PDA

View Full Version : Uh, what happened to 1943-44 in the Campaign?



enemyace
02-24-2005, 07:08 PM
Sorry, did they cancel the air war in the South Pacific these years? No trace of it in the campaign, other than a tiny piece of SE New Guinea.

Come on guys, this was some of the most intense air fighting of the Pacific and they left it out? Bismark Sea, Lae, Wewak, Rabaul, Biak, the entire Philippines? Hell, America's highest scoring aces came out of the SW Pacific Campaign - **** Bong and Tom McGuire - and they're simply left out?

Shame!

IS anybody going to remedy this or are we stuck with this half-baked product?

jagdmailer
02-24-2005, 07:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by enemyace:
Sorry, did they cancel the air war in the South Pacific these years? No trace of it in the campaign, other than a tiny piece of SE New Guinea.

Come on guys, this was some of the most intense air fighting of the Pacific and they left it out? Bismark Sea, Lae, Wewak, Rabaul, Biak, the entire Philippines? Hell, America's highest scoring aces came out of the SW Pacific Campaign - **** Bong and Tom McGuire - and they're simply left out?

Shame!

IS anybody going to remedy this or are we stuck with this half-baked product? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Welcome to Luthier's representation of the pacific theater ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Missing most of the ships, half the aircrafts and the maps..............

Jagd

VW-IceFire
02-24-2005, 07:21 PM
The maps are the biggest crime. Guadalcanal map could have more on it but instead cuts off all the good stuff off the top of the map.

New Guinea represents only the very early section of the war. Would love to see a second New Guinea map with the later sections of the conflict.

A Philipeans map too...that'd be great.

And since they gave us a Spitfire VIII one of the two areas where those were used would also have been great.

DRB_Hookech0
02-24-2005, 07:30 PM
dont even get me started. 23 months of missing content should be embarassing for the Devs but alas....no one at 1C seems to care. But hey, we get 2 Eastern Front maps in a patch for Pacific Fighters.....go figure.

EnGaurde
02-24-2005, 07:45 PM
*pats pockets..*

d@mn things are around here somewhere....

VW-IceFire
02-24-2005, 07:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DRB_Hookech0:
dont even get me started. 23 months of missing content should be embarassing for the Devs but alas....no one at 1C seems to care. But hey, we get 2 Eastern Front maps in a patch for Pacific Fighters.....go figure. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I understand and agree with the annoyance. But the 2 Eastern Front maps were done by Ian Boys and a third party team. We shouldn't be annoyed at them for meerly doing what they were allowed to do. Pacific maps, Battle of Britain and France related maps, and Med maps are all offlimits to third party map makers to my knowledge. Therefore, even if Ian Boys wanted to do a Pacific map he is currently not allowed.

So don't get on their backs. Wrong people.

The guy who spearheaded PF is the guy we should be talking to about trying to salvage his work a bit. We are expecting at least one more Pacific Map...not sure what of.

enemyace
02-24-2005, 08:55 PM
Fair enough, so who's the guy we should be talking to?

BE happy to end him a note or two...

Beaufort-RAF
02-24-2005, 09:28 PM
They went to all the trouble of designing a British aircraft carrier, British battleships and the Seafire.

But then didn't bother including ANY maps they actually fought on. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

DRB_Hookech0
02-24-2005, 09:59 PM
IceFire, thats why I said 1C and not Ian. Heck, I'm sure it will be a great map for the eastern front, but us PF standalone guys are getting pretty fed up.

jarink
02-24-2005, 10:54 PM
I'm still trying to figure out why there are 2 Guadalcanal maps. Neither one shows anything to the north, which would have been great for several battles. The different scales make no difference except in the Full Mission Editor and the minimap.

If we could only get one or two more Pacific maps, which ones would you want?

My pics:
The Solomons
Burma

Blackdog5555
02-24-2005, 11:03 PM
I agree with Hookech0..The map that are here are just partial bare bone battle maps that have nothing to do with the actual battles. New Guiene Stanley Range IRL is 12,000ft high. In PF its @7000ft, for one of a million examples. Without the Slot, Solomon, CBI and Philipines, etc etc etc this game is half baked. Its still fun because its a terrific addon to FB but as a standalone, its 3.25 stars out of 5. Im talking to people who appreciate the historical aspect of the PTO, not fanboys of FB. I dont really care about topedo bombers as i do care about the character of the campaigns in the game. What is this *** about having to "babysit B17s" as a mission outline. Happy flying! cheers

LEXX_Luthor
02-24-2005, 11:21 PM
We need some support.

Am thinking of making thread asking for "simplified" maps of large Pacific regions. Needed most is a map of Eastern New Guinea to Samoa, and a map of Java to Western New Guinea.

Simplified means....

No Roads
No Rivers
No Buildings
No Airfields
No Palm Tree Objects.

There were very few buildings in jungle islands. We can place the dozen or so we need in FMB where our mission takes place

Almost no roads in Pacific region. Roads require AI programming for ground vehicles. Rivers require programming for stuff like crashing into river and also bridges for roads--meaning more road programming. AI ground units don't even need roads except to cross rivers on the bridges. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

We can use Static Test Runways to place our own airfields where we need them, and be far more historical in their location if we wish. No need for the map makers to program any airfields.

With no Building Objects, no Roads, no Palm Tree Objects, and no Rivers, the huge maps will load and fun just fine, at least as easy as the HUGE Gulf of Finland map with 500,000 Building Objects (almost all useless for flying missions).

CKY_86
02-25-2005, 02:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
We need some support.

Am thinking of making thread asking for "simplified" maps of large Pacific regions. Needed most is a map of Eastern New Guinea to Samoa, and a map of Java to Western New Guinea.

Simplified means....

No Roads
No Rivers
No Buildings
No Airfields
No Palm Tree Objects.

There were very few buildings in jungle islands. We can place the dozen or so we need in FMB where our mission takes place

Almost no roads in Pacific region. Roads require AI programming for ground vehicles. Rivers require programming for stuff like crashing into river and also bridges for roads--meaning more road programming. AI ground units don't even need roads except to cross rivers on the bridges. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

We can use Static Test Runways to place our own airfields where we need them, and be far more historical in their location if we wish. No need for the map makers to program any airfields.

With no Building Objects, no Roads, no Palm Tree Objects, and no Rivers, the huge maps will load and fun just fine, at least as easy as the HUGE Gulf of Finland map with 500,000 Building Objects (almost all useless for flying missions). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

cool idea luthier http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif i would also be breat for building dogfight maps from scratch

LEXX_Luthor
02-25-2005, 03:25 AM
The large size is for offline campaign use. But yes, they could select small parts for dogfight maps, but honestly almost all the PF maps we have now are good for dogfight death matches.

About mountains. I was hesitant to mention this....

...if they DO NOT have the Dev time for mountain jungles, just make simple approximations if they must--even totally flat if this is asking too much. I am that Desperate right now for ~very~ large Pacific maps even if they must be "abstract." Something covering Pacific where we put Test Runways where we need them.

Don't need the small islands except special important ones like Fiji (if Japan gets that far for example). We just need the medium size and larger (New Guinea the largest, Guadacanal a medium, with some selected small islands like Fiji maybe.) I suggest covering all islands, including all of the interior of New Guniea, with solid green PF jungle texture. Very Simple.

If they don't have the time, just make a very rough approximation to the coastlines, this may make more simple the programming for AI ship and ground unit movement restrictions in FMB.

flyplenty
02-25-2005, 05:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beaufort-RAF:
They went to all the trouble of designing a British aircraft carrier, British battleships and the Seafire.

But then didn't bother including _ANY_ maps they actually fought on. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Aside from Iwo Jima, of course. Four British carriers joined in that campaign.

FF_Trozaka
02-25-2005, 06:05 AM
LOL @ Lexx,

I am with ya in your frustration about lack of maps, but please don't ASK for ****. We could definitely use a few more GOOD maps that cover more of the war.

S!

Capt._Tenneal
02-25-2005, 09:09 AM
With what we have now, I'd call PF more a STAND-IN than Stand-Alone. We have stand-ins for a lot of things : FB and AEP aircraft as stand-ins for PF aircraft. FB, AEP, and online maps as stand-ins for PF maps. Ditto for ships.

Read the descriptions of a lot of 3rd party campaigns and single missions set in the Pacific and through no fault of their own (bless their hearts, they try) the authors usually end up apologizing for using all these stand-ins. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Beaufort-RAF
02-25-2005, 12:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by flyplenty:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beaufort-RAF:
They went to all the trouble of designing a British aircraft carrier, British battleships and the Seafire.

But then didn't bother including _ANY_ maps they actually fought on. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Aside from Iwo Jima, of course. Four British carriers joined in that campaign. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Royal Navy were not at Iwo Jima. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
02-25-2005, 12:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DRB_Hookech0:
IceFire, thats why I said 1C and not Ian. Heck, I'm sure it will be a great map for the eastern front, but us PF standalone guys are getting pretty fed up. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Fair enough, just setting the record straight.

I'm annoyed too. There's no Solomons map so I can't build a proper USMC Corsair campaign that I so wanted to build. Really, the PTO is a very difficult place to do and you need to have quite a few more maps than they gave us to properly do it. The plane sets are generally outstanding with some exceptions (don't need to beat a dead horse) but unfortunately the planes and the maps simply don't match. What they were thinking is beyond me.

I think they should have done Korea instead. Much smaller geographical region, similar technology, ability to re-use aircraft...and still fits the theme of "forgotten battles". Then you could at least have the Royal Navy, USN, USAAF, and the North Korean/Chinese/Russian air forces packed into one or two maps. But I don't make such decisions...I just criticize when they go wrong http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Capt._Tenneal
02-25-2005, 12:37 PM
Nice thought. Maybe a 1948 Mid-East conflict would have worked too ? Small map (Palestine and immediate area) with a lot of WW II era aircraft seeing action both for the Israelis and the Arab forces too. Spitfires, B-17s, P-51s, even some Me 109s.

flyplenty
02-25-2005, 12:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beaufort-RAF:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by flyplenty:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beaufort-RAF:
They went to all the trouble of designing a British aircraft carrier, British battleships and the Seafire.

But then didn't bother including _ANY_ maps they actually fought on. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Aside from Iwo Jima, of course. Four British carriers joined in that campaign. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Royal Navy were _not_ at Iwo Jima. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I meant Okinawa, actually. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Ships/BPF/Britishpacificfleethomepage.html

Beaufort-RAF
02-25-2005, 01:17 PM
Well yes it's true the the Royal Navy were involved in Operation Iceberg.

However they weren't actually at Okinawa but at the Sakishima Gunto which is an archipelago of islands several hundred miles to the south-west.

So the in game map is of no use.

Fliegeroffizier
02-25-2005, 01:59 PM
Trying to put this as gently as possible: There clearly was a great deal of ignorance on the 1C team with regard to the history of the Pacific War...that's understandable as I was even More ignorant of the Eastern Front AirWar before I got IL2.

However, one would think that they could/should have hired some knowledgable folks as consultants, if nothing else...American and/or Brit or Aussie or some other credible historian of the Pacific Air War. Seems like they went it alone, using a relatively few history books as their source material...and as a result, made some big errors in Map-selections as well as in DGen campaigns.

Starshoy did modify some of the campaigns almost immediately after the campaign historical errors were pointed out, but maps are lagging/dead-in-the-water.

I could swear that I saw a post way back before PF was released concerning the "Patch"[the "3rd CD" patch] saying that Phillipine maps were definitely coming... Seems to me we need Leyte and Luzon maps for the Phillipines, Bougainville and Rabaul for Solomons and New Guinea/NewBritain and Something for CBI. In Fact, I KNOW that before PF was released, in an update post, 1C showed a screenshot/map of an acft over Rabaul which caught my attention with its seemingly detailed accuracy(harbor features) to the extent that I searched for a Real photo to make comparison. The 1C Rabaul map was VERY accurate! Unfortunately, I have lost the original 1c/ubi screenshot, but here is the Real Rabaul photo:
http://members.cox.net/fliegeroffizier/rabaulMap.jpg

What I don't get is, if 1C had the map available in Beta PF for doing a pre-release screenshot, What Happened to the Map???!!!!!!

This map shows how Rabaul and Bougainville are located...and the Eastern edge of NewGuinea on the left(the edge of the existing PF NG map)...
http://members.cox.net/fliegeroffizier/NGNewBritBoug.jpg how hard would it be to give us a Map including Rabaul, Bougainville and Northwest Solomons/Slot? Just Curious.

mortoma
02-25-2005, 02:22 PM
Hell, they could have given us more of the Solomons ( more than just Guadalcanal area ) and included a Bougainville map too. Pappy Boyington spent some of his career around Bougainville, in the '43 time frame as far as I know.

enemyace
02-25-2005, 08:11 PM
What I don't get is, if 1C had the map available in Beta PF for doing a pre-release screenshot, What Happened to the Map???!!!!!!



A very good question. Can someone bug the 1C team about it?

I'll admit I have a personal angle in this - my great uncle was a combat photographer/gunner who started out with the 5th AF at Rabaul, through the rest of the New Guinea Campaign, then finished up later in the Philippine campaign.

I was really looking forward to B25 strafing campaigns when things got hot and heavy in '43 and '44, and maybe flying a few 49th FG missions with R Bong and McGuire

BTW, another correction, according to a 38th BG pilot I spoke with not long a go, the Owen Stanley Mts went up as high as 14,000 ft, and pretty much were always blocked out by massive storm fronts that they would have to seek passages through. Often flying over those mountains was more dangerous than actually attacking the target.

LEXX_Luthor
02-25-2005, 08:56 PM
WHY ASK FOR SMALL MAPS ??

Look at this thing... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif You can't fly to Port Moresby or Guadacanal with that map.

http://members.cox.net/fliegeroffizier/NGNewBritBoug.jpg

With far fewer rivers -- most really jungle streams invisible from the air, they can easily create PF map from Wewak to Guadacanal...or beyond. Would take very little to extend the map across blank water to the Santa Cruz islands east of Guadacanal.


No Airfields...if the Devs place airfields for us, it will be historically accurate for maybe one month out of the entire war. We can place our own static Test Runways where we need them when we need them (what year for example).

No Building Objects...if the Devs place buildings or other static objects for us, it will be historically accurate for maybe one month out of the entire war. We can place our own Building Objects where we need them when we need them (what year for example).

One or two rivers... Fly River in New Guinea for example.

And of course, No Palm Trees Objects. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

JG53Frankyboy
02-25-2005, 09:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beaufort-RAF:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by flyplenty:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beaufort-RAF:
They went to all the trouble of designing a British aircraft carrier, British battleships and the Seafire.

But then didn't bother including _ANY_ maps they actually fought on. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Aside from Iwo Jima, of course. Four British carriers joined in that campaign. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Royal Navy were _not_ at Iwo Jima. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

but Okinawa and Kyushu can be used for RN carrieroperations , IIRC ?

but yes about RAF /RAAF planes: no place so far to use SpitfireMkVIII and BeaufighterMk.21 properly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
im also often wondering if they had ever a plan aboutthe PF ( http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) and checked if they had a map for the plane (ore otherwise around )

also the USAAF is a joke in PF - no map to use P-38J/L ore very few for P-47s http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

and they are still going on with this !
ore, if a MC.205 / G.55 will ever come , for wich map ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


thinking about tall the lasrt AdOns , it would have been better if they had stick to easternfront only ! making with all the used manpower the last years this front better. corrected errors, added maps and planes.
now , the whole ETO, MTO and realy some mayor PTO/CBI stuff is "half(ore quarter)ready" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
this is fore sure a very personal opinion!

JG53Frankyboy
02-25-2005, 09:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fliegeroffizier:


This map shows how Rabaul and Bougainville are located...and the Eastern edge of NewGuinea on the left(the edge of the existing PF NG map)...
http://members.cox.net/fliegeroffizier/NGNewBritBoug.jpg how hard would it be to give us a Map including Rabaul, Bougainville and Northwest Solomons/Slot? Just Curious. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

sry, but the part of "our" NG map is realy far away from your map ,)

http://www.franky.fliegerhospital.de/SuedwestPazifik.jpg

Beaufort-RAF
02-25-2005, 10:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beaufort-RAF:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by flyplenty:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beaufort-RAF:
They went to all the trouble of designing a British aircraft carrier, British battleships and the Seafire.

But then didn't bother including _ANY_ maps they actually fought on. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Aside from Iwo Jima, of course. Four British carriers joined in that campaign. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Royal Navy were _not_ at Iwo Jima. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

but Okinawa and Kyushu can be used for RN carrieroperations , IIRC ?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well as I said the British operated hundreds of miles to the south west of Okinawa and for a campaign over Japan Honshu would be needed, not Kyushu.

There are 4 Dgen campaigns for the Royal Navy:-

Iwo Jima
Chichi Jima
Okinawa
Kyushu

But they are all fictional.

Fliegeroffizier
02-25-2005, 11:41 PM
FrankyBoy...you are correct....I hadn't realized just how totally inadequate the PF NG Map actually was...

Anyway, the point is that Oleg 1C surely can add these extra couple of Maps , now that they surely realize that they overlooked some of the MAJOR Operational areas of the Pacific War.

All the recent stuff about new "Kuban" maps is pretty boring, to tell the truth...IF Oleg and company want to keep/attract new customers, they might want to put the PF MAPs issue on the front burner(or lease it out to 3rd party-types)...IMHO

Blackdog5555
02-26-2005, 01:23 PM
Bump!

Shakthamac
02-26-2005, 11:25 PM
personally im hoping for the Slot and Leyte. I know I will get flamed for this, but of you look at the quality of maps we got in FB and Aces, then compare them to what we got in PF, there really is something lacking. What I mean is, it seems like the dev team lucked out on making maps. Because they were small islands, they got away with sending us many maps with nothing but water 99% of them.

I just sometimes feel like they pulled a fast one saying something like, "Here's your 15 new maps. Have fun!" And they really aren't maps at all.

In contrast to any new flyable aircraft, I would much rather see new maps and ships

btw, what happened to that liberty ship image on the game update board that i saw a long time ago?

Pentallion
02-27-2005, 02:30 AM
It's a joke, a really bad joke. Luthier should be busting his butt to get some decent maps out, not these poorly thought out things. Guadalcanal doesn't even reach to Santa Isabel, where many Cactus flights were sent to? New Guinea doesn't run from Port Moresby to LAE? The areas of the great carrier battles of the Solomons don't have maps?

If I were Oleg, I'd be pretty darned PO'd at Luthier, but hey, Oleg takes ultimate responsibility as it is HIS sim. This game reflects poorly on him. Definite hit to his reputation.

If I'd bought PF as a stand alone, I'd feel totally ripped off. Makes me think Oleg really detests Americans so he offered them "their" war and he took their money, but he just did a half-azzed job of the war because he frankly didn't give a ****.

It's obvious that he didn't give a ****, as for the rest, well, it sure seems that way.

dizeee
02-27-2005, 03:58 AM
this is a typical example for being too close to something.
guys, they wont give it to us, coz they cant. they have neither the finacial nor the manpower to do it. the game is half done at best. as a offline sp player, i enjoyed il2fb for quite some time, till the dc/ai stuff bored me out too much. pf got shelved pretty much after one week. im just returning to this forum here and then, to check if there might have happened some miracle or something.
pf was released to "harvest" the sales of a dedicated crowd(you guys) and the casual gamer, who gets atracted by the advertsement. same story as with silent hunter2. speaking of silent hunter. at 18th march we will see how a modern simulation has to be done...

LEXX_Luthor
02-27-2005, 04:58 AM
Pentallion:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If I were Oleg, I'd be pretty darned PO'd at Luthier, but hey, Oleg takes ultimate responsibility as it is HIS sim. This game reflects poorly on him. Definite hit to his reputation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oleg may "regret" agreeing to let Luthier do the PF, although I kinda like it--based on the FB game engine, it has alot to offer just for that. So how about helping think of ways to Simplify the maps so we get something mapping Wewak to Santa Cruz?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If I'd bought PF as a stand alone, I'd feel totally ripped off. Makes me think Oleg really detests Americans so he offered them "their" war and he took their money, but he just did a half-azzed job of the war because he frankly didn't give a ****. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No flight sim Devs over "here" are willing to offer "our" war to us. USA game developers Detest USA flight simmers, Yes, No ...?

At least Oleg stepped in to cover for teh USA game developers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

sapre
02-27-2005, 09:59 AM
To say the truth, I'd prefer if PF didn't exist at all then seeing it's support being cut down with it's half complete state.
I havn't played any of the PF campaign for 3 weeks, because it's so unreallistic and half completed.
Just imagine what would we have now with FB/AEP if the Dev's have consentrate only on FB and BoB?

Charlie Foxtrot
02-27-2005, 12:39 PM
I have a small box of 1940's maps of Phillipines and some other Pacific areas that were discarded by the US Army when they closed the Chemical Corps library in 1973. These have elevation, manmade, hydrographics and vegetation, but also have some white spaces marked unknown. Perhaps copies of these would be of interest to a map designer?

Blackdog5555
02-27-2005, 04:39 PM
When i see the fine detail in the Euro maps, it is a little frustrating when the islands are so tiny yet devoid of any detail. In my cheezy CFS2 has, i have over 100 maps, many high mesh maps. The PI islands that were beautifully done and for free on simviation. I cant b3elieve tht it should be so hard. with a SDK it could be done for free.!!!

enemyace
03-01-2005, 08:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie Foxtrot:
I have a small box of 1940's maps of Phillipines and some other Pacific areas that were discarded by the US Army when they closed the Chemical Corps library in 1973. These have elevation, manmade, hydrographics and vegetation, but also have some white spaces marked unknown. Perhaps copies of these would be of interest to a map designer? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd be very initerested to see those maps. I'm researching a book on my great uncle, who flew with the 5th AF in New Guinea and later the Philippines.....