PDA

View Full Version : Poll: What do you want to see happen to PF?



ReligiousZealot
07-13-2005, 09:26 AM

CapBackassward
07-13-2005, 03:19 PM
A few of those Torpedo bombers and a map of Northern Australia, around Darwin, so we can have a Spitfire 8 campaign - would be nice - before Oleg moves on to finishing BOB.

Rick

jarink
07-13-2005, 04:24 PM
I wanted to vote twice....
Once for "Bring on the add-ons" and again for "Give it to a 3rd party".

1C does a good job ensuring the additional content is up to standards, but I think the pressure from UBI to quit PF work and dedicate themselves to BoB will force Oleg and Co. to stop soon. A trustworthy 3rd party that could be authorized to create pay-for addons is the only way there will be a future for PF expansion, I think.

Eraser_tr
07-13-2005, 05:05 PM
same as jarink basically.

I really don't care about Battle of Britain. The time period and planes have been done over and over again to the point of being very stale. I'd much rather see the current game tweaked and added onto constantly and being slowly brought up to the level BoB would be with a continued flow of AEP like addons.

The Pacific is sorely neglected in il2. PF at least not only deserves, but needs a commercial addon so that so much isn't left out. As is, there isn't and won't be a fleshed out or near the par for simulations PTO game. CFS2 is too dated, PF is far from done. CFS3 lacks the ability for carrier operations and everyone here hates it even if a good PTO could be made in it. Oleg says he won't do the pacific in BoB's engine for about 5 years, same as il2-PF so basically it will get the same neglect in favor of a new project as now. Even if PTO in BoB's engine isn't rushed and neglected, there's about a 10 year gap between having a substantial PTO sim(PF is not much more than a PTO sprinkling onto an ETO sim).

How much would a decent game engine for a PTO simulation go for? and how many people would be interested in a PTO game that would feel like a mix between what il2 and the cfs games are like?(with tons of care put into cockpits, and online game ease and as few bugs as possible)

SATAN_23rd
07-13-2005, 05:13 PM
Why not just make a BoB map for FB+AEP+PF? Everything else is there? Make another AEP like expansion for PF and keep it going. No need for BoB, waste of time it is.

Firebird350HO
07-13-2005, 05:18 PM
Ditto jarink and Eraser_tr. BoB is quite limited in scope. Additionally, the reported hardware requirements make the decision easy for me-I won't be buying BoB anytime soon.

I would, however, be very happy if Oleg & UBI authorize a reputable 3rd party developer for future IL2 add-ons. They could easily sell several more volumes with different a/c, maps, DGen campaigns. $25-30 each and they'd fly off the retail shelves.

LEBillfish
07-13-2005, 05:27 PM
What I want to happen with PF are all the rediculous trolls who spam by making the same topics essentially over and over and over and over...To get a clue and realize this is not CFSW (combat flight simulation whiners) and either move on or change their M.O..

All the polls, gripes, whines, complaints, etc. etc. will not fix things to the trolls liking....Why????? Because it doesn't need to be fixed as they are stating and what is to come will not change via random scattered posts.

Now don't make me get out "Island Oleg"...I'll do it without hesitation and am thinking about it as my standard response to all the types of posts stated above....

Got an Island Oleg in my pocket like a ICBM rocket and would love to sockit to all the debaters...

triggerhappyfin
07-13-2005, 05:28 PM
This urge for BoB is beyond me...Can´t see the need of letting current version go to scrapheap as original IL-2.
The downside of this closed code thing is the short lifespan of the game http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif No need to say it already has so many planes, with no further development the game dies. Sure dont make me want to by another with limited possibilities and lifespan. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif


All the polls, gripes, whines, complaints, etc. etc. will not fix things to the trolls liking....Why????? Because it doesn't need to be fixed as they are stating...
Billfish..people got there opinions whatever you say, Calling them trolls and such don´t make you a better person, you know.
The real trolls are those calling other ppl trolls http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif,

neural_dream
07-13-2005, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by Firebird350HO:
BoB is quite limited in scope.

That's right. However, i would prefer a game that would include <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">ALL</span> aircraft and maps of a specific war theater rather than a little bit of everything. They now know how to build aircraft models, DMs, FMs, and they have a significant online community. I think it's time 1C starts dominating the scene at least for the next decade, by building every two years a new game totally dedicated to one of the war theaters (doesn't have to be WW2 always). I feel that BoB is a step towards the correct direction, but it has to be a complete product, with <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">everything</span> related to the battle of britain included right from the beginning. No stupid aircraft addons and betatesting-like changes in the FMs. After all, even if they don't succeed to dominate the market, which i doubt, they can still make money without addons (look at World of Warcraft).

B0lter
07-13-2005, 07:21 PM
I've been playing World War II online since it came out in 2001, and I've had enough of the bf109 Vs Spit/Hurri matchup to last me a lifetime.

I cannot understand Oleg's choice of theater. BoB has been done, and redone ad nauseum. Don't get me wrong, develop this new game engine all you want, I can't wait to see it. However, there's no way that I'll be buying yet another game where I can again fight the same 'ole tired match-up.

My vote is to flesh out PF. If you want to fight the BoB you can do it on WW2OL, Warbirds, Aces High, CFS2/3 and FB+AEP. On the other hand, PF is fertile territory, as it could use more aircraft, torpedoes, maps and better campaigns.

my 2c

RAF92_Moser
07-13-2005, 08:10 PM
Yes, the PTO has been neglected for some reasons. BOB will be just a repeat. A simple BOB expansion for IL-2 would really be more practical.

But, hey, I'm not UBI...I'm not IC...and I'm not Maddox. What he does with his money and developing crew is his business. If he isn't interested in just a few more tweaks for IL-2, then I'm not interested much in his products.

LEXX_Luthor
07-13-2005, 08:14 PM
LEBfish::
Now don't make me get out "Island Oleg"...I'll do it without hesitation and am thinking about it as my standard response to all the types of posts stated above....
Island Oleg is so funny he's my main reason for coming here the last day or two.

...okay...I really do prefer girly pics - I think - but girly pics are like Flyable 1944 Dogfight planes. Island Oleg is something New. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Bearcat99
07-13-2005, 08:56 PM
While I agree with many people here from both sides, the facts are that BoB is coming...... Given the fact that Oleg said he would expand BoB makes it all the more promising...... either buy it or don't... but consider that BoB will probably be to FB4.xx what IL2 was to any other WW2 flight sim out in 2001.

I have said this a dozen times and I will say it again.... AFAIC FB is one 5 CD multifront sim and anyone who doesnt run it that way is missing out on the full flavor of the product.

having said that.....

What I would like to see happen with PF is:

1)Everyone who hasn't already would buy the FB/AEP combo however they can get it.

2)That there would be at least 2 paid addons with maps, objects and aircraft after 1 or 2 free add ons to further round out the sim....

3)That Oleg would NEVER EVER release the code..... because I think this code was the foundation for the new BoB code, even though BoB will be new.. not exactly the same code... and if someone has acess to the iner workings one they might be able to crack the other which would be a total disaster IMO.

4)That whatever issues there are here that are total show stoppers for some.... Im not talking about the bozos who just can't hang becaue their favorite plane isn't here.. but serious problems.. like the one Dex has.... get resolved.

5)I would like to see:
A)Another pop up display showing the mission brief.
B)We currently have either map with or without icons, minimap path or no mini map path. I would like to see another option in the map settings for a map with waypoints but no moving objects on it... just the waypoints for your flightwith maybe a time notation at each waypoint based on what was done in the FMB, and the option to see the other friendly waypoints as well.

Another reason I don't want the sim to go 3rd party is that then Oleg would be competing with himself basically... and from what I understand about BoB it will not just be a new theater.... it will be a NEW engine.... TOTALLY NEW... graphics, physics,DMs,FMs... the works.... and I want nothing to hinder the expansion of BoB to other areas, like hopefully The Med, The Eastern Front and natch the PTO.... which Oleg has already said he plans to do with it but a lot of that depends on sales... I say bring it on.... Besides... IMO this sim when placed in the full context of a merged install isnt lacking very much despite what some may say, and it wouldnt take much to fill in some holes. I would love to see a flyable Avenger.... ,Tempest, Mossie and B-17... and a few more ships and maps, some PTO some ETO... and some Eastern Front or between maps.. a better med map for sure... a WW1 add on would be a real coup as well..less complicated FMs.... IMO that would completely round out the sim. We have to remember though that if they supply us with too much for this sim it may take a while for BoB to catch fire... Look at this place... we are still just now getting some forme fliers from other sims and this series has been out since what 2001? If this si too good who will need BoB..... ?

I think this sim is great.. GREAT.. but lets face it...it is a what 5-6 year old engine? I think it has run it's course. Mind you... it is more than enough to keep me occupied for some time but hey..... I'm easy.

3.JG51_BigBear
07-13-2005, 10:24 PM
I think its time to let it die. Its had a great run, provided a lot of entertainment, and made huge advances in PC flight simming but its time to move on. The graphics, AI, models all need an overhauland I would imagine that BOB will expand much quicker than Il2 did because so much of the research has already been done for so many important airplanes to be added in expansions.

shinden1974
07-13-2005, 10:40 PM
not only research, but a new engine gives the team a chance to streamline some things, speeding some things up.

Whats funny is that there are plenty of posts about PF and how it needs to keep going as if everything has come to a dead halt...it hasn't, more planes are on the way, and maybe more maps. Maybe these threads should wait until everything has actually come to a halt.

Much of the angst is over the american planes, I share it. But there's nothing anyone can do about it. BOB is a new deal, and with ubi having learned it's lesson, they'll be more careful and we may eventually see the american planes we all crave.

I'm not interested in BOB either...but I wasn't interested in the ETO when I purchased Il-2 years ago, my mind changed. BOB will be on my hard drive.

PlimPlam
07-13-2005, 11:14 PM
Rowens bob offline campaighn- or whatever its name was- gave me some of the most memorable moments Ive had in flight sims.

Desperately running back across the channel in a wounded 09 so I could bailout. Ripping through and pummeling huge bomber formations in my spit.

Tally ho. Im winchester. All good stuff. So Im looking forward to bob.

This needs to be fixed though imo. I realise now it was some sort of 3rd party thing gone awry but it still needs to be finished imo. Somehow. Someway.

And thats what I voted.

MiamiEagle
07-14-2005, 12:06 AM
Hey guys I would love to fly in the Battle of Britain with the new engine but I can wait. LetS not forget two simple facts here.

There have been many Sims dedicated to the BoB and addons to already made sims to last us a life time.

On the other hand there is only one Sim dedicated to the Pacific Air war in the Market.

Now thats rediculous. Its not the Pacific Fighter program that I"m talking about.

The Pacific Fighter program while a very nice and entertaining attempt the reflect the Pacific theater. Its just to short of the mark to be consider as great representative of the Pacific air war as that other program is.

Lets remember that Oleg will not go back to the Pacific Theater no sooner than five years from now.

Just for that reason alone he should try to finish this installment of his IL2 series.

In my opinion the Pacific Fighter program has enriched his program series by ten fold.

Togerther with Lowengrin Dynamic campaign generator you can fly in the Eastern Front, Western Fornt and the Pacific Theater.

Now thats fun.You are not stuck in having to fly against the Me109 and Fw190 all the time.

If you are bored with one Theater you can always have the choice to fly with a another Airforce in another Theater and try some new experience.

Thats what a great World war two flight simulator should able to give you.

Now I hope he can give us more Maps ands planes for the Pacific Theater as to give us a real choices where to fly and for what Airforce we want to fly.

Don"t you ever get bored of fly in the same Theater against the same enemy all the time. I now I do.


Some of you guys I do not understand.
World war two was the first real World war. It was fought all over the world and not just in Europe.

Thats what makes it such facinating period of History to me.

If it where only fought in Europe. It would been just another European war. Now you throw in the Pacific war and it become facinating.

I would say the same thing if it had only included the Pacific Theater withhout the parcipation of of the European Theater.

Its really two wars in one. The two Theater where more intermingle than the general public realize.

For that reason a good World war two combat Flight must include the Pacific Theater to bee a complete WW11 Simulator.

Since the Pacific Theater is underrepresented. I believe it should be markly improve with more planes and Maps and that way in will improve the series quality in general.

Some of us seriouly need ETO addiction Rehap and stop seeing this war as European air war only.

Miamieagle

csThor
07-14-2005, 01:53 AM
There have been many Sims dedicated to the BoB and addons to already made sims to last us a life time.

You're ignoring one major advantage of the BoB Scenery for the development of a new engine:

The scope, the timeframe, the object pool and the map range is limited. That means the development team doesn't have to invest a huge amount of work into a broad range of aircraft, ground objects, ships and maps. Basically they get the time to do things right, to get the basics working right from the start. Even if my pet "theater" is the Eastern Front I can easily stomach another BoB Simulation just for that reason.

Bearcat99
07-14-2005, 05:35 AM
Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
I think its time to let it die. Its had a great run, provided a lot of entertainment, and made huge advances in PC flight simming but its time to move on. The graphics, AI, models all need an overhauland I would imagine that BOB will expand much quicker than Il2 did because so much of the research has already been done for so many important airplanes to be added in expansions.

Not only that but there is a waiting sales base..... Frankly I think that when BoB comes out even the ones poo pooing it now will have it on their HD within 3 months tops..... if not by day 3. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

whitetornado_1
07-14-2005, 07:38 AM
I wouldn't bet on it Bearcat.

Its getting expensive upgrading and
keeping cable to play.

Its not hard to spend 1500$ to 2000$ a
year with all related costs just to be able
to play this game with a good FPS and connection.

Eraser_tr
07-14-2005, 08:21 AM
I can fly the battle of britain in any sim but il2 thats been released, I can fly over most of europe and especially southern england, the channel and northern france. Yet I can't fly over the phillipines, greater new guinea, the solomons, China/burma/india, manchuria, the aluetians, greater japan or countless pacific atolls. Although a great mediterranian is coming, it'll be a while before everyone can fly it.

Just update the il2 engine and add a BoB map and planes in a commercial addon. Abandoning WW2's air combat being 75% covered for a 5 month timeframe covering one battle. Seriously, how many times can you fly an aircraft intercept over the same scenery in southern britain in a hurricane mk1 or spitfire mk1 against he111's and bf109e's, or a bf109e escorting he111 bombers against the same spits and hurris, and an occaisional defiant or beaufighter?

And, no I won't be buying BoB within the first 3 days or months its out. I won't be until it covers more than such a small scope.

csThor
07-14-2005, 08:27 AM
Eraser - I'll say it as drastically as I can to make some folks here understand why BoB was chosen.

The Il-2 base engine is at the very limits of what it can achieve. It cannot display a large number of aircraft, it cannot display maps large enough to fit the requirements of the PTO and it is technically outdated because of its age.

You can't squeeze any more juice from a cirtus fruit than it had to begin with. And this "fruit" is almost dry.

MiamiEagle
07-14-2005, 10:00 AM
Csthor all that I"m asking is for is for Oleg to finnish this sereis with as many planes and maps about the Pacific Theater as possible within its limitations.

Let give this incomplete series what it needs so it would become the best series in the Market of today.

I"m well aware of its limitation as its been mention before. But there is a lot you can do within its limited concept.

Once you have finnish the Pacific Theater than we can anxiously wait for BoB project when its finnished.

It would be a shame to leave it as is because it would be incomplete at this point when it could have been consider the best flight Simulator representing World war two.

Csthor its ovious that you do not care about a complete World war two flight Simulator and you would be toally satisfy with the ETO only World war flight Simulator concept to it.

I"m not satify with that concept nor would I ever bee. I"m sure I am not the only one who feels this way.

I know you are one those fellows who needs ETO addiction rehab. Please try to see World war two as world event and diversified your view. This might let you see how much more enjoyment you can get out of this Simulator.

How can you evaluate a Corsair or Zero when all you ever fly is Bf109 or Fw190.

I can tell this by the what you have written before and what igsinia you chose to represent your post trade mark.

Now with installment of the Pacific Fighter program not only you can fly those wonderfull German planes but also Amrican and Japanese planes.

I want to thank Oleg for giving us the Russians planes as well. Other wise I would not have the expirience of flying them.

Miamieagle

Tater-SW-
07-14-2005, 10:20 AM
I suppose it'll be interesting to see if a new engine cannot just do a better job with the fidelity of individual units, but also display MORE of them at the same time (doing all that they need to do).

If BoB does the same number of objects, but they are far more detailled and sophisticated in their AI, then that is one thing (and cool), but a few years from now the machine that might run BoB at current Il-2 FRs with similar numbers of units playable now, might run PF with 10x as many less-sophisticated units flying around at great FRs (and graphics turned all the way up). I could see myself prefering to play AEP/PF on my machine 5 years from now with many hundreds of bombers flying, and all the AAA turned all the way up, etc vs playing a later sim that is photo-realistic, with an awesome DM, etc---but I can only fly missions with a handful of planes flying.

If that makes any sense.

tater

nakamura_kenji
07-14-2005, 10:27 AM
i like see the russian addon release atleast as that possibly going have many missing japanese plane p_q.

be honest i know it selfish but i not care about bob as no interest for me only like pacific i do. doubt be pacific addon for bob not quickly anyway p_q

Chivas
07-14-2005, 10:30 AM
Some of you guys just don't get it. BOB is just the start of a new series of theaters with the new engine.

You will not want to fly the Il-2 series once you fly with the far more realistic series with the new engine.

Sure it will take some time to complete the series of theaters but by the time you tire of the BOB theater the Med theater will be released then Pacific etc.

Also nothings stopping you from flying the Il-2 series at the same time.

The new series will probably end up having more aircraft than the original series, considering it will include BOB, MAW, Pacific, Western and Eastern Fronts.

http://www.war-clouds.com/sigs/jg27chivas.jpg

RAF92_Moser
07-14-2005, 10:47 AM
So I am just going to see another repeat of the IL-2 series in BOB? Hopefully I can fly a torpedo bomber and have some real good times.

csThor
07-14-2005, 11:05 AM
Well MiamiEagle that's a perfectly sound point of view. Unfortunately there are a few things that will prevent your wishes from becoming true:

PF itself was never a brainchild of Maddox Games. Luthier was the "man in the background" and as far as it looks he and his 3rd Party modellers could not meet the demands - rumors say partially because of quality issues and lack of time. So MG was forced to pick up the shards and turn PF into something that could be released at all.

When the mess with PF became obvious the plans for BoB had already reached quite an advanced state, so to make stuff for FB/PF took away development time for BoB - and thus it was taking the business plan off schedule (and if there is one thing that is holy to publishers it's money and business plans http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif). I imagine Ubi managers gnashing their teeth everytime Maddox Games makes some stuff for FB/PF to release the most advanced 3rd Party objects.

So it must be in Maddox Games's own interest to stop development for FB/PF as soon as possible, since all their financial plans have to rely heavily on a successful and timely release of BoB. They cannot make money out of the Il-2 engine anymore (and honestly: I believe PF was already too much for the engine) and have to produce something new to justify the monthly paychecks from Ubisoft. Look what happened to another 1C product - Wartime Command was dropped by Codemasters as the development didn't proceed well enough (so I heard).

It might be not the most pleasant outlook, but I fear business goes over passion for the theater. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

PS: I admit freely that I have no connections to the PTO. So for me the reasons are probably easier to grasp and accept.

triggerhappyfin
07-14-2005, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by csThor:
Eraser - I'll say it as drastically as I can to make some folks here understand why BoB was chosen.

The Il-2 base engine is at the very limits of what it can achieve. It cannot display a large number of aircraft, it cannot display maps large enough to fit the requirements of the PTO and it is technically outdated because of its age.

You can't squeeze any more juice from a cirtus fruit than it had to begin with. And this "fruit" is almost dry.

You sound pretty sure of your opinion. Are you able to back your statements up with some real facts?
As the name states(BoB) and Olegs earlier statements in the matter, he is gonna scrap this game and it´s further development and start on zero level with a very limited scenery of war.

I dont for a sec believe those statements of IL-2 eengine not beeing possible for further development. The new FM is the latest proof of the opposite. The main cause is Olegs limited resources and his decision to utilise closed code. Developing a new sim gives more money...if people buy it.
Cryin out loud CFS 2 is still around and kickin.
Lot of third party addons making money out of it.
Why doesnt this apply on IL-2 series?
IL-2 series are lightyears beyond that M$-****.
Still people say IL-2 series have nothing left to offer?

Eraser_tr
07-14-2005, 12:21 PM
csthor, I disagree. I think there's plenty of "juice" left. Code and FM-wise it may have hit a limit, but we can certainly get more content out of the engine. Besides, its not so outdated that alot programming couldn't bring its code to a more non outdated level.

Bolt40
07-14-2005, 07:25 PM
Glad to see people waking up about all this " Forget PF , on with BoB nonsense " , theres money to be made and you will pay it for additional addon discs with more planes , ships and maps ..BoB means squat to me ..played it enough on all the other sims that had it before . Hell GMX will be releasing their version soon http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif , PF is not dead and has alot more potential ..I think its the European attitude toward the Pacific War that will let this present sim die ..and thats sad not to mention...costly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Bearcat99
07-14-2005, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by MiamiEagle:
Csthor all that I"m asking is for is for Oleg to finnish this sereis with as many planes and maps about the Pacific Theater as possible within its limitations.

Let give this incomplete series what it needs so it would become the best series in the Market of today.


LOL.. it is already the best series in the market today...... even in it's "unfinished" state.....

Eraser_tr
07-14-2005, 07:57 PM
LOL.. it is already the best series in the market today...... even in it's "unfinished" state.....

arguably, yes. uncontestably, no. especially if you like making more than skins or missions.

bolt, you're pretty much right. The PTO doesn't mean much for the europeans that make up ubi and 1c. only the FAA and KNIL had any operations against the japanese, and were relatively minor forces and thus little interest from europe. Meanwhile the PTO was of huge importance to the americans which have been royally short changed with PF.

B0lter
07-14-2005, 08:23 PM
I agree that PF is nowhere near "old news" as some say. It's been what, nine months since it was released?

No way, gentlemen. If anything, PF will be around for a long time in simmers HDs. Why? because there is no other choice if you like flying warbirds from carriers, period. CFS2 pacific? C'mon, who are you kidding!

I can tell that some here are not very excited about carrier deck ops, but believe me, there is a strong comunity of virtual naval pilots that find little gratification in flying out of 2 mile runways.

I, for one, still have Jane's FA-18 in my HD. I've been flying it since shortly after it came out, and I will continue to fly it until an alternative becomes available; and the Su-33/Kuznetov thing in LOMAC is not it, believe me.

This is why PF will still be a viable game long after people get sick of BoB, prety new engine or not.

Bolt40
07-14-2005, 08:26 PM
Right , and until an American company can come up with a PTO flightsim that rivals and in most instances supercede the Il2 series , we're stuck with what we have .. theres just not enough of us to be appreciated in the flightsim
development world for them to be interested in what we think or want . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

The only time you have too much fuel , is when your planes on fire .

jarink
07-14-2005, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by csThor:
to make some folks here understand why BoB was chosen.

Sorry, your post does nothing to explain why the Battle of Britain was chosen as the setting for the new series. I don't think there's many people here that dispute the need (both technically and fiscally) to move on to a new engine, but the overriding question is:

Why choose a battle that has been simmed to death?

True, it is one of the most famous, if not the most famous aerial battle of WWII, but there are other choices. Why not the sim the Solomons? (Guadalcanal is a bit famous, y'know and would provide a good, even mix.) Carrier battles would be good (several could be put in one package like Coral Sea and Midway), although 1C has shown they need to work on their whole ship/torpedo modelling. Frankly, I'm suprised that Oleg and co. did not choose a Russian battle as the setting for the next game, but I'm sure UBI wanted them to make something more marketable in Western Europe and the USA.

Brass_Monkey
07-14-2005, 09:56 PM
Open Il2 and PF to 3rd party developers. Then maybe we'll get the planes certain people are looking for plus new scenery and missions. BoB only lasted four months I don't see what the big deal is about that new sim, Spits vs 109s again and again, throw in a few V1 rockets if ya want. Anybody ever check out "Flightsim.com"? and see all the 3rd party offerings for the "much hated" MS flight sims............?

csThor
07-14-2005, 11:38 PM
Disclaimer: What I'm saying is my very own opinion. I am in no way privy to Oleg's and/or Ubisoft's thoughts and plans.

triggerhappyfin - Oleg and I exchange emails once a while as I'm doing some research for BoB. A while back topic came to the FM of FB/PF and he said (analogously):

We have so much stuff in the code that it becomes harder and harder to change things without breaking other things.

To me it means that the base code is so full, that changes have influence on nearly all parts of the game. That's what makes additions/corrections problematic.

Eraser - See above. We all have to remember that Maddox Games is not the Salvation Army and needs to generate income. It's not surprising that AddOns generate far less money than full-blown releases - AddOns are for the fanatics but attract rather few new customers while a completely new title brings fresh blood and more money. Those are the laws of the market I fear.

Jarink - Show me another period of WW2 that is as limited time/location wise and still rouses that much interest in a lot of countries. Il-2 was initially ignored by quite a lot of US simmers for its lack of US aircraft and the "obscure" theater. In a way the PTO is/was as alien to a lot of european simmers as the Eastern Front is/was to a lot of US simmers. That might have influenced the choice - after all Maddox Games is a russian company and as such still "european" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Brass_Monkey - Maddox Games will never open their code. Rather the Sahara will become artic tundra.

MiamiEagle
07-15-2005, 12:51 AM
Nakamura_Kenjand and Csthor you both need to expand your Horizons. Nakamura the war in Europe and the Battle of Britain was one of the most important Battle in World war two.

not caring about the European theater in World war two is like trying to drive a car with only two wheels. You are short changing your World war aviation experience by half.

I can say the same thing to you Csthor and how you feel on the Pacific Theater.

As you comment that you and Oleg are Europeans and as such you half very feeling for the Pacific Theater dose not hold much water.

I"m either German nor Russian but I still love to fly for the LW and the VSS. As matter of fact I"am facinated by the Eastern Front. Its one of my favorite Front to fly in.

Another comment heard that heard by another member is that CFS2 is not as good as Pacific Fighter. That is simply wrong due to all the improvents done by private member to it for the love of the hobby.

I"am not writting this post to promote CFS2 but to improve this great sereis to higher standards.

I would like to see Pacific Fighter reach this level quality or better. This my only objective in writting this post.

Another thing said that is wrong is the comment that the Pacific war was basically a American Japanese war.

Thats is simply wrong again.There where many Nations involved in that conflic as well.

There was the Chinese, Indians, British, Autralians, Philipines plus the Americans and Japanese and Dutch.

Giving the program to third parties would not Oleg against Oleg in competition. Thats a rediculous comment.

BoB is tatally different than the Pacific Theater so it would not in competition with the BoB program. Its real competition is Wing of victory2 program comming out soon.

Csthor you have tried to kill this addition for a long time for the only reason that you hate the Pacific Theater. Instead you should realize much it has help it by increasing the public interest in the sereis as never before.

Miamieagle



I can say the same about you Csthor.

csThor
07-15-2005, 01:29 AM
Eagle - You can't force people to be interested in things they don't care about. I have spent hundreds (thousands ??) of Euros for my collection of books on the german Luftwaffe, but I'm just not interested in the PTO at all. I know the basic facts (the "Aces of the Pacific" Manual plus one or two other rather "generic" books gave me the necessary information) and I regard this as basic knowledge, but I won't go as deep into this topic as I do with the Luftwaffe.

I could not force a PTO fan to become interested in the Eastern Front or the Med nor would I want to. If everyone was interested in the very same things life would be pretty boring, wouldn't it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Giving the program to third parties would not Oleg against Oleg in competition. Thats a rediculous comment.

Keeping the code in-house is not a decision to anger the customers and modders, but a business decision made by Maddox Games way before the original Il-2 appeared on the market. Since we are currently seeing some basic elements of the BoB Flightmodel in FB/PF it's logical to assume that BoB's codebase will - in one way or another - have similarities to FB/PF's. Handing over the code to someone else means opening the successor, too - and that can't be in Maddox Games's interest.

Secondly I think people are thinking too much of the structure of CFS when they're talking about mods. The Il-2 engine was not designed to be modified by external people. Ask Ian Boys how problematic the learning process of the Map Making Tool was for him.


Csthor you have tried to kill this addition for a long time for the only reason that you hate the Pacific Theater. Instead you should realize much it has help it by increasing the public interest in the sereis as never before.

I have not tried to kill anything nor do I have the power to do so. If Maddox Games had decided to make a new PTO sim from scratch, I would not be thrilled, but would simply keep FB on my HDD. I'm not one for "sour grapes" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It seems people are determined to ignore the fact that Maddox Games had set a deadline for 3rd Party Models. This deadline has been passed already so all they're doing is to finish what is finishable - probably in their spare time. The priority in development lies with BoB, whether we like it or not.

And a last note: Oleg spoke at least of one coming patch. Since we have no means of knowing what is in we can only guess. Who says there aren't a few PTO surprises in it?

triggerhappyfin
07-15-2005, 06:21 AM
Originally posted by csThor:

Eraser - See above. We all have to remember that Maddox Games is not the Salvation Army and needs to generate income. It's not surprising that AddOns generate far less money than full-blown releases - <span class="ev_code_RED">AddOns are for the fanatics but attract rather few new customers while a completely new title brings fresh blood and more money. Those are the laws of the market I fear.</span>
Jarink - Show me another period of WW2 that is as limited time/location wise and still rouses that much interest in a lot of countries. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Il-2 was initially ignored by quite a lot of US simmers for its lack of US aircraft and the "obscure" theater.</span> In a way the PTO is/was as alien to a lot of european simmers as the Eastern Front is/was to a lot of US simmers. That might have influenced the choice - after all Maddox Games is a russian company and as such still "european" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Brass_Monkey - <span class="ev_code_GREEN">Maddox Games will never open their code. Rather the Sahara will become artic tundra</span>.

<span class="ev_code_RED">The fanatics are the first to buy any promising product on the market...without them no market at all! Don´t make the big mistake to ignore that crowd and their money!</span>

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">The US market is by Olegs owne figures not the significantly important market! Asia/Russia is where this sim sells the best!</span>

<span class="ev_code_GREEN">This really is the downside of Olegs sim. The lack of interesse to solve this issue so important for us "fanatics". In this matter CFS-**** rules the market, their emphasis on after market sales!</span>

csThor
07-15-2005, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by triggerhappyfin:
The fanatics are the first to buy any promising product on the market...without them no market at all! Don´t make the big mistake to ignore that crowd and their money!

The fanatics are a part of the equation, but if we're honest the real hardcore flightsim fans are a small, small percentage of the game market. The success of the original Il-2 was a combination of unused theater, good graphics, excellent flightmodel and a lot of other things that also attracted non-regular flightsimmers. I still remember those days when a lot of folks came in stating not to have flown a flightsim for years or not having owned one at all. Those "irregular" customers were IMO the difference between "normal" flightsim sales figures and the ones IL-2 achieved.

AddOns require to have the original product installed already and thus creating another barrier between the customer and the purchase. A full-blown title does not place such a barrier - all a "fresh" potential pilot has to have is a working computer.



Originally posted by triggerhappyfin:
The US market is by Olegs owne figures not the significantly important market! Asia/Russia is where this sim sells the best!

I know this and perhaps this was the reason why PF was made at all. I'm speculating wildly here, but I somehow imagine that Ubi wanted a last-moment income from the US market by presenting a more attractive (for US players) theater, maybe even generating enough followers for the "Battle of Britain" Sim. Well - for some reason that was a shot in the foot. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif


Originally posted by triggerhappyfin:
This really is the downside of Olegs sim. The lack of interesse to solve this issue so important for us "fanatics". In this matter CFS-**** rules the market, their emphasis on after market sales!

I'll give you my own opinion:

The only "modifications" I'd go for in a Combat Flight Simulator are new terrain graphics, new sound files and perhaps new aircraft textures. Anything else has no place - especially no FM/DM tweaks by self-proclaimed "experts". I have learned this the hard way with EAW - in the end (when I left) there was soo much bickering about the different FMs that it took more time to set up the game than to enjoy the flying. And I don't even talk about Online!

I will say it again and again - People are having completely unrealistic expectations about "modifying" FB/PF. Map making - probably one of the "easier" things - is still extremely difficult. Ian needed 14 months to finish Murmansk and he even had to talk to Oleg directly at the Birmingham Game Show. He said without that chat of an hour or so there wouldn't be Murmansk and Kurland today.

neural_dream
07-15-2005, 10:35 AM
The first "modern" (i mean after the lucas arts and microprose ones of the early 90s) Flight Sim that i tried was CFS3. I found it really ugly (mainly the interface and the ingame terrain graphics), also i didn't have a joystick, so i found the whole experience terrible. A little later i tried FB. My english vocab is too poor to express how i felt. The same day i bought a very expensive joystick as if i new that this would be my main hobby for the next years, which is exactly what happened.

I had seen Il-2 too in my local shop, a year before, but i thought i shouldn't prefer a russian game over an MS game. I had to be disappointed by MS to go for the then FB, and i had to be amazed by the graphics to give it more time and then start admiring it as a game, with the FM and whatever comes with it. Now, of course i suggest it to everyone, but this is not the way to become dominant in a market. And the name: Il-2 was a very poor choice in terms of marketing, not to mention the even worse choice: Il-2 forgotten battles for a sequel (and not an expansion). At last they realised that with the third game, which they wisely called Pacific Fighters (and not Betty: Battles under the Rising Sun or something http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif ) if they wanted to attract any American or W-European not hardcore buyer. Too bad the product was not ready when they published it and PF got something like a 70+ in gamespot and the rest. You can't expect a game to be bought by occasional gamers when there is no Gamespot Editor's Choice or 90 mark on the box.

triggerhappyfin
07-15-2005, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by csThor:

<span class="ev_code_RED">all a "fresh" potential pilot has to have is a working computer.</span>


<span class="ev_code_RED">So by buying the addons needed and supporting the development of this game is not worth a stick in a dog ****? Odd way to treat dedicated customers</span> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

I know this and perhaps this was the reason why PF was made at all. <span class="ev_code_GREEN">I'm speculating wildly here, but I somehow imagine that Ubi wanted a last-moment income from the US market by presenting a more attractive (for US players) theater</span>, maybe even generating enough followers for the "Battle of Britain" Sim. Well - for some reason that was a shot in the foot. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif


<span class="ev_code_GREEN">- Now this was a correct step to take and we were a lot non-US people who purchased the addon on it´s first day of release. /color] http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

I'll give you my own opinion:

[color:YELLOW]The only "modifications" I'd go for in a Combat Flight Simulator are new terrain graphics, new sound files and perhaps new aircraft textures</span>. Anything else has no place - especially no FM/DM tweaks by self-proclaimed "experts". I have learned this the hard way with EAW - in the end (when I left) there was soo much bickering about the different FMs that it took more time to set up the game than to enjoy the flying. And I don't even talk about Online!


<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">- Atleast this is achievable for the community and as I stated before there are third part interesse to make further development. Those third part companies dont have to carry the initial costs of development and therefore dont need to make such a sales as Oleg. Sales by the way is mainly achieved by making interesse for the product. Actually I´m conviced that Olegs work on IL-2 series have helped Firepower guys to better sales on CFS-**** addons http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif</span>

I will say it again and again - <span class="ev_code_PINK">People are having completely unrealistic expectations about "modifying" FB/PF.</span>


<span class="ev_code_PINK">- Why not consider these "unrealistic expectations" as part of a healthy discussion with the possibility of making more interesse around these flight sims? It´s actually mostly a question of aproach how these matters are delt with! Call them unrealistic and they remain as such or call them possibilities and well meant suggestions and they will be as such!</span> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<span class="ev_code_BROWN">Map making - probably one of the "easier" things - is still extremely difficult. Ian needed 14 months to finish Murmansk and he even had to talk to Oleg directly at the Birmingham Game Show. He said without that chat of an hour or so there wouldn't be Murmansk and Kurland today.</span>


<span class="ev_code_BROWN">- These kind of misshaps are easiest avoided by Oleg taking part and seeing somekind of commercial possibilities in it. As I said before a third part developer dont have the initial costs to deal with and as Oleg is about to drop it it would be of commercial interesse for him to let third part make further development and scim the cream of their efforts!</span> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
07-15-2005, 11:02 AM
We have so much stuff in the code that it becomes harder and harder to change things without breaking other things.

I'm quite "glad" to see this statement because it's something that I have voiced/suspected for some time now.

IMO, the reason why BoB was chosen is because it's arguably the best known air battle in history (good for all round sales), has a relatively small number of types of aircraft involved (good as a starting point) and offers new ground for Maddox (UK maps etc) - something that would be presented to UBI as a 'step forward'. As others, and I, have suggested, it should offer a similar springboard as Il-2 did; if you recall, the original started off early war and 'expanded' as the war 'advanced' with new countries joining the fray.

All seems quite logical to me. All that Oleg has to do next is to sell it...

Who knows, if Moore's laws hold true, the hardware might even be good enough to make a simulation rather than a game.

Ta,
Norris

csThor
07-15-2005, 11:36 AM
I still think, triggerhappyfin, that you're expecting far too much.

a) Oleg said here in the board that an SDK would cost 100k + US $ to develop as it would have to be done from scratch. Won't happen.

b) "The Code" ... meaning the engine behind Il-2 is a business secret of Maddox Games. It's a business decision they have made years ago to keep it as tightly locked as Fort Knox. And it's a decision that stands - as Oleg has said numerous times in answer to numerous pleas to allow mods. They may have licensed it (or parts of it) to another developer, but this title is an arcade thing on a console (and as such not a competitor at all). On the other hand having parts of the BoB FM in PF 4.01 makes the assumption logical that BoB will be based on parts of the FB/PF codebase which means opening to one to a Third Party means a potential security risk for the integrity of BoB. And show me one enterpriser who would allow such an investment to be comprimised.

To give a drastic (and probably exaggerated) example: Asking MG to hand over this engine to a 3rd Party is like asking Microsoft to hand over the XP Source Code as a 64Bit OS is on the horizont http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


I think we can debate this as much as we want, but I think we're having to totally different points of view on this matter. I am strictly against any opening of the code in any way, you actually consider it. That's just the difference of opinions http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'm just afraid this board will end in fire and flames once Maddox Games pulls the plug on FB/PF development. Expectations have risen to great heights without anything but wishes, dreams and speculations back them up.

triggerhappyfin
07-15-2005, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by csThor:
I still think, triggerhappyfin, that you're expecting far too much.

<span class="ev_code_RED">actally I´m not expecting anything..I only feel sad about the prospect of IL-2 series destony..</span> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif


a) Oleg said here in the board that an SDK would cost 100k + US $ to develop as it would have to be done from scratch. Won't happen.

<span class="ev_code_RED">No such expectations from me</span>b) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

"The Code" ... meaning the engine behind Il-2 is a business secret of Maddox Games. It's a business decision they have made years ago to keep it as tightly locked as Fort Knox. And it's a decision that stands - as Oleg has said numerous times in answer to numerous pleas to allow mods. They may have licensed it (or parts of it) to another developer, but this title is an arcade thing on a console (and as such not a competitor at all). On the other hand having parts of the BoB FM in PF 4.01 makes the assumption logical that BoB will be based on parts of the FB/PF codebase which means opening to one to a Third Party means a potential security risk for the integrity of BoB. And show me one enterpriser who would allow such an investment to be comprimised.

To give a drastic (and probably exaggerated) example: Asking MG to hand over this engine to a 3rd Party is like asking Microsoft to hand over the XP Source Code as a 64Bit OS is on the horizont http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<span class="ev_code_RED">There are lots of solutions on matters like this...if only the urge appears. The main key here should be the intresse of simmers and any potential simmers to take part and buy any third part developments(with this I dont mean codewise development but issues to add to the sim as vehicles,ac, maps and such).</span>

I think we can debate this as much as we want, but I think we're having to totally different points of view on this matter. I am strictly against any opening of the code in any way, you actually consider it. That's just the difference of opinions http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<span class="ev_code_RED">Funny! In my book this is the essence of discussion. If we were of same opinion there would not be any need to discuss. Out of discussions there might develop a solution you know!</span>

I'm just afraid this board will end in fire and flames once Maddox Games pulls the plug on FB/PF development. Expectations have risen to great heights without anything but wishes, dreams and speculations back them up.

<span class="ev_code_RED">If so, there are a real urge for a further life of IL-2 engine. Atleast enough to seriously investigate the commercial potentials of it. To say no go, is like a slap in our faces that care to discuss. </span>

B0lter
07-15-2005, 04:04 PM
Folks, let this controversy go. Oleg will do what Oleg does, as he's always done. His future titles will either become comercial success or not. The important thing is that maddox/1C is irrelevant in the long run. They'll either deliver better games, or they'll fade into obscurity. If it could happen to Jane's, it can happen to anyone, period.

Maddox Games and 1C are not the only developer of flight sims. True, they have made a very nice series with the IL-2/FB/AEP/PF titles, however, that doesn't mean that he is the heir apparent of the flight sim industry. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It is also not truth that Russian companies have the "market cornered" as far as flight sims go. Don't get me wrong, I've bought every one of the IL-2 series titles, as well as LOMAC and Flaming Clifs, all made by Russian companies: 1C and Eagle Dynamics. Never the less, there are a lot of American companies ready and able to take the lead if 1C or ED drop the ball on the box market.

The sad truth of the matter is that American companies like Electronic Arts (Janes's) and Microsoft are cashing in on "sim-light" titles like Battlefield and crimson skies, as there is a lot more money there. No one complains about flight model fidelity, so there is no expense incurred in continued refinement of the product. That does not mean that they will hesitate to reclaim 1Cs/EDs market if they sense any weakness. Believe me, if BoB has a weak launch, the sharks will start to circle. EA and MS did not become giants by being asleep at the switch.

Also, the majority of American flight sim developers have migrated to the paid subscription model for continuous online combat. Warbirds, Dawn of aces, Aces High & World War II Online are strong simulations that have no need to pander to the box-buying consumer segment, as they average a box purchase equivalent every third month of subscription.

There is a new generation of developers emerging here in america. Willing and able to reclaim the global lead that EA Jane's used to enjoy. Companies like Lead-Pursuit with their excelent Falcon4: Allied Force, and Third Wire with their open-code, ever improving Strike Fighters Project 1/Wings over Vietnam. Expect great things in the future from these studios.

And us virtual pilots will fly on.

triggerhappyfin
07-15-2005, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by B0lter:
Folks, let this controversy go. Igor will do what Igor does, as he's always done. His future titles will either become comercial success or not. The important thing is that maddox/1C is irrelevant in the long run.

<span class="ev_code_RED">As irrelevant as we all...depends on the timespan considered..lol.</span>

There is a new generation of developers emerging here in america. Willing and able to reclaim the global lead that EA Jane's used to enjoy. Companies like Lead-Pursuit with their excelent Falcon4: Allied Force, and Third Wire with their open-code, ever improving Strike Fighters Project 1/Wings over Vietnam. Expect great things in the future from these studios.

<span class="ev_code_RED">Sure, there is alternatives but this is not what we discussed. This discussion deals with the future of PF. But fact is that Oleg has created new standards that hopefully others will try to make their own versions of.</span>

And us virtual pilots will fly on.

<span class="ev_code_RED">Be sure!</span>

Chivas
07-15-2005, 05:57 PM
I don't see any future realistic WW2 combat flight sims coming from MS. They have been cancelled.

Oleg is the only one delivering. He completely outclassed his competitors. The only other WW2 combat flight sims that may be worth buying are the remakes of Rowans BOB and Waywards B17 II.

triggerhappyfin
07-16-2005, 04:22 AM
Originally posted by Chivas:
I don't see any future realistic WW2 combat flight sims coming from MS. They have been cancelled.

Oleg is the only one delivering. <span class="ev_code_RED">He completely outclassed his competitors.</span> The only other WW2 combat flight sims that may be worth buying are the remakes of Rowans BOB and Waywards B17 II.

<span class="ev_code_RED">Well atleast he set a standard others to follow</span>

GerritJ9
07-16-2005, 08:49 AM
BoB is meant as a starting point.... and the title BoB may well be inadequate even at initial release. There is no reason why it could not include more than the UK and parts of northern France from the start. And even if it doesn't, all indications are that it WILL expand to include much more- Poland 1939.... Norway and Low Countries 1940 for starters.
Aaah, Fokker G-1s tearing Me-110s to shreds http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
So yes, I'll buy it... even if I have to wait for four or five years before Oleg returns to the Pacific/SE Asia theatre. Until then, I'll happily continue with what we already have and what may still be in the pipeline, whether free patches or paid add-on CDs. PF will still be on my comp as it is my fav theatre- it is the only one where the Netherlands played a significant part, even if it was for three months only.

aminx
07-16-2005, 01:11 PM
allow open architecture and all the problems are over, just look at whats happening at CFS2.I have uninstalled this sim and gone back to CFS2 and found i have everything including new cheap donation paywares!!
aminx

airdale1960
07-16-2005, 01:20 PM
I can't fly the LaGG-3 29 and 35 after the 4.01 patch. Has anyone else had this problem?

airdale1960
07-16-2005, 02:19 PM
Never mind, rebooted, cleared up problem.

Treetop64
07-16-2005, 02:49 PM
Wow! All the pretty colors of text in this thread are really...pretty! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

PlimPlam
07-17-2005, 01:01 AM
Or really hard to read.

Snootles
07-17-2005, 08:28 PM
I definitely like the idea of doing a more limited battle/historical campaign in painstaking detail than I do the idea of doing an entire theatre of operations in moderate detail. With the former, there's nothing essential missing from the scope of the game, and add-on work can be dedicated to adding more battles/campaigns and their associated craft/objects/maps. With the latter, add-on work is needed to "fill in the holes" in the detail of the sim's overly broad scope.

If I were to render the Pacific as a simulation, I would start with a painstakingly detailed game of, say, Coral Sea and Midway. Then I could release all sorts of individual add-ons for other battles/campaigns- New Guinea, the Solomons, the Philippines, Japanese homeland etc...

Thus, I think BoB's approach is the way to go- individual campaigns in great detail. Besides the game's ersatz-titular focus of operations, last I heard there were 3rd-party teams working on Poland '39 and France '40 campaigns. I personally am excited.

MiamiEagle
07-17-2005, 10:52 PM
Guys I'm excited as well I beleive its good that Oleg is developing a new series with a improved engine.

All have been asking up to now is for him to finnish what his already started.

Once you have satify us with the completion of the Pafific Fighter program then we will be satisfy and be ready for the BoB.

I hope Oleg is a total World war two developer and not see the war as a European exclusive event.

The more satisfy you leave us about this series the more we will be looking forward for the BoB.

Miamieagle

womenfly
07-19-2005, 07:01 AM
I would have or like to see PF be what it should have been ... about the Pacific war. With more torpedo planes, ships, carriers, arial sea battle missions ... etc.

IL2 was the Eastern front ... FB & AFB, more or less Western front.

I feel, although its a great Flight Sim, PF feel way short of this mark ... JMO.