PDA

View Full Version : Posts where PF is mentioned as built with an old engine!



walsh2509
02-09-2005, 07:54 PM
Posts where PF is mentioned as built with an old engine! = oleg e-mail bummer for PF.


It would seem to me from reading them and looking at the oleg e-mail, that this engine was at the end of its life and work was about to commence on a new one that would last for the next 5 to 7 years, then I can only conclude that Pacific Fighters was a money grabbing excerise.

A con! Come and get the New Flight Sim Pacific Fighters, no where did it say, oh by the way this is really an add on to the end of an OLD series and the eninge it runs on is for the chop.

Once you have ALL the PF sim (missing 3rd disc) that's your lot we will be working on building this new engine to run our future releases on, starting with BOB.

No doubt near the end of this "new engines" life they will get around to the Pacific again, and try and shaft unsuspecting gamers then too!


I bought PF as a stand alone "new sim" , I had read the forum before it came out only 3/4months ago and read the posts were new comers were asking about PF and the company that made it!

And all said the same, get PF oleg and his team will behind you and over the coming years new and wonderful things will come to you..

For that is what he has done for us who bought IL-2 the support you'll get from him and his team is the best in all the gaming business no one come close! You'll have support and new surpises to download when you buy an IC:Maddox game GET PF!


Those of us who got it and were looking forward to the years of support that Il-2 gamers were used to, were in for a nasty surprise! PF was the end game of an old eninge and a new one was going to be worked on from now on, ok new stand alone PF's will get our missing 3rd dics but not the same support afforded to Il-2 fans....

And you wonder why new flight simmers are ‚£issed off!

walsh2509
02-09-2005, 07:54 PM
Posts where PF is mentioned as built with an old engine! = oleg e-mail bummer for PF.


It would seem to me from reading them and looking at the oleg e-mail, that this engine was at the end of its life and work was about to commence on a new one that would last for the next 5 to 7 years, then I can only conclude that Pacific Fighters was a money grabbing excerise.

A con! Come and get the New Flight Sim Pacific Fighters, no where did it say, oh by the way this is really an add on to the end of an OLD series and the eninge it runs on is for the chop.

Once you have ALL the PF sim (missing 3rd disc) that's your lot we will be working on building this new engine to run our future releases on, starting with BOB.

No doubt near the end of this "new engines" life they will get around to the Pacific again, and try and shaft unsuspecting gamers then too!


I bought PF as a stand alone "new sim" , I had read the forum before it came out only 3/4months ago and read the posts were new comers were asking about PF and the company that made it!

And all said the same, get PF oleg and his team will behind you and over the coming years new and wonderful things will come to you..

For that is what he has done for us who bought IL-2 the support you'll get from him and his team is the best in all the gaming business no one come close! You'll have support and new surpises to download when you buy an IC:Maddox game GET PF!


Those of us who got it and were looking forward to the years of support that Il-2 gamers were used to, were in for a nasty surprise! PF was the end game of an old eninge and a new one was going to be worked on from now on, ok new stand alone PF's will get our missing 3rd dics but not the same support afforded to Il-2 fans....

And you wonder why new flight simmers are ‚£issed off!

VW-IceFire
02-09-2005, 08:04 PM
I understand but I don't.

Oleg did say that support for PF will continue until the release of the next product which only makes sense.

Yes, the majority of the team is now focused on BoB. Rightly so, they need to move along, and BoB is the new foundation for a series of flight sims. We all knew that even if most of the new people didn't.

But support for PF isn't over. I'm not thinking that this next big patch is going to be the last by any shot. Infact, I know there is a backlog of user created aircraft (and other objects) that did achieve the high quality standards that are perfectly capable of being integrated into the sim and I'm sure we'll see them.

I think that the perception that this game is finished is wrong. Its not.

But its also true to say that PF is the final chapter in a long line of sims that is now headed onto the next generation. The two are not mutally exclusive.

Tooz_69GIAP
02-09-2005, 08:19 PM
Right, here's how I understand it:

IL-2 Sturmovik was released in 2001, Forgotten Battles was developed as an add on for that game, using the same engine, but developed to the point where it became too sophisticated for it orignal purpose, and so became a stand alon sequel. That was released in 2003. Game engine is the same, just tweaked more, and it around 3-4 years old by this time.

Battle of Britain is announced to be in development by 1C:Maddox, which will comprise an entirely new engine. This is at the tail end of 2003.

AEP is released as an expansion for FB in 2004. IL-2 game engine is now about 5 years old.

Late 2003/early 2004 PF is announced as a stand alone game using the 5 year old IL-2 engine. The IL-2/FB community are in uproar coz they wont get the PF stuff added to the FB stuff. 1C:Maddox work their backsides off to make the two compatible.

October 2004 PF is released. IL-2 engine is now getting to around 6 years old.

By this time, BoB game engine has been in development for at least 18 months. Speculation gives BoB an estimated release date of Q3/Q4 2006.

Why was PF released?? PF was originally a 3rd party idea by Ilya Shevchenko, and he was given the go ahead to start development on the game by Ubi and 1C:Maddox. 1C:Maddox then gave substantial support to the project. Also, supposedly Ubi has a big part to play in this: the contract that Ubi and 1C:Maddox had/has stipulated the release of one more commercial paid for product before the release of BoB, and they wanted it released at a good time for sales, i.e. X-mas-ish time. Result of this was a rushed out of the door unfinished product with a ton of bugs, and missing content.

That is what I understand has happened according to posts from Oleg, and other sources.

As for support of the PF product initially, well about 4-5 months after release of the game, we have had what....maybe 3 or 4 patches??? And we have had direct interaction with Oleg on testing and optimisation, and we are due another big big patch in the next few weeks. I see no reason to complain.

As for the "unfinished" comments, this is a problem, but one of Ubi's causing due to their idiocy in distribution timetables, and marketing strategies in advertising content which was never supposed to be in the game in the first place, but now these features have been promised, 1C:Maddox have to support it (i.e. Betty bomber is one).

Now, for the projected release of BoB, there is at least another 18 months before BoB is expected to be ready (if our estimates are right), so there are 18 months still to be exploited for the IL-2 engine. By the time BoB comes out, the IL-2 engine is gonna be nearly 8 years old!!! Amazing!!!

Also, I seem to remember a post by Oleg, or someone in the know that once 1C:Maddox stops officially supporting IL-2/FB/AEP/PF, there will be a selected 3rd party team to add limited content in terms of aircraft and maps to the game until BoB is released, and this will give the main 1C:Maddox team the time to pour everything into BoB which I am sure will blow us away, and be the platform for a new set of expansions into the different theatres of the war, and will be absolutely the definitive WWII sim!!

Anyway, I love FB/AEP/PF, and I'm having fun with what I got, and we are getting more, and that makes me happier.

Maybe I'm a fanboi, but I don't care, I just like blowing stuff up!!!

Firebird_79vRAF
02-09-2005, 08:19 PM
~S~

And exactly how is it Ubi Soft's, 1C's, Oleg Maddox's, or anyone's fault that you didnt do any research?

Did you really believe that a product that can be merged with an older product would have a new engine? Seriously, did you? Wheres the thank you for adding another theatre to what is the best and most complete flight sim to date?

heywooood
02-09-2005, 08:23 PM
FB/PF has legs...Oleg and co designed it to be enjoyable for years.
No one can currently run it in full glory at max res. and in congested battlefields at this point in time...(well - not many can).

The users can build their own missions and campaigns and create the utilities to enhance and expand their experience like no where else in simdom.

Maddox will not abandon this software...there will be more focus on the new software, be sure - but it is petulant and weak to assume that FB/PF is done.

I and others will not soon be relegating our CD's to the coaster pile anytime soon and you would be foolish to abandon yours. Even as BoB is developed and then released - we will all be at the low end as far as running it properly, even after upgrades....but those upgrades will allow us to run FB/PF as it should be...full on.

And as 1c continues to create maps and flyables and other new features for it, albeit at a reduced clip compared to what it was, we will see FB/PF last much longer than we ever expected....but I am talking to myself here mostly, be sure.

SlickStick
02-09-2005, 08:32 PM
Now those were two of the most level-headed and honest looks at this game that I've seen posted around here for a loooong time, Tooz and heywooood.

Well worth the read. Thanks.

AlmightyTallest
02-09-2005, 08:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> but I am talking to myself here mostly, be sure. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Naaa, I hear ya guys http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I hope it all turns out for the best though and I really am looking forward to seeing more support and optimization of Pacific Fighters before BoB arrives.

crazyivan1970
02-09-2005, 08:38 PM
Who`s pissed off? Don`t mix up pissed off and inpatience http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

plumps_
02-09-2005, 08:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It would seem to me from reading them and looking at the oleg e-mail, that this engine was at the end of its life and work was about to commence on a new one that would last for the next 5 to 7 years, then I can only conclude that Pacific Fighters was a money grabbing excerise.

A con! Come and get the New Flight Sim Pacific Fighters, no where did it say, oh by the way this is really an add on to the end of an OLD series and the eninge it runs on is for the chop. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

People were asking for carriers. They didn't want them in 3-5 years when the new engine is ready and BOB done, but NOW. I guess that most people are glad about getting them in spite of the constraints posed by the narrow time schedule and the small developing team.
At the same time software developers need money to pay their employees while they work on the next generation of their product. They gave us the carriers along with the Pacific scenario, they got our money in exchange, so everybody is happy now. Well, almost everybody...

LEXX_Luthor
02-09-2005, 08:59 PM
For others who may be wondering...

Oleg email here ~~~&gt; http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=5011066372


Walsh:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It would seem to me from reading them and looking at the oleg e-mail,... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
...but refusing to share the email with others so they can read it for themselves. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Walsh:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And you wonder why new flight simmers are ‚£issed off! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Both we and the new flight simmers are wondering why the Bitter internet posters refuse to offer PF Newbies help and support.

Zneg1
02-09-2005, 09:07 PM
Geez!!! The foundation and support columns surely might be OLD but geez the architecture and facade does not look (ok, PLAY...) like Il-2. Just go ahead and try it, Il-2 feels so different from FB or AEP and more so with PF. try flying the same plane and look out the window.

For all those disatisfied with PF please uninstall it and play another game if you cannot get your money back.

Skycat_2
02-09-2005, 09:33 PM
Tooz, I agree with your chronology but I think the original IL-2 was released in late 2001. If you count the development time then the engine is likely six years old.

We can all agree that PF was a gallant attempt to squeeze more out of coding that had originally been written with low altitude, short distance ground attack in mind. I think the original concept was to feature only one plane -- the IL-2 Sturmovik (go figure! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) You can argue that PF was a stand-alone or that it is 'unfinished' or 'rushed' or whatever, but all around I think Ilya (aka Luthier) and 1C:MG did a good job of creating a whole new theater with some outstanding features for what is an aging code.

Walsh2509, I can understand your arguments but I also submit to you that you are in a position to take advantage of the history of 1C:MG's support by purchasing the prior releases of FB and AEP and 'merging' them to Pacific Fighters at a comparitavely low cost. In retrospect, my history with the series was:
1. Bought "IL-2 Sturmovik" for $20 USD. The last patch was simultaneously released for it. Rumors began circulating that the 'expansion' Forgotten Battles would be a stand-alone instead. Bummer.
2. Bought "Forgotten Battles" the day it was released for $40. All of the content of IL-2 plus the 14 flyables added by IL-2's patches were in FB. Started looking forward to FB patches ... eventually, about a year later, five new maps, the flyable P-51D and two Japanese fighters, and AI B-17 and C-47 were released in patch 1.21. Support for FB essentially ended with the release of AEP.
3. Purchased "Ace Expansion Pack" the first week of release for $30. Part of the content on the disc was all of the material from the FB upgrade patches. Six months later one new map, five flyable variations of the Spitfire Mk.IX and two variants of the I-185, and four AI variants of the B-25 are released in patch v2.01. However, support for AEP is essentially discontinued after the follow-up tweak patch v2.04 to promote "Pacific Fighters."
4. Purchased "Pacific Fighters" for $40 USD. Four patches have already been released for it in only four months, even adding one new flyable. (Sidenote: PF 'merged' automatically applies the material of the two AEP patches, saving new users a huge 120Mb AEP patch download.)

What is my point? First, that you can add FB+AEP (as "Gold Pack") for a mere $30 USD more and instantaneously get yourself up to the same sim that I've spent $130 total on and have patiently weathered a dozen or so patch upgrades through the course of nearly three years. Second, since 'free patch' material tends to get released in the next commercial add-on or sequel, PF will be the only version where the upgrades are truly free of cost. And third, the immediacy, rate and number of PF upgrade patches thus far has been higher than it was for FB and AEP and is only surpassed by the original IL-2 Sturmovik in this respect. If even only one BIG patch is released in the future to add new content, PF would still become the most supported version of the whole series.

(I forgot where I was going with this thread ... oh, yeah, BoB development!)

So when the original IL-2 Sturmovik was developed, I don't think there was much forethought to making it greatly expandable or modular. Obviously the first expansion project created so much rewrite that Forgotten Battles had to be released as a full stand-alone instead. My thinking is that 1C:MG must have learned a million and one lessons through their experiences with the IL-2 series, and I'm sure they have a grand vision of how they will make their Battle of Britain expandable. I'm sure the little things we don't think about, like designing a way of tweaking one plane's FM code without adversely affecting another one's unintentionally, has been made a priority. I remember reading that the AI, when not in the general area, won't use up so much CPU resource ... that means more planes in the air, I think. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Also, we've all seen screenshots showing how the new BoB sim will be able to make efficient use of 3D models being constructed for the RTS simulator 1C:MG has been concurrently working on; I'd say that high-quality expansions will be rolling out fairly soon after BoB is released.

Bearcat99
02-09-2005, 10:23 PM
I paid the full $49 for IL2.... back then I wanted Mustangs..... P-47s..... P-40s..... Spirfires.... Corsairs... Zeros... P-38s..... B-17s....... some western maps...... all that was missing.. and I thought the sim was great.... I settled on the La5 and the P-39 as my mount of choice and had fun..... now 4 years later... I have evrything I wanted and then some.... There is a forest behind those trees.... go on... take a look for yourself....... try not to get lost in there though.... its pretty dense... and ther are all kinds of wild things in there that can cart you away..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

EnGaurde
02-09-2005, 10:25 PM
about that FM tweak thing...

being a student coder, im no doubt missing the finer points of object oriented coding, but my round about guess is that derived classes are being used for all planes.

this makes sense, as 4 forces affect all aircraft, and if you make gravity common to all it would benefit in realism. You could probably work out a basic drag value, and add to it further down the derived class list?

the basic flight model probably sits quite high in the class tree.

meaning, as each plane inherits its basic flight model from a common "mother" / base class, if you tweak whatever variables they used for plane behaviour with weight, speed etc of one means making the change upstream, which unfortunately flows into more than one "fork of the river."

thats what i consider has happened with the tweak idea. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

id solve it by having less info in the base class, and more in the derived classes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

even then it would be extremely difficult to influence one aircraft and not the other, without completely killing the advantage of inheritence.

meh.

just thought id try and understand how they did this ffrom a tech pov.

Pail-Male
02-10-2005, 01:43 AM
hey i did do some research and every one was saying oh its still the best engine around bla bla bla. my beef with the whole dang thing is this (and it doesn't matter who blams who ubisoft 1c bla bla thier all in it together and al own resposability)there is no way up down in out or around it. There was intentioal deliberate and calculated, missinformation, misdirection, suggested and or implied faulse and half truthes, faulse advertizing and you know what out right lies! I'll tell you what, I paid and if i want play or not play, If i want to complain or not, if i want to yak yak and yak some more, then you had better know i WILL!I have a big problem with being LIED to and there is an unmistakable trend toward such company born driven and implamented policys. I will not exsept such things and if i want to drive it into the ground break it off stomp it piss on it and then repeat it a 1000 times then I WILL! If people want to insult my manhood and call me a whinner then go right ahead it wont stop me and i'll just get such a big kick out of it because i know full well what i'm capable of and and how fast curage would abandon them were they to look in my eyes. Here how about this my take on 1c. He aint shown me anything but that he's some overly stupid euro punk that aint got one clue what he's doing! and he's got a buch of brain dead crack ho but buddies running around trying get every one to think he's some sort of GOD and going thank u sir may i have another! The very fact that there is no list with the game saying just exactly what is flyable should set off bells alarm and whisles in any intellagent persons brain! Hurra! bump bump bump bump bump ah man i'm haven some fun now!! its all one big party ye ha!!!!!

Tooz_69GIAP
02-10-2005, 02:27 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

WOLFMondo
02-10-2005, 02:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by walsh2509:
then I can only conclude that Pacific Fighters was a money grabbing excerise.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You clearly do not understand business and the market place. ALL product to be purchased by a consumer are money grabing excercises. The whole point of making a good product, mass marketing etc is to make people buy it.

When will people realise that this is a business, business is about making money, making money from consumers.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by walsh2509:
A con! Come and get the New Flight Sim Pacific Fighters, no where did it say, oh by the way this is really an add on to the end of an OLD series and the eninge it runs on is for the chop.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wheres the con? You got your game, you've got patches so far and another in the works and them maybe more after that.

You also get the option of buying FB and AEP to make up the greatest flight sim to date.

Now quit whining and let Oleg get to work with BoB. The sooner you quit hassling him the sooner he can get BoB out to us!

I'll add in a http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif for good measure.

Flakenstien
02-10-2005, 03:17 AM
What really gets me is the fact that most don't realize that for less that $100 (US) you can have FB/AEP/PF installed on your computer with more aircraft and battle scenerios that you can ever be able to complete and then add the online factor!. A feeble price to pay for all that you do get!
How many have mastered every aircraft available? No one.
Now go on a date this weekend, have dinner, a movie and maybe a nice romantic drive, tell me how much you paid for a few hours of fun, more that $100 ? probably. Go to Disneyland for a day(by yourslef) find anything that you can do for entertainment that last as as long as the enjoyment of flying this sim for less than the price of a full install. You can't, your date may last a few hours (and if you get "lucky" you may for 5 minutes at the most) when you get home PF will still be on your HD waiting for you.

As for false advertising this has been thrown about so much put it to rest, if nothing was misprinted on the box you would have found something else to cry about it is amazing how all of the sudden the "Betty" has become the most favored Warbird in the world all because it was listed on a box, hell if X-wing fighter was printed on the box everyone would be wanting to know where it is and when will they get it.
Your mistake if you paid for PF just for one aircraft! GET OVER IT!!
Even if the aircraft that you are crying about was included you would have something to say about it, afterall we all know that each one has actually piloted these aircraft in battle and know what they are talking about when it comes to real life flight of these birds http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Point is unless you can tell me where else or what else can be done for the cost of this sim or less and give as much or more pleasure then go find a blog somewhere else and cry. And try and leave this forum for a fresh topic and assitance for the newer pilots.
You are free to post your opinion but make it original because I have read this same one a hundred times over so the least you could do is be original. Maybe Oleg can work on a updated "opinion patch"?

ImpStarDuece
02-10-2005, 03:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pail-Male:
hey i did do some research and every one was saying oh its still the best engine around bla bla bla. my beef with the whole dang thing is this (and it doesn't matter who blams who ubisoft 1c bla bla thier all in it together and al own resposability)there is no way up down in out or around it. There was intentioal deliberate and calculated, missinformation, misdirection, suggested and or implied faulse and half truthes, faulse advertizing and you know what out right lies! I'll tell you what, I paid and if i want play or not play, If i want to complain or not, if i want to yak yak and yak some more, then you had better know i WILL!I have a big problem with being LIED to and there is an unmistakable trend toward such company born driven and implamented policys. I will not exsept such things and if i want to drive it into the ground break it off stomp it piss on it and then repeat it a 1000 times then I WILL! If people want to insult my manhood and call me a whinner then go right ahead it wont stop me and i'll just get such a big kick out of it because i know full well what i'm capable of and and how fast curage would abandon them were they to look in my eyes. Here how about this my take on 1c. He aint shown me anything but that he's some overly stupid euro punk that aint got one clue what he's doing! and he's got a buch of brain dead crack ho but buddies running around trying get every one to think he's some sort of GOD and going thank u sir may i have another! The very fact that there is no list with the game saying just exactly what is flyable should set off bells alarm and whisles in any intellagent persons brain! Hurra! bump bump bump bump bump ah man i'm haven some fun now!! its all one big party ye ha!!!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They are called paragraphs. Learn them, love them and then maybe someone will listen to your rambling, incoherent, pre-pubescent complaints. When i see a solid block of text my eyes usually just glaze over.

Just calling it like I feel it! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

EDIT: Maybe I should also direct you to a dictionary, thesauraus and a good book on grammar. I hope English is not your first language. I teach English to Japanese junior high school sudents and they spell better than that. I'm not perfect but at least I am vaugely accquainted with Mr Period, Mr Comma, Mr Capital Letter and Mr Return key. The only grammar you seem to know is the excess exclamation mark. Trust me, one is always enough!

indylavi
02-10-2005, 04:27 AM
I always treated PF as an addon for FB. I didn't buy it until I found out I could merge them. If I couldn't I wouldn't have bought it at full price. I would've waited until the price went down. Mainly due to the PTO not being my favorite theater.

As for the lies. Can anybody tell me 1 just 1 company that at some point hasn't inflated claims or lied? Lying is a key part of advertising. It's why every new game, movie,CD or whatever is always the best EVER!! Oleg might be a "euro punk" but you gave him your money. No amount of yelling will fix that. Now if someone you speak so low of can take your money then that doesn't speak highly of you. Even if they lie. You should be able to see threw the lie but didn't. This is not a flame or a swipe at anybody. It's just the truth. I don't feel I've been taken advantage of.

Am I exactly happy with PF? No. Am I going to stop playing IL2? No. I can't go anywhere else and get what I have here so some things I just have to look past. I'm sorry others feel so bad but I'm happy with the whole IL2 series overall and will buy a new sim by them

sapre
02-10-2005, 04:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pail-Male:
hey i did do some research and every one was saying oh its still the best engine around bla bla bla. my beef with the whole dang thing is this (and it doesn't matter who blams who ubisoft 1c bla bla thier all in it together and al own resposability)there is no way up down in out or around it. There was intentioal deliberate and calculated, missinformation, misdirection, suggested and or implied faulse and half truthes, faulse advertizing and you know what out right lies! I'll tell you what, I paid and if i want play or not play, If i want to complain or not, if i want to yak yak and yak some more, then you had better know i WILL!I have a big problem with being LIED to and there is an unmistakable trend toward such company born driven and implamented policys. I will not exsept such things and if i want to drive it into the ground break it off stomp it piss on it and then repeat it a 1000 times then I WILL! If people want to insult my manhood and call me a whinner then go right ahead it wont stop me and i'll just get such a big kick out of it because i know full well what i'm capable of and and how fast curage would abandon them were they to look in my eyes. Here how about this my take on 1c. He aint shown me anything but that he's some overly stupid euro punk that aint got one clue what he's doing! and he's got a buch of brain dead crack ho but buddies running around trying get every one to think he's some sort of GOD and going thank u sir may i have another! The very fact that there is no list with the game saying just exactly what is flyable should set off bells alarm and whisles in any intellagent persons brain! Hurra! bump bump bump bump bump ah man i'm haven some fun now!! its all one big party ye ha!!!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What ARE you talking about?

sapre
02-10-2005, 04:40 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pail-Male:
hey i did do some research and every one was saying oh its still the best engine around bla bla bla. my beef with the whole dang thing is this (and it doesn't matter who blams who ubisoft 1c bla bla thier all in it together and al own resposability)there is no way up down in out or around it. There was intentioal deliberate and calculated, missinformation

Jester_159th
02-10-2005, 05:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pail-Male:
hey i did do some research and every one was saying oh its still the best engine around bla bla bla. my beef with the whole dang thing is this (and it doesn't matter who blams who ubisoft 1c bla bla thier all in it together and al own resposability)there is no way up down in out or around it. There was intentioal deliberate and calculated, missinformation, misdirection, suggested and or implied faulse and half truthes, faulse advertizing and you know what out right lies! I'll tell you what, I paid and if i want play or not play, If i want to complain or not, if i want to yak yak and yak some more, then you had better know i WILL!I have a big problem with being LIED to and there is an unmistakable trend toward such company born driven and implamented policys. I will not exsept such things and if i want to drive it into the ground break it off stomp it piss on it and then repeat it a 1000 times then I WILL! If people want to insult my manhood and call me a whinner then go right ahead it wont stop me and i'll just get such a big kick out of it because i know full well what i'm capable of and and how fast curage would abandon them were they to look in my eyes. Here how about this my take on 1c. He aint shown me anything but that he's some overly stupid euro punk that aint got one clue what he's doing! and he's got a buch of brain dead crack ho but buddies running around trying get every one to think he's some sort of GOD and going thank u sir may i have another! The very fact that there is no list with the game saying just exactly what is flyable should set off bells alarm and whisles in any intellagent persons brain! Hurra! bump bump bump bump bump ah man i'm haven some fun now!! its all one big party ye ha!!!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Daddy got his dates at family reunions then?

Thought so.

plumps_
02-10-2005, 06:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The very fact that there is no list with the game saying just exactly what is flyable should set off bells alarm and whisles in any intellagent persons brain! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes -- be very careful and count the flyable aircraft you got in the stand-alone version! Compare them to what is listed on the box. What do you find?

Surprise -- you got lots of aircraft types that aren't even mentioned on the box!

You got Mustangs, Jugs, Hurricanes and the KI-84 Hayate/Frank... None of these can be found on my PF box. And to many fans these types alone would have been worth a stand-alone sim.

What's this? You buy a flight sim that has the P-51 -- and you don't even know it? That's awfully bad marketing, isn't it?

OK, there's also one plane missing. One.

What's the reason? I guess it's simply a lack of communication between 1C and the Ubi marketing department. The Ubi guys were communicating wrong (too low) aircraft numbers even when the CDs were already being pressed. They didn't know what they were selling.

WOLFMondo
02-10-2005, 06:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by plumps_:

You got Mustangs, Jugs, Hurricanes and the KI-84 Hayate/Frank... None of these can be found on my PF box. And to many fans these types alone would have been worth a stand-alone sim.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You forgot to mention the P38.

Skycat_2
02-10-2005, 08:15 AM
Plumps, WOLFMondo and Bearcat99 make make excellent points on a unified theme: many of the flyable Western aircraft that are unlisted inclusions in Pacific Fighters 'standalone' were "deal sealers" for FB and AEP (P-40E/M, P-47D, Hurricane Mk.I and Mk. II, P-38J/L, P-51B/C and D models, the P-63; even the Seafire is a variation on the Spitfire) in their time. I remember the Thunderbolt and Hurricane being marketed pretty heavily in FB development screens, and the Mustang and Lightning (and B-25) cockpit development screens started appearing soon after FB's release. We thought those would be included in free patches ... the P-51D with N-9 gunsight was, yes, but others were released with Ace Expansion Pack. BTW, I remember AEP was tough for me to 'buy into' when it was first announced but I really, really wanted those USAAF fighters. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Many of the AI planes -- bombers, transports, fighters -- and all of the U.S. ground vehicles were also carried over to PF from AEP.

Anyway, say what you want about PF being disappointing and 'unfinished' because it doesn't have the Betty, etc., but if your primary interest was U.S./RAF aircraft to begin with then PF as a standalone gives you almost the full collection; only the Spitfires Mk.V and Mk.IX and possibly a version of the P-39 are missing from what FB/AEP offered. Obviously, PF has ALL of the Japanese planes and the Pacific Online map from FB/AEP, but it also has most of FB/AEP's ground objects including capital ships and submarines. If you are only interested in PF as a standalone and have no intention of buying the other components of the series, I'd still argue that you got a very good deal.

canucksledge
02-10-2005, 11:31 AM
I've been reading this forum for months, and for the first time I felt a need to post one simple observation. When I first came here, everyone was on a rant about the possible cancelled/vapourware status of BOB. Then everyone was happy that Pacific Fighters was going to almost make up for it. And now everyone's hot about BOB being back in front again AFTER already getting a pretty keen, pretty economically friendly update to our sim..? I'm glad I don't work in the software industry. Their customers are pretty fickle...
Personally I'm glad Oleg and all didn't choose to become hot dog vendors, because they've renewed my faith that us flight simmers won't be stuck playing games based on engines a lot older than 4 or 5 or 10 years old. Hasn't anyone noticed that the big players don't do flight sims anymore? Imagine a world where nothing exists but reality TV and first person shooters...

Just an observation...

Chuck_Older
02-10-2005, 02:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by walsh2509:
Posts where PF is mentioned as built with an old engine! = oleg e-mail bummer for PF.


It would seem to me from reading them and looking at the oleg e-mail, that this engine was at the end of its life and work was about to commence on a new one that would last for the next 5 to 7 years, then I can only conclude that Pacific Fighters was a money grabbing excerise.

A con! Come and get the New Flight Sim Pacific Fighters, no where did it say, oh by the way this is really an add on to the end of an OLD series and the eninge it runs on is for the chop.

Once you have ALL the PF sim (missing 3rd disc) that's your lot we will be working on building this new engine to run our future releases on, starting with BOB.

No doubt near the end of this "new engines" life they will get around to the Pacific again, and try and shaft unsuspecting gamers then too!


I bought PF as a stand alone "new sim" , I had read the forum before it came out only 3/4months ago and read the posts were new comers were asking about PF and the company that made it!

And all said the same, get PF oleg and his team will behind you and over the coming years new and wonderful things will come to you..

For that is what he has done for us who bought IL-2 the support you'll get from him and his team is the best in all the gaming business no one come close! You'll have support and new surpises to download when you buy an IC:Maddox game GET PF!


Those of us who got it and were looking forward to the years of support that Il-2 gamers were used to, were in for a nasty surprise! PF was the end game of an old eninge and a new one was going to be worked on from now on, ok new stand alone PF's will get our missing 3rd dics but not the same support afforded to Il-2 fans....

And you wonder why new flight simmers are ‚£issed off! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have no reason or right to be p!ssed off.

Read your own post, man. You are saying that since you just joined up, Oleg should support PF as long as you see fit.

BoB was announced before PF, by the way.

Wilburnator
02-10-2005, 02:47 PM
No matter how old it is, it still beats anything else out there hands down. If my memory serves me, IL2 came out in late 3rd quater/early 4th quarter of 2001, or thereabouts. Which means, not counting developement time, that it it's not 5 or 6 years old, but rather less than 4 years old.

Chuck_Older
02-10-2005, 03:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pail-Male:
hey i did do some research and every one was saying oh its still the best engine around bla bla bla. my beef with the whole dang thing is this (and it doesn't matter who blams who ubisoft 1c bla bla thier all in it together and al own resposability)there is no way up down in out or around it. There was intentioal deliberate and calculated, missinformation, misdirection, suggested and or implied faulse and half truthes, faulse advertizing and you know what out right lies! I'll tell you what, I paid and if i want play or not play, If i want to complain or not, if i want to yak yak and yak some more, then you had better know i WILL!I have a big problem with being LIED to and there is an unmistakable trend toward such company born driven and implamented policys. I will not exsept such things and if i want to drive it into the ground break it off stomp it piss on it and then repeat it a 1000 times then I WILL! If people want to insult my manhood and call me a whinner then go right ahead it wont stop me and i'll just get such a big kick out of it because i know full well what i'm capable of and and how fast curage would abandon them were they to look in my eyes. Here how about this my take on 1c. He aint shown me anything but that he's some overly stupid euro punk that aint got one clue what he's doing! and he's got a buch of brain dead crack ho but buddies running around trying get every one to think he's some sort of GOD and going thank u sir may i have another! The very fact that there is no list with the game saying just exactly what is flyable should set off bells alarm and whisles in any intellagent persons brain! Hurra! bump bump bump bump bump ah man i'm haven some fun now!! its all one big party ye ha!!!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One of us is stoned

madsarmy
02-10-2005, 03:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pail-Male:
hey i did do some research and every one was saying oh its still the best engine around bla bla bla. my beef with the whole dang thing is this (and it doesn't matter who blams who ubisoft 1c bla bla thier all in it together and al own resposability)there is no way up down in out or around it. There was intentioal deliberate and calculated, missinformation, misdirection, suggested and or implied faulse and half truthes, faulse advertizing and you know what out right lies! I'll tell you what, I paid and if i want play or not play, If i want to complain or not, if i want to yak yak and yak some more, then you had better know i WILL!I have a big problem with being LIED to and there is an unmistakable trend toward such company born driven and implamented policys. I will not exsept such things and if i want to drive it into the ground break it off stomp it piss on it and then repeat it a 1000 times then I WILL! If people want to insult my manhood and call me a whinner then go right ahead it wont stop me and i'll just get such a big kick out of it because i know full well what i'm capable of and and how fast curage would abandon them were they to look in my eyes. Here how about this my take on 1c. He aint shown me anything but that he's some overly stupid euro punk that aint got one clue what he's doing! and he's got a buch of brain dead crack ho but buddies running around trying get every one to think he's some sort of GOD and going thank u sir may i have another! The very fact that there is no list with the game saying just exactly what is flyable should set off bells alarm and whisles in any intellagent persons brain! Hurra! bump bump bump bump bump ah man i'm haven some fun now!! its all one big party ye ha!!!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One of us is _stoned_ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chuck I think he's been mixing his medicationhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/tommybomb/flipout.gif

arjisme
02-10-2005, 04:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by walsh2509:
[...]
And you wonder why new flight simmers are ‚£issed off! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And I still do... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

james_ander
02-10-2005, 05:27 PM
Could someone please direct me to a WWII flight sim with a better graphics engine and flight models?

Anyone?

Anyone?.....

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

LEXX_Luthor
02-10-2005, 07:28 PM
Key post...

canucksledge:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I've been reading this forum for months, and for the first time I felt a need to post one simple observation. When I first came here, everyone was on a rant about the possible cancelled/vapourware status of BOB. Then everyone was happy that Pacific Fighters was going to almost make up for it. And now everyone's hot about BOB being back in front again AFTER already getting a pretty keen, pretty economically friendly update to our sim..? I'm glad I don't work in the software industry. Their customers are pretty fickle...
Personally I'm glad Oleg and all didn't choose to become hot dog vendors, because they've renewed my faith that us flight simmers won't be stuck playing games based on engines a lot older than 4 or 5 or 10 years old. <span class="ev_code_yellow">Hasn't anyone noticed that the big players don't do flight sims anymore?</span> Imagine a world where nothing exists but reality TV and first person shooters...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
NOOO ... a world without Canadian LEXX. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif (..thanks up there!!)

If we all notice, the posters playing severe emotional Depress never make posts answering Newbies' questions trying to support them and help them. Why not? Something to think about, especially that PF out of the box is not very Newbie friendly.

J_Weaver
02-10-2005, 07:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by walsh2509:
No doubt near the end of this "new engines" life they will get around to the Pacific again, and try and shaft unsuspecting gamers then too! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is something that has bothered me since the start. No not the part about 1c shafting anybody. But I would like to see BoB devlop in a kind of reverse order. BoB, MTO, PTO... I would love to see a Pacific sim (and a Med sim) as well done as FB.

Just my 2 cents though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

GvSAP_Wingnut
02-10-2005, 09:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pail-Male:
hey i did do some research and every one was saying oh its still the best engine around bla bla bla. my beef with the whole dang thing is this (and it doesn't matter who blams who ubisoft 1c bla bla thier all in it together and al own resposability)there is no way up down in out or around it. There was intentioal deliberate and calculated, missinformation, misdirection, suggested and or implied faulse and half truthes, faulse advertizing and you know what out right lies! I'll tell you what, I paid and if i want play or not play, If i want to complain or not, if i want to yak yak and yak some more, then you had better know i WILL!I have a big problem with being LIED to and there is an unmistakable trend toward such company born driven and implamented policys. I will not exsept such things and if i want to drive it into the ground break it off stomp it piss on it and then repeat it a 1000 times then I WILL! If people want to insult my manhood and call me a whinner then go right ahead it wont stop me and i'll just get such a big kick out of it because i know full well what i'm capable of and and how fast curage would abandon them were they to look in my eyes. Here how about this my take on 1c. He aint shown me anything but that he's some overly stupid euro punk that aint got one clue what he's doing! and he's got a buch of brain dead crack ho but buddies running around trying get every one to think he's some sort of GOD and going thank u sir may i have another! The very fact that there is no list with the game saying just exactly what is flyable should set off bells alarm and whisles in any intellagent persons brain! Hurra! bump bump bump bump bump ah man i'm haven some fun now!! its all one big party ye ha!!!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://campaigns.drugfreeamerica.org/images/print/77ways_big.jpg

Il2pongo
02-11-2005, 12:08 AM
I love PF
I love the carriers
I love the opening cockpits.
I love the japanese planes and the US navy planes.
If they could get the flyable bombers I would fly them once then shoot down the ai ones again.
I will buy BOB
Thanks oleg.

raisen
02-11-2005, 01:12 AM
"if it had X-Wing on the box......." ....Flakenstein

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif nobody would be left here 6 months after release.

If you look at the stand out sims, they are all very long lived, regardless of genre.

An Example.... With a lot of time to kill after being helped off my motorcycle by a kind chap in a taxi, I picked up Falcon 4 when it had already been out over a year. Five years later, official development has halted, the community has had its falling in/out of love, but it remains, at the very least undead.... Still one of the best dynamic campaigns around too.

For longevity though, Grand Prix Legends is the title to beat, it's still being actively used on and offline, and developed further, by the community after a release sometime in '97 (I think).

For any sim to make it past its fifth birthday with significant numbers of users seems to be a good indication that the dev team know the audience they are catering for. Some sims really suffer in their early days because hardware cannot take the strain. Five years on.... it's not as much of an issue.

IL2/FB/PF is going to make 5 years easily, BoB probably likewise.

Raisen

DarthBane_
02-11-2005, 02:31 AM
The sadest thing for a customer is when he buyes product on market that has no competition.
Not because il2 is the best of all, but because there is no other. That situation creates new religion developed here on these forums with Oleg as good, developing team as his angels, moderators as his priests. Anyone who says something bad about this this very 'stiff' and 'raw' from day one product is to be tortured and burned with hapy mob jelling 'heretic', 'unbeliver', 'whiner'.
Just look at bf1942: you have Desert combat, 1914 and Star Wars mod.
What we got here after meny years is PF, with ugly zero cockpit, ugly val cockpit, few ships, water and cors. Pathetic.
What should have been is:
1. all flyable ai planes (i dont care how difficult it is, it is your job, do it, dont tell me who is sick thats his problem)
2. Sabre and Mig,+ one map, all in one patch.
3. WW1, around 6 planes and 2 maps
4. A-bomb b29 with a 2 missons and two maps

Not stinking patches with:
-He can, and now he cannot take off from carrier, now he can again (WHAT IS THIS *****?)
-f2a2 should be deleted from sim due to: uglyness and because nobody flies him.
________________________
No competition on market is ruining 1c. It can be seen in their latest work and nose up atitude. I paid you money several times. Get to work! Hire some helty people, put sick to hospital.

JG54_Arnie
02-11-2005, 04:35 AM
People forget that Oleg stated somewhere before, that this engine was also build with the future in mind, I could find the post for you, but you can find it yourself if you want, its somewhere in all those many posts Oleg did on these forums. The current engine is able to bring any new system we can build today on its knees. And will be able to do so for at least another year or more! Quite an achievement for an engine that is near 6 years old.
How many people here play with water on 3 and every graphics setting on its max? This engine dead? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Ofcourse it would be nice to have more ships, better dynamic campaigns and such. But history shows that Oleg is willing to support his products and is working on it, be sure. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Also getting really tired of this fanboy talk, you cannot say one nice thing about Oleg or this sim and you're a fanboy of some sort.
Being critical towards this sim is ofcourse important and its necessary to keep improvements going. But the way you go about it is a very important aspect that many don't seem to master. Which results in whines, often without proper backing, which are logically countered by others who like this sim and don't like to see it bashed in a wrong manner. Threads which discuss problems in a reasonable manner also don't show this 'fanboyish' behavour... think about it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


EDIT: The current hysteria is blowing problems way out of proportion, with a little patience and ability to entertain oneself we can stay alive till this promised addon/patch is released, it's gotta be possible. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JG54_Arnie
02-11-2005, 04:44 AM
Linky to that fine old thread. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=9741018052&r=5731039052#5731039052

Skycat_2
02-11-2005, 06:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:

What should have been is:
1. all flyable ai planes (i dont care how difficult it is, it is your job, do it, dont tell me who is sick thats his problem)
2. Sabre and Mig,+ one map, all in one patch.
3. WW1, around 6 planes and 2 maps
4. A-bomb b29 with a 2 missons and two maps

Not stinking patches with:
-He can, and now he cannot take off from carrier, now he can again (WHAT IS THIS *****?)
-f2a2 should be deleted from sim due to: uglyness and because nobody flies him.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. Why does every plane need to be flyable? And even if this is a legitimate, heartfelt demand, shouldn't 1C:MG concentrate where they started, at the Eastern Front?
2. Sabre vs. MiG isn't WWII. A nice item for your wish list ... but technically not in the realms of this sim's period of concentration.
3. See response for item #2.
4. Include the A-bomb? That would make the B-29 the ultimate Noob plane. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif And do you seriously think building two new maps so you can see a big Ka-boom is a realistic demand?

sapre
02-11-2005, 06:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skycat_2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:

What should have been is:
1. all flyable ai planes (i dont care how difficult it is, it is your job, do it, dont tell me who is sick thats his problem)
2. Sabre and Mig,+ one map, all in one patch.
3. WW1, around 6 planes and 2 maps
4. A-bomb b29 with a 2 missons and two maps

Not stinking patches with:
-He can, and now he cannot take off from carrier, now he can again (WHAT IS THIS *****?)
-f2a2 should be deleted from sim due to: uglyness and because nobody flies him.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. Why does every plane need to be flyable? And even if this is a legitimate, heartfelt demand, shouldn't 1C:MG concentrate where they started, at the Eastern Front?
2. Sabre vs. MiG isn't WWII. A nice item for your wish list ... but technically not in the realms of this sim's period of concentration.
3. See response for item #2.
4. Include the A-bomb? That would make the B-29 the ultimate Noob plane. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif And do you seriously think building two new maps so you can see a big Ka-boom is a realistic demand? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe he is being sarcastic.

Skycat_2
02-11-2005, 07:24 AM
I hope so.

And maybe so was the 'stoned guy.'

GerritJ9
02-11-2005, 07:27 AM
"F2A-2 should be deleted from sim due to: ugliness and because nobody flies him."

The Buffalo is my fav aeroplane in the game, so you are dead wrong- AT LEAST one person (Moi) flies it (almost exclusively) and I am sure I am not alone. Ugly? Maybe YOU think so............ I do not. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Others love the Corsair....... or the Hellcat........ the Ki61........ but does that mean they should be deleted because I don't fly them???????? Surely not.

JunkoIfurita
02-11-2005, 07:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>With a lot of time to kill after being helped off my motorcycle by a kind chap in a taxi <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, I know this is kind of off-topic, but that's probably the most eloquent description of a motor accident I've ever read. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

In one sentence, the polar opposite to J.G. Ballard's Crash. Nice one, Raisen :-)

Back on topic, DarthBane: what makes you think IL2/PF has no competition? Just because the competition doesn't come close - CFS3 is a Microsoft product so I guarantee it has at least equalled IL2/PF in sales, even if it is miles behind in quality. And it is a 'newer' engine.

The original reason IL2 stood out to developers at E3 2001 was, I believe, the modelling for the clouds. Since then 1C has been a step ahead of the competition - in damage models, in little bits of realism, in sheer number of flyable planes, etc. I find it hard to believe that the developers have just cruised along, sure that no-one would try and shake them from the 'throne' for flight-sim royalty. Sorry to say this, but video game developers don't get it quite that easy.

I guarantee the budget for 1C is a **** sight smaller than Microsoft's, too.

----

JunkoIfurita
02-11-2005, 07:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Linky to that fine old thread. Thumbs Up

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=9741018052&r=5731039052#5731039052
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ooo, those screenies from BoB made me fall off my chair and whack my head on my X52 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

And this was a post back in 2004, I wonder what things are looking like now...I especially like the way the grass is parting under the wheels of that Panzer. And the damage model that has each individual wing strut as an entity that can be collided with...*drool*

If that's what makes it into the final game, then I think Microsoft is going to have to pack in and go back to Cessna sims http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Thanks for the link, Arnie.

----

DarthBane_
02-11-2005, 09:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JunkoIfurita:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>With a lot of time to kill after being helped off my motorcycle by a kind chap in a taxi <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, I know this is kind of off-topic, but that's probably the most eloquent description of a motor accident I've ever read. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

In one sentence, the polar opposite to J.G. Ballard's Crash. Nice one, Raisen :-)

Back on topic, DarthBane: what makes you think IL2/PF has no competition? Just because the competition doesn't come close - CFS3 is a Microsoft product so I guarantee it has at least equalled IL2/PF in sales, even if it is miles behind in quality. And it is a 'newer' engine.

The original reason IL2 stood out to developers at E3 2001 was, I believe, the modelling for the clouds. Since then 1C has been a step ahead of the competition - in damage models, in little bits of realism, in sheer number of flyable planes, etc. I find it hard to believe that the developers have just cruised along, sure that no-one would try and shake them from the 'throne' for flight-sim royalty. Sorry to say this, but video game developers don't get it quite that easy.

I guarantee the budget for 1C is a **** sight smaller than Microsoft's, too.

---- <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

CFS3 is not a game, not a sim it is simply NOTHING. Il2 is RAW and COARSE but it is a
bit of game and sim, the only one worth playing.
So i cannot compare CFS3(NOTHING) with Il2.
There is no competition. And that is a BIG problem. Constantly growing problem. I mean from day one until now tracers are poping out of cockpit glass???!! The first time i saw it meny years ago i thought: what an ugly solution, and now after few years SAME UG:Y THING. Raw and coarse this game is, but the only one on market.

DarthBane_
02-11-2005, 09:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GerritJ9:
"F2A-2 should be deleted from sim due to: ugliness and because nobody flies him."

The Buffalo is my fav aeroplane in the game, so you are dead wrong- AT LEAST one person (Moi) flies it (almost exclusively) and I am sure I am not alone. Ugly? Maybe YOU think so............ I do not. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Others love the Corsair....... or the Hellcat........ the Ki61........ but does that mean they should be deleted because I don't fly them???????? Surely not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I take it back, sory, didnt know that anyone would fly that thing. Good luck in that funy plane.

Snootles
02-11-2005, 09:45 AM
I wouldn't say PF is a complete appraisal of the Pacific air war. I will say I'm impressed that 1C managed to shoe-horn carriers, torpedoes, advanced bomb/gyro sights, and high altitudes into a game that was supposed to be about one thing: the Il-2.

DarthBane_
02-11-2005, 09:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skycat_2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:

What should have been is:
1. all flyable ai planes (i dont care how difficult it is, it is your job, do it, dont tell me who is sick thats his problem)
2. Sabre and Mig,+ one map, all in one patch.
3. WW1, around 6 planes and 2 maps
4. A-bomb b29 with a 2 missons and two maps

Not stinking patches with:
-He can, and now he cannot take off from carrier, now he can again (WHAT IS THIS *****?)
-f2a2 should be deleted from sim due to: uglyness and because nobody flies him.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. Why does every plane need to be flyable? And even if this is a legitimate, heartfelt demand, shouldn't 1C:MG concentrate where they started, at the Eastern Front?
2. Sabre vs. MiG isn't WWII. A nice item for your wish list ... but technically not in the realms of this sim's period of concentration.
3. See response for item #2.
4. Include the A-bomb? That would make the B-29 the ultimate Noob plane. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif And do you seriously think building two new maps so you can see a big Ka-boom is a realistic demand? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. Because it would be NEAT to ride Storch, FW Eye in rhe sky, Me Giant, Big float planes, he111 Z, Condor, b17, b24, pe8, Tupolev bomber, hs129, itd...(bombers without gunner positions)
2. I dont care they are not WW2. They are nice matchup and only 2 planes. That would be so NEAT.
3. I dont care they are not WW2. Even only with foker and camel it would be nice.
4. I would like to fly two historic missions, and great coops could be made with tham. With fictional missions, for example bombing Moscow. Rusians on defence from bloodthursty americans.
Or bombing Berlin with escort of yp80, mustangs and yugs while me 163, me262 and he 162 in defence. What do you mean 'noob palne'? I would like to fly it.

Skycat_2
02-11-2005, 02:15 PM
Noob plane: "I'll use the A-bomb to take out a truck convoy. I'll use the A-bomb to destroy an aircraft carrier. I'll use the A-bomb to knock out a bridge."

AS for making up Cold War scenarios, wouldn't it be great if Oleg also gave us a map of Seattle and the mission was to intercept a squadron of Soviet Tu-4s in a P-80 or F-51? For anybody not interested in seeing Puget Sound get vaporized repeatedly, I suggest that we could always use that map to reenact the role of a Boeing test pilot.