PDA

View Full Version : Offliner/Campainer Bored to Death!



Flydutch
01-05-2005, 04:22 AM
First of all,
I'am A big Fan of the entire IL-2 sim products line.
It is the only Thing I play on my PC.

But I have never been so grumpy And was bored so Soon!

The PF sim must be A dream for Online Dogfight freaks who love some new exotic Aircraft.
But For A Hardcore WWII Airwar aficinadio like me who want's to re-live that in A sim who happens to be the best at this, I can't but just conclude PF Has been put on the market 4 months to soon!
Normaly Things are bettered whit patches becuase IL-2 productss keep Evolving!
But This Sim was raced to A Deadline in wich A lot of sacrifices seem to have been made.
Especialy on the Ofline Campaign front!

I t has been said before, probaly the biggest audience who buys IL-2 products is Mature and play offline, they seldom demand things or say anything on A forum like this becuase most of the time these forums are dominated by inmature gung-ho Onliners who are only interested in Scoring and high framerates (in order to kill more with out stuttering LOL)and are often abusive towards people with other ideas or needs!

Ok it comes down to this:
Please enhance the Campaigns (The apear to be rushed & unfinished) Training missions, AI behavior and things like proper and helpful groundcontrollers (giving info on Enemy whereabouts height and assisting you especialy in Carrier landings "Yourhook is not down" Waveoff")

Be Aware of the needs for the many (Silent) offliners, The Onliners overwhelm these forums doesn't mean that they are representive for all the comunyties needs!

Ps, I have nothing against offliners I wish I had the possibilty and time to yoin A Serious online Squad!

BSS_Goat
01-05-2005, 05:22 AM
I agree. I have been playing since the original IL2 and must say the PF camps suck(at least the US). Same missions over and over. The old IL2 and FB camps are much better.

As far as the project being rushed, imagine the number of players that:
1. dont know about this site
2. couldnt apply a patch if their life depended on it
3. have no internet connection
4. expect a game to be ready to play out of the box

What about them? Hey, I was one of "them" three years ago.

PS I fly both off and on. Off lately because of work/new baby/duck season/comp problems ect.

TgD Thunderbolt56
01-05-2005, 05:50 AM
Good points all...but I only play online. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

trebby0
01-05-2005, 06:25 AM
My idea as well,

I fly both on-off line and i regard the PF game as an addon to FB, as it mostly offers new planes and maps for online play. The camps are a laugh (or cry), historically and immersively.
I did pay the "new game" price of 44.95 euros and (only) as i am hardcore have no regrets.

I am waiting for some talented campaignbuilders such as the guys who brought us Aufstand der Ehre/Rebirth of honor.(linear unfortunately but a beauty) I the meantime i recommend Paul Lowengrins "Dynamic Campaign Generator DCG"
(D/L at Lowengrin.com)and/or edit your files as explained by mortoma in a thread nearby.

Cheers, trebby/Zoltann

Davca
01-05-2005, 06:28 AM
hi all,

i play now mostly off line from many reasons,but i have to agree the campaign is unfinished and empty, i have been playing f4f3 for long time and its getting worse,ground missions are almost empty,they say in the brief lots of targets of opportunity but there is one ship and nothing else to strafe because you have to fight the enemy on the way which is ok but you drop the bombs, then whats the point if you cant hurt a ship with your machine guns. Sometimes the escort mission are wierd too, they fly somewhere else then we have the waypoints. I understand that the missions are ai generated but you can really feel it sometimes there isnt logic and sense.
its pity because really many players are offline and this hurts they feelings for game that they like and support.
have a good new year everybody
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Saburo_0
01-05-2005, 07:03 AM
Very good points. We get patches for flight models but few other improvements are made. Though Starshoy was quick to make some improvements to the campaigns when PF first came out.

Only ideas I have for you are :

1. Have you tried DGen by Paul Lowengrin to modify your campaigns ?
2. Have you downloaded any of the user made campaigns. Not sure what all is available for PF yet tho.

Atomic_Marten
01-05-2005, 07:13 AM
I have some weird feeling about the whole issue. It seems to me that bunch of non-dynamic, (or static) missions linked in one campaign for player, would be maybe better solution than this one.

But I am satisfied with the current state of campaign. Why? Simply, if we have static type of campaign, there would be zero impact (if we lef out our self-promotion out --kills, medals http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif) on the course of future battles. In the current mode, if you exterminate one fighter type almost to extinction, that means that they will be very rare birds in your campaign missions.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I have just installed "Operation Fall Blau"(east front), that is the add-onn for IL2 v1.22, and it actually have some good (static) campaign. Maybe when I get bored with this one, I will switch to that campaign..http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Fehler
01-05-2005, 07:23 AM
Well, unfortunately, I sort of disagree.

Although there is a lack of planes necessary (IMHO) for a carrier based campaign, as well as a lack of shipping (Correct shipping that is) the campaigns appear to be quite historical.

Unfortunately, there was a considerable amount of flying around in the Pacific versus the European theater. And if you look at the numbers, there was a great deal more fighting in the skies of Europe than in the Pacific.

I guess what I am getting at is this: The Pacific is a vast battlefield to wage a war upon. It does not surprise me that for this reason alone, people find the airwar of the Pacific boring. But boring is probably more in line with historical accuracy.

SeaFireLIV
01-05-2005, 07:26 AM
I must agree with Flydutch that there is a certain sterility to PF. I think it`s all that blue sea! They could really use a few more little touches to make the game feel a little more immersive (FB as well could use some). Things like:

Having the ship sirens audible on take off if under attack.

More waffle from the ship Tower, especially something as simple as, "Good landing. Welcome back, Flight leader." When you succesfully land on the carrier.

To be honest, the Tower is very much your only home at sea. It`s the pilot`s Mother in a way... More is needed from it.

More `statements` from friendly pilots. For example if a friendly carrier is sunk something like, "They`ve hit our Carrier! She`s sinking!"

And maybe even distant seagulls flying. I dunno.

PF is great, but it is missing a certain `Human` feel.

But at least they added more realistic splashes which helped! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

I did post some of these ideas to Oleg... Oh and we MUST keep it dynamic.

El_Emperador
01-05-2005, 07:36 AM
I totaly agree, the dynamic campaign is nearly unplayable!
The missions are boring and you fly in one scenario the same few mission again and again and again.
I dont know what I hate more, when I should attack 3 times in a row the same not existing "targets of opertunity" or when I should escort 4 F4F with 100lbs Bombs to attack an enemy carrier fleet...

So I started to work with the mission editor to "enhance" every mission before playing. I also have to fix some timing problems with escorts and interceptors in order to get a "playable" mission.
But now Im more busy with the editor than playing the game and I think not everyone has the endurance to learn how to work with the mission editor!

The patches made the situation a little bit better. Now hills are no longer graveyards for every AI pilot who tried to fly over them and F4F are no longer the navy standard bombers...

I was looking forward to attack large enemy fleets with hordes of dive and torpedoe bombers like some kind of "Midway" or "sink the Yamato" missions (the "Midway" and "Pearl Habour" missions in the game are more like a bad joke...). I was disapointed that there is only one Battleship (2 with the Tirpiz) an no playable carrier based Torpedoe Bomber but I can live with that when only the DGen would generate nearly enjoyable missions....

PF ist still a good game with great potential but the single player campagne needs serval weeks or month of development...
All my hopes are with the next patch...

Redeyex
01-05-2005, 08:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>guess what I am getting at is this: The Pacific is a vast battlefield to wage a war upon. It does not surprise me that for this reason alone, people find the airwar of the Pacific boring. But boring is probably more in line with historical accuracy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not it. I don't mind flying around for a long time. I don't even mind not getting any opposition for a mission or two. It's just that the missions are repitive and therefore boring.

Flying DCG is a serious improvement on this aspect. I fly with icons on so I can watch the movenment of the grond troops, see what they do, when the frontline shifts. One time I yelled even get me a mission to destroy those tanks that are marching towards my airfields. For this I would like icons for ships as well. That is DCG and more (I'm a great fan of Lowengrins work as you might recon!). DCG suffers because of the same reason as DGEN by Starshoy. Lack of targets (I group tanks as one target type). No targets for the big bombers (I'm talking the B17 et al).

Although the ai has improved over the years I find that the wingman commands are still not quite. Sometimes they say yes but don't, or do not respond at all to a command. If they are out of fuel or somesuch they should say so (admittingly I have heard 'I'm out of ammo', although that doesn't result in a bug out.

Redeye, for more attention to the dynamic campaign and less FM, DM and planes!

JG52Russkly
01-05-2005, 08:55 AM
Many good points.

On installing PF, I started a USN F4F campaign, an IJN A6M campaign, and an RAAF P40 campaign.

The latter's great fun, with lots of desperate scrambles to tackle incoming nasties and then some competitive escort missions for fledgling USAAF(?) B17s (although they often end up bombing vehicles...from 15,000ft!!!). I do have ground and air intensity set to high and campaign difficulty set to hard, which makes it more challenging.

The other 2 are a bit dull, with the F4F campaign even starting with 4 missions with no contact with the enemy at all. After that it's Backspace all the way.

I won't spend the time to learn DCG properly (my loss, I know), so, while I await 3rd-party generated campaigns, I've returned to Battle over Europe's excellent offerings and a little dabble in on-line again (western and eastern fronts only, however).

IMHO the offline campaigns have always been IL2's weakest element in an otherwise extremely strong suit:

Dodgy AI (either suicidal, useless, or in possession of the Force).
Incorrect rank system (fly wingman to a Colonel as a Major while Captains lead other flights).
Enemy always appears in front - I've never been bounced without seeing the enemy (unlike on-line, lol!). It's so predictable and allows decent positioning for the attack.
No immersion. The pilot roster helped, but there is little squadron management (pilot assignments to different flights, resting pilots/flights, accpeting transfers, etc.) - maybe it's because I've never actually led a squadron even though I'm a Major in one current campaign, which would be at least a Gruppenfuehrer in the Luftwaffe, led alone a Staffelkapitaen!

It is a shame, especially when games like Red Baron 3D and European Air War showed how immersive offline campaigning can be.

Just thoughts.

Still play though; pretty much every day, if I can get away with it.

Flydutch
01-05-2005, 09:29 AM
Thnx everyone for yor comments!

Has anybody come across A thirdparty PF Campaign that is worth downloading?

I have suggested before to make the Campaigns more Intersting to play/Fly by:

Have A more realistic Briefing De-Briefing,
Show B&W Pictures off the Object to be Attacked
Where are the AAA possitions? Where is the Missions main Objective and the secondary?
Wich flight Attacks the AAA, Who flys overhead cover against enemy A/C, and who go's for the Main Objective?

Recon Mission: fly over the enemy area in the flight plan and Search and find A Ground Objective (Airbase, Ground troops or Ships) Circkle the Object (Mimicking Photographing It with PR Aircraft) try to get back to your base and have this vital info for the next mission!
(Pre-made B&W 'Photo's'of the Object with info written on it)
Fly Low enough inorder to see If the Aircraft parked are Derilickt or fake Objectives!

Fly A Damage Assesment Recon flight to find out what damage was done by the strike (dangerous, but nescesary info to plan A next mission or not!)

Recon flights In the Pacific where essential "where are the enemy Carriers?" & "Where are the Friendly Ground troops possitioned!"

Still I like to Courtmartial those AI pilots who give Unregular Radio messages Like: "Number One Enemy At your Six" on wich every Number one infolved will check his six while the message was not for them!
The message Should be : "Red One Enemy on your Six break left!"

Ground controller upon your question of the target possition "6 Enemy Bombers heading 020 Angels 6 fly North East North" Or "Area EE12" (Gridmap possition) This was already featured in WWII Fighters by Janes!

bernardpb
01-05-2005, 09:31 AM
I agree with much that has been said here. I've been a IL2 fan since the beginning. I also don't play online.
What the game offers in creating missions is excellent. Starting with FOB I have written many campaigns and single missions. Once a person gets the hang of it, you can write a missions quickly.
given some time you will start to see campaigns for PF.

Capt._Tenneal
01-05-2005, 09:43 AM
I say keep the Dynamic campaign also, but while waiting for improvements to be made to it, try any of the many linear campaigns by your fellow IL-2 fans that can be downloaded from various sites. There are a lot of Pacific missions starting to be uploaded and they're fun to play too. Some are more immersive than a generic dynamic campaign mission.

You have to find out what you like, of course. There are some cr@p out there also.

Old_Canuck
01-05-2005, 09:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flydutch:
Thnx everyone for yor comments!

Has anybody come across A thirdparty PF Campaign that is worth downloading?

.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Poymando's "Wake Island Campaign" starts off with a bang. If you can take off/survive/land the first mission, you're off to a good start. I'm sure there will be many more like it the near future.

Download here: http://www.airwarfare.com/Sims/FB/fb_campaigns_poymando.htm

ivanmoe
01-05-2005, 09:51 AM
It's impossible to compare PF to the original IL2 and not be disappointed. The latter was a complete game, as limited as it may have been geographically and in terms of A/C. Conversely, the former appears to be nothing more than a half-baked, expansion pack to IL2/FB. Perhaps BoB will be improved in this regard, given its far more limited scope. But, given the willingness of developer and publisher to exploit otherwise loyal customers, I won't be getting my hopes up. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Ivanmoe

Saburo_0
01-05-2005, 09:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG52Russkly:
Many good points.



IMHO the offline campaigns have always been IL2's weakest element in an otherwise extremely strong suit:

Dodgy AI (either suicidal, useless, or in possession of the Force).
Incorrect rank system (fly wingman to a Colonel as a Major while Captains lead other flights).
Enemy always appears in front - I've never been bounced without seeing the enemy (unlike on-line, lol!). It's so predictable and allows decent positioning for the attack.
No immersion. The pilot roster helped, but there is little squadron management (pilot assignments to different flights, resting pilots/flights, accpeting transfers, etc.) -
It is a shame, especially when games like Red Baron 3D and European Air War showed how immersive offline campaigning can be.....

Just thoughts.

Still play though; pretty much every day, if I can get away with it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Squadron transfers was a great part of Red Baron, Along with the list of Aces & Newspaper headlines when a famous ace was shot down. the intelligence thing only had a few films but was a nice touch as well. Ah, i could go on & on...if it weren't for the hassle of getting RB up & running on XP i'd probably get hooked again. EAW campaigns were good but RB was the best IMHO. Really had atmosphere.

i think we might have had more improvements to the Campaigns if it had not been for the need to make PF compatible with FB. That's why we only have the same old radio options & rather drab interface. I hope BoB will be an improvement in these areas & not just in FMs. (assuming i can afford a computer to run it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

Well, keep pestering Oleg with Campaign improvement requests. Otherwise the online only whines might take attention away from these areas.

http://www.cagesworld.com/RedBaron2/cityh.gif

Ah just remembered the church bells..... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

J_Weaver
01-05-2005, 10:10 AM
I have been playing this series since the original Il2, and have never played online. But I've never completed a campaign. I love this series and play it nearly everyday. But its got some glairing holes in it. I also beleive that there is a 'silent majority' of people that never play online or complain. Many of these people have probably been put off by many of the problems of this series. One of the most fustrating problems in this game is kill stealing and the ai in general. Ok, I can understand that a pilot may see an aircraft trailing smoke pounce on it as an easy kill. But I can't understand why the ai will attack an aircraft that is going down in flames. Then there is the nav lights on ai aircraft that ruin any night mission. I've also found it strange that ai pilots can't make a simple deflection shot but the ai gunners can kill the pilot of an attackimg fighter form 700m.

And then we come to PF. Although it is excellent sim, but it too has some big gaps in it.

But there is one thing we must consider. That is how far this sim has come. It started as a low altitude ground pounding sim on the eastern front and has devloped into something that I beleive it wasn't intended to. (at least at first)Unlike many people who say that PF maps are too big, I say their too small. Some battles can't be recreated at all because of this. Although we all complain (some more than others http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) I think we need to step back and take a good look at all Oleg and Crew have given us and give them a big thank you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Now that BoB is under devlopment I hope that Oleg has taken many of the lessons learned from IL2 and apply them to BoB. If he'll do that I think BoB has potential to be another ground breaking sim. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

kiddknapp59
01-05-2005, 10:19 AM
From what I can see the campaigns have been broken since Forgotten Battles and remain so. Crashes, corruption, lock ups. The reason it goes on without a fix is because of the online contingent. The whole series is designed for them. They are the most vocal.
As for the single player side, how about the autopilot. It is just paint huffing crack baby stupid. I know it isn€t period correct to have an autopilot, but the reality is the ingress is long and we live in the year 2005. We don€t have time to fly hour long missions. We need an autopilot that won€t do aileron rolls into the ground, one that will fly where we want it to go, not where it thinks we should go. If we have to fly boring missions over and over (A20/Beaufighter campaign anyone?) at least get us there and back without fear of the autopilot.
The campaigns in PF seem more stable that FB/AEP, so that is an improvement. But the fact that the older games are broken and always have been doesn€t bode well for the future.

t0n.
01-05-2005, 11:39 AM
I don't play the PF campaigns. I did when the game first came out, and I try it after every DGEN update, but mainly they just makes me angry. I've read just about every PTO pilot account published and the only mission I've ever flown that felt the least bit authentic was a Wake intercept. From the FM's on up, PF is a horrible, tasteless joke. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

By contrast, I'm 86 missions into a Leningrad campaign that never ceases to entertain. When I'm doing hammering the Hun over Berlin, I'm going to start it all over again with a BF109E4. It's a gift that keeps on giving http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Snuffy Smith
01-05-2005, 11:39 AM
I'm afraid I must agree with the basic comments and direction this is going. I think PF is a success, as an add-on to FB-Ace. I do not think PF is a success, as a stand alone game. It is incomplete. I fear most people, who buy it, will be disappointed, which is a shame. This could be a lot of fun, but it is turning into real work to keep up with all the upgrades, downloads, patches, and tweaks. The game has become very complex to install and get fully working for any average user. You get PF in the box and then find a lot is missing and two major patches are needed--one of which is still pending. It is not being advertised by vendors that the game is incomplete in the box, and no instructions are given by the sellers on what a buyer must do to get it fully up-and-running. I found it almost overwhelming.

I play off-line only, and the campaigns are the most important thing to me. I hunt constantly for new linked campaigns, since the AI Dynamic campaigns are so weak and repetitive. Birdbrain, for example, has done wonderful work, and his The Blue campaign is first class. Even I got it working fine. But I've looked at, studied, and read all the material on Lowengrin's generator; and I fear that I still do not really understand or feel comfortable to risk trying to install and use it. That is true of most the technical third party mods to the game engine. They are just beyond my comfort level to install.

Redeyex
01-05-2005, 04:02 PM
Well I have been playing Il2 sinds the original. And compared to that there are a number of serious improvements to offline play. At least we have a dynamic campaign now, we didn't back then. The AI is also seriously improved. At least I don't have any collisions in escort missions or on waypoints. Take off still has a lot off planes doing the dirt dance especially the big birds.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But I've looked at, studied, and read all the material on Lowengrin's generator; and I fear that I still do not really understand or feel comfortable to risk trying to install and use it. That is true of most the technical third party mods to the game engine. They are just beyond my comfort level to install. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well it is not so difficult really. All you have to do is create a map, unzip the whole thing in there and presto finished. You don't have to do anything with it if you don't wan't to. Just fire up Il2, create a pilot, pick a campaign and fly. Is that easy.

Redeye

sapre
01-05-2005, 04:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by t0n.
From the FM's on up, PF is a horrible, tasteless joke. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why you... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

ivanmoe
01-05-2005, 04:42 PM
IMO, Oleg erred when he attempted to make PF so broad-based and inclusive of A/C and ships which were involved only at the margins of the war in the Pacific theatre. Further, I believe that the impetus behind the mix was purely economic.

I'm making reference, of course, to the UK and Commonwealth elements in the game. If you want to quantify the absurdity of the situation, just do a little research into what the ratio of Avengers to Beaufighters was in the PTO, and you'll get my drift.

Now, don't get me wrong. Had enough aircraft and ships been included to fight even one of the major carrier battles of the war, it would be different. As it is, "campaigns" are ruinously hypothetical in character and just leave you flat, at least if this is the mode of play that you most enjoy.

