PDA

View Full Version : How badly do we want flyable B-17 and B-29?



LuckyBoy1
04-24-2004, 10:50 PM

LuckyBoy1
04-24-2004, 10:50 PM

IV_JG51_Razor
04-24-2004, 10:57 PM
Maybe this would have been better posted in the IL-2FB forum LuckyBoy. I don't see your point. TB-3s and German uber bombers don't really have anything to do with this sim. And if it's play balance you're after, how about making the choices something like the H8K Emily and B-24 (or B-17) flyable instead of a bunch of single engine fighters? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Razor
IV/JG51 Intelligence Officer
www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"

heywooood
04-24-2004, 11:59 PM
Luckyboy -
I'm hearing you, but I think we are much more likely to see several twin engine planes before we ever see a flyable heavy. Besides - I think a sim dedicated to heavy bombers make more sense.. The flight models can then be more consistant within each sim.
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LuckyBoy1
04-25-2004, 12:01 AM
The point is...

1) They put in the effort to make the TB-3 and a couple of German planes Flyable in IL-2 FB.

2) From the poll earlier, most want both games rolled together. So as a result, it's not as seperate an issue as you propose.

3) We've got an American jet fighter that never saw any real action, yet, how many thousands of B-17's and B-29's participated?

4) Both the B-17 and B-29 were used extensively in the Pacific theatre.

Solutions for internet security & spyware problems... http://www.geocities.com/callingelvis911/s_s.html

Luckyboy = Senior hydraulic landing gear designer for the P-11 & Contributing Editor to Complete Users magazine.

chris455
04-25-2004, 12:20 AM
1 AI? sure.
2 Flyable? Sure, if we can stil have all the other planes and goodies in the game we were gonna get without a flyable bomber. If not, see #1 above.

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/p47n2.jpg

PlaneEater
04-25-2004, 12:35 AM
Maybe... MAYBE... in a patch. A ways down the road.

You have no idea how much research, reference gathering, and vertex-pushing it requires to make something like a flyable bomber. Especially a flyable, 4-engine fire-breathing monster like the Forts. Which, unfortunately for the PF team, had a pilot/copilot setup in both planes--twice the stuff to build, more than twice the performance hit, about TEN TIMES the texture work.

The B-17 would be a nightmare. When I walked--correction, squirmed and squeezed my way through Nine-o-Nine last year, the thing that stood out in my mind was the interior: it was cramped, it was cluttered, and when I asked one of the pilots, my suspicions were confirmed--service aircraft very frequently didn't match specs, due to production blocks and field mods or repairs. There were so many changes during production of the B-17 that there really isn't any 'standard' interior. Finding enough references to accurately rebuild ONE example would be an entire journey in and of itself. Scale modelers who recreate the entire interior of bombers like these spend YEARS on just research, and they all have a saying: "When the paint finally dries, you find the rest of the pictures." There are almost always portions of the interior that are hard to locate or find references for.

The only way I think I would be able to do it is if I had a completely restored plane outside that I could walk back and forth between to check stuff as I went. Anybody have a couple extra million? I'll pay ya back, really.

Paul Allen apparently just let on that he has the ONLY remaining B-17E in the pipeline at his collection's restoration site, to be restored to 100%-with-flyability-concessions accuracy. I get the feeling he'd laugh and call sercurity if I asked to poke around in it.

There is ONE historically accurate F model--'Boeing Bee'--somewhere in Seattle, but I doubt I would be allowed access to it.

Nine-o-Nine is a G, and goes all over the place. Concessions were also made, from my understanding, to allow it to fly on on IFR/VFR airways.

All the other fully-restored (flyable) B-17s are Gs, and most have concessions for flyability. Special arrangements would also have to be made before someone on the team could go through one of them. A large portion of them are in the US midwest, deep south (Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico) and east coast.

The B-29 might be harder or easier--it's a hard call. The cockpit would be a nightmare; the pilot, copilot and bombadeer were all crammed into a COMPLETELY glass nose, with two ungodly complex instrument panels in full view from either seat. While the 'tunnel' along the plane's spine could make the interior a little easier, the B-29 would make for more of a technical challenge--I don't think the engine currently has support for aiming multiple turrets from one position, or switching control of some turrets back and forth between two different gunners.

That, and there are even fewer B-29s for reference. The chances of us getting permission to step inside the Enola Gay or Bocks Car is absolutely zero.

And on the very odd chance that somehow, we DID get permission--
Even for the sake of creating this sim, personally, I do not feel comfortable setting foot in either of those aircraft. Consider me eccentric if you want, but I would feel as if I was desecrating hallowed ground. Those aircraft set the course of history, and did it during mankind's darkest hours. I had the rare chance to see the Enola Gay while it was being restored, and it was a very powerful experience. If you stand before either of those planes and don't feel humbled and reverent in their presence, I question your humanity.

Back on topic.

Short of those two, which are the only two I'm positive are as close to 100% historically accurate as is possible, the only other sufficient reference would be the CAF's 'Fifi'. I'm also guessing that, at least to some degree, concessions had to be made in her restoration to make her 'frequently flyable' as she now is. I also don't remember any of us modelers on the PF team living anywhere near Tulsa, Oklahoma, either.


So I'll make you a deal. I want flyable heavies as much--if not more--than anybody else, but it's hard work.

You get us the references--for every inch of the plane--and we'll see if we can build the models.

There aren't many of them left. They flew these things. They stepped off the earth, into the sky, in a pair of metal wings and a howling, living, fire-breathing beast of war, and they fought.

And they died.

And the least we can do is remember they were heroes.

aero6
04-25-2004, 12:37 AM
One would think a future heavy bomber add-on to the IL2 series would be a successful venture.
But for now I can barely wait for PF!

heywooood
04-25-2004, 12:53 AM
What planeater said..

Just since I started with Il2 I have learned a little about 3d modeling and programming and in addition to what I've seen on netwings etc.. there is a preponderance of work that goes into this product. wow.
I would love to fly a B17 at this high standard (FB) but I would not want to give up anything to get it..And you can tell from planeaters' post and from gibbage and the others that they would love to provide these types - but you dont want a cartoon that isn't consistant with the other aircraft that are already here.
And escort duty is fine by me.

xanty
04-25-2004, 02:32 AM
Planater put it quite nicely.

Whith my 2 years Il2 3D modelling experience and almost 3 planes under my belt I can tell you that it is very hard work. You need countless hours of modelling and research, an iron will and lots of perseverance.

I am getting tired of all this "make the B-17 flyable". I was in love with it on SWOTL, and I always liked bombers, big or small. But in this case, it is a matter of priorities:

*PF needs a lot of work to be a practical add-on, since many elements are made from scratch. Despite the fact that a B-17/24/29 would be terrific for it, I see no time to make them after all the rest of the stuff needed is in the can.

*No development team (Maddox or Luthier) is unlikely going to spend the vast amount of resources (time and personal) to make one of these. Since it is left to the 3rd party Division...I very much doubt someone can take on such task and succeed.

*AEP doesn't have the adecuate maps and game-play to actually enjoy the "heavies" to their full potential: No large maps, not the right maps, limited gameplay and controls... The missions/camapign would be a disaster. And in online shoot-up, you just have a "moving fragile bunker" with lots of MGs...hardly what the "heavies" were all about....

Yes, it would be nice...but there is no good reason to shout about it or ask for it so many times.
The "heavies" need a dedicated sim, as I think Il2 environment has no potential to make then shine. No question on balance. Il2 will make the most and give lots of fun with the He-111, B-25, Ju-88 and Pe-2...

http://www.silence.plus.com/xanty/stuff/fb_sig.jpg

necrobaron
04-25-2004, 03:46 AM
I've never been in a B-29,but I've been in the B-24J The Dragon and His Tail and the B-17Gs Thunderchief and Nine 'O Nine and they are VERY complex and cluttered. PlaneEater is definately correct when he says you literally squeeze and squirm your way through them(especially the Forts). I would LOVE to have these birds flyable,but it would be a modelling nightmare for anyone to do.

"Not all who wander are lost."

Fester_of_AH
04-25-2004, 04:07 AM
if I chose a bomber to make flyable it would be the b-24. I love that plane.

DuxCorvan
04-25-2004, 05:24 AM
I understand your point. But it's not necessary to reconstruct 'every inch' inside a plane like the B-17. There are lots of 'inches' that aren't visible from the cockpit and gunners' positions, and most of what it's visible at your back is pretty far and allow reasonable visual recreations and guesses.

Even if there are many positions there are many blind points of interior, too. I think that FB and PF users can live without the scratches and the tiny inscriptions along the halls between positions, and pics and diagrams of general look and layout of these zones that are not frequently seen in game and are well far from the eye of beholder, are not that hard to find for so popular aircraft.

Or are you gonna say the Maddox team had a He 111 in the garage to check where the sh*t was exactly in the relief tubes, and that everything inside a He 111 has been put in the game with millimetric accuracy... I still haven't seen spiders running on my feet.

It's a lot of work, it's true. More than five times a single cockpit aircraft, but not the huge amount of time and resources some of you have stated. Go 'Fifi', take some photos, and look up what was there before that GPS, and that's all.

All the rest is modelling and texturing. MUCH modelling and texturing, yes... But it's not a chimera.

- Dux Corvan -
http://www.uploadit.org/DuxCorvan/Altamira2.jpg
Ten thousand years of Cantabrian skinning.

xanty
04-25-2004, 06:01 AM
Hi Dux:

Well, Maddox didn't do the He-111, I did. It was a one man job, and I had lots of problems with it. I will say that it is not a very accurate cockpit, since the poly limit and refferences are so low (only 3000 polys for cockpit-nose) and was a pioneer aircraft in the game at it's time (first multi-engine-multi-crew bomber with a bomb-sight) Also, I will say it is on par with the mig or 109, does the job, but it is sub-par to what we have now in the game.

I didn't have it on my back-yard...in fact, there is no He-111 H-2/6 left availiable, and non-flyable. I have H-20 transport here in hendon (UK), but the differences are too great to be used for refferences. All the work came from contributions, some poor books (there is an amazing lack of main-stream refferences on such a famous plane) and a lot of "guess-work" from dark small images. Also, as it has been said...when the paint dried, lot's of refferences "appeared".

So, just to clarify, He-111 was 3rd party.

http://www.silence.plus.com/xanty/stuff/fb_sig.jpg

DuxCorvan
04-25-2004, 06:27 AM
I knew the He 111 well, because I flew into a CASA 2111 when a kid. One relative of mine piloted transports for the Spanish AF, and he was allowed to bring me with the crew a few times. But they had been converted into transports, and were really very different from the German ones.

The point is that to make a 100% accurate interior of a B-17 is really hard, if not imposible. But we still can have a 'compromise' B-17 good enough to accomplish the new standards and realism overall, though sacrificing some 'in the cabin' details and accuracy.

It's not the B-17 alone, but the lack of flyable bombers that make online gaming more and more tending to massive DF instead of mission-related, and I think that's a pity in the scope of immersion. It also would open new insights in offline gameplay.

- Dux Corvan -
http://www.uploadit.org/DuxCorvan/Altamira2.jpg
Ten thousand years of Cantabrian skinning.

xanty
04-25-2004, 08:19 AM
Hi Dux:

Sory to be of different opinion, but the Online games changed when the Ju-87, Tb-3 and He-111 came into play. Il2 original online was almost exclusively fighter-dogfight.
Now, with FB and AEp, this changed. Yes, you still the "Quake-like" dogfights, but many chose to take bombers along with them, rather than just 109s or Yaks. I will insist that the b-17 will not make things much different to what they are now. It will be "just" another target. Take any bomber with you, and all the fighters will come and eat you alive in any dogfight map. They just love to take you down.

My point is, yes, we can have the B-17/24, it is not at all impossible. I would love to have it too! But, it is not "necessary" to change online games, and it is not a matter of balance or and easy task, in 3D/programming terms. Like I said, a B-25 will be time much better spent, and more rewarding. (lots of gunners, fast and agile)

http://www.silence.plus.com/xanty/stuff/fb_sig.jpg

gombal40
04-25-2004, 09:06 AM
Question
Are the cockpits of let say the game The Mighty Eighth that bad then??

guess u know this one
http://www.oldmanuals.com/
lovely heavy stuff. Maybe there is enough info after all

LuckyBoy1
04-25-2004, 12:32 PM
It's not the cockpits or other areas most casual observers would be interested in. It's all the other areas of the plane that seem to concern the modellers. There are books with complete schematics of the planes available. Still, it would be an enormous effort.

As far as the argument that it would/couldn't work with the basic game engine, well, that's bunk! The TB-3 has turretted guns and blah, deh, blah and it's a beautifully done ship.

I'm not saying this isn't a small job. Actually, I'm quite surprised at the results so far. I would have thought I'd be the only one wanting the B-17 and B-29 flyable more than another 10 obscure single engine planes. I guess C1 Maddox and UBI are missing a bet here with the crowd that wants to fly bombers. I know many who use older, less capable games because they want to fly bombers. You guys voting yes do realize you'd have to give up some planes in order to get this done? I hope so, because many vote yes for anything and everything. Just checking to make sure your votes are real, that's all! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Solutions for internet security & spyware problems... http://www.geocities.com/callingelvis911/s_s.html

Luckyboy = Senior hydraulic landing gear designer for the P-11 & Contributing Editor to Complete Users magazine.

Latico
04-25-2004, 12:59 PM
I have to aggree with those that are apposed to having these heavies made flyable, especially for online use. My concern is creating a systems hog that would restrict those of us that may not have broadband.

There use to be an earlier flight sim that was based solely around the B-17. I think it was called Flying Fortress. In that sim you could man anyone of the positions aboard the plane as pilot, co-pilot, nav/bombedeer, or any of the gunner positions. Your objective was to fly over enemy territory and drop bombs on historic targets while defending your plane against enemy intercepters. I don't know how good it was but in reading the box in the store, it appeared that you could literally crew up one of these planes in online play.

I didn't have a system that could run it at the time.

I woould much more prefer to see the dive bombers, torpedo bombers (which also could and did carry standard bombs) and let us as the users develop the skills to use them propberly in co-operative online missions. I will be satisfied to just be able to escort the heavies and attempt to defend them against enemy bandits. In Janes WWII Fighters that was a challenge in itself and you better not chase a bandit through those formations of bombers or you might get hit by friendly fire as they laid down some awesome fire of their own.

heywooood
04-25-2004, 02:34 PM
xanty -

I LOVE the He111 !

Thank-you - your hard work is greatly appreciated ! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Rudee37
04-25-2004, 03:14 PM
Well, the game is Pacific Fighers not Pacific Bombers.

IV_JG51_Razor
04-25-2004, 04:14 PM
One thing I think we all should keep in mind here, is that none of these polls mean squat. Oleg and Luthier have a pretty clear idea of what they want to accomplish, and that's probably the way it's going to be. we're all in here just nashing our teeth waiting to see what their vision of it will look like. That's not to say these polls aren't useful in some small way to show what the "community" wants, I'm just saying that they will probably have little effect on what comes out of their shop.

LuckyBoy seems to think that, just because a previous poll indicated that most folks want to have both games interchangable, that is the way it will be. I wouldn't bet on it, at least not until you've herad it from Oleg or Luthier. I'm not trying to denegrate your efforts here LuckyBoy, just pointing out the fact that there are a whole lot of things which are already out of Luthier's control with this project, and all our collective wants and desires won't change any of that. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I salute your efforts.

Razor
IV/JG51 Intelligence Officer
www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"

Copperhead310th
04-25-2004, 10:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xanty:
Hi Dux:

Now, with FB and AEp, this changed. Yes, you still the "Quake-like" dogfights, but many chose to take bombers along with them, rather than just 109s or Yaks. I will insist that the b-17 will not make things much different to what they are now. It will be "just" another target.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well that were i have to disagree with you some Xanty. If you use team work & cordanate your attack between fighters & bombers then you can indeed be a sucess full bomber pilot in DF games. provided your escorts do thier job.
& we do do our job in the 310th. we drill on team work at least one night a week. & we have our bomber guys go Up with our fighters.
After the next patch i'll record a track & post it for DL so you can see what i'm talking about.
Well set up a map, with a target, (say an airbase) & head out after it. in DF format.
Ask anyone whos seen our bomb group online flying as a group. we do the job. that's the one thing that always perplexes me about this sim. there NEVER seem to be a cordnated effort. even on a lot of the scripted servers. It's all air quake. one of the reasons i prefer coops. at least there is some kind of resmblenc of a team effort. i'd love to have a b-17 flyable. but i have nither the time,talent,money, or the 5000$ program to do it with. if we manage to get these 4 b-25's in as flyable i'll be happy.
if we get those & one flyable B-24 i'll be thrilled. but even that is asking a lot i guess. i just cant figure out hoiw every other flight sim in the world has tons of flyable bombers & the best sim ever has only a handfull. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
well that's my 2 cents. not a whine just speaking my mind freely. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
[B]310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.310thVFS.com)

Korolov
04-26-2004, 12:23 AM
Perhaps when BoB comes, we will see a shift from the current tactical flying now, to a mix of tactical and strategic flying. Then I bet you'll see a lot more of those heavy, long range bombers.

Currently for FB, smaller tactical bombers are the way to go & easiest to implement. Heavies would be great now, but I believe their advantage of extreme range and heavy bombload capacity is wasted on a short-range tactical based simulator.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

ImpStarDuece
04-26-2004, 12:59 AM
I don't think the time is right for bombers to be included in a large way as a flyable part of PF.

I would love to see these two planes (and the Liberator) in PF as AI planes, but only as AI planes.

If we get bombers i believe that Luthier should (and just may) concentrate on dive bombers, torpedo bombers and medium/attack bombers, at least initially. Flyable single engine craft tend to have the greater appeal to the majority of gamers and simmers, with the added bonus of being easier to model.

A B-17 or B-29 would be amazing as a flyable plane, but for myself and i suspect a lot of others, it is the single engine birds and the lighter twins that will hold the majority of our attention.

"There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!"

xanty
04-26-2004, 02:31 AM
Hi Copperhead:

yes, in Coops and a few DF games one can make use of bombers to a good avail. And with scripted servers, even more. In this cases, a B-17 will be quite good, but not much better than a B-25 or Ju-88 in it's job.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
I just cant figure out hoiw every other flight sim in the world has tons of flyable bombers & the best sim ever has only a handfull.
_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As for this: I am quite perplexed. Which Flight Sim do you speak of? I have never seen any flight sim that had several bombers modelled as flyable.

In Il2/AEP we have Ju-87, Il-2, He-111, Tb-3, Ju-88 and B-25 (not yet in game, but comming) plus lots of other's in contruction or AI.
*EAW had none (o),
*SWOTL had the B-17,
*CFS2 had none (o),
*CFS3 had 2-3
Which one are you thinking of?

http://www.silence.plus.com/xanty/stuff/fb_sig.jpg

IV_JG51_Razor
04-26-2004, 07:41 AM
Maybe Warbirds (B-17, B-24, B-25, Betty, JU-88, and a couple of others since I closed my account), or Aces High (B-17, Lancaster, AR-234, A-20, and a few more that I can't think of right now), and WWIIOL with the Blenheim and Heinkel.

Razor
IV/JG51 Intelligence Officer
www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"

Aztek_Eagle
04-26-2004, 10:01 AM
tb3 was 3rd party............ so there ya go wiht the 3rd party making heavis

http://www.angelfire.com/art2/robertosgallery/CORSAIR8.JPG

LuckyBoy1
04-26-2004, 10:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rudee37:
Well, the game is Pacific Fighers not Pacific Bombers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey! That's nice of you to notice! Still, think man, what were they fighting over? Come on, tell us and don't be shy!

Solutions for internet security & spyware problems... http://www.geocities.com/callingelvis911/s_s.html

Luckyboy = Senior hydraulic landing gear designer for the P-11 & Contributing Editor to Complete Users magazine.

LuckyBoy1
04-26-2004, 10:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IV_JG51_Razor:
One thing I think we all should keep in mind here, is that none of these polls mean squat. Oleg and Luthier have a pretty clear idea of what they want to accomplish, and that's probably the way it's going to be. we're all in here just nashing our teeth waiting to see what their vision of it will look like. That's not to say these polls aren't useful in some small way to show what the "community" wants, I'm just saying that they will probably have little effect on what comes out of their shop.

LuckyBoy seems to think that, just because a previous poll indicated that most folks want to have both games interchangable, that is the way it will be. I wouldn't bet on it, at least not until you've herad it from Oleg or Luthier. I'm not trying to denegrate your efforts here LuckyBoy, just pointing out the fact that there are a whole lot of things which are already out of Luthier's control with this project, and all our collective wants and desires won't change any of that. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I salute your efforts.

Razor
IV/JG51 Intelligence Officer
http://www.jg51.net

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess I'm hoping to be able to end up with a product I'm willing to buy. I'm a complete user of PC's and my opinion represents a slice of the market yet untapped by those with dim or slight vision. It may be too late to ask, but I won't buy it as a stand alone. However, I've found that 1C Maddox actually listens a hell of alot more to us than let's say, MicroSoft! I guess you're probably right though. What a shame. I was hoping to buy the game.

Solutions for internet security & spyware problems... http://www.geocities.com/callingelvis911/s_s.html

Luckyboy = Senior hydraulic landing gear designer for the P-11 & Contributing Editor to Complete Users magazine.

zoomar2
04-26-2004, 11:14 AM
Only after we have absolutely every single and dual seat fighter, dive bomber, and torpedo bomber that served on the USN and IJN A/C carriers. Not only is this game Pacific FIGHTERS, it is PACIFIC fighters. Unless you particularly enjoy blowing up cities, the main purpose of bombers is to serve as targets for interceptors or flight to escort to hteir targets.

IV_JG51_Razor
04-26-2004, 02:30 PM
"What a shame. I was hoping to buy the game."

So, you're saying that if PF comes out as a stand alone game, you're not going to buy it? Or, are you saying that if the B-17 and B-29 aren't flyable, you're not going to buy it?

It seems to me that, in order for PF to have carrier operations enabled, some significant changes have to be made with the basic game engine in order for that to happen. At least that's what I believe anyway. Luthier has stated that all of the aircraft would be interchangeable between the two, but I don't think that we will ever see a carrier group steaming up the Gulf of Finland. That doesn't seem like such a bad trade off. Conceivably, PF could ship with all the planes that are in FB/AEP right now, plus all the other aircraft that are being made for PF. That wouldn't be too bad either.

Now, the issue of the heavies being made to be flyable, that's just a matter of time and resources available to get them out by a certain deadline. I feel your pain LuckyBoy, since I am primarily a bomber pilot in my squad. I'd love to be able to fly one of those big four engine bombers across the ocean to bomb a little island myself. However, I must confess, I am looking forward to this new game being mostly about carrier aviation. Ever since the original IL-2 came out, I have dreamed about how Oleg would go about modeling a carrier environment, given his attention to detail. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that weren't the predominate feeling amongst the majority of folks in this forum. After seeing what Luthier has already accomplished, I don't think I am going to be disapointed either. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

But don't pay any attention to all the pontificating going on in this forum LuckyBoy, in particular mine. As Mr Natural said when the little girl asked him what "doo wah diddy" meant, he told her,".....it don't mean $heeeeit!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif You're going to buy this game, and you know it!!

Razor
IV/JG51 Intelligence Officer
www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"

LuckyBoy1
04-28-2004, 12:50 AM
I won't buy it if it splits the community by not having the IL-2 ACE stuff added to it. Then the purists can design their maps so they are as historically correct as possible and the "what if" crowd can have their aircraft carrier in the Gulf of Finland. If I want just a Pacific fighter game, there's already one on the shelf now and nobody's buying it either. Why? Because it's incomplete and most users aren't such junkies that they'll grab at every little bit that falls off the plate.

Solutions for internet security & spyware problems... http://www.geocities.com/callingelvis911/s_s.html

Luckyboy = Senior hydraulic landing gear designer for the P-11 & Contributing Editor to Complete Users magazine.

FWdreamer
04-28-2004, 06:57 AM
S!
First, there are no uber german bombers in FB. I have flown the he 111's and they are far from uber! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif Second in PF the main focus of the game is the island hopping and carrier battles that made the pacific war what it was. I think the b25's that will be in the game are what did a lot of the grunt work for bombing in the war and should in the game. The b29 did not come in till later in the war to bomb the home island into submission. I dont think bombing cities should be a major part of this sim. I would rather be able to take off in my zero from a carrier or from a land base trying to fly cap against tdb's and corsairs. We know by the end of the war Japan was barely defended against the b29s, so what is the point of having that huge bomber in the game? Even the b17 why it would be cool to fly, I think the b25 would be more cool. It was more versital and carried more bobms then the b17 and was faster. Plus you load up its nose with 50 cals. and you got a great ground pounder and ship hunter.

Forget the b17's and b29's and be happy with the b25, one of the best weapons the allies had in the pacific.

fwdreamer.

IV_JG51_Razor
04-28-2004, 08:17 AM
Well, to each his own LuckyBoy. I think you'd be missing out on a really rich experience, even if the two sims aren't merged. The only way I can see that happening, is if they roll both games into one, sell it for 40-50 bucks. I think that would really upset a lot of avid AEP fans! If they wanted to fly on a server that used the PF game, they'd have to go out and buy another game. That's just me scratching my head about this though. We know that there are certain modifications that have to be made to the game in order for the carriers to work. So, either Oleg has to release a patch that will make AEP compatable with PF, or he would have to release PF with all of the aircraft, terrain, and objects of AEP. Now you'd have a game with both, but that would render AEP obsolete, and THAT, I think, will really tick some folks off! I don't know what the answer is. I'm sure that a whole bunch of people that are a whole lot smarter than me, have already looked at this problem, and already decided what they are going to do. I guess I am lucky, in that I am such a US Naval aviation fanboy, once PF comes out, I really don't much care what happens to AEP! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Razor
IV/JG51 Intelligence Officer
www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"

LuckyBoy1
04-28-2004, 08:59 AM
They'll never please everyone. However, they will have a much more marketable game if they include all the ACE planes and maps. The people who actually like, buy games instead of pirating them won't squawk at a $50.00 price tag for a game well done. Most of us have invested at least 10 times that much in upgrades just to get this game to run well on our lil 'puters. In the end, UBI is going to have to look to who will actually run down to the store and actually like, buy the game. Look back to CrazyIvanDude's poll to see that the majority want the game to stay as one. $50.00? I'd gladly pay twice that much and I'll show you the receipt when the time comes. I'm not saying there aren't some people out there who will actually like, buy the game as a Pacific only. Like you said, to each his own. Still, go to the discount rack at your local video game store to see the fate of limited, stand alone flight sim games like LOMAC (it reached the discount rack at EB Games near where I live within 60 days of release). The IL-2 FB and Pacific Fighters game can stay quite a buyable game for a long time as long as they keep it together and don't fracture it into pieces.

Solutions for internet security & spyware problems... http://www.geocities.com/callingelvis911/s_s.html

Luckyboy = Senior hydraulic landing gear designer for the P-11 & Contributing Editor to Complete Users magazine.

sugaki
04-28-2004, 11:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Still, go to the discount rack at your local video game store to see the fate of limited, stand alone flight sim games like LOMAC (it reached the discount rack at EB Games near where I live within 60 days of release). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look at the Combat Flight Simulator games, and you'll see that they're very slow to reach the bargain bin, despite being what you called "fractured".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The IL-2 FB and Pacific Fighters game can stay quite a buyable game for a long time as long as they keep it together and don't fracture it into pieces.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your perspective is from one that likes the European theater. You wouldn't mind paying a bit more for PF to have FB: Aces stuff in it, but PTO fans will mind--why pay more for a theater of operations that you don't care about? Especially since PTO sims have a big market in Japan, and they don't care too much for ETO sims.

Then there's also the possibility that combining the two will canibalize each other's market niche. If you have them as two separate products, it can cater to those who only like European theaters, and vice versa. Why have one game with planes from another game when you can have two separate products?

Then there's the marketability of having a game sound like it's an add-on or improvement to an existing game, as opposed to a "completely new," "stand-alone" game, which just sounds more appealing.

Back to B-29s and B-17s, the game is called "Pacific Fighters," and won't be too much of a surprise if it focuses on Fighters.

Then there's the sensitive issue of firebomb raids on cities, basically bombing civillians into submission with the B-29s. Ethical questions arise into the game.

Then there's also the fact that Japan didn't really have any means to properly defend itself against the B29s. A lot of times, the IJAAF or IJNAF could only do one pass, since they couldn't catch up with the planes after a head-on. While B-17 raids were far more nerve-racking and exciting in Europe, B-29 raids in comparison were a doozy. Plus you'd have to model fighters ramming into the B-29s, which would be frustrating defending against.

hotspace
04-28-2004, 12:02 PM
Very http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Hot Space

http://img11.photobucket.com/albums/v33/Hot_Space/222_1081552716_hs1sig.jpg

Nervous? Yes! First time? No, I've been nervous lots of times!!!

IV_JG51_Razor
04-28-2004, 06:43 PM
"Then there's the sensitive issue of firebomb raids on cities, basically bombing civillians into submission with the B-29s. Ethical questions arise into the game.

Then there's also the fact that Japan didn't really have any means to properly defend itself against the B29s. A lot of times, the IJAAF or IJNAF could only do one pass, since they couldn't catch up with the planes after a head-on. While B-17 raids were far more nerve-racking and exciting in Europe, B-29 raids in comparison were a doozy. Plus you'd have to model fighters ramming into the B-29s, which would be frustrating defending against."

I'm sorry Sugiaki, but I just don't see your point here. I mean, these combat flight sims are portraying WAR for Pete's sake!! The fire bombing of Dresden wasn't any less morally corrupt. I don't think that has anything whatsoever to do with this thread.

I completely agree with LuckyBoy here. I'd gladly pay twice the going rate for a well done game such as I think Oleg and Luthier will put out. However, if you go back through the UBi forums, you'll see countless posts from knotheads that think they have a RIGHT to get regular updates/patches with their particular favorite plane in it FOR FREE!! I'm just saying that if UBi decides to release PF with all the FB/AEP planes, maps, and objects in it, then it will effectively neuter FB/AEP which will basically require all of those customers to go out and buy PF if they want to keep up with the HL crowd. mmmmm maybe we're on to something here! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Personally, I'd buy it in a heartbeat at twice the price, without a second thought. I just think that the job of converting the game engine over to whatever is required to make carriers work, might be more than Oleg and Luthier had in mind. If not, then I'll see you down at the software store. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Razor
IV/JG51 Intelligence Officer
www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"

sugaki
04-29-2004, 12:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'm sorry Sugiaki, but I just don't see your point here. I mean, these combat flight sims are portraying WAR for Pete's sake!! The fire bombing of Dresden wasn't any less morally corrupt. I don't think that has anything whatsoever to do with this thread.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except that there's a sizable marketshare to be had in Japan, and featuring missions that had B29s drop incendiary bombs to burn the Japanese civillian populace isn't exactly a light ground to tread on.

Ethics have everything to do with games--it's the reason why you don't see Swastikas on the German airplanes, or have maps with concentration camps where people were gassed. They're all realities of war, but realities censored to make the game more palatable.

The sims are potraying war not for war's sake, but for the game to be fun.

Hmm, maybe I'm not understanding what you're exactly saying, so let me clarify: You want to pay 2x the amount so that the material in FB/AEP gets included, even though (I'm assuming) you already have AEP? If so, well, most people don't want to pay 2x the amount for a flight sim that only has half the new content.

-Aki

LuckyBoy1
04-29-2004, 01:25 AM
sugaki, you remind me of a mental health patient I once had in my ambulance when I worked as a paramedic. He told me, "Oh yes, I believe in reality, but it doesn't mean I have to participate"! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif Fair enough; you want to put a political spin on this. Forget that when we first started fighting Germany, we had an attitude of, "We don't hate the German people, just the Nazis". With this attitude, we were handily losing the war. Then we figured out who made the fighter, bomber and submarines for the Nazis. Then we flew a mass of bombers loaded with fire bombs over Hamburg and dropped the entire load all over the city at once on a night when we knew the winds would be high. We also cut the power lines so their water pressure would drop out. Poof! There went all the women and children right along with the war making capability of the city. This is the reality of it. The reality of the results of this change in tactics was... we then started to win the war.

Should you want to point out percieved ills, lets start with a coop where the Japanese air force spreads boilogical and chemical agents over Manchurian villages (areas they already occupied) for test purposes. This was reality.

Last night, I flew that coop with the TB-3's with I-16's slung under their wings again. Just for kicks, we all took up live positions at all gun stations in the TB-3. We shot all opposition out of the sky easily! As a result, there is a significant difference between performance of the bombers with live people manning the guns and just having an AI plane. People argue it would be a whole lot of work for a lumbering target. As an AI plane, I aggree. As a fully human manned flyable, I would not. And again, reality tells us that the German pilots, even later in the war would aggree as well. They called attacking well massed formations of American bombers, "somewhat controlled suicide".

Make the planes flyable. Oleg has done such a splendid job participating in reality. Let's keep it real, get the B-17 and B-29 flyable.

Solutions for internet security & spyware problems... http://www.geocities.com/callingelvis911/s_s.html

Luckyboy = Senior hydraulic landing gear designer for the P-11 & Contributing Editor to Complete Users magazine.

sugaki
04-29-2004, 04:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Forget that when we first started fighting Germany, we had an attitude of, "We don't hate the German people, just the Nazis". With this attitude, we were handily losing the war. Then we figured out who made the fighter, bomber and submarines for the Nazis. Then we flew a mass of bombers loaded with fire bombs over Hamburg and dropped the entire load all over the city at once on a night when we knew the winds would be high. We also cut the power lines so their water pressure would drop out. Poof! There went all the women and children right along with the war making capability of the city. This is the reality of it. The reality of the results of this change in tactics was... we then started to win the war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ehh, I wasn't talking about politics, or the ethics of firebomb raids, the Bataan deathmarch, concentration camps, flamethrowing civillian refuge caves in Okinawa.

I'm talking about ethics in terms of video games, and the convention of what usually goes in, and what goes out. Stuff like B29 fireraids don't go in, cus' its distasteful in games.

If Call of Duty was as "realistic" as it should be, shooting a person in the head with an FG42 should have their brains spilling out in the name of realism. It doesn't. Planes crashing into decks should have blood mixed with burning oil, as was recorded. Games don't put that in.

Politically charged scenarios don't go in games for the most part.

Everything doesn't go in games for the sake of realism.

IV_JG51_Razor
04-29-2004, 08:15 AM
I finally understand your point Sugiaki, and I totally agree with you. Firebombing Tokyo wouldn't make the final cut of the game. But I doubt very much that that would be a reason for not having a flyable B-29 in the game. It is just a matter of time and available resources. If it ever does become flyable, I'm quite sure we won't see incindiary bombs in the available loadouts. As for the swastika, it's my understanding that you won't find that in any games because it's against German law to show it, not out of any sensitivity issues, or moral considerations. If you want to market your product over in Germany, you can't have a swastika in it

Yes, I'd be willing to pay 2x for PF - just for the carriers! But my point was that by releasing PF with all the maps, planes, and objects, from FB/AEP included, they will have effectively made FB/AEP obsolete. There won't be any need for it any more. HL would be able to march on with just one Lobby for us (even though there would be two to start off with), and so if you want to fly with the majority of the community, you're going to have to go out and get PF. Like I said before, I could just be happy with the Pacific Theater, but if it comes out with everything included - and UBi wants more money for it as a result - I'd gladly pay it. well.....maybe not so gladly, but I'd pay it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Razor
IV/JG51 Intelligence Officer
www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"

Gunner_361st
04-29-2004, 09:52 AM
I'll take a flyable American heavy bomber if it is made.

I will be very happy though with the B-25, JU-88, and PE-2. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

A Lancaster, Fortress, or Super Fortress would just be icing on the cake if anyone actually has the time, money, and effort to take on such a grand project.

Major Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1087.jpg

sugaki
04-29-2004, 10:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As for the swastika, it's my understanding that you won't find that in any games because it's against German law to show it, not out of any sensitivity issues, or moral considerations. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Games are routinely altered for different territories, I'm thinking the lack of Swastikas are more due to moral considerations. But maybe you're right. (edit: I know you're right about no Swastikas in Germany). Original Wolf3D had Swastikas.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But my point was that by releasing PF with all the maps, planes, and objects, from FB/AEP included, they will have effectively made FB/AEP obsolete. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahh, I understand your point now as well http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ...but did they say PF will come with all planes and objects from FB/AEP? I doubt they'd do something that'd basically make FB/AEP games useless bargain bin games. Considering how the release frames between AEP and PF are within one year, it wouldn't make any sense.

-Aki

IV_JG51_Razor
04-29-2004, 06:26 PM
"Ahh, I understand your point now as well ...but did they say PF will come with all planes and objects from FB/AEP? I doubt they'd do something that'd basically make FB/AEP games useless bargain bin games. Considering how the release frames between AEP and PF are within one year, it wouldn't make any sense."

I remember reading a post by either Luthier, or Oleg that mentioned that they had, or were considering shipping PF with all of FB/AEP material. There was a concern about how many disks would be required for that. Luthier has stated that there was no thechnical reason why an AEP 109 couldn't fly over Mt Juji, or a Val couldn't be seen over berlin.....or words to that effect http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

My best guess is that it all hinges on two things. First, the technical challange of making whatever changes are necessary to the FB engine to accomodate carrier ops, and secondly, the marketing considerations involved in combining the two.

Personally, I think the smart thing to do is combine the two into one game. It would piss some people off for sure, but lets face it, we're all well and truely HOOKED! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The one thing that I think will influence their decision more than anything else is the time between PF's release and when BoB is scheduled to come out. If those two are close together, then I would bet that PF will come out by itself - along with whatever aircraft and objects from FB/AEP that compliments PF. If BoB appears to be falling behind in it's delivery schedule, then I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see PF come out as a three disk set with the whole ball of wax in it! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I guess we'll know more after the E3 this May. BTW, does anybody know when that will be?

Razor
IV/JG51 Intelligence Officer
www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"

TC_PVT_Roger
04-30-2004, 04:37 AM
http://www.e3expo.com/images/homepage/LosAngelesConventionCenter.gif