PDA

View Full Version : We asked ... Oleg provided...from previous thread



flatlander5
06-24-2005, 02:31 PM
Somewhere here (can't find it now) someone started a thread about all the little things over the years we have asked for and 1C has incorporated.

Some folks want to point out where 1C hasn't delivered but I was happy to see a list of things that had been delivered. Just as a reminder.

I'm sure this is a long list.
Here's my 2 cents.

We asked for carrier landings. Done.
We asked for a better flight model. Done.
We asked for a built-in hook to incorporate
Ace's MAT Mangager markings files. Done.
We asked for better AI. Done.
We asked for searchlights. Done.
We asked for a desert map. Done.
We asked for 3rd-party modelling of planes.
Done. (albeit with strict requirements)
We asked for a million fixes to damage models.
Done.

... any others?

flatlander5
06-24-2005, 02:31 PM
Somewhere here (can't find it now) someone started a thread about all the little things over the years we have asked for and 1C has incorporated.

Some folks want to point out where 1C hasn't delivered but I was happy to see a list of things that had been delivered. Just as a reminder.

I'm sure this is a long list.
Here's my 2 cents.

We asked for carrier landings. Done.
We asked for a better flight model. Done.
We asked for a built-in hook to incorporate
Ace's MAT Mangager markings files. Done.
We asked for better AI. Done.
We asked for searchlights. Done.
We asked for a desert map. Done.
We asked for 3rd-party modelling of planes.
Done. (albeit with strict requirements)
We asked for a million fixes to damage models.
Done.

... any others?

Capt._Tenneal
06-24-2005, 02:33 PM
I believe that it was Bearcat99 who said that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Philipscdrw
06-24-2005, 02:47 PM
We also got most of that for free, in post-release patches!

fordfan25
06-24-2005, 03:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flatlander5:
Somewhere here (can't find it now) someone started a thread about all the little things over the years we have asked for and 1C has incorporated.

Some folks want to point out where 1C hasn't delivered but I was happy to see a list of things that had been delivered. Just as a reminder.

I'm sure this is a long list.
Here's my 2 cents.

We asked for carrier landings. Done.
We asked for a better flight model. Done.
We asked for a built-in hook to incorporate
Ace's MAT Mangager markings files. Done.
We asked for better AI. Done.
We asked for searchlights. Done.
We asked for a desert map. Done.
We asked for 3rd-party modelling of planes.
Done. (albeit with strict requirements)
We asked for a million fixes to damage models.
Done.

... any others? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AI still sux badly. not done.

fixis for DM. fly aginst a fw190 online or fly as a hellcat/corsiar. worse than before. not done.

9th_Spitin
06-24-2005, 05:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:


fixis for DM. fly aginst a fw190 online or fly as a hellcat/corsiar. worse than before. not done. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with the 190 DM, you can unload all your ammo and maybe hurt it some, but he still flies away, and your empty.

EnGaurde
06-24-2005, 06:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">you can unload all your ammo and maybe hurt it some, but he still flies away, and your empty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

welcome to the land of japanese plane flying.

this is a regular occurance for me.

No! No shootdown for you!

TAGERT.
06-24-2005, 06:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flatlander5:
Somewhere here (can't find it now) someone started a thread about all the little things over the years we have asked for and 1C has incorporated.

Some folks want to point out where 1C hasn't delivered but I was happy to see a list of things that had been delivered. Just as a reminder.

I'm sure this is a long list.
Here's my 2 cents.

We asked for carrier landings. Done.
We asked for a better flight model. Done.
We asked for a built-in hook to incorporate
Ace's MAT Mangager markings files. Done.
We asked for better AI. Done.
We asked for searchlights. Done.
We asked for a desert map. Done.
We asked for 3rd-party modelling of planes.
Done. (albeit with strict requirements)
We asked for a million fixes to damage models.
Done.

... any others? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>We asked for a pacific addon to IL2, done! If your idea of the pacific didnt contain any NAVY torpedo planes

Atomic_Marten
06-24-2005, 07:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flatlander5:
Somewhere here (can't find it now) someone started a thread about all the little things over the years we have asked for and 1C has incorporated.

Some folks want to point out where 1C hasn't delivered but I was happy to see a list of things that had been delivered. Just as a reminder.

I'm sure this is a long list.
Here's my 2 cents.

We asked for carrier landings. Done.
We asked for a better flight model. Done.
We asked for a built-in hook to incorporate
Ace's MAT Mangager markings files. Done.
We asked for better AI. Done.
We asked for searchlights. Done.
We asked for a desert map. Done.
We asked for 3rd-party modelling of planes.
Done. (albeit with strict requirements)
We asked for a million fixes to damage models.
Done.

... any others? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>We asked for a pacific addon to IL2, done! If your idea of the pacific didnt contain any NAVY torpedo planes </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

TAGERT. has full right about this.. while I love PF and play it a lot, before PF was released I have always thought that we are going to have some carrier based torpedo bombers in.

They are essential for any kind of Pacific sim. It would be great loss to otherwise outstanding game if we don't get some of them eventually.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Platypus_1.JaVA
06-24-2005, 08:45 PM
Well, it never stops amazing me how people post in this forums. Ussually it goes something like this:

Whiner A: "I can't hit anything with plane X and it lights up as a Zero, this is clearly wrong."

Whiner B: "Dear Oleg, you made plane X clearly much to strong, I need all my ammo on it to shoot one down"

*sigh*

I don't seem to remember people nagging like this back in the days I played MSFS and CFS. Why is that?

RAF92_Moser
06-24-2005, 09:23 PM
Agreed JAVA. Microsoft has allowed the user to create and modify almost any aspect of their games to the user's satisfaction. They gave a sense of freedom to the user.

The IL-2 series doesn't allow that freedom, so it brings out the anger in the consumers, bickering and blabbering how something is terribly wrong or want more planes, etc.

So now we have to listen to a lot of complaints about this and that. The price you pay when the game developer only releases additions to the game to their satisfaction.

That's why I liked Microsoft's flexibility. They are not as dedicated to the flight simulator as maybe IC:Maddox is, but they give the community tools to take care of themselves.

Just my opinion:

IC:Maddox has given the IL-2 community many patches. The community has become more tolerant on these patches to enjoy the game. Thus when a patch does not come out for a while, you hear a lot of griping. It's simple, we are spoiled by the constant patches.

Microsoft has released maybe one patch to the community per flight simulator game. But we can create our own addons. Therefore we can work to earn a certain plane, or test out another user's creations. The outcome is NO WHINING!

So the community should now just stop complaining or suggesting changes. It doesn't help at all, unless someone has JUSTIFYING information and ACCEPTABLE reasoning for a change. The WHINING hurts our head from all the useless reading we have to do to simply GET TO THE POINT.

So, please, save us all a bunch of headaches, and use some courtesy to address situations, and please, REASON WITH PLENTY OF EVIDENCE.

fordfan25
06-24-2005, 10:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EnGaurde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">you can unload all your ammo and maybe hurt it some, but he still flies away, and your empty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

welcome to the land of japanese plane flying.

this is a regular occurance for me.

No! No shootdown for you! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

thats cause early japo planes had **** HMG. i my self get more kills in zeke vs wildcat when in a zero. the cannons are very powerfull. if you cant down at least 1 plane useing the 20mm then thats the pilots fault. but all thats a mute point seeing as you always fly your ki84C http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Nimits
06-25-2005, 12:15 AM
PF has received better support than any other flight sim in recent history, but it has also suffered from inconsistent quality of work, gaping holes in the aircraft list (evidently partially caused by legal snafus with Northrop Grumman, but then what's the excuse for Curtiss Helldivers, flyable Kates, USN battleships, IJN cruisers and light carriers, etc., and why, if Heroes of the Pacific and Battlesations: Midway can model Yorktowns and TBFs, can PF not?), and the a maps that manage to cover all the wrong sections of the Pacific. The while their may be bugs in the FM and DM of individual planes that need correction, those aspects of the game are more or less finished. But the equally (if not more) important aspect of plane, ship and map set, all primary contributors to the unquantifiable quality of "immersion" are all in dire need of improvement.

So I guess I am asking for:
-Map of Central Solomons, Rabaul, and Northern New Guinea
-Yorktown, USN battleship, USN transport, IJN battleship, IJN light carrier, IJN cruiser, IJN sub, IJN transport, RN cruiser, RN destroyer
-Flyable TBF, TBD, SB2C, B5N, B6N, D4Y (B6N maybe on the way)
-B-26, Ki-21, A5M4, Ki-27 (Ki-21, Ki-27 maybe on the way)

If we could get even half of those (even in a $20-$30 paid add-on) I would be a very happy man and would (probably) shut up.

NorrisMcWhirter
06-25-2005, 11:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flatlander5:
Somewhere here (can't find it now) someone started a thread about all the little things over the years we have asked for and 1C has incorporated.

Some folks want to point out where 1C hasn't delivered but I was happy to see a list of things that had been delivered. Just as a reminder.

I'm sure this is a long list.
Here's my 2 cents.

We asked for carrier landings. Done.
We asked for a better flight model. Done.
We asked for a built-in hook to incorporate
Ace's MAT Mangager markings files. Done.
We asked for better AI. Done.
We asked for searchlights. Done.
We asked for a desert map. Done.
We asked for 3rd-party modelling of planes.
Done. (albeit with strict requirements)
We asked for a million fixes to damage models.
Done.

... any others? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AI still sux badly. not done.

fixis for DM. fly aginst a fw190 online or fly as a hellcat/corsiar. worse than before. not done. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny that no one has mentioned the Wildcat DM. That's a lot stronger than before. Or maybe they just toned down Japanese weaponry to appease whiners.

Ta,
Norris

Bearcat99
06-25-2005, 06:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RAF92_Moser:
Agreed JAVA. Microsoft has allowed the user to create and modify almost any aspect of their games to the user's satisfaction. They gave a sense of freedom to the user.

Which often meant that you could never tell if the yahoo that shot you down did so because he was good or because he had a self made Batplane... freedom my ****.... thats why so many of them are over here.

The IL-2 series doesn't allow that freedom, so it brings out the anger in the consumers, bickering and blabbering how something is terribly wrong or want more planes, etc.
so now we have to listen to a lot of complaints about this and that. The price you pay when the game developer only releases additions to the game to their satisfaction.

That is so much BS..... first off you dont HAVE to listen to anything.. no one puts a gun to your head and forces you to put up with this BS here and some of the ********s who post it. You do that of your own free will.

Secondly.. the price you pay "when the game developer only releases additions to the game to their satisfaction" is a more stable , consistant product from server to server. Even if it isnt 100% right.. Id rathr have these "faulty" FMs... (which is debateable..) that I know will at least be consistant than the alternative..

That's why I liked Microsoft's flexibility. They are not as dedicated to the flight simulator as maybe IC:Maddox is, but they give the community tools to take care of themselves.


Take care of themselves.... yeah thats why thier sims are thriving... and they are out of the business......

Just my opinion:

IC:Maddox has given the IL-2 community many patches. The community has become more tolerant on these patches to enjoy the game. Thus when a patch does not come out for a while, you hear a lot of griping. It's simple, we are spoiled by the constant patches.

Microsoft has released maybe one patch to the community per flight simulator game. But we can create our own addons. Therefore we can work to earn a certain plane, or test out another user's creations. The outcome is NO WHINING!

OHHHHH PUUUULEASE!!!! That is such BS..... I tell you what..... I will gladly take what I get from 1C than pay $29 for ONE FRICKIN SPITFIRE!! I dont care how nice the engine sounds...... and the guys who know thier stuff as far as "working out a certain plane" are few and far between. Most of the 3rd party stuff for CFS was CR@P with the exception of the Avsim guys and a few others....

So the community should now just stop complaining or suggesting changes. It doesn't help at all, unless someone has JUSTIFYING information and ACCEPTABLE reasoning for a change. The WHINING hurts our head from all the useless reading we have to do to simply GET TO THE POINT.

This I agree with.. but it wont stop.... people are people. They have been whining since day one and they will be whining on day 6000.

So, please, save us all a bunch of headaches, and use some courtesy to address situations, and please, REASON WITH PLENTY OF EVIDENCE. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

SeaFireLIV
06-25-2005, 06:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flatlander5:
Somewhere here (can't find it now) someone started a thread about all the little things over the years we have asked for and 1C has incorporated.

Some folks want to point out where 1C hasn't delivered but I was happy to see a list of things that had been delivered. Just as a reminder.

I'm sure this is a long list.
Here's my 2 cents.

We asked for carrier landings. Done.
We asked for a better flight model. Done.
We asked for a built-in hook to incorporate
Ace's MAT Mangager markings files. Done.
We asked for better AI. Done.
We asked for searchlights. Done.
We asked for a desert map. Done.
We asked for 3rd-party modelling of planes.
Done. (albeit with strict requirements)
We asked for a million fixes to damage models.
Done.

... any others? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We asked for the chance to Escape enemy territory. A small, little change so pilots had a chance to flee back to friendly lines before capture. Oleg didn`t have to do it - Done!

250lb bombs on the Hurricane request - done!

These are just 2 personals that myself and other virtual pilots requested and got. We didn`t scream, we just asked politely for a reasonable and logical improvement.

Oleg saw and he did, he didn`t have to.

And true, bearcat99, when will some of these guys understand that TOTAL FREEDOM of the code as in microsoft leads to TOTAL CHAOS. At least with Oleg, online cheating is kept to a minimum and every player knows where he stands. And ultimately, with the constant upgrades, quality is kept at a consistent high level.

Most of all this is a dream of one man, not some quick money grabbing company who couldn`t give two hoots beyond the cash!

Art-J
06-26-2005, 05:33 AM
Time delayed bombs damage ships. That finally makes skip bombing possible, without setting the fuse to "0" and doing crazy pull-ups in order not to get torn apart by detonation of Your own bomb. I've been waiting for this since early days of Il-2. DONE http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

And if we're talking about AI, it might sux, but still, it sux less than in 3.04. At least they don't do so many UFO-ish manouvres now.

RAF92_Moser
06-26-2005, 09:24 AM
Bearcat, I'm not supporting Microsoft if that's what you think I am doing. I was just pointing out the pros and cons of the two businesses. One is more flexible, but less realistic.

IL-2 with all it's expansions is the better simulator, and I can choose IL-2 over Microsoft's products. IL-2 is a sharp simulator. But let's not discredit Microsoft. I know there's a huge anti-Microsoft buzz around here, but I'm not jumping on the bandwagon yet.

About that $29 Spitfire. That's up to you to buy. You can probably find better freeware products online. That's up to you, your freedom of choice. And that batplane? You can set up restrictions for certain planes as far as I know in their last combat simulator. I played it for almost 3 years and I never saw a bat plane. But the multiplayer still lacked.

And as far as I'm concerned, Microsoft isn't out of business yet. I still believe they have a website and are releasing updates once a month to Windows, so they should be still alive.

As far as the FM's are, I believe we should be satisfied by what we have. They maybe faulty, but hey, how many of us actually flown those aircraft in WWII? Let's get a grip on reality. I believe IL-2 is worth the money, and the wait for the Betty (which I believe the crying for it was outrageous.)

Jumoschwanz
06-27-2005, 06:09 AM
Thats a good idea,

How about all the patch whiners taking a hike and going back to "the Zone" and flying cfs2!

Sturm_Williger
06-27-2005, 06:19 AM
I think the whining comes about due to human nature ... Oleg has spoiled us.

Just look at the threads which complain about 4.01m's shortcomings - in an FM sense. No one seems to remember that it was released as "Partial BoB FM". Emphasis on partial.

It's not perfect, but it's a good indicator of
a) What BoB will be like from a realism POV.
b) An excellent improvement to the ( let's face it ) ageing IL2 engine.

It's better than what we had. Whatever more could be done, it's still better than what we had. 'Nuff sed.


PS : Even when Oleg has said something couldn't or wouldn't be done, he's managed to find a way.
Eg. Way back at the beginning of the 151/20 thread, I made a comment that Oleg is as interested ( if not more ) as we are in the historical accuracy of his sim and that he would find a way to fix it if it truly was incorrect. A few months pass and Voila ! Oleg DOES listen, he just doesn't listen to the cr@p.

rennyrd2
06-27-2005, 10:25 AM
"We asked for the chance to Escape enemy territory. A small, little change so pilots had a chance to flee back to friendly lines before capture. Oleg didn`t have to do it - Done!"
I HAVE NEVER ESCAPED ENEMY TERRITORY, IF I CRASH LAND OR BAIL OUT IN ENEMY TERRITORY "CAPTURED" FLASHES ON THE SCREAN. SO THAT MAKES IT NOT DONE!

tascaso
06-27-2005, 10:54 AM
Yes we are spoiled! I do like the list of what has been updated for the community. You have to give Oleg credit most would have up and run with the money and forgotten about us a long time ago. This is all there is the genre folks I do not see anyone stepping up to the plate to deliver what Oleg has delivered. I see quality, quantity and improvement. Its not perfect I can find plenty to complain about, but I would rather move on and fly the sim....its great.

No, I do not fly CFS in any iteration. IL-2 is the way to go...online squads in online wars is the ultimate experience in IL-2.

So enjoy and check six.

123_Tony_123VEF