PDA

View Full Version : other flight sims



johnboy1967
09-06-2004, 05:05 PM
does anyone play other flight sims as in modern war sims or the civilian aircraft sims or does il2 games play so much better to make the other ones left on the shelf.

johnboy1967
09-06-2004, 05:05 PM
does anyone play other flight sims as in modern war sims or the civilian aircraft sims or does il2 games play so much better to make the other ones left on the shelf.

lil_labbit
09-06-2004, 05:07 PM
eh? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

"other"

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

WHAT other....

http://members.home.nl/lil.labbit/lilseesya.jpg
Question: Did you back-up your files?
Answer: I didn't know they had a reverse...


yeah well X-Plane and Orbiter http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Maj_Death
09-06-2004, 05:17 PM
I play Lock On: Modern Air Combat some. Other than that I don't know of any current flight sims unless you consider Mechwarrior 4 or MS CFS3 a flight sim.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spelling mistakes left in intentionally to annoy tttiger.

Maj_Death here, I/JG1_Death at HL

I build COOPs and DF maps. If you would like some of them you can get them atmy COOP page (http://www14.brinkster.com/triggerhappy770/default.htm)

I/JG1 Oesau is recruiting axis pilots who prefer to fly maximum realism. We accept both veterans and rookies. We fly in VEF2, VWF and may join other online wars in the future. I am currently the acting CO, if you are interested in joining please PM me here or page me in HL.
http://www.bestanimations.com/Humans/Skulls/Skull-06.gif

steve_v
09-06-2004, 05:21 PM
http://www.geocities.com/g8tr45/eh.txt

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
09-06-2004, 06:03 PM
OMG !!! BLASPHEMER !!

Quick stone him before he gets away !!!

Somebody call the inqusition!!

Errr ok hand up time:-

Sometimes I fold paper and throw it round the office screaming BANZAI!!!

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v323/tHeBaLrOgRoCkS/planes/signiture3.jpg

[This message was edited by tHeBaLrOgRoCkS on Mon September 06 2004 at 05:12 PM.]

theaircobra
09-06-2004, 06:10 PM
lo-mac if fun. im also looking forward to silent hunter 3

WTE_Dukayn
09-06-2004, 06:12 PM
You can't CALL the inquisition, cos then you'd be expecting them...and nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

http://sigs.ghostlegion.com/Dukayn/WTEsig.jpg
WTE 2TG No. 68 Sentai
BANZAI!
http://www.wte-anga.com

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
09-06-2004, 06:21 PM
OMG A PYTHON FAN !!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

QUICK!! STONE HIM! BEFORE HE GETS AWAY!

THERE HE GO'S

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v323/tHeBaLrOgRoCkS/planes/signiture3.jpg

El Turo
09-06-2004, 06:53 PM
I fly here and at WWII Online, but it's a subscription service for regular feature updates and what not.. but because it incorporates land, air, sea the air-to-air simulation is nowhere near the fidelity or beauty of the IL2 series.

Now, for mud moving, I actually prefer WWII Online to IL2 for all the extra ground objects, terrain and human targets.

But, as a pure air-simulation it isn't that fantastic. Rumor (LOL) has it, a newly updated flight model is due out first quarter of 2005, but I'll believe it when I see it.

95% of my flight time in the last 6 months has been here at IL2, but as a change of pace, the early-war WWII Online arena can be fun. Especially if you're into air-to-ground operations or multicrewing vehicles.

But, as I've said before.. IL2FB is by far the best WWII era air combat simulation on the face of the earth right now.. until PF comes out or if Targetware ever goes gold.

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

Callsign "Turo" in IL2:FB & WWIIOL
______________________
This place
was once
a place
of worship
I thought,
reloading my rifle.

~V.

bird_brain
09-06-2004, 07:12 PM
Medal of Honor rocks... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif
It's not a flight sim but it is good for a change of pace. I am messing with the MOHPA Demo now.

http://jyarbrough.homestead.com/Paper.jpg
"The Blue" Desert Campaign, The Hell Hawks Ardennes Campaign &
The World's Greatest Aces Collection are all *here* (http://jyarbrough.homestead.com/Files.html)

El Turo
09-06-2004, 07:54 PM
You know.. funny you should mention MOH.. I recently bought a copy of Call of Duty and WHOA MAN did that blow me out of the water! Made by the same "group" of guys that did MOH after they split up.. Call of Duty was WAAAAY better than MOH. Not even remotely close in my opinion.

Definately worth a look-see!

Callsign "Turo" in IL2:FB & WWIIOL
______________________
This place
was once
a place
of worship
I thought,
reloading my rifle.

~V.

WTE_Galway
09-06-2004, 08:39 PM
so ...

.. would the Spanish Inquisition fly the Rata or the bf109D ???

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2004, 08:52 PM
I always say, Targetware (http://http://www.targetware.net) is better than IL-2 for realism and historical mission play right now, beta, unfinished edges and all.

All IL-2 has on it is graphics and eye candy, which I feel is IL-2's biggest problem: too heavy a reliance on what looks good, and total lack of attention to detail on the FM, DM and other things that really count for a sim.

Wait, two things: Targetware is still a little odd on controllers, although some people report no trouble at all, and others have a devil of a time with gear. *shrug* More stuff to work out in beta...

I've seen a few faces from here over there, and some of them (usually, the ones who give it more than just a 2-second glance, and actually *fly* it, and get used to it) are staying for a bit. Just when it's about to get a lot better with a powerful gameplay overhaul...

[This message was edited by Stiglr on Tue September 07 2004 at 08:07 AM.]

DarthBane_
09-06-2004, 08:56 PM
There is no other, but that dont make me hapy.

Vladimir_No2
09-06-2004, 08:57 PM
FS2004 can be quite good, as long as you use nothing default and are willing to pay for addons...

