PDA

View Full Version : Support "All Aircraft Are Flyable" here....



XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 11:54 AM
The more FM frustrated among us are saying that only very few aircraft should be made flyable in flight sims, with the rest AI only, including in Oleg's BoB. This would be a tragic step backwards. I like to think FB was a first baby step, good or bad, in making a sim where a large number of aircraft were flyable. I would support the Future, where an aircraft is not let in the sim unless it is flyable. No cockpit, No airplane.

Yet huge numbers of flyable aircraft (in fact, all well used WW2 aircraft) can be well modelled in a sim if it was designed like that from the start which IL~2 was not (so I heard). The history of computers and gaming shows that things can only get better, and more numerous, and not go backwards to the past. It can be done, but it will take work.

For me, I would love a flyable Ju~52 in a Crete mission (actually, an early Spanish Civil WAR mission with biplane escorts and interceptors would be even more fun).

http://www.il2skins.com/skins/screenshots/1264.jpg


select left engine...select right engine...select center engine /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 11:54 AM
The more FM frustrated among us are saying that only very few aircraft should be made flyable in flight sims, with the rest AI only, including in Oleg's BoB. This would be a tragic step backwards. I like to think FB was a first baby step, good or bad, in making a sim where a large number of aircraft were flyable. I would support the Future, where an aircraft is not let in the sim unless it is flyable. No cockpit, No airplane.

Yet huge numbers of flyable aircraft (in fact, all well used WW2 aircraft) can be well modelled in a sim if it was designed like that from the start which IL~2 was not (so I heard). The history of computers and gaming shows that things can only get better, and more numerous, and not go backwards to the past. It can be done, but it will take work.

For me, I would love a flyable Ju~52 in a Crete mission (actually, an early Spanish Civil WAR mission with biplane escorts and interceptors would be even more fun).

http://www.il2skins.com/skins/screenshots/1264.jpg


select left engine...select right engine...select center engine /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 05:51 PM
Lexx i support u.
I`m a big fan for more flyable aircrafts and not A.I. stuff.
If 3e party bilders doing great things for the CFS1/2/3 game`s by making all sort of aircrafts flyable , way not in FB.
For me its boring to play online wiht only 4 bomber/ground atack aircrafts.
And yes i support hisorical correct buht if there is not data left on a plane well than i`m willing to play wiht a close to historical correct aircraft.
That is one of the great things in the computer world , u are able to play/fly simmulate waht ever u like.
Dont resrict it oleg please.

http://www.edelphic.com/Cappyland/Cappyland/images/kg26%20shield.jpg


Greatings I/KG26_Oranje

XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 07:52 PM
Yeah friend, i support you too... Also i think that will be a big step backwards when BoB is realeased, because there are people like me that don't like so much of the Spitfire, or of the Hurricane... I think that Oleg has made a wrong decision when he said that will abandon this game to create another... In my opinion, he must just make this one better, keeping the same aircrafts and giving chances to others become flyable... Well, unfortunately the things on this world don't happens as we want.

http://sites.uol.com.br/disco_virtual/cmte_carvalho/compartilhada/Forgotten_Battles/Assinatura_IV.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 08:32 PM
I agree with more flyable aircraft. I would like to see pay for addons for the Med, BoB, ETO and Pacific developed for FB. FB's life could be extended for may years with the addition of all common flyable aircraft from these theatres of operaion and I believe the market is there. I would be happy to pay full game price for a comprehensive addon for each of these areas. Why not run a poll to see if others agree with the concept of paying for comprensive theatre addons to FB?
This would be in addtion to new development of BoB, etc.

"Nothing difficult is ever easy"

XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 08:38 PM
cmte_carvalho::
-- I think that Oleg has made a wrong decision when he
-- said that will abandon this game to create another...

From what Oleg has said, it seems that BoB may be the first baby step to a collective sim set covering all of World War 2 (a diabolical Olegarchy /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif ). IL~2/FB really needs to be replaced for the future....think about our current AI, high altitdue grafix, and numbers of combatting planes FB *can't* handle in a large mission. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

If that is the case, BoB is the best Choice to experiment with:: (1) almost pure air-air aircraft battle, (2) radar--and Oleg said visual ground observers I think, and (3) a small confined geographic location...possibly one map needed not much larger than our Finland map*, and (4) small historical plane set in which (my thinking) we have the best chance of seeing at least most of the aircraft flyable. BoB's simplicity (some call it boring) would be ideal as a lab experiment, or prototype, a first step into a larger set of WW2 flight sims. But that is my reasoning. I hope it is Oleg's thinking too.

If Oleg can get the difficulty options right if if if, and the AI programming, he could satisfy both the flight sim Newbies as well as (most) old timer flight sim FM Noobs. If Oleg's BoB can handle the typical number of AI aircraft flying and fighting, it can handle any massive air battle in World War 2.

There just better be some kind of Mission Editor.


*footnote:: in addition there should be some 40km onwhine dogfight maps. Some things never change.

XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 09:05 PM
I'd like to have a 'Forgotten Battles II" with even more aircraft and scenarios, and up-to-date technology. But... we'll have an updated version of the same game than ever. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Unless BoB includes so many aircraft and more variety in campaigns, I'm afraid I'll play it for some months, and get back to the multiexperience FB.

- Dux Corvan -



http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612322300

</span></blockquote></font></td></tr>

XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 09:30 PM
Who exactly are we petitioning here? You can have every damn aircraft in the game flyable if you can find the modellers to make their interiors accurately, and do it in a timely manner.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 10:46 PM
We should have had ALL of these flyable by now! If only with the pilots seat, all the bombers should be flyable [AI gunners].

It's called "aliasing" it's where a normally non-flyable aircraft is given the sounds and cockpit of a currently flyable one. As an example, flyable Bf-110C useing BF-109E cockpit. Or, a flyable PE-2 useing the IL-2 sounds and cockpit.


If the game can accept it, an option to do this kind of stuff should be added!

XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 10:55 PM
can u say gerenric cockpit?
the ai have simplified flight model, but that doesnt matter so much for bombers and other large aircraft
there are some ppl who will love the extra stuff, even tho its a bit dodgy, others will moan alot cos it is dodgy
:\


whineingu /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 11:19 PM
Its Ironic Guys,
However it was mentioned a long time ago that Oleg has been waiting for Technology to catch up with what 1C are capable of doing with a Combat flight Simulation right now.

Even today that still applies, if you take note of the Latest development shots of BoB you can see that Oleg and team have gotton seriouse about more complex flight models and more complex damage models.
Look at the way even the Wings of a single 109 have been broken down and mapped paving the way for more complex damage models that will = more complex battle damaged in flight models.

Yet and I think this is what you may not have considered, where are you going to get the money for the extreme High end computer that will be required to run this Simulation, unless you have fewer aircraft in the Sim?

Oleg will no doubt try and reach the best possible compromise,
Once again can technology keep up with what 1C are capable of doing with a combat flight Simulation right now.

We shall see if time goes by

XyZspineZyX
11-16-2003, 12:29 AM
I pretty much agree with the original post.

And the FM complaints do not justify Oleg and co from not developing and making flayble as many aircraft as they so wish. Most of the FM complaints aren't going to go away with not having new planes and frankly some of them are a tad on the way too nitpicky.

Its obvious that BoB will have a smaller number of flaybles but thats pretty understandable since its obvious that alot of resources are going into making the designs meticulously accurate.

Keep the planes a rolling!

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
11-16-2003, 02:35 AM
There may be two extremes as evidenced below, each wrapping so far around the ball they meet up together on the opposite side.


VOL_Jon::
-- It's called "aliasing" it's where a normally non-flyable
-- aircraft is given the sounds and cockpit of a currently
-- flyable one. As an example, flyable Bf-110C useing BF-109E
-- cockpit. Or, a flyable PE-2 useing the IL-2 sounds and cockpit.

Sorry, no cockpit, no plane. How somebody can post this Freak idea on a pubic webboard and not feel Chumpy, I dunno. "Aliasing" an aircraft is not a simming an aircraft.


Artic_Wulf has noted::
-- Most of the FM complaints aren't going to go away with
-- not having new planes and frankly some of them are a tad
-- on the way too nitpicky.

Indeed, even when its only one flyable plane in a sim, if that one plane is not in Perfect FM Mode, then it is "too many plane." And then there are none. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif At least then all FM faults will be Eliminated.

Here is an idea. If I were Oleg (my amateurism probably shows here)....I would contract with the modders to make planes for the Next Sim, and if Oleg accepts them into The Sim, the modders get paid from the proceeds of the sales. A little bit of profit sharing perhaps. The thing is, if the sim is planned from the start to have every plane flyable, they should not have as much problems making FMs as they do now, which seems more like a gambling game (thinking of the wild swings in Fb109 FM).

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Of course, modders of twin engine planes and Biplanes get double pay! That should provide motivation to get something beyond the pop culture monoplane dogfighter into the sim.[/i]

XyZspineZyX
11-16-2003, 03:08 AM
Personal I would not buy a game, where are 200 different Ai planes but only 3 or 4 flyable!
I would look to the Ai planes and think, "damn i would love to fly this plane" but there is no chance to do it.

A game is only interresting for a player if he could fly his personal favorite plane. If he couldn't do this he will be bored after a very short time. There are better way's to throw my money away, than for a simulation like this. I need the choise!

XyZspineZyX
11-16-2003, 05:20 AM
Jabo22::
-- A game is only interresting for a player if he could fly
-- his personal favorite plane.

The sweet thing is that by trying other aircraft you never seen before, you may switch favorites. I wonder how often that has happened. How do you really know what your favorite is if you can only sim what everybody else has to sim...109s, Spits, and P~51s? If you have only eaten chocolate ice cream, then chocolate ice cream is your favorite. I wonder how many flight sim fighter aces, if given the chance, commit adultery by having a secret relationship with a Stuka or IL~2 instead? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-16-2003, 05:33 AM
LEXX_Luthor wrote:
-
- ...it will take work ...
-

There you go!

Send Oleg a 'good' cashiers check for the work, please!

Sheeesh!

-

QUOTE: KG26_Oranje...
"way not in FB"

QUOTE: cmte_carvalho...
"i think that will be a big step backwards when BoB is released"

QUOTE: buz13...
"I would like to see pay for add-ons for the Med, BoB, ETO and Pacific developed"

QUOTE: DuxCorvan...
"I'd like to have a 'Forgotten Battles II""

-

QUOTE: A.K.Davis...
"Who exactly are we petitioning here? You can have every damn aircraft in the game flyable if you can find the modellers to make their interiors accurately, and do it in a timely manner."

WHAT? Some common sense here? Thanks Davis. This thread surely needs some of that.

-

QUOTE: VOL_Jon...
"We should have had ALL of these flyable by now!"

QUOTE: p1ngu666...
"can u say gerenric cockpit?"
(THIS sim is not about "gerenric".)

QUOTE: VW-IceFire...
"And the FM complaints do not justify Oleg and co from not developing and making flayble as many aircraft as they so wish."

-

QUOTE: Jabo22...
"Personal I would not buy a game, where are 200 different Ai planes but only 3 or 4 flyable!
I would look to the Ai planes and think, "damn i would love to fly this plane" but there is no chance to do it.

A game is only interresting for a player if he could fly his personal favorite plane. If he couldn't do this he will be bored after a very short time. There are better way's to throw my money away, than for a simulation like this. I need the choise!"

Fine. Do not buy a game like that. What has that to do with FB, or even 1C BoB? And, you are wrong about the "interresting" part. If FB only had FOUR flyable planes right now, most that have it, would still have bought it. FB is that good, and only getting better!

-

With the exception of A.K.Davis, you people are displaying a different, but similar, degree of ignorance about software developing and business. But, simply, as I stated above, 'someone' send Oleg a good cashiers check for the work needed. What? You did not know that Ubi/Oleg/1C did not have a magic money bucket? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif C'mon people, get real. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif You know, there is a reason why there are posts by 'certain' people asking what 'you' want. 'They' will take what they deem as good/feasible ideas, then see if they have the necessary resources (money, for one), time, etc., to implement.

<p align="center">http://forums.ubi.com/i/icons/Symbols/symbol-us-flag.gif </br></br><font size="1" color="white"><u>RealKill</u></font></p><font size="1" color="#59626B">

Message Edited on 11/15/0311:43PM by RealKill

XyZspineZyX
11-16-2003, 09:42 AM
RealKill::
-- send Oleg a good cashiers check for the work needed.


Oleg may accept cash for his games.


RealKill::
-- If FB only had FOUR flyable planes right now, most that
-- have it, would still have bought it. FB is that good,
-- and only getting better!

Yes! FB is getting more flyable aircraft.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I bought FB because of the great number of Eastern Front flyable aircraft. For "four" aircraft I would have ignored the FB like I do every other flight sim.

XyZspineZyX
11-16-2003, 09:56 AM
LEXX_Luthor wrote:
- RealKill::
send Oleg a good cashiers check for the work needed.
-
-
- Oleg may accept cash for his games.

Just send me the check, or cash. Oleg said he did not want your darn money. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

- RealKill::
--- If FB only had FOUR flyable planes right now, most that
--- have it, would still have bought it. FB is that good,
--- and only getting better!
-
- Yes! FB is getting more flyable aircraft.

Lexx, you would have bought it if it had ONE flyable! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Really, though, I wish almost everyone could get what they want. More 'quality' flyable is, of course, welcome by me.

I just hope 'they' continue to work on FB, period. The original IL-2 was not polished enough for my taste, even if I did enjoy the hell out of it. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif (I know it was a 'stepping stone' for Oleg/1C.)

Maybe MS will buy 1C and give Oleg a ton of money to work with. Hahahaaa! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif (Ooops. Sorry, Ubi. Heh.)

<p align="center">http://forums.ubi.com/i/icons/Symbols/symbol-us-flag.gif </br></br><font size="1" color="white"><u>RealKill</u></font></p><font size="1" color="#59626B">

XyZspineZyX
11-16-2003, 10:05 AM
-- Lexx, you would have bought it if it had ONE flyable!


hmmm...I~16, well okay I guess you are right.

XyZspineZyX
11-16-2003, 02:17 PM
LEXX_Luthor wrote:
- Jabo22::
--- A game is only interresting for a player if he could fly
--- his personal favorite plane.
-
- The sweet thing is that by trying other aircraft you
- never seen before, you may switch favorites. I
- wonder how often that has happened. How do you
- really know what your favorite is if you can
- only sim what everybody else has to sim...109s,
- Spits, and P~51s? If you have only eaten chocolate
- ice cream, then chocolate ice cream is your
- favorite. I wonder how many flight sim fighter aces,
- if given the chance, commit adultery by having a
- secret relationship with a Stuka or IL~2 instead?
- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
-
-

LOL than i switch to the rong aircrafts.
In my CFS1/CFS2 day`s i switch from Fighters to bombers and i love to fly to target , bomb the hell out out of there and return safe to my home base chaced by many angree fighters pilots lol.
Or as we diht some time`s in CFS , fly a transport aircraft to pick up a shoot down pilot , diep in enamy terrain and try to avoid enamy fighters.
buht to the point again.
On simviation u have many aircrafts for download available to play tham in CFS1/2 and 3 or the FS2000 to 2004 sims.
The bilders doing a great job and u cane find almoost all the aircrafts of the world in there.
Dont get me rong , not al FM are good or historical correct , buht the point is that it is possible to bild it and make it flyable.
Now in IL2 , IL2fb its a biht retrictid by oleg for good resance.
Buht he is able to give bilders a direction and motivate to try to bild it , and i meen not only fighters.
And if nobady is trying to bild it than he is able to contract some one or bild it him self wiht his team.
The airwar was not won by fighters only.
We players like to play all sort of aspects in this sim and not only DF stuff.
So if Oleg read this post please make it possible.
A.I. is not the way to do it its only filling the game.

http://www.edelphic.com/Cappyland/Cappyland/images/kg26%20shield.jpg


Greatings I/KG26_Oranje

XyZspineZyX
11-16-2003, 05:09 PM
Realkill:
Actually I already sent Oleg $$$$ for FB and IL2...and if he produces other great sims...like the one's I already mentioned I'm sure he will get more of my bucks.
The next time you desire a new car...make sure you send the car company a few hundred million bucks to develop it for you.

"Nothing difficult is ever easy"

XyZspineZyX
11-16-2003, 05:31 PM
LEXX_Luthor wrote:
- The more FM frustrated among us are saying that only
- very few aircraft should be made flyable in flight
- sims, with the rest AI only, including in Oleg's
- BoB. This would be a tragic step backwards. I
- like to think FB was a first baby step, good or bad,
- in making a sim where a large number of aircraft
- were flyable. I would support the Future, where an
- aircraft is not let in the sim unless it is flyable.
- No cockpit, No airplane.

Which would mean very few aircraft would get into
the game. No missions to intercept large streams of
bombers, as the cockpits and all positions would take
a long time to model, and from limited information.
Even just the cockpit area of a Do17z would be a major
undertaking due to being able to see bits of other
parts of the plane internals.

XyZspineZyX
11-16-2003, 05:37 PM
Jabo22 wrote:
- Personal I would not buy a game, where are 200
- different Ai planes but only 3 or 4 flyable!

I'm the reverse - if the choices are 25 flyable,
or 200 AI and 4 flyable (probably the equivalent
amount of work) then I'd prefer the 4 flyable version
as the other 200, if combined with a good campaign
engine, could provide excellent colour, mission variety,
random air traffic etc.

Obviously 25 flyable and 200 AI, or just 200 flyable
would be preferable if this was an option. It would
be a lot more work, though.

XyZspineZyX
11-16-2003, 06:08 PM
my comments about generic cockpit, its a achievable and realist aim/target


whineingu /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-17-2003, 05:20 AM
buz13, I believe, in hind sight, that your first post is rather sensible. Sorry.

But, still, a person cannot expect more than 1C resources will allow. And, anyway, 1C, from what 'I' ascertain, is not looking to "extend" the life of FB. They surely expect to extend the life of the BoB engine, though. (But, probably, that is what you meant.)

-

BTW, the car analogy does not hold water. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif I do not buy a new car, then month after month keep razzing them to give me free gas, better wheels, a trailer to pull the 'other' car they 'have' to give me because I paid for the first one and I damn well wanted the 'other' car because I saw other cars like it being driven and 'thought', "hey, I want to drive that car, too", etc., etc., bla blah bla bla. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Heh heh. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

-

p1ngu666, listen to me, please. This sim is not about generic planes/cockpits. And I hope it never turns into that! Granted, it may very well be "achievable", but, please, no thank you.

-

Flyable, not flyable. Whatever. I am sure we all just want quality. Consequently, back to the resource issue. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<p align="center">http://forums.ubi.com/i/icons/Symbols/symbol-us-flag.gif </br></br><font size="1" color="white"><u>RealKill</u></font></p><font size="1" color="#59626B">

Message Edited on 11/16/0310:22PM by RealKill

XyZspineZyX
11-17-2003, 05:58 AM
RealKill: As for the car thing....just like the game we don't put our money down until we have the product. Developers have investors just like any other business. My only point was that I believe FB is good enough to have a much longer life if the developer continues to produce pay-for addons for it. I think the market is there and they would not need to invest time and money in an entire new game engine....you add maps, missions, campaigns, and aircraft. I have never asked Oleg for anything free...just support the product with any needed patches and the rest I consider a nice gift...I will be forking out cash of the pay addon....I'm sure I'll be happy with it. I'm also looking forward to the new BoB.

"Nothing difficult is ever easy"

XyZspineZyX
11-17-2003, 09:22 AM
buz13, on a serious note, you are good about ignoring the main point. A point, which I will add, Oleg, himself, has come in here and expressed.

Resources!

"investors"? OK. (Ubisoft is the producer.)

Just because a developer has "investors" does not mean their resources are unlimited. (One resource is simply, time.) That was my main point in this thread.

BTW, I gave you more credit than I should have. You were talking about FB in regards to future products. That is something else you must be ignoring. BoB is already a go. So, even pondering additional add-ons years in the future for FB is pointless. Apparently, 1C does not agree with your 'beliefs'.

(Earlier you mentioned four add-ons in addition to the new BoB. Even mentioning how you would like an FB BoB. How do you think 1C will develope 3 more add-ons, 4 with the one about to come out, an FB BoB, AND a new BoB, AND have all planes flyable, before the scheduled release of the new BoB? Wow!)

About your continuing car analogy. It sucks. FYI: When people use car analogies in regards to FB, they never apply.

Also, you do not have to keep explaining your point/s to me. I am perfectly aware of your point/s (beliefs), and the other posters points/wants. Hence, my original post. Now, please, you try and understand the other point.

(Well, I am done. This is pointless.)

<p align="center">http://forums.ubi.com/i/icons/Symbols/symbol-us-flag.gif </br></br><font size="1" color="white"><u>RealKill</u></font></p><font size="1" color="#59626B">

XyZspineZyX
11-17-2003, 10:20 AM
bump - I support the idea.

http://www.student.richmond.edu/~vk5qa/images/forumsig.jpg


"Come on in, I'll treat you right. I used to know your daddy."

XyZspineZyX
11-17-2003, 11:50 AM
p1ngu666 wrote:
- my comments about generic cockpit, its a achievable
- and realist aim/target

It would be a problem for FB, as that uses a separate
environment for in cockpit views. If you had a way of
putting in a generic occkpit such that the views out
of it were occluded by the external model in a moderately
realistic way, that might be acceptable. If not, you
might have a plane with terrible visibility gaining a
stand-in cockpit with good visibility, and gaining a
large advantage in this way.

XyZspineZyX
11-17-2003, 11:56 AM
buz13 wrote:
- RealKill: As for the car thing....just like the
- game we don't put our money down until we have the
- product. Developers have investors just like any
- other business. My only point was that I believe FB
- is good enough to have a much longer life if the
- developer continues to produce pay-for addons for
- it.

I suspect that what Oleg is doing is learning from
the IL2/FB experience, and rewriting the underlying
physics model, removing bugs, and making it easier
to expand and maintain. This makes multiple add ons
post New Sim (aka BoB) more possible.

Given the
tendency of the current FMs to flip-flop, I suspect
that there are issues with the maintainabilty of the
current code base (not unusual in software development)
making a rewrite sensible before adding new features
(again pretty common in software development). This being
the case, I'd rather Oleg and his team concentrate more on
the New Sim (much as I'd like to see all planes flyable
in FB, plus many more planes) rather than dilute too
much effort on major changes to FB post Spring 2004.

A paid expansion for FB makes sense for Oleg's financing,
though. It's a simple, single product, not involving
many (or any) code changes at the low level, and provides
an additional revenue stream for the publishers (keeping
them sweet) between now (when FB sales are probably
declining) and BoB.

XyZspineZyX
11-17-2003, 02:09 PM
AaronGT wrote:
-
- p1ngu666 wrote:
-- my comments about generic cockpit, its a achievable
-- and realist aim/target
-
- It would be a problem for FB, as that uses a
- separate
- environment for in cockpit views. If you had a way
- of
- putting in a generic occkpit such that the views out
- of it were occluded by the external model in a
- moderately
- realistic way, that might be acceptable. If not, you
- might have a plane with terrible visibility gaining
- a
- stand-in cockpit with good visibility, and gaining a
- large advantage in this way.
-
-

Yes Aaron, remember the WB2 Hurricane? For a while it had no art for the rear view, so when you looked back you had a perfect view of what was behind you. Gave me a right surprise the first time I looked back and saw no Hurricane parts at all /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I don't think FB has the potential to be developed into a whole WW2 product. There seem to be a lot of issues with performance at altitude, and I believe this is due to the IL-2/FB atmospheric model, which is designed for the low altitudes typical on the Eastern Front. However, it makes it a nightmare if you want to expand the game (sensibly) to other theatres. Hence a new start with BoB - I'm sure there are other reasons also.

I hope that there are no non-flyable ac in BoB, but, as has been pointed out above, there are compromises to be made and it's clearly easier to add more ac if some are not flyable. I think the main players should be flyable (Spit, Hurri, 109, 110, Ju-87, Ju-88, He-111 & Do-17). I really hope the bombers are not left off the list off flyables. It would be nice if the peripheral players (Gladiator, Defiant, Blenhiem B & F versions, Ju-86) could also be flyable. Then there are the night bombers and German coastal recce ac (Wellington, Hampden, Whitley, Ar-196, Do-18, and He-115). It would be great if all these were flyable and meticulously modelled at the same time, but is it realistic to expect that? It's essential that the core types are well modelled, the rest can be included if possible and if not then AI only is probably better than not at all (at least for offline campaign and co-op play).

I can understand the objection to generic cockpits, however, are not simplified AI FMs even less realistic? Surely FMs and technical details are the essential features of an ac and the artwork is part realism, but part mere eye-candy? If it is ok to include something with a dodgy FM, where's the harm in dodgy graphics? Just a thought.

Whilst I would like all ac to be flyable in future, I can see that it might not happen. However, I would like the AI FMs (at least for fighter types) to be as accurate as the flyable ones - or is that the major obstacle to being flyable in the first place? (I thought it was artwork).

I believe Oleg's original intention for IL-2 was that only the IL-2s would be flyable. Would that have made it a worse game or better? I know I'd still have got it, and would very probably still be playing it /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Kernow
249 IAP

XyZspineZyX
11-17-2003, 02:18 PM
Kernow wrote:
- Yes Aaron, remember the WB2 Hurricane? For a while
- it had no art for the rear view, so when you looked
- back you had a perfect view of what was behind you.

I don't remember that! I do remember that the Avenger
had F6F art, though, in the default downloads, and there
were some pretty nasty stand ins during the beginning
of WB3.

- I don't think FB has the potential to be developed
- into a whole WW2 product. There seem to be a lot of
- issues with performance at altitude, and I believe
- this is due to the IL-2/FB atmospheric model,

Good point!

- I can understand the objection to generic cockpits,
- however, are not simplified AI FMs even less
- realistic? Surely FMs and technical details are the
- essential features of an ac and the artwork is part
- realism, but part mere eye-candy? If it is ok to
- include something with a dodgy FM, where's the harm
- in dodgy graphics? Just a thought.

I suppose the difference here is that a dodgy FM (
AI FM) uses up less CPU power, so there is a good
reason for it being present. I'd rather the time was
spent on better AI FM that uses moderate CPU power but
is accurate (allowing large numbers of aircraft offline)
than the aircraft for BoB in the peripheral list. The
additional cockpits can be added later. If the excellent
modellers keep modelling, the models will be ready to
add from day one, pretty much, though.

- Whilst I would like all ac to be flyable in future,
- I can see that it might not happen. However, I
- would like the AI FMs (at least for fighter types)
- to be as accurate as the flyable ones - or is that
- the major obstacle to being flyable in the first
- place? (I thought it was artwork).

I think it is CPU power.

XyZspineZyX
11-17-2003, 09:23 PM
LEXX_Luthor wrote:
- There may be two extremes as evidenced below, each
- wrapping so far around the ball they meet up
- together on the opposite side.
-
-
- VOL_Jon::
--- It's called "aliasing" it's where a normally non-flyable
--- aircraft is given the sounds and cockpit of a currently
--- flyable one. As an example, flyable Bf-110C useing BF-109E
--- cockpit. Or, a flyable PE-2 useing the IL-2 sounds and cockpit.
-
- Sorry, no cockpit, no plane. How somebody can post
- this Freak idea on a pubic webboard and not feel
- Chumpy, I dunno. "Aliasing" an aircraft is not a
- simming an aircraft.


Yes, god forbid that we could EVER compromise on something...

XyZspineZyX
11-18-2003, 06:34 AM
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Actually, I have tried it myself, but was not too Happy. The original 1.0 P~47B with combat flaps down made a nice Bf110 (the original P~47 roll rate and its heavily framed canopy were both very 110~esque).

The point being, with proper planning from the beginning, we can have cockpits for all aircraft without aliasing any of them. Yes the Quality won't be the same for a single aircraft sim, but then how interesting would the onwhine dogfights be with only one aircraft Choice?