PDA

View Full Version : It`s a shame about the `unique` aircraft in FB...



SeaFireLIV
01-07-2005, 07:01 PM
Remember the Mistel? The TB3 Sveno with it`s I16s underneath? Even the doodlebug?

Does anyone ever use them? Perhaps for the mission builders maybe...

But those of us hoping to see these things in a campaign were to be dissappointed. Never was a DYNAMIC Campaign created where we could be a part of the TB3 combo either as the underwing I16 or the TB3 carrying the I16 itself.

Oleg said we`d be able to fly the TB3/I16 Sveno offline when I asked him, but I never realised it would be in a couple of linear - non dynamic missions. I meant (and said) for Campaigns. The language/understanding problem again maybe. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Never did we have any dynamicmissions where we may have to tackle and shoot down Doodlebugs in Campaign (in the Western Front campaign add on). You had plenty in European Air War.

Never do we get a chance to take up a Mistel even in the odd `one off` mission in Campaign.

Yes, we can fly a single mission as with the TB3, but then it`s done and the thrill of doing it isn`t the same if not part of an ongoing war...

Even ONline, it`s extremely rare to see a Mistel or an I16/TB3 combo. In fact I saw an online TB3 combo maybe once and a Mistel never.

But my focus is really for the offline crowd. These aircraft are next to useless for them.

All I ask is that Oleg makes a little effort to allow some of these unique planes a proper run (at least appearing sometimes) in the dynamic Campaign. Starshoy please take note (though I have sent messages to him as well, with, as usual, no response). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

SeaFireLIV
01-07-2005, 07:01 PM
Remember the Mistel? The TB3 Sveno with it`s I16s underneath? Even the doodlebug?

Does anyone ever use them? Perhaps for the mission builders maybe...

But those of us hoping to see these things in a campaign were to be dissappointed. Never was a DYNAMIC Campaign created where we could be a part of the TB3 combo either as the underwing I16 or the TB3 carrying the I16 itself.

Oleg said we`d be able to fly the TB3/I16 Sveno offline when I asked him, but I never realised it would be in a couple of linear - non dynamic missions. I meant (and said) for Campaigns. The language/understanding problem again maybe. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Never did we have any dynamicmissions where we may have to tackle and shoot down Doodlebugs in Campaign (in the Western Front campaign add on). You had plenty in European Air War.

Never do we get a chance to take up a Mistel even in the odd `one off` mission in Campaign.

Yes, we can fly a single mission as with the TB3, but then it`s done and the thrill of doing it isn`t the same if not part of an ongoing war...

Even ONline, it`s extremely rare to see a Mistel or an I16/TB3 combo. In fact I saw an online TB3 combo maybe once and a Mistel never.

But my focus is really for the offline crowd. These aircraft are next to useless for them.

All I ask is that Oleg makes a little effort to allow some of these unique planes a proper run (at least appearing sometimes) in the dynamic Campaign. Starshoy please take note (though I have sent messages to him as well, with, as usual, no response). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

xTHRUDx
01-07-2005, 07:07 PM
we have a few maps in our Greater Green rotation that use the parasites.

DmdSeeker
01-07-2005, 07:23 PM
Agreed!

No more planes until we can use what there already is!

LStarosta
01-07-2005, 07:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
Agreed!

No more planes until we can use what there already is! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Says who?

LEXX_Luthor
01-07-2005, 07:29 PM
I'm working a DC that will include TB~3/I~16 Stack--includes everything available for Eastern Front and then some (SBD makes somewhat passable Flyable Su~2). It won't be ready until after BoB is releaced, so don't wait. And it will probably run under DOS window to generate mission text file, and you use text file to set up campaign info. I don't have any Windows programming tools right now (I do have old DOS 32bit Fortran compiler).

Its gonna be cool though. Primary Features are...

Once you Choose side, German or Russian, if you get killed or captured, you get "reincarnated" as Newbie gunner. You work your way back to pilot, if you survive. The longer you have been gunner, the closer you are to being pilot again, so you have incentive to survive as gunner. As pilot, you have incentive to live, unless you want to be gunner again. But you also have incentive to be aggressive, as you are a small part of a larger war around you and you have an effect on the outcome as much as any other single AI aircraft or AI aircrew. These two contradictory incentives is kinda what the real pilots faced I guess.

You get assigned aircraft even if you don't want it. After you graduate from gunner again, you may get assigned fighter or bomber, or even recon (Recon will be important for campaign as missions are generated based on intelligence). This may require you to learn and fight with aircraft you don't like. You can Whine and request transfer to another unit with different aircraft, but nothing is for sure -- the better you Score or longer you survive, the more weight you have.

Option for Barbarossa in July 1940, Hitler turns East instead of wasting German Air Force on England, and Bf~110C is still considered the Elite of the Luftwaffe and faces 1940 Soviet fighters and NO YAKS NO LAGGS NO MIGGS.

If we get more Italian planes, you can Choose Italian side. Option for Japan to attack Soviet Union in late 1940 or early 1941.

Still thinking of making an Axis Option where if you are lost as Italian pilot for example, you get re~born as Italian, Japanese, or German gunner, depending on the breaks. Or you just Choose on country to fly for.

Camnpaign AI will decide if Germany can bomb Ural mountains...see Hitler's Barbarossa Directive #21 which calls for bombing Soviet industry after German Army reaches Volga river in northern USSR far beyond Moscow. If German Army gets that far (map issues of course, must make do), and if you fly Russian, you may get MiG~3U available for your side (you must get assigned to it though, most likely you get Yaks). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Weird Option...if you are interested being available for flying Ki~46 Recon missions, you can use unarmed P~38, maybe with some throttle settings disabled. Stuff like that.

Honestly, I am only doing basic research now, and dont' want to start programming it all until Oleg gives up on FB. For example, will the Test Runways be Patched out of the sim? I want to use them, but if they vanish, I have alot of wasted effort.

Stiglr
01-07-2005, 08:21 PM
Well, now you finally begin to realize what a complete waste of time and effort (not to mention indirectly keeping a lot of legitimate planes out of the sim) these boondoggles were...

p1ngu666
01-07-2005, 10:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Well, now you finally begin to realize what a complete waste of time and effort (not to mention indirectly keeping a lot of legitimate planes out of the sim) these boondoggles were... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

used more often than 109g6 in coops i bet http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

coops with spb and mistel are usealy more fun too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

PlaneEater
01-08-2005, 01:02 AM
You know Stiglr, I never ever saw you so much as lift a finger to try and help build those 'missing' planes.

The sim obviously hasn't gone down the tubes simply because there's no Do17/217 or flyable Pe-2 (and that's even changing soon). Sure they're nice, but the fact we're here proves the judgement call Oleg made to focus on other aircraft was a solid one.

I'd like to reiterate that part about you not doing a single thing to help add those planes. You know what? All you do is biatch and gripe. Either get cracking on building one of them, or do us all a favor and shut up.


Also--Seafire: because of the way the Mistel is done, they can't be used in multiplayer (I'm not sure about coops, they may work there).

Capt_Haddock
01-08-2005, 02:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Well, now you finally begin to realize what a complete waste of time and effort (not to mention indirectly keeping a lot of legitimate planes out of the sim) these boondoggles were... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry but I have to disagree. One of the core values of IL2 is precicely having all these lesser known planes rarely seen in western flightsims.

http://www.haddock.f2s.com/sig/F19bannerh.jpg
http://www.haddock.f2s.com/sig/F19banner.jpg
http://www.haddock.f2s.com/sig/efas.jpg

GoToAway
01-08-2005, 03:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PlaneEater:
You know Stiglr, I never ever saw you so much as lift a finger to try and help build those 'missing' planes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, let's be fair here. It really is very, very time consuming to constantly plug Target: Rabaul on an Il-2 forum. I don't think he has much free time thanks to that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif


I don't really understand the whining about the modeling of odd planes, especially of those by third parties. The parasite TB-3 and the Mistel were conversions of already existing planes--hardly tantamount to the effort required to create a completely new aircraft and a completely new cockpit.

As for third parties, these people modeled what interested them. Absolutely NOTHING says that they would have modeled anything else if they hadn't been allowed to create their oddities. They may have very well chosen to do nothing. I'm sure that the Il-2 series would actually be vastly better if we had fewer planes, especially of varieties that have never been seen in sims before, right?

Stop whining, Stilgr. Perhaps Target: Rabaul has what you're looking for?

Extreme_One
01-08-2005, 04:49 AM
Many of the planes we're talking about were made 3rd party. That is someone who felt inspired to spend A LOT of their own time making a plane that THEY WANTED to see in this sim.

So to say that their time would have been better spent making this plane or that plane is unfair and unreasonable.

They bothered to get off their arses because they WANTED to!

If YOU think a plane should have been made but it wasn't then maybe YOU should have gotten off of YOUR ****...

I'm glad there are so many unusual planes in this sim.

And I've even used the V-1 in several missions in my "Two Little DUCs" campaign.

SeaFireLIV
01-08-2005, 05:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
I'm working a DC that will include TB~3/I~16 Stack--includes everything available for Eastern Front and then some (SBD makes somewhat passable Flyable Su~2). It won't be ready until after BoB is released, so don't wait. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, Lexx, I wish you good luck and will be watching. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Still, one does feel a little dissappointed (and I gave it plenty of time to see if any of these unique aircraft were to be including in the Campaigns with patches). It`s almost as if these planes were stuck in as an experiment, but simply Forgotten about after that.

Belzeebub
01-08-2005, 05:37 AM
Extreme_one - You are spot on!

Don't whine - DO something

Said by someone who is totally ilitarate when it comes to creating missions, just VERY greatful that we do have alot of people sharing their efforts.

Belzeebub

carguy_
01-08-2005, 06:10 AM
I wholeheartedly agree on the "do something" matter.

However I know this TB3 took resources equal to 3 single engined aircraft so I don`t quite understand why such planes as Go229 made it in IL2 before the Spit or Typhoon.

Saburo_0
01-08-2005, 01:23 PM
Stiglr makes one grouchy comment & gets slammed 5 times. (a couple people replied whith their opinion ina normal way)

Not saying I agree with him, i'm not sure to be honest. Never flown the mistel & not interested. Played with the Sveno a few times with my squad. But I would rather have a Ju-88.
Is it a case of either or? maybe not, but my point is this: it is not surprising that some people think these "unique" contraptions are pretty worthless. Some people really enjoy the chance to fly them, just to see what they were like. It should be OK to express your opinion without getting 5 people attacking you.
Did Stig- i like it when everybody attacks me-ler http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif attack anyone ? No unless Oleg was seen running in tears to the little boys room because Stiglr called his Sveno a "Boondoggle!"

Be cheery & don't take life to seriously....
no-one gets out alive anyway.

Peace,
Saburo

Oh & I just had to post on this becauseI haven't heard the word Boondoggle used in alooongtime. & its a Fun Word.

cheerio

Stiglr
01-08-2005, 04:33 PM
Well, to stay consistent with my post, I have had to do exactly nothing to not have these worthless planes produced.

As for those of you who opened your pie holes, shaddap! One does not have to build a plane to comment on a plane. One just has to be a fanboi idiot to base their whole rebuttal on that line of thinking. So come up with something better than that or just... shut ... up.

And, as some correctly surmised, I am spending my time building planes for Targetware anyway. To be fair and honest, as I've just been learning this craft the last couple years, I don't think I'd produce high poly models of the detail level Oleg seems to require. I also don't think all that detail is necessary, anyway. Why nitpick a few knobs and switches when you know the flight model is going to be way off, and historical flight data will be labeled "propaganda" just because it didn't come from TSAGI?

WUAF_Badsight
01-08-2005, 04:41 PM
Stigler . . . .

http://img62.exs.cx/img62/3898/yousuckandthatssad2er.jpg

exactly what planes did you model that were rejected in favour of the "hardly flew" again ?

im sure you have told me already . . . .

WUAF_Badsight
01-08-2005, 04:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Saburo_0:
_It should be OK to express your opinion without getting 5 people attacking you._ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
sure , but if your as whiney as Stigler is . . . . then you can expect it

MEGILE
01-08-2005, 04:44 PM
IL2FB has good graphics, and a decent flight model.

If you can't handle that..


http://www.remc11.k12.mi.us/bhas/bhhs/future/images/cry.gif

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

Aaron_GT
01-08-2005, 04:50 PM
"You know Stiglr, I never ever saw you so much as lift a finger to try and help build those 'missing' planes."

To give Stiglr his due he's probably too busy contributing aircraft to Target Rabaul.

Aaron_GT
01-08-2005, 04:59 PM
Extreme One wrote:
"Many of the planes we're talking about were made 3rd party. That is someone who felt inspired to spend A LOT of their own time making a plane that THEY WANTED to see in this sim.

So to say that their time would have been better spent making this plane or that plane is unfair and unreasonable.

They bothered to get off their arses because they WANTED to!"

I've tried to help people building the models where possible and I have possible access to some technology which might make modelling cockpits a lot easier. My contributions have been much smaller than I would have liked. I've been somewhat disorganised :-(

All credit to those who can create 3D models (There's an adult education course running locally on 3DS Max - I can afford the course but not the product! Without training building models is beyond me).

But my concern is that adding a plane to the sim isn't just a case of someone producing a 3D model and Bob's yer uncle it's in. Oleg and team have to check it, construct the FM and DM, etc. So adding a plane isn't just 3rd party work - it's a lot of 1C:Maddox work too, and their time is in short supply. So if adding a rare plane takes up a lot of their time we may miss out on a plane that saw more service even if a 3D model for that exists. Maybe the model for the unusual plane is ready sooner than for the more common service plane, but unless there is a clear win in terms of extra sales for the sim I'd say that their time is better spent on things such as fixing bugs in the planes we do have, working on BoB, or maybe taking some well deserved time off (I get the impression that there's been a lot of illness lately which might be related to overwork).

WUAF_Badsight
01-08-2005, 05:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
So adding a plane isn't just 3rd party work - it's a lot of 1C:Maddox work too, and their time is in short supply. So if adding a rare plane takes up a lot of their time we may miss out on a plane that saw more service even if a 3D model for that exists. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
thats not the point , although Stigler would like you to believe it is

these 3rd party planes didnt exclude anything that Maddox Games had planned to add

the additions to FB mainly happened thru 3rd party work , in other words , if it wasnt for people outside of Maddox Games we wouldnt have add-ons to this game

instead , Maddox games would have concentrated on BoB , their new game & left us with what they gave us out of the FB box

contary to what Stigler is trying to make people believe , there is no deveolpment of these planes he would rather see added

these 3rd party works didnt hold up anything more historical being added as hes trying to say

Stiglr
01-08-2005, 06:05 PM
All I have to say is,

Bf109 or Me163?

Fairy Battle or Supermarine Spitfire?

P-43 Lancer or P-47 Thunderbolt?

These represent at least what I think are rather obvious choices in aircraft that could be, or are, in the sim.

It's not really rocket science (yes, a pun). The Bf109 had 35,000 examples of it produced, easily having more impact than the asterisk-plane Komet.

The Spitfire enjoys the same legacy over any Fairey product, including the storied Swordfish.

The P-47 came from the Lancer design, but the "johnny come lately" did the heavy lifting in WWII, the forerunner did next to nothing.

These are just the obvious ones.

It is clear that the people whose claim to fame in "contributing" to the sim with the Bi-1, the piggyback planes, the Z variant 109 and all that other hoo-hah were exercising rather poor judgment. Sure, they put a lot of effort into it, you have to, just to pass the quality standards. But it's not about that. A quick glance at the list of aircraft in the sim (and a list of those that might have been nice to have in the sim) should have nipped them all in the bud, in favor of much more deserving and useful planes (and no, none of them are my personal favorites).

Meanwhile, we don't have a Pe-2, a Tempest, a Tupolev bomber, a Ju-88, a Bf110 much earlier, etc., etc., etc. Maybe these talented modelers could have overcome the considerable obstacles that appear to still be holding back these other, obviously more useful planes; you sure can't convince me that more cockpit data exists for an experimental plane than for a Pe-2 or a Tempest.

Don't tell me none of you can contemplate the concept of RELEVANCE. I simply won't believe it.

This isn't about anybody's effort. It's about being comprehensive, and the planes' having (or utterly lacking) utility.

SeaFireLIV
01-08-2005, 08:05 PM
I think you guys are being a bit unfair on Stiglr in this case. I don`t agree with him advertising targetwhatever, but he`s trying to put across a point of view (although the thread`s beginning to lose its way a bit now from my main point).

Stiglr
01-08-2005, 10:09 PM
Thanks for the support, SeaFire.

You will, of course, notice that the other people brought up "that other sim title", since they didn't have any relevant point to discuss on this topic.

LEXX_Luthor
01-09-2005, 01:44 AM
We have about 10-20 well used planes for every 1 little used plane, depending on the definitions used in counting. Stiglr is being a bit deceptive here claiming that the small handful of little used planes keep out all the dozens of well used planes we don't have yet -- just count them up and see the contradiction. We have a useful balance of what I call "real" and "fantasy" planes.

However... <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Enough 1946 Luftwaffe planes, even if I did make two of them.

~Gibbage <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That has to be SiG Worthy.

sithgod
01-09-2005, 02:43 AM
As on offline gamer I don't mind paying for dynamic campaigns or mission packs. As long as they are cool. I know for the online guys they are a waste of cash.

For the good 3rd party companies there is an opportunity to make some interesting packs using the lesser aircraft. We don't have the Polish PZL [Is that right?] fighters but a 1939 Polish mission pack to the standard of Last days I'd buy.

I'd love to do a He-162 dynamic campaign as I have always loved them. As I have just got my hands on the AEP today I'd like to see dynamic campaigns for P-51's, IAR-80's, Fiats. Etc

I am disappointed with the manual in AEP. I know the days of the big manuals are gone but it doesnt say what new dynamic campaigns were added. I went to do the Polish one and they are Yak-1's and its a 1945 one. Unless I smegged up somewhere.

Capt_Haddock
01-09-2005, 04:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Don't tell me none of you can contemplate the concept of RELEVANCE. I simply won't believe it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand your views, don't worry http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

We all know there are some major planes missing in the sim, but don't forget the game is called "IL2 Forgotten Battles", not "P51 Yet Another Hollywood Battle" after all.

I'm grateful for every "hoo-hah" lesser know Eastern-front plane in the game, because sooner than we expect this little hobby of us will be in the hands of a brainless populist-marketing-driven US publisher, and the most obscure plane we'll ever fly will be a P-51B.

Or do you really think you'll ever see a Zveno Tb-3 again in a sim? Ever.

http://www.haddock.f2s.com/sig/F19bannerh.jpg
http://www.haddock.f2s.com/sig/F19banner.jpg
http://www.haddock.f2s.com/sig/efas.jpg

Friendly_flyer
01-09-2005, 04:47 AM
Gentlemen€¦

I personally find the Mistel a very interesting plane to fly. If you haven€t tried it out, I suggest you make your self a quick mission and try to take out a bridge or airport with heavy flack defence and perhaps 2-3 mid-war fighters. If you know your way around the full mission builder, I suggest making a mission where you try to drag that heavy beast zigzag through the Crimean or Cuban mountains to avoid flack and hit some installation. It€s insanely fun if you€re into mud-moving.

There are only two things that stop me from making a Mistel campaign. One thing is that I haven€t yet figured out how to link mission into campaigns. The other is that the Mistel can€t do in-game what it was designed to do in real life: Hunt ships. The Mistel was designed to be able to take out a capital ship in one blow. The way it is modelled in the game, it will go right through ships, getting its wings torn off in the process and explode in the water on the other side. The explosion will make havoc on the harbour, but the ships will just rock a bit in the waves. It€s a bit frustrating, really.

With the wonderful mission builder system we have, we can only blame our selves that we don€t have campaigns for Mistels, Gohas and V-1s.

WUAF_Badsight
01-09-2005, 04:56 AM
i didnt realise the mistel bomb did that against ships

ive only ever aimed it against ground targets

it will fly right thru a ship every time ? that kind of sucks

WTE_Ibis
01-09-2005, 05:20 AM
Regardless of the reason why, we are still left
without very important aircraft while there are
some very doubtfull craft that are plainly far less of historical importance and this DOES have
a detrimental affect on this great sim.
And this is not only my opinion but many have expressed this view.
This is not a whine but an observation.
Cheers, Ibis. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WOLFMondo
01-09-2005, 05:48 AM
I agree with Stiglrs point but its down to the modellers choice and if there model is up to Olegs standards which is important.

Friendly_flyer
01-09-2005, 06:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WTE_Ibis:
Regardless of the reason why, we are still left
without very important aircraft while there are
some very doubtfull craft that are plainly far less of historical importance and this DOES have
a detrimental affect on this great sim.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not quite. The lack of some planes (Do 17 comes to mind) has a detrimental effect. The addition of some unusual or doubtful planes (like the Goha) does not add to the game (if you don't like them). I think this distinction is important.

Now, if the lack of important planes is caused by inclusion of doubtful ones (YP-80, Goha), Stilgir has a point. However, as these planes are made by 3rd party modellers, this seems not to be the case. Thus, the doubtful planes are a bonus if you like them, of no value if you don't.

Stiglr
01-09-2005, 11:07 AM
I think it is clear that if the very limited pool of modelers with skills enough to produce Maddox-quality models and textures don't exercise some self-control, then we get what we've gotten: useless boondoggles. And because it takes so long to produce them, it is also clear that spending months creating a Bi-1 probably does mean months that could have been used producing a much more impactful, useful plane. This would not be an issue if everybody and their dog had a copy of 3D software, high end paint programs and could use it at a professional level of quality. But we know that is not the case.

Certainly, it is up to the modelers to choose their subjects, but they should also take it upon themselves to choose wisely. Again, it doesn't take a lot of sense for anyone with half a grip on the history of any front to quickly identify which planes would spawn dozens of great scenarios, or breathe new life into entire theatres ... and which will just be used for a couple of silly Instant Missions, get instantly banned on dogfight servers for their irrelevance, and waste away, taking space on all our hard drives.

Those of you who are "just happy to get what we get"... are you happy right now?

WOLFMondo
01-09-2005, 11:13 AM
Everyone has different favorite planes though. What I want is totally different to the next person. Some people might want the P80 or Komet or even the Ho229.

I am happy right now with this sim. Yes, I would like some other planes instead of some of the ones we got but in general I think we've done pretty well out of it.

Stiglr, If your so unhappy about this sim why do you bother to post here any more or even play it? Post something positive for once, if you can't, question why your here and not playing Targetware right now instead of posting in the forums for a sim your very clearly not liking.

Stiglr
01-09-2005, 01:49 PM
Clearly, Wolf, your conformist brain just can't comprehend concepts as complex as this.

For one thing, how happy I am with the sim or not is not relevant to whether I'm qualified to comment on it.

And for two, as I keep saying, it's not about anybody's favorite plane. And it's got nothing to do with "that other sim", either. Stay on topic, or grab a steaming hot mug of STFU. It's about making the sim representative of WWII, and filling out the planeset of planes that actually had an impact, then doing all the what-if, one-shot wonders.

LStarosta
01-09-2005, 02:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sithgod:
I went to do the Polish one and they are Yak-1's and its a 1945 one. Unless I smegged up somewhere. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Polish Air Force in the East. Fact.


Stiglr, while I agree with many of your sentiments, your condescending attitude makes you... how do I say this... less likable. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

Zayets
01-09-2005, 02:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Capt_Haddock:
Sorry but I have to disagree. One of the core values of IL2 is precicely having all these lesser known planes rarely seen in western flightsims.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then where's the Pe-2? Or the Ju-88?To name a few http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stiglr
01-09-2005, 02:37 PM
Yeah, well, my patience is wearing thin for people who can't debate a topic and keep with the subject matter. They have nothing relevant to say, and no debating skills, so they start in with side topics and personal attacks.

Whether anyone likes my "style" or not is irrelevant. Folks should stick to the facts or just present their own opinion. All I can do is present mine.

WUAF_Badsight
01-09-2005, 02:52 PM
thats a load of rubbish Stigler

just look for any late war plane thread that Stigler posts in for proof

LEXX_Luthor
01-09-2005, 05:43 PM
Shame, nobody here can post about this...

We have about 10-20 well used planes for every 1 little used plane, depending on the definitions used in counting. The number of needed well used planes is far greater then the small number of less well used planes we do have in the sim.

WTE:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>regardless of the reason why, we are still left
without very important aircraft while there are
some very doubtfull craft that are plainly far less of historical importance and this DOES have
a detrimental affect on this great sim. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We shall cover this again. We have about 10-20 well used planes for every 1 little used plane, depending on the definitions used in counting. The number of needed well used planes is far greater then the small number of less well used planes we do have in the sim. If you wish to talk, by all means we can. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

For our Benefit, we can start a discussion about World War 2 as seen from the perspective of the Real Life (not gamer) people who Funded, Engineered, and Flew the airplanes we say have no "historical" importance in a World War 2 sim.

Where is Stiglr in this thread?

Stiglr
01-09-2005, 05:52 PM
Lexx Luthor wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>We have about 10-20 well used planes for every 1 little used plane <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, and we also have a list of fairly glaring omissions to the planeset, all of which should have been in the sim YEARS before any of the little used planes should have been.

LEXX_Luthor
01-09-2005, 06:05 PM
What Stiglr meant to Quote:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>LL:: We have about 10-20 well used planes for every 1 little used plane, depending on the definitions used in counting. The number of needed well used planes is far greater then the small number of less well used planes we do have in the sim. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We agree, the small number of less used planes cannot explain the large number of well used planes we still don't have yet.

No601_prangster
01-09-2005, 06:11 PM
The reason a lot of the planes people want are not in the sim is due to the way projects are started by the modelers. Basically there are a fair number of modellers who can start a project but less than half have the time or skill to complete a useable plane. So what happens is a lot of people get on Netwings and announce they are starting the important or popular aircraft and than never complete them and that leaves less choice for those who can and will finish.

The Mistrel 109Z and the TB3/I16 are all easy conversions of existing models and so required far less modelling work than creating a new plane.

Aaron_GT
01-10-2005, 01:07 AM
Any news on when we might see the Mosquito, Prangster.

(Also check your PMs)

No601_prangster
01-10-2005, 03:07 PM
Aaron_GT I've PM'd you.