-Vlad
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v255/vladimir_no2/pzlsig.jpg

WTE_Galway
09-06-2004, 08:58 PM
Stigir your link is wrong

Beirut
09-06-2004, 09:11 PM
I'll load up Janes WWII Fighters once in a while just because it's a hoot to fly and there are still mods coming out for it. And the mission editor with it's trigger system has yet to be equalled.

A bit of FS2002, but not much at all. And Lock On once every month or two.

IL2 is the chocolate chip mega-cookie of all flgiht sims.

"Official Lancaster whiner"

ParaB
09-06-2004, 11:03 PM
FS2004, Falcon 4 with SP4/FF3, Rowan's BoB (with the BDB patch) and a bit LOMAC.

If only Il2 had the weather system of F2004, the ground textures of LOMAC and a campaign like Falcon and/or BoB including the massive air raids...

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

LuckyBoy1
09-06-2004, 11:27 PM
Other games?... hhhmmm.... other games?

Now with an actual index & more fiber! It is newer & and even more improved! It's Luckyboy's Guide For Complete Users!...

http://www.airwarfare.com/tech/tech_lbguide.htm#001%20Security%20Issues

Luckyboy = Senior hydraulic landing gear designer for the P-11 & Contributing Editor to Complete Users magazine.

Rab03
09-07-2004, 12:45 AM
Nope. Tried many sims, but Il-2/FB/AEP stays constantly on my HDD. This goes for other genres, too. I've played many great games, but after I finish them several times - I end up with uninstaling them.

See my skins at
http://server6.uploadit.org/files/JohnnyRab-SIG.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=Rab&ts=1069857387&comefrom=credits)

LuckyBoy1
09-07-2004, 12:49 AM
Other games?.... Well, uh... hhhhhmmmm, other games? I once had a friend call me and talk about how excited he was that Doomy 3 was being released. He still couldn't tell me what plane set it had though... no, I don't think the guy posting is talking about that. Other games... now that's a new one! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Now with an actual index & more fiber! It is newer & and even more improved! It's Luckyboy's Guide For Complete Users!...

http://www.airwarfare.com/tech/tech_lbguide.htm#001%20Security%20Issues

Luckyboy = Senior hydraulic landing gear designer for the P-11 & Contributing Editor to Complete Users magazine.

AFJ_Skyghost
09-07-2004, 03:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tHeBaLrOgRoCkS:


Sometimes I fold paper and throw it round the office screaming BANZAI!!!



[This message was edited by tHeBaLrOgRoCkS on Mon September 06 2004 at 05:12 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You too???

http://skyghost.home.sapo.pt/imagens/PortugalFans_RK.jpg

VMF-312JarhedEd
09-07-2004, 05:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tHeBaLrOgRoCkS:
OMG A PYTHON FAN !!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

QUICK!! STONE HIM! BEFORE HE GETS AWAY!

THERE HE GO'S

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

NI!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v37/JarheadEd/Restored312side_530.jpg

joeap
09-07-2004, 05:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I always say, http://hthtp://www.targetware.net is better than IL-2 for realism and historical mission play right now, beta, unfinished edges and all.

All IL-2 has on it is graphics and eye candy, which I feel is IL-2's biggest problem: too heavy a reliance on what looks good, and total lack of attention to detail on the FM, DM and other things that really count for a sim.

Wait, two things: Targetware is still a little odd on controllers, although some people report no trouble at all, and others have a devil of a time with gear. *shrug* More stuff to work out in beta...

I've seen a few faces from here over there, and some of them (usually, the ones who give it more than just a 2-second glance, and actually *fly* it, and get used to it) are staying for a bit. Just when it's about to get a lot better with a powerful gameplay overhaul...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What specifically (numbers data etc.) is better in Targetware than IL-2? Could you post a plane and its performance in both sims for comparision? Thanks.

1.JaVA_Hornet
09-07-2004, 07:07 AM
I gave all the orther flightsims away

- cfs2
- cfs3 (played ones)
- lock on
- strike fighters

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v423/hornetsting/IMG.jpg

269GA-Veltro
09-07-2004, 07:13 AM
Lock-On, very good sim in spite of all.

Others sim........no, no more after Il2 release.

269GA~Veltro
http://ourworld.cs.com/VeltroF/269GAVeltro.jpg
www.269ga.it (http://www.269ga.it)

panther3485
09-07-2004, 08:09 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I've got a lot of games/sims on my HD but I don't actually necessarily play them all. The ones I don't play now are not taken off because I've still got plenty of space and who knows, I might play them again some day, right?

Confession: I'm a bit of a collector as well as a player.

Anyway, here's what's on my HD now, what I think of them all and how often I play them now:

STRATEGY -
Age of Empires with Rome expansion - On oldie but still enjoyable. I don't play it any more but my 9-year-old son likes it.
Age of Kings with Conquerors expansion - A good one that I still play on occasion.
Empire Earth with Art of Conquest expansion - Never been keen on this one but I haven't got around to removing it. My son likes it.
Command & Conquer Generals - Probably the best of the Command & Conquer series and my son likes it a lot.
1503 AD The New World - Looked OK, with an interestingly different (and complex) game interface. Haven't played it much yet so not too sure if I'm going to like it.
Rise of Nations with Thrones & Patriots expansion - Very slick and enjoyable game, but not quite my style. Son loves it.
Cossacks with Art of War expansion - Terrific game IMHO and I still play it often.
American Conquest and Fight Back - Excellent games IMHO and also played often.
Blitzkrieg and Burning Horizon - Very good with excellent balance of graphics and game play. Played frequently.

SHOOTERS -
Ghost Recon with Desert Siege expansion - Very good but not played much these dayse (see below).
The Sum of All Fears - Not bad, but again rarely played now (see below).
Rainbow Six 3 Raven Shield - Excellent game with variation and challenge. Played quite a lot still.
MOHAA with Spearhead and Breakthrough expansions - Good fun but not too serious. Played quite a lot until I got Call of Duty.
Operation Flashpoint with Red Hammer expansion - very good with a gritty, realistic feel. Not played recently.
Call of Duty - Sort of like MOHAA only better and more realistic. Played fairly often.
Delta Force Black Hawk Down - An excellent game IMHO, another one with a more realistic feel that keeps getting me in.

ADVENTURE -
Tomb Raider Angel of Darkness - Good fun and a nice change. Lara looks....well...even better than before! Still played occasionally.

TANK GAME/SIMS -
M1 Tank Platoon 2 - Not bad for its day. No longer played.
Panzer Elite Special Edition (Gold) with mods - Shows its age graphics wise but still very good in many ways. Rarely played these days.

NAVAL GAME/SIMS -
Silent Hunter II - The makings of a good U-boat sim but didn't quite make the grade in one or two areas. No longer played.
Destroyer Command - Similar sentiments to SH2.

FLIGHT GAME/SIMS -
EAW (now with heaps of mods and enhancements) - My favourite combat flight sim of the late 90's and IMHO not bettered until IL-2 came along. Played occasionally for nostalgia.
Team Apache - Pretty good for its day (1998). No longer played.
Mig-29 Fulcrum - Arcadish and not very serious, but still fun and pretty for its time. No longer played.
F-22 Lightning 3 - As above but even prettier. Also no longer played.
USAF - Thought this was pretty good at the time and had quite a lot of fun with it. Sort of semi-serious for Jane's, I reckon. No longer played.
Flanker 2.0 with 2.5 upgrade and patch - Pretty darn good in my book and I used to play this a lot before LOMAC arrived.
Gunship! - This looked very promising but wasn't finished properly and there was no support afterwards. Pity. No longer played.
Comanche4 - Strictly an arcade game with no pretence at simming. Good fun for a short time, blowing the cr** out of everything that moved. No longer played.
CFS2 with RAAF add-on - I thought this was quite good when it first came out and in some ways better than CFS3. Rarely played these days.
Rowan's Battle of Britain with mods and enhancements - A promising sim that WAS sorted out after a troubled beginning. Remains iffy in some areas but enjoyable. Still played occasionally.
B-17 Flying Fortress The Mighty 8th - Another promising but unfinished job. Passable with the patches. No longer played.
Enemy Engaged Apache Havoc/Comanche Hokum - Still my favourite helicopter combat sims, but showing their age badly in the graphics department (especially Apache Havoc). Great gameplay with dynamic campaign and flight modelling approaching realism. Played occasionally for nostalgia.
Falcon 4.0 with SP4 - A great sim IMHO, still viable today with SP4. Played sometimes.
IL-2 Sturmovik - Truly a great step forward in combat flight sims. Played lots and lots, until FB came along. Now played less often but still loved.
CFS3 - In some ways and advance on CFS2 but in other ways... not so sure. I still like it, though. It's a different style that has its good points. Intend to experiment with add-ons and play more, when I get the time!
IL-2 FB/AEP - As far as I'm concerned, despite one or two irritating points, this is the benchmark WW2 combat flight sim, the best of its genre. My favourite. Played heaps. 'Nuff said!
LOMAC - As above for what is now my favourite modern jet combat sim. Not played enough yet, due to initial issues solved by recent patch.
FS2004 - I like this a lot, peacefully cruising around, enjoying the scenery and nobody shooting at me! I play it when I feel like a break. Great weather effects!

In addition to the above, I've also tried a few car and motorcycle racing games but don't play them now.

I just need 48 hour days and 14 day weeks! Who am I kidding? I clould never play all of these properly! But I like having them!

Best regards to all,
panther3485

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2004, 09:20 AM
Joeap:

I'm not a spreadsheet type of guy, and I'll leave the chart graphics to other more scientifically talented folks. But, people who are tell me the Targetware planes, by and large, hit the performance numbers they're supposed to. Sure, a few need some tweaking, but most are right there within limits.

However, if you want to see what I mean, try this:

Fly the A6M2 matchup vs. the P-40E in IL-2. Then try it in Targetware. You'll immediately notice some startling differences.

In IL-2, the Zero's only negative trait at speed is a lessening of the roll rate. In Targetware, you'll not only notice it's harder to roll, but it's harder to even keep the nose down without significant amounts of trim. You'll find that the P-40 can, as history books relate, simply dive and roll juuuust enough to keep out of the Zero's sights (often long enough to get help).

You'll also notice in Targetware the startling accuracy of the Zero vs. F4F battle (I guess we'll have to wait until PF comes out before we can do a side-by-side comparison of this). The F4F is meat on the table one on one. But add in numbers on both sides, and a much more confused scrap, and you'll see that the F4Fs, if piloted with teamwork and cunning, can use Thach Weave tactics to get killing or crippling snapshot kills on Zeros.

The engine managment features in Targetware (which, incidently, can also be dumbed down by the server) are more thorough: you have cowl flaps, mixture, blower settings and lean/rich settings to consider when keeping your engine cool, your fuel consumption in check, and your performance at it's peak. (And these actually WORK, and have enough of an effect to alter an engagement: it's not as if somebody suddenly noticed that one side's planes had more pilot workload and then just dumbed down the entire system so that the other side, with their automatic engine management, couldn't enjoy the advantage http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ). You'll even notice a pretty severe hit to maneuverability if you're lugging fuel tanks, which you scarecly notice in IL-2.

Overall, I feel Targetware is simply more accurate in its physics modeling and flight modeling, which for me, is much much more important than eye candy and shimmering water effects that are meaningless to the combat (which is, last I checked, the raison d'etre for a combat flight sim). There actually is noticeable torque and Pfactor, even on takeoff (right now, the effect is actually overdone, since the ground/collision code isn't finished yet; but woe betide anybody stupid enough to do the usual IL-2 "just gun the engine and takeoff" routine).

Just try it, and make up your own mind. I only ask that you give it a thorough trial, not just a "kick the tires", 5 minute trip through the menus, one abortive attempt to fly something, and then say, "Well, IL-2 *looks* better". Explore the flight models, get used to how the system works, check out the matchups and see if you don't agree with me.

[This message was edited by Stiglr on Tue September 07 2004 at 09:14 AM.]

Tully__
09-07-2004, 09:26 AM
EAW, FS98, FS2k2, FlyII, CFS2, B17 II, LO-MAC, but I always come back to the IL2/FB series http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

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


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

Tully's X-45 profile (SST drivers) (http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/fb.zip)

Salut
Tully

Mispunt
09-07-2004, 11:59 AM
Hey Stiglr, now you're actually (almost) getting me interested by writing what's good about Targetware as opposed to writing about what sucks in IL2. Keep it up. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/Mispunt-MisSig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2004, 01:15 PM
Well, I have tried to limit my "evangelizing" to direct comparison with IL-2 faults. I feel that's fair game, whereas just creating "Targetware r0xx0rs" fanboi posts would be an abuse of this forum.

mortoma
09-07-2004, 01:17 PM
I like to play Virtual pool. But wait, you say it's not a flight sim?? You've never seen me play. The balls go "flying" off the table when I play it so much I now consider it a flight sim.....lol http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

mortoma
09-07-2004, 01:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Well, I have tried to limit my "evangelizing" to _direct comparison with IL-2 faults_. I feel that's fair game, whereas just creating "Targetware r0xx0rs" fanboi posts would be an abuse of this forum.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The only problem with Targetware is it's an online game. I am waiting for a good offline game but I've never seen one yet, including FB. FB developers concentrate on eye-candy graphics too much rather than good, sensible AI and better flight dynamics.
The FB DM is pretty good though.

Fred_77
09-07-2004, 03:51 PM
I have been flying Targetware on and off for quite awhile now, and seems to be the only other sim out there that is a worthy competitor to FB. Once you get past the graphics and wallowy FM, it's really quite good. The debug mode it comes with is great. Really allows you to see what the FM is doing. Wish FB had one. The biggest problem so far is there never is many people online, and there is no AI to practice against. Plus it could use a carrier.

BTW Stiglr, you might notice the Kate and TBF will both turn inside a P-40 or a corsair at slow speeds. Are you going to start a thread claiming they have BS flight models over at Targetware? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

S!
Fred.

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2004, 03:52 PM
Well, many would argue that if you limit yourself to offline only, you're never going to find that Holy Grail.

AI does not, and will not, EVER cut it. If today's supercomputers can't replicate human behavior in all its shadings, how do expect a $40 flight sim to?

Get online.

El Turo
09-07-2004, 04:05 PM
Still.. sometimes you want a little more hands-on than you get in the online world. I'd be in absolute heaven if Battle of Britain came with a fully dynamic/strategic layer even if only done roughly-approximated like Mig-Alley. Although, something closer to the original Battle of Britain or SWOTL would be ab-so-friggin-lutely beautiful!

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I think Mig Alley was the last sim I played that had a functioning tactical/strategic layer to it.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Callsign "Turo" in IL2:FB & WWIIOL
______________________
This place
was once
a place
of worship
I thought,
reloading my rifle.

~V.

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2004, 04:18 PM
While I freely admit that having a layer to create scenesetting of the BoB would be nice to have, it's really not part of the flying.

Pilots were merely rung up on the telly and told to scramble, and given the details on the way: they didn't plan strategy at any level at all. In the Germans' case, they got their targets routes and alts and just did their job (or tried to).

Also, a good online community (and I'd count IL-2's community as a good online community) will create this, in the form of online wars, leagues and other such stuff that allows that level of organization to come into play.

El Turo
09-07-2004, 04:22 PM
Oh, I know.. but I'd really love to be able to play a mix of strategic commander and front-line fighter/attack pilot!

I think that's what made Mig Alley (and SWOTL if you didn't abuse the holes in teh code) such great games was their dynamic campaign modes where your flight planning and execution made or broke the war effort.

Good fun.

But, like you said.. the fun is in the doing. If it's got wings, I want to fly it!

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Actually, anecdotally, I even jumped in the hang-glider simulator in the kids-area at the Museum of Flight so I could pretend I was shooting down the flying penguin (or whatever the thing was) that guides you down the canyon. Ratta tatta tat tat!

Hehe..

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Callsign "Turo" in IL2:FB & WWIIOL
______________________
This place
was once
a place
of worship
I thought,
reloading my rifle.

~V.

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2004, 04:24 PM
For Fred,

I don't know about a TurkeyBird, but I'd imagine a Kate *could* hang with a Corsair certainly, and possibly a P-40 at low speeds in a flat turn. Kates and Vals were fairly maneuverable, high wing area planes, and when not loaded down with bombs, could delay the inevitable for some time. By comparison, the "hotter" Hawks and Corsairs would be fighting higher stall speeds and nasty torque effects of their respective airframes. Of course, as soon as the F4U or P-40 uses its speed advantage, or adds any kind of vertical element to the fight, game over. You'd have to be pretty stupid or unlucky to have a Kate return to base and paint your star under its canopy.

As for the Targetware Kate, my experience is that you start popping rivets and stressing the airframe the second you load any appreciable G on it. And once you damage it enough to affect the flight surfaces, good luck getting out of the spin!!! I have a hard time believing you could kick a P-40 or Corsair pilot's butt with it, even if it DID have a forward gun that could fire, which it doesn't.

So much for that theory.

There are a few FMs in the Targetware hangar that I think are a little suspect; the Beaufighter, for one, is quite a bit too good in its aerobatic capability... but the arrows you can sling at those FMs are far fewer than the errors you find here... AND, you'd have far less of a time convincing anyone there to change it, with fewer fanbois blasting your every move and motive. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Fred_77
09-07-2004, 05:02 PM
I think you are kind of missing my point there Stiglr. In a previous thread you claimed there was no way an IL could turn inside of a 109, and provided a track showing such. The point I was trying to make is that the slow low wing loaded planes in TR can do exactly the same thing as the IL does in FB. Of course the Kate and TBF don't have 2 20mm cannons, so flying anywhere near their forward hemisphere isn't as much of a risk. The debug mode that comes with TR is great in that it measures both turn rate and radius, and shows the Kate and TBF turning considerbly tighter turns then most allied fighters are capable of. Neither FB or TR are wrong in this regard, this is what is supposed to happen. If the IL came armed only with a single .30 cal gun, it would look like a turkey too. If a 109 uses it speed advantage and takes the fight vertical, the IL stands about as much chance as a TBF would.

Now I am not here to question your motives, just to point out that it would be better to offer criticism to the areas that need it, not the parts that are modeled correctly.

S!
Fred.

mortoma
09-07-2004, 08:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Well, many would argue that if you limit yourself to offline only, you're never going to find that Holy Grail.

AI does not, and will not, EVER cut it. If today's supercomputers can't replicate human behavior in all its shadings, how do expect a $40 flight sim to?

Get online.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yea but AI could easily be made better in FB than it is now. How hard could it be to put in a few more lines of code that would make the AI smart enough to not fly low and straight over an enemy airbase?? Or smart enough to fly towards the front line right away if damaged and then smart enough to crash land in an open space instead of a forest?? They could make such improvements in FB, don't let them fool you. Only a few more lines of the program would be all it would take. I'm not asking for much. Just a few improvements in AI and it would be much more playable offline.

WTE_Galway
09-07-2004, 09:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Well, many would argue that if you limit yourself to offline only, you're never going to find that Holy Grail.

AI does not, and will not, EVER cut it. If today's supercomputers can't replicate human behavior in all its shadings, how do expect a $40 flight sim to?

Get online.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yea but AI could easily be made better in FB than it is now. How hard could it be to put in a few more lines of code that would make the AI smart enough to not fly low and straight over an enemy airbase?? Or smart enough to fly towards the front line right away if damaged and then smart enough to crash land in an open space instead of a forest?? They could make such improvements in FB, don't let them fool you. Only a few more lines of the program would be all it would take. I'm not asking for much. Just a few improvements in AI and it would be much more playable offline.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

must agree that some of the more stupid AI behaviour could be easily fixed

last week in an offline LW campaign I lost nearly a whole squadron .. an AI P39 was circling a heavily defended airfield and my entire squadron followed it around in freight train fashion and got knocked down one ny one by flak, meanwhile the p39 survived fine because the LW pilot in the hot seat, the only one that could shoot, was a very poor shot.

naively .. it should not be hard to program AI to avoid flak areas when out of combat and limit exposure to it when in combat. Furthermore there must be a way of stopping this freigth train effect when an entire squad flies in formation behind the guy who has locked on a target .. it causes more unnecessary AI deaths than any other bug

Bearcat99
09-07-2004, 09:24 PM
I find that you often have to tell the AI EVERYTHING sometimes. Constantly. If you want to make sure they drop all thier ordinace you have to tell them @ 5 times to attack ground targets. Then you have to tell them seveal times to go home. Stig I think Ill give Targetware a try... although I dont think FB is all that bad. I dont have any other sims on my HD except LOMAC.. which I have flown a ferw times.. and I re-intsalled CFS3 to try the 1% planes some of my squaddies were telling me about. I still am no fan of CFS3 but it is more tolerable with the 1% planes. Thats about it for me. I had B-17... I still have Warbirds.. oh... and Fighter Ace is on my HD but I rarely fly it. I tried to get online once ad couldnt hook up. I just have a thing for WW2 sims and I think pound for pound FB is top bananna. If I consider all the things that I like... FMs, DMs,sounds,eye candy,AI,scalability,... FB has more of all of them in a more even way to me.... Am I making sense?

I would like to see a bit more programmability in the FMB... some tweaks on some of the FMs... I hate that they took off the fuel mix feature... I think that was a mistake. I think all these planes should have these things in two modes.. auto or manual. The radiators have it.. the prop pitch on the 109s have it. In FB 1.0 the P-47s had mixture.... I see no reason why these things cant be toggleable... like the pitch on the 109s. Those are my major beefs with FB.. the AI could be smarter... when you set the AI skill level that should be tied into the AI intelligence too. Im hoping all this stuff will be in BoB. I still dont understand why for the life of me some things were changed the way they were.. but hey.. I still enjoy the sim immensely..... online and offline. To me graphics are a big part of my enjoyment of a product like this. Although FB needs some work.... I still think its a darn good product and worth every penny I spent on the 4 discs so far.. (IL2,FB.AEP,BOE) and the upgrades to enjoy it more as well.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
Sturmovik Essentials (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959)
IMMERSION BABY!!

LEXX_Luthor
09-07-2004, 09:46 PM
I too am interested because so far Maddox shows little interest in creating or improving existing tools that make it easy for purchasers to design immersive frontline battlefield environments. TargetWare may--or may not I dunno. Perhaps BoB will be different--it should be different given the apparent attention to the lol 10,000+ polygon fighter plane models they are talking about for BoB. But that is pure grafix and nothing else.

Mee too. Sounds immersive, and I didn't know this earlier but the ultamite TargetWare Plan is to sell the kit so people can make their own private LAN online wars independent of TargetWare servers. Anybody can submit FM and models for "official" TargetWare approval...much like anybody can submit models for approval by Oleg. One issue may be if TargetWare actually allows mission takeoff and landing and the events recorded, instead of using Hyperspace Jump.

(for Stiglr):: There is merit in making decent AI to help populate online war servers. I am wondering if the major reason flight sim Devs ignore large cumulus clouds is because they don't want to program AI to be aware of weather, but a pure online sim with no AI would not have that negative motivation.


If the picture below represents the Future of TargetWare, and it can match the [claimed] superb P~51 FM with the historic air combat view out of P~51 canopy then...

http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/historic/nws/images/wea00084.jpg
~ http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/


Sold! Stiglr!


If our Kuban mountain textures can run 30fps on my ATI 9200 and 256MB SDRAM, then so could that picture.


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack ( AEP )

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2004, 10:02 PM
Show me "good AI" that consistent, anywhere, and then we can continue the debate on "how easy it would be" to do.

I know I heap my share of abuse on the dev team, but in this case, I defend them. Good AI is extremely (let me say that again: extremely) hard to create. For every good trait you program in, you get totally illogical, idiot behavior in another situation. You just can't easily program "what another man would do" into a few lines of code.

LEXX_Luthor
09-07-2004, 10:09 PM
Correct, immersive AI is hard to create. The most appreciated things in life usually take effort.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack ( AEP )

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2004, 10:31 PM
Luthor, all you need to do to check for yourself if the P-51 in Targetware has that "combat view out of the cockpit" is to download it and fire up Target:Rabaul or Target:Korea. She's in both of 'em.

LEXX_Luthor
09-07-2004, 10:36 PM
TargetWare has clouds like this?

http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/historic/nws/images/wea00084.jpg
~ http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/


When it does I will sign up. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Consider this as an opportunity to Rule the flight sim market.

Note:: The large cumulus clouds need not have so much "detail" especially for online play, but the huge sizes are important. I would be interested if a TargetWare Hiryu Japanese carrier can duck under a rain cloud to stay alive long enough for "just one more" strike like she did at Midway island.



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack ( AEP )

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

joeap
09-08-2004, 06:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Joeap:

I'm not a spreadsheet type of guy, and I'll leave the chart graphics to other more scientifically talented folks. But, people who _are_ tell me the Targetware planes, by and large, hit the performance numbers they're supposed to. Sure, a few need some tweaking, but most are right there within limits.

However, if you want to see what I mean, try this:

Fly the A6M2 matchup vs. the P-40E in IL-2. Then try it in Targetware. You'll immediately notice some startling differences.

In IL-2, the Zero's only negative trait at speed is a lessening of the roll rate. In Targetware, you'll not only notice it's harder to roll, but it's harder to even keep the nose down without significant amounts of trim. You'll find that the P-40 can, as history books relate, simply dive and roll juuuust enough to keep out of the Zero's sights (often long enough to get help).

You'll also notice in Targetware the startling accuracy of the Zero vs. F4F battle (I guess we'll have to wait until PF comes out before we can do a side-by-side comparison of this). The F4F is meat on the table one on one. But add in numbers on both sides, and a much more confused scrap, and you'll see that the F4Fs, if piloted with teamwork and cunning, can use Thach Weave tactics to get killing or crippling snapshot kills on Zeros.

The engine managment features in Targetware (which, incidently, can also be dumbed down by the server) are more thorough: you have cowl flaps, mixture, blower settings and lean/rich settings to consider when keeping your engine cool, your fuel consumption in check, and your performance at it's peak. (And these actually WORK, and have enough of an effect to alter an engagement: it's not as if somebody suddenly noticed that one side's planes had more pilot workload and then just dumbed down the entire system so that the other side, with their automatic engine management, couldn't enjoy the advantage http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ). You'll even notice a pretty severe hit to maneuverability if you're lugging fuel tanks, which you scarecly notice in IL-2.

Overall, I feel Targetware is simply more accurate in its physics modeling and flight modeling, which for me, is much much more important than eye candy and shimmering water effects that are meaningless to the combat (which is, last I checked, the raison d'etre for a combat flight sim). There actually _is_ noticeable torque and Pfactor, even on takeoff (right now, the effect is actually overdone, since the ground/collision code isn't finished yet; but woe betide anybody stupid enough to do the usual IL-2 "just gun the engine and takeoff" routine).

Just try it, and make up your own mind. I only ask that you give it a thorough trial, not just a "kick the tires", 5 minute trip through the menus, one abortive attempt to fly something, and then say, "Well, IL-2 *looks* better". Explore the flight models, get used to how the system works, check out the matchups and see if you don't agree with me.

[This message was edited by Stiglr on Tue September 07 2004 at 09:14 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well your points about the Zeros traits in TW and FB I can check out...I don't fly the Zero in FB actually. However...can't accept your arguments about Zero vs. F4F match ups. My problem is I am not hooked up to the net yet so have never played online...and in both games it comes down to the fact you can't replicate the Thatch weave with an offline game period (as you have to agree given your comments about AI) I do have to get online soon though. Can I try flying offfline before though??

BSS_Goat
09-08-2004, 06:39 AM
Hey Stiglr, how about some screenshots. Just how bad are the graphics?

http://images.allposters.com/images/dar/yng-17.jpg

http://www.blacksheep214.com/

Patriotism is your conviction
that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it
--George Bernard Shaw

Worf101
09-08-2004, 10:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by El Turo:
You know.. funny you should mention MOH.. I recently bought a copy of Call of Duty and WHOA MAN did that blow me out of the water! Made by the same "group" of guys that did MOH after they split up.. Call of Duty was WAAAAY better than MOH. Not even remotely close in my opinion.

Definately worth a look-see!

Yeah, I've not been flying at all lately because I'm too busy picking up MP40 rounds and wacking away at the Wermacht "up close and personal like". I do love "Call of Duty". It made me take "Return to Castle Wolfenstein" off my machine, and that's saying something.

Da Worfster

Callsign "Turo" in IL2:FB & WWIIOL
______________________
This place
was once
a place
of worship
I thought,
reloading my rifle.

~V.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything!"

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2004, 11:20 AM
Sorry, Joeap: TW is online ONLY.

You can fly YOUR own plane offline, but there's no AI, so there'd be no way to explore Thach Weave tactics.

As for screenies that show "how bad" the graphics are http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ), here are a couple of After Action Reports with screengrabs. Keep in mind they're compressed .jpgs, so they're a bit lossy.

Henderson '43 Strike (http://www.naysayers.com/9jg52/Henderson_Strike.htm)

Buin Defense (http://www.naysayers.com/9jg52/Buin_Defense.htm)

Certainly not state of the art, but good enough to get the job done. It's the FMs and the scenarios that are truly important.

Copperhead310th
09-08-2004, 01:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I always say, http://http://www.targetware.net is better than IL-2 for realism and historical mission play right now, beta, unfinished edges and all.

All IL-2 has on it is graphics and eye candy, which I feel is IL-2's biggest problem: too heavy a reliance on what looks good, and total lack of attention to detail on the FM, DM and other things that really count for a sim.

Wait, two things: Targetware is still a little odd on controllers, although some people report no trouble at all, and others have a devil of a time with gear. *shrug* More stuff to work out in beta...

I've seen a few faces from here over there, and some of them (usually, the ones who give it more than just a 2-second glance, and actually *fly* it, and get used to it) are staying for a bit. Just when it's about to get a lot better with a powerful gameplay overhaul...

[This message was edited by Stiglr on Tue September 07 2004 at 08:07 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well i just gave it a try and am uninstalling it right now. the only thing i can for target wear is it islsightly better than Aces High or Fighter Ace.
the aircraft don't look 1./2 bad but the visuals just suck. i like the Korea and Civ addons. they have some aircraft we'll probly NEVER see in this sim. the flight models all just felt kinda wrong. fireing the weopons system an any aircraft reminds me of star wars.
and the only plane i like of the 5 or 6 i flew
was the Bristol. One of those musty have PTO planes for FB. (wiating for that one)

All in all it just seemd a little to arcadish.
visuals suck. 1/2 the time looking out of the pit i felt like i was flying off the edge of the earth. to blockish and square. THE EARTH IS NOT FLAT! least thats what Columbus said. Maybe some one should tell that to the developers of targetwear.

I give this one 2 .50 Cal shells.

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.310thVFS.com)

"Thought I might get a rocket ride when I was
a child but it was a lie
that I told myself when I needed something good
At 17 had a better dream
Now I'm 33 and it isn't me
But I'd think of something better if I could..."Counting Crows

Doug_Thompson
09-08-2004, 03:40 PM
There isn't a better WWII flight sim than IL-2, and there sure isn't a better one for the money.

I thought about buying the newest version of Combat Fligh Simulator once "Firepower" came out, then realized that even if I found both of them marked down to $30, I'd be paying $60 when "Pacific Fighters" will only cost $40.

From what I've read, the CFS/Firepower combo does a better job with bombers and stall characteristics, and has some more impressive graphics and nice controls. IL-2 does a better job with just about everything else. Throw in the fact that IL-2 is significantly cheaper, and there you go.

I'm not multiplayer, so perhaps CFS/FP is a better deal on that side.

http://www.model-news.com/projekt/335col/baerlog.jpg
Proud Charter Member of the Do-Do Birds Luftwhiners Chorus

LEXX_Luthor
09-08-2004, 04:29 PM
Stiglr those pics show AUSSOM dot sizes. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

It seems the TargetWare programmers did their homework and really tested the dot size issue. That's one small step to a world beating flight sim.

Stiglr, tell your community that with no AI, they can easily introduce massive clouds into TargetWare, because with no AI, there is no need to program AI to be aware of clouds...or sun or other critical aspects of the air combat environment.

Note the apparent picture flaws...they look like TargetWare target dots--it would be nice

http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/historic/nws/images/wea00085.jpg
~ http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/

That is the Pacific air combat environment--with small yet easily seen aircraft dots. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif C'mon Stiglr you can do this.


It may be more reasonable to compare TargetWare with the future BoB than with FB, as TargetWare is not a finished product, although apparently much further along than BoB is now. What is TargetWare like for the creators of online mission and online WARs?



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack ( AEP )

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Supr
09-08-2004, 04:32 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


I dunno which is best. I'm just glad it keeps getting better.


S

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2004, 04:53 PM
Copperhead...c'mon...

You say you like the civilian add-on... the one with the "mars" terrain... I guess you could say those visuals well and truly suck. That mod was only so that those who fly Cessnas for real can see what a modelled Cessna feels like in Targetware (a good comparison). I wouldn't use it for visuals, that's for sure.

As for the earth being curved, you certainly get a sense of that, since the terrain becomes a "haze layer" at its outer extremities and rarely offers you a flat horizon of any kind. Is your vid card calibrated properly for Targetware? Did you even check?

The tracer: the Star Wars effect certainly described earlier versions, but now the tracer have smoke trails not unlike IL-2.

You sure you have v0.63, the latest version?

As for "slightly better than Fighter Ace" comments, it goes to show that you did almost NO flight time whatsoever. Certainly not enough to figure out whether your stick was calibrated and comfy, or tested any of the boundaries of the flight model. Yes, it certainly feels different; that's because it's more accurate, IMHO. But, you, I'm betting you "flew" 5 or 6 planes in offline test, did a circle or a loop in each one, and passed your "judgement" in about half an hour, in true tire-kicker fashion, didn't you?

How about getting set up, coming online, flying against some real opponents in a plane you (think) you know well, and then see what you think.

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2004, 05:02 PM
For Luthor:

Clouds eat a LOT of framerate, whether AI is involved or not. In fact, the clouds we have now in TW can cause some strange buglets and visual anamolies we're still hunting down.

I think the ones we have now do yeoman's duty; for one, we have a multitude of layer TYPES: cirrus, stratus, cumulous, etc. and in the case of inversion layers and things, they really look great. But, like the 2.5-D trees, when you're looking into them at 90 degrees, things can get a little weird.

I wouldn't look for too much effort to be spent on getting extra "puff" in the clouds for the sake of eye candy. If we're gonna tax the CPU or the vid card, I'd put those extra cycles into more complex AI *gunner* code, ensure that you can see tracer coming back from gunners at all times, etc. That's something that affects COMBAT and survivability. I can "hide" in a cloud that's not as pretty and puffy as an IL-2 cloud and still get the same effect and idea.

As for dots, dot size is user configurable, but the server can cap the size. Even still, *some* form of icons are still necessary, to avoid that bit of engagement range where a planeshape can become invisible (yes, TW has that selfsame problem, too). The official TW server is a little too generous with icon range, but some of the events, and some of the players' private servers have already identified some good ranges and settings that offer the best mix of "assumed pilots vision" and the necessity to keep SA up.

LEXX_Luthor
09-08-2004, 07:48 PM
Thanks for the TW description. Best of all Worlds to you.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Clouds eat a LOT of framerate, whether AI is involved or not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
FB cumulus clouds on Detail settings are not even noticed by my ATI 9200 video card--and recall our earlier discussion when I talked about finding a "conf" file setting that lets me run Perfect Mode Detailed clouds rendered all the way to the FB horizon while otherwise using Excellent settings.

I can turn on and off FB clouds and the ATI 9200 video card does not notice. Our very detailed bulky Kuban mountains that run 30fps on my ATI 9200 show that flight sim clouds can also be made far more "bulky" and as large as these mountains and run equally as smooth on a ATI 9200 video card.

Not to mention much more advanced video cards far beyond ATI 9200.

But then the FB mountains are done "properly" in that they look great and run smoothly on primitive grafix cards such as ATI 9200. FB clouds are also done properly as they have no affect on framerates on my ATI 9200, and the clouds could be scaled up by 10 times in diameter (rougly 1000 times larger in volume) with no additional framerate hits provided the overall amount of detail is kept the same.

LOMAC overcast clouds are an example of clouds very poorly done, and a 3rd Party mod had to make them playable. Properly made clouds such as FB clouds do not hurt framerate any more than common ground textures.

You miss my point about AI...okay TargetWare has AI gunners...I forgot...but TargetWare has no AI fighter pilots and with no AI you don't need to program AI to not see through clouds. The clouds only have affect on the humanoid internet pilot (no AI pilots) just like in every flight sim, so there is no reason not to create much larger clouds.

If TargetWare clouds are a problem then you may wish to re~examine the TargetWare clouds and replace them with faster performing clouds such as the ones in FB--and then scale *some* of them up vastly....a mix or Choice of huge or tiny clouds or no clouds at all would be great for extended gameplay and immersion.



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack ( AEP )

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

[This message was edited by LEXX_Luthor on Wed September 08 2004 at 06:56 PM.]

LEXX_Luthor
09-08-2004, 08:01 PM
*bah* time to stop editing and make new post...

I am rather um Frustrated because I have maxed out my FB clouds as much as I can--I can't "turn them up" anymore than I already have, but my ATI 9200 video card is crying for more or larger clouds with more detail.


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack ( AEP )

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

WTE_Galway
09-08-2004, 08:21 PM
FB clouds are pretty good overalll both in appearance and FPS

my only real disappointment is the fairly tame thunderstorms visually .. they could have been spectacular

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2004, 08:35 PM
Another artifact of the IL-2 puffies which is really getting on my nerves is the "sudden appearing" clouds, which block vision from long range, but don't seem to be there until you "get in range" and then *pooomp* there they are.

Clouds are large enough that they should draw before you're within 10km of 'em.

At any rate, I don't really know for sure what hit the clouds make in Targetware, or the exact priority of any visual effect; I can only assume. But, I must say I'm happy with them as they are now. Yeah, they could be better visually, but again, that's not the big emphasis at Targetware.

LEXX_Luthor
09-08-2004, 08:55 PM
Stiglr, recall you can set FB "conf" file to TexFlags.UseClampedSprites=0 and get Detailed FB clouds drawn out to 20km--the map horizon. At least it works for my ATI 9200 while still using Excellent settings. This effectively quadruples (4x) the number of "Detailed" clouds that are drawn to 10km distance...16x the number of "Simple" clouds that are drawn to 5km. Real life aircraft targets can often be seen farther than 5km. Last year when I had Trident Blade/3D integrated motherboard video I could easily use "Detailed" clouds drawn to 10km.

Yeah, Oleg's clouds are the *best* looking and performing clouds in the business as far as I know, but I think Oleg's Team was afraid of clouds and fps when they made original IL~2. Don't forget IL~2 sim and I believe our current IL~2 clouds are 4 years old now. This is ancient stuff, unless newer clouds shipped with FB last year and if so Oleg was ~very~ afraid of fps for no good reason. I just wish I could either triple the number of clouds or have a user input cloud diameter so I can scale them upUpUP in size. My ATI 9200 is bored to tears in Excellent mode but can't run Perfect mode.

The france~simulation website tells about "improved" texture for FP Pacific clouds but we don't need improved textures we need the Option of larger clouds and/or more of them. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack ( AEP )

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

TheGozr
09-09-2004, 01:10 AM
is tit TexFlags.UseClampedSprites=0 set 0 at default..

On mine yes ..

-GOZR
http://www.french.themotorhead.com/forgotten-battles/images/IOCompetition.jpg &lt;--Competition Level IL2fb here (http://www.french.themotorhead.com/forgotten-battles/)

woofiedog
09-09-2004, 01:59 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gifLexx... so you can change the size of the clouds?
I use the Hazy setting alot in my Missions. I just like the way the sky looks and the added difficulty by having the clouds there.
But having the clouds stretched across the skies would be Mint.
So I basicly just follow what you posted earlier?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/WOOFIEDOG.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
09-09-2004, 02:27 AM
ive tried TW:Rabul

its FM feels a lot more realistic than FB

but Targetware isnt going to get off the ground literally

the one thing every game needs TW is lacking in . . . . Players

what the makers of TargetWare needed to do was have a fully finished product in 2000 , not still have it in development in 2004

its graphics on max are only a bit behind IL2:Sturmovik but its FM & the way it feels to fly is ahead of FB let alone Sturmovik

i believe if they got the bloddy thing out the door in 2000 it would have sunk Sturmovik

i wont be un-installing TW anytime soon , but i dont believe it will ever achieve anything except to show history that there was a better way than FB showed during their comparative " Day "

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif