the longer range of their aircraft came in particularly useful after Imphal was won, and the IJAAF started pulling back.
Even better for the IJAAF pilots is that the Ki-43-11 is going to become flyable in the same release to complete the picture. Also of course the Ki-21 bomber as an AI aircraft. What more could historically minded enthusiasts ask for in one release!
We should be trumpeting this common-sense addition from the roof-tops! Spitfires and Oscars over the Imphal......Thank you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif