PDA

View Full Version : My thoughts on a unified/universal flight sim (Pacific Fighters concern)



Zen--
04-02-2004, 03:05 PM
One of my favorite things about IL2/FB/AEP is variety and possibility. Generally speaking I prefer historical planesets and things of that nature, but one thing I have always really enjoyed about this sim is that it has tremendous possibilities.

It means that if I am in the mood, or more importantly if YOU are, we can host whatever kind of scenario we want at the moment. We have that freedom. Within a single game, we can host historical missions with correct planesets without having to change games either, we have the luxury of a single focus for whatever kind of mission we want to use, whenever we feel like it.

To me thats called simplicity. I like it when things are simple and easy to use and that is something that I really like about AEP...it's simple in concept, everthing you need is all right there, from Barbarossa in 1941 to the defense of the Reich in 45, all easily accessible within a single game.

Simple. I like that.

With the coming of Pacific Fighters we have a whole new generation of maps and planes on the way...but we don't automatically have them all included with AEP. This concerns me, because I like things simple and I assume that most of us do.

Have you checked out that thread yet, in particular this comment from CrazyIvan?

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=363100423

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Regardless...Pacific is STAND ALONE product and separate title. Nothing could be done about it. It`s not addon, patch or whatever, it`s a separate product. But! I believe it is in OUR HANDS to have Pacific Fighters with all AEP features INCORPORATED in it, meaning planes, ships, objects, maps...etc...etc. That is belong to #1
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What Ivan is saying here is that PF is already going to be released as a seperate title, nothing can be changed there.

What is up in the air and possibly open to change is whether PF will incorporate the same planes, objects and maps from AEP, in addition to everything related to the pacific theatre. From what Ivan is saying, we might have a chance to get everything from AEP included with Pacific Fighters.

In other words, AEP+ PF together in a single new release.



Stop and think about what this means to all of us if Pacific Fighters is released WITHOUT all of the things we have in AEP right now.


It means two seperate games. It means no sharing maps. It means limited plane sets for both games...you'll never see a BF109 vs a Corsair, you'll never see a FW190 chasing down a Betty. You won't see it because it will not be possible...the games will be different. Now this is not historical and you could argue that its better that way, but I see a different side of that argument perhaps.

If the games are split and cannot be used together, it means that I lose that simplicity that is so great with AEP. It means that the long line of a steadily improved IL2 is now broken...it ends with AEP and PF ends up being a game on its own, a seperate thing. I will not have the amazing flexibility that I currently do with AEP, the ability to recreate any time period that AEP simulates...I will have to quit AEP and start PF if I ever want to do anything in the pacific arena.

To me that would be a shame. A real shame.


What I like about AEP is that it has been an evolutionary process...I have watched the game grow from a mere 30 something flyables to over a hundred, have seen so many new things added and expanded upon from the original IL2. With PF coming, I'd like to see it grow to over 140 flyables...talk about amazing. I can't think of a sim that will be able to challenge that anytime soon.

Think also of all the new players coming into the game. At their fingertips they will have the ability to create missions from any point in time without having to buy two seperate games or having to install two different games either.


For me, things like those are factors...it's one of the reasons I never bothered with the CFS series...too many games to purchase and no continuity either...each one is different and seperate. For me, I don't like that idea.



It seems to me that we really have a chance to do something about Pacific fighters though...we can possibly get it to include AEP as well, at least if I read Ivan's post right. Imho, thats worth trying to get the community together to tell UBI we want Pacific Fighters to include everything from the past versions of the game, just as FB included IL2 and AEP included FB.

We have the ability to try and make this happen, and I feel that its very important to do so. Simplicity is a good thing, so is variety. When a game has possibilities, when it is simple, flexible and can recreate any period of the war...it will be a classic and will probably stand on it's own long after technology passes it up by sheer power of versatility.


I think we as a community ought to rally together and tell UBI that we want Pacific Fighters to include AEP and not let the two games be seperated.

What do you think?

-Zen-
Tracks (http://209.163.146.67/tracks)

Zen--
04-02-2004, 03:05 PM
One of my favorite things about IL2/FB/AEP is variety and possibility. Generally speaking I prefer historical planesets and things of that nature, but one thing I have always really enjoyed about this sim is that it has tremendous possibilities.

It means that if I am in the mood, or more importantly if YOU are, we can host whatever kind of scenario we want at the moment. We have that freedom. Within a single game, we can host historical missions with correct planesets without having to change games either, we have the luxury of a single focus for whatever kind of mission we want to use, whenever we feel like it.

To me thats called simplicity. I like it when things are simple and easy to use and that is something that I really like about AEP...it's simple in concept, everthing you need is all right there, from Barbarossa in 1941 to the defense of the Reich in 45, all easily accessible within a single game.

Simple. I like that.

With the coming of Pacific Fighters we have a whole new generation of maps and planes on the way...but we don't automatically have them all included with AEP. This concerns me, because I like things simple and I assume that most of us do.

Have you checked out that thread yet, in particular this comment from CrazyIvan?

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=363100423

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Regardless...Pacific is STAND ALONE product and separate title. Nothing could be done about it. It`s not addon, patch or whatever, it`s a separate product. But! I believe it is in OUR HANDS to have Pacific Fighters with all AEP features INCORPORATED in it, meaning planes, ships, objects, maps...etc...etc. That is belong to #1
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What Ivan is saying here is that PF is already going to be released as a seperate title, nothing can be changed there.

What is up in the air and possibly open to change is whether PF will incorporate the same planes, objects and maps from AEP, in addition to everything related to the pacific theatre. From what Ivan is saying, we might have a chance to get everything from AEP included with Pacific Fighters.

In other words, AEP+ PF together in a single new release.



Stop and think about what this means to all of us if Pacific Fighters is released WITHOUT all of the things we have in AEP right now.


It means two seperate games. It means no sharing maps. It means limited plane sets for both games...you'll never see a BF109 vs a Corsair, you'll never see a FW190 chasing down a Betty. You won't see it because it will not be possible...the games will be different. Now this is not historical and you could argue that its better that way, but I see a different side of that argument perhaps.

If the games are split and cannot be used together, it means that I lose that simplicity that is so great with AEP. It means that the long line of a steadily improved IL2 is now broken...it ends with AEP and PF ends up being a game on its own, a seperate thing. I will not have the amazing flexibility that I currently do with AEP, the ability to recreate any time period that AEP simulates...I will have to quit AEP and start PF if I ever want to do anything in the pacific arena.

To me that would be a shame. A real shame.


What I like about AEP is that it has been an evolutionary process...I have watched the game grow from a mere 30 something flyables to over a hundred, have seen so many new things added and expanded upon from the original IL2. With PF coming, I'd like to see it grow to over 140 flyables...talk about amazing. I can't think of a sim that will be able to challenge that anytime soon.

Think also of all the new players coming into the game. At their fingertips they will have the ability to create missions from any point in time without having to buy two seperate games or having to install two different games either.


For me, things like those are factors...it's one of the reasons I never bothered with the CFS series...too many games to purchase and no continuity either...each one is different and seperate. For me, I don't like that idea.



It seems to me that we really have a chance to do something about Pacific fighters though...we can possibly get it to include AEP as well, at least if I read Ivan's post right. Imho, thats worth trying to get the community together to tell UBI we want Pacific Fighters to include everything from the past versions of the game, just as FB included IL2 and AEP included FB.

We have the ability to try and make this happen, and I feel that its very important to do so. Simplicity is a good thing, so is variety. When a game has possibilities, when it is simple, flexible and can recreate any period of the war...it will be a classic and will probably stand on it's own long after technology passes it up by sheer power of versatility.


I think we as a community ought to rally together and tell UBI that we want Pacific Fighters to include AEP and not let the two games be seperated.

What do you think?

-Zen-
Tracks (http://209.163.146.67/tracks)

Chuck_Older
04-02-2004, 03:15 PM
I beleive CarzyIvan was well intentioned but mistaken on that point, Zen.

The way I have read his posts, Luthier has indicated it has not been decided if PF will be standalone yet, and Oleg has in the past indicated that all his team's efforts up to BoB will be FB compatible.

My personal choice would be to have PF standalone. I have no problems turning off one program to use another, it wouldn't bother me to have to run PF to fly PF's planes, and run FB to fly FB's planes. On a different level, I have concerns over using FB's engine for PF because work is being done on BoB now as well, as i understand it. I am afraid that the shortcomings of FB will be retained in PF, and get translated to BoB. Why? because old habits die hard, especially if you rely on them, and to me, PF would be a great opportunity to begin to correct FB's problems on the way to making BoB the 'definitive' combat flight sim. I would like to see PF be a transition point away from problems and issues with the FB engine. In a word: evolution.

*****************************
Wave bub-bub-bub-bye to the boss, it's your profit, it's his loss~ Clash

Tailspin2
04-02-2004, 03:20 PM
I would rather see them get the Pacific War right, including things like carriers ops, ships attacks, etc instead of being concerned about trying to get things to work or imported from a Eastern European and/or Western European war.

It can never hurt to ask so if they could do it with little pain fine. Other wise for $40 US, we ask too much.

Tailspin's Tales
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/Tailspin/index.htm

crazyivan1970
04-02-2004, 03:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
I beleive CarzyIvan was well intentioned but mistaken on that point, Zen.

The way I have read his posts, Luthier has indicated it has not been decided if PF will be standalone yet, and Oleg has in the past indicated that all his team's efforts up to BoB will be FB compatible.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Chuck.
Well, apparently luthier didn`t deny what i said...so that means something http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Now, if you look at the bottom of that thread i explained it even further, bringing IL-2 original vs FB situation.

Forgotten Battles was brand new sim, with modified engine (but same engine) and all other kewl features and new planes, maps...etc. But, it included everything that IL-2 original had to offer and placed it over modified engine, giving IL-2 second life.

Now, you are correct, whether PF is stand alone or combined with AEP...IS un-decided. But, this time we can make a difference and have a major WW2 Flight sim on IMPROVED engine and give second life to AEP. That was a main purpose of my post.

Hope i explained myself.

Zen, excellent post Buddy, add it to vote thread please. Thanks.

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

Bearcat99
04-02-2004, 03:36 PM
The ideal scenario would be for PF to be released as a standalone/add on.. meaning that the maps and planes from PF could be added to FB2.0 or vice versa but at the same time the entire engine would be in PF so if you DIDNT have FB2.0, you could still do PF as a stand alone product. Lets face it..some people have stayed away from FB simply because they are diehard Pacific fans or they havent given the sim a chance because they just dont get it. I dont know ONE person who tried FB and left it alone... not one. Of course the problem with that is one person buying PF and then sharing the maps and planes with his buddies. If 1C could find a way to work around the whole pirating issue (of course there will always be someone selfish enough to steal it but aside from them) compatibility would be the way to go. Id hate to have PF be to FB what FB was to IL2.. but the thing that made that all right was the fact that the entire plane set from IL2 is in FB. Granted since PF is a totally different theatre it will only take so much from FB 2.0. If they DID make it totally compatible they would be shooting themselves in the foot. Then people would either have to buy AEP GOLD and PF which some may not want to do (at least not untill they fire up PF and go "Holy Moly what a frickin FANTASTIC SIM!!! I WANT MOOOOORRRRRE!!!) and they would loose that maket share or people wouldnt buy PF because all they would need would be the maps and planes from PF and add them to FB2.0. I think most of us would buy PF regardless.. I know I will... I want 1C to make as much $$ as they can so that nothing will stand in thier way from making sims till I am long gone, but you have to consider the element, and it is no small element either that would just steal it if it were made too easy to do.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

04-02-2004, 03:41 PM
It wont matter what decision is made.
If PF is compatible with FB well and good, if not it wont affect its success with people that buy it.
Myself Im looking forward to a Pacific Sim with Aircraft Carriers you can land and take off on.
PLUS! No more of the Cheat Modders from CFS 2, that was always going to get my dollars.
The Fact that 1C is involved only made a cetainty of it.
When you consider most of the Worlds Population lives on the Pacific Rim, it wont matter what decision is made by the developers.

If you want some idea of how well Pacific Sims do take a look at the down loads area at Netwings, for Pacific Theatres.

It wont matter what decision is made.

Snoop_Baron
04-02-2004, 03:42 PM
I agree 100% they should release PF as a standalone+addon game. A new game that includes everything that FB+AEP has plus more.
s!

:FI:Snoop Baron
http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_01.jpg

Chuck_Older
04-02-2004, 03:44 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
[QUOTE]Hi Chuck.
Well, apparently luthier didn`t deny what i said...so that means something http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Now, if you look at the bottom of that thread i explained it even further, bringing IL-2 original vs FB situation.

Forgotten Battles was brand new sim, with modified engine (but same engine) and all other kewl features and new planes, maps...etc. But, it included everything that IL-2 original had to offer and placed it over modified engine, giving IL-2 second life.

Now, you are correct, whether PF is stand alone or combined with AEP...IS un-decided. But, this time we can make a difference and have a major WW2 Flight sim on IMPROVED engine and give second life to AEP. That was a main purpose of my post.

Hope i explained myself.

QUOTE]

yes, you did http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

*****************************
Punk Rockers in the UK, they won't notice anyway. They're all too busy fighting for a good place under the lighting~ Clash

arcadeace
04-02-2004, 03:50 PM
Well it appears the situation is pretty clear. An improved engine make's perfect sense. We mainly vote to influence the inclusion of AEP. To me it doesn't make much of a difference because I'm an offline player, but if I had to make a choice I would prefer it separate for disciplined historical accuracy. I completely understand inherent difficulties with more complex online play.
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/222_1080289735_2032.gif

Cdn.401GATOR
04-02-2004, 04:14 PM
I think I speak for all of the 50+ pilots in the #401 and #402 and #426 squadrons when I say that we back up Zen's assessment 100%..

One thing Zen doesn't mention I think is that the online communities will be split..

Half of the people will be in the AEP lobby at times while the other half will be in the Pacific Theatre..

One of the exciting things about flying online to me is logging onto a game service like HyperLobby and seeing 400 to 500 pilots in the same lobby.. It kind of make one feel that their part of something happening..

But mostly the flexibility will be lost.. Forgotten Battles was a lot about creating "what if" scenarios and this will be curtailed severely if there is no compatibility between these two products..

Part of the great thing about programming in the 21st century is something called object oriented programming or (OOP)..

The premise of this type of programming is that instead of starting from scratch everytime a new program is to be created, the OOP paradigm allows the use of reusable objects that can be used to quickly assemble a new product or application..

It would be a tremendous loss to lose all the "objects" we have come to love to date..

We'd be starting all over with maybe 20 or thirty planes..

I understand that the carrier landings and the damage modeling for the ships needs to be revamped, but these guys are smart there must be a way to maintain the existing planesets and maps but add these new enhancements.. It is 100% possible. The question is, is it monetarily feasible?

I hope for the benefit of the entire sim community that it is..

crazyivan1970
04-02-2004, 04:20 PM
Yes, valid point GATOR...it will split and this should not happen.

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

SeaFireLIV
04-02-2004, 04:36 PM
I guess someone`s already mentioned it...
But once again MONEY speaks louder than anything else. Some money-joker has convinced Oleg to the logic that selling a Standalone flight sim of EACH part of the air conflicts of WWII will garner lots of CASH!

Of course, Oleg could do the RIGHT thing and have all his products compatible and even BACKWARDS compatible, but the money men would probably refuse to back him.

It`s the way the world is. Look out for all of the Standalone Pacific Air war, BOB, BOF, Desert Air War, Mediterranean, Spanish Civil war, Pearl Harbour, Midway, etc, etc, etc....

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/Old1.jpg

It`s not about the Machine...
(aka: You CAN teach an old dog new tricks!)

XyZspineZyX
04-02-2004, 04:57 PM
One good thing that could come out of "split" titles:

Less mixing of planes that don't belong together.

The lack of developer control over the "feel" of this franchise has really destroyed it. It's been left to the players to "maintain" an East Front, or a Europe, or a Pacific, or wherever, and like spoiled litle children, they've totally screwed the pooch. And now you see more Ki-84s over Lake Balaton than you do Lavochkins and Yaks, and more P-38s and P-51s over the Crimea than the planes that were actually there, too. And, naturally, Spits are presumed to be as ubiquitous as 109s over the Eastern Front.

If a Pacific add-on meant that you'd only see Japanese and USN/MC/AAF/Commonwealth planes there (with the exception of the odd Martlet, but then they'd be as over-represented in any FB-style Med for the Fleet Air Arm as Spits are for Yaks everywhere else), it'd be welcome.

I truly feel that online, the "what-if" is much more common than the "what was", and that truly cheapens FB, making it firmly "just a game" with little pretense of being any kind of sim.

I'd gladly lose the 'what if' possibilities; we've already explored it to death, and it's boring, and stupid.

Tailspin2
04-02-2004, 04:59 PM
Making things backwards compatible for a flight sim would hinder the current flight sim from what I could see. The developer always has to worry if the current programming and math calculations would work in the old sim. If he finds something better to do for the new sim, he probably wouldn't be able to proceed forward if he couldn't get it to work with the old sim. Like new formula calculations for a flight model.

Look at all those flight sims you mentioned. They all took years to develop. Each one uses the latest programming and technical hardware. Hardware changes over time. It wonder great if you could build a sim that starts off in one part of the world and work your way around it. But it takes so long to develop things and technical changes so much, I can't see how one expect to see the first theater function with the very last theater. It's more than just money.

Tailspin's Tales
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/Tailspin/index.htm

Chuck_Older
04-02-2004, 05:06 PM
I have to point out that the assumption is being made that the "split" in the community would be 100% total, in other words, that everyone will either play/support/do 3rd party work for either PF or FB.

That can't be accurate.

Also, another assumption is being made here: that the 'pool' of players is completely drained. By that I mean that no new players/3rd party support folks will ever play either FB or PF. that can't be accurate either.

One last assumption I can see being made: that the entire community of FB players is represented by members on this forum. A small addition to that is that logically, some of the players who do not actively contribute on these forums right now will do so at some time in the future, regardless of a 'split' in the community.

We're not talking the great Schism here http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Some very dark pictures are being painted from my viewpoint.

*****************************
Punk Rockers in the UK, they won't notice anyway. They're all too busy fighting for a good place under the lighting~ Clash

Luftkillier
04-02-2004, 05:15 PM
3-31-04 by Luthier
"The only thing I can say at this point that the two products will be fully compatible and there's no technical limitations in the engine that would prevent a Bf-109 from flying over Iwo Jima or an Aichi Val over Leningrad"

That's my story and I am sticking to it. Guys ease up Luthier has already addressed this issue.

crazyivan1970
04-02-2004, 05:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Luftkillier:
3-31-04 by Luthier
"The only thing I can say at this point that the two products will be fully compatible and there's no technical limitations in the engine that would prevent a Bf-109 from flying over Iwo Jima or an Aichi Val over Leningrad"

That's my story and I am sticking to it. Guys ease up Luthier has already addressed this issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You missed a little part Luft: "Nothing has been decided yet to the best of my knowledge."

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

Luftkillier
04-02-2004, 05:33 PM
If he was not planning/intending to make them fully compatible then he would not have come in public and said so. The fact that it could change because of considerations beyond his control I understand. What I don't understand is the multiple polls and threads asking if they should when the obviuos no brainer is to make them work together and that is the intention per Luthier. Whatever, rehashing it just adds to the petty arguements and general hysteria that goes on around here anyway. Enjoy! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

crazyivan1970
04-02-2004, 06:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Luftkillier:
If he was not planning/intending to make them fully compatible then he would not have come in public and said so. The fact that it could change because of considerations beyond his control I understand. What I don't understand is the multiple polls and threads asking if they should when the obviuos no brainer is to make them work together and that is the intention per Luthier. Whatever, rehashing it just adds to the petty arguements and general hysteria that goes on around here anyway. Enjoy! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don`t think you really understood what`s going on... but that`s ok http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

RicknZ
04-02-2004, 06:53 PM
Great post zen i agree 100%

LEXX_Luthor
04-02-2004, 07:49 PM
FB planes we need to Mix with our PF install...

Flyable
TB~3
I~16
I~153
J8A (to use as Ki~10 like Yak~1 was Spitfire before AEP)

AI

SB bomber
DB bomber

JG7_Rall
04-02-2004, 08:03 PM
Sorry Zen, I disagree.

It would really piss me off to see a Yak flying off a carrier or something like that. This is going to be a pacific game. Let it be that. Not some blending of theaters for the "what-if'ers" wet dream. Just because its a separate title doesn't mean no one will play AEP anymore. I have other games too but it doesn't mean I only play one game at a time.

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r/InGallantCompany.jpg
"Son, never ask a man if he is a fighter pilot. If he is, he'll let you know. If he isn't, don't embarrass him."
Badges!? We don't needs no stinkin' badges!

Captain_Avatar
04-02-2004, 08:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
Sorry Zen, I disagree.

It would really piss me off to see a Yak flying off a carrier or something like that. This is going to be a pacific game. Let it be that. Not some blending of theaters for the "what-if'ers" wet dream. Just because its a separate title doesn't mean no one will play AEP anymore. I have other games too but it doesn't mean I only play one game at a time.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gee, hard for me to imagine someone getting upset about that. If you saw a child putting socks over their shoes would you climb a clock tower and shoot people? Just kidding http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

Actually wouldn't they have to model an aircraft with arresting gear for it to work?

What it all boils down to is that many of us want ALL the planes we've been given so far. We also want any new ones to work with our current maps / campaigns. Let's say they give us a B-24 in PF. We don't have that in AEP, but it sure as heck belongs in the ETO/WTO too! Wouldn't you feel cheated? Crap, the B-24s played a major part in the bombardment of Germany,Ploesti, maritime patrol, etc...

To all you people who hate "what-ifs" T.F.B. , get over it. It's a game, the missions and campaigns can't compare to the real thing. Hell, for a lot of pilots they would fly many missions in a row and never see an enemy plane. Most of you would squall like babies if the game had that element in it.
Simply because you prefer limiting yourself to a certain planeset doesn't mean everyone else should conform to that view (you're like a bunch of damn Wahabbis).

fordfan25
04-02-2004, 11:20 PM
couldnt thay releas a gold pack kinda thing wear if you dont have f.b you could buy the gold "or what ever" version for i dont know like say 70 to 80. dollors or just the p.f for the reguler price40 to50$ i dont know how it all works but its an idea

Fehler
04-02-2004, 11:47 PM
I agree with Zen-- and disagree with Stiglr.

The main thing I enjoy about FB is the simple fact that we are NOT stuck with totally historic scenarios. Let's all face it, we KNOW who won the war. So really, nothing you can do SHOULD be able to change the course of the war.

Now, lets think about the "What if's." What if Japan would have attackeed Russia as Hitler wanted? Not only would approximately 1 million winter troops have been kept occupied, but there would have been some awesome air battles to re-live.

That never happened in real life, but we could make things like that happen here.

There are just too many possibilities to explore, and it would be a great shame not to have the ability to explore them.

There will always be historic arenas like VEF or VOW to fly in.

Stiglr's view is based on a dogfight arena perspective. I can understand his opinion. It get's frustrating seeing 109's, 190's, and Ki's vs Yaks, P38's and La's over Russian soil. But honestly, a decision here or a blunder there, and some of this could have happened.

Let's look at the additional flavor that could be added to dogfight arenas. Map rotation including some carrier operations, then jump to biplane dogfighting in Finland, then jump to the "Classic" Russian/German matchup, then perhaps a Brit/US-German matchup. I dont think I could leave my freaking computer! I would want to sit there and play all day and night!

I just think an inclusion of both sims would be a great idea, and splitting them into two separate stand alones would drastically reduce the endless possiblities.

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

Luftkillier
04-03-2004, 01:17 AM
This has become so STUPID and this comment is EXACTLY why "It would really piss me off to see a Yak flying off a carrier or something like that. "

WTF is this? This a strange community that cares what someone else does with a damm game they bought! TOTALLY ridiculous! An issue that seemed to be a no brainer and resolved has turned into a two forum wide insane asylum.

The fact is you can keep as much historical accuracy you want and STILL have what-if built in for those of us that are not so pensive with our gameplay. FB is the example of that as the moment the zero's were released they have flown against MANY ETO planes without the world coming to an end and guess what? It has actually been fun, imagine that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif What about the inclusion of the BF-109Z and others that never flew? Don't fly them if you are so resricted in how you play, but trying to stop me from using them is INSANE.

The point about the B-24 is exactly the kind of reason to make them work together from the start and stop this dicking around. Unreal how some people want to stop others from doing what they want to with their game. If you don't want to use cross warzone planes fine but what is with this control freak approach to stop other people from doing it? Absolutely insane.

p1ngu666
04-03-2004, 04:36 AM
funnly enuff there where clashes with corsairs and other carrier aircraft with the luftwaffe.
now a little test for u "omg ffs cant have any non historical stuff". play aep like u would 2 sep titles. so u on a server, and u wanna fly a zero, shame u started in a 109 say. so close fb and then join the server again and get in a zero.
repeat.
i DARE u todo that and not get fed up in 10mins or so.
pilots in pacific would often say they shot down 190's and 109s too btw :P

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

javierlopez1
04-03-2004, 05:45 AM
I'm completely agreed with zen, gator and fehler

[This message was edited by javierlopez1 on Sat April 03 2004 at 04:55 AM.]

04-03-2004, 08:58 AM
Also remember that building Combat flight Sims is about making money.
Reality check here ok,
PF will be a best seller with a lot of American dollars laid down to buy it, let alone money that comes in from right around the other Pacific rim nations.
It will be the latest and probably the best selling of the Pacific Sims to date, 1C has become a very respected software developer.

Bear in mind the developers can do anything they like when creating the Sim, they are in no way restricted from including any object, any feature.
Example, they could include every stationary object they like from the begining of the Il-2 series and exclude anything they feel does not reflect the Pacific region including maps.

There are no boundries for the developer, they will set the boundries.
We just do not know yet what boundries they will settle for.
One thing is for certain though, if you want to have carrier take offs and landings, in a 1C Sim, you will have to buy PF.

People talk about a split in the Community, PF is going ahead no matter what, you dont have to buy it if you do not want too.

I think one of the best things about the Pacific Sims is you get more.
You get the big Carrier Sea Campaigns, Plus! the Land Campaigns, like New Guinea that went for 2 years, Burma Indo China 4 years, Quadacanal 6 months, Phillipines on two seperate occasions, Maylaya twice.
Its the only theatre where you get to Fly the Black Cat PBYs eventualy as well.

Split in the Community? I hardly think so, a whole New Community would be more accurate, because PF is going ahead no matter what.

Cheers

Saburo_0
04-03-2004, 09:20 AM
If the FB aircraft are flyable in PF that ould be nice. if they aren't, well that wouldn't bother me too much as I'm just excited to get the new planes & theatre.

IF, it is a choice between improving the quality of PF or losing some quality to include Eastern Front & Western Front aircraft, Then i'd rather just have a higher quality pacific Sim.

Seems like including everything from AEP in PF would be bad business, considering they are planned to be released within 6 months of each other. No IF the aircraft i bought in AEP could also be flown in PF somehow, that would make sense from a business oint of view.

Personally ...i dont care that much either way.
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Snoop_Baron
04-03-2004, 09:33 AM
Stiglr, realy I hope one day you will wake up and realize that you should let others enjoy the game however they want to. No one is going to stop you from setting up and playing only "historicaly accurate" missions so give the rest of us the same curtesy. If they can do it, I think it would be great http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif so many planes http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif .

:FI:Snoop Baron
http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_01.jpg

JR_Greenhorn
04-03-2004, 10:38 AM
I think much of the problems in the "stand alone vs. add-on" argument comes from vague definitions of these two terms.

If you've read many of the posts here in the last week, you may notice that one person might deliver a bunch of reasons that they are in support of an add-on. Then, you may find a thread elsewhere with the same reasons posted, but that person is arguing for what they're calling a stand alone game.

Certainly these two terms aren't explicit in their definitions. Has everybody yet agreed whether FB was a stand alone or add-on? I've heard it put both ways.

Finally, there is yet another difference of opinion in the camp that wishes to see the two products combined. A few sound as if they want to see PF released as an expansion pack to AEP. Opposing that view are those that want to see as many objects, aircraft, and maps as possible carried over from FB/AEP into PF. In these two cases, it would seem that both groups want the same content, but differ on what the interface will be. Should all FB content only be availible to FB buyers, or should PF buyers get it all with PF, a la FB's origingal release?



Carrier-compatible planes seems to be an issue as well. Do you think we can all trust Oleg to only "navalize" those planes that were carrier bourne in real life? I think we can. I don't think we have to worry about squadrons of Go-229s and such from sailing around and fighting from a carrier. However, what's to stop some of the early war planes that don't need much of a runway from operating? Is it correct to assume that historically most fighters could take off from a carrier, but many needed special arresting equipment and strengthened undercarriages to land on board again? For instance, I know I've seen pictures of P-40s taking off from a carrier deck, but I don't recall hearing of any successfully landing back again.

Cajun76
04-03-2004, 10:54 AM
I think one of the best aspects of this sim/game is that you can make it whatever you wish, without being spoon fed what some developer thinks you should doing.

We have the freedom to make it whatever we wish. Frankly, this freedom and privilege has me taking it for granted, and if PF doesn't include everything we have now, I'll be disappointed.

Besides, if we can get the total package, it will be another hard blow to the http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif a**holes at M$. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Real_35a.gif
What if there were no hypothetical questions?

[This message was edited by Cajun76 on Sat April 03 2004 at 10:19 AM.]

XyZspineZyX
04-03-2004, 11:02 AM
Fehler, my viewpoint is NOT limited to just dogfights. It's to the entire "gameplay flow".

Some (even many) may disagree with me, but I think there's something WRONG with the design when one is 20 times more likely to encounter some idiot what-if matchup that never happened, over terrain where neither plane flew than to have historical matchups that make sense as a "normal occurance". I'm not saying we should never explore what-ifs, I'm saying what-if's shouldn't be 95% of the experience, which it IS right now.

Yes, it is true that we have the tools to go either way... but again, something is wrong with the game design when the end result is that it's near impossible to find anything remotely realistic or historical (unless you go the whole hog and get involved in the online wars, which demand a lot of organization and usually squad affiliation), and the most common action is of the stupid, "FPS mentality" variety.

To those who want me to just "allow people to enjoy the game their way", you're forgetting that this is a *community*, and we all have a stake in how others play, because those others are often our wingmen and our enemies in the air. I could give a toss what people do offline; that's irrelevant to this discussion.

But, again, I'd think it a shame if most people would prefer 95% what-if to 5% historical, when the heart of this SIM is *supposed* to be some semblance of accuracy and fidelity in the flight model and in the plane modelling.

You can't have accuracy without some limits in *context*. This is not about telling people which planes to fly or like, so much as it is about at least agreeing to have an East Front, a West Front, a Pacific, etc., etc, take your pick...but *usually* only have the planes that belong there flying. (keeping in mind that certain planes will appear in multiple theatres)

Yeah, sure, do some wacky matchups every now and then... but not every sortie.

I find it interesting that I ran those preference surveys a few days ago, and a healthy majority of people "say" they value accuracy and history, but they're totally hypocritical; because they're hosting and populating the same, silly "whatever" planeset matchups night after night, and they're in here telling me I'm all wet for actually wanting to see that in practice.

Lifetaker999
04-03-2004, 11:26 AM
I agree with Zen, Luftkiller and the others. All the complaints from people about the what ifs are 100% controllable by the player. So if you want to only play 100% accuarcy online/offline on the moon wherever no one is stopping you. Setup or find a dedicated server that plays full difficulty and 100% accurate maps and planesets, no one is trying to stop you.

On the other hand what some of you suggest regarding what others should be able to do with their game play is Ashcroftish and somewhat revealing about some serious control issues in your personalities. I read that post from Luthier and he has clearly laid down the word that they are going for a marriage between the two and that is good enough for me. Oleg was smart enough not to try to dictate to the user how to play the game and Luthier will be as well. Enjoy your fruitless desires to dictate to others how they use a game they paid for, better that than trying to control what sites I can go to with my computer http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

tttiger
04-03-2004, 11:42 AM
I have to float my stick with Stig on this one.

But I also recognize the vast majority of on line players like DFs. Just like the vast majority of TV viewers watch absolute crap. Why else would they put it on?

Sure, you have choices and you exercise them. I don't fly DF because they are exactly the reason I got burned out on WarBirds and Dawn of Aces after many years: Mindless, endless furballs, often with mixed plane sets, Spits fighting Spits. Some excellent pilots in there, to be sure, but the whole point of making it a World War II sim is lost.

Any similarity between a DF Arena and the way air battles really were fought is purely coincidental. In real life, any pilot playing "Lone Ranger" didn't live very long.

DF is just a mini WarBirds or Aces High.

Coops are what I usually fly because they are, historically the most accurate. I don't think VEF and VOW are as good because the teamwork is very limited and all anyone cares about is their ranking on the score ladders. But at least they are historical planesets in historical settings.

If you want to fly a Zero over Smolensk, I guess you should have that choice. I wouldn't take it away from you.

But please don't come to these forums whining and crying because the FM doesn't match historical specs...when all you use it for is a non-historical arcade game. If all you're going to with it is fly-die-respawn-fly-die it really doesn't matter if it's historically accurate or not. They could be spaceships and you would have the same game.

You arcaders are the ones who pay the bills, so I'm sure you'll get what you want. The "Great Unwashed." We wouldn't have George W. Bush without you and then where would we be? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If it were my call, though, it would be historical planesets in historical settings and the Pacific would be a stand-alone sim with no Messerschmidts at Iwo Jima.

But it isn't my call and you arcaders will get your mixed-set, non-historical, "what-if," "fantasy" Dog Fight arenas. I would bet a month's pay on it. They need your money.

And I will thank you because you are paying the tab so I can fly my historical coops and off line campaigns. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Aloha,

ttt

"I want the one that kills the best with the least amount of risk to me"

-- Chuck Yeager describing "The Best Airplane."

XyZspineZyX
04-03-2004, 12:01 PM
Lifetaker999 wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I read that post from Luthier and he has clearly laid down the word that they are going for a marriage between the two and that is good enough for me. Oleg was smart enough not to try to dictate to the user how to play the game and Luthier will be as well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seeing as Luthier opened the whole Pandora's box of "whatever" planesets by introducing the worthless Bi-1 to the sim (and it still galls me that this hardly-flew is at the top of the planelist...! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif ), you can see exactly what I mean by the lack of control by developers being as much of the problem as selfish, historically ignorant players who don't see the value of "doing theatres right".

You call this a "marriage between the two"? If that's your analogy, the "ignorant, arcade" style is the abusive, drunken husband slapping around the "historically relevant" wife. Not much balance in the relationship, is there?

I'd go for that concept, but we can see that, left to their own devices, the players have neither the foresight, the wisdom, or the willpower (see my poll results to see what I mean by willpower) to make such a "marriage" work.

BlackPhenix
04-03-2004, 12:15 PM
THANK GOODNESS FOR OLEG AND LUTHIER RELEASING A SIM WHERE "I" DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH IT. THANK YOU!
-----------------------------------
Short sighted comments like you arcaders just lumps everyone into one place and they may not all belong. Not all people that play by "choice" with accurate planesets play on full difficulty and vice versa. The issue is not the fake diversionary arguement being outwardly displayed by the group that wants to control how you play your game. The issue is "choice" plain and simple. You want to control the type and form of gameplay for others in a paid for product and others want to decide themselves excercising the freedom of "choice".

If a products worth is measured by the standard set by the control group then how does FB/AEP rate with zero's in the ETO and Go229's etc all over the place. "IF" you bothered to look online where, btw only 5-10%(OLEG'S NUMBERS)of the purchasers play you see "very few" of these non-historic fly anything servers. Seeing them is one thing, having an "option" to play in them is your "choice".

The agruement against, even the question itself seems a little wierd. Why are you trying to stop other people from enjoying the addition of something they want in a product? You can simplly do what you do now with the Go-229 in FB ignore it and don't worry about someone in the privacy of their own home flying that dreaded Go-229 against a zero or whatever.

If you can't see that then he may be right about the serious control issue thing. BTW, the Bi-1 etc. does not hurt being in the game for you since you don't use it right? As far as historical accuracy is concerned its all there for the users to explore and is done better than any other WWII ever released. Oleg says clearly in the readme than they did the best they could to stay within history. You obviously think they did a bad job, but that has nothing to do with adding what ifs to the product, nothing. Those are separate animals untoo themselves. You have rolled that into stopping other people from flying whatever planes that are in the sim wherever they want. Where does that kind of wierdness end? Why not lock the planes so that they can't even be placed on a map in the game where they did not actually appear in real life? That would lack sound rationale as does the 100% historic or nothing/controlling aspect of the arguement being set forth.

JG7_Rall
04-03-2004, 12:37 PM
All I was doing was stating my opinion, as was everyone else. No need to jump all over me for it.

You're right, we can control the server settings and force people to fly pacific planes. Or we can let them do whatever they want, because after all, its their money, and their game. I have no problem with "what if" situations-I don't like them, but I wasn't one to whine when I learned jets were in AEP.

But theres a place where what if has gotta stop. How about I say "What if my P-47 can turn with a zero!? Lets model that! It's my game after all!" I know it's not this bad, but I would hate to see this game lose all aspects of historical realism.

While I don't think that having PF a standalone would suddenly "divide" the community, I do think it would be *better* for us to have it as an addon since so many people seem to want it that way. I'll buy it no matter how it's released, and I'm sure I'll have fun too.

S!

Hutch

PS-You don't need reinforced gear to take off from a carrier, only to land http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r/InGallantCompany.jpg
"Son, never ask a man if he is a fighter pilot. If he is, he'll let you know. If he isn't, don't embarrass him."
Badges!? We don't needs no stinkin' badges!

BlackPhenix
04-03-2004, 12:50 PM
No one has or will advocate CFS style of modding UFO P-47's etc.. and that has NOTHING to do with this issue. The divide the community side issue is not germaine.

I did not mean to sound harsh. I did mean to get the point across that this is simply about "choices" and others trying to control them. All of this falls within the exact same category of what we already have (ie. Go-229/unrealsitics) and the "choice" to fly it or not.

javierlopez1
04-03-2004, 01:04 PM
mmmmm I think that some of you doesn't understand why we want AEP&FB features in PF. We ( at least me ) don't want FB&AEP planes to fly over pacific maps with them. We want that they fly in their current maps but we want those maps included in PF. I'm sure that adding FB&AEP planes, maps and vehicles&ships to PF doesn't mean to keep FB quality in PF. I only want the models not the engine

Saying that PF should be a "pacific only" theater sim to avoid unhistorical dogfights it's not a valid argument. Even if it is a "pacific only" theater there would be unhistorical fights: early war planes against late war planes, planes fighting in areas where they didn't fight,...

sorry about my english

cya

Tully__
04-03-2004, 01:29 PM
Getting out of hand here....

Stiglr, I wonder if you realise that you're flying "what if" scenarios too. You're flying "What if I'd been a pilot in WW2, how would I have performed?" scenarios. Since you weren't a pilot, it's not very realistic or historic having you fly in WW2 scenarios now is it? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif BTW, I thought the whole point of a simulation was to allow likely outcomes of situations to be explored without actually setting up the real situation....if that isn't "What if's" then....

I would be happy to see the FB/AEP content included in PF, same as IL2 content was included in FB (which expanded the context from East Front only to Normnady & the Ardennes). That doesn't mean I want to fly 109's off carriers against F4F's as a mainstream use of PF.

=================================================


http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/sig.jpg

IL2 Forums Moderator
Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm)

Salut
Tully

LEXX_Luthor
04-03-2004, 01:41 PM
Well said javierlopez1:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Even if it is a "pacific only" theater there would be unhistorical fights: early war planes against late war planes, planes fighting in areas where they didn't fight,...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Flight simmers fly the flight sim.

LEXX_Luthor
04-03-2004, 01:55 PM
Tully:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Stiglr, I wonder if you realise that you're flying "what if" scenarios too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't forget Stiglr's and TargetWare's notorious campaign where Japanese change radio code in 1942 in the MiG-3U Over Rabaul campaign.

Fehler:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Stiglr's view is based on a dogfight arena perspective.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, a commercially competing dogfight arena perspective. Stiglr is a developer of a purely onwhine internet flight sim, and a great one worth looking at, but he may Fear what could happen if FB+FP get together. We can read about this last page...

Stiglr:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I could give a toss what people do offline; that's irrelevant to this discussion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Of course, TargetWare makes strictly onwhine internet flight sim only. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

not that there is anything wrong with that

[This message was edited by LEXX_Luthor on Sat April 03 2004 at 01:05 PM.]

LEXX_Luthor
04-03-2004, 02:17 PM
* Let me emphasize here that all FB simmers should look at TargetWare if they have not yet. Its a potentially great idea, costs less than a ATI 9200 (non~SE) video card for one year membership, so I would expect Stiglr to support my wishes as offwhine player for FB+FP being compatible, if its relevant to this discussion.

XyZspineZyX
04-03-2004, 03:00 PM
Tully, if your argument that "we're all flying what-if" is the best you can do to throw cold water over my argument, it just convinces me I'm right even more.

Surely you can't with a straight face argue that simulating "P-51s over Smolensk" is just as valuable historically as 109s vs. Yaks over the same terrain? Or that any historical matchup is superior to a fantasy one? As I said earlier, I'm not dead set against what-ifs, both of the "not too much of a stretch" variety and even some that are downright silly (like say, a Ki-84 vs. a Focke Wulf). It's the proportion I'm talking about. Right now, we have 15% historical, 85% silly. And meanwhile, we're all up in huffs about turn radii, climb speeds, engine overheat times, and other minutae (which is important, but not against the backdrop of dweebery this community presides over). Who cares about any of that being accurate when we can't even get the maps, the situations and the matchups right? The sim's already a joke (or, "just" a game) when it isn't set up to at least *advance* the idea of proper context.

tenmmike
04-03-2004, 04:18 PM
lets just do it simple if you buy PF then that's what you get, PF and nothing else ....if you have FB and AEP and PF, OR you just have FB and PF then when you buy and load PF then you have them AS ONE , im sure it will be that simple, it would be ridicules to buy PF only to find most of the planes included were not in the PTO ! (thats for you guys who want it all in one) so here are the combinations.
1.PF (just the PF plane set)all by itself =1
2.FB and PF =1
3.FB and AEP and PF =1
no mater how its done you have just to enter 1 game(PF)...i bet this is how it comes out its the only one that makes since for everybody

http://www.2-60inf.com/2-60_crest.gif U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991

javierlopez1
04-03-2004, 04:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tenmmike:
lets just do it simple if you buy PF then that's what you get, PF and nothing else ....if you have FB and AEP and PF, OR you just have FB and PF then when you buy and load PF then you have them AS ONE , im sure it will be that simple, it would be ridicules to buy PF only to find most of the planes included were not in the PTO ! (thats for you guys who want it all in one) so here are the combinations.
1.PF (just the PF plane set)all by itself =1
2.FB and PF =1
3.FB and AEP and PF =1
no mater how its done you have just to enter 1 game(PF)...i bet this is how it comes out its the only one that makes since for everybody
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It could be a solution

Luftkillier
04-03-2004, 04:47 PM
That is exactly what makes the most sense to most people one product incorporating evertyhing you already have. Yes it is simple.

Tully__
04-03-2004, 05:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Tully, if your argument that "we're all flying what-if" is the best you can do to throw cold water over my argument, it just convinces me I'm right even more.

Surely you can't with a straight face argue that simulating "P-51s over Smolensk" is just as valuable historically as 109s vs. Yaks over the same terrain? Or that any historical matchup is superior to a fantasy one? As I said earlier, I'm not dead set against what-ifs, both of the "not too much of a stretch" variety and even some that are downright silly (like say, a Ki-84 vs. a Focke Wulf). It's the proportion I'm talking about. Right now, we have 15% historical, 85% silly. And meanwhile, we're all up in huffs about turn radii, climb speeds, engine overheat times, and other minutae (which is important, but not against the backdrop of dweebery this community presides over). Who cares about any of that being accurate when we can't even get the maps, the situations and the matchups right? The sim's already a joke (or, "just" a game) when it isn't set up to at least *advance* the idea of proper context.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point is that my idea of proper context and yours differ, and if we both carry our ideas to extremes we'll be at it hammer and tong 'til the cows come home. A simulation is a tool to examine hypothetical situations or discover more information about events we don't have direct access too. Situations that interest one are anathema to another, but that doesn't invalidate either's interest or make either use of the simulation inappropriate.

I really understand the frustration that must build when you have an interest that ingites deep fires of investigative spirit but most of those around you don't share your feelings. Similarly I see the frustration in others when they respond for the umpteenth time that they understand you have a valid point but they're sick of hearing about it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Then of course there are those to whom the whole thing is just light entertainment.

=================================================


http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/sig.jpg

IL2 Forums Moderator
Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm)

Salut
Tully

arcadeace
04-03-2004, 05:36 PM
Won't somebody please think about the children?

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/222_1080289735_2032.gif

LEXX_Luthor
04-03-2004, 08:01 PM
We did it! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'm not dead set against what-ifs, both of the "not too much of a stretch" variety and even some that are downright silly (like say, a Ki-84 vs. a Focke Wulf). It's the proportion I'm talking about. Right now, we have 15% historical, 85% silly.

http://www.targetware.net/modules/PNphpBB2/images/avatars/2152512083f89ebb8236d3.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

TheGozr
04-04-2004, 01:06 AM
SAme here,.

-GOZR
http://www.french.themotorhead.com/themotorhead_fighters/images/pix/il2fbtmhlogosmall.jpg &lt;--Uncensored version IL2fb here (http://www.french.themotorhead.com/themotorhead_fighters/)

Huxley_S
04-04-2004, 07:08 AM
If PF contains everything that is included in FB and AEP then all the copies of FB and AEP sitting on shelves in the stores will suddenly become worthless overnight.

I'm sure as much as 1C Maddox might like to release PF as a full upgraded version of FB, Ubisoft might have other ideas.

FB Music and Campaigns @
http://www.onemorewild.org/huxley