While I am a "Yank," I'd have been far happier had the game been based on Mediterranean naval operations, as that would have allowed for a far more complete mix of A/C and ships for simulating actions of the day.

I'm afraid all that's been DEVELOPED here is a skeleton with far too little meat on it, one that was intended to appeal to far too many nationalities, and, regretably, one that will NEVER be adequately fleshed-out.

Ivanmoe

Atomic_Marten
01-05-2005, 04:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I must agree with Flydutch that there is a certain sterility to PF. I think it`s all that blue sea! They could really use a few more little touches to make the game feel a little more immersive (FB as well could use some). Things like:

Having the ship sirens audible on take off if under attack.

More waffle from the ship Tower, especially something as simple as, "Good landing. Welcome back, Flight leader." When you succesfully land on the carrier.

To be honest, the Tower is very much your only home at sea. It`s the pilot`s Mother in a way... More is needed from it.

More `statements` from friendly pilots. For example if a friendly carrier is sunk something like, "They`ve hit our Carrier! She`s sinking!"

And maybe even distant seagulls flying. I dunno.

<span class="ev_code_RED">PF is great, but it is missing a certain `Human` feel.</span>

But at least they added more realistic splashes which helped! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

I did post some of these ideas to Oleg... Oh and we MUST keep it dynamic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Red colour: one says-it-all about our 'problem' sentence. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Atomic_Marten
01-05-2005, 04:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sapre:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by t0n.
From the FM's on up, PF is a horrible, tasteless joke. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why you... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AAAAARGH!?!http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/images/smiles/angry.gif One more non-believer?!.. bring the torches..http://www.freefalcon.com/forum/images/smiles/flamethrower.gif

icrash
01-05-2005, 05:22 PM
The B25 campaign is kinda boring. You hit the same group of airfields over and over. Hell, I started to dog fight with the '25. I've bagged two that tried a head to head and flamed a third from the dorsal gunner slot. It may be historical I don't know, but it is dull. My low level flight skills are improving though.

StG77_Stuka
01-05-2005, 06:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TgD Thunderbolt56:
Good points all...but I only play online. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What a lame post! Posters like these should be given there own forum. Perhaps "Waste basket Forum" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Sakai9745
01-06-2005, 06:23 AM
I must admit that the campaign mode is somewhat lackluster, but I just go with the flow and fill in the holes with the FMB. My latest project is a career in the Army Air Corps 22nd BG; got it worked up so far to Midway with their famed torpedo attack alongside the TBF contingent of VT-8.

Besides, the FMB also provides a nice chance to go hypothetical. One of my favorites is titled 'Advanced Warning' in which the US is well aware of the incoming Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and launches a preemptive strike on Nagumo's carriers. Depending on mood, I alternate between P-40s, A-20s, F4s, or SBDs (either from Hawaii or from Enterprise.

Just my two cents worth (that's before the discount, though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).

Flydutch
01-06-2005, 08:20 AM
It is good to hear some remarks here comming from the 'Silent' Offline Players!

Campaigners Unite!

Flydutch
01-06-2005, 08:29 AM
I must Agree with Seafire,
The Human Element is largly missing espescialy when you play Campaigns.
Why would it be possible for A Older Sim Like " B-17 Fliyng Fortress " to Incorperate realisticly looking Human figures that you would expext in A Rainbow 6 sim. While this latest product of the Best WWII Airwar Sim still has Empty cockpits and A very lonley feeling when fliyng Campaigns.

Ruy Horta
01-06-2005, 10:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flydutch:
First of all,
I'am A big Fan of the entire IL-2 sim products line.
It is the only Thing I play on my PC.

But I have never been so grumpy And was bored so Soon! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's obvious since with their rush to release the game, they forgot to finish it, dropping a ton of promised objects and rushing what there was left.

Unfortunately they were left with mainly campaigns revolving about set piece battles (even Guadal 1&2 and New Guinea have been placed in such a manner if you look closely).

So they are forced to build a campaign on mainly carrier clashes lasting a couple of days at most (sure it could take 3 months if you can the voyage and looking for trouble, but thats not being modeled either...so). However in their rush they didn't complete one decent set of ships (early, middle or late war).

You have long range fighter patrols early in the USN career that have no basis in reality, not doctrinal, they didn't even bother to update the USMC campaign in the patch to include the F2A... There appears to have been little thought when it comes to the PF campaign generator, floating between the need to extend a campaign and too few objects to do so interestingly.

I love both offline and online, but PF is an offline waste land...a desert of a game, showing its rushed nature to the n-th degree.

It looks like the development team doesn't care much, which is alleviated by the nthusiasm which new a/c create for the online community (even my own enthusiasm).

PF would have been better received as an addon, less hyped, bringing carriers, new a/c ad maps to the FB/AEP.

Its a shame that we see little effort to fill some of these gaps, other than a lame excuse on (more) US a/c...

Fliegeroffizier
01-06-2005, 11:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Old_Canuck:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flydutch:
Thnx everyone for yor comments!

Has anybody come across A thirdparty PF Campaign that is worth downloading?

.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Poymando's "Wake Island Campaign" starts off with a bang. If you can take off/survive/land the first mission, you're off to a good start. I'm sure there will be many more like it the near future.

Download here: http://www.airwarfare.com/Sims/FB/fb_campaigns_poymando.htm <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I concur...I enjoyed the Wake campaign(14 or so missions, as I recall). Outstanding Briefings, Very Immersive!! Lots of action...short flight times to "target"/"engagement" areas...fairly difficult on some missions...

Poymando worked with ExtremeOne on a USAAF West Europe campaign which was Excellent. I'm hoping/expecting to see something from that team for PF(longer and more areas of Operations) soon.

Fliegeroffizier
01-06-2005, 11:16 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by kiddknapp59:
From what I can see the campaigns have been broken since Forgotten Battles and remain so. Crashes, corruption, lock ups. The reason it goes on without a fix is because of the online contingent. The whole series is designed for them. They are the most vocal....QUOTE]

Over the years of IL2/FB/AEP/PF, this point has been made many times...but seemingly and surprisingly hasn't effected decisions (online vs offline considerations) a great deal. It would seem(even by Oleg's own admission at one point)that something like less than 10%(maybe as little as 5%) of all owners of the Series are Onliners...
Go figure, then, why the Offline campaigns have been, generally speaking, less than a high priority for improvement efforts by Oleg's team.
Third party Static/linear campaign-writers and Lowengrin's DCG have helped a great deal and, to a degree, pulled some of the chestnuts out of the Fire, so to speak.
IMHO

Zeus-cat
01-06-2005, 11:16 AM
How do you respond to a post like this? The PF campaigns are more realistic than the IL-2 campaigns IMO. As a consequence, many of them involve flying long distances where nothing happens and you may never see the enemy. I bet that's the way it really was for most World War II missions and especially most Pacific missions in real life. Not much happened.

I have to agree that the PF campaigns are not as exciting as the IL-2 or Aces campigns, but they can be fixed. However, I think as gamers we are spoiled. We expect (some of us demand) that something happens EVERY mission. that is not the way things happened.

Take a good look at some of these maps. On the maps that are all water (Coral Sea), there will only be enemy ships to attack. Therefore, the campaign generator is forced to create missions where you will likely encounter carriers or carrier-based planes. Sometimes this creates very odd results. Last night I flew against 12 Zeroes and 1 dive-bomber. What is 1 dive-bomber going to do against a carrier task force?

Finally, my advice is to learn the FMB and create your own missions or tweak the campaign missions to make them better. Just last night I tweaked missions from 3 different campaigns because they weren't "right" for gameplay in my opinion. I added trucks to an He-111 mission because we bombed factories. After I landed, I got told off by my CO because I didn't hit anything. Well duh, there was only one "real" target in the target area (a single AAA gun) and there were 12 He-111s. 11 of us hit nothing but buildings, which are not real targets for the game. I ixed the mission and will refly it tonight.

Room for improvement? Absolutely. Can we live with what we have? Certainly. You can always create your own mission and/or trade some with other people so the missions are a surprise. There are lots of ways to work around some of the things you don't like.

Zeus-cat

Sakai9745
01-06-2005, 12:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

Room for improvement? Absolutely. Can we live with what we have? Certainly. You can always create your own mission and/or trade some with other people so the missions are a surprise. There are lots of ways to work around some of the things you don't like.

Zeus-cat <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

DuxCorvan
01-06-2005, 12:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sapre:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by t0n.
From the FM's on up, PF is a horrible, tasteless joke. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why you... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
AAAAARGH!?!http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/images/smiles/angry.gif One more non-believer?!.. bring the torches..http://www.freefalcon.com/forum/images/smiles/flamethrower.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://marmot.blogs.com/korea/monty_python.jpg

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_17_2.gif

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_1_128.gif

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_2_12.gif

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/5/5_8_5.gif

TacticalYak3
01-06-2005, 01:03 PM
A couple of thoughts.

I have found improvements with my RN campaign since the last patch (3.03). With the perferred conf.ini settings, the performance of the game has improved. I even have found a little more variety with mission types.

In general I think it is an honest observation that the IL-2 series has been strong on a number of things; specifically flight modelling and damage recognition, but surprisingly weaker on their campaigns in terms of complexity, fun factor, and at times even historical context. No doubt there are more enjoyable user-made campaigns.

Understanding the limitations of any generator is helpful, but still a newbie would naturally assume better campaigns and single missions and rightly so.

While I still love campaigns, especially since they are more consistent in bringing a historical setting to my gaming experience then often seen online (read mission objectives, etc), the "heart-pounding" thrill online still isn't there (and may be will/can never be).

Regards

McVittees
01-06-2005, 05:35 PM
Great thread! I totally agree with what has been said especially those references to little touches that would have made the game so much more involving/playable.

WUAF_Badsight
01-06-2005, 05:42 PM
i feel for people who cant play this online , or who dont want to

because IL2:FB/PF with its dud campaigns & stupid AI is a really dumb game for history fans who play single play offline

i mean really cr@p & dumb

really

Multiplayer totally is what this game is for really

sapre
01-06-2005, 09:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
i feel for people who cant play this online , or who dont want to

because IL2:FB/PF with its dud campaigns & stupid AI is a really dumb game for history fans who play single play offline

i mean really cr@p & dumb

really

Multiplayer totally is what this game is for really <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I strongly disagree with you.
offline play is what really FB/PF is meant to be.

AlmightyTallest
01-06-2005, 09:52 PM
I don't play online at all, and I purchased Pacific Fighters specifically because it has a Dynamic Campaign.

So far, it does have some rough edges that have already been discussed previously in this thread, but each patch does bring some improvements.

I'm hoping that there will continue to be improvements to the AI and the campaigns in the future for Pacific Fighters.

So far, one bug I found on the Iwo Jima F6F-5 campaign was when the marines took over the airbase nearest to Mt. Suribachi, the next mission actually had enemy fighters taking off from the now friendly airbase!! The marines who by this time controlled the AA guns at the airbase fired at the planes as they were taking off! from our base!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I hope this will at least be addressed in the future. When a base is captured, the AI should relocate to another base, or use the other two airbases that were on the island.

There's definately room for improvement, and I hope that those of us who are offliners will get some assistance from Oleg, Starshoy, and others like Lowengrin that will help us to further enjoy PF offline in engaging and interesting campaigns. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Doesn't hurt to throw in a few more flyable planes and AI planes both for historical accuracy and variety as well in different offline campaigns as well.

I'm looking forward to the offline future of Pacific Fighters. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Saburo_0
01-06-2005, 10:07 PM
Almighty,
If you haven't sent an e-mail reporting this bug to Starshoy(the e-mail addess is in the Read Me IIRC)then you really should. He's been very good at trying to fix evrything as fast as possible.

Oh, saying PF is all about online is a mistake as far as the numbers go, far more people play off-line than on.

AlmightyTallest
01-06-2005, 10:14 PM
Thanks for the tip Saburo, I'll send him info regarding the airfield issue right now, I have the instance saved on a track as well for proof. Didn't know if anyone else witnessed the same thing before or not.

I think the offliners are the silent majority for most games out there.

J_Weaver
01-06-2005, 10:14 PM
I always wondered how realistic it was to have the Japanese operating from Iwo after a few missions into the campaign. I realize that its probably more for playabiity. Wouldn't the airfields on Iwo have been the first target once the battle started. It seems logical to me that the airfields would have been the target of the first strike. Thus once airsuperority is achieved then full resources could be used to pound enemy ground positions. I'm not complaining, just wondering. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

AlmightyTallest
01-06-2005, 10:44 PM
lol, for the most part, I think your correct about the Japanese air operations after the shelling started J_Weaver. Perhaps someone can help fill us in on the actual situation in regards to Japanese Air operations around Iwo Jima at the time of the invasion.

For playability and fun, I put the AI Ace and veteran percentages up to 50% and put air and ground operations to high or highest in my config.ini to make things more interesting.

gbollin
01-06-2005, 11:14 PM
I liked the Marine campaign and the Navy campaigns are ok. I was disapointed with the
lack of campaigns for the USAAF. I went into
the Dgen and made a Guadacanal campaign with
P40's,P38's,P39's and P47D22's.They work and
profide some action for the USAAF.I also added the P38J as an option for Newguinea.I am going
see if I can make a dynamic campaign for USAAF and Navy Bombers for Late war Japan.

Fliegeroffizier
01-06-2005, 11:22 PM
My humble opinion:

Oleg and his team gave Part of the World what they were asking for(and a Great market for Sales)...Pacific Fighters.

Oleg's Original IL2 Product of the WWII Eastern Front Airwar was a fantastic historical/FlightSim unique Gem! I learned more from it than I Ever could have imagined(and I AM a WWII airwarfare hobbyist/student)..

I Always give Maximum KUDO's to Oleg...BUT....


....BUT...Unfortunately, the entire Pacific War is/was Unknown to teh Russians and Most European nations/people! Just as we in the West Never knew/understood/heardabout the Russian-German Eastern Front war!

MANY problems of PF(as originally released) are due to that lack of knowledge.... Oleg will soon hire a few people who know the Pacific War history in some detail[I HOPE]...and then, the missions, and campaigns, and historical details of people and aircraft and etc, will fold into place

If there is One thing that is certain, it is that Oleg and company WILL Respond to constructive criticism....

Le's no longer be Shy!!!

OFFLINERS Rule!!!!

csThor
01-07-2005, 12:37 AM
Well. For starters we all should drop the pink sunglasses and face the music - FB/PF and its "dynamic campaigns" are much more like the relationship between a wallpaper and the bare wall it's covering. We must not forget we're still working with static mission files. But:

A campaign in this game can only be as good as the templates and the settings files are. What I'm going to say now is not an attack against Starshoy or the people helping him - quite the opposite. The problem is that all campaign files are way below what could be done with DGen. I cannot talk about the pacific files as the PTO is terra incognita for me, but you can give me a random campaign file from FB and I can easily show you several historical errors and mistakes ranging from unit allocation to plane allocation to frontlines to ... well nearly everything. The catch here is that Starshoy had to make campaigns that work on a broad range of computers and he had to ensure his DGen is bugfree. Therefore he approached the problem of templates and settings in a technocratic way and that can be felt in most missions.
Ian Boys, Yogy and myself have been working on the Kurland files for a few weeks now and we're still tinkering with ratios of fighters, bombers and other planes as well as discussing frontline movment partially down to individual towns and days. Research takes a lot of time and when you have a publisher waving with a deadline and wants a bugfree Campaign generator as well as working campaigns you cannot expect them to be really flawless.

sapre
01-07-2005, 01:13 AM
Does the campaign have to be completly historically accurate?
If so, whats the point having a dynamic campaign?

csThor
01-07-2005, 02:40 AM
The point is:

For many people is a ridiculous thought to have the actions of one pilot alter the course of war. When I'm talking about "dynamic campaigns" in FB I mean the creation of non-canned missions which do take effects of former missions into account (as a destroyed bridge or a damaged airfield). It does not (and IMO should not) mean the frontline has moved just because pilot A took out a tank. That's (again IMO) ludicrous.

JG52Russkly
01-07-2005, 02:58 AM
There's obviously a well of discontent about the offline playability of PF, and perhaps the continuing growth of this thread will attract the requisite attention.

However, I do have to say that the RAAF P-40 campaign is a really challenging and good fun.

BTW, is there a way of ordering some escort flights to engage whilst others maintain position above the bomber formation? I'm a bit sick of the whole squadron engaging the first bandits that arrive on the scene, often with whole flights chasing 1 somking bandit, only to see the bombers get ripped to shreds by subsequent waves of interceptors.

@ AlmightyTallest - You mentioned in your post increasing the AI ace & veteran percentages to 50%. How do you do that? I set "CampaignDifficulty=Hard" in the conf.ini, but I'm not sure this has the same effect. You also talk about a "Highest" setting for air/ground operations. I've set "AirIntensity=High"; is there a highest setting? If there is, I'll use it!

Blackdog5555
01-07-2005, 05:03 AM
Well, i cant really accept any excuse as valid for historical inaccuaracy. There is massive info in any bookstore, duh. I was able to get full battle plans including official Navy maps, battle scenarios, and Navy war plans plus pictures of the battles at Coral Sea, Tarawa, Tinian, Rabaul, Okinawa, Iwo etc etc. all from simple google web searching. People wonder about planes taking off from Iwo, tawawa and Tinian etc... well all japanese planes were evacuated before the invasion. Iwo was pounded for 3 days with 16 inch guns all day long until the surface was cratered like the moon. it was also bombed by heavy bombers from nearby islands for three days. Come on... The air battles accured as a result of planes coming in from other places. Okinawa was mostly kamikazi attacks (about 800 planes) where are they? I could go on for 20 more pages. My honest opinion is that they bum rushed the product pre-finished because of the publisher. BOB is a priority because they need to release it before Shockwave BOB II. The Aussies have one campaign in this game for crying out loud, same as the French. LOL. Where is the Darwin Map? Anyway..enough rant. I'll wait to see if this are fixed before passing (more) judgment. honestly, I dont like online in HL much because its too much like "Sky Quake" really what's the point. Johnny Reb / or Baron Von in his P47/ K4 at 5000 meters waitng for you to take off so he can get a ***** by shooting you before you get speed or altitude. Whoopee.....Im laughing. cheers anyway. I want decent offline!! The game shouldnt be degraded because some people still use Atari computers. Jeeez. put a slider on the objects for Gods sake. If the Devs need maps, pictures and senarios im happy to help.

verde13
01-07-2005, 07:47 AM
I've been with FB for 2 years now,strictly as a offliner and i agree 100% that DGen has to be improved.The problem seems to be even worse with PF.I have completed 5 offline FB campaigns from the start until the finish of the Eastern Front and i can say that they are far more realistic that that of PF.It seems to me that some missions that work fine with FB have been transferred to PF without a single change,something that clearly isn't working.For instance the scramble missions:Impossible to save your carrier.Same goes for escort missions,can't reach the bomber formation on time.With FB i have been able to change conf.ini and the DB files to make the campaigns more immersive,but with PF that does not work.All that i can hope for is that the next patches fix DGen in a way that it suits PF far better than it does now.I think that Dgen was altered to include carrier operations and no other consideration was made as to the specific circumstances that affect missions at the PTO.

Sharkey888
01-07-2005, 10:34 AM
As one of the "silent majority" I have to agree with most of the posts here.
Let me be a little more controversial-How about less tweaking with the FM/DM and more tweaking of the "game" itself. Meaning missions, campaigns, ground objects etc.
I think too much energy has gone into the wrong priorities in this game. I guess I mean more of a fun factor and less of an engineering factor!!

Targ
01-07-2005, 11:16 AM
I agree that the offline missions often lack a soul. This has prevented me from flying offline much and forced me online. The dogfight servers are fun but over time leave you wanting for more.
Coops are great online and many of you off-liners are missing out by not participating in those. Also there have been many online wars provided by people and squads that are a lot of fun. Flying with an organized squad in online wars is immersive and often historically correct. Granted, not a whole lot of squads endeavor to be historically correct or take the time needed to organize properly, but enough do.
However the time needed for something like this can be a problem for someone who only has an hour or so a couple of times a week to fly. I agree that it would be nice to see much more time spent on off-line play for this sim as it would help off-line play and on-line play in the long run.

CV8_Dudeness
01-07-2005, 12:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
honestly, I dont like online in HL much because its too much like "Sky Quake" really what's the point. Johnny Reb / or Baron Von in his P47/ K4 at 5000 meters waitng for you to take off so he can get a ***** by shooting you before you get speed or altitude. Whoopee.....Im laughing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
LOL

Redeyex
01-07-2005, 12:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>For many people is a ridiculous thought to have the actions of one pilot alter the course of war. When I'm talking about "dynamic campaigns" in FB I mean the creation of non-canned missions which do take effects of former missions into account (as a destroyed bridge or a damaged airfield). It does not (and IMO should not) mean the frontline has moved just because pilot A took out a tank. That's (again IMO) ludicrous. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All well and good but the simple fact that WE are flying changes history allready! What is important, at least to me, are missions that are as unpredictable as they can be within the limitations of the game. What I want is offered by DCG so my desires, wishes are covered in that regard. In that program my actions do not greatly determine the outcome. Taking out a single target doesn't win the war so to speak. It is historicly correct based on the squadrons that are based in the respective theaters but that's about it. The way the front moves, the paths of ground units will be different with each replay off the campaign. I love it and strongly recommend it to anyone wishing to enjoy an offline dynamic campaign.
I positivly hate canned missions they are so repitive I'm not going to spend my limited flying on them. This is not intended as an insult to those who make them. I'm sure they spent a lot of time and effort to make them. It's just my personal preference.

But I repeat even DCG suffers because off the limeted and, above all, dubious control over AI wingmen and the limeted amount off ground targets to pound. This is especially apparent when strategic bombers are going up. Watching B17 trying to bomb an armoured column is, for me, a real killer, it's laughable. I am aware that the origin of the game, a tactical ground attack sim, is the primary cause for this. But I do feel if that makes it impossible to do it right then don't do it at all. Now they have created expectations that are not met.

As far as online is concerned, this nailes it perfectly for me:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>However the time needed for something like this can be a problem for someone who only has an hour or so a couple of times a week to fly. I agree that it would be nice to see much more time spent on off-line play for this sim as it would help off-line play and on-line play in the long run. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Regards

Redeye

AlmightyTallest
01-07-2005, 08:04 PM
JG52Russkly, it's pretty simple, just copy and paste the following lines into your Pacific Fighters config.ini and save it.

After you put this in the config.ini, your probably going to have to restart any campaign you were doing though. It does improve the challenge though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You can set the AI percentages to anything you like, the first number "50" under the [skill] heading is the percentage of Ace pilots for the red and blue teams. The next number is the percentage for Veterans, etc.

Also, the slowfire setting is for the rate of fire for ships guns. "1" is historically accurate, but on slow machines the readme says to put it anywhere from 5 to 100. My machine doesn't have a problem with this, but in a fight over the Task Force, occasionally the Frames literally fall through the floor in a slide show... Then go right back to 30+ fps, it has to be one little thing in the code causing this problem, and I hope it can be fixed in the future.

Copy and paste the following:

[DGEN]
MaxBomberSkill=3
Distance=Any
Length=VeryLong
AI=Hard
Missions=Hard
AirIntensity=High
GroundIntensity=High
CampaignMissions=Hard
RandomFlights=5
CampaignLength=VeryLong
SlowFire=1

[Skill]
Blue:50 45 5
Red:50 45 5

Saburo_0
01-08-2005, 12:42 PM
Some interesting ideas & comments on this topic/thread over at Sim HQ

http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=127;t=000161

Oh found this it may help you improve your campaigns a little:
From Starshoy:

OK, here is the first draft.

MissionDistance= (0-300)

In FB - prefered mission distance in km
In PF - any value means that carriers are located in shorter than historical distance on maps where it is important - Hawaii, Midway, Marianas.

SlowFire=(0.5-100, default 5)

In PF only - ship rate of fire is reduced.

RandomFlights=(0-5) FB only - a maximal number of random flights.

MaxFLAK=(0-100)

FB only - maximal number of AAA en route, does not affect target area.

MaxBomberSkill=(0-3)
PF and FB - max skill level of bombers.

CampaignLength=(Long,Medium,Short,VeryShort", default VeryLong)
FB only - allows to reduce a number of missions in campaign.

CampaignDifficulty=(Hard,Normal,Easy)
FB and PF
same as simultaneously setting CampaignAI and CampaignMissions

CampaignAI=(Hard,Normal,Easy)
FB and PF changes default distribution of AI skill by modifying friendly and hostile AI levels.

CampaignMissions=(Hard,Normal,Easy)
FB and PF (no files for PF yet)
Switches to alternative set of ops files, modifying numbers of friendly and hostile flights.

OperationVictory=
OperationDefeat=

PF only
sets numbers of points after which an operation is considered success or failure, calling alternative debrief.

WarVictory=
WarDefeat=

PF only

sets numbers of points after which a war is considered won or lost calling alternative end of war missions.

NoActiveFrontline

BoE only
Removes additional units active around frontline.

NoBadWeather

FB and PF
Prevents bad weather (thunderstorm, rain, snow)

NoAirfieldHighlight

FB and PF
Removes AAA on airfields that are not used in current operation, thus preventing their highligthin on a map (giving away active airfields).

UseParkedPlanes
Murmansk only.

Player's plane initial airfield is defined by parked static planes.

UseParachutes

PF only
Allows Japanese to use chutes since start of the war.

AirIntensity=(High,Medium,Low)

Modifies group size. In PF also modifies a number of random flights.

GroundIntensity=(High,Medium,Low)

Modifies areas where moving and static targets are located. On Low only creates them around active airfields and target area. On Medium there is a limit of 3 moving targets except in target area.

x__CRASH__x
01-08-2005, 01:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flydutch:
...becuase most of the time these forums are dominated by inmature gung-ho Onliners who are only interested in Scoring and high framerates (in order to kill more with out stuttering LOL)and are often abusive towards people with other ideas or needs! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And this statement isn't abusive in what way?

I do agree with your points about the lack of things you have found in the game. But not in your sterotypical insult to the online community.

AlmightyTallest
01-09-2005, 09:26 PM
Saburo, thanks for the list, apparently some of my settings aren't doing anything then http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But others seem to be working well.

It would be great if Starshoy and Lowengrin got together and combined their powers to make some kind of super campaign engine for PF.

They'd be twice as powerful!! Twice as deadly!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I'm enjoying the stock campaign though even with some of the rough edges, hope to see more improvements to it, and perhaps Lowengrin would make a stand-alone PF campaign engine. I can't get his to work with stand alone PF. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

fabianfred
01-10-2005, 03:49 AM
I must admit to never having played on-line too....
and I have never finished a campaign from the generated ones...

i just love building misions with the FMB http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

you'll never get bored if you start fiddling with that....

they've never done much to improve that most important tool though....

I just got around to re-writing my 'one day' and 'scrambleSpitfire' mini-campaigns for PF... as they were messed up by the new FM

DmdSeeker
01-10-2005, 09:29 AM
It irritates me imensly that we we have all these planes; and no way to fly them!

Any one know how to get an Italian Fiat campaign going?

Saburo_0
01-10-2005, 09:30 AM
Would be really nice to have a recap of your career when you die or survive the war. Also a little more info when you are injured.

BSS_Goat
01-10-2005, 09:52 AM
Bump just to show I care http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

SeminoleX
01-10-2005, 12:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flydutch:


But I have never been so grumpy And was bored so Soon!

The PF sim must be A dream for Online Dogfight freaks who love some new exotic Aircraft.
But For A Hardcore WWII Airwar aficinadio like me who want's to re-live that in A sim who happens to be the best at this, I can't but just conclude PF Has been put on the market 4 months to soon!
Normaly Things are bettered whit patches becuase IL-2 productss keep Evolving!
But This Sim was raced to A Deadline in wich A lot of sacrifices seem to have been made.
Especialy on the Ofline Campaign front!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can relate. If you want historically accurate offline campaigns you are bound to be disappointed.

I began the Midway phase of a VMF-221 campaign and the first mission began escorting B-17s to try and find the Japanese carriers. The mission began at 11:00 hours on June 4. By that time 3 of the Japanese carriers were already history and there were almost no flyable Wildcats left on Midway.

It would have been so much better to have torn into Tomonaga's attack group flying either one of the few avaialble F4fs or one of the obsolete Buffalos with Red Parks.

So...I guess the best we can do is to realize we are playing nonhistorical " what if" campaigns. A mental compromise I know.

Jaurocha
01-11-2005, 04:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sharkey888:
Let me be a little more controversial-How about less tweaking with the FM/DM and more tweaking of the "game" itself. Meaning missions, campaigns, ground objects etc.
I think too much energy has gone into the wrong priorities in this game. I guess I mean more of a fun factor and less of an engineering factor!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This describe what I feel to...
At some point the develper have to stop fidle and tweak and say that this is as acurate the FM will be, now we have to concentrate on the game play.

But lately I have come to realised that this is not a game... it is a test bed for FM's.
Why?
Because of...
*al the fideling with the flight models, you have to relearn to fly your favorate plane (some like it... I find it anoying).
*the ai is good at flying (dogfight) and realy bad at the rest (4 planes circle over an airfield untill al of them are shotdown by AA, planes craching in to hillsides... do i need to go on) My point is that only the flying is worked on not the other part.
*al the obscure planes that didn't do much work in the war but is fun to play around with.
*the sound... it is not bad but it is far from good and it would do so much for the game if it was improved.
*the game interface... it chould not be that hard to do, it is not that it is an critical part of the game engin but also a thing that would improve the game (a cancel buton when I screw up the control setings, A confirmation when you delete a campagne...)
*the aroplane info part. I know it is not fun to do that part, but if you go to the plane list and almost half of the planes in the game are missing there is something that is not right.
* and the fact that much of the info that is important for the game is missing and you have to find it your self (manual gears up down, clamps, the LW sight shifting, info on diferent ordinance)

Don't get me wrong it is good. I like to just fly around just for the flying. And I find the AI enemy fun to play with. But I mostly use the QMB and more lately because I find the campagnes more boring in the later versions of the game.

My point is that the components that make a good single player game is missing and are not being worked on and the parts that is good get a lot of (to much?) work (new planes, FM).

So my most private opinion is that the developer team do the things that they think is fun, fidle with FM's, make new planes, and test them. And the parts that make the single player happy, good campagnes, non suicidal AI, good info on the objects in the game, the interface, are ignored.

It feels more like one mans toy to make planes and test them against other people in combat, and not a game for the public.
An exelent thing to play with but not a computer game.

I hope that the next product (BOB?) is a more solid game and more for the offline single player. Because if you make a game with the propertys of IL2/FB/PF and ad a new grafics engine and a good offline single player mode, you will have a product that will rule the market for the next 5 years.

JG52Russkly
01-12-2005, 04:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AlmightyTallest:
JG52Russkly, it's pretty simple, just copy and paste the following lines into your Pacific Fighters config.ini and save it.

After you put this in the config.ini, your probably going to have to restart any campaign you were doing though. It does improve the challenge though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You can set the AI percentages to anything you like, the first number "50" under the [skill] heading is the percentage of Ace pilots for the red and blue teams. The next number is the percentage for Veterans, etc.

Also, the slowfire setting is for the rate of fire for ships guns. "1" is historically accurate, but on slow machines the readme says to put it anywhere from 5 to 100. My machine doesn't have a problem with this, but in a fight over the Task Force, occasionally the Frames literally fall through the floor in a slide show... Then go right back to 30+ fps, it has to be one little thing in the code causing this problem, and I hope it can be fixed in the future.

Copy and paste the following:

[DGEN]
MaxBomberSkill=3
Distance=Any
Length=VeryLong
AI=Hard
Missions=Hard
AirIntensity=High
GroundIntensity=High
CampaignMissions=Hard
RandomFlights=5
CampaignLength=VeryLong
SlowFire=1

[Skill]
Blue:50 45 5
Red:50 45 5 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

@AlmightyTallest - Cheers, m8. Very comprehensive settings. Appreciate it. Will apply to next campaign started (currently 30-odd missions into BOE 109 campaign over Normandy in June '44).

R

BaldieJr
01-12-2005, 09:56 AM
If you use those settings and start a P40E/New Guinea campaign, be prepared to watch a slide-show.

AlmightyTallest
01-12-2005, 12:45 PM
No problem Russkly, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But BaldieJr has a point also. My system is pretty high end and I don't have many slow down problems with large battles. You'll just have to adjust some of the settings for your machine is all.

nearmiss
01-12-2005, 01:11 PM
I'm an OFFLINER http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Timing is a the most critical element in good missions. The absolute goal of any mission builder tool should be to provide objects, aircraft, etc. at the precise time the player needs them.

Mission building in IL2 - FB - AEP - PF is the same old tedious, boring job it has been since the inception of this sim.

Good mission requires too much time and effort using the current FMB. If you take the time to build a campaign it's even more time consuming. That's the biggest bug-a-boo with this sim in my opinion. The FMB is not an adequate tool.

Campaign generators will always keep the player in tight spots, stupid encounters and otherwise ill-timed situations. It is just the nature of the beast.

You want good campaigns and missions? Encourage more players to participate in human designed Mission building, and rag on Oleg until he provides the changes in the FMB tools for building immersive missions.

That's it...There are still some sites around that still have human designed missions and campaigns for download. Human designed campaigns and missions will always be a quantum leap above the campaign generator thingies.

Onliners have a different criteria, new aircraft, some objects, good graphics... They spend their time flying, positioning, shooting, keeping score and whining about the cheats. LOL

Seriously, the needs of Offliners and Onliners is a lot different.

When we get a mission builder tool like the one in CFS2 or Jane's WW2 Fighters then you'll see a great sim beyond anything we've seen to-date.

-------------- http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif