View Poll Results: Seems there will be very little further development of FB, with BoB on piority

Even discounting Bo

Voters
61. You may not vote on this poll
  • No. Do not compromise "historical accuracy"

    21 34.43%
  • Yes. As long as pits are "related", I welcome the idea; slight inaccuracy is ok

    16 26.23%
  • Yes. Use for ALL AI types, pros outweigh the cons

    24 39.34%
  1. #1
    Share this post

  2. #2
    LEXX_Luthor's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Ussia
    Posts
    8,824
    No. A better idea is to modify existing cockpits for related AI types -- if possible, and it may not be possible for all.

    The best idea for FB/PF:: If time and resources are lacking, then we need new cockpits using the newer grafix methods but simple Detail like we see in original FB 1.0 cockpits. Also, dump some bomber crew stations.

    So, I had to Vote NO but only on technicality, otherwise I have Compassion and Tolerance for your Pain and Anguish. Keep thinking though!!
    Share this post

  3. #3
    That's never going to happen. Oleg has and will continue to maintain the high standards he has for modeling cockpits and aircraft. That's the way he wants it, and I fully support him 100%. "There are already inaccurate things in FB/PF" is a poor argument for your idea.
    Share this post

  4. #4
    lexx, you should know, my pain and anguish is derived as a result of my thinking
    overmodelled imagination
    undermodelled brain


    id liek to to battle of france P 36s, moranes vs emils n 110cs

    or kill bunkers, tanks, small ships n buildings in one go with 75mm mitchell

    how much of the inaccuracies will one see with narrow FOV whist blasting tgts?

    how much would be see or noticed in WW view?


    i want to run the gauntlet in my me 323 elefant!
    Share this post

  5. #5
    Originally posted by JG54_Lukas:
    That's never going to happen. Oleg has and will continue to maintain the high standards he has for modeling cockpits and aircraft. That's the way he wants it, and I fully support him 100%. "There are already inaccurate things in FB/PF" is a poor argument for your idea.

    yes, its poor, but a slight one, at that

    the main thing is being able to fly more and different types, and to open up more scenarios, for the enjoyment of those not-quite-so-anal about a few tits n knobs 3.4 cm to the right or left


    as for the high standards maintained in FB cockpits...yes, they are generally good....but take a VERY close look in the (ugh 185) excellent 185 pit...
    notice the marking on one of the levers....seee where it says "maddox"?...historical?
    Share this post

  6. #6
    Originally posted by Daiichidoku:

    the main thing is being able to fly more and different types, and to open up more scenarios, for the enjoyment of those not-quite-so-anal about a few tits n knobs 3.4 cm to the right or left


    as for the high standards maintained in FB cockpits...yes, they are generally good....but take a VERY close look in the (ugh 185) excellent 185 pit...
    notice the marking on one of the levers....seee where it says "maddox"?...historical?
    If you knew anything about cockpit modeling, you would know it's not about "a few tits n knobs." It's a HELL of a lot more than that.

    As for the I-185, the story behind that cockpit texture (and the whole reason for the plane being modeled in the first place) is in one of the readme files.
    Share this post

  7. #7
    Originally posted by JG54_Lukas:
    If you knew anything about cockpit modeling, you would know it's not about "a few tits n knobs." It's a HELL of a lot more than that.

    As for the I-185, the story behind that cockpit texture (and the whole reason for the plane being modeled in the first place) is in one of the readme files.
    sir, i know NOTHING about cockpit modelling, aside that it seems 1C will no longer accept any cockpits
    this is behind my reasoning, that if no more cockpits are to be accpeted, why not just use the ones that have few differences between models, or even take it further to totally unrelated pits, to maximize playability of the game, at least for those who either fly WW views, or couldnt give a rats posterior about things from basic pit config being only somewhat different, to all out mismatched pits

    what makes the pits in the ki43 SO much more different than the ki 43 IIIs?...of course, correct my mistake if it is one, but i suspect there would not be any major differences



    i have certainly read the 185 readme...still cant figure what the bigger joke is, the readme or the DM/FM (including a like wing loading as a 190, yet unlike turn perf )...uncomfortable throttle lever my a s s ....and i sure wish to heck Oleg had a friend who's grandfather flew a P 38 or P 47


    anyhow, lets not get into that

    i merely contend that many would enjoy having some or most AI types flyable for use off or online in many situations, and that it would not have to be forced or necessary to be used by anyone perferring not, to, and that it maybe, as i do not know anything of programming, cockpit building, etc, a very simple, quick and easy task for Oleg/1C to accomplish
    Share this post

  8. #8
    Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
    and that it maybe, as i do not know anything of programming, cockpit building, etc, a very simple, quick and easy task for Oleg/1C to accomplish
    Well, you just answered your own inquiry right there. It is NOT a quick and easy task. And besides that, it's simply NOT the way Oleg goes about his business - he's not going to release half-assed work. You can ask him a hundred times to grant your request, and 100 times the answer will be no.
    Share this post

  9. #9
    Grue_'s Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    579
    I play FS2004 a bit and have bought the RealAir Spitfire XIV and SF260.

    The quality of these models (especially the 3D cockpits) makes all other similar models seem very poor and I stopped using them.

    Starting with BoB I'd like to see much more quality control with the aircraft models and would be willing to pay a modest amount for patches that contain new aircraft to reflect the amount of work that goes into them.

    This will hopefully filter out some of the fantasy planes that have made it into the sim and cause pointless arguments.
    Share this post

  10. #10
    I voted yes, the pro's definatly out weigh the cons. Even if you had a generic cockpit for each engine layout it woul; mean that planes that should have been included from the start or even in the expasion packs can be flown on and off line.

    If anyone feels that the quality of the game would be reduced then they should revisit some of the pits that have made it into the game, the pzl and the 153 strike me as particularly blocky and poorly drawn, especially when compared to the J8a.

    Also if anyone wants to complain about the F/M being incomplete for many AI planes, then I ask you this, why then is it ok in campaigns for aircraft with complete F/Ms to fly against aircraft that have incomplete F/Ms surely that in itself is not fair.

    And ofcourse there is always the arguement that if you dont like it dont fly it, no one is suggesting that if this is even cfonsidered that it will install defaults that will detract from current gameplay.

    And who's idea was it that you could have an eastern european sim without any Russiam multi engine types or the Ju88 and the Fw 189, or the aces expansion without a B17 or B24. Or the pitiful P/F plane set, I mean whoever let that get out needs shooting, I'm so glad that I ran it as an expansion pack and it was not my first 1C purchase.
    Share this post