PDA

View Full Version : So what the heck if Pacific fighters is stand-alone!!! Get a grip...



Freycinet
05-25-2004, 05:41 AM
For everybody who flies online: it won't take you a lot of mouse-clicks to jump into the Hyperlobby you want, FB or PF. It'll probably take about ONE mouse-click.

I for one believe I'll want to switch between FB and PF whenever I go online and it won't be a problem. It's two lobbies in Hyperlobby, it's not as if you need to reinstall your operating system to change from one to the other.

And that very important air-quake combo you want to play: flying FW-190's against "Bettys"?

- Well, get over it. 1) It's ahistorical and 2) you can still fly A6M Zeros against He-111's or whatever in FB, if that's what you REALLY need...

If you host: well, I'm sure that with a good server you won't ever have trouble filling up the places. It hasn't been like that in FB and half as many people in the lobbies in the future won't hurt at all. He!l, it is only with the new version of Hyperlobby that we will manage to SEE all the servers on offer!

If new games had to be backwards compatible every time they come out, then we'd never have progress in flightsimming. I'd rather have the developers working on new kick-*** features in PF (carrier landings!) than ripping their hair out to keep it compatible with FB.

New code is incredibly complex: if you have to keep it backwards compatible you are artificially restraining the developers.

Three cheers to the developers for focusing on new great features in PF. And if they rob me of 40 euros for the game, well, it'll mean 1 measly eurocent for every hour of enjoyment I'll have with it!

Freycinet
05-25-2004, 05:41 AM
For everybody who flies online: it won't take you a lot of mouse-clicks to jump into the Hyperlobby you want, FB or PF. It'll probably take about ONE mouse-click.

I for one believe I'll want to switch between FB and PF whenever I go online and it won't be a problem. It's two lobbies in Hyperlobby, it's not as if you need to reinstall your operating system to change from one to the other.

And that very important air-quake combo you want to play: flying FW-190's against "Bettys"?

- Well, get over it. 1) It's ahistorical and 2) you can still fly A6M Zeros against He-111's or whatever in FB, if that's what you REALLY need...

If you host: well, I'm sure that with a good server you won't ever have trouble filling up the places. It hasn't been like that in FB and half as many people in the lobbies in the future won't hurt at all. He!l, it is only with the new version of Hyperlobby that we will manage to SEE all the servers on offer!

If new games had to be backwards compatible every time they come out, then we'd never have progress in flightsimming. I'd rather have the developers working on new kick-*** features in PF (carrier landings!) than ripping their hair out to keep it compatible with FB.

New code is incredibly complex: if you have to keep it backwards compatible you are artificially restraining the developers.

Three cheers to the developers for focusing on new great features in PF. And if they rob me of 40 euros for the game, well, it'll mean 1 measly eurocent for every hour of enjoyment I'll have with it!

05-25-2004, 06:06 AM
Well said!
I always thought PF was always going to be stand alone, because there are no carrier ops capabilities currently in IL-2/FB/Aces anyway.

Besides PF will sell well enough in its own right, it is certainly on my list of absolutly must haves anyway.

S!

Obi_Kwiet
05-25-2004, 08:15 AM
How would you like DF'ing over Midway, in an F6F vs. a bunch of 109's and Yaks? It owuld kind of ruin the immersion wouldn't it?

Ruy Horta
05-25-2004, 08:27 AM
There is the matter of choice.

There are more than those set piece battles that you mention.

There are historical cross overs and there is the possibility of simple dog fight servers, matching the best versus the best.

The question is one of choice and imposing wasteful restriction upon the gaming engine.

PF means continued development of the current engine, its not a new product, so the benefit of compatibility outways the purist stand alone product.

Choice means:

1. Purist PTO servers
2. Purist ETO servers
3. Purist MTO servers
4. Mixed dogfight servers
5. Cross over possibilities (historic)
6. Continued broad support

Try and think ahead...

You might get what you ask for.

A new game, with limited a/c, not fully developed and closely matching the current AEP engine, with limited a/c, campaigns and maps. An end of official support and new planes for the AEP product.

What's wrong with choice?

Why are some of you so ready to impose upon themselves a limited product, while the choice is actually still open and fairly easy to implement and only guided by Ubi & Co marketing strategy? I wouldn't take any of you with me when negociating a deal - you'd give away to the seller from the word go...

Ruy Horta

BlitzPig_DDT
05-25-2004, 08:38 AM
rhorta, I think it's part of the worshipping mentality. Everything that Maddox/Luthier does, or even rumored to do, is instantly turned into "the way" to these people and when they see the rest of us (who actually think independantly) they have no choice but to defend their faith against us non-beleivers.

As you (basically) said, it's sheer stupidity to not desire choice. It harms noone, and benefits everyone (even those who feel it's not a benefit). There is simply no other reason than what I explained above that would lead to such assinine behavior. Notice too, that it's the same ones all the time.

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

BlitzPig_Ritter
05-25-2004, 09:05 AM
Choice is good. I for one would love to fly a Wildcat against a 109. That sort of DF really did happen. The B-29 would be perfect for Luft '46 scenerios, or other "what-ifs" (what if Germany and japan had been able to supply one another). What about the VVS battle's against the Japanese in Manchuria in '45?

As for the opposition, there are two types in my eyes. Type one, the Purists. These are the same people who tried to keep the Mustang out of FB. Keep it purely historical with no room for imagination or anything else pretty much sums up their mindset. What pisses me off about these people is that they are not simply happy with making a few adjustments to the settings. By God, they want it pure, so no one else should have a choice either!

The second type are the drones mentioned by DDT, who mindlessly worship every choice made by the programers.

______________________________
Formerly Known as: Die_Ritterkreuz
http://img41.photobucket.com/albums/v126/Ritterkreuz/Sig.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=Ritterkreuz&ts=1067024271&comefrom=credits)
Now with 45+ skins and counting!

geetarman
05-25-2004, 09:13 AM
Sorry - I'm with the original poster. Keep it separate. I have no interest in dogfighting FW's over the Philipines. If I want ETO, I'll join a FB server.

Ruy Horta
05-25-2004, 09:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by geetarman:
Sorry - I'm with the original poster. Keep it separate. I have no interest in dogfighting FW's over the Philipines. If I want ETO, I'll join a FB server.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, now think of this slightly from a different light.

1. Fly your PTO set over the Pacific - PERFECT
2. Fly your PF Wildcat vs the AEP Bf 109E over the Western Desert
3. Fly your PF Ki 43 vs the AEP Yak 9U over the Mongolian Steppes

Those are but two cross over examples.

Try to look at it from a flexible POV. I am personally a purist, PTO, MTO etc, but there are many more possibilities if we expand the current plane set versus creating two limited plane sets.

So YES I agree with the enjoyment of a purely historical match up, no Fw 190s for me over the Philipines, but I am in favor of the widest possible set of a/c, maps and campaigns and the continued development of the game engine.

So don't look at this from a single camapign POV, it clouds the issue.

I am a purist, I know...

Ruy Horta

BlitzPig_Ritter
05-25-2004, 09:23 AM
Is somebody holding a gun to your heads and forcing you to fly against the planes you don't want to? Seriously, you don't want to fly against a 190 over Midway, then don't. Heck, if you don't want to fly against one in FB you don't have to, its all about settings. Why restrict the choices of others?

Here's what you're saying, and really listen to yourself here: "I don't want to fly against a FW over the Phillapeans, SO NO ONE ELSE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO EITHER!

______________________________
Formerly Known as: Die_Ritterkreuz
http://img41.photobucket.com/albums/v126/Ritterkreuz/Sig.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=Ritterkreuz&ts=1067024271&comefrom=credits)
Now with 45+ skins and counting!

csThor
05-25-2004, 09:25 AM
Although the PTO leaves me cold I happen to read this board, too (call it sheer boredom http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif). So now I feel obliged to respond.

I am a history nut. I am a purist. Some may even call me a "fundamentalist" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif In my opinion a stand-alone PF is the right choice and gives me hope for a more thought-through addon process for BoB.

FB was horrible in terms of sense and savvy when it came to addon planes. In my opinion planes like the Zero, the Ki84 as well as the Go229 or the Bf 109 Z should have not been introduced - but that's not the 3rd Party developers fault. Maddox Games should have put up a list of planes for the maps available in FB and then should 3rd Party developers select one of those. Planes from other Theaters should have put on the back shelf until appropriate maps were in reach.

I do not want to mix theaters just to give the players a "broad choice". A simulation should rather concentrate on representing historical aspects than giving the misled Doom/Quake players a new ground to play deathmatch. Put the pacific in a single game, the ETO in another (this time with maps large enough to allow some serious gaming) and leave the Eastern Front in the current one (and enhance it - where's Poland/Courland/Baltic states btw? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).

In a nutshell I blieve FB at the moment is a pretty good example of what happens when you stuff too many things into a single game - the characteristics of many planes are not as they should be (or are not noticeable), important areas of the Eastern Front are still not there but we have a few small maps of the Normandy and the Ardennes (the latter so small that anything but furball-deathmatch is virtually impossible) and a lot of other details are unfortunately lacking.

______________________________

<A HREF="http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=csThor" TARGET=_blank>
http://home.arcor.de/csthor/bilder/ubi_sig.jpg </A>

csThor's skins @ Il2skins.com

olaleier
05-25-2004, 09:36 AM
To me, what planes I want to fly where doesn't matter much.

I want a Pacific sim, period. The price you pay for a computer game as less than I spend on a night out, so that certainly doesn't matter.

If the choice to have FW-190s against Hellcats and this pseudo-fear of a "split community" (it's the internet for chrissakes) are the only reasons why PF should be backwards compatible, then I fail to see how it would outweigh issues with development time, cost and netcode and engine development restrictions.

End of AEP support? Are everyone expecting each Maddox sim to be patched twice yearly for all time to come?

==================================
http://img2.photobucket.com/albums/v30/olaleier/cobrasig.jpg
==================================
Marvin in hyperlobby

GSNei
05-25-2004, 09:42 AM
My impression from talking to these guys at E3 was that the reasons for it being stand alone were all technical not historical. Burnin said it would take about 4 or 5 disks. Oleg Maddox who was playing at the booth heard us, turned and said "its not decided yet"

NN_EnigmuS
05-25-2004, 09:56 AM
some plane excpected in Pf are really wanted in AEP lol
for example:
-A20/B20 for eastern and western front
-Beaufighter:for med front
-Wildcat:for med front
and i probably missed some(no official plane list for Pf yet lol)

anyway i don't understand the historical argument saying Pf must be not playable with AeP because all Df arena or Coop choise their plane set Did you see lot of Df arena with 109z or horten?(even the 262 is prohibited but historical lol)
sorry but want it playable with aep as it was said at first

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

BlitzPig_DDT
05-25-2004, 10:09 AM
Ubi could make more money by offering the AEP planes in PF.

It would guarentee a wider audience to start, as well as make more money in the long run with newbs coming in.

Either make PF so that with AEP installed you can use all maps and planes in any combination, or......make the maps and planes of AEP add-on packs for PF. Might even have to for techincal reasons. Ubi charges for them. They now charge you twice for the same planes really, if you own AEP already, but, it's well worth it. Heck, they could (should) even offer an "upgrade" path/discount for such packs for current AEP owners.

You "purisits" that rail against the 109Z, 229, et al are mind bogglingly assinine. You're not "purists", your commies. 'Everyone must be forced to have the same thing'.

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

[This message was edited by BlitzPig_DDT on Tue May 25 2004 at 09:43 AM.]

csThor
05-25-2004, 10:34 AM
DDT - I'm not getting down to your level of insults. I'll try the nice way.

If you take a look at FB right now isn't the the "half-baked" state of many things jumping right into your eyes? CEM - promised with floral words before FB came - is nothing but a shell (e.g. the german Kommandoger√¬§t does not give the FW190 a historical advantage over say the P-38 in that respect) or the lack of loadouts with certain planes, several strange FM's which surely come from the sheer mass of planes etc ... I just want to say that limiting the scope of a game can help increasing its realism and can help to minimize bugs.

The stuff I said was just to state my opinion ( something I am still allowed here since nobody banned me so far). I used the examples to show where IMO the addon process of FB failed or was lacking. If people want to play their arcade DF settings (say Ta152 vs Zeke or Go229 vs YP-80) then so be it. But when Maddox Games has to choose between "broad choice" (read: get everything in) and realism (smaller scope, maybe better quality) I'm all for realism. Because PF will not only have to win the Online DF crowd's hearts, but even more the hearts of the offline campaign crowd.

______________________________

<A HREF="http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=csThor" TARGET=_blank>
http://home.arcor.de/csthor/bilder/ubi_sig.jpg </A>

csThor's skins @ Il2skins.com

Barkhorn1x
05-25-2004, 10:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Because PF will not only have to win the Online DF crowd's hearts, but even more the hearts of the offline campaign crowd.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To true. And what is the % of buyers who fly O/L - 5%, 10% at most? You guys are living in a fantasy world if you think that PF is not going to be stand alone to accomodate your "blended" HF server needs.

The PF product is the same - Base Engine - as FB, but it will have bells and whistles beyond FB that are not easily blended. Obviously, appropriate FB a/c will appear in PF - and just as obviously - FW's and Yaks won't.

That's not "Oleg said so, that's why", that's just reality.

Barkhorn.

Tater-SW-
05-25-2004, 10:56 AM
F4F flying over Africa?

Bound to happen without blending them together, it's called the Fleet Air Arm, and they were called "Martlets." Same would be true for F4Us, F6Fs, TMF/Ms.

Oscar vs a Yak?

If PF does the Russians at some point for late war, then the Russian stuff is added, and there ya go.

It'll probably evolve into a few titles with different sets of stuff, maybe down the road compatible.

tater

BlitzPig_DDT
05-25-2004, 10:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Barkhorn1x:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Because PF will not only have to win the Online DF crowd's hearts, but even more the hearts of the offline campaign crowd.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To true. And what is the % of buyers who fly O/L - 5%, 10% at most? You guys are living in a fantasy world if you think that PF is not going to be stand alone to accomodate your "blended" HF server needs.

The PF product is the same - Base Engine - as FB, but it will have bells and whistles beyond FB that are not easily blended. Obviously, appropriate FB a/c will appear in PF - and just as obviously - FW's and Yaks won't.

That's not "Oleg said so, that's why", that's just reality.

Barkhorn.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Yes, passing up on a brilliant opportunity to make more money is "just reality". And expecting Ubi to capitalize on such an opportunity is "living in a fantasy world".

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

sugaki
05-25-2004, 11:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Ubi could make more money by offering the AEP planes in PF.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Incorrect. The inclusion of AEP planes in PF will canabolize their own market niche. If AEP sells well to ETO fans, why combine the niches together (ETO and PTO) when you can make money selling them as separate brands?

Including AEP planes will destroy sales of FB/AEP. There's nothing "brilliant" about it, so don't roll your eyes. Not to mention the fact that it's embarrassingly immature.

I'm not a PTO purist, I don't really care if they have ETO planes in there. However, I do care if they put time into making PF backwards compatible with FB. Since PF is a modified engine from the original FB, they don't simply hit a switch to make them compatible--they'd have to spend dev time to do that, which is a waste of time since it's better off to make money off of both products.

BlitzPig_DDT
05-25-2004, 11:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by csThor:
DDT - I'm not getting down to your level of insults. I'll try the nice way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Claiming that planes shouldn't be included, and people shouldn't have a choice, is not only exactly what I described it as, it is also insulting, so, you've already gone there. I just pointed it out.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If you take a look at FB right now isn't the the "half-baked" state of many things jumping right into your eyes? CEM - promised with floral words before FB came - is nothing but a shell (e.g. the german Kommandoger√¬§t does not give the FW190 a historical advantage over say the P-38 in that respect) or the lack of loadouts with certain planes, several strange FM's which surely come from the sheer mass of planes etc ... I just want to say that limiting the scope of a game can help increasing its realism and can help to minimize bugs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How long have you been following the discussions in this community? Must not be long, or you have a convenient memory. How could you imply that the lack of any particular plane would somehow equate to more detail in any other? You think the 190 view is left as it is because the 109Z was added? Or that the 109 Erla-haube is still incorrect because the I-185 was added? LOL!

It is as Oleg wishes it to be. Period. He has no intention of changing most of what we have even though it's wrong or incomplete. The reality is that if we didn't have these neat planes......we wouldn't have these neat planes. That's it. Nothing else would be any different.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The stuff I said was just to state my opinion ( something I am still allowed here since nobody banned me so far). I used the examples to show where IMO the addon process of FB failed or was lacking. If people want to play their arcade DF settings (say Ta152 vs Zeke or Go229 vs YP-80) then so be it. But when Maddox Games has to choose between "broad choice" (read: get everything in) and realism (smaller scope, maybe better quality) I'm all for realism. Because PF will not only have to win the Online DF crowd's hearts, but even more the hearts of the offline campaign crowd.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your opinion is either based on false notions, and therefore itself necessarily wrong, or actaully just a desire to prevent others from having a choice you personally don't care for. Or both.

Your disdain is obvious in how you call 152 vs Zero "arcade". Typical of the Ubi forums too, to abuse and horribly over/mis-use a word. It is not even close to "arcade". But it's one of the many words of the moment used to express vile loathing for something.

As stated above, preventing certain planes from getting in does nothing but restrict player choice because it has no impact on anything else. At all.

And most importantly, playing IL2/FB/AEP for offline entartainment/immersiveness/realism is like playing Solitare for social interaction.

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

BlitzPig_DDT
05-25-2004, 11:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sugaki:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Ubi could make more money by offering the AEP planes in PF.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Incorrect. The inclusion of AEP planes in PF will canabolize their own market niche. If AEP sells well to ETO fans, why combine the niches together (ETO and PTO) when you can make money selling them as separate brands?

Including AEP planes will destroy sales of FB/AEP. There's nothing "brilliant" about it, so don't roll your eyes. Not to mention the fact that it's embarrassingly immature.

I'm not a PTO purist, I don't really care if they have ETO planes in there. However, I do care if they put time into making PF backwards compatible with FB. Since PF is a modified engine from the original FB, they don't simply hit a switch to make them compatible--they'd have to spend dev time to do that, which is a waste of time since it's better off to make money off of both products.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dude. Try to think for just a moment, ok?

Many people are expecting PF to be AEP compatible. They are planning to buy for that reason. Eliminating that will just piss off the core, and captive market.

Not good for buisness.

People buying PF will want the AEP planes, so they will buy that too to add them on. Thus, Ubi makes more money.

Alternately, making the planes and maps an add on like the M$ MW4 Mech Packs, will allow Ubi to charge the current AEP owners twice for the same thing (and have them be grateful for it), and to charge the new PF buyers for additional goods as well.

You are fantastcially off the mark man.

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

LEXX_Luthor
05-25-2004, 11:16 AM
The Challenge here being that "USA Pacific" ignores the simulation of other theaters such as China.

In the case of flight sim Physics, three (3) Fb109s purchased from Germany historically flew in the skies over Japan. Only on amatuer flight sim webboards do we see Theories of Purist Physics claiming that Fb109s can never have physically flown over Japan. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Not that I ever wish to see this, however the mere ability to see it would mean we could develop offwhine campaigns where Japan attacks Soviet Union in 1941--as Hitler was hoping for. What happens on internet dogfight servers is best left ignored.

In a Pure "historic" mission, csThor's joystick Chooses to move left while the real life pilot historically turned right. Pure Fantasy! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Final Challenge:: More planes is not the cause of other things not getting fixed. If not for the new planes, Oleg would have abandoned FB long ago, and would be working strictly on BoB and that Tank Sim (http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif).

[This message was edited by LEXX_Luthor on Tue May 25 2004 at 10:27 AM.]

LEXX_Luthor
05-25-2004, 11:25 AM
sugaki is correct. All AEP planes inside FP would destroy FB sales.

FP and FB sales would be best if the two sims work together, if you buy them BOTH

...thus maximizing Profit and Playability for all http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

csThor
05-25-2004, 11:31 AM
DDT - let me forget being humble and claim that I have been far longer around FB than you. I was there when Oleg began making the first tiny steps into the public light on Combatsim.com all those years ago. If you don't believe me check your manuals (or the credits part in the game) of Il-2 and FB for "Christian Schulz" ...

I somehow have the impression that you're exactly the narrow-minded person you accuse me to be. Either that or my english sounds like chinese to you. Just because my opinion is not corresponding with yours I am automatically wrong? *cough cough* I suggest you check your arrogance levels - they must be well above the red line. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

And yes I do believe we would have a more complete and less "buggy" (a bit strong, but I lack a more suitable term) FB with a smaller planepool. We might have a working CEM if Maddox Games was not forced to incorporate loads of planes that have little impact on the game except for the online DF crowd. I repeat it again - Quality is more important than quantity. After all that was the most striking characteristic of the original Il-2.

EDIT: I forgot - when reading your accusations and especially the increased use of the word "choice" I have a question for you:

Where is the choice of an offline gamer when core features of the game do not work properly, because the development time and ressources have been re-directed towards including all thigns from FB/AEP ???


______________________________

<A HREF="http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=csThor" TARGET=_blank>
http://home.arcor.de/csthor/bilder/ubi_sig.jpg </A>

csThor's skins @ Il2skins.com

[This message was edited by csThor on Tue May 25 2004 at 10:40 AM.]

sugaki
05-25-2004, 11:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Many people are expecting PF to be AEP compatible. They are planning to buy for that reason. Eliminating that will just piss off the core, and captive market. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's wrong too. The core captive market are PTO fans, not those who want to buy PF for AEP compatibility. If it isn't AEP compatible, you'd still have flight sim fans buying it, because:

1) the prestige and reputation of 1C Maddox
2) the flight sim market is so small and narrow that people end up buying a sim even if isn't exactly the theater they're into.

If somebody's a fan of AEP and especially of Oleg's sim games (which is rabidly evident in this board), they'll buy PF whether or not its backwards compatible. Sure they'll spit and scream because it isn't, but they're not going to pass this game up due to their disappointment that Ta-152s can't battle F4U Corsairs.

Since I assume you to be in the "core market" (as you define it as being people who want AEP compatibility), lemme ask you this: Will you not buy PF because it's not backwards compatible? I'm almost certain you will buy it, as almost anyone else who has posted in this thread against PF being a stand-alone (with exception to maybe csThor, who said he had no interest in PTO anyway).

-Aki

LEXX_Luthor
05-25-2004, 11:39 AM
csThor, Oleg's resources are focused on BoB. The only reason Oleg is messing at all with FB now is cos the new planes. If a few fixes get made, Excellent, if not....

...I am most dependent on FMB, but as we know Oleg will NEVER improve that. Yet I do not allow that to dampen my enthusiasm for new planes. If I really wanted improved FMB or CEM I would ask Oleg to stop working over the BoB. For sincere, serious, and even severe mission builders, teh CEM is trivial compared to FMB. We speak the same language, you and I. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I repeat it again - Quality is more important than quantity.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Quality is as important as Quantity, they [should] work together as a Team. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

crazyivan1970
05-25-2004, 11:44 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.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.

BlitzPig_DDT
05-25-2004, 11:45 AM
You might want to get that scope checked and barrel cleaned there sug. Way off the mark again.

The core, captive market are those who own AEP. Not anyone else. Not all of that group are interested in PF. Of those that are, if you don't piss them off, you have guarenteed income, both now, and more importantly, down the road.

If you piss them off, they will proceed to spread bad word of mouth, which is often devestating, will stop trying to recruit people who aren't currently owners, and will be less inclined to purchase future products.

Most importantly, they will be less inclined to purchase PF.

That doesn't mean that fewer people will have it however. Just that they won't buy it.

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

csThor
05-25-2004, 11:48 AM
No Lexx - absolutely not. I do not want a sim as Falcon4 where you needed weeks to master the basics. What I want to say that say twenty flyable planes done right are better than fifty flyable planes full of errors and bugs.

And I was talking theory here - I know that BoB is the main priority and the future (and I completely agree with it). I am in loose contact with Oleg and I know a few things about what's coming or which problems are currently bothering them (not much but a bit). I have already begun to collect campaign data for BoB to support Oleg and Starshoy ( http://home.arcor.de/csthor ). But looking back on roughly three years with Il-2 and FB I cannot help but wonder what could have been if a lot of the AddOns cwuld have been made with more savvy and less of the watering can. Just my 0,02 Euros ...

______________________________

<A HREF="http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=csThor" TARGET=_blank>
http://home.arcor.de/csthor/bilder/ubi_sig.jpg </A>

csThor's skins @ Il2skins.com

sugaki
05-25-2004, 11:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And yes I do believe we would have a more complete and less "buggy" (a bit strong, but I lack a more suitable term) FB with a smaller planepool. We might have a working CEM if Maddox Games was not forced to incorporate loads of planes that have little impact on the game except for the online DF crowd. I repeat it again - Quality is more important than quantity. After all that was _the_ most striking characteristic of the original Il-2.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I strongly agree. FB has many minor little issues that couldn't be addressed due to the fact that it wouldn't be as marketable if it had a stronger smaller pool of planes. Realism has been comprimised in the push to include so many different planes--many of which aren't all that critical to have (such as Ho229)

I can't blame them though, and still really appreciate their dedication to the flight sim market, which is getting decidedly smaller. The PC games market is on the decline as it is, and Oleg, Ilya are valiantly helping to keep the genre alive with their passion for flight sims.

In a perfect world, there'd be unlimited resources, unlimited dev time, and no strangling from publishers with their red-tape for games to meet their own fiscal-year earning figures. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But Oleg, as well as any other developers have to cope with these issues and deal with them accordingly.

csThor
05-25-2004, 11:53 AM
Disclaimer: I am not interested in the PTO at all and if I buy PF it will be what I call a "boredom purchase" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. What I want to express is my general point of view on flight simulations.

I don't know DDT. I know of a few people who did not buy Il-2 and FB because they lacked interest in the theater. Some are die-hard PTO fans and stuck to CFS2 because it was the only competitor. Others prefered the campaign scope of Rowan's "Battle of Britain" or or or ...

As I see it PF has to deliver a believable representation of the Pacific War. That has to be the main priority and that includes a believeable environment (planes, ground objects, campaign etc). Everything else is addition and judging from endless e-mail conversations with Oleg a lot of pretty small features require loads of work.

______________________________

<A HREF="http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=csThor" TARGET=_blank>
http://home.arcor.de/csthor/bilder/ubi_sig.jpg </A>

csThor's skins @ Il2skins.com

LEXX_Luthor
05-25-2004, 12:00 PM
If Bearcat says FP "USA Pacific" will bring new buyers to ubi, then it will bring new buyers.

cos Bearcat is ~always~ right. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

I on the other hand await FP mostly for China. However, if SaQson can complete his/her rumoured Mongolia FB addon, then I have less need or desire for FP (I'll probably go for FP anyway). Even if FP and FB are "compatible" I have no real interest until Ki~27 is Patched up as Flyable and/or a Flyable A5M is Patched.

DDT, bad word ot mouth advertising cannot compete against good ubi flight sim advertising...but that's another issue itself lol.

sugaki, it has been stated that making FP play with FB can be easily done from a programming viewpoint, not so easily done given (normally) poor marketing decisions.

csThor you are expressing yourself ~very~ poorly. Here is why... <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What I want to say that say twenty flyable planes done right are better than fifty flyable planes full of errors and bugs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What you cannot bring yourself to admit here is that fifty flyable planes done right are better than twenty flyable planes done right. Quality and Quantity should be the goal.

BlitzPig_DDT
05-25-2004, 12:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by csThor:
DDT - let me forget being humble and claim that I have been far longer around FB than you. I was there when Oleg began making the first tiny steps into the public light on Combatsim.com all those years ago. If you don't believe me check your manuals (or the credits part in the game) of Il-2 and FB for "Christian Schulz" ...

I somehow have the impression that you're exactly the narrow-minded person you accuse me to be. Either that or my english sounds like chinese to you. Just because my opinion is not corresponding with yours I am automatically wrong? *cough cough* I suggest you check your arrogance levels - they must be well above the red line. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol Sorry you don't like the idea that your opinion could be wrong. Basing it on false notions is what does it. Has nothing to do with agreeing with me. Even if you don't want to beleive that either.

I happen to favor personal choice for all, so long as it doesn't impede others. You happen to favor lack of personal choice for all for reasons based on false ideas. You can twist that into me being narrow minded? Wow! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And yes I do believe we would have a more complete and less "buggy" (a bit strong, but I lack a more suitable term) FB with a smaller planepool. We might have a working CEM if Maddox Games was not forced to incorporate loads of planes that have little impact on the game except for the online DF crowd. I repeat it again - Quality is more important than quantity. After all that was _the_ most striking characteristic of the original Il-2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The level of detail that might be achieved from working on just 1 plane would never be included, no matter how few we had. Oleg specifically stated as much long, long ago (even in my previous screen name days). So, no, we'd not have a better product. We'd have a more limited product. Not to mention the sales would be lower and the support may well have ended long ago.

W/R/T CEM, since you like to reference that so often, as well as offline - you are flying against AI, it's not going to make a difference. Especially if you are flying a plane like the 190. IL2 1.0 would be the same as AEP 2.1 in that regard.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>EDIT: I forgot - when reading your accusations and especially the increased use of the word "choice" I have a question for you:

Where is the choice of an offline gamer when core features of the _game_ do not work properly, because the development time and ressources have been re-directed towards including all thigns from FB/AEP ???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where's the choice for any gamer if the game doesn't sell and support ends? Where's the choice for the offliner that wants to fly missions with planes that weren't with the original set? (but might now since people like you fortunately were not pulling the strings)

I don't know if you noticed, but, this game was always intended to be an MP game. The offline has always sucked and the AI always limited. It's always been about COOPs and DFs. The patch history re-inforces that. The overwhelming majority of things in the patches, aside from planes, have been to deal with MP/online issues. Offline is incidental.

I'm not saying I think it is, or should be. Hell, I like offline games. I really wish the offline component of this series was worth a damn. But it's not. Never was. I don't try to fool myself into thinking otherwise. Instead, I enjoy it for what it is, and resent people suggesting that my options should be limited in that area.

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

arcadeace
05-25-2004, 12:03 PM
This discussion is loaded with arrogant ****. If PF is evolved into higher design which cannot be compatible with FB/AEP, yet more sophisticated as a flight sim, you 'non-purists' are nothing but selfish whiners.

And who are you to care about Ubi profits? If we get a more intelligent, higher quality (realism) cfs, that should be the bottom line. If you don't like it because you can't fly non compatible a/c (not capable enough for the higher requirements) don't buy it.

As far as any split in the community...this community is way too big, and growing every week for that to ever be a problem. PF servers and FB/AEP servers - big deal! Don't think PF will sell? ...yeah right, real simmers want quality http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/222_1082457373_222_1082441075_airaces.jpg

csThor
05-25-2004, 12:08 PM
Lexx - I stand by my words because I know that Maddox Games does not have the ressources to do both. Of course Quality and quantity would be the optimum, but we are living in an imperfect world. Maddox Games has limited financial and personnel ressources - IMO they can do only one thing.

DDT - I had hoped that we could have a serious discussion, but that was obviously a misconception on my part. You're continuing to claim that I am basing my opinion on false assumptions, but so far I have yet to see a single evidence for

a) your claim

and

b) your opinion.

Talking to you feels like talking to a wall - so I suggest we stop here and agree to disagree (for our user name's sake - I have the feeling that Ivan is already glancing at the "ban" button http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).

______________________________

<A HREF="http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=csThor" TARGET=_blank>
http://home.arcor.de/csthor/bilder/ubi_sig.jpg </A>

csThor's skins @ Il2skins.com

LEXX_Luthor
05-25-2004, 12:09 PM
Understood csThor, that's what we wanted to hear. Thanks. Original IL~2 game did not have Flyable He~111. Nor did it have Flyable Bf~110. This is where you are stumbling badly.



Amatuer simmers want Quality. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Amatuer simmers want Quantity. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Pro simmers/simmerettes want Quality and Quantity http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

geetarman
05-25-2004, 12:10 PM
Ritter - I read your post and, yes, basically that is what I am saying. If opinions are being asked for - that is mine.

I fly mostly online and would love to recreate the typical battles that occurred over the Pacific with great live opponents flying the historic aircraft.

I don't look forward to some hot shot in an Me-262 buzzing around the Solomons while we're in early Zero's, Devastators and Wildcats.

I'm sorry if that sounds selfish - but it is my opinion and desire.

sugaki
05-25-2004, 12:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And who are you to care about Ubi profits? If we get a more intelligent, higher quality (realism) cfs, that should be the bottom line. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That isn't the bottom line. The bottom line is if Ubi's not happy with sales, they won't publish future games. Publishers are wary already of niche markets in PC games already as it is.

You can make the best game of all time and still have it tank because of a lack of publisher push or support. It happens a lot in the PC market--some overhypped mediocre game makes the big bucks while more low-key but high quality games get pushed to the side and eventually axed.

I don't have any loyalty towards Ubisoft, just saying that development studios to an extent need to cater to the demands of publishers. It's a fact of life. Because when it comes down to it for publishers, it's not how good a game is, but how lucrative that game is--and that weighs into the financial future of development studios.

LEXX_Luthor
05-25-2004, 12:14 PM
geetarman:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I don't look forward to some hot shot in an Me-262 buzzing around the Solomons<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Then your problem is teh hot shot FB Community (lol) and not Me~262 airplane or Maps.

so simple http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

We suggest you take this up with the people you fly with (offwhine Play does have it's advantages--visibly more intelligent AI "simmers" for example http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)

arcadeace
05-25-2004, 12:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sugaki:
That isn't the bottom line. The bottom line is if Ubi's not happy with sales, they won't publish future games. Publishers are wary already of niche markets in PC games already as it is.

You can make the best game of all time and still have it tank because of a lack of publisher push or support. It happens a lot in the PC market--some overhypped mediocre game makes the big bucks while more low-key but high quality games get pushed to the side and eventually axed.

I don't have any loyalty towards Ubisoft, just saying that development studios to an extent need to cater to the demands of publishers. It's a fact of life. Because when it comes down to it for publishers, it's not how good a game is, but how lucrative that game is--and that weighs into the financial future of development studios.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is an opinion of flight simmers. If this is a quality cfs, even better than FB/AEP, I believe the vast majority will buy it. Realism gives fantasy, its every simmer's joy. I do not believe it can be resisted.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/222_1082457373_222_1082441075_airaces.jpg

Capt._Tenneal
05-25-2004, 12:34 PM
ooooh is this going to get juicy like the .50 cal threads ? With apologies and hugs all around, everyone singing songs by the campfire ?

Stay tuned. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Barkhorn1x
05-25-2004, 12:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Yes, passing up on a brilliant opportunity to make more money is "just reality". And expecting Ubi to capitalize on such an opportunity is "living in a fantasy world".

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yea, all that cash that they'll make on the 10 or so of you that really give two s**ts about this issue.
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You are living in a fantasy world.
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

BlitzPig_DDT
05-25-2004, 12:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by csThor:
DDT - I had hoped that we could have a serious discussion, but that was obviously a misconception on my part. You're continuing to claim that I am basing my opinion on false assumptions, but so far I have yet to see a single evidence for

a) your claim

and

b) your opinion.

Talking to you feels like talking to a wall - so I suggest we stop here and agree to disagree (for our user name's sake - I have the feeling that Ivan is already glancing at the "ban" button http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now you're just making digs for their own sake. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ok, my claim is that you are basing your opinion on false ideas.

Your opinion is that with fewer planes added, the game would be better.

This is based on the idea that the entire game would be more fine tuned and more accurate as a flight sim overall because there would be more time to be devoted to these things.

This basis is false because Oleg has stated that many of the problems we have will not be changed. In some cases, he refuses to even when it's clear he's wrong (ie - he wants them this way), in some cases, he insists others are wrong even if it's evident (but less so than the above case) that he himself is wrong, and in still others he points to limitations to the code.

Quite a bit of what would be invovled in improving the overall accuracy are engine limitations, the rest are the cases of Oleg refusing to do it, regardless of why.

That is the evidence. I thought it was, erm, evident. (lol) Sorry. Would have pointed it out earlier.

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

Barkhorn1x
05-25-2004, 12:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
Many people are expecting PF to be AEP compatible. They are planning to buy _for that reason_. Eliminating that will just piss off the core, and captive market.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...and your evidence for this is what exactly?? The insular world of the UBI IL-2 Forum crowd?

Did you not understand the inferences/points made by others. Here - let me spell it out for you;
1. You - as an O/L player don't really generate much revenue - so your needs don't really matter much.
2. But you area vocal bunch - so UBI/Maddox will cater to your needs if it doesn't cost them much to do so.
3. Making PF fully compatible with FB will cost too much.
4. Game over for you no matter how you kick and scream.

Capiche?

Tell you what. When PF ships - if it is compatible w/ FB - I promise to mail you one US dollar!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Barkhorn.

BlitzPig_DDT
05-25-2004, 12:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>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.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=442105223

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

LEXX_Luthor
05-25-2004, 01:03 PM
Barkhorn1x:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...and your [DDT] evidence for this is what exactly??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>---&gt; http://lexx.com/phpBB2/images/avatars/gallery/BlazeBoard/upload/lexx_luthor.jpg http://www.boardy.de/images/smilies/ylflower.gif

About cost issue, 777 said making FP+FB compatible is not a programming issue. We already have a thread about how compatibility would be more Profitable for ubi.


Barkhorn1x:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You - as an O/L player <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>O/L is Off Line or On Line? You - can't get more Sloppy than this. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Original IL2 game did not have Flyable Bf~110, or even He~111. Now, does anybody want to talk?

Anybody? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Barkhorn1x
05-25-2004, 02:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
About cost issue, 777 said making FP+FB compatible is not a programming issue. We already have a thread about how compatibility would be more Profitable for ubi.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yea - we'll see won't we? And I still say that the chances of a 109 apearing on a PF disc is nill.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Barkhorn1x:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You - as an O/L player <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>O/L is Off Line or On Line? You - can't get more Sloppy than this. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

O/L is ON-LINE - perhaps I should use MP to describe this VERY vocal MINORITY.

Barkhorn. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Gunner_361st
05-25-2004, 02:42 PM
I will buy Pacific Fighters. I will fly simulated WWII Pacific Theater aircraft. It will be good. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Major Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1087.jpg

Willey
05-25-2004, 02:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freycinet:
For everybody who flies online: it won't take you a lot of mouse-clicks to jump into the Hyperlobby you want, FB or PF. It'll probably take about ONE mouse-click.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That single mouse click will be AEP's gravestone! It won't be supported anymore then, leaving bugs that are fixed in PF, lacking features that PF has (eg. OPEN canopy!) and such. The engine allows to have both contents in one game. BoB will be a new start. That's enough http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif. Imagine all those projects for FB... Il-10, Pe-2 and others. If they don't make it for the next patch, they will NEVER come into FB if PF is a separate game. Because AEP won't be supported anymore, they'll support PF then until BoB is out. And who wants a friggen Pe-2 over Gudalcanal or Midway??

Standalone - as FB was - would be the right choice, but it should not contain the AEP elements, rather it should A: work as a separate game (Yeah, imagine someone who hasn't FB yet, he'd need to buy FB and AEP and PF if PF was an addon) and B: work as an FB Addon that brings it to a new version 2.5 or whatever.

olaleier
05-25-2004, 02:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Willey:


That single mouse click will be AEP's gravestone! It won't be supported anymore then, leaving bugs that are fixed in PF, lacking features that PF has (eg. OPEN canopy!) and such. The engine allows to have both contents in one game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

PF-AEP compatibility DOES NOT mean that all functions will work with all planes.

You won't be able to open the canopy in your Bf-109.

IMO, this whole issue will be dead after PF is released and everyone realize just how insignificant this "problem" is.

==================================
http://img2.photobucket.com/albums/v30/olaleier/cobrasig.jpg
==================================
Marvin in hyperlobby

Freycinet
05-25-2004, 03:18 PM
Wauw, 47 replies in a few hours...

CsThor, great postings you've made here: a voice of reason. And obviously Oleg is going down the road of fewer & better planes, the only sensible road, with BoB.

The rationale behind his sims since the beginning has been REALISM. And realism implies historical plane sets. Much of what goes on in the air-quake servers can only be explained as teenagers just going for points.

Of course PF will mean an end to support for AEP. So will BoB. Just as FB meant an end to support for Il-2. It's called progress and thanks god for that.

As for DDT: go easy on the bourbon and remember to wash your trailer on sundays. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BlitzPig_DDT
05-25-2004, 03:22 PM
Nice to see such stereotyping (and otherwise) ignorance from you Frey. It's a glimpse at the real you.

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

AVSPappy
05-25-2004, 03:33 PM
Well here's my two bob's worth.
I am not interested in flying anything other than the original aircraft in PF.
AEP is great but as has been pointed out one click in Hyperlobby and you can go somewhere else. With all the great choice we have nowadays its seems people have forgotten what we had 15 years ago and then some.

Face the wind and dry yours eyes and get on with it!!

I will buy PF anyway and it will be better as a standalone product.

crazyivan1970
05-25-2004, 03:53 PM
I am not going to force anything anywhere, i brought up multiple times that impact of the community on this issue could be critical when UBI comes to final descision. Apparently some people see the perspectives of combined WW2 simulation and some not. As i stated in other thread i have two main concerns: AEP not getting all improvements in the game engine and uncomfortable MP.

That`s all i have to say.

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.

LEXX_Luthor
05-25-2004, 04:43 PM
Freycinet:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>CsThor, great postings you've made here: a voice of reason. And obviously Oleg is going down the road of fewer & better planes, the only sensible road, with BoB.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Original IL2 had fewer and better planes, like no Flyable Bf~110 (or He~111).

We shall continue to post about this as long as needed.

Freycinet:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The rationale behind his sims since the beginning has been REALISM. And realism implies historical plane sets. Much of what goes on in the air-quake servers can only be explained as teenagers just going for points.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Frey, like csThor, have yet to respond to those who wish to mix FB and FP planes for realistic purposes. Indeed, their focus on posting only about internet dogfight servers show where their true interest lies, and betrays their "realism" claims as False. Unless they can respond.

Original IL2 had fewer and better planes, like no Flyable Bf~110 (or He~111). http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

We shall continue to post about this as long as needed.

DuxCorvan
05-25-2004, 05:52 PM
1) I, off-whiner

2) I want AEP+PF together

3) Reason: It's exactly the same + choice

4) If you expect dramatic improvements in PF, you are wrong.

5) If there are improvements, they can be also added to AEP

6) 4/5 CDs? DVD

7) You have what you want. Why restricting the rest?

8) Not seeing this = IQ &lt; 80

9) I won't fly FWs over Philippines. But I want to be able to, if I want.

10) VVS vs Japan = Historical facts

- Dux Corvan -
http://www.uploadit.org/DuxCorvan/Altamira2.jpg
Ten thousand years of Cantabrian skinning.

LEXX_Luthor
05-25-2004, 05:58 PM
DuxCorvan:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>10) VVS vs Japan = Historical facts<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

heywooood
05-25-2004, 06:06 PM
WoW -

Once again, I am shocked and apalled at the amount of energy spent on a non-topic.

...but then I have been annointed and designated as a fanboy believer zealot by a couple of the loudest and most oppinionated ones posting on this thread, so maybe I don't count... but - if you don't like it - go ahead and spew. You will change nothing. We will buy it... we will like what we like - and we will rue what we don't like. But overall and in the end, it will be the best available combat flight sim for the PTO for a long while. And I'll bet money that the naysayers and complainers on this board and in this thread will own a copy of it before I do. Buncha unhappy cryin' whining lil biznatches.

Charlie901
05-25-2004, 06:56 PM
Maybe Oleg wants some recognition for making a stand alone kick a$$ PTO combat flight sim that will finally give CFS a run for it's money and attract some PTO CFS flyer's.

Maybe it's is all about marketing and future market by getting more people to play Oleg's great combat flight sims.

If so, good for you Oleg! You deserve the extra $$$ for a stand alone product and not an addon. And you deserve to have the game sell on 1 cd for your price instead of 2 cds which would obviously hurt sales revenue.

We all know that combat flight sims is a dying genre and we want to further cripple the market by forcing developers to produce the game on 2 cds that include all WWII theatre's A/C? Or sell the game as an addon for a lousy return on profit?

This man deserves to have a seperate game in the PTO without adding a million flyables from the ETO.

Again, Oleg's taking a break from the ETO A/C in PF will build support for BOB, when we get to go back to the ETO A/C. I'm not gonna B!tch when BOB comes out that I can't fly Zero's online.

I think we customers have been so spoiled by Oleg's generousity that we expect to be able to fly every WWII A/C ever made, online, in one game, for free. I don't see any developer ever doing this.

Geesh people, give the guy a break cause if it weren't for him what would we be playing right now!

LEXX_Luthor
05-25-2004, 07:08 PM
mmm, some deliberate lies are now appearing from flight "simmers" ...

Charlie:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If so, good for you Oleg! You deserve the extra $$$ for a stand alone product and not an addon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nobody wants FP as addon, and you know this.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I think we customers have been so spoiled by Oleg's generousity that we expect to be able to fly every WWII A/C ever made, online, in one game, for free.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nobody wants FP for "free." Oleg is not making FP. And you know this.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This man deserves to have a seperate game in the PTO without adding a million flyables from the ETO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>China was not in "ETO" (to borrow alphabet soup word used by USA during WW2). You probably did not know that. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I think we are seeing in this thread the pure bred internet dogfighter, the Brownie Point gathering tribe, who Fear what may "happen" to their dogfight playgrounds if FB and FP work together for offwhine players and those wishing to play onwhine with historical planesets like Ki~27 against Chinese Gladiator (if Luthier can Patch a Flyable Ki~27 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif ).

but...Flyable Ki~27 (and Bf-110G) is defined as "more Quantity and less Quality" by csf3Thor http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

heywooood
05-25-2004, 07:09 PM
well said, Charlie..

csThor
05-25-2004, 11:15 PM
Lexx - I had planned to stay out of this thread from now on (for the sake of a serious discussion), but when you're making fun of me because of my opinion I cannot stay silent. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

Read my posts again and you will notice that I was criticiting the way the 3rd Party Addons have been handled. As it is planes like the He 111 or Bf110 should have been in the original FB - if not the original Il-2. Instead we began with a MiG-3U (a plane that saw service with 6 machines) and then as first 3rd Party Addon a Bi-1 (which was not much more than a prototype). Luthier learned through this project, but I truly belief that he should have selected a "more important" planetype (speaking of historical Eastern Front, his contribution in the form of an I-16 was much more important IMO). That opened a bottomless pit and we got a lot of planes that have little to do with the Eastern Front before even that theater was sufficiently treated. I mean we still have no Hs129, we have no soviet medium bombers and the maps are covering maybe 15% of the Eastern Front. And after all - didn't Oleg say that the workload of creating and incorporating a 3rd Party plane somewhere in the region of 30% 3D work (3rd Party Modeller) and 70% programming work (Maddox Games).


For me the case is closed. Have fun with your "choices" but don't come running to Olegs Ready Room when the number of planes swallows up development time and your feature wishes cannot be incorporated.

______________________________

<A HREF="http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=csThor" TARGET=_blank>
http://home.arcor.de/csthor/bilder/ubi_sig.jpg </A>

csThor's skins @ Il2skins.com

LEXX_Luthor
05-26-2004, 01:01 AM
csThor, you are making the common error of bashing aircraft that you personally do not like or have no interest in. Adding these planes has nothing to do with distracting Oleg from improving the Quality of the FB sim. In fact the new planes may be the only reason Oleg is still working on FB now. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As it is planes like the He 111 or Bf110 should have been in the original FB - if not the original Il-2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A fairly common argument seen often at ubi. The Resources were not available at that time. They are now. You are also trying to switch your argument, saying more planes are better. Yes, we agree that this subject is closed for you. You need not read further.

Many happen to love MiG~3U for historical dynamic campaign possibilities where at least an AI He~177 is used to bomb Ural mountains (the bombing of Ural mountains is specifically ordered in Hitler's Directive 21 ordering Operation Barborossa--use google).

Bi~1 is a Fave of military aviation enthusiasts everywhere for reasons you cannot know. I do appreciate that you posted "(which was not much more than a prototype)" as indeed ~50 were constructed but destroyed in fire.

LEXX_Luthor
05-26-2004, 01:16 AM
Did I forget to say that Fb109Z is a Great escort for a mythical FB He~177 -- the true Forgotten Beast

And a long range high speed jabo, where in a dynamic campaign it could succeed in numbers where Me~262 jabo could never compete. But long range escort and jabo are not "chic" among many dogfigters. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

05-26-2004, 01:20 AM
Well my choice originaly revovled around not wanting to see a 109 anywhere near the Pacific.
But that is just me, the Main reason I would buy Pacific fighters is exactly because of that (Pacific Fighters)
I would not mind betting a whole bunch of others would probably purchase PF for the same reason.
I think the best part is though the Developers are not tied down tearing their air out trying to make back wards compatible Sims, so we will get the best Sim created so far, sooner and that in no way would compromise PF.

PF is more advanced and better Sim than even Aces, features never seen before in the Il-2 series, like aircraft Carriers.

Im happy!

LEXX_Luthor
05-26-2004, 01:42 AM
I agree with that basic idea, but it assumes there are programming problems here. It has been stated (777 for sure) that making the two sims work together is not a programming problem, but a marketing problem. I too was wondering if mini~Features like open canopies could provide complications, but apparently not. So if there are difficult programming problems, and this "if" invalidates our assuming there are programming problems for the sake of argument against Compatibility, I can shut up now. But every indication so far has been the opposite.

Freycinet
05-26-2004, 07:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
Nice to see such stereotyping (and otherwise) ignorance from you Frey. It's a glimpse at the real you.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, just a response to your ridiculous hate speech:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
You "purisits" that rail against the 109Z, 229, et al are mind bogglingly assinine. You're not "purists", your commies. 'Everyone must be forced to have the same thing'
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To some, being called commies is tantamount to being called a nazi, it doesn't go down well. Drunken overkill, I'd say.

McCallaway
05-26-2004, 07:31 AM
I hope there will be as well limitations on the countries in PF. I mean, in AEP we can fly P-51 with German crosses on them... That's ridiculous. But hopefully in PF Zeros will be Japanese only, and skins won't be supported to avoid deviances from historical reality, and there will only be the planes useful in the scenarios written for the game.

Thinking of it, I also hope the FMB will be removed, so that we won't be able to make un-historical scenarios...

BlitzPig_DDT
05-26-2004, 07:32 AM
No, things that hit close to home often don't go down well Frey, do they?

Let's see - the commies brainwash the kids to get them at an early age, choose their career for them, never let them get ahead, restrict everyone to force each person (except for the elite of course) to have the same things, including all the same options.

In other words - no freedom of choice.

You and others are calling for exactly that. Not my fault the shoe fits.....

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

CornbreadPattie
05-26-2004, 09:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
No, things that hit close to home often don't go down well Frey, do they?

Let's see - the commies brainwash the kids to get them at an early age, choose their career for them, never let them get ahead, restrict everyone to force each person (except for the elite of course) to have the same things, including all the same options.

In other words - no freedom of choice.

You and others are calling for exactly that. Not my fault the shoe fits.....

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm not the least bit sure that 'communists' fits them correctly. I think it would be more appropriate to call people who want everyone to be presented with the same opportunities 'socialsts'. Or maybe, not even that. I think calling them communists is a harsh generalization with no evidence to back it up. I also think, that if you truely want freedom to choose, then become an anarchists. Follow your own set of rules, and choose EVERYTHING you want, without restrictions.


Anyways, to make this discussable, I would be greatly in favor of making the sims cooperate with each other, so we can gain the largest amount of options.

If you want the sims to be totally divided for historical accuracy, then you obviously don't know your history.

There were many more combinations of planes meeting each other then we can even imagine right now. Hellcats and He 111s...... Wildcats and Curtiss Hawks....... Typhoons and Oscars.......

Just remember, that's is presumably possible to make the two sims compatiable, without making PF an add-on. The problem does seem to lye in MARKETING.

IMO, the marketing should be Maddox's call. We, as consumers, should make it known that we want a fully compatible mix between AEP and PF, and that he has a loyal fan base that will eat it up if it's served that way.

I think, that if the team plays their cards right, then they can throw in everything, and still sell to the general audience. I'm not asking for them to be combined into one game, just compatable to mix with each other, so they could borrow each other's resources.

DuxCorvan
05-26-2004, 10:12 AM
1) Why do these guys assume there were two World War 2s? A WW2 sim simulates WW2 planes. If scenario choosing inside game is posible, then you don't have to fly all of them together -unless you want.

2) They're not spoiling PF by making it backwards AEP compatible. PF IT'S AEP COMPATIBLE YET. The question is if they will put all the compatible stuff together or separate, accessing thru different executable.

3) If you don't want Balkankreuz in an Zero, then DON'T PUT IT. It's so easy. But some of you seem to be too useless to do it yourselves, and ask the game engine to do it for you. Do you still get your beef cut? Does someone put the food in your mouths?

- Dux Corvan -
http://www.uploadit.org/DuxCorvan/Altamira2.jpg
Ten thousand years of Cantabrian skinning.

Schmouddle-WT
05-26-2004, 10:21 AM
Okay,
I have seen fierce discussion here, so let me add my 2 hallers (of CZK)

I would like to see PF having all the fancy things AEP has, plus the addition. Here are my reasons:

1/ Historical scenarios never introduced anywhere else are by grab of the hand, like FAA and USN against Vichy France and nazi Italy and Germany in ETO and MTO, we can miss China and Monglia (keep it up, Lexx http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif) Kurilas and Kamchatka of PTO (Venturas and Lightnings vs Zeroes under supervision of Russians - truly forgotten battle!), Singapore, defence of Australia etc, etc.... There are PLENTY of moments when planes from ETO (or totally unique) were put into service. People hunting puriness and having in mind only carrier ops and island hopping are narrow minded, thats my point of view. (no offence)

2/ Arguing about not meeting Fw over Iwo-jima are cr@p. If you do not like it, do it your way, but never touch choice of others. I personally like FR setting quite alot, and thus we have set up our own dedicated server (wheres the patch?? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif) and we do things as we like. So shut up whinnig about setting of server of somebody else and set up your own.

3/ Ubi can sell stuff they sold already three times once again, so where is the problem? More people will buy it if they are neatly forced to do so.

4/ If the PF is standalone, it would get all the attention from developers letting AEP die. Sure I am aware the devteams are different,but connected at the same time. The support of AEP would stop as it was after all paid addons/standalones - remember "old" IL2 after FB came out & 1.22 after AEP. I really do not want to see all the superb planes currently in WIP to be left behind (JU88,PE2,G55 for example)

5/ Question about quality and quantity is a matter of discussion, but you should have in mind:
Too few planes and maps---&gt;sales never reaching the top---&gt;title dies out (WWII fighters)
Open architecture---&gt;plenty of addons of various quality, troubles trying the online game---&gt;plp get fed up and leave---&gt;title dies out (CFS2 has not died out yet, but its on the slope)
Too many planes---&gt;mistakes and bugs---&gt;plp get fed up and leave---&gt;title dies out (CFS3 is the best example)
In my opinion, IL2/FB/AEP has set a new standard in WWII sims, both in quality and quantity thanks to cooperation of community (whinning http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif) and the developer (the boss here http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif) Remember, we could end up with bare IL2... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Now you can rip me apart.

BlitzPig_DDT
05-26-2004, 11:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CornbreadPattie:
I'm not the least bit sure that 'communists' fits them correctly. I think it would be more appropriate to call people who want everyone to be presented with the same opportunities 'socialsts'. Or maybe, not even that. I think calling them communists is a harsh generalization with no evidence to back it up. I also think, that if you truely want freedom to choose, then become an anarchists. Follow your own set of rules, and choose EVERYTHING you want, without restrictions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

:::sigh:::

I don't know if you honestly don't understand the difference, or if you're just being argumentative, or if you have already been poisoned the socialist "thinking" (if you can call it that).

Freedom of choice, freedom from restrictions of others does not mean anarchy. It means the ideal of The Founders. IOW - you do have total and unmittigated freedom to do whatever you wish....so long as you do not infringe upon the freedoms of others.

To illustrate by example - under anarchy, if you want to kill someone, feck 'em. It's all about you and your desires. But in a real world free society, if you want to kill someone, TS. That is harming them and infringing upon their rights, which is the one thing you can not do.

Now that that has been addressed - socialists are commie-lites. They haven't gone all the way yet and try to operate in an ostensibly free society and somewhat capitalist economy. They haven't given up their own greed and desires yet. And yes, they use spin terms like "opportunities" to try to make their restrictive behavior sound like a good thing some how.

Communists aren't interested in providing people with an untapped potential. They are interested in restricting everyone and claiming they are equal as a result. They make no pretenses like the socialists do.

Claiming that PF and AEP aircraft should not be, in any way, cross compatible is restriction. Pure and simple. There is no "opportunity" that they are trying to give everyone. Quite the opposite, it is opportunity and freedom of choice that they are trying to revoke from everybody. Having both sets of aircraft usable, regardless of how it's done is the opportunity. Having it harms and/or impedes nobody. Those who don't personally want to mix outlandish combinations won't have to. All of their claims and arguments are false, null, and void. They are interested in control, in restriction. Period.

Once again however I see people reacting emotionally and making stupid comments about how I haven't presented any evidence in spite of having done so, and having to do it a second time, spelling out the obvious. I hope it gets read this time.

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

LEXX_Luthor
05-26-2004, 11:06 AM
Well said Schmouddle-WT, although again I say FP was to be Stand Alone to begin with, but Luthier1 stated FP could be used with FB planes and maps if both were purchased as Stand Alone products. Now that may have changed, but due to UBI business decision...a decision having nothing to do with any of the arguments pro or con raised on the webboards.

My own thoughts...FP will not have a J2M Raiden, but already there are some highly supported Raiden skins at http://www.il2skins.com using I~185. No compatibility means no "Raiden" until FP gets a real Raiden.

I would personally love to use either a Japanese or USA carrier bomber to fly Su~2 campaign with AI Su~2 formations without needing to use Stuka (which will be used AI by opposing Germans). As far as I can see no other Flyable aircraft in FP or FB now or being made will closely approximate Su~2.

Neither this nor the fake arguments about Fw over Japan are why UBI would Choose to build a Wall between FP and FB or not.

05-26-2004, 12:23 PM
Perhaps we should not over look, that forming a buissness to create a product is about making money.
Our sims are used by a Global Affluent Society that can not only afford a personal Computer, but can also afford to upgrade that PC if neccesary.

To build and create these Sims takes time and uses the expertise of people whos services no doubt do not come cheap.

The best Quality product that has yet been made is also being created, and is frequented with free Add ons, and update patches.

It is reasonably priced.

If the retail price of Pacific fighters was to double over night, I am affluent enough to still lay down my cash in a heart beat, the day it was released.

Those are the facts of life.

F19_Orheim
05-26-2004, 12:54 PM
I won't waste too many words, seems everything has been said ( and morehttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif )

Compatible please..


http://216.12.202.106/~f19vs/F19bannerA.jpg
http://216.12.202.106/~f19vs/F19banner.jpg

Gato-Loco
05-26-2004, 01:37 PM
I love this forum!!
Here are my two argentinian cents...
My opinion: The more (planes, maps, features) under the same "environment", the better. I don't care much on the details (buy AEP and FP separately, or buy FP and get AEP planes and maps), but I'd like to open FMB and use any plane and any map. I'm with Lexx... the Mongolian scenario (and other "forgotten battles") would be possible only with some type of cross compatibility.
In my humble opinion, this is how it should work:
If you only buy PF, then you only get PF maps, planes, etc.
If you buy PF but already have FB, PF should be able to "read" the contents of the FB folders and include FB maps and planes. Then you should be able to
a) Use all planes and maps in FMB
b) Play campaigns that would include some planes from FB
I only play off-line. I don't care how the on-line community uses the planes and maps available.
In any case, I'll buy PF. I'm really looking forward to it.

BSS_Vidar
05-28-2004, 04:41 PM
I like Stand-alone. With one click of the mouse, I can fly LOMAC on HL, back out then click on IL-2FB/AEP if I wish. Now with PF comming, I can click on that. Everthing I want will be a click away. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

S!

BSS_Vidar

karost
05-28-2004, 11:10 PM
well for me, I thing no problem
when I join in HL there have many of many people who host with diefference of condition for let a friends to join.

I like to looking history host setup more FR and may be other friend need to take 109 landing in carrier wow that is up to him. we have a freedom to choice ... right ?

ubi enjoy for money that they can make and we enjoy for this game that we like to play...well who care..

S!

Ruy Horta
05-29-2004, 02:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by McCallaway:
Thinking of it, I also hope the FMB will be removed, so that we won't be able to make un-historical scenarios...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

This is one of the best examples of what kind of madness is at work here!

Remove the FMB...

Think about that.

So we only have a QMB?

Remove QMB as well, or limit to the point where you cannot "deviate"?

So how will we make missions?

Or should we BUY all our missions supplied by Ubi and third party developers?

Since you do not want to have flexible skins either, does that mean to enforce it we must remove the ability to apply user skins?

Lets suply skins on a commercial basis only!

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

You are proposing to cut out 75% of what makes this series of sims great. Perhaps some are right in saying that PF will not offer enough compared to the current AEP to warrant a full purchase afteral, certainly not if the likes of these have a say...

I can live with a spin off PF, even without competability, but no FMB and user skins...madness.

Ruy Horta