PDA

View Full Version : Modability in BoB



Aymar_Mauri
01-19-2006, 07:15 AM
In lots of games today, the ability for the user to modify certain game beahaviours is paramount to it's sucess as a sucessefull product: Half-Life 2, Rome Total War, etc...

This modability variates from full SDK kits (HL2) to spreadsheet-style files with varied caracteristics (RTW) that can be altered and fine-tuned. As an example, in RTW, all characteristics of units and buildings (as well as 3d models and textures) can be altered making it possible to build any other setting using the same battle engine.

So, I was wondering if there are any plans to increase modability of BoB in regard to IL2-FB/AEP/PF particulary in regard to plane and flight characteristics. Some interesting settings could be made modding the original BoB (WWI, Korean War, etc...)

Any reply by the developpers would be greatly apreciated as well as any comment by forum members...

Aymar_Mauri
01-19-2006, 07:15 AM
In lots of games today, the ability for the user to modify certain game beahaviours is paramount to it's sucess as a sucessefull product: Half-Life 2, Rome Total War, etc...

This modability variates from full SDK kits (HL2) to spreadsheet-style files with varied caracteristics (RTW) that can be altered and fine-tuned. As an example, in RTW, all characteristics of units and buildings (as well as 3d models and textures) can be altered making it possible to build any other setting using the same battle engine.

So, I was wondering if there are any plans to increase modability of BoB in regard to IL2-FB/AEP/PF particulary in regard to plane and flight characteristics. Some interesting settings could be made modding the original BoB (WWI, Korean War, etc...)

Any reply by the developpers would be greatly apreciated as well as any comment by forum members...

Bearcat99
01-19-2006, 07:45 AM
No...... NEVER..... EVER.

The_AirWolf
01-19-2006, 07:59 AM
*Exaggerate Mod ON*
NO! No please no, or we will be doomed! Never No NO!
*Exaggerate Mod OFF*

No, Moding or SDK are soures of unfair Competition that is my opinion.

carguy_
01-19-2006, 08:02 AM
Even if many changes in patches I do not like,I would rather see Oleg supervising all the patching process than anyone else(even Luthier).


I never flew CFS3 but I did hear users who experienced modding online.I have to say no,ever.I don`t want the game to be moddable.

IL2 is the best sim even without the modding.It doesn`t need any 3rd party modding,ONLY official 1C changes.

Many of users in this community ran away from CFS3 because of that.

I don`t want thwe game to have any modding abilities.

msalama
01-19-2006, 08:34 AM
Hey c'mon guys, this is not an either-or-situation! Check this out:

1) Encrypt the official planes to prevent reverse engineering.

2) Let each official plane have an ID string generated by 1C.

3) When a user joins an online server and selects an AC, authenticate/authorize the plane in question (i.e. check the ID string and compare it to valid IDs).

4) Either pass or fail the plane according to the response received.

Simple, no?

...except if the IDs leak out at some point... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TooCooL34
01-19-2006, 08:36 AM
NO! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

EDCF_Rama
01-19-2006, 08:40 AM
I'm for modding possibilities.... but only for:
- maps
- ground objects
- textures
- skins (as today)

I'm totally against modding possibilities in FM and DM.
(which have for result to split the community in many small ones that prefer to play with some specific mods....)

ElAurens
01-19-2006, 10:50 AM
Seems we get this request about once a quarter.


No, is the only answer.

If you feel the need to mod a game go play CFS2 or 3.

Modding sure kept those titles successful...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Skycat_2
01-19-2006, 11:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
In lots of games today, the ability for the user to modify certain game beahaviours is paramount to it's sucess as a sucessefull product: Half-Life 2, Rome Total War, etc... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is true for many games but I believe the success of the IL2/FB/PF series has been based on the paradox that it is not easily moddable. Making the developer the final approving authority has preserved the integrity of online play -- and that appeals to the core of the IL-2/FB/PF's fanbase. I think that it also increases the chance that bugs in new planes will get addressed eventually; certainly it is nice that all players are working from the same palette so to speak. In my experience with flight sims, many free mods like new planes for FS 2004 get released in a semi-finished state and if the modder ever does make an update sometimes that update (or the original) is difficult or impossible to find -- have you ever read a ReadMe document for a free mod that says something like: "To use this mod you need JoeSchmoe's excellent PlaneX model v1.6 available at his personal website and JohnSmith's panel update at Simviation ..." (my example is fictitious). It can be frustrating to chase dead links.

I'm a fan of user-made modifications also, don't get me wrong here. FB/PF has benefitted greatly by talented individuals who have been willing to submit their work to 1C:MG for possible inclusion. I'd like to believe that this has ensured that the best, most error-free material has survived the submission process ... we all know that what has been added to the series is only the tip of the iceberg on started projects but the question one must ask is why many of the WIP screens we have seen in forums have yet to appear in the game.

My understanding is that many of the rejected models simply had too many errors in the files to work properly in the game. 1C:MG used to quietly fix these behind the scenes but I think that it began to bleed away their time so they adopted a stricter submission policy. In an interview I once read, Oleg described his team as being a classroom for third-party modelers because 1C:MG gives advice on how to meet the standards. As for SDKs, the terrain building software was written in-house and Luthier had to work directly with Oleg's team to learn how to use it ... even now, only a few modelers seem to have been given access to the terrain building software and they are people (like Ian Boys) who have established themselves to 1C:MG and the IL-2/FB/PF series.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So, I was wondering if there are any plans to increase modability of BoB in regard to IL2-FB/AEP/PF particulary in regard to plane and flight characteristics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't understand this question. 1C:MG's Battle of Britain hasn't been released yet. Are you asking if BoB will be user modifiable when released, or are you asking if IL2/FP/AEP will be made user modifiable? As hard as 1C:MG is working to make a next-generation air sim with ultra-realistic flight modeling and complete airframe modeling, I highly doubt that they'll consider user-modifications to the default planes. I also think that they'll protect their flight model/physics code as tightly as they did with the IL-2 series.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Some interesting settings could be made modding the original BoB (WWI, Korean War, etc...) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No doubt. Perhaps the BoB engine will eventually be licensed out to established developers much like the IL-2/FB engine has been licensed for the "Blazing Angels: Squadrons of WWII" console game and to the developers of a WWI sim that is currently in development. The rank-and-file of the community may still be able to contribute models, etc. like they have been doing for IL-2/FB/PF but I think 1C:MG's standards will be even higher for BoB.

neural_dream
01-19-2006, 11:13 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif NO http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Longpo
01-19-2006, 11:40 AM
Having played many mods for other games I always wished that FB was abit more moddable. Being able to edit sounds springs to mind right away but it would have been cool if there was the possibility to make mods that could change the setting to something like Korea.

Low_Flyer_MkII
01-19-2006, 11:47 AM
No.

stathem
01-19-2006, 11:57 AM
Non!

csThor
01-19-2006, 12:44 PM
No go from me either. My experience with "mods" in combat flight sims tells me, that modding itself tends to overtake the flying of the sim. The boards become flooded with threads argueing about which mod/plane/whatever is the best or wh that particular one cannot be used/should be used ... In the end modding becomes the core of dealing with that game and flying (read: enjoying) the game comes second. That's not my cup of tea.

Chivas
01-19-2006, 12:53 PM
Its not only the aircraft that could be a problem doing this, the terrain could be modded to make any aircraft within 10 miles stand out like a sore thumb. There could be 100 different ways to ruin the on-line experience.

A definite NO http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Aymar_Mauri
01-19-2006, 01:32 PM
Well, I think my intention has been misunderstood. When I'm talking about modability I'm talking about 3 different things. One as Skycat_2 put it, would be the licencing of the game engine for other companies to develop other scenarios, but that is not exactly moding. Another would be to open up possibilities for people or groups of people to make new gaming situations. In RTW, I'm one of the leaders of a 60 people mod team (historical correction mod for RTW) and player's feedback has been enthusiastic to say the least. Finally, I mainly refer to offline gaming. Online gaming needs fully compatible mod releases between players to work out. That was not what I was refering to in my idea. I was refering more to alterations made for single player offline games.

On the other hand, it's quite strange that most of you have had such a negative response. In most forums about specific games, even very strict ones, most people are very open to it becasue it allows far more possibilities and nobody forces anyone to use a particular mod. With a modable game, you can use mods or stick to the official releases. It just adds options, it does not subtract them. You either have the official release (non-modable game) or the official release and the mods (modable game). It's always your choise. It's always a win-win situation. So, I really don't see your hostility towards it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skycat_2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
In lots of games today, the ability for the user to modify certain game beahaviours is paramount to it's sucess as a sucessefull product: Half-Life 2, Rome Total War, etc... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is true for many games but I believe the success of the IL2/FB/PF series has been based on the paradox that it is not easily moddable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Paradox is the word since it would ease the work of the developer's too.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skycat_2:
Making the developer the final approving authority has preserved the integrity of online play -- and that appeals to the core of the IL-2/FB/PF's fanbase. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I wasn't really refering to online playing, mainly to offline. Sorry for not being clear about this.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skycat_2:
I think that it also increases the chance that bugs in new planes will get addressed eventually; certainly it is nice that all players are working from the same palette so to speak. In my experience with flight sims, many free mods like new planes for FS 2004 get released in a semi-finished state and if the modder ever does make an update sometimes that update (or the original) is difficult or impossible to find -- have you ever read a ReadMe document for a free mod that says something like: "To use this mod you need JoeSchmoe's excellent PlaneX model v1.6 available at his personal website and JohnSmith's panel update at Simviation ..." (my example is fictitious). It can be frustrating to chase dead links. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hehehe. I see what you mean.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skycat_2:
I'm a fan of user-made modifications also, don't get me wrong here. FB/PF has benefitted greatly by talented individuals who have been willing to submit their work to 1C:MG for possible inclusion. I'd like to believe that this has ensured that the best, most error-free material has survived the submission process ... we all know that what has been added to the series is only the tip of the iceberg on started projects but the question one must ask is why many of the WIP screens we have seen in forums have yet to appear in the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, I agree that in regard to 3d models and textures the standards should be very high and at the very least up to the level of the developer's work. But you are surelly aware that there are innacuracies in the official release's aircraft, so it's not correct to think they are unfallible. Aditionally, some of those innacuracies will never be fixed by the developer due to policy, so, in this regard, final aproval by 1C/Maddox shouldn't really be compulsory.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skycat_2:
My understanding is that many of the rejected models simply had too many errors in the files to work properly in the game. 1C:MG used to quietly fix these behind the scenes but I think that it began to bleed away their time so they adopted a stricter submission policy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, that is what happens when a game is not modable like IL2. They are including third party work in a non-modable game. It seems to me that most people replying here don't really know what a modable game is. What 1C/Maddox does is to include fan's work in a non-modable game. That is not what I'm refering to.

In a modable game, all the work to mod it is made by the moders and not by the developer. The moding tools are made by the developer but that is it. End of developer intervention. It's up to the moder/s to use those tools to create content and to debug and release a fully functioning version. In fact, what moders are creating goes from a brief set of alterations to an existing game up to a new game using the developer's engine. But all responsability and intervention is of the responsability of the moder itself. So, the developer loses no time and health thinking about that. He is working on his next project and the moders (technical inclined fans) are moding the current game to create new settings. Paralel development. No hampering of time to the developer. In regard to the mod itself, it's up to the players to choose or not to download it and try it. With RTW, you can have as many versions of mods as you want. You can have the official release as well as 3-4-5... other mods in the same PC. All running over RTW's game engine.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skycat_2:
In an interview I once read, Oleg described his team as being a classroom for third-party modelers because 1C:MG gives advice on how to meet the standards. As for SDKs, the terrain building software was written in-house and Luthier had to work directly with Oleg's team to learn how to use it ... even now, only a few modelers seem to have been given access to the terrain building software and they are people (like Ian Boys) who have established themselves to 1C:MG and the IL-2/FB/PF series. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, that is all good but they are going the way of third party developers, not of fan moders. That implies working in close relation with the 1C/Maddox team. As you can read in the above reply, that was not what I was refering to.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skycat_2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
So, I was wondering if there are any plans to increase modability of BoB in regard to IL2-FB/AEP/PF particulary in regard to plane and flight characteristics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't understand this question. 1C:MG's Battle of Britain hasn't been released yet. Are you asking if BoB will be user modifiable when released, or are you asking if IL2/FP/AEP will be made user modifiable? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm asking if there are any plans to make BoB a modable game as opposed to a closed system like IL2-FB/AEP/PF. Sorry for confusing you.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skycat_2:
As hard as 1C:MG is working to make a next-generation air sim with ultra-realistic flight modeling and complete airframe modeling, I highly doubt that they'll consider user-modifications to the default planes. I also think that they'll protect their flight model/physics code as tightly as they did with the IL-2 series. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Unfortunatelly, I think you're right.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skycat_2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
Some interesting settings could be made modding the original BoB (WWI, Korean War, etc...) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No doubt. Perhaps the BoB engine will eventually be licensed out to established developers much like the IL-2/FB engine has been licensed for the "Blazing Angels: Squadrons of WWII" console game and to the developers of a WWI sim that is currently in development. The rank-and-file of the community may still be able to contribute models, etc. like they have been doing for IL-2/FB/PF but I think 1C:MG's standards will be even higher for BoB. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I hope some good developers grab the bandwagon and make other settings with the BoB engine. That woul be a breath of fresh air. But only if up to the standard of Oleg's team...

neural_dream
01-19-2006, 01:41 PM
9

carguy_
01-19-2006, 01:53 PM
I find the thread interesting.You are a candidate AFAIK to 10 of the most arguing ppl in the forum history when it comes to "mod or not to mod" question.

We`ve had threads up to 13 pages and the final result is nil.I take it you accept the challenge then.

One thing is for sure.Only some ppl know what modding really is.I don`t.All I care about is holding the online community as a one,denying ANY possibilities to scatter it around.Oleg and Ubi knew this - they let us merge FB with PF because of the obvious.

Tell me where did modding end with a good result in combat flight simming world?You can`t be serious saying that if RTCW is ok to be modded then IL2 is too.You do not compare a combat flight sim with a FPS game.


My personal amateur opinion.If we give ppl ability to mod we will see multiple 2.48ATA Me109 and bazooka powerful 50cal "realism" mods.People would surely ruin it.Why?Because at least half of the community believes in something that was not there!One guy thinks he has full evidence of P38 being @75" while other ppl are not so sure.

Now just what we need is to see a P38@75" mod to be created.1000 people like it and play their own servers,1000ppl are sure that a P38@75" is bs so they don`t install it.
Result - from 2000 ppl flying a niche game online there are two communites in 1000 each.


If Oleg Maddox says there was a P38@75" he includes it in next addon and EVERYBODY who want to play merged online ARE OBLIGED to install this particular P38 addon.You don`t want P38 missions,you don`t include P38 in your server,case closed.

Choctaw111
01-19-2006, 03:22 PM
NO WAY IN *ELL!!!! This would completely ruin the sim. Any changes or mods should be dtermined by 1C and that way everyone has the same game. Aside from the current things that we are able to change leave the rest alone.

ElAurens
01-19-2006, 03:52 PM
It is heartening to see that even though we don't always agree on many issues that revolve around the sim, we all care passionately about the overall fidelity and longevity of our little addiction.

I salute you gentlemen, good show.

S!

Low_Flyer_MkII
01-19-2006, 04:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
It is heartening to see that even though we don't always agree on many issues that revolve around the sim, we all care passionately about the overall fidelity and longevity of our little addiction.

I salute you gentlemen, good show.

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well said!

LEXX_Luthor
01-19-2006, 05:41 PM
er...I'm kinda with Aymar on this, but no totally "freely" moddable aircraft. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Oleg has proven he CAN and he WILL add any aircraft and any cockpit, any time, any place, if 3rd Party modders can do the work. Oleg is unlike other open sims where the developers rarely or never add new aircraft, but depend on independent 3rd Party fan modders to fill out the sim. The nice thing is that FB/PF is an open sim for aircraft 3D modelling, while Oleg provides the flight model. Thus, we do have an open sim for aircraft but all mods are totally official and there can be no incompatibilities for Online play.

For Offline play, unfortunately FB/PF is totally closed and is crippled by a focus on Online dogfighting. Offline players should have complete control over view controls, air combat environment (sky modding, cloud modding, stars, etc...), control over battlefield environment which allows placement of airfields where needed for campaigns, add 3rd Party ground units although these should be banned from Online play, etc...

If needed, Oleg can offer two (2) products -- Offline simulation of WW2 air warfare, Online simulation of WW2 dogfight. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I am learning that combat flight sim Devs must cripple aspects of Offline play to enable Online play, so these two must be seperated which could be sold seperately or bundled together for a higher price. $$ All benefit.

Chivas
01-19-2006, 08:25 PM
I feel for the off-liners but any kind of concession to modability will eventually effect on-line play. It won't take long for people to find a key to destroy on-line play. Having two seperate games won't matter because they both use the same engine.

LEXX_Luthor
01-19-2006, 09:11 PM
Chivas:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I feel for the off-liners but any kind of concession to modability will eventually effect on-line play. It won't take long for people to find a key to destroy on-line play. Having two seperate games won't matter because they both use the same engine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The same engine can power more than one car/truck model.

A+ for trying though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

How can anybody destroy Online play if the Online and Offline packages are incompatible? Answer?

ElAurens
01-19-2006, 09:17 PM
Lex, what you are suggestion is a total split of online and offline players. Some of us do play both you know.

Splitting the community is as bad an idea as opening the sim to modding.

We all have to play the same game, or in short order there will be no game at all.

LEXX_Luthor
01-19-2006, 09:44 PM
ElAurens:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Lex, what you are suggestion is a total split of online and offline players. Some of us do play both you know. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Countless Offline players long ago split from this sim/community for lack of Offline air warfare simulation content.

If we play both, we purchase the bundled product, and Oleg makes more money. If we play Offline only, there is no difference from Offline only players today. If we play Online only, there is no difference from Online only players today. The community stays together, and becomes much larger if Offline players have additional air war simulation content that comes from 3rd Party modding - EXCEPT AIRCRAFT MODDING http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Again, this assumes ALL aircraft recieve Oleg's flight modelling, since Oleg has proven that he is Happy to endlessly add new aircraft. Offline players who want new aircraft "mods" can fully rely on Oleg's Team to produce them.

Skycat_2
01-20-2006, 12:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
It seems to me that most people replying here don't really know what a modable game is. What 1C/Maddox does is to include fan's work in a non-modable game. That is not what I'm refering to.

In a modable game, all the work to mod it is made by the moders and not by the developer. The moding tools are made by the developer but that is it. End of developer intervention. It's up to the moder/s to use those tools to create content and to debug and release a fully functioning version. In fact, what moders are creating goes from a brief set of alterations to an existing game up to a new game using the developer's engine. But all responsability and intervention is of the responsability of the moder itself. So, the developer loses no time and health thinking about that. He is working on his next project and the moders (technical inclined fans) are moding the current game to create new settings. Paralel development. No hampering of time to the developer. In regard to the mod itself, it's up to the players to choose or not to download it and try it. With RTW, you can have as many versions of mods as you want. You can have the official release as well as 3-4-5... other mods in the same PC. All running over RTW's game engine.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Given the games you chose to use as examples of 'user moddability' (Half-Life 2 and Rome Total War) and your low post count, I wonder about your level of experience with flight simulations. Forgive me if I'm wrongly assuming that your exposure to this genre is limited to FB/PF. Many forum members here are veterans of numerous flight sims and air combat sims, and are very much aware what user-made mods are. Do not make the mistake of underestimating us in this regard.

You said that the success of simulations often depends on user modability. For the purpose of any discussion, let's keep apples with apples and oranges with oranges and only compare FB/PF with other WWII air simulations.

The Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator series is arguably the FB/PF series' closest competitor -- not because of quality but for name recognition. CFS-3, for example, practically has a monopoly on retail shelf space and thus is usually very easy to find in North America. Meanwhile, the FB/PF series has less retail exposure and I believe has been successful because of good reputation. This was no small feat to accomplish, at least in the US, especially back in 2002 when "IL-2 Sturmovik" only featured 'Nazis vs. Communists' over places our history books didn't emphasize in High School. If "IL-2 Sturmovik" not won over the praises of simmers who were already fans of "European Air War", "Jane's WWII Fighters", "Combat Flight Simulator" and other titles then there might not have been a "Forgotten Battles."

"Combat Flight Simulator 3" reflected major overhauls over CFS-2 that I believe were influenced by "IL-2 Sturmovik", and it was released only weeks before Forgotten Battles." By all logic CFS-3 should have cleaned FB's clock: Microsoft had a loyal following of CFS and FS fans; the CFS series is easily moddable; the core content of RAF, USA and Luftwaffe aircraft was presumably more appealing to Westerners than 'Soviets vs. Finland' and other Eastern scenarios. However, in the air simming community (where it really matters in my opinion), CFS-3 fell flat immediately upon release. In my recent memory only "Jane's Attack Squadron" got a worse reception.

Has moddability 'saved' CFS-3, at least in the eyes of air simmers (those folks who would actually take the time to search out and visit forums to learn about, sort and install user-made mod packages)? Let's consider the large body of mods available for it after three years:
- The recent WWI total mod Over Flanders Field (http://off.oldbrowndog.net/) has generated new interest in CFS-3, which you need as a base for this WWI mod. While the first release is freeware, future OFF updates will be payware it seems.
- The freeware Korean Theater Construction Set (http://www.netwings.org/library/CFS3%5FKorea/) package attempts to make CFS-3 into the Korean War. An unfinished total mod in my opinion that appears to to have been abandoned as a project.
- A Mediterranean Air War (http://www.medairwar.com/) total mod for CFS-3 is soon to be released.
- Sim-Outhouse's page of free stand-alone mods (http://www.sim-outhouse.com/index.php?loc=combatfs/pages&page=downloads_cfs3) like new aircraft for CFS-3.
- Netwing's page of mods (http://www.netwings.org/library/) for CFS-3 and other sims.
- AvHistory.org (http://www.avhistory.org/) advertises highly realistic flight models with their freeware aircraft model packages.
- GhostPony (http://theghostfiles.org/) was an early SFX and scenery modder for CFS-3. His work made the game tolerable after it was first released.
- Shockwave's commercial addon FirePower (http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/firepower/) adds a long list of new flyables to the basic CFS-3, plus improves the special effects.
- JustFlight.com carries several CFS-3 payware addon packs including "Battle of Britain" and "Memphis Belle" packs.

This list makes it seem that CFS-3 has a large fan base; perhaps it does. I think most serious WWII air simmers still view it as a second-rate release that is only marginally improved by mods. At the very least, CFS-3 is a vehicle that is open to modders, if that is your inclination. Install it and mod it to your heart's content.

Similarly, there are modding communities for most other WWII air sims that have been released in the last 8 years. Some, like "European Air War" still enjoy a large fan base even though the sim was released in 1998 and wasn't supported with SDKs, etc. Others like the "Jane's Attack Squadron" community dissolved fairly quickly despite free developer tools ... maybe modders simply enjoy 'cracking' source codes and solving puzzles?

- Jane's WWII Fighters (http://ww2fighters.org/) modding community ... although I think there are only about 10 people in the whole world who still actively make models and skins for this 1998 sim.
- Sandbagger's EAW site (http://www.sandbaggereaw.com/home.html) for European Air War is a good place to start for mods for that game.
- "Fighter Squadron: Screamin' Demons Over Europe" (1998) keeps plugging along with sites like The Last of Many (http://lastofthemany.co.uk/home/modules/news/) and the OpenPlane (http://www.fsww1.com/) WWI mod.
- The Battle of Britain/MiG Alley development group (www.bob-ma.org) has been improving on "Rowan's Battle of Britain" for years, and I think their work was incorporated into Shockwave's recent "BoB II: Wings of Victory."

There are or have been numerous other mod communities for these and other sims; there are plenty of opportunities for modders to 'get under the hood' and mess around with a WWII air combat sim if they wish to. So what if FB/PF requires interaction with the developers in order to implement user-made new models ... is that really so bad? Granted, some of the planes that have been incorporated into FB/PF still aren't perfect and not all bugs/community complaints have been addressed ... but at least everything in IL-2/FB/PF is compatible to the total program. I still believe the cream of third-party mods rises to the top by surviving the through the submission process and that was the point I was trying to make in my first response. Finally, FB/PF isn't completely 'closed' to modders; the ability to make repaint skins has always been a feature that is supported with open folders and void templates, and after "IL-2 Sturmovik" v1.2ov new speech packs can be implemented. The community has created improved awards packages and new aircraft insignia files along with utilities like Lowengrin's Dynamic Campaign Generator, Demon's UberQuick Mission Generator and Aces_High's IL-2 Mat Manager. I think it is safe to assume that Oleg's BoB will also allow some user customization.

My personal experience with adding mods to CFS-3 and other air sims is that:
1) Only about 1 in 5 of all mods are worth a darn; payware is usually better than freeware but both categories are fraught with disappointments. I've immediately uninstalled probably hundreds of freeware planes for FS 98, FS 2004, CFS, CFS-2, CFS-3, etc. only mere seconds after seeing what their cockpits look like in-game. The least controversial mods simply recycle pits from default planes while some packages I've downloaded haven't had any cockpits at all.
2) A large body of mods gives the user some fresh options but it can also be overwhelming to newcomers. Also, its the newcomers who would be spending the money for new copies of the basic sim in order to enjoy mods and total mod packages they see. If Oleg opened FB/PF's structure to modders today and a Korean War mod was completed for it in six months, would that significantly boost sales among folks who have yet to buy into FB/PF despite its longstanding good reputation among air combat simmers? Is it profitable for UbiSoft and 1C:MG to even consider making FB/PF moddable?
3) Single mods are typically unregulated and often conflict with other elements of the simulation or with other mods previously installed to the game. Tweaking games is fun but you have to assume the risk that any mod you add will cause partial or total failure of the simulation. If you've ever had to uninstall and then reinstall a sim because freeware mods have corrupted the program, you know what I mean.

In some ways I find it refreshing to have a sim like FB/PF that survives on its own merits instead of simply serving as a mod horse for pet projects. I think that is one of the reasons people have voiced their disapproval for FB/PF/BoB being made moddable: they also have had previous experience in sims that have been cracked or made open to modders. Installing new mods can become an obsession that increasingly distracts players from appreciating the sim just as it is. I don't know, maybe the ability to add user-made planes and cockpits would solve some blanket FB/PF complaints, like the recurring requests for flyable heavy bombers and torpedo bombers -- assuming that somebody could interpret the code to implement the features unique to these planes. On the other hand I recognize that FB/PF has been successful despite not being moddable ... or maybe because of that. The series has a strong fan base and is consistantly the leading air combat sim at the multiplayer server Hyperlobby (http://hyperfighter.sk/) by a wide margin ... Oleg must be doing something right.

Finally, this discussion is a non-issue for Oleg's BoB because it simply won't be released as moddable. That would interfere with the businees plan to develop targetted addons for BoB. What would stop modders from developing a North Africa theater before 1C:MG can develop its own version?

Just my thoughts. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kapteeni
01-20-2006, 12:26 AM
I say no to anything else, but mapmaking tools+ static objects big YES. Seriously, i think that better FMB will do, if we can have at beginnig even small maps for mountains, winter, jungle,desert, urban areas... with good looking static objects
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gifIMMERSION BABY! (Bearcat) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

ElAurens
01-20-2006, 05:22 AM
Great post Skycat!!!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Aymar_Mauri
01-20-2006, 05:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
I find the thread interesting.You are a candidate AFAIK to 10 of the most arguing ppl in the forum history when it comes to "mod or not to mod" question. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Is the justification that extensive? Just posting my point of view.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
We`ve had threads up to 13 pages and the final result is nil. I take it you accept the challenge then.

One thing is for sure.Only some ppl know what modding really is. I don`t. All I care about is holding the online community as a one,denying ANY possibilities to scatter it around. Oleg and Ubi knew this - they let us merge FB with PF because of the obvious. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, what about the offline players? I am one of them. I never play online because I can't really afford the time and the addiction. Online gaming has caused me some work problems in the past.

It would be very good if offline players with an inclination for history (like me) could tune the machines to fit as closely as possible to historical accounts. To correct the innacuracies in the aircraft FM that have been made due to online gameplay balance between teams...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
Tell me where did modding end with a good result in combat flight simming world? You can`t be serious saying that if RTCW is ok to be modded then IL2 is too.You do not compare a combat flight sim with a FPS game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have little idea if it worked or not before. And I'm not refering to RTCW but to RTW (Rome Total War) which is a hybrid turn-based RTS historical game set in Europe, Midle-East and North Africa between 273BC and 14AD. Lots of mods have been made for it with the most varied settings. From historical corrections to LOTR mods. The mods are the biggest reason to keep playing that game.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
My personal amateur opinion.If we give ppl ability to mod we will see multiple 2.48ATA Me109 and bazooka powerful 50cal "realism" mods. People would surely ruin it. Why?Because at least half of the community believes in something that was not there! One guy thinks he has full evidence of P38 being @75" while other ppl are not so sure.

Now just what we need is to see a P38@75" mod to be created.1000 people like it and play their own servers,1000ppl are sure that a P38@75" is bs so they don`t install it.
Result - from 2000 ppl flying a niche game online there are two communites in 1000 each. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have said this and I will say it again. Offline gaming is the main thing I'm talking about. What is the problem with personal mods if the user only uses them in offline gaming?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
If Oleg Maddox says there was a P38@75" he includes it in next addon and EVERYBODY who want to play merged online ARE OBLIGED to install this particular P38 addon.You don`t want P38 missions,you don`t include P38 in your server,case closed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I understand that his dedication is the reason for trusting in him, but Oleg isn't omniscient and he isn't right all the time. I know it and I'm not the only one. I and many others have plenty of data that tells me that many planes are way off of what they should perform. So, why not a modable FM spreadsheet file that can only be used in offline personal mods?

Aymar_Mauri
01-20-2006, 05:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
er...I'm kinda with Aymar on this, but no totally "freely" moddable aircraft. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks for the support. I was feeling kind of lonely... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Oleg has proven he CAN and he WILL add any aircraft and any cockpit, any time, any place, if 3rd Party modders can do the work. Oleg is unlike other open sims where the developers rarely or never add new aircraft, but depend on independent 3rd Party fan modders to fill out the sim. The nice thing is that FB/PF is an open sim for aircraft 3D modelling, while Oleg provides the flight model. Thus, we do have an open sim for aircraft but all mods are totally official and there can be no incompatibilities for Online play.

For Offline play, unfortunately FB/PF is totally closed and is crippled by a focus on Online dogfighting. Offline players should have complete control over view controls, air combat environment (sky modding, cloud modding, stars, etc...), control over battlefield environment which allows placement of airfields where needed for campaigns, add 3rd Party ground units although these should be banned from Online play, etc... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactly my point. Well put. And let's not forget the aircraft's FM. This possibility would avoid a lot of unhealthy discussions about FM, planes, etc... as well as making the job easier for the developer due to a decrease of conflictuos posts about aircraft characteristics.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
If needed, Oleg can offer two (2) products -- Offline simulation of WW2 air warfare, Online simulation of WW2 dogfight. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I am learning that combat flight sim Devs must cripple aspects of Offline play to enable Online play, so these two must be seperated which could be sold seperately or bundled together for a higher price. $$ All benefit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm all for it. There would be no longer need to make concetions to anything in the game. It would be the best of both worlds and would avoid a lot of trouble for the players and developers as well as allowing a faster development cycle for 1C:Maddox's games.

Aymar_Mauri
01-20-2006, 06:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chivas:
I feel for the off-liners but any kind of concession to modability will eventually effect on-line play. It won't take long for people to find a key to destroy on-line play. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm sorry to say it, but you are way off. A personal offline mod can never be used online. And a popular team mod seldom. That happens with Rome Total War mods. When connecting online, the game, for all computers logging in to the server, checks itself by comparing modable files to see if they are compatible versions. They read the code line by line and refuse connection to any computer that does not have a compatible version. So, you can only play a particular mod if all the players connecting to that server have that mod installed and the server has the same code. That only happens when those people create their own server. Never can a mod be played on official release servers. There is no way in hell any modder could upset online gaming with this system because it is impossible.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chivas:
Having two seperate games won't matter because they both use the same engine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, you're a bit confused. Using the same engine does not imply any concetion if things are made correctly. Having two different sets of files for FMs can make any differences we want in each of the games (Online MP and Offline SP)without making anything incompatible. In fact, it can be the same game but with different inicialization FMs. So, they have the same graphics and physics engine, just different initial data for aircraft. It would make a world of difference online and offline.

Aymar_Mauri
01-20-2006, 06:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
Lex, what you are suggestion is a total split of online and offline players. Some of us do play both you know.

Splitting the community is as bad an idea as opening the sim to modding.

We all have to play the same game, or in short order there will be no game at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wrong. Read my previous post.

Aymar_Mauri
01-20-2006, 06:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
ElAurens:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Lex, what you are suggestion is a total split of online and offline players. Some of us do play both you know. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Countless Offline players long ago split from this sim/community for lack of Offline air warfare simulation content.

If we play both, we purchase the bundled product, and Oleg makes more money. If we play Offline only, there is no difference from Offline only players today. If we play Online only, there is no difference from Online only players today. The community stays together, and becomes much larger if Offline players have additional air war simulation content that comes from 3rd Party modding - EXCEPT AIRCRAFT MODDING http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Again, this assumes ALL aircraft recieve Oleg's flight modelling, since Oleg has proven that he is Happy to endlessly add new aircraft. Offline players who want new aircraft "mods" can fully rely on Oleg's Team to produce them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactly. Well put. There is no technical reason stoping the developer to implement this system. And there would be no community split, only more offline buyers.

carguy_
01-20-2006, 07:31 AM
Here we go http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
Is the justification that extensive? Just posting my point of view. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldn`t call it justification.More like there will always be somebody who will try to ruin the show.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
We`ve had threads up to 13 pages and the final result is nil. I take it you accept the challenge then.

[QUOTE]
Well, what about the offline players? I am one of them. I never play online because I can't really afford the time and the addiction. Online gaming has caused me some work problems in the past. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I fully agree.It would be great to desync 50cal,change the whole viewing system and pump up heavy wingloaded planes performance for offline campaign.The game lack very much in terms of offline play.I for one would like a save option during mission.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
It would be very good if offline players with an inclination for history (like me) could tune the machines to fit as closely as possible to historical accounts. To correct the innacuracies in the aircraft FM that have been made due to online gameplay balance between teams... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A bit troubled here.Discussions that this forum shows are proof that there is no right setting.In this case,everyone can make Mustang perform like P80 but they will be sure its historical.

Yeah I know,personal offline play only.I don`t think so.THere are lots of talented guys that could be able to crack the code to apply all of their historical changes into online play.As a guy who knows nothing bout computer science I don`t believe that there is no way to prevent it.IMO if Oleg opens the code,online play soon blossoms with implemented mods.There is always a way.While we have a closed code,there is far smaller possibility of ruining online play.
As an online player,I care for online competition.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I have little idea if it worked or not before. And I'm not refering to RTCW but to RTW (Rome Total War) which is a hybrid turn-based RTS historical game set in Europe, Midle-East and North Africa between 273BC and 14AD. Lots of mods have been made for it with the most varied settings. From historical corrections to LOTR mods. The mods are the biggest reason to keep playing that game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ooops,my bad,sorry.You did say that you don`t know if it worked before though.CFS is an example that shows modding does not work with sim that is also played online.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I have said this and I will say it again. Offline gaming is the main thing I'm talking about. What is the problem with personal mods if the user only uses them in offline gaming? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no problem.You have a right as a customer to do things with your bought software.Ok maybe ok but you don`t know if it could influence my experience with the game.Online experience.I object that possibility.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I understand that his dedication is the reason for trusting in him, but Oleg isn't omniscient and he isn't right all the time. I know it and I'm not the only one. I and many others have plenty of data that tells me that many planes are way off of what they should perform. So, why not a modable FM spreadsheet file that can only be used in offline personal mods? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It`s obvious Oleg made few VERY BIG mistakes in the sim development and even more small mistakes.It doesn`t change the fact that the sim is still the best game I have ever played.EVER.No sim ever game me a constant 3year amusement.His policy proved to be only right.Online is getting better and better,offline too.As I said I`m an online player.As long as I`m sure that those planes have similar flight characteristics to those real planes then I`m willing to keep the status quo.

Plenty of data that some planes are way off?You mean the type of data TAGERT keeps posting bout the P38?Your personal FM/DM change will be always subjective,never really proved.Oleg keeps a hold of things and I`m sure that the guy playing on the net with me has the very same game.That counts!


Main point.There`s always a will.We have few squads that constantly fiddle with the sim to exploit.They don`t care if they win by fair play or not.They want to win at all costs.

If Oleg opens the code to the public,we have offline moddable IL2.Exaple of guys from those squads which names I can`t say here make me pretty sure that there would quickly appear online mods that would ruin it.

Aymar_Mauri
01-20-2006, 08:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skycat_2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
It seems to me that most people replying here don't really know what a modable game is. What 1C/Maddox does is to include fan's work in a non-modable game. That is not what I'm refering to.

In a modable game, all the work to mod it is made by the moders and not by the developer. The moding tools are made by the developer but that is it. End of developer intervention. It's up to the moder/s to use those tools to create content and to debug and release a fully functioning version. In fact, what moders are creating goes from a brief set of alterations to an existing game up to a new game using the developer's engine. But all responsability and intervention is of the responsability of the moder itself. So, the developer loses no time and health thinking about that. He is working on his next project and the moders (technical inclined fans) are moding the current game to create new settings. Paralel development. No hampering of time to the developer. In regard to the mod itself, it's up to the players to choose or not to download it and try it. With RTW, you can have as many versions of mods as you want. You can have the official release as well as 3-4-5... other mods in the same PC. All running over RTW's game engine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Given the games you chose to use as examples of 'user moddability' (Half-Life 2 and Rome Total War) and your low post count, I wonder about your level of experience with flight simulations. Forgive me if I'm wrongly assuming that your exposure to this genre is limited to FB/PF. Many forum members here are veterans of numerous flight sims and air combat sims, and are very much aware what user-made mods are. Do not make the mistake of underestimating us in this regard. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, I've been playing sims since the likes of F15:Strike Eagle, Comanche: Maximum Overkill, Chuck Yeager Air Combat, Aces of the Pacific, EAW, WWII Fighters, etc...

Regarding modding, yes. I do not have a lot of experience moding simulators. Strategy games, yes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skycat_2:
You said that the success of simulations often depends on user modability. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry, but no. I said the success of games often depends on modability.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skycat_2:
For the purpose of any discussion, let's keep apples with apples and oranges with oranges and only compare FB/PF with other WWII air simulations. The Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator series is arguably the FB/PF series' closest competitor -- not because of quality but for name recognition. CFS-3, for example, practically has a monopoly on retail shelf space and thus is usually very easy to find in North America. Meanwhile, the FB/PF series has less retail exposure and I believe has been successful because of good reputation. This was no small feat to accomplish, at least in the US, especially back in 2002 when "IL-2 Sturmovik" only featured 'Nazis vs. Communists' over places our history books didn't emphasize in High School. If "IL-2 Sturmovik" not won over the praises of simmers who were already fans of "European Air War", "Jane's WWII Fighters", "Combat Flight Simulator" and other titles then there might not have been a "Forgotten Battles."

"Combat Flight Simulator 3" reflected major overhauls over CFS-2 that I believe were influenced by "IL-2 Sturmovik", and it was released only weeks before Forgotten Battles." By all logic CFS-3 should have cleaned FB's clock: Microsoft had a loyal following of CFS and FS fans; the CFS series is easily moddable; the core content of RAF, USA and Luftwaffe aircraft was presumably more appealing to Westerners than 'Soviets vs. Finland' and other Eastern scenarios. However, in the air simming community (where it really matters in my opinion), CFS-3 fell flat immediately upon release. In my recent memory only "Jane's Attack Squadron" got a worse reception.

Has moddability 'saved' CFS-3, at least in the eyes of air simmers (those folks who would actually take the time to search out and visit forums to learn about, sort and install user-made mod packages)? Let's consider the large body of mods available for it after three years:
- The recent WWI total mod Over Flanders Field (http://off.oldbrowndog.net/) has generated new interest in CFS-3, which you need as a base for this WWI mod. While the first release is freeware, future OFF updates will be payware it seems.
- The freeware Korean Theater Construction Set (http://www.netwings.org/library/CFS3%5FKorea/) package attempts to make CFS-3 into the Korean War. An unfinished total mod in my opinion that appears to to have been abandoned as a project.
- A Mediterranean Air War (http://www.medairwar.com/) total mod for CFS-3 is soon to be released.
- Sim-Outhouse's page of free stand-alone mods (http://www.sim-outhouse.com/index.php?loc=combatfs/pages&page=downloads_cfs3) like new aircraft for CFS-3.
- Netwing's page of mods (http://www.netwings.org/library/) for CFS-3 and other sims.
- AvHistory.org (http://www.avhistory.org/) advertises highly realistic flight models with their freeware aircraft model packages.
- GhostPony (http://theghostfiles.org/) was an early SFX and scenery modder for CFS-3. His work made the game tolerable after it was first released.
- Shockwave's commercial addon FirePower (http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/firepower/) adds a long list of new flyables to the basic CFS-3, plus improves the special effects.
- JustFlight.com carries several CFS-3 payware addon packs including "Battle of Britain" and "Memphis Belle" packs.

This list makes it seem that CFS-3 has a large fan base; perhaps it does. I think most serious WWII air simmers still view it as a second-rate release that is only marginally improved by mods. At the very least, CFS-3 is a vehicle that is open to modders, if that is your inclination. Install it and mod it to your heart's content. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I see your point, but I don't like Microsoft products. Much less games...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skycat_2:
Similarly, there are modding communities for most other WWII air sims that have been released in the last 8 years. Some, like "European Air War" still enjoy a large fan base even though the sim was released in 1998 and wasn't supported with SDKs, etc. Others like the "Jane's Attack Squadron" community dissolved fairly quickly despite free developer tools ... maybe modders simply enjoy 'cracking' source codes and solving puzzles?

- Jane's WWII Fighters (http://ww2fighters.org/) modding community ... although I think there are only about 10 people in the whole world who still actively make models and skins for this 1998 sim.
- Sandbagger's EAW site (http://www.sandbaggereaw.com/home.html) for European Air War is a good place to start for mods for that game.
- "Fighter Squadron: Screamin' Demons Over Europe" (1998) keeps plugging along with sites like The Last of Many (http://lastofthemany.co.uk/home/modules/news/) and the OpenPlane (http://www.fsww1.com/) WWI mod.
- The Battle of Britain/MiG Alley development group (www.bob-ma.org) has been improving on "Rowan's Battle of Britain" for years, and I think their work was incorporated into Shockwave's recent "BoB II: Wings of Victory." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Problem is: Why choose them if most are old platforms for development and the best one now is IL2/AEP/PF?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skycat_2:
There are or have been numerous other mod communities for these and other sims; there are plenty of opportunities for modders to 'get under the hood' and mess around with a WWII air combat sim if they wish to. So what if FB/PF requires interaction with the developers in order to implement user-made new models ... is that really so bad? Granted, some of the planes that have been incorporated into FB/PF still aren't perfect and not all bugs/community complaints have been addressed ... but at least everything in IL-2/FB/PF is compatible to the total program. I still believe the cream of third-party mods rises to the top by surviving the through the submission process and that was the point I was trying to make in my first response. Finally, FB/PF isn't completely 'closed' to modders; the ability to make repaint skins has always been a feature that is supported with open folders and void templates, and after "IL-2 Sturmovik" v1.2ov new speech packs can be implemented. The community has created improved awards packages and new aircraft insignia files along with utilities like Lowengrin's Dynamic Campaign Generator, Demon's UberQuick Mission Generator and Aces_High's IL-2 Mat Manager. I think it is safe to assume that Oleg's BoB will also allow some user customization. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think that the most necessary things lacking in FB/AEP/PF are more official campaign missions in several different placings (Western Front, North Africa), more varied offline maps and a modable FM file for offline campaigning.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skycat_2:
My personal experience with adding mods to CFS-3 and other air sims is that:
1) Only about 1 in 5 of all mods are worth a darn; payware is usually better than freeware but both categories are fraught with disappointments. I've immediately uninstalled probably hundreds of freeware planes for FS 98, FS 2004, CFS, CFS-2, CFS-3, etc. only mere seconds after seeing what their cockpits look like in-game. The least controversial mods simply recycle pits from default planes while some packages I've downloaded haven't had any cockpits at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
True. I have that experience too. But when I mod is to achieve and surpass, if possible, official standards. Too bad most moders don't think like that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skycat_2:
2) A large body of mods gives the user some fresh options but it can also be overwhelming to newcomers. Also, its the newcomers who would be spending the money for new copies of the basic sim in order to enjoy mods and total mod packages they see. If Oleg opened FB/PF's structure to modders today and a Korean War mod was completed for it in six months, would that significantly boost sales among folks who have yet to buy into FB/PF despite its longstanding good reputation among air combat simmers? Is it profitable for UbiSoft and 1C:MG to even consider making FB/PF moddable? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Being totally honest, you bet it would. They would get a lot more sales than most people think right from the beggining. And the most important factor would be increase longevity because of new settings, scenarios, planes, etc. If the moding community around the game was great enough it would boost sales over a more extended period of time too.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skycat_2:
3) Single mods are typically unregulated and often conflict with other elements of the simulation or with other mods previously installed to the game. Tweaking games is fun but you have to assume the risk that any mod you add will cause partial or total failure of the simulation. If you've ever had to uninstall and then reinstall a sim because freeware mods have corrupted the program, you know what I mean. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, unless they are official releases, mods should really be put in to different instalations of the game. This avoids build up of overlapping bugs and CTDs. That is standard procedure.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skycat_2:
In some ways I find it refreshing to have a sim like FB/PF that survives on its own merits instead of simply serving as a mod horse for pet projects. I think that is one of the reasons people have voiced their disapproval for FB/PF/BoB being made moddable: they also have had previous experience in sims that have been cracked or made open to modders. Installing new mods can become an obsession that increasingly distracts players from appreciating the sim just as it is. I don't know, maybe the ability to add user-made planes and cockpits would solve some blanket FB/PF complaints, like the recurring requests for flyable heavy bombers and torpedo bombers -- assuming that somebody could interpret the code to implement the features unique to these planes. On the other hand I recognize that FB/PF has been successful despite not being moddable ... or maybe because of that. The series has a strong fan base and is consistantly the leading air combat sim at the multiplayer server Hyperlobby (http://hyperfighter.sk/) by a wide margin ... Oleg must be doing something right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Of course Oleg is doing many things right. I wouldn't even be here discussing this if he was making many things wrong. My qwirck is about the things he an his team do wrong on ocasion. The series has been successeful because the technical ability and historical interest is in the developer's mind (contrary to many other games where just profit is the motor), not because of modability or not. The series sucessess has to do with competence and passion and not about modability.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skycat_2:
Finally, this discussion is a non-issue for Oleg's BoB because it simply won't be released as moddable. That would interfere with the businees plan to develop targetted addons for BoB. What would stop modders from developing a North Africa theater before 1C:MG can develop its own version? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oleg's team. We can't compare amateur modders, no matter how good they are, with a fully experienced large professional team like Oleg's one. It's like comparing the maximum take off weight of an AN-225 Myria with the one of an ultra-light plane.

And besides, with an official North African theater add-on coming, no moder would dare to start working on that setting. Moders only work on alternative non-existant material, be it campaigns, planes, maps, etc. No one wants duplicate work and no one really wants to be put to shame by the possibility of it's work being compared to the developer's work.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skycat_2:
Just my thoughts. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Just mine too... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BTW, good post. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

csThor
01-20-2006, 08:27 AM
Again to make my point:

I am an Offline player. I don't play Online anymore since I found the overwhelming dogfight-this-dogfight-that mindset hampering when seeking a halfway reasonable recreation of WW2. At least the AI - no matter how flawed it is - won't b*tch and moan about flying bombers, ground pounders and transports.

So what does that have to do with Modding and Offline play? A lot - at least for me.

1.) Even if people are aware of it or not - user mods (planes, FM/DM) are always biased towards either side. Everyone has a certain expectation of how plane X should perform - no matter if that expectation has any resemblence to reality or if it's simply a product of overgrown myths and ego issues.

2.) Modding itself often becomes more important than the game they're made for. The way I see it the CFS line was never about a serious representation of WW2 air combat but about giving the tweakers and modders a sandbox to play in. That's what the CFS line is "famous" (some would say notorious) for - mods and not gameplay.

3.) I have two personal experiences with games that have been "destroyed" by modding - Panzer Elite and EAW.
The former was fun offline and online while there were no or very few mods. It could be played without hazzles until the myriads of mods appeared. The final nail to the coffin of PE was me trying to run an Eastern Front campaign, but when I looked at the list of stuff I had to download for it I simply uninstalled the program and threw it into the "Rest in Peace" corner of my cupboard.
EAW went the same way, but here it was the endless arguments about which modded FM was the best. Same goes for a number of missions/campaign mods which required a myriad of plane downloads and other stuff to run.

I want to play the game and not spent half of my online time searching and downloading stuff to run one thing!

In fact the only two games I've been playing for any longer time were closed ones - Warbirds (was fun while it lasted) and the Il-2 line.

Aymar_Mauri
01-20-2006, 09:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
Here we go http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here we go where?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
Is the justification that extensive? Just posting my point of view. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I wouldn`t call it justification.More like there will always be somebody who will try to ruin the show. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So, I'm trying to ruin the show? My idea was to suggest a solution to some problems and ask oppinions about it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
We`ve had threads up to 13 pages and the final result is nil. I take it you accept the challenge then. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, what about the offline players? I am one of them. I never play online because I can't really afford the time and the addiction. Online gaming has caused me some work problems in the past. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I fully agree.It would be great to desync 50cal, change the whole viewing system and pump up heavy wingloaded planes performance for offline campaign. The game lacks very much in terms of offline play. I for one would like a save option during mission. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, glad you see my point. I would be content just with a modable aircraft FM file. I really don't need mission save option.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
It would be very good if offline players with an inclination for history (like me) could tune the machines to fit as closely as possible to historical accounts. To correct the innacuracies in the aircraft FM that have been made due to online gameplay balance between teams... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
A bit troubled here.Discussions that this forum shows are proof that there is no right setting. In this case, everyone can make Mustang perform like P80 but they will be sure its historical. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Beg to differ. There is only one setting that works. The setting that makes planes behave exactly as they did at the time and for that we have to make side-by-side comparations of all aircraft. Tedious, boring, extensive, but possible. It's not just imput the FM values we think are correct and think the results are always right. The game engine might produce unexpected results. And please, do not tell me that there are various sides for the data and that one person is right in saying a P51 is a P80, etc. That is incorrect and everybody knows it, but biased people are everywhere. What we need is to achieve flight characteristics for every version of every plane that concurr with the most faithfull historical records. If we have to change values in the FM to compensate, even when it seems illogical, we must. Many times the game engines don't take in to consideration all aspects and, therefore, produce results that are different from reality.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
Yeah I know, personal offline play only. I don`t think so. There are lots of talented guys that could be able to crack the code to apply all of their historical changes into online play. As a guy who knows nothing bout computer science I don`t believe that there is no way to prevent it. IMO if Oleg opens the code,online play soon blossoms with implemented mods. There is always a way.While we have a closed code, there is far smaller possibility of ruining online play. As an online player,I care for online competition. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
We are not talking about encryption keys or computer hacking. We are talking about a procedure that searches for compatible versions of the game. Any alteration to the game code is always detected and impedes online gaming. Read what I've answered in regard to RTW's online detection method.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
I have little idea if it worked or not before. And I'm not refering to RTCW but to RTW (Rome Total War) which is a hybrid turn-based RTS historical game set in Europe, Midle-East and North Africa between 273BC and 14AD. Lots of mods have been made for it with the most varied settings. From historical corrections to LOTR mods. The mods are the biggest reason to keep playing that game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ooops, my bad, sorry. You did say that you don`t know if it worked before though. CFS is an example that shows modding does not work with sim that is also played online. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, one example does not make a rule... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
I have said this and I will say it again. Offline gaming is the main thing I'm talking about. What is the problem with personal mods if the user only uses them in offline gaming? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
There is no problem. You have a right as a customer to do things with your bought software. Ok maybe ok but you don`t know if it could influence my experience with the game. Online experience. I object that possibility. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
How can it influence your online experience? By moding the game I'm detaching myself from any other gamer because our play versions will be incompatible. It's like when there was no internet. If I try Multiplayer the game refuses to join because there is no compatibility beetween my version and all the others.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
I understand that his dedication is the reason for trusting in him, but Oleg isn't omniscient and he isn't right all the time. I know it and I'm not the only one. I and many others have plenty of data that tells me that many planes are way off of what they should perform. So, why not a modable FM spreadsheet file that can only be used in offline personal mods? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It`s obvious Oleg made few VERY BIG mistakes in the sim development and even more small mistakes. It doesn`t change the fact that the sim is still the best game I have ever played. EVER. No sim ever game me a constant 3year amusement. His policy proved to be only right. Online is getting better and better, offline too. As I said I`m an online player. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, it's the best combat sim ever. But games are always improving. And, once again, I state the fact that it's the best combat sim NOT because of moding or no-moding policy (it has little to do with it) but because of Oleg and his team's technical ability, dedication and historical interest.

I don't know about FB/AEP/PF online gaming getting better or worse, but I do certainly not agree with you regarding offline gaming. It really does not appeal to players after a while and it soon becomes a turn-off...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
As long as I`m sure that those planes have similar flight characteristics to those real planes then I`m willing to keep the status quo. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Problem is. Some don't have them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
Plenty of data that some planes are way off? You mean the type of data TAGERT keeps posting bout the P38? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Up until today I did not know who TAGERT was...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
Your personal FM/DM change will be always subjective, never really proved. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, it won't. Historical data has certain limits to interpretation. Some people you are talking about have no concept of those, don't care for them or are biased toward a plane or country. I'm not, since:

1) There isn't a single plane I do not like to fly.
2) My country was neutral in WW2, therefore there is no prefered ideology to influence me, and since it never produced planes by itself, rellying on planes bought from several countries, I have no favoritism regarding a particular country's planes.
3) Since a small age I am interested in history and accurate representation is paramount to me.

So, the limits of historical interpretation are just that: limits that do not allow for much liniency or disparate variations. Therefore, it is not subjective at all.

Besides, I have the knowledge and data to be certain about some of the inacuracies shown in-game. What I don't know I make sure not to change and consider it accurate until (and only if there is) reliable, confirmable data that proves otherwise. It is not a matter of oppinion, it's a matter of thourough research.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
Oleg keeps a hold of things and I`m sure that the guy playing on the net with me has the very same game. That counts! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, it does. For online play...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
Main point. There`s always a will. We have few squads that constantly fiddle with the sim to exploit. They don`t care if they win by fair play or not. They want to win at all costs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Since I'm refering to offline, this has little to do with the subject at hand.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
If Oleg opens the code to the public, we have offline moddable IL2. Exaple of guys from those squads which names I can`t say here make me pretty sure that there would quickly appear online mods that would ruin it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No. I don't believe that can happen anytime. For all the reasons I posted previously.

KOM.Nausicaa
01-20-2006, 10:31 AM
I was for 3 years in the CFS3 modders community.
What Thor and Skycat say is exactly how it was.
My problem was that I wanted to play online campaigns and got into download and compability hell. The modders dont care for these problems because they are 90% hardcore offliners, and they even barely play the game at all...many spent hours to mod it though.

Modding communities---never again for me.

just my 2 cents.

ElAurens
01-20-2006, 11:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
It would be very good if offline players with an inclination for history (like me) could tune the machines to fit as closely as possible to historical accounts. To correct the innacuracies in the aircraft FM that have been made due to online gameplay balance between teams...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In whose opinion? Using whose data? Which historical accounts are to be believed?

I am sensing in your posts a lot of obfiscation.

If mods are allowed they will find their way online. This is fact. And frankly it is what those who press for "moddability" are really after.

It can never be allowed.

EVER.

Jetbuff
01-20-2006, 11:00 AM
The day IL-2 becomes moddable will be the day it dies as a viable online sim. Sure, I'd like to fix a few things, add a few sorely needed planes, but multiply that by every flight sim player out there add no quality control and enjoy the mess.

That said, I believe in an effort to streamline 3rd-party efforts, Oleg has said that there maybe a limited arena for 'open' planes but only officially vetted planes would make it in to the official arenas. We shall see.

Aymar_Mauri
01-20-2006, 11:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
It would be very good if offline players with an inclination for history (like me) could tune the machines to fit as closely as possible to historical accounts. To correct the innacuracies in the aircraft FM that have been made due to online gameplay balance between teams...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In whose opinion? Using whose data? Which historical accounts are to be believed? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
All you can muster. Then they must be thouroughly analysed, confirmed by other accounts with different origins, correlated with conflicting data until you see through the cloud of bias. With experience you can detect the ones that have a political agenda.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
I am sensing in your posts a lot of obfiscation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Please translate "obfiscation". I do not know the meanning of this word.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
If mods are allowed they will find their way online. This is fact. And frankly it is what those who press for "moddability" are really after. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sure, I am. I only play offline and I'm rallying for the mods to get online? You got to be joking...

Have you read anything I posted? Have a little more attention and maybe you can understand what I've said.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
It can never be allowed.

EVER. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, ignorance is really a dampening thing. It really makes it easy for you to deny any logical explanation at will and for no reason whatsoever. Since you didn't bother to read my posts, or haven't understood any of it, I won't bother to try to explain it to you.

crazyivan1970
01-20-2006, 11:16 AM
Couldnt have said it better Jetbuff. My thoughts exactly.

Chivas
01-20-2006, 11:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Chivas:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I feel for the off-liners but any kind of concession to modability will eventually effect on-line play. It won't take long for people to find a key to destroy on-line play. Having two seperate games won't matter because they both use the same engine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The same engine can power more than one car/truck model.

A+ for trying though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

How can anybody destroy Online play if the Online and Offline packages are incompatible? Answer? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK I will try and explain my point. Both the on-line and off-line game will be made with same engine code. Once you give people enough information on how that engine and code works they will hack it. That information can be used to hack the on-line game.

I don't want Oleg having to waste time finding ways to block hacks to his engine. He's already got enough work developing BOB and additions to the IL-2 series. Let alone finding ways to block downloaders from stealing the product.

There are alway people who will hack a game, the less information you give them the better.
Given enough information any code can be hacked. People have lost wars because they thought their code was unbreakable. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

crazyivan1970
01-20-2006, 11:57 AM
No point of arguing over this guys, Oleg already mentioned that MP and SP in BOB will be two different animals. Soooo... there.

EDCF_Rama
01-20-2006, 12:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
In whose opinion? Using whose data? Which historical accounts are to be believed? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
All you can muster. Then they must be thouroughly analysed, confirmed by other accounts with different origins, correlated with conflicting data until you see through the cloud of bias. With experience you can detect the ones that have a political agenda. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This only shows you don't really know what you're talking about....
You answer a real question with a political-like faith declaration.

To resume, when data is easy to gather (for exemple with planes that are still flying today), everybody can have them, including official devs... and in these cases, I'm sure, that the FM in FB are as good as the FM model and mathematical formula allow it to be.... so very near what you can have for best in that particular sim.

When data isn't easy to get.... getting it, criticizing it, cross-comparing it, analysing it to extract some probable performances.... is a full-time job, that need years (and money).... to do something believable on a SINGLE aircraft.
I even know some aircrafts, which critical test data documents are owned by some individuals, that refuse to share or divulgate any information contained in the document.

So you believe that a single individual can do better than a dev team that has the ressource to purchase good data?
... maybe for a single aircraft... and that would be a life achievement.... but never for a collection of aircraft.

Let me tell you.... these beliefs are illusions.
modding FM and DM increase only one "real" thing... the modder ego.

KOM.Nausicaa
01-20-2006, 01:12 PM
Again, I spent 3 years in the CFS3 modder community. It is biased as hell, a true EGO-fest.
Nothing, I mean nothing, is reliable over there. And that goes from "little" things like the "correct" gun sound, which turns out to be recorded from a Hollywood flick, to grossly exaggerated "comic style" tracers and explosions (look how GREAT the effects are)towards highly questionable FM's and DM's.
There are some people that try to make it right, but as Skycat says, 4 out 5 are either of bad quality, or unreliable, or both.
And the CFS3 Online community is as good as dead today. Almost all squads, if they still exist, have either changed to IL2, or to FS2004.

I never, never, want IL2 to become moddable.

Nausicaa

LEXX_Luthor
01-20-2006, 04:56 PM
Great Discussion!!

Aymar, I'm with ya all the way, almost. You are focused mainly on FM modding, and that is the one thing that is best left in Oleg's hands. Sorry.

There are three (3) reasons for aircraft modding....

(1) Missing aircraft
(2) Changing FM to suit gamers' desires.
(3) Hobby for aircraft modders.

(1) is invalidated since Oleg will add any plane, any time, as he has done in FB.
(2) Not needed, since Oleg can change them if simmers talk to TAGERT http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif and find data Oleg can believe.
(3) Has no relevance to flight simmers as long as Oleg follows reason (1).


I hope crazyivan is right -- if BoB+ sp and mp are "different animals" then Offline players can mod clouds into the sp sim, mod sky colours, add real stars (not FB/PF fake stars) unless Oleg can provide real stars (crazyivan, PM me about this if you see this).

carguy_
01-20-2006, 06:15 PM
Different animals as in

1. Unreal Awakening and UT2004

or

1. RTCW SP and RTCW MP?

The-Pizza-Man
01-20-2006, 07:12 PM
It's funny the most successful flight simulator around is the most modded of them all.

I think your all getting a bit paranoid. It is possible to have mods without it ruining MP.

carguy_
01-20-2006, 07:17 PM
Yeah,you know it.I`m paranoid.

In other words.Step away from the sim.There`s nothing to mod here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Aymar_Mauri
01-20-2006, 07:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EDCF_Rama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
In whose opinion? Using whose data? Which historical accounts are to be believed? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
All you can muster. Then they must be thouroughly analysed, confirmed by other accounts with different origins, correlated with conflicting data until you see through the cloud of bias. With experience you can detect the ones that have a political agenda. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This only shows you don't really know what you're talking about....
You answer a real question with a political-like faith declaration. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Funny that you think this way. The sentence I wrote above is a phrase thought by a professor of History to his students regarding archeological investigations with conflicting sources. This method is used by historians to determine fact from fiction. Strange that you have fallen on this pit...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EDCF_Rama:
To resume, when data is easy to gather (for exemple with planes that are still flying today), everybody can have them, including official devs... and in these cases, I'm sure, that the FM in FB are as good as the FM model and mathematical formula allow it to be.... so very near what you can have for best in that particular sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So, where is the flyable FW190 with original BMW radial engine, the airworthy 60+ year-old Me163 or the still running Ki-84?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EDCF_Rama:
When data isn't easy to get.... getting it, criticizing it, cross-comparing it, analysing it to extract some probable performances.... is a full-time job, that need years (and money).... to do something believable on a SINGLE aircraft.
I even know some aircrafts, which critical test data documents are owned by some individuals, that refuse to share or divulgate any information contained in the document. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you are trying to make a full scientific report about the machine, yes. Not a lifetime if you are trying to apply it's data to a sim.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EDCF_Rama:
So you believe that a single individual can do better than a dev team that has the ressource to purchase good data?
... maybe for a single aircraft... and that would be a life achievement.... but never for a collection of aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No. That was not what I said. I said that Oleg's team can get it wrong and keep it wrong because of bias.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EDCF_Rama:
Let me tell you.... these beliefs are illusions.
modding FM and DM increase only one "real" thing... the modder ego. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think illusions are what you are having now...

Aymar_Mauri
01-20-2006, 07:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Great Discussion!!

Aymar, I'm with ya all the way, almost. You are focused mainly on FM modding, and that is the one thing that is best left in Oleg's hands. Sorry. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
In your oppinion...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
There are three (3) reasons for aircraft modding....

(1) Missing aircraft
(2) Changing FM to suit gamers' desires.
(3) Hobby for aircraft modders.

(1) is invalidated since Oleg will add any plane, any time, as he has done in FB.
(2) Not needed, since Oleg can change them if simmers talk to TAGERT http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif and find data Oleg can believe.
(3) Has no relevance to flight simmers as long as Oleg follows reason (1). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, I think otherwise regarding (2).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:I hope crazyivan is right -- if BoB+ sp and mp are "different animals" then Offline players can mod clouds into the sp sim, mod sky colours, add real stars (not FB/PF fake stars) unless Oleg can provide real stars (crazyivan, PM me about this if you see this). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Correct. And our discussion will be pointless since they will have different executables. It will be like having two different programs. This solution closes the subject. The offline can be fully modable that it will never affect the online.

Aymar_Mauri
01-20-2006, 08:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
It's funny the most successful flight simulator around is the most modded of them all.

I think your all getting a bit paranoid. It is possible to have mods without it ruining MP. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Finally someone that knows what I'm talking about.

LEXX_Luthor
01-20-2006, 08:02 PM
Online players post they "feel" for Offline players, but they should be Paranoid as carguy suggests. As one Online FB/PF player posted at simhq... <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If it wasn't for the offline base, we'd all be paying 12 dollars a month to play. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Pizza:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's funny the most successful flight simulator around is the most modded of them all.

I think your all getting a bit paranoid. It is possible to have mods without it ruining MP. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
(1) The market power behind the name "Microsoft" certainly helps to ensure long shelf life and greater visibility to customers looking for their first combat flight sim.

(2) Oleg's BoB+ should NOT have any Mods for Online play at all -- none -- just Offline play, but no aircraft modding at all for either play (except 3D models for Oleg's FM Team). The two should be distinct packages, probably with some code differences. That means more work, but will ensure a greater chance of mainstream success that will make that extra work pay off handsomely.

LEXX_Luthor
01-20-2006, 08:26 PM
Oh, hey Aymar, we are posting at the same time.

Aymar:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Well, I think otherwise regarding (2). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Doesn't matter what you think, since Oleg knows flight modelling better than you, and knows it well enough to ensure success provided he does basic gameplay design correctly. And Oleg has proven willing to add more aircraft -- although the recent rash of Trademark issues could require independent modding indeed -- anyways, if you knew that much about flight models, you would be doing your own flight sim instead of wanting to mod Oleg's sim. You may wish to talk to Stigler, who works for the TargetWare sim, but that is Online pay-play, or it will be, and they can always use new aircraft models both 3D and FM. Czech it out, some are working over a Spanish Civil War addition.

You still need to talk to TAGERT. Just click "new topic" and type something like "tagert help me understand fm test." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Aymar:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Correct. And our discussion will be pointless since they will have different executables. It will be like having two different programs. This solution closes the subject. The offline can be fully modable that it will never affect the online. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
"exectuable" ah that's close enough!! You spelled it wrong but that's okay since "executable" is so rarely seen posted on a flight sim board packed full of flight sim Experts. Good Post!

:thumps: do'h http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Chivas
01-20-2006, 10:13 PM
Luckily one of the reasons Oleg developed his own sim was the constant On-line cheating in other sims. He would never allow access to modders.

Maybe when most of the on-liners have moved on to BOB, he will allow access by modders but I wouldn't hold my breath.

There are other sims like CFS3 and BOB WOV that would more than welcome your version of history.

ElAurens
01-20-2006, 10:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
It's funny the most successful flight simulator around is the most modded of them all.

I think your all getting a bit paranoid. It is possible to have mods without it ruining MP. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

MSFS is successful because of the Microsoft name and the fact that it is used as basic training tool for real pilots. It has nothing to do with simulation at all. It has no damage model, and no real flight model (as we understand one anyway) for that matter.

And it is not possible to have mods and have a viable, hack free multiplayer environment.

there are plenty of lesser products to mod. Please go there, ASAP.

LEXX_Luthor
01-20-2006, 11:11 PM
ElAurens:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And it is not possible to have mods and have a viable, hack free multiplayer environment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Correct! Oleg could offer a closed Online package and an Offline product fully moddable except for aircraft, or start charging a Monthly Fee for the Online play, as he may not be able to rely on future lack of competition in the Offline sim market.

From the loud howling from Online simmers here in the past about Oleg possibly charging Pay-to-Play, I would hope you would pay attention to the potential of a distinct Offline package that, if hugely successful, will continue to allow Oleg the financial freedom to allow free Online play.

EDCF_Rama
01-21-2006, 07:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:Funny that you think this way. The sentence I wrote above is a phrase thought by a professor of History to his students regarding archeological investigations with conflicting sources. This method is used by historians to determine fact from fiction. Strange that you have fallen on this pit... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't know about archeogical investigation, but I know a bit about WWII aircraft data investigation (since I've been involved in some of theses)
And there theorie about the "ethic way to do research" don't help much.... first you have to find the data, and basically you have:
- easy to find data: mostly innacurate
- very difficult to find data (belonging to plane builders still in activity, or deeply shelved in restricted access lost rooms of air force test division (place you need at least one year of diverses administrative fight to get access to) or belonging to private peoples askinf an uglt amount of money to give you access, or belonging to peopls that keep them jalously for them since they keep them for a publication they'll maybe do in 10 years....)

You talking about research theorie, I'm talking you about the reality of everyday research... that's make me think you don't have a real knowing of it... that even if you write you're professor words, you don't understant the spirit of it, and that you only "ressearched" in available publications.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So, where is the flyable FW190 with original BMW radial engine, the airworthy 60+ year-old Me163 or the still running Ki-84? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you think FW190 or Ki-84 FM aren't well done in the sim, tell why, and send accurate data to Maddox:1C.
But.... what are your data? What kind of test did you do? What was your test protocol?
Note I didn't say the FM are actually close to real... All I said that it was close to the data Maddox:AC have and thrust, as far as the mathematical engine allow it to be.
What make you think you have better data at your disposal?
If you really have done a scientific comparison beween all available (publically and privatelly) data, and that you summarized the best probable data set... then please, do something really usefull for the community (100 times more usefull than modding a sim...)... write and publish your work.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you are trying to make a full scientific report about the machine, yes. Not a lifetime if you are trying to apply it's data to a sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What do you think FM in FB are made of... 5 parameters?
You again show you don't know what you're talking about. The problem of FM is NOT "applying data to a sim". Since the data isn't available easilly. Not a single publication will gives you the kind of data needed fo FM feeding in a sim like FB.
Only a thorough research will do. The real problem is to gather and analyse the data.
If you don't, and thrust the first publication in your hands, modding is only a way to please your own view of "how it should be", and not "how it probably was".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No. That was not what I said. I said that Oleg's team can get it wrong and keep it wrong because of bias. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry.... but I do worry much more of bias of modders that thrust a few publications to retrieve FM data.
Yes Oleg's team can get it wrong, and sometimes they did (everybody make errors), but they prooved with the contacts they had to get data, with the peoples they maintained relation with (some of them research data on some particular aircrafts since long years), some of them have access to data you could only dream to have a look at the cover), that the do care about finding and using reliable data.

Tell me why should I thrust an amateur modder instead... because he's a nice guy... or because he's very active on some forums and so I should be faithfull?

......

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think illusions are what you are having now... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I spent enough time and money on historical research to at least being able to avoid illusion on this matter.

anarchy52
01-21-2006, 08:27 AM
I disagree with most posters that say no to modability.

1) There are many things that can and should be moddable, which would have no impact on online play:
- skinning and texturing in general
- adding new ground objects
- adding new squadrons and nations

2) modding + online play can be dealt with:
- paranoid host can limit the planeset and ground set, textures, everything basically to "stock only".

- server could have an option to include a certain mod with a link to offsite download (just like the skins should be handled). For example let's take an online war organized by a very ambitious and enthusiastic community, we'll call it VEFIV.
VEFIV Campaign is focused on 1939 Poland. VEFIV Virtual war mod pack includes custom squadrons, skins, ground object, loadouts and FM/DM tweaks, maybe even custom aircrafts. The concern is of course that someone migh mod their Emil to 2000HP and 4 mk108 cannons and pwn everybody. It can be dealt with in several ways:
a) downloaded packs can not be modded, just like .sfs files we have now.
b) files are signed, the game uses hash function or some type of signature check that enables online play only if host's and player's files match exactly.

So basically, you can have a DF server with +50lbs Spitfires doing mach one, no problem it's the choice of the server, but everybody gets the same deal. Or you can have online war with it's own mod including historical scenery, planes, etc.
Some will say: we can not allow community to touch FM/DM as Oleg is the only person on this planet that knows how planes should perform. Well we wouldn't have ORR if Oleg shared the same idea, would we?

Aymar_Mauri
01-21-2006, 09:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Oh, hey Aymar, we are posting at the same time.

Aymar:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Well, I think otherwise regarding (2). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Doesn't matter what you think, since Oleg knows flight modelling better than you, and knows it well enough to ensure success provided he does basic gameplay design correctly. And Oleg has proven willing to add more aircraft -- although the recent rash of Trademark issues could require independent modding indeed -- anyways, if you knew that much about flight models, you would be doing your own flight sim instead of wanting to mod Oleg's sim. You may wish to talk to Stigler, who works for the TargetWare sim, but that is Online pay-play, or it will be, and they can always use new aircraft models both 3D and FM. Czech it out, some are working over a Spanish Civil War addition. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I know it doesn't matter what I think. Just expressing my oppinion.

BTW, how can you know if Oleg knows flight modelling better than me? I can be an Aerospace Engineer and you just don't know it, right?

Unfortunatelly regarding this matter, I'm just a Mechanical Engineer and have only taken some classes on Fluid Mechanics and Aerodynamics while at uni. I did not proceded advanced studies in that area.

Regarding me doing my own flight sim, you should know that to make a game (sim or not) you need much more than just knowlege and will, you need contacts and money to invest, both things I do not have. And since my country only has some minor software companies with moderate success and a lot of investment, there is no chance of that happening.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
You still need to talk to TAGERT. Just click "new topic" and type something like "tagert help me understand fm test." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I will, but not until the end of the month. I'm too busy to make tests right now.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Aymar:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Correct. And our discussion will be pointless since they will have different executables. It will be like having two different programs. This solution closes the subject. The offline can be fully modable that it will never affect the online. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
"exectuable" ah that's close enough!! You spelled it wrong but that's okay since "executable" is so rarely seen posted on a flight sim board packed full of flight sim Experts. Good Post!

:thumps: do'h http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

ElAurens
01-21-2006, 09:02 AM
This discussion reminds me of a conversation I had with the late Bill Devin some years ago.


For those of you who don't know, Bill Devin was the most successful builder of aftermarket "kit car" fiberglass bodies in the late 50s and 60's. He also made a few cars of his own design as well, all in California. Anyway..I owned one of his assembled cars for a short time and had occaision to speak with him about spares etc.. on several occaisions. I asked him once how he felt about being somewhat of a legend in American sports car circles.He said in so many words that if he would do it again he would not make the kit bodies again, because he got tired of seeing his name on shabby, ill concieved, and poorly executed vehicles.

I think Oleg feels the same way. He does not want to see the good name of this franchise dragged down by a collection of shabby, ill concieved, un-historical, modifications.

I agree with that.

You would not let a 3rd. year art student change the Mona Lisa because he thought his vision for it was "more accurate" than Da Vinci's would ya?

Aymar_Mauri
01-21-2006, 09:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
And it is not possible to have mods and have a viable, hack free multiplayer environment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, it is. You just don't believe it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
there are plenty of lesser products to mod. Please go there, ASAP. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, since you "ask" this so sensibly and you've made such polite replies before, I'll make it my mission to stay here and nag the hell out of Oleg and you all until modability is "de facto" included in BoB.

If you and the rest of the unpolite (not that all were) nay-sayers had been civil instead of obssessed and paranoid (bordering on insultuos), I would have declined from talking about this subject anymore. But since you weren't... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

EDCF_Rama
01-21-2006, 09:25 AM
So if I understand well, you don't ask for anything and don't advocate for anything anymore....
it's just a personnal forum revenge???

Sometimes my eyes fall on the ground when I read some stuff on this forum

Aymar_Mauri
01-21-2006, 09:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EDCF_Rama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
Funny that you think this way. The sentence I wrote above is a phrase thought by a professor of History to his students regarding archeological investigations with conflicting sources. This method is used by historians to determine fact from fiction. Strange that you have fallen on this pit... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't know about archeogical investigation, but I know a bit about WWII aircraft data investigation (since I've been involved in some of theses)
And there theorie about the "ethic way to do research" don't help much.... first you have to find the data, and basically you have:
- easy to find data: mostly innacurate
- very difficult to find data (belonging to plane builders still in activity, or deeply shelved in restricted access lost rooms of air force test division (place you need at least one year of diverses administrative fight to get access to) or belonging to private peoples askinf an uglt amount of money to give you access, or belonging to peopls that keep them jalously for them since they keep them for a publication they'll maybe do in 10 years....)

You talking about research theorie, I'm talking you about the reality of everyday research... that's make me think you don't have a real knowing of it... that even if you write you're professor words, you don't understant the spirit of it, and that you only "ressearched" in available publications. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ah! Now I see. You've explained yourself very well. Yes, I haven't made on-field research. I agree that access to such public or private instituitions might be very complex. Has Oleg and team made such on-field research?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EDCF_Rama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
So, where is the flyable FW190 with original BMW radial engine, the airworthy 60+ year-old Me163 or the still running Ki-84? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you think FW190 or Ki-84 FM aren't well done in the sim, tell why, and send accurate data to Maddox:1C. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
My only problems so far is the FW190 and some of the Russian planes. I haven't tested all planes. All of other I tested seem very correct.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EDCF_Rama:
But.... what are your data? What kind of test did you do? What was your test protocol? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Public availble data only. So, I cannot claim that I've flown any of those planes in real life to compare them with in-game versions. It's just a question of reading the data and comparing it to the planes capabilities in-game. If there is a large difference in any performance something is amiss.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EDCF_Rama:
Note I didn't say the FM are actually close to real... All I said that it was close to the data Maddox:AC have and thrust, as far as the mathematical engine allow it to be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
OK. That I believe to be true.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EDCF_Rama:
What make you think you have better data at your disposal? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The fact that we are not talking about a small discrepancy between my data - concurrent with most available public data - and Oleg's depiction. We are talking about huge discrepancies is airplane performance. I cannot believe that his depiction - in conflict with 99% of publicaly available data - is realistic unless he had access to some yet-to-be-discovered-or-revealed-to-public data that claims that most of the WW2 veterans and engineers were talking out of their *** when they tested that particular plane.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EDCF_Rama:
If you really have done a scientific comparison beween all available (publically and privatelly) data, and that you summarized the best probable data set... then please, do something really usefull for the community (100 times more usefull than modding a sim...)... write and publish your work. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sure. Know any editor willing to publish me? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EDCF_Rama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
If you are trying to make a full scientific report about the machine, yes. Not a lifetime if you are trying to apply it's data to a sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What do you think FM in FB are made of... 5 parameters? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, since I am a Mechanical Engineer, I know perfectly well that the process is much more complex. But the principle remains.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EDCF_Rama:
You again show you don't know what you're talking about. The problem of FM is NOT "applying data to a sim". Since the data isn't available easilly. Not a single publication will gives you the kind of data needed fo FM feeding in a sim like FB. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I never said it did. You're making assumptions based on the assessement that I read a single source and claim by it. I do not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EDCF_Rama:
Only a thorough research will do. The real problem is to gather and analyse the data.
If you don't, and thrust the first publication in your hands, modding is only a way to please your own view of "how it should be", and not "how it probably was". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Once again, you're making assumptions based on wrong assessements and you trying to claim that anyone making a comment in disagreement with Oleg is to be considered wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EDCF_Rama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
No. That was not what I said. I said that Oleg's team can get it wrong and keep it wrong because of bias. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry.... but I do worry much more of bias of modders that thrust a few publications to retrieve FM data.
Yes Oleg's team can get it wrong, and sometimes they did (everybody make errors), but they prooved with the contacts they had to get data, with the peoples they maintained relation with (some of them research data on some particular aircrafts since long years), some of them have access to data you could only dream to have a look at the cover), that the do care about finding and using reliable data. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Have you seen their data? Have you read their sources? Have you contacted the people with the airplanes? Guess not. So, you cannot be sure of anything.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EDCF_Rama:
Tell me why should I thrust an amateur modder instead... because he's a nice guy... or because he's very active on some forums and so I should be faithfull? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is preciselly the point. You shoudn't. But that was never the point in discussion. The point in discussion is: if the user should get a modable FM for him to change aircraft performance in the reclusion of his own PC. Nothing more. You are trying to deflect the subject. I have no problems if the FM data remains the same as today. But I do want a modable FM for me to change according to my research data.

Aymar_Mauri
01-21-2006, 09:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
I disagree with most posters that say no to modability.

1) There are many things that can and should be moddable, which would have no impact on online play:
- skinning and texturing in general
- adding new ground objects
- adding new squadrons and nations

2) modding + online play can be dealt with:
- paranoid host can limit the planeset and ground set, textures, everything basically to "stock only".

- server could have an option to include a certain mod with a link to offsite download (just like the skins should be handled). For example let's take an online war organized by a very ambitious and enthusiastic community, we'll call it VEFIV.
VEFIV Campaign is focused on 1939 Poland. VEFIV Virtual war mod pack includes custom squadrons, skins, ground object, loadouts and FM/DM tweaks, maybe even custom aircrafts. The concern is of course that someone migh mod their Emil to 2000HP and 4 mk108 cannons and pwn everybody. It can be dealt with in several ways:
a) downloaded packs can not be modded, just like .sfs files we have now.
b) files are signed, the game uses hash function or some type of signature check that enables online play only if host's and player's files match exactly.

So basically, you can have a DF server with +50lbs Spitfires doing mach one, no problem it's the choice of the server, but everybody gets the same deal. Or you can have online war with it's own mod including historical scenery, planes, etc.
Some will say: we can not allow community to touch FM/DM as Oleg is the only person on this planet that knows how planes should perform. Well we wouldn't have ORR if Oleg shared the same idea, would we? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Very good explanation by someone who actually knows what he is talking about regarding the technical implementation of security to online gaming. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Too bad most people here in this thread really don't understand how easy is to block cheaters with competent technicians.

Aymar_Mauri
01-21-2006, 09:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
This discussion reminds me of a conversation I had with the late Bill Devin some years ago.


For those of you who don't know, Bill Devin was the most successful builder of aftermarket "kit car" fiberglass bodies in the late 50s and 60's. He also made a few cars of his own design as well, all in California. Anyway..I owned one of his assembled cars for a short time and had occaision to speak with him about spares etc.. on several occaisions. I asked him once how he felt about being somewhat of a legend in American sports car circles.He said in so many words that if he would do it again he would not make the kit bodies again, because he got tired of seeing his name on shabby, ill concieved, and poorly executed vehicles.

I think Oleg feels the same way. He does not want to see the good name of this franchise dragged down by a collection of shabby, ill concieved, un-historical, modifications.

I agree with that.

You would not let a 3rd. year art student change the Mona Lisa because he thought his vision for it was "more accurate" than Da Vinci's would ya? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you really knew me and the way I work you would have retracted this type of assumptions...

Bearcat99
01-21-2006, 11:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EDCF_Rama:
I'm for modding possibilities.... but only for:
- maps
- ground objects
- textures
- skins (as today)

I'm totally against modding possibilities in FM and DM.
(which have for result to split the community in many small ones that prefer to play with some specific mods....) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What he said......................... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

anarchy52
01-21-2006, 11:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
---SNIP---
he would not make the kit bodies again, because he got tired of seeing his name on shabby, ill concieved, and poorly executed vehicles.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Community made skins excede the quality of stock skins by order of magnitude. I won't make an example of particular aircraft as this stands true for most of them.

Cockpit textures of some planes are extremelly poor (P-11, P-47, etc). On the other hand we have 3rd party made stuff like J8A pit which looks bloody awesome.

FM of some aircrafts is very questionable when compared to historical performance (Bf-109E, LaGG-3,YP-80) or even basic aerodynamics (I-185, MiG-3 ). Roll rate for example is incorrect accross the board as was proven by tests in this very forum.

DM of some aircrafts is done very poorly or unrealistic (LaGG-3, Me-163, B-25).

And the list goes on.

Oleg doesn't seem to have a problem seeing his name next to those.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I think Oleg feels the same way. He does not want to see the good name of this franchise dragged down by a collection of shabby, ill concieved, un-historical, modifications.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes oleg certainly wouldn't allow anyone to model Bf-109Z as two G6 fuselages instead of F4 and allow it to roll around left fuselage axis instead of aerodynamic axis of the plane. That would indeed be considered lame, unresearched and poorly executed job.

Snap out of Your dream. Oleg has the best combat sim at the moment (when I say Oleg I mean Maddox games). But he can make mistakes, just like everybody else.

<span class="ev_code_RED">What makes you think community has nothing to offer?</span>
Remember who made P-38, Spitfire, J8 ...?

Jutocsa
01-21-2006, 11:42 AM
The Z was 3rd party too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Although it doesnt explain the roll

EDCF_Rama
01-21-2006, 12:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Sure. Know any editor willing to publish me? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The WEB arms are wide open

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Have you seen their data? Have you read their sources? Have you contacted the people with the airplanes? Guess not. So, you cannot be sure of anything. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As a matter of fact, I've seen some (a very few)... and that's enough to make my mind.
I agree I can't be sure of anything... that's the sad reality for everything in this world...
... but the probability is higher that's Maddox:1C will gather the good data thrue its relation network (and some were present on this forum at the very begining), than an amateur would.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have no problems if the FM data remains the same as today. But I do want a modable FM for me to change according to my research data. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The you have exactly what you want with CFS3 (if you want a combat sim), or FS9 if you're just interested by FM.
No need for Maddox:1C to spend time and money on something you allready have.

EDCF_Rama
01-21-2006, 12:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
- server could have an option to include a certain mod with a link to offsite download (just like the skins should be handled). For example let's take an online war organized by a very ambitious and enthusiastic community, we'll call it VEFIV.
VEFIV Campaign is focused on 1939 Poland. VEFIV Virtual war mod pack includes custom squadrons, skins, ground object, loadouts and FM/DM tweaks, maybe even custom aircrafts. The concern is of course that someone migh mod their Emil to 2000HP and 4 mk108 cannons and pwn everybody. It can be dealt with in several ways:
a) downloaded packs can not be modded, just like .sfs files we have now.
b) files are signed, the game uses hash function or some type of signature check that enables online play only if host's and player's files match exactly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe it could work.... that's not the problem...

The problem is that it would quickly be.... anarchy, with dozens of server offering game for a gameset incompatibles with the others.
with small groups of players playing their favorite mods, since they would believe one modder better than another.
It would be the end of 900+ peoples playing the SAME GAME on HL, the end of the big online games like the VEF like or Bellum like or others... that offer play 24h/24h (because of the community split by the different mods)
The online play will soon become boring, with hours waiting for other peoples playing the same mods to launch one single coop in the evening.
The actual game diversity will fade away, destroyed by the mod diversity....

Don't tell me I'm paranoid... this is exactly what we had with the CFS online play.

Chivas
01-21-2006, 12:44 PM
Combat flight sim developers can't even stop people from stealing their product. The No CD patch comes out hours after the game is released.

When they stop the people from stealing their product, then I will believe its possible stop modders from ruining the on-line game.

Aymar_Mauri
01-21-2006, 03:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EDCF_Rama:
So if I understand well, you don't ask for anything and don't advocate for anything anymore....
it's just a personnal forum revenge???

Sometimes my eyes fall on the ground when I read some stuff on this forum </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was just joking...

ElAurens
01-21-2006, 03:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:

<span class="ev_code_RED">What makes you think community has nothing to offer?</span>
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The community has plenty to offer.

Maps, campaigns, skins, and even the excellent 3rd. party aircraft models. I welcome them all.
But, what the community has no buisness doing are flight models, or having the ability to add anyting to the sim without going through Maddox Games.

If you want to build a 3d model, that is great, do it by all means. But it must be submitted to the Developer for approval, and have (in the case of aircraft) all dynamic modeling done by them. it cannot be inserted willy-nilly into the game.

This is the system we have now and it works perfectly well at keeping the online arena a fun, and level place to enjoy the sim.

The sad history of the Microsoft combat flight series vindicates this approach.

Jetbuff
01-21-2006, 04:20 PM
Anarchy, you underestimate the dedication of a would-be game hacker. Once serious modding is allowed, I guarantee you that no hashing, encrypting or other type of security is going to prevent foo-fighters from appearing online. Furthermore, even if the measures do work, all modding will accomplish is fracture the already small online community. Don't kid yourself, 500 players online at any one time is merely a fraction of what other game genres generate. Still compare that 500 to the what? 5? players playing CFS3 online.

Aymar, in the 4+ years I've been on this forum, even with the ultimate say being Oleg's, no FM or DM issue has ever been resolved satisfactorily. At least not to the point where you could go ahead and use what little consensus there was to actually develop a FM or DM. Now, allow all these self-proclaimed aero-engineers and ballistics experts the ability to mod their own games and guess what? We'll have 1 mod for every copy of BoB sold. Naturally, none of them will be compatible online.

NonWonderDog
01-21-2006, 04:45 PM
Huh? Doesn't *anyone* remember what Oleg posted way, way back on... August 24, 2005.

From here (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/8371080943/r/7101054943#7101054943)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
1. We plan to increase the modes of multiplay.
2. We plan to make it very usueful for the championships and online wars (measn features of online gameplay and servers)
3. We plan Bots in dogfight. It was in plan for Il-2 but never released due to some problems in online traffic overloading in the past. There was other prioritets in the past

We also plan to give third party more free hands to build themselves without our control objects, small online maps, planes and cockpits....

DON'WORRY!
This means that we will have two rooms for multiplay:

1. Standard our staff room where custom made third party planes can't fly...
2. the room of online gameplay for our standard set and the planes of third party...

If user community and we ourselves will find that som guy of third party did the right job, then we will move such plane in a standard set as well.

In this case we will be more free to make new things and feature than to support third party models and community will decide which plane to play or not from third party...

I also expect to replace by such things the industry around the MS add-ons

It is in all we plan and it isn't all that will be released righ with the release of the sim.
Say tools we will release after ther release of the sim itself... and first tools will be for objects and maps, then later for planes... if possible

Note for the third party developers about these features of BoB:
we don't give full access to source code. We give access just for some basic tunings of FM and animations which will be possible to use only in single play custom made special room missions and only in special online room for such planes.
If it will be not possible to make such a scheme then we will cancel the work over custom planes... and will keep just objects and maps.
And will repeat we don't give ability to create the big maps, which we will keep for ourselves that to make new sims of new theaters.

Please read me with attention.
We will have two different modes for the inside and "outside" the sim planes and objects.
So the fair gameplay anyway we will keep.
But UFOs for these who will do them.

**************************

I don't see any negative factors in such a solution except only positive for the serious community and these who would produce special add-ons of one plane set like these who make add-ons for MS.
And if there will be serious developers - we alwasy can find solution and to rich agreement to incude it inside with protected performance, etc...
Really we offer way more than you currently think The result could be increadible in future. Probably I told it too early
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I quite like the idea, myself.

anarchy52
01-21-2006, 05:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chivas:
Combat flight sim developers can't even stop people from stealing their product. The No CD patch comes out hours after the game is released.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

90% of players use nocd patch. Best FB mod ever.
I doubt that my CD would stay undamaged with my level of clumsyness.

I'd say that there's not much piracy going on in FB community compared to more popular genres. Also a lot less chance of hacks.

@Pritzl:
Diversity is good. I don't think community would split in 1000 different incompatible mods. Think of the advantages:
a) We would get rid of HayateAce & Piper as they would be playing their USAF PWn7 mod.

b) We're not talking about "To play on this server you need to download Joe's Mustang, Igor's Yak, Pete's P-38 which requires Willy's panel". No, we have a complete mod in a single package. You either have it or not. You wanna play on "Hayate's USAF PWn7 server", download the mod, wanna play VEFIV, download the VEFIV historical mod. You connect to the server, server requires that you have the mod, game checks among the mods you have and if it finds it, checks it for validity and that's it.

After a while things would settle for couple of mods worth playing that everybody would be using. Something like FB 1% mod (for those of you that haven't been playing CFS2 google it).

P.S. Just read Oleg's quote. If Maddox will review the 3rd party submissions and if satisfactory add them to "stock" planeset all the better. So it will be like playing beta with the mods, and the good ones will end up released in the official patches/addons etc. I think it would be great. I also think that Oleg shares my opinion more then the paranoid "NO TO MODS" bunch.

carguy_
01-21-2006, 05:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
b) We're not talking about "To play on this server you need to download Joe's Mustang, Igor's Yak, Pete's P-38 which requires Willy's panel". No, we have a complete mod in a single package. You either have it or not. You wanna play on "Hayate's USAF PWn7 server", download the mod, wanna play VEFIV, download the VEFIV historical mod. You connect to the server, server requires that you have the mod, game checks among the mods you have and if it finds it, checks it for validity and that's it.

After a while things would settle for couple of mods worth playing that everybody would be using. Something like FB 1% mod (for those of you that haven't been playing CFS2 google it) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That sounds horrible! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

anarchy52
01-21-2006, 05:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
That sounds horrible! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

what does?

carguy_
01-21-2006, 05:44 PM
You know http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


Anyways for me it`s : one Oleg,one community,one IL2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Sintubin
01-21-2006, 05:49 PM
nonononononononoooooooooooooooooo

LEXX_Luthor
01-21-2006, 06:05 PM
Aymar:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">BTW, how can you know if Oleg knows flight modelling better than me? I can be an Aerospace Engineer and you just don't know it, right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I know from your webboard Behavior in the Fw-190 Climb Angle thread that you are imcompetent in flight modelling.

You can't know that from my webboard behavior, so I must say it...

LEXX is (totally) incompetent in flight modelling and a flight model moron.

Now, you know about me.

The-Pizza-Man
01-21-2006, 06:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
It's funny the most successful flight simulator around is the most modded of them all.

I think your all getting a bit paranoid. It is possible to have mods without it ruining MP. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

MSFS is successful because of the Microsoft name and the fact that it is used as basic training tool for real pilots. It has nothing to do with simulation at all. It has no damage model, and no real flight model (as we understand one anyway) for that matter.

And it is not possible to have mods and have a viable, hack free multiplayer environment.

there are plenty of lesser products to mod. Please go there, ASAP. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know where you coming from with that. I don't know the specifics of how each sim represents it, but some aircraft for MSFS are just as realistic or more realistic in flight as those in IL2.

The reason MSFS can have more realistic aircraft among other things is because it is modable. That is also one of the reasons why it has been so successful.

However, it is a civilian flight simulator so there is no competition in the same sense as IL2.

Never the less. Mods have been around for FPSs for as long as they have been in flight sims. You don't see cheaters crippling those games. With appropriate consideration in the design of the game and if measures are taken to identify cheaters there is no reason why making a future game expandble would destroy MP gaming. As I said it is simply paranoid. As you seem to have a somewhat irrational anti-expandability point of view we may have to agree to disagree.

LEXX_Luthor
01-21-2006, 07:47 PM
Pizza:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As you [ElAurens] seem to have a somewhat irrational anti-expandability point of view we may have to agree to disagree. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Its not an irrational viewpoint. Its based on real experience with massive cheating in failed Online sims that were open to aircraft "cheat" mods. It is, however, a short sighted and selfish viewpoint, as it will lead toward Online Pay-To-Play as more Offline players decide the lack of Offline content is not worth the time investment and monetary cost of supporting Online play which is funded by Offline player purchases.

Online play is a relatively recent development in combat flight simming, and corresponds to the decline in public interest in combat flight sims, as well as a decline in developer interest in creating Offline campaign content. The two are related (this is my theory anyways). To become mainstream success, combat flight sims must focus again on Offline play. But, Online play is here to stay. The solution is for a developer to offer two packages -- one optimized and specializing in Safe and Secure Online play, the other focusing only on Offline play with massive 3rd Party modding available with the exception of aircraft FM/DM modding, as Oleg has proven willing to add new aircraft which could be another source of financial return on developer investment. Best, the two packages can be bundled together at a higher price.

ElAurens
01-21-2006, 09:25 PM
I don't understand pay to play at all.

There is no reason for it other than greed. Not when the same game can support both.

If BoB goes Pay to Play. I'm out, and Hyperlobby will die. And most online players won't have anywhere to go, except to stay here.

Moddability will be the death of this sim, mark my words.

LEXX_Luthor
01-21-2006, 10:21 PM
ElAurens, I am surprised -- you are only posting panick stricken slogans here. We saw all the same webboard slogans early last year, when we went through the Pay-To-Play discussion with HelSqnProtos.

ElAurens:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There is no reason for it other than greed. Not when the same game can support both. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
(1) Selfish Greed is the Online player not willing to discuss two seperate sims -- a secure sim for Online players, and a more configurable and moddable sim (excluding aircraft) for Offline players who are currently paying for Online play. If Offline players can find alternative software titles that do NOT sacrifice Offline content for Online play, this will leave Online players paying for their own play every month.

ElAurens:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If BoB goes Pay to Play. I'm out, and Hyperlobby will die. And most online players won't have anywhere to go, except to stay here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Another Online flight sim webboard slogan, and one that is never explained by those who post them. (er...as pure Offline player, I need some help understanding this, and I am willing to listen, but I've never seen it explained...)

ElAurens:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Moddability will be the death of this sim, mark my words. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What happened to Pay-To-Play being the death of this sim? Lets cover this again -- A seperate Offline sim can offer content modding while leaving aircraft flight modeling and damage modeling securely in Oleg's hands.

ElAurens, I am surprised at YOU for not being willing to talk at this webboard. Lets Talk, I won't bite. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LEXX_Luthor
01-21-2006, 10:44 PM
I'll even make it "simple" for the Online FB/PF community. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Oleg can make two (2) similar but distinct sims using the same engine, an Online version, and an Offline version. The Offline version offers independent 3rd Party modders to add non-FM/DM features such as maps, clouds, weather, dynamic campaign engines (ie...like Lowengrin but with proper tools for campaign developers), static objects, possibly ships, and most important, configure the sim grafically -- for example -- the Offline version can offer the ability to change the render distance of Smoke and Fire effects (in FB/PF they vanish beyond 2km). This example of Smoke/Fire modding will NOT be possible Online, since it could cause the return of the Online Smoke Exploit. We can't allow that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif But the Offline version will offer that ability. Neither version offers aircraft flight modelling and damage modelling, which only Oleg will do, although Oleg can accept External models and Cockpit models from accepted 3rd Party 3D modders, as he does now for FB/PF.

Thus, both Offline and Online have the same aircraft and flight models. The Online package offers secure and safe multiplay, the Offline product allows 3rd Parties to offer vast unlimited content that will help Oleg find mainstream success.

Platypus_1.JaVA
01-22-2006, 05:16 AM
Aircraft flight and damage model should stay closed. Even the behaviour for ai ground objects. However, it would really help if they let us mod the ingames sounds for the aircraft engines and guns moddable. Or 3rd party maps would be nice.

The-Pizza-Man
01-22-2006, 05:37 AM
One more thing I'd like to add. I wouldn't want a player to be able to connect to a server with any planes he wants. The player would have to use the same mods that the servers uses. Any mods the player has would be automatically switched on or off apon joining a server as required. Eventually a few popular configurations would arise. Probably stock, a realism mod and an arcade mod would be most popular. There might also be mods that improve on the look of the sim as well. You'd have a broader community that way as well.

carguy_
01-22-2006, 05:42 AM
Bah!Offline guys want a one-time fee for their moddable offline sim while online players should have a separate sim that they have to pay for because what?Because their version is not allowed to be moddable?!

So developers create new stuff for onliners and make hem pay while offliners crete everything themselves for free?!

Both communites get new stuff but onliners have to pay for it monthly?!

I`d rather have a moddable online sim then.There are too many ways of entertainment for free than paying for something the community creates FOR FREE.


The fact is,the vast majority of what we have now online IS CREATED BY THE COMMUNITY.Servers are rpivate,wars are private,everything is private and free for those who are willing to join.It is obvious that in terms of online play any contribution from the developers is hardly needed.

You got mixed up Lexx.

Better idea is to have two separate products.Each community pays AT THE START one time price for the game they buy.The price is in exchange for what they want.

Offliners have dynamic campaigns and can mod anything they want, get patches from devs(patches not addons).

Onliners pay for online optimisation.Bear in mind that there is lots of stuff that onliners don`t need.Basicly,as the IL2 showed,vast amounts of content can be made by 3rd party.

If offliners get more at the start for same price,onliners should get dev support,meaning the devs filtering 3rd party made content to be released for online version.

Pay to play is a totally wrong idea because the support of dev team would be obliged to offer far bigger support for onliners than it is now.

Exactly what does Oleg give onliners that can`t be used by offliners?Planes?Ground objects?Fixed bugs?FM/DM tunings?

Offline play lacks because the initial game version has little for offline to offer.That hole is in a big part filled,again, with 3rd party content(mission gens,user campaigns) that is made by ONLINE COMMUNITY.


A thesis stating that offline players pay for onliners is entirely false.

Aymar_Mauri
01-22-2006, 09:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Oleg:
We give access just for some basic tunings of FM and animations which will be possible to use only in single play custom made special room missions... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
They have seen the light!!!!

Thank you so much, Oleg and team. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
I quite like the idea, myself. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I LOVE the idea... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

anarchy52
01-22-2006, 10:40 AM
Single play custom made special room?

triggerhappyfin
01-22-2006, 10:55 AM
A good idea for Oleg would be: Starting a division in his company only dealing with different mods...expanding his business.
Let the community come up with new planes as in past, but employ good able people to make the nessesary alterations or teach us in the community how to meet the requirements fully.
It should be fully understood that this solution has the need of making paid for addons of the materials sent to 1C.

Jetbuff
01-22-2006, 11:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
The reason MSFS can have more realistic aircraft among other things is because it is modable. That is also one of the reasons why it has been so successful. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nope, the reason it can have more realistic aircraft, (which is debatable anyway) in spite of its moddability, is that there is no combat involved, i.e. no competetive edge to be gained by giving your 747 the ability to do Mach 2 and turn on a dime.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However, it is a civilian flight simulator so there is no competition in the same sense as IL2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's also the reason why MSFS moddability cannot be compared to moddability in IL-2 or any other combat sim. Let's compare CFS instead. Moddable and the latest version even has 'stringent' anti-cheat checking. How many are flying it online?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Never the less. Mods have been around for FPSs for as long as they have been in flight sims. You don't see cheaters crippling those games. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, but modding the FM/DM of a sim is like modding the health meter, speed or agility of your player in an FPS. Neither is possible in most situations. Those mods that accomplish anything that drastic (think BF1942 mods) fracture the online community but FPS's have 1000's of times the audience.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">With appropriate consideration in the design of the game and if measures are taken to identify cheaters there is no reason why making a future game expandble would destroy MP gaming. As I said it is simply paranoid. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It is not paranoia when the results of previous attempts are there for all to see. Just ask any CFS2 or RB3D veteran. The former was infested with foo-fighters and the latter became a hassle as you had to maintain a different set of mods for each venue. IMO, they both only survived, in spite of their modability, because they had little competition.

Ultimately, this is all inconsequential, Oleg has a plan it appears. One that should allow for some more extensive modding, but not to the core game - allowing the rest of us paranoid freaks some peace of mind.

ElAurens
01-22-2006, 11:35 AM
Thanks for the assist Jetbuff. Your point by point reasoning is much better presented than my more emotional responses.

LEXX, I am happy to discuss this matter, really I am. I do understand the problems of the offline player looking for a more detailed, historical perspective. I want the same things for online as well, which is why I don't want the game split up.
I want the total content availabe to all, so that when I play offline I play the same game as online. As long as Flight Models and Damage Models are only done by Maddox Games.

How about this? The game is opened up to 3rd party mods (except for the affore mentioned FM/DM) and the mods are submitted to Maddox Games and released to the entire community once every quarter, thus giving the Developer the final say for quality control. This would mean we all would have the same game, (very important to me) and still have the ability to add content on our own.

Does that work for you?

Aymar_Mauri
01-22-2006, 12:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Aymar:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">BTW, how can you know if Oleg knows flight modelling better than me? I can be an Aerospace Engineer and you just don't know it, right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I know from your webboard Behavior in the Fw-190 Climb Angle thread that you are imcompetent in flight modelling.

You can't know that from my webboard behavior, so I must say it...

LEXX is (totally) incompetent in flight modelling and a flight model moron.

Now, you know about me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then if you are "totally incompetent in flight modelling and a flight model moron" how can you know I am? An expert in FM could say it, not one who isn't. Don't tell me you are going to reply "it takes one to know one", are you? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Bearcat99
01-22-2006, 02:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
It's funny the most successful flight simulator around is the most modded of them all.

I think your all getting a bit paranoid. It is possible to have mods without it ruining MP. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

MSFS is successful because of the Microsoft name and the fact that it is used as basic training tool for real pilots. It has nothing to do with simulation at all. It has no damage model, and no real flight model (as we understand one anyway) for that matter.

And it is not possible to have mods and have a viable, hack free multiplayer environment.
there are plenty of lesser products to mod. Please go there, ASAP. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could it be that MSFS is also so sucessful because it has been around for what..... 10 years now? And like EL said.... apples and oranges.... once you bring in the competitive nature of combat sims..... the only way to go is one standard for all... for better or worse... otherwise it will be hack city. Gauranteed. I dont think that 1C has done anythihg but tried to render as accurate as possible FMs at the time that they are tweaking them or whatever and since I dont know diddly about the engine or aerodynamics it is IMO much better for me to trust the developement team's judgement and do what the real life pilots had to do..... deal with what I have... warts and all.

LEXX_Luthor
01-22-2006, 05:09 PM
Great posts simmers. I knew we could get talking for both communities.

carguy, yes two seperate sims. Aussum!! Good points about Offline modding -- Oleg could sell for profit developer tools for 3rd Party Offline modding -- I see what you say about Onliners getting hit by Monthly Fee while Offliners getting a freebie!! I hear ya. Perhaps neither is needed.

Selling new aircraft and cockpit "update" packages (sim versions I guess) could always be an extra source of developer/publisher revenue, and this cost would hit both Online and Offline players alike.

Yes carguy, as one exceptional *honest* simhq FB/PF Online player posted last year...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If not for the offline base, we'd all be paying 12$ a month to fly </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is business Fact. But, if csThor is right and Oleg learns new lessons and gets better advice, and Oleg learns to love the Dynamic Campaign, he will be able to keep his Offline customers and if csThor is REALLY right Oleg could grow his Offline customers and become mainstream success in the Offline market -- thus continuing today's situation of Offline funding Online without needing Pay-To-Play.


ElAurens, the community is already split HERE and NOW at THIS WEBBOARD -- and they are still posting together at this webboard. Offline players who never join servers, Online players who never play Offline, and players that do BOTH -- and the community is SPLIT and still here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You may have to read that post again...I needed to.

Anyways, great stuff here. Its not just object "mods" needed for *Offline* but Offline ability to configure the sim such as change sky colours or add new clouds types. Oleg does not think this type of sky/environment additions are needed, so we must do it for him.

-------

Aymar, in the Fw-190 Climb Angle thread you copy/pasted the usual fake computer gamer webboard arguments -- oleg bias and demanding historical Fw-190 combat results from flight model -- Anybody who must rely upon fake arguments cannot build a flight model. But, we see that you can learn, as in this thread you have learned to credit Oleg with great attention to historical detail and accuracy. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif You are undergoing a Behavior Mod. If successful, you can learn the behavioral responsibility to perform a superb Aircraft Mod someday, and maybe even get on Oleg's FM team which -- if Oleg ever listens to csThor -- Oleg will need to hire or consult dozens or even hundreds of FM programmers to keep up with mainstream demand. Keep going Aymar!

:tumbs: DANG IT http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Aymar_Mauri
01-22-2006, 05:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Aymar, in the Fw-190 Climb Angle thread you copy/pasted the usual fake computer gamer webboard arguments -- oleg bias and demanding historical Fw-190 combat results from flight model -- Anybody who must rely upon fake arguments cannot build a flight model. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Care to elaborate what you mean by "usual fake computer gamer webboard arguments"? I don't understand and you could perhaps be more specific on what you are talking about?

Maybe the fact that I only presented simple airplane data can be mistaken for lack of in-depth knowledge? Or maybe I was just speaking too nicely to be taken seriously? I don't know if you can grasp it, but that is called "being polite and civil"...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
But, we see that you can learn, as in this thread you have learned to credit Oleg with great attention to historical detail and accuracy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Don't try to patronize someone who knows a heck of a lot more about FM than you. I know Oleg's work and have admired it for years. The fact that I only wrote in this board now is no indication that I am clueless as you want to lead everyone to believe I am, or that I bought the game yesterday and started whinning about it because one of the planes did not performed as I expected it to do. I only wrote here now because it keeps puzzling me the lack of corrections that someone that is (or should be) concerned with historical accuracy isn't making since this sim was released.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
If successful, you can learn the behavioral responsibility to perform a superb Aircraft Mod someday, and maybe even get on Oleg's FM team which -- if Oleg ever listens to csThor -- Oleg will need to hire or consult dozens or even hundreds of FM programmers to keep up with mainstream demand. Keep going Aymar! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
My job doesn't allow me to indulge in it. And... ...keep dreaming about the FM programmers. You do that well.

And if you ever get successefull with your behavioural analysis, you might one day recognize someone who isn't on this board just to troll. Because, unfortunatelly, that is what you think the reasons of my posts were.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif You are undergoing a Behavior Mod. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And you Sir, are an ***...

Have a nice day, Sir...

Jetbuff
01-22-2006, 05:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
ElAurens, the community is already split HERE and NOW at THIS WEBBOARD -- and they are still posting together at this webboard. Offline players who never join servers, Online players who never play Offline, and players that do BOTH -- and the community is SPLIT and still here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Are you serious? Every offline player is an island. Whether he has the same game as everyone else or not is never an issue. But the minute the online game is fractured, the online visibility wanes and the game's days are numbered. Moddability may extend the life of the offline game, but it can bring the online game to a screeching halt.

Now, I'm not saying the offline game is less important or that we should ignore it. However, people are still buying (when they can find them) FB/AEP/PF purely on word of mouth, 3 years after the release of FB and 4+ since the release of the original IL-2. That word of mouth keeps the game alive and that, simply due to the nature of the beast, requires an active online community.

What I'm saying is: Online depends on offline and vice versa. This Us vs Them mentality is counterproductive. Let's all relax and see what Oleg has in store eh?

darkhorizon11
01-22-2006, 05:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
No...... NEVER..... EVER. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know everyone in this game hates this... But, Oleg said awhile back that at some point in the future there will be a limited modability for FB, probably much after Battle of Britain is completed. He posted this awhile ago I can't find the thread but if you sift through some of the stickied pages in ORR it should be in there somewhere...

Jetbuff
01-22-2006, 05:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
And you Sir, are an ***...

Have a nice day, Sir... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ahh... quality right there! I look forward to discussing your FM mod when you get the chance to tinker with it eh? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

LEXX_Luthor
01-22-2006, 05:57 PM
Aymar .. .

(1) Oleg has always refused to Fix the Yak compasses, which kills navigation in Offline play. There is no Bias, but some poor game design decisions (ie...Fw-gunsight view harms some air combat in Fw, Yak compasses harm another aspect of air war simulation, although compass is not used directly in Dogfight, it hurts many Yak simmers. And, he won't fix it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

(2) Fw-190 pilots "10 times better" ~Oleg_Maddox. We covered this one in the Fw-190 Climb Angle thread.

Aymar:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
And you Sir, are an ***...

Have a nice day, Sir... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ouch! Stick around -- Offline players are lonely here. Just don't EVER expect not to be challenged when you **** a developer on your first post who may not be Perfect but has brought great enjoyment to many. In fact, like you, I can be overly critical of Oleg too, and too often I regret it BAD. I fly ALL aircraft so I do not see Bias but...mistakes in game design. That we can Agree upon.

LEXX_Luthor
01-22-2006, 06:27 PM
Thanks Jetbuff. I see your point ... Online community "splits" because of different mods between different Online players/servers. This is not possible if the Online version is not moddable in any way.

What I am saying is that...for example...

Lets modify the terrain brightness -- for example IanBoy's Kurland map uses a new method that makes it too dark and so I NEVER use it -- never. Assume Oleg's Offline sim version has a non-encrypted text file that allows the Offline player to change landscape brightness. Of course, this can be used as an Online cheat -- if the Online version was not different.

No "mod" was added to the sim in this example, and certainly not any aircraft mod which Oleg should hold closely since aircraft and cockpits can be a great revenue source.

LEXX_Luthor
01-22-2006, 06:40 PM
and... <span class="ev_code_yellow">I am * sorry *</span> Aymar

If I Sloppily posted that Aymar is "behaving better" (what?)... Why do I post THAT instead of enjoying Aymar as a *new* Offline simmer? They are hard to find on this board. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LEXX is an ***...

The-Pizza-Man
01-22-2006, 09:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
The reason MSFS can have more realistic aircraft among other things is because it is modable. That is also one of the reasons why it has been so successful. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Nope, the reason it can have more realistic aircraft, (which is debatable anyway) in spite of its moddability, is that there is no combat involved, i.e. no competetive edge to be gained by giving your 747 the ability to do Mach 2 and turn on a dime. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The most realistic aircraft are 3rd party aircraft not the microsoft default ones. I've flown a Cessna 172 and the MS flight model isn't entirely accurate but the 172 by RealAir is far more accurate. How would have that been done without SDKs and an in built support to expand. A small industry has grown out of making paywear mods for MSFS in addition to the thousands of freeware mods. To say that MSFS has been successful "in spite" of 3rd party content is ignorant of the facts.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
That's also the reason why MSFS moddability cannot be compared to moddability in IL-2 or any other combat sim. Let's compare CFS instead. Moddable and the latest version even has 'stringent' anti-cheat checking. How many are flying it online? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The reason CFS3 failed was not because it was open to additional content but because it was a poor game out of the package. The core of the game is quite sound but it was released too early and not enough effort was put into making the game good. If it weren't for user made content I would have ditched the game a long long time ago.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Yes, but modding the FM/DM of a sim is like modding the health meter, speed or agility of your player in an FPS. Neither is possible in most situations. Those mods that accomplish anything that drastic (think BF1942 mods) fracture the online community but FPS's have 1000's of times the audience. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It wouldn't fracture the "community" it would expand it. Right now, the gameplay only appeals to a rather small group. Mods can only expand the number of players, if executed correctly.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is not paranoia when the results of previous attempts are there for all to see. Just ask any CFS2 or RB3D veteran. The former was infested with foo-fighters and the latter became a hassle as you had to maintain a different set of mods for each venue. IMO, they both only survived, in spite of their modability, because they had little competition. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the result of poor execution. You might also find that MP is usually only a fraction of the people who buy and play the game. It just happens to be the most vocal fraction so it appears bigger than it is.

With robust anti-cheat mechanisms there is no reason why cheaters would be any more prevailent then they are today.

Jetbuff
01-23-2006, 05:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Nope, the reason it can have more realistic aircraft, (which is debatable anyway) in spite of its moddability, is that there is no combat involved, i.e. no competetive edge to be gained by giving your 747 the ability to do Mach 2 and turn on a dime. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The most realistic aircraft are 3rd party aircraft not the microsoft default ones. I've flown a Cessna 172 and the MS flight model isn't entirely accurate but the 172 by RealAir is far more accurate. How would have that been done without SDKs and an in built support to expand. A small industry has grown out of making paywear mods for MSFS in addition to the thousands of freeware mods. To say that MSFS has been successful "in spite" of 3rd party content is ignorant of the facts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Read my comment again. Without a competetive advantage there is no reason for foo-fighter mods, hence you are not comparing apples to oranges when you use MSFS as your yardstick for a successful moddable game. In a combat game, modding the FM is an invitation for abuse.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The reason CFS3 failed was not because it was open to additional content but because it was a poor game out of the package. The core of the game is quite sound but it was released too early and not enough effort was put into making the game good. If it weren't for user made content I would have ditched the game a long long time ago. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Certainly CFS3 was a mess code-wise, but conversely it had MS marketing muscle behind it so they cancel out.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It wouldn't fracture the "community" it would expand it. Right now, the gameplay only appeals to a rather small group. Mods can only expand the number of players, if executed correctly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's a pretty big 'if'. One that has not been achieved in a flight sim to date, not without fracturing the community. The 'expansion' you speak of is the thing that will appeal to a rather small group; don't kid yourself, most people don't want to bother with tracking down and installing mods and I know of very few who would base their purchasing decision on a game's moddability. Most players don't even download patches, let alone mods and would more likely base their decision on the quality and content out-of-the-box.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That's the result of poor execution. You might also find that MP is usually only a fraction of the people who buy and play the game. It just happens to be the most vocal fraction so it appears bigger than it is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sure, online is what, 1/10th of offline at best? But you said it yourself: they're vocal and they're on the forums either trash-talking or praising your game. Besides, just because they're fewer than purely offline players are you suggesting their concerns be ignored? Like I said this Us vs Them stuff is rather stupid. I don't play a lot offline due to limited time but that doesn't mean I am oblivious to the offline players' plight. You, otoh, are being very one-sided about this.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">With robust anti-cheat mechanisms there is no reason why cheaters would be any more prevailent then they are today. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Again, a possibly very tall order. It's always amazing how outsiders can assume simplicity about something they don't know anthing about. Meanwhile, the track record says it's not that easy.

The-Pizza-Man
01-23-2006, 05:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Read my comment again. Without a competetive advantage there is no reason for foo-fighter mods, hence you are not comparing apples to oranges when you use MSFS as your yardstick for a successful moddable game. In a combat game, modding the FM is an invitation for abuse. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know MSFS doesn't have the same lure to cheat because it lacks a defined competition. However, it would be stupid to allow just any old plane to be used on a server. As I said before, all the players would have to have the same mods activated to play on the server. It would be server/client mods not client mods. At least that would the case for MP.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Certainly CFS3 was a mess code-wise, but conversely it had MS marketing muscle behind it so they cancel out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No amount of marketing can make up for a bodgy game on release, it might trick people into buying it but it won't keep them playing it. As I said CFS3's expandability is the only thing that keeps it on my HD. It is very much a "might what have been game". If only MS had spent an extra 6 months on it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That's a pretty big 'if'. One that has not been achieved in a flight sim to date, not without fracturing the community. The 'expansion' you speak of is the thing that will appeal to a rather small group; don't kid yourself, most people don't want to bother with tracking down and installing mods and I know of very few who would base their purchasing decision on a game's moddability. Most players don't even download patches, let alone mods and would more likely base their decision on the quality and content out-of-the-box. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The number is probably similar to that for MP players.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Sure, online is what, 1/10th of offline at best? But you said it yourself: they're vocal and they're on the forums either trash-talking or praising your game. Besides, just because they're fewer than purely offline players are you suggesting their concerns be ignored? Like I said this Us vs Them stuff is rather stupid. I don't play a lot offline due to limited time but that doesn't mean I am oblivious to the offline players' plight. You, otoh, are being very one-sided about this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not suggesting their concerns be ignored. However, if you look at it from a business point it makes sense to favour the larger number of buyers. The ultimate goal, however, would be to accomodate both groups. This is something I feel can be done.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Again, a possibly very tall order. It's always amazing how outsiders can assume simplicity about something they don't know anthing about. Meanwhile, the track record says it's not that easy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It never is easy, but just because something is difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. It has been demonstrated possible to have robust anti-cheat mechanisms in other game genres. Flightsims are nothing special, they should be able to do it as well.

Jetbuff
01-23-2006, 06:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
I know MSFS doesn't have the same lure to cheat because it lacks a defined competition. However, it would be stupid to allow just any old plane to be used on a server. As I said before, all the players would have to have the same mods activated to play on the server. It would be server/client mods not client mods. At least that would the case for MP. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
In other words, solve it by fracturing the online community?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No amount of marketing can make up for a bodgy game on release, it might trick people into buying it but it won't keep them playing it. As I said CFS3's expandability is the only thing that keeps it on my HD. It is very much a "might what have been game". If only MS had spent an extra 6 months on it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Modders have spent an extra 3 years on it and while certainly better than the original it still does not compare to even the original IL-2. This myth of modding being better than or equal to the efforts of the game developer is getting old. Modding can be great, but it has just as much likelihood, if not more, of being a complete catastrophe. The only reason mods are never criticized as strongly is because they are often done pro-bono and/or can always blame the underlying game. If you don't beleive me check the TW center forum. There are some mods there where the developers are posting unit screenshots that look like something my kid sister would draw but the praise keeps coming in.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That's a pretty big 'if'. One that has not been achieved in a flight sim to date, not without fracturing the community. The 'expansion' you speak of is the thing that will appeal to a rather small group; don't kid yourself, most people don't want to bother with tracking down and installing mods and I know of very few who would base their purchasing decision on a game's moddability. Most players don't even download patches, let alone mods and would more likely base their decision on the quality and content out-of-the-box. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The number is probably similar to that for MP players. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The funny thing is, online players are the ones most likely to know about and have access to these mods you're advocating.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm not suggesting their concerns be ignored. However, if you look at it from a business point it makes sense to favour the larger number of buyers. The ultimate goal, however, would be to accomodate both groups. This is something I feel can be done. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
OK, now you're contradicting yourself. You are ignoring our concerns because, hey, we're the smaller group so we don't matter from a 'business point'.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It never is easy, but just because something is difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. It has been demonstrated possible to have robust anti-cheat mechanisms in other game genres. Flightsims are nothing special, they should be able to do it as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Please show me one example where you can have cheat-proof mods without fracturing the community. i.e. where compatability is maintained between all versions of the games regardless of the mods installed. Thanks...

Jetbuff
01-23-2006, 07:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Lets modify the terrain brightness -- for example IanBoy's Kurland map uses a new method that makes it too dark and so I NEVER use it -- never. Assume Oleg's Offline sim version has a non-encrypted text file that allows the Offline player to change landscape brightness. Of course, this can be used as an Online cheat -- if the Online version was not different. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's configuration, not modding. It's a semantic distinction, but an important one nonetheless. I am all for as much configuration as possible, provided the settings online are host controlled. The minute we allow new planes though is the minute we lose any cohesiveness in online play. With about 500 players at any one time and 150+ flyables that can be modded and many more that could be added, you could easily end up with a compatability rate as low as 1%.

The-Pizza-Man
01-24-2006, 06:36 AM
You seem deathly afraid of fracturing the community. Expanding the style of gameplay can only increase the size of the community, unless the developers were increadibly stupid.

Your basic premise that mods will somehow fracture the "community" and that cheating would be rampant are flawed.

I'd also appreciate if you didn't try and put words in my mouth, re this
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">OK, now you're contradicting yourself. You are ignoring our concerns because, hey, we're the smaller group so we don't matter from a 'business point'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I said it makes sense to favour the larger group. I don't care what theasaurus your using but favour is not synonomous with ignore. I also said I would prefer if both SP and MP could be accomodated as I don't see there needs to mutially exclusive.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Please show me one example where you can have cheat-proof mods without fracturing the community. i.e. where compatability is maintained between all versions of the games regardless of the mods installed. Thanks... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cheat proof is an impossibility, a game can always be hacked. However, if you combined the mod system from a game like RS:UO with an anti cheat program like punk buster you would have an effectively cheat free system that wouldn't fracture the "community". That mod system activates or deactivates mods as per the hosts requests. No stock game files are edited. In other words it won't deny you access to a server because you have a mod installed.

Your argument simply doesn't hold water.


RE CFS3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Modders have spent an extra 3 years on it and while certainly better than the original it still does not compare to even the original IL-2. This myth of modding being better than or equal to the efforts of the game developer is getting old. Modding can be great, but it has just as much likelihood, if not more, of being a complete catastrophe. The only reason mods are never criticized as strongly is because they are often done pro-bono and/or can always blame the underlying game. If you don't beleive me check the TW center forum. There are some mods there where the developers are posting unit screenshots that look like something my kid sister would draw but the praise keeps coming in. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you seen OFF or MAW? Compare some screen shots. Spot the difference. http://off.oldbrowndog.net/images/0205/Facility_airfields01.jpg
http://www.medairwar.com/new_progress/expl_d.jpg http://off.oldbrowndog.net/images/0205/Airfields04.JPG http://www.pacific-fighters.com/ss/smallblacksheep3.jpg http://www.pacific-fighters.com/ss/fan3.JPG

EDCF_Rama
01-24-2006, 07:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
You seem deathly afraid of fracturing the community. Expanding the style of gameplay can only increase the size of the community, unless the developers were increadibly stupid. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nope, it could increase offline community maybe (even if it's to be prooven... I'm not sure OFF or other CFS3 mods will significantly increase CFS3 sells)
But for online community, everything who break software version unity breaks the community in small groups (so fracturing is a good name), since in order to avoid cheating, mods have to be incompatible with each others ONLINE.
And with FB, the more interesting online play, with the large online campaign can live only with a large groupe of players that run the same software version... and this style of play will collapse with mods.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Your basic premise that mods will somehow fracture the "community" and that cheating would be rampant are flawed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Lot's of players experienced this ONLINE fracture and rampant cheating with CFS2.... so it can't be considered "flawed", the experience is REAL, in contrary to the forum writings.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Have you seen OFF or MAW? Compare some screen shots. Spot the difference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Who's actually playing OFF or MAW ONLINE???
I asked on other forums (specialized for OFF), and got no reply...

I agree OFFLINE style of play should be adressed, but I'm not sure (it has to be demonstrated.... so far it's not) that FM and DM modding will significantly increase OFFLINE customers.
for ONLINE players, possibility of FM and DM modds is a direct threat to their style of play and to the diversity of online play available (since this diversity is based on different gameplay, using the SAME game version).
So for me a sure loss on one side for a possible (but not sure) gain on the other side isn't a good deal.
Especcially since the few that would like hard to modd FM and DM (even on other games, they're not many), can satisfy their wills with other games (like CFS3).

LEXX_Luthor
01-24-2006, 08:13 AM
RAMA:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I agree OFFLINE style of play should be adressed, but I'm not sure (it has to be demonstrated.... so far it's not) that FM and DM modding will significantly increase OFFLINE customers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Its better than you think. More planes always increase customers, and when Oleg makes the planes himself, potential customers are more exposed to the new content directly out of the box or in Patches. Oleg knows more planes means more customers, which is why he always makes more planes. Oleg has proven willing to add planes that a more "open aircraft" sim would depend on (and directly support) independent 3rd Party modders to make. The same result -- new aircraft added all the time -- with some control over content (Oleg won't allow F-22 jet into BoB+). Best, the customer does not have to download half the internet to find Oleg's planes, as all new planes for BoB+ will be releaced directly from the Moscow Bureau.

There are *great* advantages to a totally "open" aircraft modded sim, only one of which is to extend Offline play to other theaters (Oleg will do that himself), and "open" aircraft sims are good for developers who don't want to make all the planes and all the cockpits but concentrate on other gameplay design areas. They are all great sims.

Jetbuff
01-24-2006, 09:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
You seem deathly afraid of fracturing the community. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Naturally, it means fewer opportunities to actually play online. Once a certain critical minimum mass becomes absent, online play simply dies.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Your basic premise that mods will somehow fracture the "community" and that cheating would be rampant are flawed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
OK, what would you call it when player A and B cannot fly together online because they have different mods installed? I call it fracturing. The alternative is to allow client-side modding, hence cheating. Show me the other alternative please. How many mods are there for the standard FPS? Meanwhile, in a FS, the mini-mods which 'tweak' the performance of various planes are likely to be the same as the number of copies sold. We already know Aymar here is planning to un-nerf the 190. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'd also appreciate if you didn't try and put words in my mouth, re this
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">OK, now you're contradicting yourself. You are ignoring our concerns because, hey, we're the smaller group so we don't matter from a 'business point'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I said it makes sense to favour the larger group. I don't care what theasaurus your using but favour is not synonomous with ignore. I also said I would prefer if both SP and MP could be accomodated as I don't see there needs to mutially exclusive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
OK, let me more specific then. You are brushing off our concerns as 'paranoid' instead of analyzing the merit of our argument. i.e. you are approaching it 100% from an offline perspective trying to sell your point. Check my history on these boards. I have been an equal-opportunity advocate for years; red, blue, online, offline, doesn't matter so long as the idea is feasible. e.g. ask Seafire about the formation default spacing petition.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Cheat proof is an impossibility, a game can always be hacked. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I rest my case! J/K... Let's use cheat-resistant then shall we? The IL-2 series' cheat resistance is mostly the result of the fact that no one has access to alter any FM or DM parameters. Modding would nullify that unless stringent, server-side mod-checking was implemented. Unfortunately, the latter, given the small size of the simming community to begin with, can easily (and has in the past) render online play impotent.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However, if you combined the mod system from a game like RS:UO with an anti cheat program like punk buster you would have an effectively cheat free system that wouldn't fracture the "community". That mod system activates or deactivates mods as per the hosts requests. No stock game files are edited. In other words it won't deny you access to a server because you have a mod installed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
But it will deny me access if I don't have it installed. i.e. if I don't have that particular server's mod, I can't fly in it. i.e. the online community will be divided into as many sub-communities as there are mods, aka. FRACTURED!

This is not a big deal for many other game genres where:
(a) mods usually require an extensive content modification before they are generally accepted, so there are fewer mods total than in the average flight sim. (unlike in sims where it is quite common to come across a mod that just tweaks plane A's roll-rate or plane B's climb-rate)
(b) the audience per mod is usually greater than the entire online simming community!
(c) most mods, but particularly flight sim mods, are mutually exclusive. e.g. if I download Aymar's "Focke-wulf uber-alles" mod, I can't use AceHayate's "P-51 won the war" mod since they overwrite each other's files. Moddability is not just about expanding the game, and will most often involve players' attempts at fixing it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Your argument simply doesn't hold water. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're not even seeing my argument so how can you evaluate it? I could have just brushed you off with the same canned response as many have already done in this thread, but I thought you would actually care to know why most of us think FM and DM moddability is a bad idea.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Have you seen OFF or MAW? Compare some screen shots. Spot the difference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have and am getting OFF to explore 6DoF with my new vector toy. The reason I'm getting it (instead of BoB:WoV) is because a squadmate is donating his copy of CFS3 to me out of frustration with the product. Even on their forums though, you will often see that they run into roadblocks of having to work within the CFS3 framework - i.e. moddability is not an end-all-be-all solution. e.g. they can't recode the AI to make it any less spastic, nor can they circumvent many of the bugs of the original. And therein lies the perk of Oleg's approach - we don't just get free content, we also get game enhancement in other areas that can never be open for modding.

I also have no illusions about playing OFF online. Moddability = poor to non-existant online experience, while closed code only limits the speed at which improvements and additions are made to the game for both off and online. The thing is, I'd much rather have quality over quantity and since unlike the MS product this is a supported line, we will get what we want, eventually: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m...421027204#5421027204 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/5421027204/r/5421027204#5421027204)

BFawlty
01-24-2006, 09:42 AM
Well I've played the OFF mod, and while the work put into is impressive, it isn't going to keep me from following the other WW1 offerings coming along.
As for moddability, I agree the searching for the mods to play a certain campaign does get old, is one reason I play the great campaigns from this community, plug and play! Having said that though, this sim does feel like it was built for online mostly and as a result the offline game is lacking. I have tried online, but the few times I did were not good times. One only has to look to some of the posts in this thread to see why. I will finish by saying that I,as an offline player only, will not buy BOB until the reviews are in and I am sure the offline side of it is a great jump forward.

BF

Jetbuff
01-24-2006, 10:05 AM
BFawlty, I too hope that offline gameplay is more fleshed out for BoB. I fly offline too on occassion and I'd hate to end up in a pay-to-play scheme that an online-only sim would require.

The point I'm making is that moddability is not the answer. Its advantages to offline play are debatable and it definitely harms the online game. In my opinion, a robust, immersive offline campaign with competent AI and a less sterile environment are far, far more important.

BTW, I don't believe IL-2 was ever "geared" towards offline play. e.g. there are many features that were originally only available offline: campaigns, track recording, certain objects. It's just that their approach to offline was nowhere as good as their approach to online due to an underestimation of the worth of what I like to call tangential immersion features. i.e. things other than the obvious (FM/DM/graphics) like AI, proper briefings and a populated world.

BFawlty
01-24-2006, 10:20 AM
I agree about the mods up to a point. Some things I would like to see, sounds comes instantly to mind http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif! The non sterile world is what I really like about some of the user made campaigns. I recently fired up CFS2 again. Went and got some user made campaigns. Right away was having problems finding some of the VERY old mods required to run them. I then realized why I had given up on it in the first place.
"BTW, I don't believe IL-2 was ever "geared" towards offline play. e.g. there are many features that were originally only available offline: campaigns, track recording, certain objects. It's just that their approach to offline was nowhere as good as their approach to online due to an underestimation of the worth of what I like to call tangential immersion features. i.e. things other than the obvious (FM/DM/graphics) like AI, proper briefings and a populated world." I totally agree with this and is the reason I won't buy BOB until I'm sure these things have been sorted. Have a good day! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

BF

The-Pizza-Man
01-24-2006, 05:41 PM
Jetbuff have you ever played RS:UO? Your entire argument is based around the idea that person X with mod A wont' be able to play with person Y with mod B. That is simply not the case, they can have whatever mods they want installed and still play the stock game together. It wouldn't edit the original files, so the stock game would still be intact. A mod might activate files in place of the originals but it won't overwrite them. So a player might want to play a server with a different mod setup, so all he has to do is download the mods he needs and join the server. It won't prevent him from playing on the servers he normally plays on. If you were really worried that the "community" was so ******ed that they were unable to download a mod from a website you could have it download directly from the server on joining like maps in a lot of FPS.

As I said before eventually a few popular streams of mods would become popular and almost everone would have them installed. They can play on 99% of servers without any intermod conflict. There would be no fracturing of the community. There are no practical barriers to making a flightsim mod friendly, it is only fear of change and laziness that stand in it's way.

TooCooL34
01-24-2006, 06:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
There are no practical barriers to making a flightsim mod friendly, it is only fear of change and laziness that stand in it's way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You know(maybe not!), most of sim(game) players are very very lazy. More than you ever imagine. Friendly mod? How can there be friendly mods when players doesn't even want to click the simple link and download it! Everything one gotta download & install is dangerous & cumbersome job for them except official site's patch download or in-game patch function.
But that stupid guys are backbone of that sim(game). They are the mass which supports basic number for constituting live community.

Your arguments are assuming the players are rational and sometimes diligent to do additional things.
Your insistence is vague since they're not and they will never be.
Writing here thousands of lines won't make it any difference cause your basic assumption is wrong from the start.

LEXX_Luthor
01-24-2006, 07:22 PM
Pizza, many if not most customers are not into downloading half the internet to modup their sims. I never was until I got into the StrikeFighters, and that's only because it turned out worthy of me doing so, but I had to give up FB/PF to find the time, and I happily did so!! C'mon over. Instead of me being an ***, I wish I had advertised this more to Aymar as a creative alternative outlet to aircraft modding rather than Oleg's sim which will never be opened up to flight modelling except deep inside the Central Moscow Bureau. The sims are different, but have fans of both.

Jetbuff
01-25-2006, 04:51 AM
Pizza-man, I know I'm dead-lazy. I may download a couple of mods, but I hate the hassle of installing them. So yes, I would get sidelined by an open architecture sim and I don't think I would be alone. Throw in a simple refusal to download or play certain mods because they nerf my favourite plane or just simply stink and you can see the results: even if your multi-mod principle was adopted, you'd still have a fractured community.

For example, I have R:TW, but the only mod that remains installed on my hard drive is EB, and if I go online to play this I can only play with other people who have EB, i.e. not the entire community. With R:TW this may not be such a big deal - how many copies sold? There is breathing room for the laws of supply and demand to filter things down to a couple of good mods. But in a sim, which rarely has more than a fraction of the sales of other genres, this spells disaster for the online game, pure and simple.

Take HL, how many FB servers are running at any one time? 20? 30? 50? Now compare with the average FPS where servers usually number in the thousands. If we split both between 10 mods, we're down to as few as 2 servers per mod in a sim, but still have hundreds of servers per mod for the FPS. I don't know if I can make it any clearer than that.

The-Pizza-Man
01-25-2006, 05:04 AM
But there in lies the problem. The community won't be able to sustain it self if you can't make the game appeal to a wider audience. Mod support while not an assurance of that is a step in the right direction. With the community as it is and most servers being run by die hard fans I think the number of popular gameplay mods would be 2 or 3, at most 5. It would be a case of natural selection, the few good mods would be common and the rest would be relegated to SP or niche groups. To use RS:UO as an example again. It had a much larger MP population but I could play in 99% of games with only 3 mods.

ElAurens
01-25-2006, 05:54 AM
Pizza-Man, your problem here is that you think there is a giant untapped market for flight simulation. There is not. Flight simulation is difficult and expensive in comparison to FPS that will play on min spec machines, and require no real extra equipment to play. do you really think that tens of thousands of adolescent young males are clamering to fly virtually?

Jetbuff
01-25-2006, 05:55 AM
And yet Pizza-man, this has not worked for a single flightsim to date...

Meanwhile, the IL-2 community has sustained itself for going on 5 years now, both on and offline with a closed architecture.

You keep mentioning RS:UO. What is this? Is it a sim? Is it a combat sim?

Oh and ditto on ElAurens' point. People who don't choose to fly flight sims have no interest in them regardless of modding.

nakamura_kenji
01-25-2006, 06:14 AM
prob be open architure can massive difference quality addons. good example be operation flashpoint where can be get

http://ofp.gamezone.cz/news/pics3/sword1.2.jpg

or

http://ofp.gamezone.cz/news/pics2/navalspets3.jpg

best suggest be similar system be now have but much best support 3rd party modelers so allow much fast implementation addition aircraft than be have now

ZK-DABLIN
01-25-2006, 07:10 AM
I only have a few months online experience behind me. If I read this thread a few months ago, and decided to make awares my opinion on this issue I would have clearly agreed Modding this simulation would improve this game exponentially.

That would have been due only to ignorance, and ofcourse, a natural inherant drive to alter everything I get my hands on.

IL2 on the other hand, especially once I started to play online, and recently joined a squadron, is really the only game (simulation) I have actually taken even half seriously.

Moddability is like a disease at best. I have fallen into the trap myself and remember spending countless hours creating new levels and making changes to whatever game or simulation in the past, even before completing the original game itself. Their is an inducement factor to change things to ones way, and it does seem to take precadence over everything else including just playing the game and enjoying it for what it is.

There have been times I had wished I was capable of changing this or having a better that in this simulation, but at the end of the day I live with what we have got and enjoy it for what IL-2 is. A close to realistic historical representation of WW2 air combat.

Having the ability to alter the finer details of IL2 will only serve to force everything sideways, away from original inclinations which make IL2 the masterpeice it really is.

I have a much greater appreciation for IL2 then I have ever had for any other game/simulator EVER. I am 25 years old, I consider myself mature and rather an average joe type of guy, but yet I spend countless hours using this computer to play what many unenlightened ones still consider a video game.

It is this ability to distinqish this simulation from all the others which makes it really such a great peice of art and an absolute joy to be a part of. I would really hate to see moddability destroy this, regardless of what its short term achievements will bring - and im sure there would be many.

I also fly aircraft for real, though not WW2 radial beasts like available in this sim, so I hold a strong regard to realism, and still though know the fact that because this is a simulation on a computer, it has already failed in this regard to be truely realistic.

Whilst only playing offline, it can become very difficult to appreciate how close to realism nevertheless this simulation is, and how important it is to remain in such ways. Flying against AI completely defeats the purpose of this, and only really serve as a means of a placeholder for the unfortunate underdogs stuck without a broadband connection.

I do enjoy offline gaming aswell, the campaigns are especially enticing, but unless you have experienced the vigorality of online experience, and the cunningness of all human opponents, it will remain all to easy to remain wrapped up in issues regarding missing aircraft, and the inability to mould the simulation into the world you wish to see.

With IL2 I dont hold any inclination towards major modifications, it is the community with which I am so grateful of and it is for this very reason I enjoy using this game almost everyday of my continueing life.

If any accessory to IL2 will only serve to devide the community for whatever reason no matter how grand, I would rather do without it.

And it is for this very reason that now, I can see the fragility of this simulation and how moddability will only bring short term gratifications (for a few) and will only serve to make things more difficult then it needs to be for the rest of us.

Im at a point now that all I want to do is just play the game, whatever comes out of it in the future through Oleg Maddox and his team, so be it; if keeping up with their developments is necessary to remain in pace with the rest of the community, then I'll keep updated; atleast I know, everyone else will be trodding the 'same' path and I wont get lost in a thousand different version of IL2.

Overall modability is a great feature in any case, it just doesn't work to well without some form of control or guideline, and that is what I believe Oleg is trying to achieve at any rate.

John_Wayne_
01-25-2006, 07:44 AM
Now that's what I call a post! Well said.

LEXX_Luthor
01-25-2006, 07:48 AM
ZK-DABLIN:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Flying against AI completely defeats the purpose of this, and only really serve as a means of a placeholder for the unfortunate underdogs stuck without a broadband connection.

I do enjoy offline gaming aswell, the campaigns are especially enticing, but unless you have experienced the vigorality of online experience, and the cunningness of all human opponents, it will remain all to easy to remain wrapped up in issues regarding missing aircraft, and the inability to mould the simulation into the world you wish to see.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The problem is AI programming, which does need advances in the future to catch up to the screenshot review magazine driven grafix culture. In fact, AI and air war environment and their working together (ex...AI blinded by the sun, clouds, night) should be the core of combat flight sim development, not grafix and flight modelling (the flight model cult http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif ).

One thing is configuration text files that help configure AI behavior. The AI was improved for StrikeFighters by the community in this manner, but that is for Offline play only, and this is called the "AI Mod" over at StrikeFighters, but in this thread we see "mods" discussed as aircraft addition only. You can have a "mostly open" modded sim but with closed aircraft and closed flight models.

In fact the best way to see "mods" is community made campaign additions, skins, so FB/PF is already open to "mods" but very limited, or just slightly "semi-open."

Jetbuff
01-25-2006, 08:24 AM
Lexx, I think you are the only proponent of this mini-mod approach. The others here all want full modding access ala MSFS/CFS and often quote them as panaceas of what a BoB should aspire to. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

So, to be clear: any 'modding' that does not influence the online game adversely - whether through introducing avenues for cheating or fracturing the community - is fine by me. e.g. with your AI-modding idea I would add the caveat that online AI only uses the default routines. Meanwhile, if an aspiring guy comes up with better routines offline, perhaps these can be sanctioned by Oleg and included as the new defaults.

I suspect this is very close to the approach alluded to by Oleg previously. i.e. we may be allowed to mess about to a certain degree either only offline or in a limited online testing arena but nowhere else until they are vetted by Maddox Games. How is this different from what Pizza-man is suggesting? The choice to use a mod or not for online play will not be in the hands of the individual hosts but Maddox Games.

LEXX_Luthor
01-25-2006, 08:35 AM
Right on jetbuff. But, mod testing should be offline ONLY and if Oleg likes the mod, he can make the mod official where it can then be used Online. This also helps keep the sim updated and reduces the backbreaking workload of Newbies downloading half the internet (I am aware of that issue hehe!!).

JetBuff:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I suspect this is very close to the approach alluded to by Oleg previously. i.e. we may be allowed to mess about to a certain degree either only offline or in a limited online testing arena but nowhere else until they are vetted by Maddox Games. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

EDCF_Rama
01-25-2006, 09:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
Jetbuff have you ever played RS:UO? Your entire argument is based around the idea that person X with mod A wont' be able to play with person Y with mod B. That is simply not the case, they can have whatever mods they want installed and still play the stock game together. It wouldn't edit the original files, so the stock game would still be intact. A mod might activate files in place of the originals but it won't overwrite them. So a player might want to play a server with a different mod setup, so all he has to do is download the mods he needs and join the server. It won't prevent him from playing on the servers he normally plays on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know RS:UO, but what you describe is exactly how CFS2 worked.... and CFS2 online was the perfect example of fractured online community and open way for online cheats.

No Mods, No Cry

mnicklisch
01-25-2006, 10:45 AM
Well, I would say no to a modable BoB, but, I won't say anything against extended possibilities for mission- building.
Also I won't say anything about a real map- editor, where you can build your own maps, maybe some people will build senseless maps, but some skilled man were able to build very beautiful maps, so we weren't so dependent on Moscow and Oleg, if we were the opinion some maps must be in the game, so we made them.
On the other hand, don't know weather it is a necessary, because of that huge europe- map, but till we don't know how it's gonna be with that one, you can't say that.

In general I#m against a modable BoB, because, imagine, you are able to create new planes or change them, how should that work online, if it would be used frequently, every user will have another datas of the planes, I guess it wouldn't work.

The-Pizza-Man
01-25-2006, 06:05 PM
ElAurens, the market is only small if you only include hardcore flightsims like Il2, LOMAC, F4 etc. There are a lot of people who buy arcade flight sims and the not so realistic flightsims on the market that wouldn't touch Il2 because it wouldn't be fun for them. Now if you could build so you could attract those people as well as the hardcore simmers to the game then it would be a win win. With one game supporting multiple types of gameplay you can expand your audience.

Jetbuff, RS:UO is Rogue Spear: Urban Ops, Rogue Spear was the sequel to Rainbow Six and Urban Ops was the expansion pack that added the mod support.

ElAurens
01-25-2006, 07:12 PM
Last I checked IL2 was a hardcore flight sim, which is why it is on my drive.

It is already scalable to the point of being totally arcade. What more would you do to it?

Oh I know, open it up so it could be ruined by all your l33t haxor buddies who have lost their CFS2/3 playground because no one plays those anymore.

NOT!

LEXX_Luthor
01-25-2006, 07:51 PM
um...2FSC was a pretty good sim, rather hardcore for its time.

Pizza, Oleg will not open aircraft to modding. Other sims offer that, and I am enjoying one of them. Much of the rest of the Oleg's sim needs to be opened, as the community can take the Offline sim far beyond what the Central Moscow Bureau can do or is willing to do (Smoke/Fire limited to 2km shows lack of understanding in game design). FB is too closed to modding that it restricts what campaign builders can do...for example, we can't place or delete airfields where we need to according to gameplay or historical reasons, and we can't mod our own airfields. The use of Static Test Runways as placeble airfields by the most hardcore FB/PF mission builders are a great example of the desperate need for a Oleg Sim more open to non-aircraft modding.

Jetbuff
01-25-2006, 11:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
(Smoke/Fire limited to 2km shows lack of understanding in game design) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Errr... could it be that they actually know more than you do? i.e. perhaps the fps hit was found to be unacceptable? Sure, they could have included a means to allow the users to control the distance but perhaps they were too lazy/scared of technical support headaches, eh? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LEXX_Luthor
01-26-2006, 12:35 AM
Yea I did think of that and I rejected it for a number of reasons. If you are correct, they should have known enough not to bother making Fire/Smoke objects if the method they chose to implement them can't be trusted beyond 2km. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The-Pizza-Man
01-26-2006, 06:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
Last I checked IL2 was a hardcore flight sim, which is why it is on my drive.

It is already scalable to the point of being totally arcade. What more would you do to it?

Oh I know, open it up so it could be ruined by all your l33t haxor buddies who have lost their CFS2/3 playground because no one plays those anymore.

NOT! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep you've got a really solid argument there, I can't see how I can possibly compete with that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif.

Seriously, your view of what can be done with a game is very very narrow. What is wrong with a flight sim serving the entire spectrum of gamers from the super arcade up to ultra realism.

As for what more in the war of arcade could you want, there is quite a bit. Even if IL2 can be dumbed to down to an arcade level (I don't know I've never played it like that) it still have no content that might appeal to that sort of gamer. For example, some people might like the idea of taking off from airships or something.

Then there is the other end of the spectrum. The ultra-realism crowd. There are mistakes in IL2 and it isn't as realistic as you'd believe. Nor are fixes for these mistakes made available promptly. Imagine a mod that gave the Beaufighter's navigator/observer a voice to call out enemy bandits. Move that bar out of the way of the 190s gunsight. The He-111 FM is also pretty bad or so I hear. Then there are the weapons loadouts that missing. None of those things look like getting fixed.

Even if aircraft were not moddable, there are a multitude of things that could be improved. There could be improved effects, landscapes and weather.

Jetbuff
01-26-2006, 07:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
Then there is the other end of the spectrum. The ultra-realism crowd. There are mistakes in IL2 and it isn't as realistic as you'd believe. Nor are fixes for these mistakes made available promptly. Imagine a mod that gave the Beaufighter's navigator/observer a voice to call out enemy bandits. Move that bar out of the way of the 190s gunsight. The He-111 FM is also pretty bad or so I hear. Then there are the weapons loadouts that missing. None of those things look like getting fixed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And what guarantees do you have that we would get mods that:
(a) 'corrected' plane(s) to a historically accurate representation?
(b) fit all our varying perspectives on what is historically accurate in the first place?

Consider this scenario: Ignoring those intent on cheating, player A decides that the 0.50 cals should 'blow things real nice' including Tiger tanks as the ultimate weapon of WWII because he read that they were while player B thought that they were weak and hopelessly outdated based on his extensive 'research'. They could both release mods to that effect, and then guess what? We'll have at least 3 different divisions of the game that are incompatible with each other. (original, uber and nerfed 0.50's plus perhaps a 100 varieties in between) Multiply that by every possible contentious issue (pretty much all of them judging by these boards) and a viable online community becomes nothing more than a pipe-dream.

As to the speed of fixing, just because you or I think X is wrong, doesn't mean the developer agrees with us. (e.g. the FW bar) So, the fixes that are delayed imo are either delayed because they are never going to be made in the first place or they are too complicated/time-consuming/impossible to implement.

TooCooL34
01-26-2006, 07:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
Then there is the other end of the spectrum. The ultra-realism crowd. There are mistakes in IL2 and it isn't as realistic as you'd believe. Nor are fixes for these mistakes made available promptly. Imagine a mod that gave the Beaufighter's navigator/observer a voice to call out enemy bandits. Move that bar out of the way of the 190s gunsight. The He-111 FM is also pretty bad or so I hear. Then there are the weapons loadouts that missing. None of those things look like getting fixed.

Even if aircraft were not moddable, there are a multitude of things that could be improved. There could be improved effects, landscapes and weather. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ideal, ideal, and ideal.
All your examples sounds sweet but those are the best of the best of the best(I need more but I'll stop here) cases which can happen with modding.
Open up some architecture and we shall see what we dream of?(without being exploited and fracturising community??!!)
Wow, that sounds dang feckin goood!


WAKE UP!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

KOM.Nausicaa
01-26-2006, 07:55 AM
There is this theory that you put 100 monkeys in a room, give them paper and pencil and let them write randomly for an infinite time, and they will eventually write Tolstoi's "War and Peace". (or any other book) You just have to wait a very loooong time.

What you pro-modders forget to mention is that any game being modded over a consistent time by an active community produces first, more then anything else, a huge sea of mud you have to swim through to find that pearl you where hoping for. This is incredibly time-consuming, heavy and by moments terribly frustrating, for example when you have to re-install your game "clean" again for the 130st time.

All seen it, all done it.

I was 2 1/2 years in the CFS3 "modder madness" community. I know every single add-on that has ever been done, from version #20 of the "now super realistic" german REVI (except that it is false) up to the 1% He 111 Damage Model (except that it is wrong, or do you believe you can saw off a Heinckel tail with a Hurricane Mk1 machine gun fire 2 sec burst?) Yes, I had also installed the "ultimate sound and effect mod" by "X" and "X" (no names mentioning) where the hardcore CFS 3'ers SWEAR on. Well I just hate it. It's biased, hollywoodish and infantil. I just don't think that flak bursts can be heard like the guns of Navarone while zipping 3km from them on 400 k/mh. I just don't believe that every plane hit by a couple of bullets produces a black and oily smoke trail like if it had a petroleum refinery in it's tail.

Modders produce for 90% what THEY want to see. Actual knowledge of facts and history is amongst most of them highy debatable at best. But be sure: It will not stop them of laying their fingers on it and produce THE MOD and upload and advertize it on the web. Like that 14 year old (no names again) that uploads the "ultimate 50cal sound". Recorded from Pearl Harbour the movie, like later found out.lol

But there ARE good mods. I am not saying it isn't true. But they are rare, hard to filter out, and demand actually a very good knowledge at the user end to know what is actually good, or maybe even better then stock.

But that is not my major point for or against mods. My major point is that in a moddable and modded game you are never able to get a theatre that is of homogenic quality. It is f.ex very much possible to build a accurate BoB theatre from existing mods in CFS3. I did it, created lots of historical missions with this mods. You get more planes for that CFS3 theatre now, from allready available planes, groundobjects etc, then you can hope to get from Olegs upcoming BoB. And you have a complete Europe map. So, why isn't it great then? Because, what you have is complete (or pretty much),yes, but it SUCKS. Why?
Because all this hundreds of mods that you used like Lego blocks to build your world come from different guys and from different time periodes and stages of understanding of CFS3 engine, and all this little guys had their own "opinion" on their stuff. So, you get your german planes from "X" and "Y", your Spit Mk1 comes from "A", is 3 years old, has a terrible cockpit and moddeling, your Hurri MK1 comes from "B" is much better but has a damage model bug (Hydraulics), etc etc. The list is endless. Point is: In a combat simulation world, where the balance counts (I agree absolutely with Lexx on this point) you find yourself with something that is off-balance. Fly the Spit, you puke because of the cockpit and you can't see anything, fly the Hurri, nice model, but you know you will not survive ONE bomber interception, because one single shot and your hydraulics are gone. Fly the He 111 and you have this, fly the Stuka and you have that. No trace of innerly working harmony, no trace of balance. But the items and planes, yes you have them. Are you more happy nevertheless?
Not really, at least if you have some understanding of the facts of the BoB theatre, planes and aerial combat in 1940.

Sorry, I still wait for the day that the CFS3 community produces one single mod that creates a new theatre with a believable balance that comes as a package. Yes they did OFF. Great work. Only, they are already flaming-debating the FM's (of course, what did you expect), and they are about to MOD THE MOD now. MAW is in development. What do I expect from MAW? A super avalanche of 100+ planes (announced by themselves) and some other stuff (less
announced). What will it be (IMO)? A super avalanche of 100+ planes indeed, flying over a yellow carpet that has (great) the shape of Northern Africa. But where is the theatre? Where are the reasons for this planes to be there? Where is the immersion, the war? I just except from them what I have reaons to except. They want their TOYS. In that case it is the planes. It's like when the Special Effects guy gets director of the movie. What do you get? A movie full of Special Effects. The story? Go and search it.

Mods produce what they want to see. If you have your own view of things, and you want to build your own view using this mods, you can succeed, but you will succeed by quantity, never by harmonic quality.
The hours I spent in CFS are countless. At the end, like said by others here, you spent all your time modding, like the other freaks there. It's just never COMPLETELY right to get an "excuse" and fly it. Isn't that bewitched?? I tell you, it's in your head it becomes bewitched. I am happy I came down from that drug starting to fly IL2, yes and actually fly. Now I read books about history, I have a squad, and we fly missions online. That is much more fun then trying to do MS's job at home and make their game better.
But ok, I agree that all above is largely my personal opinion, excuse me if I sound harsh sometimes. I have just seen it all, that's why.

Fact is though:

1. The online community of CFS3 is dead. The players there left (around 50 online max) are 80% noob kids that fly stock only and have never heard of any mod ("1% plane? Whhassat?" lol, isn't that ironic)

2. CFS3 as a combat sim, in stores and press, is dead. The modding community has never been able to revive publics interest in the game on the shelf. (they have never been able for ANY game)

CFS lives on, for a modder community that has turned this unlucky sim into a "sundays garage" where you tinker on your toys instead of using them. The community is split up into multiple groups, and is actually very small, after 4 years CFS3. Maybe 40-50 guys are real "full-time" modders and are still there. After a while you know all the names. I am sure though they have a great time tinkering. I am just not interested in it anymore.

Oleg's BoB has all the reasons to stay closed. I want the online community to be alive, and I want a balance in this sim. I know that we can discuss lots of details for stuff in IL2, and we sure will in BoB. I know it can be frustrating. I do not understand 2km draw distance for fire and smoke neither. But I still prefer this largely, if the general balance of this air combat sim is right, and I trust Oleg for BoB. The Sunday tinkerers still have to proove that they can come up wih a any balance for anything.

Not hard to look to whom my trust goes first.


Best,

nausicaa/ JG101 Squadron

Jetbuff
01-26-2006, 09:45 AM
Well said Nausicaa, well said.

EDCF_Rama
01-26-2006, 10:47 AM
Wow!!! If one day we'll have "ORR awards", I'll vote for Nausicaa post in category "best anti-mods pamphlet".

No Mods, No Cry

Chivas
01-26-2006, 12:02 PM
Good post Nausicaa. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

ElAurens
01-26-2006, 12:07 PM
Nausicca, best post of the year so far, well said sir.

S!

LEXX_Luthor
01-26-2006, 05:36 PM
ElAurens, Rama, Chivas, that post was not the best for the community, as it intentionally ignores 95% of the FB/PF community. KOM does not make a distinction between aircraft moddding and non-aircraft modding which is needed by the Offline community. I'd say non-aircraft modding is needed by the Online community as well, although they may not have any idea why until they someday see the results.

KOM.Nausicaa:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Oleg's BoB has all the reasons to stay closed. I want the <span class="ev_code_yellow">online community</span> to be alive, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Opening some of BoB to Non-aircraft modding is essential since the Offline players are the people Paying for the Online community to fly, thus we have to include the non-aircraft modding interests of the Offline players as well as the "closed security" interests of the Online players.

We must make a distinction in our posts between "closed" and "closed to aircraft modding", as Offline play needs extensive non-aircraft open modding ability.


KOM.Nausicaa:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I do not understand 2km draw distance for fire and smoke neither. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
We will wish we understand if there are no Offline players left and we must pay Monthly Fee for Online flying. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



As one Online FB/PF player posted at simhq last year...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If not for the Offline base, we'd all be paying 12$ a month to fly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Jetbuff, you play Online, and you have always been one of the few Online players who understands Offline issues. If you would care to explain this to them, we would appreciate it. Good Luck though!!

Xiolablu3
01-26-2006, 06:37 PM
Nope, sorry.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
It is heartening to see that even though we don't always agree on many issues that revolve around the sim, we all care passionately about the overall fidelity and longevity of our little addiction.

I salute you gentlemen, good show.

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

El Laurens says it all.

LEXX_Luthor
01-26-2006, 06:58 PM
er...my post above assumes incompatibility between the Offline version with non-aircraft modding, and the Online version. I "forgot" about that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif What kind of non-aircraft "open" modding be useful Online? Not clouds -- no way! Cloud mods are a good example of why even non-aircraft mods can cause problems Online. So, maybe we would need two seperate versions of the sim, Online and Offline.

Jetbuff
01-26-2006, 11:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Jetbuff, you play Online, and you have always been one of the few Online players who understands Offline issues. If you would care to explain this to them, we would appreciate it. Good Luck though!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, let me be honest. It's not just aircraft modding, but modding of anything that would adversely affect the fidelity/unity of the online game that I am against. I think that's your point too but you may not be getting through. As long as everyone who plays online is playing the same version of the game with Oleg's blessing, they could give offline players everything short of the source-code for all I care. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BoB, if I understand it correctly will have something close to this: extensive moddability but in a limited arena only - whether offline only remains to be seen. I'm sure Oleg has taken both sides of the argument into consideration and he has been the biggest anti-cheat advocate amongst us. So let's just wait and see; I'm actually looking forward to being surprised!

MrMojok
01-27-2006, 10:13 AM
I agree with what most have said above about the online aspect of the game. the FMs should be inviolate.

What I wouldn't mind seeing is an ability to change the sounds. Not like someone said above, where a kid recorded a .50 cal from "pearl harbor."

I remember when I played "Jane's WWII Fighters" someone had alctual flyby recordings of several planes, and incorporated them into the game. That was very nice. I dearly love this game, but the sounds leave a bit to be desired. Who knows, probably Oleg and co. will have much better sounds in BoB anyway.

Jetbuff
01-27-2006, 01:48 PM
There's a small problem when it comes to sounds. The IL-2 engine uses real 3D placement of the sounds (I forget the technical term) so simply recording flyby sounds will not work according to Oleg. Also, per the testimony of an avowed sound critic here (again, bad memory, I forget who) when they went to visit Maddox studios they were quite amazed at how different the game sounded there. It was explained that it was the quality of the playback hardware and how it was configured - one of those "how it's meant to be heard" things.

The-Pizza-Man
01-27-2006, 06:23 PM
So what's the story with BoB? Is it going to have some moddable content?

Marcel_Albert
01-30-2006, 06:01 PM
I hope Not .

That's what patches and bug reporting threads are for : to make the game better and as realistic as possible .

A moddable content about the planes , AAA , physics or anything about the core of the sim would really be a bad idea .

1:C Maddox are open to third party works , anyone alone or who merge with a team of "modders" can make some improvements about the game and send his project to Oleg and 1:C and if it meets the standards, it would be incorporated into the sim for sure .


Thing is , only one authority should set the standards in the end , and it has to be the developpers , and luckily , 1:C are open to the community for this , if the work is of a high quality ( at the image of the sim ) .

If you want more ground objects or more ships for example , just model them , and send it to Oleg , if it's accepted , it's a guarantee of quality for all the community http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Jetbuff
01-30-2006, 06:15 PM
Hear hear... repeat after me, "In Oleg we trust!" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Choctaw111
01-30-2006, 08:46 PM
I havn't checked this thread in a few days. I just wanted to say excellent post Nausicaa. That was very well said and to the point. You are right about all of that having giving CFS3 more than one chance I will never go back to it again even after having gotten Firepower for it a while back I tried it one more time and after two days I was still dissapointed in it. Il2 is the best by far for many reasons you have stated above.

Philipscdrw
01-31-2006, 11:31 AM
Excellent thread, but if those posts alleged to be from Oleg are true, he's already made his mind up and we're (you're) just shouting to the wind.

But I like shouting to the wind too. I'm very happy with the way Il-2 is now. It IS moddable - Uberdemon's UberQuickMissionGenerator, the MATmanager, third party skins and missions. I had a brief flirtation with online play, when I was on campus (studying aeronautical engineering, take note - although the 'aeronautics' bit will start in 2008 for me) and had broadband internet and my PC in the same place. The online servers are just about moddable by the hosts - there are little exploits, like using the test runways to spawn aircraft in the air, which wasn't intentional by 1C:MG but was very useful to us nonetheless.

I don't think that Il-2&sons need to be more 'moddable'. 1C needs to give the users (offline players, clients and server-hosts) more built-in options to customise the game to suit the immediate need. Everyone using the same version, but each version is more powerful, giving us more control to adapt the sim to what we need it to do today. This is what 1C:MG is already doing, and I hope they will keep doing it.

Isn't the online community already split? It was last year when I logged on to Hyperlobby for the last time. 90% of the people were flying cockpit-off, labels-on servers which are completely alien to my idea of flight combat simulation, while 10% were on Warclouds and Greatergreen trying a more realistic (but also more boring for some) method of combat. If you're trying to fly as similarly to the pilots of WW2 as you can with a computer and a game, the turning-circles of the Mustang and the 109 are less relevant - being able to aim quickly, having situational awareness without multicoloured labels, these sorts of qualities are more important. The width of the canopy frames or the number of microseconds the boost can be used before engine failure become less relevant, and there's less desire to change the program.

Gosh, I do ramble incoherently when I lack sleep and food.

Bearcat99
01-31-2006, 10:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
1. We plan to increase the modes of multiplay.
2. We plan to make it very usueful for the championships and online wars (measn features of online gameplay and servers)
3. We plan Bots in dogfight. It was in plan for Il-2 but never released due to some problems in online traffic overloading in the past. There was other prioritets in the past

We also plan to give third party more free hands to build themselves without our control objects, small online maps, planes and cockpits....

DON'WORRY!
This means that we will have two rooms for multiplay:

1. Standard our staff room where custom made third party planes can't fly...
2. the room of online gameplay for our standard set and the planes of third party...

If user community and we ourselves will find that som guy of third party did the right job, then we will move such plane in a standard set as well.

In this case we will be more free to make new things and feature than to support third party models and community will decide which plane to play or not from third party...

I also expect to replace by such things the industry around the MS add-ons http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It is in all we plan and it isn't all that will be released righ with the release of the sim.
Say tools we will release after ther release of the sim itself... and first tools will be for objects and maps, then later for planes... if possible http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Note for the third party developers about these features of BoB:
we don't give full access to source code. We give access just for some basic tunings of FM and animations which will be possible to use only in single play custom made special room missions and only in special online room for such planes.
If it will be not possible to make such a scheme then we will cancel the work over custom planes... and will keep just objects and maps.
And will repeat we don't give ability to create the big maps, which we will keep for ourselves that to make new sims of new theaters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

jds1978
02-01-2006, 05:01 AM
let's allow the experts to do the work...i would hate to fire up BoB to find i'm up against the Millenium Falcon dressed as an Emil http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif