PDA

View Full Version : Rather than more planes, just make the ones we have flyable please.



Mysticpuma2003
11-08-2004, 07:08 AM
Look guys, this is my view and I was wondering what others thought. The plane-set in PF+AE+FB is getting seriously large now, of which a large percentage is AI.
The modelling has obviously been done for the exteriors, but rather than continue development on them, we seem to get more and more planes to fly, and yet this leads to various whines about under/over modelling of flight charecteristics. I'd rather keep the planes we have, and make more of them flyable, rather than keep adding more 'new' planes.
I suppose my main thrust behind this topic is that one of the most popular bombers of ww2 (The B-24) has been added as an original PF plane. Fantastic, I say. But it is only AI at the moment, along with the B-17, Pe-8, etc. So, rather than keep adding more planes, please Oleg can you get someone modelling interiors for these bombers.
In a way, I realise that 'adding new planes' is a strange way of putting it, but I'd rather just see what we have flyable and accurate, rather than more, which need patching.

This is not a flame or anything like one, just an honest question relating more to why the bombers haven't been modelled as flyable.
Thanks for taking the time to read this, and I look forward to your views.

Bearcat99
11-08-2004, 07:24 AM
I agree with you for the most part but i do think we will eventually get flyable bombers ... specifically a flyable B-17 which is what I am waiting for. In the meantime I just enjoy the flable ones we have. But yeah.... it would be great even if we got no new aircraft to have all of them flyable. You do realize though that iuts basically a matter of someone making a cockpit first.... of decent quality.

Baletzan
11-08-2004, 07:25 AM
I agree, at some point anyway.. There are planes (bombers most) that I would like to see as flyable in this sim but it is a lot of work to make even the simplest plane, anyway I found this page with cockpit pictures of many planes, so does anybody know where I should post it? Cause it might help those planes get flyable http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The link is:

http://gra.midco.net/mlgould/A-F.html#Mitchell

Sorry if posted before

Brock.Landers
11-08-2004, 07:49 AM
Mmm, perhaps we do need to take stock at this point. Little inconsistencies, like older aircraft with unopenable canopies, are a bit of a shame (it's a small thing but I really like doing it!).

VW-IceFire
11-08-2004, 07:53 AM
Well apparently there was mention of B-17, B-24, and B-29 as being potentially flyable at some point. We've seen the B-29 progress shots...thats IMPRESSIVE to say the least. I heard work was being done to one or both of the other two...so essentially those are taken. Till they are done...they aren't.

So add away with those other planes. We were complaining for them so much before.

I can't wait to see the Pe-2 as well. That'll be a good one I think to have. I don't think adding the Pe-8 would be something to undertake. It wasn't really a huge part of the Soviet's air war...infact few were used from the sounds of things. Its another multi-crew bomber which were told is difficult and so I wonder if its worth it.

Aside from that...there's an aweful lot of planes that are flyable. There is only a small number of AI planes and most of them I'd never fly if they were. The Su-2? The C-47? Some had asked but I don't see much doing with them...just me.

rugame
11-08-2004, 08:30 AM
hmm tend to agree with you ice, alot of the AI planes ,you just would not want to fly, particualry if it meant that we did not get other, oh so more important planes into the game, like a Ki45 and a Typhoon for example

huggy87
11-08-2004, 08:52 AM
I'm in the minority here, but I disagree. I would rather have 50 new AI only planes than have the already included AI planes become flyable. I just like to have a large variety of targets. Plus, the more platforms there are the more complete the sim feels.

Do you really take the time to fly all the flyables? I'll bet most folks try them all a couple of times, but stick to just a few dedicated flyables.

TheGozr
11-08-2004, 09:01 AM
No more AI, many of us never fly OFFLINE.

I agree with Mystic.

Nige_Reconman
11-08-2004, 09:19 AM
Many don't fly online either.

Mysticpuma2003
11-08-2004, 10:32 AM
I think my post is more aimed at bombers. It's such a shame, such a large part of the game is taken away from us. I can just imagine large bombing runs with fighter escorts in Co-op, but with the ability to take up gunner positions and bomb aiming too, I think it would be outstanding.
I weep for my bombers, and was thinking that, as we already had the exteriors, it would be nice if they would concentrate on the interiors of planes already present, rather than giving is more planes, that then need more bug-fixes.
Please,please,please give us a more allied bombers, please!

joeap
11-08-2004, 10:38 AM
You know the only problem is that I find there are so many planes NOW, and I love flying all of them I really can't get expert in any of them either! Not that I'm whining, I am happy to have the choice.

SKULLS_Exec01
11-08-2004, 12:08 PM
I agree with you guys, I would love to have some BIG bombers and the carrier base torp bombers. But since so many want them. I have this BAD feeling they are being saved for a payed add-on that is coming down the line, not in a free patch.

effte
11-08-2004, 12:13 PM
Stop adding more planes, period. Get the ones in the pipeline now out and then use the rest of the manhours to be spent on Il-2 on other parts of the simulation. The planeset will largely have to be done over anyway as the engine update becomes inevitable.

And if I could have my way, I'd see only the worst problems fixed before moving on to bigger and better BoB.

mortoma
11-08-2004, 02:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheGozr:
No more AI, many of us never fly OFFLINE.

I agree with Mystic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I almost never fly online personally. The lag is terrible. Plus in Coops the people wander around aimlessly and get lost. No cooperation to speak of. And Dogfight servers are mindlessly boring.........

Eraser_tr
11-08-2004, 04:49 PM
I fly both online and offline. I would really prefer to see what we have flyable before completely new planes are added. If they aren't added as flyables, then they might as well not have been added.

And I tend to fly most of them pretty often, I'm sure there are plenty more people who like flying a variety of planes instead of being a 190 fiend. A flyable plane makes just as good of a target as an AI only plane, but you can also fly it. besides, if everything is mostly added as AI, plane selection begins to feel very incomplete. for some nationalities there is a very small plane choice in campaigns. the USMC only have the f4 to choose from for a long time, only the P-40B for pearl harbor and no other early/prewar US planes. Half of finlands planes(hawk75, moranes, glads other than j8) are all AI.

I really want to see all the fighters flyable before anything else....bombers are ok for online coops, but fighters take less to be flyable and would please more people.

LEXX_Luthor
11-08-2004, 04:59 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif No new planes means we only have Flyable IL~2 cos that was all that was supposed to be.

No601_prangster
11-08-2004, 05:24 PM
If you want the AI flyable I suggest that you read this (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=9181075622&p=1) thread then get to work and build some cockpits. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

ParachuteProne
11-08-2004, 06:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by No601_prangster:
If you want the AI flyable I suggest that you read http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=9181075622&p=1 thread then get to work and build some cockpits. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just want your Mossie. Ha Ha - Good Pacific plane too.

My opinion is to leave the modelers alone to make what they want. I think the big thing is that no work gets wasted.

Mark

Gato__Loco
11-08-2004, 06:28 PM
I'm with huggy87 on this. Although I fly many of the available planes, I do not necesarily want to fly all AI planes. I think there are several very important WWII planes that are not on the game at all. I€d like to have them as AI (of course, if they are flyable, better yet). The large variety of planes adds to the inmersion, and makes for much better mission building.
So keep the AI planes coming!!!

Mysticpuma2003
11-08-2004, 11:52 PM
If I could model I would, however I can't. The guys at 1c can however, and rather than keep adding planes, I would rather they just concentrate on making some of the ones that are already there, flyable. As I have said before, I miss having a bigger selection of flyable bombers, when they played such a large part in the war.
Again I ask, please Oleg can we get some of the already modelled bombers, flyable, thanks.

effte
11-09-2004, 01:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ParachuteProne:
My opinion is to leave the modelers alone to make what they want. I think the big thing is that no work gets wasted.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just my opinion, only I'm mainly considering the resources at 1C rather than only those of the volunteer modellers. The former should be spent on improving other aspects of the simulation. If this means not using all of the latter, well, it is a shame but something which must be accepted.

clint-ruin
11-09-2004, 10:31 AM
Everyone thinks the least expendible plane is the one they like :>

LEXX_Luthor
11-09-2004, 01:36 PM
Well, I must admit, since all World War 2 planes should be made Flyable, this includes all the AI planes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Gibbage1
11-09-2004, 01:42 PM
ITs simple. A 4 engine bomber takes 5x the work to make then a fighter. What would sell more? 5 fighters, or 1 bomber?

x__CRASH__x
11-09-2004, 02:39 PM
or 7.5 fighter/bombers?

Flatlander1961
11-09-2004, 02:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
ITs simple. A 4 engine bomber takes 5x the work to make then a fighter. What would sell more? 5 fighters, or 1 bomber? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats easy a bomber!! Like the 17!!
We already have to many fighters
Think about it whats the fighter to bomber ratio like 150:1??

Gibbage1
11-09-2004, 02:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
or 7.5 fighter/bombers? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It all depends on how many positions there are in the aircraft. A B-17 has 7 positions. Each position you must build its own cockpit. So its like building 7 fighter cockpits. Also, bomber interiors are a bit more complex then that of a fighter. Like the PBY blisters or the B-17's waist gunners. Thats a lot of open area to model!

So, you guys want 3 bombers. B-17, B-24, and B-29. Thats about 20 cockpits worth of modeling. So you got 20 fighters instead of 3 bombers. Be honest. What will SELL more. A flight sim with a lot of flyable fighters, or a flight sim with a few bombers.

Nige_Reconman
11-09-2004, 03:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
or 7.5 fighter/bombers? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It all depends on how many positions there are in the aircraft. A B-17 has 7 positions. Each position you must build its own cockpit. So its like building 7 fighter cockpits. Also, bomber interiors are a bit more complex then that of a fighter. Like the PBY blisters or the B-17's waist gunners. Thats a lot of open area to model!

So, you guys want 3 bombers. B-17, B-24, and B-29. Thats about 20 cockpits worth of modeling. So you got 20 fighters instead of 3 bombers. Be honest. What will SELL more. A flight sim with a lot of flyable fighters, or a flight sim with a few bombers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's the truth.

Flying small fighter planes dancing arpound the sky or 2 hours of level flying with a bank or 2 thrown in, then drop bombs and repeat level flying, sort of boring for a heap of people.

Get b-17 2 if that's your thing.

Flatlander1961
11-09-2004, 03:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
or 7.5 fighter/bombers? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It all depends on how many positions there are in the aircraft. A B-17 has 7 positions. Each position you must build its own cockpit. So its like building 7 fighter cockpits. Also, bomber interiors are a bit more complex then that of a fighter. Like the PBY blisters or the B-17's waist gunners. Thats a lot of open area to model!

So, you guys want 3 bombers. B-17, B-24, and B-29. Thats about 20 cockpits worth of modeling. So you got 20 fighters instead of 3 bombers. Be honest. What will SELL more. A flight sim with a lot of flyable fighters, or a flight sim with a few bombers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We already have plenty of fighters. Really how many flyable fighters do we have now a **** load. The gun positions from the B25 can be modded for the other planes (17)the time consuming part would be the pilots view. All other spots with the exception of ball turret could just be modded B25 stations.
Think about it all the main important/famous fighters are already here and flyable now its just the bombers missing.

clint-ruin
11-09-2004, 03:17 PM
I wouldn't think there would be much common ground between the 17 gunners and 25 gunners positions at all. Maybe some raw objects could be reused, but the materials progression you need to use for Il2 cockpits would make this really obnoxious to do in practise.

ExpendableT
11-09-2004, 03:21 PM
I personally think that more flyable bombers would be the way to go. I love flying the B-25 online... Would love to have a B-17 and a B-24. Now that just about all of the most popular fighters are present in the sim, why not work on the bombers?

Atomic_Marten
11-09-2004, 03:26 PM
I must say that I disagree. I would like to see every important plane from specific period to be flyable. Like Kate for instance. Once when we get them, then IMO it would be nice idea to make all of them flyable.(but I think that this will never happen)

Flatlander1961
11-09-2004, 03:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ExpendableT:
I personally think that more flyable bombers would be the way to go. I love flying the B-25 online... Would love to have a B-17 and a B-24. Now that just about all of the most popular fighters are present in the sim, why not work on the bombers? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My point exactly. I think people are over complicating the matter of altering current gun positions to use in the 17 or 24.
After all isnt it just a matter of changing the artwork (photoshop)for the positions to more closely look like the 17 or 24 (maybe a few other hidden things)? Perhaps someone who has done the moddeling of the actual gunner positions could check in to confirm.

Flatlander1961
11-09-2004, 03:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nige_Reconman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
or 7.5 fighter/bombers? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It all depends on how many positions there are in the aircraft. A B-17 has 7 positions. Each position you must build its own cockpit. So its like building 7 fighter cockpits. Also, bomber interiors are a bit more complex then that of a fighter. Like the PBY blisters or the B-17's waist gunners. Thats a lot of open area to model!

So, you guys want 3 bombers. B-17, B-24, and B-29. Thats about 20 cockpits worth of modeling. So you got 20 fighters instead of 3 bombers. Be honest. What will SELL more. A flight sim with a lot of flyable fighters, or a flight sim with a few bombers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's the truth.

Flying small fighter planes dancing arpound the sky or 2 hours of level flying with a bank or 2 thrown in, then drop bombs and repeat level flying, sort of boring for a heap of people.

Get b-17 2 if that's your thing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As a matter of fact I have B17-2 it was good a couple of years ago but it doesnt compare to FB-AEP and are you telling me that you dont think you have a big enough selection of fighters?
This game desperatly needs more heavys. Are you telling me you dont like shooting down bombers? Online 17's or 24's would be awsome. It would be just as much fun bombing your airfield as it would be shooting them down.

Gibbage1
11-09-2004, 03:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flatlander1961:

We already have plenty of fighters. Really how many flyable fighters do we have now a **** load. The gun positions from the B25 can be modded for the other planes (17)the time consuming part would be the pilots view. All other spots with the exception of ball turret could just be modded B25 stations.
Think about it all the main important/famous fighters are already here and flyable now its just the bombers missing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So YOU want bombers. You dont represent the majority. In fact, your the minority. Oleg cant survive in business catering too the minority. Fightes sell. Lots of fighters sell more.

So, you want a B-17 in PF instead of 7 aircraft? Lets see.

Take away the Ki-43, Ki-61, F4F, F6F, F4U and Seafire and add a B-17. Now you have a B-17 simulator and not Pacific Fighters. That wont sell. Do the math!!!!!

You guys who want flyable bombers cant even comprehend how HARD it is. Lets put it into Perspective.

PBY Catalina was my first model for IL2. I started the cockpit when it was done. About 2 years ago. In that time, I have modeled the P-80, Go-229, Spitfire Vb, Spitfire IX, P-38, P-63, Ki-43 and 1 more fighter that will be added later in the patch, all flyable, AND I AM STILL NOT DONE WITH THE PBY CATALINA!!!!!!! 2 years, THOUSANDS of hours, houndreds of dollers on referances and resources, over 500MB of JPG's and MPG, many books, pilot manuals, MANY trips to local museums and ITS STILL NOT DONE!!!!!!

Its NOT easy. A Patition WONT bring a flyable B-17. Begging WONT bring a flyable B-17. Less fighters WONT bring a flyable B-17. Only hard work, dedication and skill. Do you have that?

It always is easier said then done. Be sure!

Flatlander1961
11-09-2004, 03:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flatlander1961:

We already have plenty of fighters. Really how many flyable fighters do we have now a **** load. The gun positions from the B25 can be modded for the other planes (17)the time consuming part would be the pilots view. All other spots with the exception of ball turret could just be modded B25 stations.
Think about it all the main important/famous fighters are already here and flyable now its just the bombers missing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So YOU want bombers. You dont represent the majority. In fact, your the minority. Oleg cant survive in business catering too the minority. Fightes sell. Lots of fighters sell more.

So, you want a B-17 in PF instead of 7 aircraft? Lets see.

Take away the Ki-43, Ki-61, F4F, F6F, F4U and Seafire and add a B-17. Now you have a B-17 simulator and not Pacific Fighters. That wont sell. Do the math!!!!!

You guys who want flyable bombers cant even comprehend how HARD it is. Lets put it into Perspective.

PBY Catalina was my first model for IL2. I started the cockpit when it was done. About 2 years ago. In that time, I have modeled the P-80, Go-229, Spitfire Vb, Spitfire IX, P-38, P-63, Ki-43 and 1 more fighter that will be added later in the patch, all flyable, AND I AM STILL NOT DONE WITH THE PBY CATALINA!!!!!!! 2 years, THOUSANDS of hours, houndreds of dollers on referances and resources, over 500MB of JPG's and MPG, many books, pilot manuals, MANY trips to local museums and ITS STILL NOT DONE!!!!!!

Its NOT easy. A Patition WONT bring a flyable B-17. Begging WONT bring a flyable B-17. Less fighters WONT bring a flyable B-17. Only hard work, dedication and skill. Do you have that?

It always is easier said then done. Be sure! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK burn me a disk with all the programs I need and a basic tutorial so I can get started. I think your over doing your research. I am sure that a couple picks of each position should be sufficient. Not a whole library

Flatlander1961
11-09-2004, 03:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flatlander1961:

We already have plenty of fighters. Really how many flyable fighters do we have now a **** load. The gun positions from the B25 can be modded for the other planes (17)the time consuming part would be the pilots view. All other spots with the exception of ball turret could just be modded B25 stations.
Think about it all the main important/famous fighters are already here and flyable now its just the bombers missing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So YOU want bombers. You dont represent the majority. In fact, your the minority. Oleg cant survive in business catering too the minority. Fightes sell. Lots of fighters sell more.

So, you want a B-17 in PF instead of 7 aircraft? Lets see.

Take away the Ki-43, Ki-61, F4F, F6F, F4U and Seafire and add a B-17. Now you have a B-17 simulator and not Pacific Fighters. That wont sell. Do the math!!!!!

You guys who want flyable bombers cant even comprehend how HARD it is. Lets put it into Perspective.

PBY Catalina was my first model for IL2. I started the cockpit when it was done. About 2 years ago. In that time, I have modeled the P-80, Go-229, Spitfire Vb, Spitfire IX, P-38, P-63, Ki-43 and 1 more fighter that will be added later in the patch, all flyable, AND I AM STILL NOT DONE WITH THE PBY CATALINA!!!!!!! 2 years, THOUSANDS of hours, houndreds of dollers on referances and resources, over 500MB of JPG's and MPG, many books, pilot manuals, MANY trips to local museums and ITS STILL NOT DONE!!!!!!

Its NOT easy. A Patition WONT bring a flyable B-17. Begging WONT bring a flyable B-17. Less fighters WONT bring a flyable B-17. Only hard work, dedication and skill. Do you have that?

It always is easier said then done. Be sure! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apparently I missed the pole on who wants flyable B17's over 7 unheard of unfamous fighters please post a link.

And if your spending so much time on making pit models why arent they photo realistic (not a bash just a question)I like the pits but everyone says how hard they are to make but yet they arent "photo realistic"

clint-ruin
11-09-2004, 04:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flatlander1961:
OK burn me a disk with all the programs I need and a basic tutorial so I can get started. I think your over doing your research. I am sure that a couple picks of each position should be sufficient. Not a whole library <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you aware that Gibbage has [I think] more models to his and Maddox Games modellers names in FB/AEP than any other 3rd party modeller who's worked on this project?

Are you really serious? "Hi, I have some ideas for a mod that I will be creating. All I need is the software, some artists and programmers, modellers, and other people and we're good to go" is a running joke elsewhere.

Snootles
11-09-2004, 04:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>who wants flyable B17's over 7 unheard of unfamous fighters <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally agree with you. I mean, P-38 Lightning? Never heard of it! That thing couldn't have possibly made it past prototype stage. And the Spitfire? What is this, some kind of joke? Everyone knows the B-17 Fortress was the main British fighter in all the theatres of WWII!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> all the main important/famous fighters are already here and flyable now its just the bombers missing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not exactly. The Japanese still lack, AI or otherwise, a Ki-27, Ki-44 Shoki, or Ki-45 Toryu.


I want flyable bombers as much as any of you! However I want other stuff too, so I am willing to put my hopes on the back burner for the moment. Yes, I do think stuff that is already AI should be made flyable, such as the Tu-2S, SB, or Ki-43-II.

Gibbage1
11-09-2004, 04:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flatlander1961:

And if your spending so much time on making pit models why arent they photo realistic (not a bash just a question)I like the pits but everyone says how hard they are to make but yet they arent "photo realistic" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not in my life time. 3DS Max is $4900. I spent more then that going to UC Fullerton to learn how to use it. I work 8 hours a day modeling for TV shows like Monster Garage, Biker Buildoff, Monster House just to name a few. Then I go home and spend a few more hours each night working on IL2 models along with other projects and freelance work. Its taken me almost 2 years to learn Max. Even IF I sent you a CD and all the tutorials in the world, do you HONESTLY have the set to say YOU can do better? You have no understanding of how things work. Its like saying "Hay Michelangelo! All these years and you only painted the ceiling? WTF!". Only on the internet.

First we have armchair pilots, now we have armchair artist's.

Tintin-B17
11-09-2004, 04:34 PM
its been a long time since weve had the b17 as AI i would like to be able to fly it along with other bombers that are currently AI, quit making variants of the same plane and make the AI planes flyable..

CrazyDonut
11-09-2004, 04:38 PM
Geez.....I want, I want.....whats going on. Some people have dedicatat alot of time making planes for PF, i doent agree with some of the choices in the planes list, but i accept the fact that i cant model and the people who can do it makes models that i just doent like. In all we have a pretty good game and some pretty good modelers. I doent care what we get later on, the most important for me is the fun, yes there is no KI-44 or an N1K1, but we still got plenty to play with, just give the Japanese side the Betty and both sides will have a bomber and some small planes to escort them..
Gib a big S! for you work....no matter what you are doing a great job like the rest of the modelers

rugame
11-09-2004, 04:40 PM
Flatlander1961, your a ****!, period

Apart from saying that a few programs alone cost thousands to do this type of work, do you think that with the obvious amount of skill that you have you could whip up a flyable, all positions modelled, B17 for us in say....?

Get a clue mate and show a bit of respect to gibbage, he has done more for this sim and my enjoyment, and others, then you could even hope to ever.


Back on topic, flyable bombers would be great, but I see them as icing only I want more cake http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

J30Vader
11-09-2004, 04:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flatlander1961:


OK burn me a disk with all the programs I need and a basic tutorial so I can get started. I think your over doing your research. I am sure that a couple picks of each position should be sufficient. Not a whole library <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's an idea. How about you *buy* the needed programs and source material. Or you could pay someone to do all the work for you.

The desire is equal to the amount you are willing to pay. If you are not willing to put forth the effort and money into , say, a flyable He-177, you don't want it bad enough.

Whatever plane is included in the patch I will be happy with. Jeez, free planes are not enough for some....

Eraser_tr
11-09-2004, 05:11 PM
What model format does Il2/FB/AEP/PF use?

It would be a great move to release a plugin(s) to allow people to make models for planes in a free program like Gmax. It can do mostly anything 3dsmax can do except for things like particle effects etc. well suited enough for planes to be made in them. That way, alot more talent could be opened up to help. I for one can use gmax and would take up the work to make a cockpit so another plane is flyable.

Aztek_Eagle
11-09-2004, 05:20 PM
some ppl drive me nuts, thats all i have to say....

Gibbage1
11-09-2004, 05:26 PM
Only Oleg, Ilya and crew can bring in models into IL2. The must be 3DS Max 4.25-5 and MUST be built to very strict standards. Very few people can put in the time and dedication required to make an acceptable model. Dropped prodjects is about at 80% because of the strict requirements.

I for one an VERY thankful that there is such strict standards, and no "SDK" or "plugin" that would allow people to add there own aircraft. The quality would be POOR at best, online games would be a nightmare, and cheating would be rampent. Plus the time Oleg and his crew would need to put into making such a think possible would take away on a lot of features that exist, or delay the game much longer.

The 3rd party modelers do a great job. Not many people know the scope of not only the difficulty, but time. Also that a very good portion of models in IL2 to this day is 3rd party stuff! Almost all of Aces, almost all of PF, lots of FB, and even all the patched aircraft in the IL2 are 3rd party stuff! I would GUESS that MOST of the aircraft everyone enjoys today came from one of the 3rd party modelers. From the I-16 made by Ilya, to the He-111 made by Xanty, to the Ki-43 made by me. It just FLOORS me that after all that, people deminish the efforts of all us 3rd party modelers by saying "what you did was not important, what I want is.". As one would say, "it boils the blood".

Athosd
11-09-2004, 05:37 PM
Salute Gibbage and all the other worthy modellers.

I'm amazed that 180 flyable types - particularly of the quality presented - is deemed insufficient by some ignorant parties.

In my line of work I have the rare opportunity to say "okay - show me" when some ******* tries to tell me a thing is easily done. Invariable the proclaimer is incapable of the task - very satisfying http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Salute

Athos

Eraser_tr
11-09-2004, 06:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I for one an VERY thankful that there is such strict standards, and no "SDK" or "plugin" that would allow people to add there own aircraft. The quality would be POOR at best, online games would be a nightmare, and cheating would be rampent <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not true, look at the modeling for FS9 or the cfs series, excellent planes done by 3rd party people. and besides I mean a plugin to export to whatever format they need, not add in planes entirely.

More people helping making cockpits and planes = More flyable planes

I never said anything about lowering standards, the higher, the better.

I wonder if anyone has or can write a plugin to let gmax use max files?

Flatlander1961
11-09-2004, 08:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by J30Vader:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flatlander1961:


OK burn me a disk with all the programs I need and a basic tutorial so I can get started. I think your over doing your research. I am sure that a couple picks of each position should be sufficient. Not a whole library <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's an idea. How about you *buy* the needed programs and source material. Or you could pay someone to do all the work for you.

The desire is equal to the amount you are willing to pay. If you are not willing to put forth the effort and money into , say, a flyable He-177, you don't want it bad enough.

Whatever plane is included in the patch I will be happy with. Jeez, free planes are not enough for some.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
First off I wouldnt spend thousands for 3dsm I would download a copy for free its readily available on the net and secondly this isnt rocket science if it was that hard half these people wouldnt be able to do it just a steep learning curve is all stop trying to make it sound like magic

Snootles
11-09-2004, 08:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> everyone says how hard they are to make but yet they arent "photo realistic" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Neither are they "smell-o-realistic". I mean, when oil spills all over my windshield I should be able to smell it, gaddurnit!

Nige_Reconman
11-09-2004, 09:02 PM
I do modelling with Maya and am attempting to model, for my own amusement, a Hudson bomber.

Sure it's good to have high standards but it would be nice if i could slot a model i made into an offline game to see/test it.

Gibbage1
11-09-2004, 09:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flatlander1961:
First off I wouldnt spend thousands for 3dsm I would download a copy for free its readily available on the net and secondly this isnt rocket science if it was that hard half these people wouldnt be able to do it just a steep learning curve is all stop trying to make it sound like magic <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FYI. ITs not a good idea to talk about pirating software. Especially Max. If you were on my forum at Netwings, you would be so gone.

Athosd
11-09-2004, 09:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nige_Reconman:
I do modelling with Maya and am attempting to model, for my own amusement, a Hudson bomber.

Sure it's good to have high standards but it would be nice if i could slot a model i made into an offline game to see/test it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can do that in any of the CFS packages.

Athosd
11-09-2004, 09:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flatlander1961:
First off I wouldnt spend thousands for 3dsm I would download a copy for free its readily available on the net..... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And when your illegal software is found to have been used to make material for a commercial product? Sure you can steal the stuff and use it in private - make it public and the hounds will come.

Not sure about the licensing arrangements/liabilities with 3DSM - but I'm quite certain Oleg would not accept illegally produced material for his game.

Nige_Reconman
11-09-2004, 09:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Athosd:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nige_Reconman:
I do modelling with Maya and am attempting to model, for my own amusement, a Hudson bomber.

Sure it's good to have high standards but it would be nice if i could slot a model i made into an offline game to see/test it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can do that in any of the CFS packages. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks mate i'll try that.

*dusts off cfs 1, 2, 3*

sapre
11-09-2004, 10:28 PM
I don't need any 4 engines bomber if it's not going have a more reallistic bombsight, navigation sysytem, crew management.
It simply lack the reallism and immersion without it.

Flatlander1961
11-09-2004, 10:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flatlander1961:
First off I wouldnt spend thousands for 3dsm I would download a copy for free its readily available on the net and secondly this isnt rocket science if it was that hard half these people wouldnt be able to do it just a steep learning curve is all stop trying to make it sound like magic <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FYI. ITs not a good idea to talk about pirating software. Especially Max. If you were on my forum at Netwings, you would be so gone. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I just read my post and it doesnt say anything about pirating in it are you accusing me of stealing isnt that a banable offense

Eraser_tr
11-09-2004, 11:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> First off I wouldnt spend thousands for 3dsm I would download a copy for free its readily available on the net <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is what pirating is!

Learn a free program, and while you're learning save up to buy a 3dsmax. By the time you've saved enough money, you'll probably be skilled enough so that the learning curve isn't so steep.

Gibbage1
11-09-2004, 11:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flatlander1961:
I wouldnt spend thousands for 3dsm I would download a copy for free its readily available on the net <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I rest my case.

Mysticpuma2003
11-09-2004, 11:43 PM
It never ceases to amaze me, how a question about more flyable planes, can get turned around into a flame war about pirating. I asked a question and get posts like

"I'm amazed that 180 flyable types - particularly of the quality presented - is deemed insufficient by some ignorant parties."

When did I say it wasn't enough?

"Get b-17 2 if that's your thing."

It's not 'my thing'!

My sole point in this thread was to say, we have enough fighters, lots are just a variation on a model that is already flyable, look how many 109's and 190's there are.

Now being told to get b-17 2, is in a way not too far away from the objective of this post. Look how many people have bought this game. Hundereds of thousands. Look how many people bought B-17 and B-17 2, hundereds of thousands.
Now, the B-17, B-25,24 and 29 are all externally modelled. Lets say Oleg gets the interior of these modelled. Suddenly, the buyers of the B-17 and B-17 2 games have a new flight sim, with dyanmic campaign generators to go out and buy. The Il2 community swells, the 1C company becomes more profitable and Gibbage.....they'll pay you more http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I just want FB to be the best flight sim there is, and already at the moment it's awesome, I just see room in the market to dominate, by encouraging more people to buy it for the diversity of it's plane set, and it's total domination of the combat flight simulator market.

Please don't make this a flame war, just be honest and answer the above point, thanks.

sapre
11-09-2004, 11:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mysticpuma2003:
It never ceases to amaze me, how a question about more flyable planes, can get turned around into a flame war about pirating. I asked a question and get posts like

"I'm amazed that 180 flyable types - particularly of the quality presented - is deemed insufficient by some ignorant parties."

When did I say it wasn't enough?

"Get b-17 2 if that's your thing."

It's not 'my thing'!

My sole point in this thread was to say, we have enough fighters, lots are just a variation on a model that is already flyable, look how many 109's and 190's there are.

Now being told to get b-17 2, is in a way not too far away from the objective of this post. Look how many people have bought this game. Hundereds of thousands. Look how many people bought B-17 and B-17 2, hundereds of thousands.
Now, the B-17, B-25,24 and 29 are all externally modelled. Lets say Oleg gets the interior of these modelled. Suddenly, the buyers of the B-17 and B-17 2 games have a new flight sim, with dyanmic campaign generators to go out and buy. The Il2 community swells, the 1C company becomes more profitable and Gibbage.....they'll pay you more http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I just want FB to be the best flight sim there is, and already at the moment it's awesome, I just see room in the market to dominate, by encouraging more people to nut it for the diversity of it's plane set.

Please don't make this a flame war, just be honest and answer the above point, thanks. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Like i said, current bomber system in FB\AEP\PF is a joke.
No navigation, crew management or reallistic bombsight.
B17 II is far more advanced regarding bomber.
SO, unless 1C can make descent system for bomber, i really don't need any.

JR_Greenhorn
11-09-2004, 11:53 PM
You may or may not realize that part of the reason this is such a touchy subject around here is that some folks have been waiting a very long time for certain planes to be included as well as flyable. The Whirlwind, Tempest, flyble Pe-2, Il-10, Italian fighters (not to mention bombers), all come to mind. People have been asking for a flyable Pe-8 since it first was released as AI, but Oleg keeps telling us that there aren't sufficient cockpit references. Now, the B-29, B-24, and even the B-17 are all fairly new to the game. Not everybody even has PF yet, so it ruffles feathers to ask for B-29 cockpits when we still haven't seen even an AI Tempest, or cockpits for the Pe-2. There are some limited bomber options already, depending on what you like, but those who want a nightfighter still have nothing. Mostly, my point is that it kind of stirs the coals to say, "you folks have enough of your planes, we need what I want now."

Phil_C
11-10-2004, 01:23 AM
I dunno maybe its just me, but seeing all that WWII footage of the heavy bombers over Europe and Japan, is real interesting to me.

Yes, the fact is that it was hours of boredom, with these breif, horiffic splashes of terror in them, but in a true WWII Combat Flight Sim, id like to see this modeled. Obviously with the time skip, but i wanna be sitting the ball turret of a -24, or -17, trying to get the 109 thats coming at me and seeing other fighters and bombers going at it and feeling like im actually there as much as is possible in a computer sim.

With the product we have in our hands now ( well i should say products) this is possible.

IMHO the modelers, who do some really amazing work, have done a great job of getting one side of the air war in WWII, (the fighters) and now i would like to see them use their detailed external models not only for cannon fodder, but for somethin the user can hop in and scan the skies looking for the enemy.

SO i say with what we have now, and the extensive model lib that it is working with, id like to see come of those AI planes become user flyable before a "plane addon pack"

effte
11-10-2004, 01:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
ITs simple. A 4 engine bomber takes 5x the work to make then a fighter. What would sell more? 5 fighters, or 1 bomber? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly why does it take more time to design a multi-engine aircraft?

Edit: Reading on, the question was answered. It doesn't. Modelling a multi-crew aircraft is something entirely different. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Gibbage1
11-10-2004, 02:11 AM
Also, IL2 simply was not modeled for multi-engine aircraft. Let alone something like a 4 engine bomber! Multi-engine is relitivly new in IL2 terms when the Bf-110, He-111 and P-38 came. High altitude modeling is not even in, and also bombsights are rather limited. Even the auto-level does not even work! A big 4 engine bomber really does not fit into IL2. It does not have the maps, controles, bomb sights, high altitude modeling, crew management to support such a beast. A flyable B-29 would be a novelty at best, and truly would NOT live up to peoples expectations as a bomber simulator.

Do a test. Fly a B-25 at 30,000 feet and try to find a target on the ground through the bomb sight. Then tell me why you want a B-17 and B-29 with the same limitations. IL2 was simply NOT built for this. I hope BoB will change that since Oleg is looking too the future more then he did in IL2.

Gib

LEXX_Luthor
11-10-2004, 02:12 AM
The mistake made was claiming we don't need new planes--except the 4-engine planes the poster wants. Odd the fairly high post count though, usually its a very few lower quality Newbie here that trash other people's planes (99% most Newbies here do NOT trash others).

LEXX_Luthor
11-10-2004, 02:39 AM
Another Deception the poster uses is crafting the image that only 4-engine bombers and single engine fighters are made for the sim.

Most bomber fans prefer 2-engine bombers to exploit the more robust tactical nature of the sim. This is no bomber fan here. Be Sure. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Athosd
11-10-2004, 03:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mysticpuma2003:
It never ceases to amaze me, how a question about more flyable planes, can get turned around into a flame war about pirating. I asked a question and get posts like

"I'm amazed that 180 flyable types - particularly of the quality presented - is deemed insufficient by some ignorant parties."

When did I say it wasn't enough?
.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mysticpuma - that barb about "ignorant parties" wasn't aimed at you, I came in late when the discussion had moved somewhat away from your original posting. Should have stayed on topic, my bad.

Salute

Athos

Snootles
11-10-2004, 05:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> IL2 was simply NOT built for this. I hope BoB will change that since Oleg is looking too the future more then he did in IL2. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One of the first dev pics for BoB I saw was the WiP interior of a Fiat BR.20 bomber. Hopefully this inclusion of bombing planes from the outset means more attention will be paid to it.

Mysticpuma2003
11-10-2004, 07:50 AM
Gibbage said "Also, IL2 simply was not modeled for multi-engine aircraft. Let alone something like a 4 engine bomber! Multi-engine is relitivly new in IL2 terms when the Bf-110, He-111 and P-38 came. High altitude modeling is not even in, and also bombsights are rather limited. Even the auto-level does not even work! A big 4 engine bomber really does not fit into IL2. It does not have the maps, controles, bomb sights, high altitude modeling, crew management to support such a beast. A flyable B-29 would be a novelty at best, and truly would NOT live up to peoples expectations as a bomber simulator.

Do a test. Fly a B-25 at 30,000 feet and try to find a target on the ground through the bomb sight. Then tell me why you want a B-17 and B-29 with the same limitations. IL2 was simply NOT built for this. I hope BoB will change that since Oleg is looking too the future more then he did in IL2.

Gib"

Now Gibbage, to me this is the first post on this thread that has made me realise the difficulty faced by the modellers. I (I guess wrongly) assumed that to model a bomber, it would have similar charecteristics to the He-111 which at altitude and with bomb-sight seems to work well, and this is why I thought it would be possible to do the same for the B-17's, 24's, 25's (twin engine Lexx like I already posted, so not just a four engine lover http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif ) .

For me, I just had the thought that I could be in a bomber/pilot or gunner position heading into enemy airspace and have a swarm of enemy heading towards by bomber as flak bursts around the fuselage. I just had this vision of total immersion, using the FB engine, and bringing a greater community of players (the bomber lovers of the B-17 1&2 games) into our wonderful IL2 flight sim.
More players, makes more revenue and makes 1C richer, allowing them to spend more money on the development of future ptaches and games.

Yes I do love bombers, I have B-17 and CFS3 with the Firepower add-on, which gives me Lancaster's B-24's and B-29's all flyable, but I hoped that Oleg could get his modellers to work on this portion of the game.

A further point to this is why doesn't Oleg approach a company like GMX Media who created fIrepower, and work with them to bring their already modelled cockpits and interiors across to FB? I know Maddox is a small group of people, but this could be a supremely beneficial move for the FB community.
Look forward to hearing your responses, cheers, Neil.

sapre
11-10-2004, 08:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mysticpuma2003:
Gibbage said "Also, IL2 simply was not modeled for multi-engine aircraft. Let alone something like a 4 engine bomber! Multi-engine is relitivly new in IL2 terms when the Bf-110, He-111 and P-38 came. High altitude modeling is not even in, and also bombsights are rather limited. Even the auto-level does not even work! A big 4 engine bomber really does not fit into IL2. It does not have the maps, controles, bomb sights, high altitude modeling, crew management to support such a beast. A flyable B-29 would be a novelty at best, and truly would NOT live up to peoples expectations as a bomber simulator.

Do a test. Fly a B-25 at 30,000 feet and try to find a target on the ground through the bomb sight. Then tell me why you want a B-17 and B-29 with the same limitations. IL2 was simply NOT built for this. I hope BoB will change that since Oleg is looking too the future more then he did in IL2.

Gib"

Now Gibbage, to me this is the first post on this thread that has made me realise the difficulty faced by the modellers. I (I guess wrongly) assumed that to model a bomber, it would have similar charecteristics to the He-111 which at altitude and with bomb-sight seems to work well, and this is why I thought it would be possible to do the same for the B-17's, 24's, 25's (twin engine Lexx like I already posted, so not just a four engine lover http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif ) .

For me, I just had the thought that I could be in a bomber/pilot or gunner position heading into enemy airspace and have a swarm of enemy heading towards by bomber as flak bursts around the fuselage. I just had this vision of total immersion, using the FB engine, and bringing a greater community of players (the bomber lovers of the B-17 1&2 games) into our wonderful IL2 flight sim.
More players, makes more revenue and makes 1C richer, allowing them to spend more money on the development of future ptaches and games.

Yes I do love bombers, I have B-17 and CFS3 with the Firepower add-on, which gives me Lancaster's B-24's and B-29's all flyable, but I hoped that Oleg could get his modellers to work on this portion of the game.

A further point to this is why doesn't Oleg approach a company like GMX Media who created fIrepower, and work with them to bring their already modelled cockpits and interiors across to FB? I know Maddox is a small group of people, but this could be a supremely beneficial move for the FB community.
Look forward to hearing your responses, cheers, Neil. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Can you just tell me why do you want a incomplete bomber so much?
There is no proper bombsight, navigation and crew management and bomber without them will be cr@p.

Tintin-B17
11-10-2004, 09:53 AM
"Also, IL2 simply was not modeled for multi-engine aircraft. Let alone something like a 4 engine bomber!"

oh yea? then can someone please explain what the tb3 is doing in the first il2..and dont say because it is the eastern front please...because i believe there are plenty other planes that never flew in the eastern front that are also in the game..

Wannabe-Pilot
11-10-2004, 11:28 AM
Gibbage,

what fighter yet to be released have you modelled? I'm dying to know...

N1K1 George perhaps? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

My all timne fav Japanese plane... next to Zero...

Gibbage1
11-10-2004, 12:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tintin-B17:
"Also, IL2 simply was not modeled for multi-engine aircraft. Let alone something like a 4 engine bomber!"

oh yea? then can someone please explain what the tb3 is doing in the first il2..and dont say because it is the eastern front please...because i believe there are plenty other planes that never flew in the eastern front that are also in the game.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

TB3 was put into IL2 because Ilya (Luthier) modeled it. Thats why. I would hardly consider it much of a bomber. Sure, it has 4 engines but they act as one. Also have you seen how a TB3 fly's with 2 engines out on one side? It fly's sideways! It also takes off in 10 feet fully loaded.

Thats kinda the thing. It takes someone to model it. Kami did a great job with the B-29, but he put a LOT of work into it. Like I said, it takes at LEAST 5x the work for a big buff. It takes a lot of hard work and dedication to go through that. Many times I wish I could just give up the flyable Catalina because its so hard, but im stickin with it.

jeroen_R90S
11-10-2004, 12:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:

{snippetysnap}

Many times I wish I could just give up the flyable Catalina because its so hard, but im stickin with it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you'd better stick with it! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

J/K, really respect every modeller for doing what they (have been) do(ing).
I can't do it at all, it is said I have other talents. All I can do is enjoy the fruits of all that labour!

I really respect you guys for the dedication, even though I'm just a more casual player.

Jeroen

Mysticpuma2003
11-11-2004, 06:17 AM
Maybe Oleg could make another game with a bomber bias after BoB then? Either that or BoB will/should have this dynamic scaling that allows high altitude bombers.

Bearcat99
11-13-2004, 03:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
I wouldn't think there would be much common ground between the 17 gunners and 25 gunners positions at all. Maybe some raw objects could be reused, but the materials progression you need to use for Il2 cockpits would make this really obnoxious to do in practise. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMAO I could hear that now...... Oleg the rear gunner position on the B-17 is the same as the one on the B-25.. and so is the B-29.. it wasnt like that IRL... heres 700MB of pictures to prove it!!!! LOL.......

path21
11-13-2004, 04:00 PM
It would be nice to get flyable Kate or Betty. Personaly i like IJ planes more than American but i still like B17.

Athosd
11-13-2004, 05:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by path21:
It would be nice to get flyable Kate or Betty. Personaly i like IJ planes more than American but i still like B17. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Betty should be in the first patch - 99% certain. Don't know about the Kate, there is a real shortage of information required for making the cockpit (apparently no Kates survive).

carguy_
11-13-2004, 06:32 PM
In response to the original post.

Yes,I also think that it would be most reasonable to make those planes for which exteriors are already done flyable,even the Storch,FW189 and Russian C47.

Personally I find unflyable AI planes more iritating than not seeing some of the most wanted ones like the Mosquito or Tempest.I bet there are 50 more planes people would love to fly in v3.00.

But I certainly wouldn`t want to see modelers waste resourses on big bombers such as the B17 or Liberator.Oh yes,we can get 4 flyable cockpits instead of just one of those.

That said the situation in which the Pe2 or Ju88 aren`t flyable is beyond me.If you ask me you can shove your flyable Lancaster up your @ss,I would like to see most popular EF bombers flyable.

jazman777
11-13-2004, 11:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by path21:
It would be nice to get flyable Kate or Betty. Personaly i like IJ planes more than American but i still like B17. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
How hard could it be to model the Betty's cockpit? Just one giant red button on the panel labelled "explode hollywood-style".

Athosd
11-14-2004, 12:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jazman777:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by path21:
It would be nice to get flyable Kate or Betty. Personaly i like IJ planes more than American but i still like B17. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
How hard could it be to model the Betty's cockpit? Just one giant red button on the panel labelled "explode hollywood-style". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That must be why it will be in the first patch.