PDA

View Full Version : For all you Nay Sayers out there...



actionhank1786
09-17-2004, 04:18 PM
I just wanted to take a second and remind you what your alternatives were, and give you a reason to be happy with what you get.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v443/Actionhank/screenshot.jpg

then there's

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v443/Actionhank/Kawanishi_N1K-J_2.jpg

I know which one i like more http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v443/Actionhank/New-Tag.jpg

Actionhank
~Aaron White

actionhank1786
09-17-2004, 04:18 PM
I just wanted to take a second and remind you what your alternatives were, and give you a reason to be happy with what you get.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v443/Actionhank/screenshot.jpg

then there's

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v443/Actionhank/Kawanishi_N1K-J_2.jpg

I know which one i like more http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v443/Actionhank/New-Tag.jpg

Actionhank
~Aaron White

Waldo.Pepper
09-17-2004, 04:32 PM
I'm proud to say ... ME TOO!

initjust
09-17-2004, 04:35 PM
No wind drift, air density, or mag deviation problems to solve for navigation, no real world geography, limited maps....very little 'simulation' of some of the most basic aspects of flight...

I guess it all depends on what you're lookin' for.

Jason Bourne
09-17-2004, 05:12 PM
if your saying that there is no air density/ wind drift on IL2, then you need to pull your head out and actually play for awhile, and not just at 1/2 throttle below 500m

...there followed one of those moments in history, the sort when the entire earth seemed to stop its spin, hearts paused, and even the people who'd been screaming their loyalty to a man already dead would remember only silence.

initjust
09-17-2004, 05:52 PM
Nice reply Jason.

Perhaps you could answer a few questions for me.

1. From where would you like me to pull my head?
2. Where are the controls for setting wind parameters, direction/velocity/altitude, in IL2/FB?
3. Where will they be in PF since it will be based on the IL2 engine?
4. Where are the controls for temperature, humidity and icing?
5. If there is no control for the wind how do you know where it is coming from and how strong it is?
6. Without this information how would you propose correcting for wind drift?
7. How could you possibly know how I play IL2/FB?

[This message was edited by initjust on Fri September 17 2004 at 05:03 PM.]

[This message was edited by initjust on Fri September 17 2004 at 05:06 PM.]

heywooood
09-17-2004, 05:54 PM
I'm looking for my copy of PF.



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/sair.jpg
"the real slim shady"

initjust
09-17-2004, 06:01 PM
I will most likely buy PF when it is available as well.

Although, I am concerned that it will be lacking some very critical elements for actually simulating what it was like to be a naval aviator (for any nation) during WWII in the PTO.

heywooood
09-17-2004, 06:02 PM
nobody's perfect

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/sair.jpg
"the real slim shady"

initjust
09-17-2004, 06:05 PM
I agree 100%. There are pros and cons on every aspect of every game.

The question boils down to what you are looking for/expecting out of any game you choose to play.

heywooood
09-17-2004, 06:43 PM
agreed - exactly.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/sair.jpg
"the real slim shady"

VW-IceFire
09-17-2004, 06:59 PM
I'm pretty much sold. If its FB, with some more planes and maps and stuff...I have a great time building missions and I've started to run out of ideas so this will give me a whole ton of new operations to try out.

I also look forward to stuff like the Beaufighter and Spitfire VIII campaigns as well as the Seafire...these planes hardly ever show up in a sim and seeing them doing what they are supposed to is fantastic!

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RAF No 92 Squadron
"Either fight or die"

IV|JG51Flatspin
09-17-2004, 08:08 PM
Are those even supposed to be the same plane? Wing roots are totally different.

Actually, you could play a rivetting game of "spot the difference" between these to planes. How many can you find? I found 6 at a glance.

.- .- .-.- .- .-
IV/JG51_Fl@spin (http://www.jg51.net)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/Flatspin/FSbanner.bmp (http://www.forgottenskies.com/ForgottenWars/default.aspx)

Giganoni
09-17-2004, 08:11 PM
The first picture is a Shiden-kai, redesigned, with low wing. Since we aren't getting that in PF (or at least there are no pictures of it atm) I think actionhawk was doing as best as possible.

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg

chris455
09-17-2004, 08:14 PM
Agreed, no comparison.
That George is gonna look totally *****en coming apart through the K14 gunsight in my P-47N. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/p47n2.jpg

IV|JG51Flatspin
09-17-2004, 08:15 PM
Ahh...I see. I thought that was part of the illustration in itself, ie: same plane, good vs. bad rendering.

.- .- .-.- .- .-
IV/JG51_Fl@spin (http://www.jg51.net)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/Flatspin/FSbanner.bmp (http://www.forgottenskies.com/ForgottenWars/default.aspx)

actionhank1786
09-17-2004, 08:54 PM
i was just showing the fact that, as much as people can nit pick the game. It sure beats the hell out of anything else available. Anyone know if the Shinden...er...sans the Kai is available. The one pictured from PF, anyone know if there is one for CFS2?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v443/Actionhank/New-Tag.jpg

Actionhank
~Aaron White

Hades_Dragon
09-17-2004, 09:26 PM
You have to give it credit for being 4 years old though.

Famous Last Words-
"They can't hit us from this dist"

heywooood
09-17-2004, 10:45 PM
yes - it was good before 1c came along....but now simming is much better.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/sair.jpg
"the real slim shady"

[This message was edited by heywooood on Fri September 17 2004 at 10:04 PM.]

actionhank1786
09-17-2004, 11:50 PM
Yeah i must Admit, after reinstalling CFS2 I'm having a good time with all the mods.
Anyone tried to attack a bomber though? God they mess you up


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v443/Actionhank/New-Tag.jpg

Actionhank
~Aaron White

VF-3Thunderboy
09-18-2004, 01:48 AM
You can set the bomber gunner to a lower level, so its more realistic. YOu can change the skins on the planes all you want.

The 1% flight models and Damage models are and can be made more incredibly realistic. Ive added exploding bombs, etc. Just hitting Zeros is not good enough. You have to hit them in the right places.YOu can add radiators to Ill2 Sturmikoves, which was one of the most vunerable parts of the plane.ETc. CFS 2 is barely touched after 4 years.

It is(was ) very good for online play for flight model accuracy. There are tons of add-ons etc. Open source was only bad for some online play, but not all.PF will have better FM's, so hopefully it can hold a candle to CFS2~!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Im looking forward to flying CFS2 with my new super computer, and hundereds of planes, bombers, etc...

VVS-Manuc
09-18-2004, 02:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by initjust:
Nice reply Jason.

Perhaps you could answer a few questions for me.

1. From where would you like me to pull my head?
2. Where are the controls for setting wind parameters, direction/velocity/altitude, in IL2/FB?
3. Where will they be in PF since it will be based on the IL2 engine?
4. Where are the controls for temperature, humidity and icing?
5. If there is no control for the wind how do you know where it is coming from and how strong it is?
6. Without this information how would you propose correcting for wind drift?
7. How could you possibly know how I play IL2/FB?

[This message was edited by initjust on Fri September 17 2004 at 05:03 PM.]

[This message was edited by initjust on Fri September 17 2004 at 05:06 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Don't be nitpicking http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The people want great graphics and sweetest eye candy, who cares about basics? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif

Daiichidoku
09-18-2004, 02:33 AM
Saburo Sakai wouldnt like either...he thought Kawanishi made cr@p planes...

George was far more interesting as the Rex...especially the prototype contra-prop version...but then I would hate it for being in the sim as an low production/no combat type, hehe

http://groups.msn.com/TaoofDaiichidoku/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=1

VF15_Muto
09-18-2004, 03:32 AM
Oh c'mon now Hank, you can do better than that... those are some ancient graphics settings you're using for CFS2.

Gotta say I'm with Init on this one. Pretty graphics, tracers and explosions do not a simulator make. Visually immersive game, perhaps, but not a simulator. Launch me from the Hornet in a B-25 an hour from Tokyo, give me different wind layers, temperature layers, turbulence, icing to deal with after I bomb Tokyo, let my magnetic declination change by 4 degrees during the flight, and give me the choice between opening the throttle up to make it 6 hours to Chuchow before sundown but possibly running out of fuel or trying to find the airstrip after dark and making a blind landing after a 1200-mile flight. That's simulation...

[This message was edited by VF15_Muto on Sat September 18 2004 at 02:41 AM.]

actionhank1786
09-18-2004, 05:01 AM
haha can i max out the graphics anymore!?
I've got everything turned up all the way.
hmm...
Haha i think i'm going to go gather more shots of CFS2
EVERYONE POST Combat Flight Simulator 2 Screens!


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v443/Actionhank/New-Tag.jpg

Actionhank
~Aaron White

initjust
09-18-2004, 08:10 AM
Hank,

Make a flight in IL2/FB at 8,000m, clear skies, unlimited viz in one of the IL2/FB island maps and take a pic.

Now make a flight in CFS2 at 25,000', clear skies, unlimited viz over any of the thousands of islands in the PTO and take a pic.

Now compare the pics to a picture of the actual island from an atlas or any other map source.

Notice any differences in the detail of the islands? What do you notice about the shape of the island in CFS2?

It matches really pretty closely to a real world map of the same island doesn't it?

How about the island in IL2/FB? What, can't find it? That's OK since it isn't suppose to be a real world island but it gets kinda blurry up there doesn't it?

In some ways the graphics in IL2/FB are much better than they are in CFS2. There is no question about that.

But in some ways IL2/FB cannot touch the look and feel you can get in CFS2.

For instance. Build a mission in CFS2 with multiple cloud layers, some stratus, some culmulous at different alitudes and % coverage. Set the time to near sundown so the sun is low on the horizon. Throw in some stiff winds aloft (as many different layers as you like) so you have to correct for their effect on your airplane as you fly and a surface wind extending up to say 3,000' from a different direction so you have to deal with a cross wind take-off and approach/landing.

Now take off from Gusap and fly to Finschafen and just take a look at how beautiful the sun and the clouds are and how the sun looks on the mountains. Pretty convincing if you ask me with the slight haze on the mountains and clouds above and below you (when you are flying at an altitude between the cloud layers).

Now build a mission with the FMB in IL2/FB and set the same conditions (obviously not in Papua/New Guinea but somewhere else). What do you mean you can't......?

Hank, my point is not to belittle one game in an attempt to justify or to make the other better but to point out that each has it's pros and cons.

IL2/FB does a great job of 'simulating' what happens at the point of contact where actual combat took place. It's got great graphic for that but not so great at other times.

Down low the terrain looks fantastic. At higher alts it doesn't look so crisp or clean, even in perfectly clear viz conditions. In fact, the higher you go in IL2/FB the worse the terrain features get, even as I said, in prefectly clear visibility.

CFS2's graphics are pretty good down low (not as good as IL2/FB) and at high alts the terrain looks fantastic. At 30,000' you can look down and clearly ID an island by comparing it's shape in the game to it's shape on a map in a real world atlas.

You may not be interested in the same things as I am when it comes to what we want/expect from a game claiming to 'simulate' conditions (and provide immersive experiences) of what it was like to be a pilot for any country during WWII.

For me, pretty graphics, exploding AC (and other vehicles) and what happens when one flight finds an enemy flight isn't the only thing I am interested in.

As I said, IL2/FB does a great job of offering a good experience at the point of combat but lacks significantly in the other areas of 'simulating' what it took to get to the point of combat and home safely after the combat was finished.

It is my opinion that CFS2 does a much better job of offering me a chance to simulate the ENTIRE experience of getting to the combat area, engaging in the actual combat (although CFS2 is severely lacking in certain aspects of the combat experience) and back home after the combat is finished and to experience what it was like to be a pilot during WWII particularly in the PTO (however, there is great scenery for Europe available for CFS2 as well).

I'm glad you are so taken with the IL2 series of games and that they meet your expectations for a WWII combat flight 'simulator'. Since IL2/FB offers you all you want from your WWII flight 'simulator' experience you should be content with it.

At the same time I expect a much different experience from the time I spend trying to 'simulate' what it must have been like to be a pilot during WWII. For me IL2/FB does not allow for the level of immersion I am seeking.

It is a shame that the "point of combat" experience to be had in IL2/FB and the "getting to and from the point of combat" experience to be had in CFS2 can not be merged into one "complete" package.

I need to not only have a good POC (Point of Combat) experience but I need to feel like it is happening in a real world, over real terrain (terrain that can be found on a real world map), with real world flight conditions (well, as real as they can possibly be given the PC hardware I have access to) but I also need to have a great, immersive experience getting there.

This, for me, provides for some real immersive experiences.

For me, I have no trouble actually visualizing myself flying over the vast Pacific Ocean searching for my carrier because she is not where I thought she should be based on the navigation calculations I made before taking off from Essex (calculations that were based on the winds, Essex' course and speed during my flight, my actual flight time to and from the target area, air density (temperature/humidity), magnetic deviation in the area I am flying and my route of flight (waypoints/speed)).

Unfortunatley, the result is that Essex is not where I think she should be, OR, I am not where I think I should be which means I either;

1 - Screwed up my nav calcs, or,
2 - Failed to excute my flight plan closely enough.

However, the end result is the same. I am lost over the blue waters of the Pacific Ocean, low on fuel.

I think I know where I am. I think I know where Essex is, but, she is not here!

So, where did I screw up?. I think, "OK the winds at my flight altitude were from 320? at 35kts. I was flying for 2-1/2 hours but that is a bit longer than anticipated due to needing to avoid those enemy fighters and Essex was sailing due east. So, the wind pushed me too far to the southeast".

No problem, I will just fly northeast for a few minutes and then turn due west and fly right up Essex' bow, enter the pattern and have a nice dinner......if not? Well, then it's time to start a box search pattern until;

A - I run out of gas and ditch (and it is possible to ditch in CFS2), or,
B - I find Essex, or,
C - I get jumped by roving enemy fighters.

I can actually feel the tension rising as I watch my fuel gauge tick down and still see only empty water. Or, I have plenty of fuel but the sun is settling steadily lower on the horizon and my anxiety level goes up accordingly at the thought of needing to make a low light/night time trap on Essex' deck (assuming of course I can even find her) or I will need to try and ditch into a dark sea (depth perception goes to hell when it gets dark and it can be damn hard to see the surface of the water!)

This kind of experience may not be what you are looking for out of your flight 'simulator' experience and that is as it should be. We are all different. It is , however, what I expect/demand from mine and there is only one place I can currently find this level of total immersion.

As I said, I will most likely buy PF when it is available to see if it even comes close to offering what I demand. If it does that will be a good thing. if it doesn't I know where to go to fill my wannabe needs and satisfy my PTO addiction.

initjust
09-18-2004, 08:23 AM
Oh yeah, I'm still waiting for responses to my list of questions from the ever so polite Jason...

initjust
09-18-2004, 08:30 AM
"Don't be nitpicking. The people want great graphics and sweetest eye candy, who cares about basics?"

Manuc,

I assume this is a bit of sarcasm you've got going here and you don't really mean you don't care about basics......

actionhank1786
09-18-2004, 05:05 PM
Oh i dont mean to belittle CFS2. I enjoy the game a lot.
What i'm trying to say is, people are complaining entirely too much about the earliest builds of PF, and are cmplaining about X feature missing, or something that shouldnt be in the game at a certain time without any knowledge of how the final product will end up.
I just wanted to remind people, that PF is a giant leap forward from what we've got now, and maybe get people to appreciate a little more, and save the whining for when they have something real to whine about.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v443/Actionhank/New-Tag.jpg

Actionhank
~Aaron White

initjust
09-18-2004, 05:35 PM
Hank,

Thanks for clarifying. I agree completely.

That is why I will be buying PF when available. To check it out. To see what it does and does not offer.

If it offers me a totally immersive experience so much the better! If not, oh well, I've spent money on other things that are just sitting on a shelf collecting dust.....

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2004, 08:24 PM
I'd take the one with the best flight model.

Unfortunately, neither IL-2 or CFS3 have good flight models.

Score some points for CFS if it, in fact, is based on real world geography. IL-2 is, in part, but it's "map in the middle of nowhere" approach is not very satisfying.

That's why I like Target:Rabaul. A real-sized map of the entire Solomons chain. No "joke postage stamp" maps with bases 2 feet apart to serve the attention deficit. Flight models that produce the historical matchups, not a whitewashed (redwashed?) version of it. You don't see planes turning on their center of gravity, or doing the "fulcrum pivot dance" while you hold the stick steady.

And speaking of graphics.... IL-2 is so lionized for its graphics, but I gotta tell ya, for all the purty pitchers and eye candy, it all takes quite a lot away from the combat, which is the most important element of the sim.

You've got entire large clouds that miraculously appear and disappear while you're in the vicinity. Planes that disappear while you look dead at them...and they're getting *closer*. A zoom feature that works bass-ackwards. You have the inability to use an alt advantage to survey below and pick up most planes that are not flying nap of earth. You have to dive in and waste your energy hoping something comes into view. WWII combat wasn't like that at all.

I think IL-2's graphics, *sim* wise, are terrible. Way too finicky with hardware (you basically have to have the "right card" and know enough to be able to manufacture your own just to get passable settings), all sizzle and no steak. Great for making screen shots, horrible for fighting in with anything approaching "realistic" settings.

VF15_Muto
09-19-2004, 02:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by actionhank1786:
Haha i think i'm going to go gather more shots of CFS2
EVERYONE POST Combat Flight Simulator 2 Screens!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Roger that:

http://www.vf15-flyingaces.com/images/MutoKamaerecon1.bmp

VF15_Muto
09-19-2004, 02:55 AM
More?

http://www.vf15-flyingaces.com/images/Ngesebusappr.bmp

http://www.vf15-flyingaces.com/images/Ngesebusappr2.bmp

http://www.vf15-flyingaces.com/images/Ngesebusoverfence.bmp

http://www.vf15-flyingaces.com/images/Ngesebustaxi.bmp

VF15_Muto
09-19-2004, 02:58 AM
Oh well Hank, I guess you're right ... let's put some more CFS2 pics up here to laugh at...

http://www.vf15-flyingaces.com/images/Ngesebusparked.bmp

http://www.vf15-flyingaces.com/images/Ngesebuseve.bmp



http://www.vf15-flyingaces.com/images/Ngesebussunset.bmp

VF15_Muto
09-19-2004, 03:03 AM
Ah, enough of these ridiculous pics of the real tropical island of Ngesebus ... how bout comparing some shots of flight over the important battleground of New Guinea? OOPS, forgot ... Pacific Fighters can't fit New Guinea in it's postage-stamp maps. Well, I guess we'll have to just stick with shots of CFS2 action over New Guinea...:

http://www.vf15-flyingaces.com/images/bettysoverpng.bmp

http://www.vf15-flyingaces.com/images/squadoverpng.bmp

http://www.vf15-flyingaces.com/images/bettykill.bmp

VF15_Muto
09-19-2004, 03:08 AM
Of course, CFS2 does ocean OK as well...

http://www.vf15-flyingaces.com/images/Oscarkill.bmp

http://www.vf15-flyingaces.com/images/carrierlaunch.bmp

http://www.vf15-flyingaces.com/images/Libescort.bmp

http://www.vf15-flyingaces.com/images/GrayF6F.bmp

http://www.vf15-flyingaces.com/images/Mutomount.bmp

VF15_Muto
09-19-2004, 03:15 AM
Just a few final shots to amuse ourselves...

http://www.vf15-flyingaces.com/images/KateVal.bmp

http://www.vf15-flyingaces.com/images/R4DMyola.bmp

http://www.vf15-flyingaces.com/images/SBDMyola.bmp

http://www.vf15-flyingaces.com/images/Zeroshokaku.bmp

http://www.vf15-flyingaces.com/images/zeroovermidway.bmp

http://www.vf15-flyingaces.com/images/zerooverfuji.bmp

http://www.vf15-flyingaces.com/images/pilotviewfuji.bmp

VF15_Muto
09-19-2004, 03:23 AM
Not bad for a simulator going on its fifth year, eh?

S~!
VF15_Muto

initjust
09-19-2004, 08:42 AM
I guess I would have to agree with you Muto.

From Midway to New Guinea to Ngesebus to Mt Fuji with coastline closely matching what you would see in an atlas and you didn't even include any pics of carrier traps.

And the ability, if one was so inclined and wanted to invest the time, to actually make a single flight from Midway to Myola Dry Lake to Ngesebus to Mt Fuji in that beautiful R4D transport with perhaps a refuel stop or two along the way (I'd have to check distances and fuel range to be sure).

And at the same time, if the mood strikes you, needing to deal with, and solve, almost every real world navigation problem....

Yes sir. Not bad for a nearly 5 yr old product with 5 yr old game and graphics engines.

initjust
09-19-2004, 08:46 AM
Oh, and that is some nice nose art on your F6F too!

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2004, 10:23 AM
There's really nothing so bad with these screenies, besides the fact that the Hellcats are a bit too dark a blue...

The detail is plenty to get the job done. Especially when you consider that you don't "see" them as stills, but while tooling around at 300 mph. Frankly, I notice things like the planes' flight models being all screwed up and filled with errors and bias long before I notice that a tree is two shades too light, or that a rivet is missing from a wing.

And, I bet you can actually find other planes against this CFS terrain, something that's quite the overdone challenge in IL-2. They've made it so "beautiful" as to make visual acquisition (which is the single most important element in a fight) much harder than in real life.

Jieitai_Tsunami
09-19-2004, 10:49 AM
What about TR http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif,

http://jieitai11th.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/trzero.jpg.w560h420.jpg

http://jieitai11th.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/spoon-me.jpg.w560h420.jpg

http://newweb.targetware.net/modules/gallery/albums/TR-62-Snapshots/p38al.sized.jpg

http://newweb.targetware.net/modules/gallery/albums/TR-62-Snapshots/f6f3_1.sized.jpg

http://newweb.targetware.net/modules/gallery/albums/album10/039_G.sized.jpg

http://newweb.targetware.net/modules/gallery/albums/album01/084_G.sized.jpg


http://www.jieitai.bravehost.com/http://www.jieitai.bravehost.com/Images/Main%20logo.jpg

[This message was edited by Jieitai_Tsunami on Sun September 19 2004 at 09:59 AM.]

BennyMoore
09-19-2004, 12:15 PM
Hmm! I briefly considered Macrocruft Combat Simulator 2 after ditching IL-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles. However, Target: Rabaul sounds very interesting indeed. Realistic flight models, you say? Are there high angle of attack stalls that aren't automatically and absolutely spins? Realistic torque? Roll inertia? These are things that I have never seen on any aerial combat simulator (except for Lock On: Modern Air Combat, which doesn't have torque and doesn't need it because it's not about propeller planes).

actionhank1786
09-19-2004, 01:04 PM
Target Rabaul has really good plane models in my opinion, and the flight model...i dont it seems weird...maybe i dont know realism or maybe i need to check my settings but it seems odd. Anyways it is pretty fun. But if you're one of those people the craps your pants at Torpedo's you'll hate them in this game...I dropped mine from my Emily and it blew me up...
damn torpedos swore allegience to me too...liars


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v443/Actionhank/New-Tag.jpg

Actionhank
~Aaron White

AtomicRunt
09-19-2004, 01:04 PM
Hey Init!! How goes it? I agree with you 100%, they need to address the maps and weather. I can only imagine that winds will mess up a good deflection shot for alot of guys in PF. I hope the maps in PF are huge, I dont need every single town and runway modeled but the more notable ones. CFS2 is much better as far as maps and weather are concerned.(not to mention the scoring LOL) I hope they put some thought into these issues.

Salute!
AB AtomicRunt
http://www.execulink.com/~jesten/LogoABS.jpg

ElAurens
09-19-2004, 02:16 PM
I thought New Guinea was to be included in PF. And why are you all being so contentious before any of you have even seen PF?

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

Jieitai_Tsunami
09-19-2004, 02:30 PM
Target-rabaul is a great game although it's still in Beta so torpedoes wont work http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. The sea is made of stone so you can take off from there in any aircraft too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

It is still very realistic and the FMs are great. Perfect practice till PF is released http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

Be warned it does take some getting used too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

http://www.jieitai.bravehost.com/http://www.jieitai.bravehost.com/Images/Main%20logo.jpg

BennyMoore
09-19-2004, 03:21 PM
Yeah, I just downloaded it, played it a while, and uninstalled it. My verdict is this.

The flight models are stunning. As far as I can tell, they are the most realistic I have seen for World War Two. The graphics, while not perfect like Lock On's or even good like IL-2, are decent. Going by these two, I would love the game.

However, the view system is truly wretched. The interface is also bad. But the one thing that makes this game unplayable for me is the fact that it is constanly forgetting my keys and joystick mapping, even the axes. I can't play it when everything's all wrong!

It's just as well, because I can't afford to pay per month when it stops being beta.

initjust
09-19-2004, 04:35 PM
Hi AR!

I got the last couple of emails you sent but since I'm a slug I haven't answered you yet. BTW - that clip of the 747 crosswind is absolutley great!

Is the Spiceman still around? I haven't heard a word from him for a very long time. I tired to contact him when I was in Houston several weeks ago but no joy.

I am looking forward to trying PF and will buy it but it has some pretty big shoes to fill in a lot of areas that IL2 doesn't currently fill but, who knows, maybe PF will do a better job of it.

Jieitai_Tsunami
09-19-2004, 05:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Be warned it does take some getting used to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The view is the same as IL2... and I think you can use TrackIR with it too because it has mouse view. Well I hate people with no patience. Any way.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

P.S about CFS2. That game is more than 3 years old now isn't it? I hope PF is not just a patch and suppasses its predecesor http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

http://www.jieitai.bravehost.com/http://www.jieitai.bravehost.com/Images/Main%20logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2004, 06:21 PM
Benny, elaborate: what's wrong with the view system in Targetware??

It has snap views, pan views, mouseview and padlock.

What else do you require?

Can you say "user error"? I'll bet you will if you find out what it is you're doing wrong.

And what is your issue with the interface? I bet it's nothing a good read of the online documentation wouldn't fix. Setting up key commands is EASY. And what other sim lets you make changes to your key commands or stick setup *while* you fly, so you can see if it's having the intended effect?? None. But, I bet you didn't know you could do that, since you didn't read the documentation.

BennyMoore
09-19-2004, 06:55 PM
Yes, I know that you can. And it's a good feature, although it does make one an easy target while doing it. However, as I said, the game kept forgetting my inputs and resetting them to the defaults, which was the deciding factor. The other things I could live with.

As for the views, well, here I go. First, you cannot zoom in on the plane externally without having the view zoomed in when you return to cockpit view. This is hugely annoying, because when I look at my plane, I want to see the thing from within a few miles please. And I don't feel like eyeballing my altimeter when I return to the cockpit.

I did not read the documentation, true, because none was included. I opened up the documentation and it gave me a link that didn't work or something. So I was unable to find this mysterious, non-obvious padlock feature. There sure wasn't a key to set to padlock. And then there is no flyby view. What kind of flight game doesn't have one? In addition, as far as the pan views went, you couldn't do it by increments like in IL-2. You know how you can make it so that if you hit up hat once, your head moves up, hit it again, your head moves further up, hit it left, your head turns left?

Oh, and as for the key configuration system itself, there are two huge problems. First of all, the mouse speed in the menu is very different from the default windows and the one in nearly all of my games. So I can't simply snap my hand onto a button and click. That's ordinarily not a problem. However, in the key configuration for Targetware, I click a key function, set a new key, and go to click "okay." If I miss the button by a millimeter (which happens often because of the stated mouse speed difference), instead of having no effect like any other game, your mouseclick "goes through" the dialog box and hits a key function that you cannot see, and so your key is mapped to a function other than the key you originally selected. When you remap just about every key like I do, this happens fairly often. The only game that's ever taken me longer to set up the keys for was the Lock On demo, with it's automatic scrolling to the top of the list whenever you bind a key. Which reminds me, while I did not have that problem with the key bindings in Targetware, it did do that to me with the joystick buttons. Every time I mapped a function to a joystick button, the list snapped up to the top, and I'd have to go scrolling through the list again. In addition, whenever you remapped a joystick button, you had to hit "clear" first or it would add your function to the button without removing the old.

It took me approximately eight times the time to set up Targetware as it did to write this post. And I still don't have external padlock, flyby, or even internal padlock (though I hear you about having internal padlock).

Oh, and it was also annoying being unable to fly any of the planes in the game. It was also annoying to not have anything to shoot at. I flew online because you can't fight offline, and what did I get? One person! And he left after shooting me down while I was in the options menu.

It's a shame, too, with such a realistic flight model and, I think, damage model. I was delighted when I lifted my tail on takeoff and got a huge burst of torque. It's exactly how I've always read that a taildragger with a huge engine should be. The only game with torque anywhere near like this was Red Baron 3D, and even that wasn't as good, I think. IL-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles is very close to real life flying, if you're talking about Cessnas. Warbirds shouldn't be like that. Target: Rabaul, I think, got it right, or at least much more right than IL-2. It was also very nice being able to see out of the cockpit like in real life. I could almost get used to cockpit only in that game. In fact, I could do it, if I could reach my mouse with my left hand.

Why couldn't Oleg have come up with something like this? I'll tell you. It's because he's not really interested in realism.

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2004, 07:48 PM
The documentation has been online and available for MONTHS. visit www.targetware.net (http://www.targetware.net) and find the Documentation button. Again, user error.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>First, you cannot zoom in on the plane externally without having the view zoomed in when you return to cockpit view.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stop using external view, is all I can tell ya. The only reason it's in there is for beta purposes, when you need to see an external view to check problems in the 3D modeling, off-alignment bombs and tanks, etc. With the possible exception of bombers, it's not meant to really be used in a combat situation.

Also, how hard is it to click in or out a few levels of zoom after you change views??? And did you know the number of zoom levels and the FOV for each level are fully configurable?

As for the sim "forgetting your input changes", that I don't know about. I've never had it forget mine, and I've been involved with the sim back when you had to edit a text file to make such changes. Also, this mousespeed problem you have is also news to me. My mousespeed doesn't change for different functions. Dunno what's up with that.

Overall, I'd suggest you get familiar with how the sim works and read the doc before you come in here and start dinging the sim for things you don't even know about because you didn't RTFM. Believe me, there are enough things in Targetware that truly don't work yet, or are still being perfected; that's par for the course with beta, albeit a bit frustrating at times. But hearing people add to the list with stuff that works perfectly fine, provided you take the time to use the documentation, and take time to figure out how things work (different in each sim, mind you). You can't get upset because Targetware doesn't work just like IL-2. That's because it's NOT IL-2.

BennyMoore
09-19-2004, 07:58 PM
I will not handicap myself by restricting myself to necessarily unrealistically limited, unrealistically difficult, and just plain unrealistic internal views. There's no way of making internal views in any simulator realistic, barring multiple thousand dollar virtual reality goggles (which still won't make it as easy as it is in real life, what with perepherial and depth perception and other things that we take for granted), so I'm not going to bang my head learning how to move my head, a basic motor skill which all humans but the truly ******ed have acquired.

Therefore, I switched between external padlock and cockpit views sometimes several times a second in IL-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles and Red Baron 3D when I still played them, and I still switch between external padlock and cockpit views several times a second to simulate the perepherial and overall superior situational awareness of a real human pilot over a simulated one. I can't do without it in the limits imposed upon me by the game. And even if I were willing to learn how to move my head, I do not have money to throw away on TrackIR.

Anyway, I read the documentation at the official site, and am once more impressed by the detail put into the flight model and damage model. I'm almost convinced to give it another go. If only it weren't destined to be a pay per month robbery...

initjust
09-19-2004, 08:07 PM
"And what other sim lets you make changes to your key commands or stick setup *while* you fly, so you can see if it's having the intended effect?? None."

Well, I'mnot sure this statement is completely accurate.

CFS2 allows key command assignment changes while in the game.

I have not tested every control function but I sure can remap my flap controls while I'm in the game.......

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2004, 09:09 PM
Benny wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I will not handicap myself by restricting myself to necessarily unrealistically limited, unrealistically difficult, and just plain unrealistic internal views. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Another thing you might notice if you spent more than just 10 minutes with Targetware:

Some of the planes have semi translucent canopy braces that do a GREAT JOB of giving the feeling of binocular vision.

If you insist on using external view for your situational awareness, you'll never be more than an arcade pilot. No matter WHAT the restrictions of the cockpit, and the restrictions of the view and graphics system, it's far, FAR more realistic than "floating in space around your plane with a 360 degree view", pretending solely for CONVENIENCE, that the canopy, the fuselage and the wings of the plane don't exist and don't block the view. The ONLY case that can be made for an external view, IMO, is for multicrewed bombers, who do have lots of eyes scanning the sky.

If you're having trouble seeing, it's because you haven't developed good situational awareness. It's not an easy thing to learn. It took me years to learn it; that and a few other lessons that just won't get into one's thick head until one dies like a mutt over and over and over for the same reason.

VF15_Muto
09-19-2004, 11:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
I thought New Guinea was to be included in PF. And why are you all being so contentious before _any_ of you have even seen PF?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wasn't being contentious. Hank initiated this thread with a comparison of screenshots utilizing a graphically ancient CFS2 screenie ... he probably took that shot in 2001 with stock scenery at medium graphics settings (or worse). The beauty of CFS2 (in addition to the fact that it actually simulates the globe, humidity/air density relationships, winds aloft, magnetic declination, etc) is that it keeps getting better with the add-ons, mesh scenery, clouds, sun, Pactex, coral textures, planes, ships, trees, ground objects etc etc.

I have no doubt that PF will have mind-blowing graphics.

But CFS2 keeps getting better, and is certainly now graphically immersive enough to be the simulator of choice for me, because it does the best job of any flight sim in simulating the real piloting conditions WW2 aviators faced, and gives you an entire globe and open architecture to create whatever circumstances, conditions and machinery you desire to face those piloting conditions.

Nothing contentious in that.

S~!
VF15_Muto

Korolov
09-20-2004, 12:13 AM
The George in the CFS2 screen looks OK, about in line with the time it came out, and even though the ground looks a bit muddy, its not game killing. The Hellcat screenies though... bleh.

TR, as far as I'm concerned, looks graphically ok. The models are very nice but the textures could use more flair. I'll start taking TR seriously as soon as crash landings are at least reasonably done. The cockpits also look a bit too muddy, especially if you're going to be staring at them for hours at a time. Plus, theres always the Pay to Play element, and that's just not ideal for me. I must admit though, it's nice flying a P-38 that has a advantage on both engines over the extreme torque singles! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I think PF will be a good addition to FB/AEP, but to expect anything more than some extra eyecandy, more planes and some new maps is foolhardy. Looking forward to taking A-20s up on the East front or F4Us up against Yaks in Korean war mockups!

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

BennyMoore
09-20-2004, 12:38 AM
Stiglr, it's all about having to snap my virtual head distractingly about like I'm having a seizure. I can't track something that way. In addition, my joystick has a hat that is very inconveniently placed. My mouse? I cannot reach it with my left hand, and taking my right hand off of the stick in the middle of a fight is out of the question. Anyway, the point is that I should not have to think about moving my head. That alone more than makes up for the unrealism of being able to see your plane from the outside. Anyway, the plane blocks almost enough of your view to represent that which you wouldn't see because it is below you. But I'm not trying to say that it's realistic, it's just the lesser of two unrealisms. Well, that's not true either, but what is true is that it's closer to the real life difficulty of keeping track of things than is the travesty of the legally blind pilot with seizures that the cockpit view is.

You seem to be under the impression that I use externals to scan the sky. No, I use external padlock to keep track of targets. The scan the skies bit is sadly quite impossible to do realistically, so I do without.

However, I am giving Target: Raboal another try.

WUAF_Badsight
09-20-2004, 12:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
I will _not_ handicap myself by restricting myself to necessarily unrealistically limited, unrealistically difficult, and just plain unrealistic internal views. . .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

no computer game has realistic views

we play on a flat screen

having a cockpit in front of you sure as hell is more "realistic" (your term , not mine) than external or no-cockpit options . . . .

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
want some Flight sim advice ? look here ~~~~&gt; complete user guide for flight sims (http://www.airwarfare.com/tech/tech_lbguide.htm#001%20Security%20Issues)

actionhank1786
09-20-2004, 01:21 AM
haha Muto, about that CFS2 Screenshot. It was taken the day of the post, and all i've got downloaded for the game, is planes. I'll look into scenery now that you mention it. And you bring up a good point with all the features dealing with Scenery that CFS2 has. But when it comes down to it, what do you need with the whole damn world modelled in CFS2. when all you need is the area the fighting, flight, and landing/take off will occur in. I mean i dont know many people that spend 6 hours doing a "full real" flight. Hell i dont personally know anyone. And if only a hand full of people are going to take into appreciation the work that went into modelling the entired land mass of Japan what does it matter? Il-2 does just fine with Maps of Areas that are important. It doesnt need the whole continent of Europe modelled because that's useless. No one really needs maps that big. Have you really ever been personally hampered in game by the il-2 Maps? And what's to say PF wont have maps that are way bigger?
I didnt mean to slam CFS2, but that's how i think you've taken this post. What i ment to get across is that people need to appreciate what they get, and stop nit-picking the damn beta of the game, and cool themselves, until PF is realeased.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v443/Actionhank/New-Tag.jpg

Actionhank
~Aaron White

BennyMoore
09-20-2004, 02:51 AM
I'm hooked on Targetware. You have my thanks for bringing this to my attention, Stiglr.

The one thing that bothers me, aside from views (the interface problem was fixed in a patch this very evening, or at perhaps I just downloaded it this evening), is that there still are no high angle of attack stalls without spins, even on the P-38, so you can't "pull it really hard into a buffet" like Bong and McGuire did. Lock On is still the only game I've seen that models those stalls.

And the spins are too easy to recover from, but that's not a huge problem because I have to do something really dumb to get into them (no more Oleg's Banana Peel Spin).

ElAurens
09-20-2004, 04:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by actionhank1786:
What i ment to get across is that people need to appreciate what they get, and stop nit-picking the damn beta of the game, and cool themselves, until PF is realeased.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Hank, my thoughts exactly. Patience is a virtue in short supply here.

The details of the final release are hardly final at this point. Suggestions are always good, but the out and out bashing that seems to be going on by members of the CFS Fanboi community are beyond the pale. You guys work for Micro$oft by any chance?

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

SKULLS_CoyMS
09-20-2004, 05:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Have you really ever been personally hampered in game by the il-2 Map <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

can tell you dont do much mission building.Map size has always been one of IL2s big drawbacks

http://home.centurytel.net/pooka/skulls_sig-Coy.gif (http://la-famiglia.se/skulls/forum/)

Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I could stand.

Tater-SW-
09-20-2004, 07:45 AM
Stiglr,

Since I finally have broadband again, I DLed TR (I had access to it for ages, but the auto DLer made it tough with no broadband).

I've flown around a little, it's looking quite nice. Any idea what the timeframe is to be out of beta? I think I've been messing with it for 3 years (more "off" than "on," sadly), I fear it'll be obsolete by the time it's finished, lol. OTOH, I tried WB for the first time in 3 years, and it hasn't changed at all, same ole crappy gameplay.

tater

AtomicRunt
09-20-2004, 09:11 AM
ElAurens..I see nothing but comparisons here based on what is already known. I have been an IL-2 Junkie since its inception and haven't gone back to CFS2. All the points brought up here are valid ones. I dont believe they will change the way maps are done now and I dont believe weather will change much either as it seems PF will be an "add-on" for AEP. Dont get me wrong here I cant wait for PF I miss the Pacific. But I hope they address these issues amongst other things such as scoring and re-arming/repair.
How many WW2 pilots would land and say "YEAH 100 POINTS now wheres that darn ReFly button?" And from what I see on-line anymore alot of pilots wont even bother trying to get back to their original base or an alternate, they will ditch and claim the points then simply hit re-fly. I'll put money on the fact that this will not change in PF. They should give you one point for one plane shot down and 1 point for a shared kill plus maybe one point for any ground targets destroyed. Instead of seeing say "270 points" see something like 3/2/4 meaning 3 planes shot down,2 shared,4 ground targets destroyed. and the only way to colect these points is to get your plane back to homeplate. At which point you can re-arm and repair after waiting Xnumber of seconds or taxing to a certain area on the runway/carrier. Before anyone flames me about that not being realistic and that it would take hrs to re-arm repair an aircraft please explain how hitting re-fly is realistic. Dont say it "simulates" getting a new plane, we all know that Corsairs and Hellcats were not in over-abundance on the small island chains in the pacific or aboard Carriers. Or how about the guys that constantly ditch then hit re-fly, not realistic again, they would need to be rescued? Realisticly that would take hrs if not days. These points have been nit-picked since the begining and not one has been addressed and I dont see anything changing all that drasticly in PF. If I'm wrong I'm sure there would have been word on it already but all i have seen to date is more planes, nothing wrong with that mind you the more the merrier but I hope they fix these other issues in the process only to add to the realism of flying during that time.
I'll buy PF and enjoy it for what it has to offer regardless but I'm tired of the purest's *****ing about flightmodels and not giving any other aspects of the IL-2 series a second thought such as weather scoring and navigation.

Salute!
AtomicRunt
http://www.execulink.com/~jesten/LogoABS.jpg

initjust
09-20-2004, 09:26 AM
Hank, I agree that there is too much of "nit picking" on a product that isn't even available yet.

As for map size, that is your opinion. Mine is different. Current IL2 on-line maps are only 50km x 50km.

That's less than 30nm horizontally and vertically and less than 41nm on the diagonal.

At 180kts (about 317kph) that is only 10 mins flight time horizontally and vertically until you are off the map and less than 14 mins if you fly the diagonal from corner to corner.

The small maps in IL2 are not conducive to, nor do they allow for, the level of immersion we (VF15) are looking for.

If they work for you so much the better but for us they just don't get it done and for you to suggest that we should be satisfied with what satisfies you is narrow minded at best and down right arrogant at worst.

IF, and I know this is unknown at this time, but IF the maps in PF are the same size it will mean that enemy fleets, single ships, land bases and any other objects will NEVER BE MORE THAN 41nm apart!

There was never a case, that I know of, in all of WWII in the PTO where enemy carrier groups were that close.

I do not believe this is "nit picking". I do believe that it is raising valid concerns regarding the suitability of PF, or any other game for that matter, as a viable WWII PTO 'simulator'. Not game mind you but 'simulator'.

Small maps are great for limiting the time needed to get to the enemy. But they do nothing for those of us who want to immerse ourselves in the total package from take off to recovery including the need to fly and navigate for more than 41nm.

Hank, you may not know anyone who delves into the world of WWII aircombat simulation to the level we do. And, unless you are interested in such an experience, there is no reason you would.

At the end of the day you may be correct that there are not enough of us that demand this level of immersion to make a difference to UBI or Oleg Maddox and that is OK too.

UBI and Maddox are only in this to make money. No other reason. They will do whatever results in the biggest paycheck for them and that is as it should be.

Your statement that "no one really needs maps that big" is only representative of your expectations, of what you want from the flight games you participate in, and is 100% incorrect with respect to me being included in the "no one" part of your comment. It is also not indicative of my expectations nor those of the guys I fly with.

We absolutely need "...maps that big". Period.

You say we only need "...the area the fighting, flight, and landing/take off will occur in." this is 100% correct.

Now, what if the "flight" we are making is a 500nm flight? 1200nm flight? The map damn well better include everything between our launch point and target area. And, in your own words, typed by your own finger tips, you agree.

You may not be interested in flights that long but we are.

If PF will not provide what we demand the decision is clear cut and already made.

I don't expect, or want, you or anyone else to lose any sleep over whether or not PF will meet our needs. I won't even lose any sleep over it since I am not a member of the Oleg/IL2 fan club although I bought both IL2 and FB when they were introduced.

I look forward to trying PF to see what it really winds up offering and am willing to pay for it and try it out, even if it results in throwing away whatever amount I pay for it.

If it adds to (and there certainly are areas that desperately need to be added to) what I already consider to be the benchmark as a total WWII aircombat "SIMULATOR" then I will be very content.

However, if it takes away from areas that I consider to be absolute, hard line requirements for a game to be classified as a WWII "simulator" I will leave it in its box on my shelf to collect dust with all the rest of the "also rans".

Perhpas Korlov's comment sums it all up nicely:

"I think PF will be a good addition to FB/AEP, but to expect anything more than some extra eyecandy, more planes and some new maps is foolhardy."

And one final comment.

If you say you really were not interested in trying to slam CFS2 who am I to say otherwise?

Only you know what your real motives/intentions for starting this thread were.

I'll accept your, "I didnt mean to slam CFS2, but that's how i think you've taken this post" statement as representative of what your intentions really were.

Also, I will admit that when I read your opening post I was of the opinion that you were, indeed, trying to slam CFS2. I apologize for reaching an incorrect conclusion.

[This message was edited by initjust on Mon September 20 2004 at 08:47 AM.]

initjust
09-20-2004, 09:40 AM
"Suggestions are always good, but the out and out bashing that seems to be going on by members of the CFS Fanboi community are beyond the pale. You guys work for Micro$oft by any chance?"

EL,

Perhaps we have a different definition of what constitutes "bashing" and what consitutes comparision.

So, in an effort to better understand your point of view, perhaps you would be so kind as to point me to the posts you consider to be "bashing" by the "CFS2 fanbois"?

Work for MS? Nope. But when it comes to being able to provide me with the immersive experiences I demand from a game purporting to be a "WWII air combat 'simulator'" CFS2 is the benchmark in my opinion. No other game that I have ever tried provides the level of immersion in the aspects of WWII flight simulation that I consider to be paramount.

initjust
09-20-2004, 09:55 AM
El,

Reference Atomic's post.

He is (and he's probably gonna be upset at me for this but what the hell...), while not exactly a charter member and cheerleader of the Oleg/IL2 fan club he is, in fact, the one who convinced me to buy IL2/FB.

As AR said he is an IL2 junkie yet he is open minded enough to see comparisions instead of bashing.

Where do you see bashing?

AtomicRunt
09-20-2004, 10:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by initjust:
El,

Reference Atomic's post.

He is (and he's probably gonna be upset at me for this but what the hell...), while not exactly a charter member and cheerleader of the Oleg/IL2 fan club he is, in fact, the one who convinced me to buy IL2/FB.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's a steak on the BBQ and cold beer in the fridge Init LOL

Salute!
AtomicRunt
http://www.execulink.com/~jesten/LogoABS.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2004, 10:46 AM
Benny:
Glad to hear you're "hooked", and appear to have worked your problems out. Every sim has some "shakedown cruise" time, where you're going to flounder around and be uncomfortable, and be a noob. You just have to stick with it. (As an example, I *still* can't get a Yak 9 off the ground in Target:Korea, and it's pissing me OFF!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif )

I agree with you about the stalls, they're not quite right yet (a bit too forgiving for my tastes), but I know some of the bombers can get into some really nasty ones. But, no, you certainly don't get any canned, pre-programmed Oleg Banana Peel Snapstalls on planes that didn't have them, thank God.

Tater, the beta period has been going on for a long time, but because Targetware is not being "distributed", they are under no pressure to "deliver by X date". Their attitude is "we'll go gold when it's ready to go gold".

In the meantime, play is free, and it continues to grow and progress, so, hey, enjoy it. But eventually, they're gonna have to begin taking in some income relatively soon. I'd be surprised if it was beta for much longer.

SKULLS_CoyMS
09-20-2004, 10:49 AM
Tried to find the pic,but there was one posted,I think on the check 6 site,but any way it showed a screen shot of mission builder in PF.The shot was of midway,and a atol west of midway.....and after checking a atlas...the atol was about 100 mi west....and judging by that.....it appeared that the map in mission builder was 400 mi by 400 mi....which would give the diagonal of a little over 565 mi.
So from that Iam hoping that we will have the ability to make co-ops that will give you 2hrs in the air,and enough time between take off and landing to make finding your ship a real challenge

http://home.centurytel.net/pooka/skulls_sig-Coy.gif (http://la-famiglia.se/skulls/forum/)

Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I could stand.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2004, 10:53 AM
ActionHank, you're totally missing an important point;

Why should we be restricted by Oleg's map boundaries?

Here's a case in point: I wanted to author a Helmut Lipfert campaign, based on some missions in his book, "The War Diary of Hauptmann Helmut Lipfert". I chose a period that had some nice Straits of Kerch action in it.

What ended up happening is, because the Straits of Kerch is the dividing line between two IL-2 maps (Krimea and Kuban), I couldn't draw up scenarios where you'd take off from Krimea and fight well into Kuban.

And the horrible, no visibility Finland maps: don't even get me started. They ignore most of the real fighting, to the Northeast of where the maps end. There's no Murmansk railroad action, either.

There is something to be said for having 1:1 sized maps of whereever you want.
===========================
And, by way of comparison, Targetware (http://www.targetware.net) has a neat solution to solve this problem: they have 1:1 maps with no horizontal compression, and they give scenario authors total flexibility to have ground or air starts. So, if you're, say, designing Guadalcanal missions, you can airstart the Japanese, who have had to fly over 300 miles from Rabaul, and make the Cactus boys take off from Henderson. Or, you can compress CV action, by airstartinig forces far enough apart where they can change alt, heading or attack profiles, without requiring 2 hour flights to combat. Of course, if you really WANT those long flights, you can have them, too.

Then, when action is over, you need only reach a disengage area, and have remaining fuel enough to get you home. Or, if your side has no disengage arc, you have to fly back and land.

Works really well.

initjust
09-20-2004, 11:28 AM
AR,

I haven't been up your way for quite a while.

I keep trying to get them to give me a job in Detroit but I guess they aren't listening.

I was in Toronto earlier in the year but it was only a three day trip and not over a weekend so there was no way I could make the trip to eat your steak or drink your beer!

I'll keep pushing for a job in Detroit and who knows but some day they will relent and give me one. However, with my luck it will probably be in February and then it'll be too damn cold to BBQ! Of course you could stand out in the cold running the grill and I'll stay inside where its nice and warm.

Tater-SW-
09-20-2004, 11:44 AM
Stiglr, what US time period is best for TR these days? I'll function mostly as a target drone for a while, but I'd like to try again.

tater

initjust
09-20-2004, 12:09 PM
CoyMS,

The atoll west of Midway is Kure Atoll but I think it is only about 60 statute miles from Midway.

I haven't seen the PF map you reference but if it is indeed 400 miles square and centered on Midway that is definitely much better than the current 50km square on-line maps of IL2/FB and would be adequate to allow for some good scenarios based in the Midway area.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2004, 12:55 PM
Tater, Saturdays in the morning are shaping up to have some good, organized action with Zabatt's Pacific Rim Flights.

Other than that, it's really catch as catch can. because it's beta, numbers are always spiky; lots at one time, none at others. And at some times, eeryone will be in :Korea or in Richthofen's Skies.

I use this Gamer Server Status (http://jrti.targetware.net/~joe/spelunk.php) bookmark to scope it out.

vonSchnitter
09-20-2004, 02:22 PM
Well, well ...

there are very few occasions where I admit to be in agreement with Stiglr. Hey Stig, Snip calling. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Anyway. Oleg and gang are "milking" an aging game engine - that is what PF is about - at least this is what AEP was about.

Maps: The "on-line" maps are geared at "instant action". Quick shoot-me/them-ups. The issue of most hosts being to mentaly inert to use the other maps (esp. on dedicated servers) is not the fault of the game engine.
On the other hand: DF servers are for fun - and most patrons of these things do not care to fly for 30 minutes without "action" to be shot up in a trice and start from srcatch ....

Historical missions - or scenarios: Yes, the maps are inadequate. The most rediculous is the "channel" map. An island in mid-channel off the normandy coast, to help picture the events in 1944. Oh boy.
Even the - rather large - crimea map will not cater for 1942 events - "Trappen Jagd" to represent the siege of Sevjastopol and so on ...

Base line: The current IL-2 engine has issues with map sizes - for whatever reason.

And now we get the "Pacific". Just trying to imagine a Rabaul to Port Moresby or Lunga raid.

Probably a squad of "Wirraways" to Lae is more to the mark of PF ? Like Carrier ops without LSO ?
Not to speak of a missing model of the good old "atmosphere".

Geee ..

Cheers
vonSchnitter

SKULLS_CoyMS
09-20-2004, 03:17 PM
...found the link...the map on the left shows midway...the atol one square west.....I checked and they is about 100 mi seperating them....and that would make it about 500 by 400 mi,And if you click on the map,and expand it...you can see the flight time to travel about 2 squars is 38 min...or roughly 1 hour 40 min to fly horizontaly across the map...assuming that the speed shown is the default 300 crusing speed....I realize that all this is based on assumptions.But thats all we have to go on at this time.http://www.france-simulation.com/fichiers/il2/preview_PF01_US.htm

http://home.centurytel.net/pooka/skulls_sig-Coy.gif (http://la-famiglia.se/skulls/forum/)

Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I could stand.

[This message was edited by SKULLS_CoyMs on Mon September 20 2004 at 02:27 PM.]

initjust
09-20-2004, 03:37 PM
Thanks CoyMS!

Not sure where UBI/Oleg came up with 100 miles between Midway and Kure Atoll unless they just made it that distance because that is not real world geography.

Ah, maybe the PF map is in km and not miles! 60 statute miles is about 96km.

That would explain the difference since Kure Atoll is, in the real world, less than 60nm from Midway.

SKULLS_CoyMS
09-20-2004, 03:45 PM
I stand corrected on the distance between Kure atoll and midway..that would make the map about 240 by 300

mia culpa

http://home.centurytel.net/pooka/skulls_sig-Coy.gif (http://la-famiglia.se/skulls/forum/)

Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I could stand.

initjust
09-20-2004, 04:07 PM
Still 240x300 is much better than 50x50......

ElAurens
09-20-2004, 04:21 PM
Gents, If I have misread the tone of your posts then I stand corrected. So very hard to determine inflection, and emotion in this strange electronic media we habitate.

I too would like to see large maps, because I enjoy a good coop as much as a well run DF server.
I don't spend much time in single player however, the challenge of flying agianst unpredictable humans is far better than the oh so predictable AI.

I think we are going to be pleasntly suprised by PF. It may not have everything that each and every one of us wants, but, I firmly believe that it will be more than just an "addon" to FB, both in look and feel.

Hope to see you in the skys above the beautiful blue Pacific this November.

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

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

SKULLS_CoyMS
09-20-2004, 04:34 PM
Be assured,I can't wait for PF. The larger maps will be great,give me more flexibility in mission building, The graphics promise to be much improved with shaders 3.0...if you have a card to support them. And doing traps on the Essex,just the thought gives me shudders. I will be standing in line waiting for the release

http://home.centurytel.net/pooka/skulls_sig-Coy.gif (http://la-famiglia.se/skulls/forum/)

Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I could stand.

BennyMoore
09-21-2004, 12:24 AM
I don't think I am going to buy Pacific Fighters. I've had quite enough of Olegarchy, and unless the playable demonstration (assuming that there is one) shows that there are massive changes to the basic flight model (something that is very unlikely), then I am going to have to stick with Target: Rabaul.

By the way, here's my take on the map sizes. I personally do not like long flights without action. This has nothing to do with my attention span. However, in real life, every second of "actionless" flight is completely different. At best it is bliss, at worse it is exhausting, but it is never "boring." Simulators just cannot get that across, so flying across long distances in simulators is boring, quite unlike real life.

While I do not fully understand your desire to inflict this upon yourselves (although, being an Operation Flashpoint player, I do understand it in part), I respect it fully and realise that it takes more patience, if not as much endurability, to fly long distances in a simulator than it does in real life.

Stiglr, do you think that perhaps the torque is slightly overdone in Target: Rabaul? I don't really hold that opinion, no, but I do wonder every now and then. The torque in Target: Rabaul is similar to the torque in Red Baron, and it's the sort of torque that I would expect from Great War radials. If it really was that difficult in World War Two, then hats off to the guys who overcame it as well as to those who did not. What do you think?

VF15_Muto
09-21-2004, 01:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
However, in real life, every second of "actionless" flight is completely different. At best it is bliss, at worse it is exhausting, but it is never "boring." Simulators just cannot get that across, so flying across long distances in simulators is boring, quite unlike real life.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ha ha, you might wanna ask the P-38 pilots who flew our squad Yamamoto scenarios the last two weeks if they were bored! They had to fly in formation close to full throttle for two hours at 50-100 feet above the ocean to intercept 2 Bettys and 4 Zero escorts. In fact, I believe the flight leader's exact quote was: "That was exhausting ... my hand and back have never hurt like this after 2 hours of flight simming!"

Needless to say, they did not execute their mission as well as the real guys did ... the first week they were about 3-4 minutes late because they were off on their navigation for their last leg. And last week they came in too far north on Bougainville, mistook Kieta for Kahili, and allowed the Bettys (who were 14 minutes late due to navigation and refueling issues on their part) to sneak in behind them and land at Kahili undetected.

Believe me, 2 hours of actionless flight can be very interesting and exhausting. Try holding level flight while recalculating your return leg to your carrier on your plot board because your wingman suffered damage and can't hold the airspeed you planned for the return ... a damaged bird means you can't climb to your planned altitude, which in turn means you must recalculate your groundspeed and true airspeed for the IAS you are flying given the temperature, relative humidity and thus pressure altitude, not to mention the extra half hour means you will be affected more by the wind than you initially planned for your return leg so you must adjust for that, plus your carrier will be 30 minutes further along on it's planned course, i.e. it will be in a different location. Oh yeah, and while you're doing all this, keep an eye on your six for enemy bandits hunting down the wounded stragglers trying to make it back to their fleet... God forbid they intercept you before you finish your calculations, cuz if you get in an extended dogfight with a wounded wingman, you might be totally lost when it's over ... if you survive. And a likely ditch after all that....

...it's plenty interesting and exhausting. And the time passes faster than you realize with that much in-flight trigonometry to do.

S~!
VF15_Muto

BennyMoore
09-21-2004, 02:08 AM
Hmmm, I confess that I never thought of that. I stink at mathematics and will never be a good navigator. I can only hope that I'll be able to improve enough to get my license. Really, all I want to do is fly. I could spend all day in view of the airfield and still be happy.

initjust
09-21-2004, 09:02 AM
Muto summed it up nicely.

BTW - every example he cited is something that we have actually had to do.

All I can tell you is that after making an attack on an enemy fleet and taking severe flak damage, egressing the area and evaluating the damage and realizing that there is no way you will be able to hold to your original flight plan and deciding to divert to a friendly screening force (that you have a vague idea were it is but didn't plan on needing to find so you don't have a set of calcs to get you there already done) for repair so you run the numbers as you or your wingman are limping along and actually find the screening force and then have to land a damaged AC then redo your nav calcs to get back to your main fleet.....If you pull this off successfully it, for me, provides more satisfaction and is a greater thrill than shooting down 100s of enemy fighters in the typical endless die-respawn-die-respawn furball loop (this for me is boring).

The same satisfaction and thrill also come after flying a successful escort mission where you shoot down some enemy fighters and protect your own strike AC and safely escort them back to your carrier needing to deal with all the elements of real world navigation and long distance flight.

Some will definitely find what we do boring but it is about as real and immersive as it can possible be on a small 2D piece of glass and a household budget.

SKULLS_CoyMS
09-21-2004, 09:35 AM
well said initjust

http://home.centurytel.net/pooka/skulls_sig-Coy.gif (http://la-famiglia.se/skulls/forum/)

Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I could stand.

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2004, 10:04 AM
Benny, it's not that it's overdone in Rabaul, it's that it's underdone and dumbed down everywhere else.

IL-2's "torque" is simply an eye candy wingdrop when you start the engine. (big whoop); then, when you roll, it's non-existant. And during takeoff is exactly when its effect would be most pronounced.

I don't believe it's in the IL-2 flight model, either. It's factored into the "canned" snap roll sequences that inflict all the planes that didn't snap, as well as those that did. But I don't think it's a snap per se.

Now, are there times in Targetware where I think it seems a bit much? Well, yes, I just can't do anything on the ground with a Yak-9, but I think that has more to do with ground modelling not being there (ground friction should cancel out some of the wild swing you get while getting up to speed) than anything else.

actionhank1786
09-24-2004, 07:51 AM
I mapped my rudder to the keyboard, and even then i couldnt get into the air...except in the twin engined planes.
Maybe my rudder didnt work...hmmm
Regardless Welcome back everyone

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2004, 11:50 AM
Hank, if you're referring to Targetware, a tip for you:

Map commands for separate wheelbrakes (left and right) to your keyboard (I use Z and X, so they're easy to find at the bottom left of my keyboard) and use them (in *very light* taps opposite the swing direction) until your rudder/stabilizer gets enough air over it to steer and the tail raises. Also, spool up gradually with the throttle, never firewall it in any plane.

Some planes even have "stalling props" effects, so if you're not smoothly rolling, you're gonna be in a pile at the far end of the strip.

actionhank1786
09-24-2004, 12:41 PM
Alright, thanks for the tips Stiglr. I may have to give that a try later today.
Are there any online servers that you know of?
Flying the "empty" skies is only fun for so long.
I wish they had a simple ai routine so i could shoot something http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BennyMoore
09-24-2004, 10:50 PM
Yes, it's in takeoff that I feel that it's overdone. In the air it feels pretty right to me.

I'm very, very aware of IL-2's inexcuseable near-total lack of torque, and I cannot put it better than you just did. That, along with other, similar unrealisms, are why I quit.

actionhank1786
09-25-2004, 09:27 AM
I did think the torque was a bit rediculous in the Targetware games...
I mean i understand slipping left...but full out donuts across the runway!?
Correct me if i'm wrong

Korolov
09-25-2004, 09:43 AM
That's pretty much the way it was. A lot of planes are said to have serious ground looping due to the torque. The trick is to accelerate to a power setting where the torque is controllable, until enough speed is gained to go for sufficient takeoff power.

SKULLS_CoyMS
09-25-2004, 11:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

I'm very, very aware of IL-2's inexcuseable near-total lack of torque, and I cannot put it better than you just did. That, along with other, similar unrealisms, are why I quit.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well Benny....Bye

This is after all a PF forum...and people who don't want to fly it....well take your ball and go....constructive critism is one thing...but hanging around to bash something you don't intend to fly...kinda like hanging around the locker room after you quit the team...sad

Iam sure there must be a Target Rabaul Forum

AtomicRunt
09-25-2004, 11:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
Gents, If I have misread the tone of your posts then I stand corrected. So very hard to determine inflection, and emotion in this strange electronic media we habitate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ElAurens...
Think of it this way, we're at the kitchen table discussing the game over a couple drinks. No flared tempers,just a simple discussion. The points I made are just ideas I thought would alieviate some of the cr@p I see on-line such as the point system and the re-fly issue. I don't fly at the level Init or Muto do, but I do respect them for that. Much like I respect a good pilot in IL-2(in an "honest" aircraft)if ya know what I mean?

I think if they did change some aspects of the game people would be more inclined to take those issues abit more seriously. Like I said before to many people bltch about FM's and loadouts but find nothing wrong with anything else. I do hope your right, I pray we are surprized

Respectfully...

ladoga
09-25-2004, 12:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
And, by way of comparison, http://www.targetware.net has a neat solution to solve this problem: they have 1:1 maps with no horizontal compression, and they give scenario authors total flexibility to have ground or air starts. So, if you're, say, designing Guadalcanal missions, you can airstart the Japanese, who have had to fly over 300 miles from Rabaul, and make the Cactus boys take off from Henderson. Or, you can compress CV action, by airstartinig forces far enough apart where they can change alt, heading or attack profiles, without requiring 2 hour flights to combat. Of course, if you really WANT those long flights, you can have them, too.

Then, when action is over, you need only reach a disengage area, and have remaining fuel enough to get you home. Or, if your side has no disengage arc, you have to fly back and land.

Works really well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh..I've flown from rabaul to henderson and back few times just for fun. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Thats about 1200km with return.

I like Targetware because of it's physics engine. Flying feels very real.
Aircrafts physical data (.acm files)interacts with games physics engine and theres really no separate FMs at all.

Realistic flight is the most important for me everything else in flight sim is secondary. Too bad there's not many sims trying to reach higher levels of realism.
Otherwise (ie. for graphics, lighting effects) im not entirely happy with TW and hope it progresses as beta goes further.


illo aka ladoga

sugaki
09-25-2004, 02:34 PM
I think it's funny you compare the Shiden in CFS2 and PF, since the CFS2 one is flyable, while the PF one isn't. It actually helps to show CFS2 is better.

All things said, I will buy Pacific Fighters and probably enjoy it.

However, it definitely isn't the most realistic sim around, which it has a rep for. Snap stalls that are programmed in instead of a result of physics in action is bothersome, and in that regard falls short of CFS2.

For me, the most important aspect of a flight sim is capturing the individual characteristics of aircraft. Comparing Target Rabaul, CFS2, and PF, Pacific Fighters will have the least distinct flight models, which is saddening.

All sims have flaws, make no mistake about that. I guess it's a matter of which flaws you feel you can live with, and which ones you can't. I have a feeling CFS2 will still be the one I have the biggest sweet spot for--sure it didn't have great engine management, but it was a good mix between realism and fun.

initjust
09-25-2004, 03:45 PM
"I guess it's a matter of which flaws you feel you can live with, and which ones you can't."

That is, perhaps, the best summation of what we are faced with. It really does boil down to just that doesn't it?

With respect to engine management I think the 1% AC that are available for CFS2 allow for some reasonable engine management with respect to temperature, prop pitch and fuel mixture. Does it still lack some detail? Of course it does.

Is it a flaw worth living with? That is a question of personal preference.

As I have said previously I will also buy PF and I'm sure I will enjoy what it has to offer and for what it is.

VF15_Muto
09-25-2004, 06:31 PM
I am sure I will enjoy PF as well, despite its limitations. The one thing, though, that I was looking forward to PF for was multiplayer moving carrier ops with proper wind over the deck ... but it appears its not going to have that.

So I'm just hoping instead of rushing a product to market like MS and Oleg have been doing for the last 3-4 years now, one of them or somebody else finds a way to put a proper 3-year investment in developing a more complete WW2 flight simulator (and still make a profit) incorporating all the pros of the very good products we've seen to date.

CFS2 has enough to keep me happy for the next 3 years until that product would be ready....

S~!
VF15_Muto

actionhank1786
09-26-2004, 12:37 AM
Well Muto as far as i know, in Co-op missions you should be able to fly off a moving Carrier. I think the only reason you can't do that in Dogfights is because Dogfights dont allow AI (i could be wrong, i've only flown Il-2 Online once).
But if i remember right AI can be used in Coop so i dont see why a moving carrier is out of the question?
Anyone know for sure?

BennyMoore
09-26-2004, 02:03 PM
Well, some people don't like to fly cooperatives because the artificial intelligence for aircraft stinks. Also, what he was talking about was winds, not just moving aircraft carriers.

BennyMoore
09-26-2004, 02:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SKULLS_CoyMs:
well Benny....Bye This is after all a PF forum...and people who don't want to fly it....well take your ball and go....constructive critism is one thing...but hanging around to bash something you don't intend to fly...kinda like hanging around the locker room after you quit the team...sad <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, you know what? Buzz off. And mind your own business, not mine. Not only did I pay large amounts of money for the various 1C games (and a few other games published by Ubisoft), entitling me to the use of this forum, but there is also a slight possibility of my buying Battle of Britain, since it's supposed to have a new engine.

My constant jabs at the game have a twofold purpose. The first is to make people aware of the problems, so that they will consider alternatives and not be mislead by the hype into thinking that the IL-2 series is the most realistic out there. I personally am not appreciative of the fact that no one pointed out the unrealisms to me and that I had to discover them myself after a long time. It's not easy determining what is realistic and what is not, for most people are not privledged enough to have flown the real warbirds. Therefore I am doing people a favor, even if most of them do not realize it, appreciate it, or agree with me.

The second purpose of my criticisms is to make the game better. As I said, there is a chance that I will buy Battle of Britain (and if I buy it, you can rest assured that Doomsayer will buy it, and possibly a few other people).

owlwatcher
09-26-2004, 03:01 PM
Nay Sayer here

PF will not have what is wanted or needed for good Pacific air and sea warfare.

PF will introduce and most likly be great for the on line Fighter Jocks.

Been with this game some time now.I have run this game threw 3 computers. Its showing it age(game & latest computer).I really think the game(IL-2) software is topping out now.
Threw mys eyes I have seen this game grow along with the tools to run it. I realize PF is not all (I) would like to see in it. But thats OK, The game has continued grow and has earned my respect of the game makers.
As to the nit picking.
The game needs it. As long as the there is data to back it up. Plus you have to consider what the computers will handle to be playable.

Still waiting for the Pe-2 to be flyabe.

Snootles
09-26-2004, 05:56 PM
What do you consider "needed" for Pacific combat simulation?

owlwatcher
09-26-2004, 08:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snootles:
What do you consider "needed" for Pacific combat simulation? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seems that all the key planes will not be flyable.
Planes I consider key;
Zero,Kate ,Val,Betty

F4F,P-39.40,SBD,TBD,TBF.

Unless the CVs are unsinkable.
Your bombers will I think play more important role then ever before both on and off line.
Ships need alot of work. I hope there is some thing along the TF ideas.

The time and space problem of the distances needs to be enhanced some how.
Alot depends on how the CVs & planes ;
take off and landing times are.
It would be nice to have the ability to recreate early war battles and have all the planes at least AI.
Early war B-17 would at least give the Zero a chance to shoot one down..

PF is leaning more to the on liners.Not a complaint. The US line up of fighter planes
if not made flyable might... have caused some kind of problem amoungs the villagers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

The computers also are stressed out now.The bombers do make big demands on the computers and so do moving ships with AA.New years the 4000s processers will be out .

PF is moving towards combined land sea and air , but I do not see it being great at it without alot of work. Maybe BOB.

actionhank1786
09-26-2004, 10:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by owlwatcher:
Nay Sayer here

PF will not have what is wanted or needed for good Pacific air and sea warfare.

PF will introduce and most likly be great for the on line Fighter Jocks.

Been with this game some time now.I have run this game threw 3 computers. Its showing it age(game & latest computer).I really think the game(IL-2) software is topping out now.
Threw mys eyes I have seen this game grow along with the tools to run it. I realize PF is not all (I) would like to see in it. But thats OK, The game has continued grow and has earned my respect of the game makers.
As to the nit picking.
The game needs it. As long as the there is data to back it up. Plus you have to consider what the computers will handle to be playable.

Still waiting for the Pe-2 to be flyabe. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well it's good to hear someone got an advanced copy of Pacific Fighter before the rest of us.
Can you really say what it wont have based on some Beta build videos and some non-moving development updates...
Oh well

BennyMoore
09-26-2004, 10:29 PM
Wait. How on earth can anyone with half a brain consider the P-38 Lightning, the F-4U Corsair, and the F-6 Hellcat not "key planes" in the Pacific in World War Two?

Tater-SW-
09-26-2004, 10:46 PM
owlwatcher, you listed 10 key planes. Of those, only three (Kate, TBD, TBF/M)are currently not thought by us to be flyable.

The others we all know are flyable.

TBD will not be flyable period according to the folks who actually make the planes, I'll happily defer to them until I have the chops to do it myself. The TBF and Kate are another matter, and I wouldn't be surprised if they became flyable later.

tater

actionhank1786
09-27-2004, 01:45 AM
i've heard that there arent enough cockpit resources available to make the TBD flyable, something along those lines.

owlwatcher
09-27-2004, 08:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
Wait. How on earth can anyone with half a brain consider the P-38 Lightning, the F-4U Corsair, and the F-6 Hellcat _not_ "key planes" in the Pacific in World War Two? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The planes you mention I consider late models to the Pacific. Yes ,they turned the tide when they were introduced.
The most interesting battles were fought with the early model aircraft from both sides.Where both sides were more evenly matched.

owlwatcher
09-27-2004, 08:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by actionhank1786:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by owlwatcher:
Nay Sayer here

PF will not have what is wanted or needed for good Pacific air and sea warfare.

PF will introduce and most likly be great for the on line Fighter Jocks.

Been with this game some time now.I have run this game threw 3 computers. Its showing it age(game & latest computer).I really think the game(IL-2) software is topping out now.
Threw mys eyes I have seen this game grow along with the tools to run it. I realize PF is not all (I) would like to see in it. But thats OK, The game has continued grow and has earned my respect of the game makers.
As to the nit picking.
The game needs it. As long as the there is data to back it up. Plus you have to consider what the computers will handle to be playable.

Still waiting for the Pe-2 to be flyabe. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well it's good to hear someone got an advanced copy of Pacific Fighter before the rest of us.
Can you really say what it wont have based on some Beta build videos and some non-moving development updates...
Oh well <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Looked at the films and lists of planes.
The battles in the pacfic should be more group fights of different planes attacking a target (CV). Since attacking ships is not a one plane deal but a combined attack with high ,low and escorts. All requiring more then Ai controled planes.

actionhank1786
09-27-2004, 10:43 PM
But what i'm saying is, all you've seen is from Beta builds. The only video Ubi soft themselves have released to my knowledge, is the trailer.
You can't judge the game until you see it. I'm sure Oleg wont dissapoint.

Tater-SW-
09-27-2004, 11:14 PM
Only if you consider late 1942 and early 1943 "Late War."

The more evenly matched early days, were just that, days. We won't be able to do early war Philipines well because the guns on the US P-40Es will actually work, unlike the RL guns that were still sometimes packed in cosmoline, and had their electric chargers turned off in the mistaken notion that they didn't work (meaning any jam could only be cleared on the ground). Many of those planes were lucky to fight with 1-2 guns.

We'll have some early raids with USN planes vs seaplanes, the Coral Sea, and Midway. Guadalcanal and New Guinea will be shoestring affairs for a few months, then the P-38s start showing up. The F4Us won't be far behind. Things get ugly for the IJN/AF pretty fast.

My take is that early war is far easier for US planes in a sim because we know what not to do right away, and we have zero mechanical problems. OTOH, late war will be harder than it should be for the same reason---the japanese planes won't suffer the mechanical and fuel problems they were plagued with in RL. Their late war planes that were good on a mostly theoretical level (because a large % of them were broken), will be great in something like PF, where they will be 100% perfect at all times.

tater

owlwatcher
09-27-2004, 11:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by actionhank1786:
But what i'm saying is, all you've seen is from Beta builds. The only video Ubi soft themselves have released to my knowledge, is the trailer.
You can't judge the game until you see it. I'm sure Oleg wont dissapoint. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seems the trailers should show there best efforts.Then again UBI did it.
Oleg I trust, UBI well never have understtod there marketing

owlwatcher
09-28-2004, 12:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
Only if you consider late 1942 and early 1943 "Late War."

The more evenly matched early days, were just that, _days_. We won't be able to do early war Philipines well because the guns on the US P-40Es will actually work, unlike the RL guns that were still sometimes packed in cosmoline,



and had their electric chargers turned off in the mistaken notion that they didn't work (meaning any jam could only be cleared on the ground). Many of those planes were lucky to fight with 1-2 guns.

We'll have some early raids with USN planes vs seaplanes, the Coral Sea, and Midway. Guadalcanal and New Guinea will be shoestring affairs for a few months, then the P-38s start showing up. The F4Us won't be far behind. Things get ugly for the IJN/AF pretty fast.

My take is that early war is far easier for US planes in a sim because we know what not to do right away, and we have zero mechanical problems. OTOH, late war will be harder than it should be for the same reason---the japanese planes won't suffer the mechanical and fuel problems they were plagued with in RL. Their late war planes that were good on a mostly theoretical level (because a large % of them were broken), will be great in something like PF, where they will be 100% perfect at all times.

tater <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You bring up some fine points tater that I can only agree with you.
My veiw point is bias because all my attention is centered around the aircraft carriers.
Early war play the radar and AAA was not as effective giving the IJ achance at making it home alive.

sugaki
09-28-2004, 11:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by owlwatcher:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by actionhank1786:
But what i'm saying is, all you've seen is from Beta builds. The only video Ubi soft themselves have released to my knowledge, is the trailer.
You can't judge the game until you see it. I'm sure Oleg wont dissapoint. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can still get a good idea how the game will turn out because PF still has the same flight model limitations as FB. You'd have to wait till Battle of Britain to see a revamped physics engine, and till then there will be snap-happy Zeroes.

Granted I will be open to the possibility that the issues will be addressed, but it's not too likely, especially at this late a stage in development.

I'm still looking forward to it though, just to see a new take on the Pacific theater--afterall, if people thought it'd be the crappiest Pacific flight sim game they wouldn't bother posting here (unless they're true trolls http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

-Aki

BlakJakOfSpades
09-28-2004, 07:16 PM
I was just lining up on a k-4 at high altitude in my d-27 when i suddenly for some reason remembered the phrase coined by benny, olegarchy, i started laughin and ended up crashin into him. I got a question tho, does cfs2 have trackir support? cuz if so i might just check that out again...and if not trackir is my single most important immersion factor, padlock will just not do. cfs2 dealed with this at release with a radar system that kind of simulated situational awareness. The last time i tried to reinstall cfs2 it was lack of trackir support that made me uninstall it. Perhaps it has since been added? if not that's the only thing stoppin me from playin cfs2. That, and the lackluster graphics which i know dont make the game....err sim.....