PDA

View Full Version : Why the P-80 and not the Meteor?



Axelthorpe
03-24-2005, 01:03 PM
Hello

I've got no idea if this is the right forum, but here goes:

I don't own FB:ace (yet) but I've got the impression that it includes the Shooting Star.
So my question is; why add a jet that didn't see action, and not one that did: The Gloster Meteor (very limited, but still!)?
Not that I don't want to fly the P-80, but I want the Meteor too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.
I haven€t found any complete plane-list for ace, so I'm not totally sure that this post is relevant! But I did find a post that requested the Meteor...

Axelthorpe
03-24-2005, 01:03 PM
Hello

I've got no idea if this is the right forum, but here goes:

I don't own FB:ace (yet) but I've got the impression that it includes the Shooting Star.
So my question is; why add a jet that didn't see action, and not one that did: The Gloster Meteor (very limited, but still!)?
Not that I don't want to fly the P-80, but I want the Meteor too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.
I haven€t found any complete plane-list for ace, so I'm not totally sure that this post is relevant! But I did find a post that requested the Meteor...

Arm_slinger
03-24-2005, 01:06 PM
The (Y?)P-80 saw about four combat missions i believe, so it has see a tiny bit of action.

I'd like to see the Gloster instead, but we can't as Gibbage decided to model the P-80 instead

Axelthorpe
03-24-2005, 01:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Arm_slinger:
The (Y?)P-80 saw about four combat missions i believe, so it has see a tiny bit of action.

I'd like to see the Gloster instead, but we can't as Gibbage decided to model the P-80 instead <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok, thanks

I don't know anything about the Shooting Star, I just read that it didn't see any combat during WWII, But the Meteor shot down a few v-1s I think.

There isn't a list of all the planes in ace somewhere?
The official page only mentions: "At least 11 flyable aircraft including Ju-87D-3, Hurricane MK I & II and BF-109G-14"

Stiglr
03-24-2005, 02:16 PM
The proper question is, "Why EITHER??"

We all know the answer to it: to "give" the Allies a jet to counter the Me262, even though that jet did see a LOT of air-to-air combat, and the Allied examples did NOT.

Fairness, it seems, is only to be applied to create parity for the Allies.

Sharkey888
03-24-2005, 03:24 PM
So the ME-163 caused the B-1 to be made?!

CKY_86
03-24-2005, 03:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sharkey888:
So the ME-163 caused the B-1 to be made?! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

errrrr no the b-1 came before the me163 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
but i think you mean in the game http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Gibbage1
03-24-2005, 03:34 PM
Why the P-80? Because I chose to model it. Why did I chose to model the P-80 and not the Meteor? The more and more research I did, the more and more apperant it became that the Meteor would be a huge Me-262 target. It was NOT a competitive fighter. I also did not like the way the Meteor looked. This and a few other reasons is why I chose the P-80.

It did serv, and we had 300 P-80's by the time the war ended. It was not about what served or what did not as Oleg asked for 1945-46 aircraft. It was about what could of served, like the Go-229.

Axelthorpe
03-24-2005, 03:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Why the P-80? Because I chose to model it. Why did I chose to model the P-80 and not the Meteor? The more and more research I did, the more and more apperant it became that the Meteor would be a huge Me-262 target. It was NOT a competitive fighter. I also did not like the way the Meteor looked. This and a few other reasons is why I chose the P-80.

It did serv, and we had 300 P-80's by the time the war ended. It was not about what served or what did not as Oleg asked for 1945-46 aircraft. It was about what could of served, like the Go-229. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hi there

Thank you for your reply

So you're saying the meteor were much inferior to the 262? And didn't stand much of a chance in a dogfight?

Btw how is the Meteor looking as a future add-on from you/1C? Not likely, right?

Gibbage1
03-24-2005, 04:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Axelthorpe:
So you're saying the meteor were much inferior to the 262? And didn't stand much of a chance in a dogfight?

Btw how is the Meteor looking as a future add-on from you/1C? Not likely, right? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read pilot reports of early Meteor's. Also read factory reports. They put very tight springs on the controle stick to PREVENT pilots from doing acrobatics. Acrobatics needed for air combat. That right there sealed the Meteor's fate as a possible model in my mind.

Plus the P-80 looked so **** cool http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As for Meteor in the furture? I doubt it. I dont know of any artist currently working on it. Though there are a great number of Russian artist's that are doing work that I dont know about, they seam to have very little interest in British aircraft. Plus Oleg is accepting less and less 3rd party models.

VW-IceFire
03-24-2005, 04:30 PM
The Meteor Mark I wasn't much of a combat aircraft. Structural problems, poor manuverability, poor visibility from the cockpit. It had quite a few issues. I think this one was used for V-1 chasing only...its level speed was high enough to justify its use.

The Mark III, which would be the one I think would be modeled, saw service along the northern frontline with two squadrons of the 2nd TAF before the end of the war. They nearly engaged Me-262s in combat but were chased away by overzealous USAAF Mustang pilots who had identified the Meteors as Me-262s. The Mark III was quite a bit faster, bubble canopy, and I think there were improvements to the ailerons allowing for a better roll rate.

The Meteor's very long service with the RAF is indicative of how useful it became...but it was only at the start of its career when WWII ended.

Axelthorpe
03-24-2005, 04:49 PM
Thanks again guys!
Let's hope for the MkIII then http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Seeya

Stiglr
03-24-2005, 04:53 PM
Gibbage wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Why the P-80? Because I chose to model it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep. The same flawed reasoning that your compatriot used to model the Bi-1, another useless boondoggle.

How about reasons like, "Because it was a significant aircraft in this, that and the other campaign?" Or because [many thousands] were built?

This "just cuz *I* liked it", and "cuz it looks kewl" reasoning just has nothing behind it. It's purely self-serving, and actually pulls the sim down, because the time spent on these plans means at least one other plane doesn't make it into the sim (or is delayed)*, and the sim is less a good reflection of history... and more a joke. Sorry, but there it is.

=========
* Want some examples of this? How about the Bf110 (for quite a long time), the Ju-88, the Pe-2... do I need to go on?


Addendum: you'll also note from the posts above that my charge of "evening things up against the Me-262" is dead on. Since, if you're going to include one or the other, you'd include the (inferior) Meteor, because it flew the most by far during WWII, albeit mostly in V1 tipping missions and air-to-ground strike missions on the lines; the fear being, they didn't want a Meteor to crash behind German lines and give the Germans any technological data. Of course, with our community, the idea is not to choose what's historically relevant, it's the whiny, childish, "Well the Germans have jets, why can't we? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Gibbage1
03-24-2005, 05:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:

How about reasons like, "Because it was a significant aircraft in this, that and the other campaign?" Or because [many thousands] were built?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So instead of me modeling what I like, you want me to model what YOU like? Hummmm. Sorry. It dont work that way. If any of the 3rd party modelers spend HUNDREDS of hours and HUNDRED of $$ in research, it must be something THEY want to do, not something YOU want them to do.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

=========
* Want some examples of this? How about the Bf110 (for quite a long time), the Ju-88, the Pe-2... do I need to go on? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ya. Interesting you specify all multi-position aircraft as ones that take a long time. Also all those aircraft are VERY complex and had very little referances. The reason they took so long is simply they take a long time to build. An aircraft with 3-4 positions (bomber/gunners/pilot) takes 4-5x longer and is simply to much for any single man to do. Ask Jippo or Armageddon how many hours they put into there projects? Ask them how many people had to help. Ask them how many single seat fighters they could of done in place of the 1 bomber.

Sometimes is easier to do the easier thing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

SeaNorris
03-24-2005, 05:18 PM
HI Gibbage1.

Just wondering if you have the skins or any skin like it for the Spit,P-38 or YP-80.

Thanks for your help.

.psd's help too

3.JG51_BigBear
03-24-2005, 05:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaNorris:
HI Gibbage1.

Just wondering if you have the skins or any skin like it for the Spit,P-38 or YP-80.

Thanks for your help.

.psd's help too <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Man you don't miss a beat do you?

Stiglr
03-24-2005, 05:28 PM
Well, you try to point the "what I like" finger at me, but it doesn't wash, Gibbage.

My earliest modeling projects (for another sim) were a British Gladiator, a Japanese Nell bomber, then a Meteor Mk 8... for Korea, where it belongs. None of these planes are exactly my "favorites", but the projects I was working on needed them to be more complete, and that's how I chose them. Interestingly enough, when you "live with" a plane the way you have to to model it, researching it and looking at every nut, bolt, panel, nook and cranny, you GET interested in it. I'm sure you can relate to that.

Besides, my "favorite" planes, your Bf109s, those were already done.

The point I'm making is, choices for whatever plane might be better made with an idea for making the entire sim better, and filling in obvious holes in the planeset, not more arcade or "Secret Weapons of the Whatever". Seeing as everybody has different favorites, that seems to me to be a less selfish, more community-oriented way of going about it; at least until all the truly representative planes are done.

GUARD4000
03-24-2005, 05:59 PM
Stiglr,I really think a 3rd party modeler has his right to do what he wants.I appreciate what they have done because without them I wont have those things.

KGr.HH-Sunburst
03-24-2005, 06:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GUARD4000:
Stiglr,I really think a 3rd party modeler has his right to do what he wants.I appreciate what they have done because without them I wont have those things. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

agreed

stiglr you are in no position to tell a 3rd party modeler what is relevant for YOU to make
and besides gibbage also did the P38, P63
so he does make planes who are relevant
and if he wants to make a plane he likes thats his choice and nomatter what he makes its up to oleg to put in the game or not

if you dont like P80s B1's Me163 He162 etc DONT fly them its that simple http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gibbage1
03-24-2005, 07:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KGr.HH-Sunburst:

and besides gibbage also did the P38, P63
so he does make planes who are relevant
and if he wants to make a plane he likes thats his choice and nomatter what he makes its up to oleg to put in the game or not
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dont forget the Spitfire! One of the most critically missing aircraft in the IL2 series!

goshikisen
03-24-2005, 07:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
The point I'm making is, choices for whatever plane might be better made with an idea for making the entire sim better, and filling in obvious holes in the planeset <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I applaud you for having the balls to say what you've said. I walk a fine line between being entirely appreciative of the efforts of the 3rd party modellers and being frustrated at some of the choices that have been made.

Typhoon, Toryu, Shoki... I sometimes wish these were personal favorites of the 3rd party modellers. As you say... there are some obvious holes in the planeset that, perhaps, warranted more attention then some of the aircraft that did make it in.

-on the flipside-

I can barely model with 3D Studio Max but I know how much work it takes to get one of these things built. I admire the work of guys like Gibbage and SaQSoN... the series wouldn't be what it is without them.

I wonder if it was the overall planning and allocation of effort that needed better organization? Was there some sort of Request for Proposal process? Did 1C ever ask 3rd Party modellers to build specific aircraft?

Regards, Goshikisen.

Gibbage1
03-24-2005, 07:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by goshikisen:
I wonder if it was the overall planning and allocation of effort that needed better organization?

Regards, Goshikisen. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is VERY true. Back in the old IL2Center.com days, Ilya "orginized" the 3rd party modeling effort. He implamented a reservation system. Sound fine, but it did not work. Within a short time, all the important models were "resurved" by modelers who A. Were too busy to work on them, B. Were not qualified to do it or C. Simply gave up and never un-resurved the aircraft. Ilya dropped out of contact, IL2Center went down, and I re-orginized the 3rd party modelers at Netwings.org and abolished the resurvation system and opened up a LOT of important models to people who can do them. P-38 is a good example, and the P-63 and Spitfire. Those models were all resurved for more then a year with no progress. I finally took it over and just did them. But this means that for the first year of IL2/FB, a lot of the important models people are crying for were resurved with no progress. Many modelers like me started other projects like the P-80 and Go-229.

Thats yet another reason you have the P-80 and Go-229 and not other more "important" aircraft. Simple circumstance. I wanted to do so many other aircraft, but they were simply "resurved" and you can see that once they were no longer resurved, I did them.

Tooz_69GIAP
03-24-2005, 08:04 PM
I really really hope that decisions as to which aircraft are modelled by 3rd party guys for BoB after the release are far more tightly controlled by Oleg.

I would like to see Oleg dictating the aircraft that are needed in the sim to bring more depth to a particular theatre, not ones that the modeller "likes". Something like a list of aircraft and objects (ships, vehicles, etc) that are wanted for expansions, or whatever, and only these items are included rather than a whole bunch of random "favourites" being submitted, and Oleg adding them in just coz they've been done.

Don't get me wrong, I love all these crazy aircraft, but there is too much stuff that is not in the sim that should be, and the problem could have been avoided with far better control and planning.

Stiglr
03-24-2005, 09:47 PM
Far be it from me to criticize the effort and skill the modelers put in to create aircraft, especially for IL-2, which has the highest standards for 3D modeling I've seen. I only hope to get that good at modeling one day.

Still, I can and will criticize the choices made of what to model, because I feel RELEVANCE, HISTORY, etc. is a longer, stronger yardstick than "what looks kewl", "what I felt like doing" or whatever. Those completely subjective ways of choosing subject matter are selfish on their face, and as we've already seen, do little to really advance the entire sim franchise. And isn't that something we all benefit from?

Despite the carping of those who are "happy to get whatever they get", (and who doubtless know bupkus about history anyway), I have yet to see a good argument against modeling the planes that mattered FIRST, then the curiosity pieces, the odds and sods, and "the one I made a plastic model of when I was a kid". And saying "Don't fly 'em if you don't like 'em" is irrelevant as well. The important thing to keep in mind is, at the end of the day, how good a job does the IL-2 franchise do at simulating WWII? I'd say it would do better with several planes not in the planeset right now than it does with a I-185, a Bi-1, and several other irrelevants clogging the planeset now.

Sharkey888
03-24-2005, 10:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tooz_69GIAP:
I really really hope that decisions as to which aircraft are modelled by 3rd party guys for BoB after the release are far more tightly controlled by Oleg. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen. I have seen too many aircraft reserved for months, only to find that the modeler did not know what they were doing, or RL got in the way,or all of a sudden there is a lack of references.

DO-17, ME-410 cockpit, HE-100, KI-44, HS-129 cockpit, P-36 cockpit, Fokker XXI cockpit come to mind, and the ME-109Z, TB-3, I-185, B-1, P-80, GO-229 make it into the sim http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

And just so you know, I do appreciate the work 3rd party modelers have done to get their babies into this sim.

csThor
03-24-2005, 11:42 PM
I have to second what goshikisen, stiglr and tooz said about the process of choosing an aircraft to model.

It's not my intention to downplay or even negate the time, dedication and nerves the 3rd Party Modellers put into their projects - far from it. I did take a look at 3DSMax and fainted straight away http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif As 3D noob (idiot, dweeb - whatever you want to call me) I have to admire how folks can produce fine-looking planes/objects from such a complicated piece of software. BUT:

There is another part of me that howls from pain every time a non-representative model made it into the sim. This part is the "history fan" in me, the one that wants a maximum of historical relevance. The addition of planes like Bi-1, Go-229 or I-185 gave online dogfighters a new toy to fool around with, but it left out the offliners like me who cannto find a sensible use for these crates at the moment. They are well-made models, but they lack the environment to use them with a purpose - an environment which includes maps, other planes of said timeframe, ground objects and campaigns.

It's not the fault of the 3rd Party Modellers that they choose freely, but it's unfortunately the fault of Maddox Games that they let them choose freely. I also hope for a more structured, tightly controlled modelling process from MG's side - no more oddities, no more planes which do not match the currently modelled timeframe/theater/geographical region until all really necessary objects are in the pool available for the player. Just my 0,02 ".

Hristos
03-25-2005, 12:29 AM
Well, it is nice to have many planes. Heck, I like the Go 229 and am impressed by its concept. Yet, I can only fly it offline, as only arcade servers allow it.

So, although it is a great ride, just as P80 or Bi-1 probably are, it is never used. Even the historically far more appropriate Me 262 is never flown in War Clouds.

Modelers should have the liberty to model whatever they choose. I mean, ordering a 3rd party modeler what to model ? Game developers are the ones who should be concerned with historical accuracy and game balance, as well as server admins. I mean, someone may even model an F15, but you can be sure it will never be allowed on a serious WW2 server.

So it is down to the modeler. If he wants to model a plane which is so much cool for him, but which doesn't belong to WW2, let him do it. It will most likely be used only offline by that same modeler and couple of fans.

Inclusion of Spitfire and P38 was spot on and very needed. P80 and Go 229 are nice, but are hardly (if ever) used. Still, I'm glad they are here, just as I'd be glad to have any other plane, from Fokker Dr.I to F-22.

Aaron_GT
03-25-2005, 12:50 AM
"I don't know anything about the Shooting Star, I just read that it didn't see any combat during WWII, But the Meteor shot down a few v-1s I think."

It also saw ground attack action when stationed in Europe.

Gibbage wrote:
"Read pilot reports of early Meteor's. Also read factory reports. They put very tight springs on the controle stick to PREVENT pilots from doing acrobatics. "

That was for the F.I AFAIK, which, like the P47B series, was considered worth developing (the F.III) but not ready for full combat. So the F.I was more like a technology demonstrator, I suppose, that just happened to also be useful against V.1s.

The Meteor had quite a decent RAF career in the end, with one version replacing the U2 (the late version PR Meteors could fly higher!) for flights over the USSR after they had to be stopped after Powers was shot down.

Niberto
03-25-2005, 04:21 AM
As for the Bi-1 by Luthier it was his first model as far as I recall. He liked the plane, he knew it was unknown and I think he wanted a project to get a hand on doing it. (read maybe he just didn't want to mess a major airplane..)

no one can blame them.

They were not paid to model, you can't tell them what to do.

Nikko

Badsight.
03-25-2005, 04:53 AM
3rd party moddelers should all be applauded

people who dont like what they are given for free should S T F U

if you want to know what that means then take a drive over to my place & ill tell it to your face

be thankfull we got the P-80 instead of the Meteor . . . . . . seriously

NAFP_supah
03-25-2005, 05:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:

Still, I can and will criticize the choices made of what to model, because I feel RELEVANCE, HISTORY, etc. is a longer, stronger yardstick than "what looks kewl", "what I felt like doing" or whatever. Those completely subjective ways of choosing subject matter are selfish on their face, and as we've already seen, do little to really _advance the entire sim franchise_. And isn't that something we _all_ benefit from? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This reminds me of some people in the Operation Flashpoint community. Always whining about how they want this and that yet are to stupid or lazy to make things themselves and OFP mod making is VERY easy to get in to. Nothing stopped you from putting in the effort and making these things yourself stiglr. But maybe you were too busy acting all selfrightious and praising that little pay-to-play ww2 game you play on these boards. Or maybe you lack the skills to do what you so love to criticise? Aren't you the know all of flight simulators? Atleast thats how you try to come across telling oleg at every turn what he did wrong and what he should have done. Please tell me stiglr, what flight simulator have you made and supported professionally?

About modelers choosing to model what they do, these people volunteer their time to make these planes and objects and put a lot of time in to it. Its hard work and largely without monetary reward, in the case of IL2FB it even costs you a good deal of money as you have to buy software where for other games you have custom made 3d editors which are distributed for free. These people choose planes they have a personal affection for because it is hard to stay motivated over the course of such a long project. Just look at all the projects that never came to fruitition, some in part because the modeller lost heart when he realised how much work this was going to be in the end. Saying that modelling something for an emotional reason is wrong because they should have modelled the plane YOU think is important is hypocritical to the max. Who decides whats important? History? There is no person called history, just people interpreting it.

About planes missing from Pacific Fighters, blame the people running that show. If they wanted a certain plane in there they should have paid a modeler to do it and supported that effort professionally. Looking in from the outside I get the idea that management of that project was lacking in some aspects.

Basically if you wanted a Do-17 (for instance) so badly maybe you should have spent your time learning to model and making it instead of whining about it not being there.

Hristos
03-25-2005, 05:56 AM
Agreed, Badsight.

If it is unclear from my earlier post, I'll say it simply - 3rd party modelers should be applauded.

Their work is a free gift to us and we cannot really blame anyone.

Now, can someone model TIE fighter ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

goshikisen
03-25-2005, 07:49 AM
Once again... someone expresses an opinion and the response is verbal intimidation and condescension. Just great.

Why not just accept that someone else thinks differently then yourself. That's not a bad thing... it's just a different thing.

Regards, Goshikisen.

p.s. - Badsight... read Gibbage's post at the top of the thread. That's what most people are wound up about... the flawed process.

Stiglr
03-25-2005, 09:58 AM
To answer supah,

I have several planes pretty close to appearing in Targetware. Namely, a Meteor F8 for Target:Korea, a Claude and Nate for Target:Rabaul, and also 'pits for an upcoming Vietnam module. Although I don't model for IL-2, I do have much more of an idea of what it involves than you.

Although, actually, one does not have to know how to model in 3D to have an opinion on an aircraft's relevance for a sim. History is the ideal gauge of that. It really isn't rocket science (bad pun, I know) to determine if an aircraft is a needed addition or just a waste of time. Of course, the "grateful idiots" portion of the community can't see that, since they lack any kind of viewpoint or ability to think critically.

MEGILE
03-25-2005, 10:14 AM
Hey gibbage, I would have liked the Meteor http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif
But at the end of the day, I don't pay you, and you don't owe me $hit. So make what you want http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Cheers for the Spitfire YP-80, Go-229, P-38 and P-63 btw.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

NAFP_supah
03-25-2005, 10:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>To answer supah,

I have several planes pretty close to appearing in Targetware. Namely, a Meteor F8 for Target:Korea, a Claude and Nate for Target:Rabaul, and also 'pits for an upcoming Vietnam module. Although I don't model for IL-2, I do have much more of an idea of what it involves than you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shows how little you know. You want to turn this into a pissing contest, go right ahead. I am just not joining you. Apparently I have more of an idea then you realise http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Although, actually, one does not have to know how to model in 3D to have an opinion on an aircraft's relevance for a sim. History is the ideal gauge of that. It really isn't rocket science (bad pun, I know) to determine if an aircraft is a needed addition or just a waste of time. Of course, the "grateful idiots" portion of the community can't see that, since they lack any kind of viewpoint or ability to think critically. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"grateful idiots" ... nice of you to show how you think about the majority of this community. If we could all be so enlightened as you. Just because someone appreciates relatively selfless efforts made on their behalf doesnt make them an idiot. For someone who claims so much experience you have VERY little respect for other peoples efforts. If you had wanted certain things yourself you should have just made them and not have wasted your and everyone elses time by whining and being highly unpleasant. Maybe then you and those like you with their superior knowledge would have been happy too instead of this continuous whining of yours.

p1ngu666
03-25-2005, 10:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
Hey gibbage, I would have liked the Meteor http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif
But at the end of the day, I don't pay you, and you don't owe me $hit. So make what you want http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Cheers for the Spitfire YP-80, Go-229, P-38 and P-63 btw.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

what he said http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Marc-David
03-25-2005, 11:09 AM
For whether we live,
we live unto the Lord;
and whether we die,
we die unto the Lord,
whether we live therefore, or, die,
we are the Lord's.

I did not find the word "me, myself, for myself, I want" in this text... Maybe worth to think about it. Check your attitude, guys.

Yours, MD

Stiglr
03-25-2005, 11:18 AM
Supah wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Just because someone appreciates relatively selfless efforts made on their behalf doesnt make them an idiot. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That much we agree on. But, just because someone puts forth effort doesn't mean it isn't misguided effort. See my comments on relevance, history, etc. That's not just my personal opinion I'm talking about.

And the "idiots" I'm referring to are those who can't see the distinction, or can't properly weight it against other more important issues; not necessarily those who put forth the effort.

goshikisen
03-25-2005, 11:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Still, I can and will criticize the choices made of what to model, because I feel RELEVANCE, HISTORY, etc. is a longer, stronger yardstick than "what looks kewl", "what I felt like doing" or whatever. Those completely subjective ways of choosing subject matter are selfish on their face, and as we've already seen, do little to really _advance the entire sim franchise_. And isn't that something we _all_ benefit from?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is selfish about this point of view? If anything it's an altruistic observation.

NorrisMcWhirter
03-25-2005, 11:26 AM
Couldn't agree more Stig/Gosh. However, it is a double edged sword as the modellers put in a very good effort. I doubt they don't enjoy doing it otherwise they'd be doing something else so the violin sob-story "you should be more grateful" business doesn't quite wash...especially (where applicable) as people have _paid_ money for add-ons.

I feel more sorry for those people who probably made a massive effort trying to get something in the game but who didn't quite make the grade or, perhaps, found their contribution less favoured that something 'more marketable'.

Let's not pretend that aircraft included are entirely down to what has been provided. That really wouldn't make business sense.

Norris

Stiglr
03-25-2005, 01:40 PM
This is one reason I'm defending the position so vociferously. It's clear that choosing modeling subjects by "relevance" is more "altruistic" and logical than the "whatever the modeler wants" or "looks kewl" methods. And, no matter if the plane in question is relevant or not, nobody is saying it doesn't take a lot of skill and effort. So, that's a moot, not to mention irrelevant, point.

Once you strip away these defensive, knee-jerk reactions and get to the heart of what I'm saying, it's a hard position to successfully argue against.

VW-IceFire
03-25-2005, 02:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
This is one reason I'm defending the position so vociferously. It's clear that choosing modeling subjects by "relevance" is more "altruistic" and logical than the "whatever the modeler wants" or "looks kewl" methods. And, no matter if the plane in question is relevant or not, _nobody_ is saying it doesn't take a lot of skill and effort. So, that's a moot, not to mention irrelevant, point.

Once you strip away these defensive, knee-jerk reactions and get to the heart of what I'm saying, it's a hard position to successfully argue against. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You make the good point that it should have been more directed and logical than it was. But it wasn't and Gibbage has explained the scenario on why things happened the way they did.

Instead of the Go-229 and the YP-80 I would have traded the Typhoon IB for the Normandy map (the most prolific tank buster) and a Hs.129 flyable for the Kursk and late war engagements. Or even the Hs.123. But as I recall, those were reserved for a very long time and one was never finished and the another was never finished to a good quality. It should/could have been more organized but thats the way it happened.

While there's a good point in there...you have to show a little understanding of the actual events that occured.

Badsight.
03-25-2005, 02:49 PM
i dont think ive ever seen once someone say the most historically used planes shouldnt be in FB

(except that redneck Blitzpig with his Bearcat fasination)

but you can bank on Stigler coming in & rubbishing & taking a thread off-topic with his moaning & complaining that a free extra plane wasnt the one he thought should have been moddeled

he never makes his own thread , he never keeps his gripes to Maddox games

instead he posts here , unending unneeded unwanted moans directed at the people who dont have to worry about the direction of the sim , thats Maddox Games job , take it to email stigler ---- im sure they would just love to hear from you

but whenever the debate of 3rd party work comes up here is Stigler with his illrelevant opinion

just STFU already or post a thank you you ungratefull POS

he posts to complain , even when we get a change for the better (muzzelflash) all he could do was moan about how long it took to come

if you dont like FB then quit already

Stiglr
03-25-2005, 03:01 PM
Take yer Ritalin, Badsight. I can see the veins popping out of your neck and forehead from here.

So, instead of coming up with an elegant alternate viewpoint, you just go to the extreme language. Figures.

Let me know when you have an original thought, or an opinion that wasn't jammed down your throat, will ya? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Stiglr
03-25-2005, 03:06 PM
@IceFire,

I'm not debating "how it happened". That's a matter of history.

I was actually addressing the original question posed by this thread: "Why the P-80 and not the Meteor?" by noting that neither really belong in IL-2.

Badsight.
03-25-2005, 03:11 PM
there is nothing wrong with people making planes they like

planes that dont suit YOU are perfectly acceptable

no matter how much it irritates you

you gripe has nothing to do with any forum members here , its with Maddox games

so STFU about this here already , apoligise & post a big Thank You that the 3rd party guys deserve you ungratefull pos

willingness to critise doesnt give any high moral ground to you Stigler , instead of posting your off-topic rubbish make your own thread , im sure it will be a whinner . . . i mean winner http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Sharkey888
03-25-2005, 03:34 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Badsight.:


so STFU about this here already , apoligise & post a big Thank You that the 3rd party guys deserve you ungratefull pos

[QUOTE]

Chill out dood-it's only a GAME!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

goshikisen
03-25-2005, 04:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
planes that dont suit _YOU_ are perfectly acceptable <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Take the time to read his ideas... he isn't talking about planes that suit him, he's talking about planes that would ensure the long term health of the sim and the community. Flying wings are great but they don't help Oleg if people only fly them once... be realistic.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
you gripe has nothing to do with any forum members here , its with Maddox games
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read the forum's main page description of Oleg's Ready Room and you'll see that Stiglr is in the right place. It's not called Oleg's Browbeat and Curse Room despite your best efforts to make it so.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
so STFU about this here already , apoligise & post a big Thank You that the 3rd party guys deserve you ungratefull pos
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you argue against this? I try and speak on these forums the same way I'd speak to people in my everyday life. I may not agree with them but I'm sure as hell not going to disrespect them. Is this vitriol indicative of who you really are?

TAGERT.
03-25-2005, 05:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
i dont think ive ever seen once someone say the most historically used planes shouldnt be in FB

(except that redneck Blitzpig with his Bearcat fasination)

but you can bank on Stigler coming in & rubbishing & taking a thread off-topic with his moaning & complaining that a free extra plane wasnt the one he thought should have been moddeled

he never makes his own thread , he never keeps his gripes to Maddox games

instead he posts here , unending unneeded unwanted moans directed at the people who dont have to worry about the direction of the sim , thats Maddox Games job , take it to email stigler ---- im sure they would just love to hear from you

but whenever the debate of 3rd party work comes up here is Stigler with his illrelevant opinion

just STFU already or post a thank you you ungratefull POS

he posts to complain , even when we get a change for the better (muzzelflash) all he could do was moan about how long it took to come

if you dont like FB then quit already <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

Aaron_GT
03-25-2005, 05:39 PM
Stiglr,

Maybe it isn't too late to modify the work on the F.8 to F.1 and/or F.3 standard and offer it to Oleg for a future add on during the period between the next patch and the arrival of BoB?

LEXX_Luthor
03-25-2005, 05:44 PM
I wish Gibbage modded Ar~234 instead. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Still, we have 10-20 "real" planes for each single "fantasy" plane. Replace each "fantasy" single seat jet fighter with a "real" single seat prop fighter and we still have gaping holes in the bomber planeset. Fantasy planes are not killing the "real" planeset. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

The problem is the "real" planes we still need are almost all multi~crew aircraft. Its hard enough to find a Volunteer to mod a single seat fighter, almost impossible to find a Volunteer to mod a multi~crew aircraft to Oleg's astronomical lofty standards. Oleg is killing the "real" planeset. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

-- MiG~3 is the *best* looking cockpit made over the FB/PF...because its my Fave WW2 plane. If somebody here has Ki~44 (the Japanese "MiG~3") as their Fave plane, you bet they would make a post saying Ki~44 cockpit the *best* in the game if it had a cockpit, like MiG~3 has a cockpit.

Badsight.
03-25-2005, 06:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by goshikisen:
Take the time to read his ideas... he isn't talking about planes that suit him, he's talking about planes that would ensure the long term health of the sim and the community. Flying wings are great but they don't help Oleg if people only fly them once... be realistic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>you might have only flowen them once , but i like how you take that to mean everyone has only ever flowen them once

take time to look back thru Stiglers postings , hes not coming from anywhere but his own biased opinion

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by goshikisen:
Read the forum's main page description of Oleg's Ready Room and you'll see that Stiglr is in the right place. It's not called Oleg's Browbeat and Curse Room despite your best efforts to make it so.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>ok wtf ? what is it that Stigler is actually saying here dude ? do you understand at all where hes coming from ? no so untill you do how about you get your facts stright
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by goshikisen:
How do you argue against this? I try and speak on these forums the same way I'd speak to people in my everyday life. I may not agree with them but I'm sure as hell not going to disrespect them. Is this vitriol indicative of who you really are? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>its indicative of what im telling Stigler to do , he comes into any thread he can & changes the whole direction to his personal whine crusade , he needs to make his own threads about the topics he brings up instead of hijacking every 3rd party plane thread in existance like he does time after time , im sick of it

hes posts to see his complaints in a public place fishing for aguments or back-up , neither of which will do a damm thing about the current plane-set

he needs to can it & email Maddox Games with his gripes or make his own threads where he gets to reply to himself due to lack of interest

& he knows this which is why he hijacks threads like this

Sig.Hirsch
03-25-2005, 07:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Couldn't agree more Stig/Gosh. However, it is a double edged sword as the modellers put in a very good effort. I doubt they don't enjoy doing it otherwise they'd be doing something else so the violin sob-story "you should be more grateful" business doesn't quite wash...especially (where applicable) as people have _paid_ money for add-ons.

I feel more sorry for those people who probably made a massive effort trying to get something in the game but who didn't quite make the grade or, perhaps, found their contribution less favoured that something 'more marketable'.

Let's not pretend that aircraft included are entirely down to what has been provided. That really wouldn't make business sense.

Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

agreed 100%

Gibbage1
03-25-2005, 09:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by goshikisen:

p.s. - Badsight... read Gibbage's post at the top of the thread. That's what most people are wound up about... the flawed process. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The FACT remains that IF Oleg dictated what to make and what not to make, you would have no 3rd party models. Simply because NO modeler will donate there time and money to build something they personally dont want to fly.

People in this thread SIMPLY DONT UNDERSTAND THIS! Its HUMAN! If any of you people are going to donate hundreds of hours of your time to anything, you must have a passion for it or you quit before its done. True?

Yes, some of us were paid. But ALL but the Spitfire, Ki-43 models that I did, I started out thinking they were for free to Oleg to use so I can fly them. I dont like the 109 and if Oleg said "No P-80, do a 109" I would of said no and left. That means no P-38, no Spitfire, no Ki-43 and none of the other models I did.

Now can you understand? Oleg can not force anyone to make what he think's is more important to the sim. He can sway people, or he can simply not include it, but he cant force. If he did, you would of seen the number of 3rd party modelers DRASTICALLY reduced.

As for the Meteor, it developed into a nice aircraft, but only after the war. The Meteor's they had on hand during the war was sub-par and not much better then the front line piston fighters of the time in terms of even speed. Much less payload, manuverablility, survivability and all other factors.

Gib

Gibbage1
03-25-2005, 09:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:

That much we agree on. But, just because someone puts forth effort doesn't mean it isn't _misguided_ effort.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So your calling everyone who likes whatever you dont like "idiots" and your calling me misguided for not modeling what you want me to model?

What makes your choices so much more valuable that then my choices, and Oleg's choices? Because it was Oleg who asked the modelers to do "what if" aircraft from 1945-46. So I guess your also calling Oleg misguided?

Your not scoring any points here. I simply came to this thread to explain my choices and how they came about. But they are my choices. Without me being able to make the P-80 and Go-229, you would NOT have the P-38, Spitfire, and Ki-43. 3 very "important" aircraft in WWII, so I would say that yes. The P-80 and Go-229 ARE important.

Stiglr
03-25-2005, 09:43 PM
Gibbage asks:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So your calling everyone who likes whatever you dont like "idiots"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, The "idiots" I refer to are those with the "just be happy to get whatever pile of irrelevant nuts and bolts somebody cares to model" mindset. Also those who lack the ability to think critically and lash out at those who do. Take for example Badsight up above and his rants.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Gibbage counters:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What makes your choices so much more valuable that then my choices, and Oleg's choices? Because it was Oleg who asked the modelers to do "what if" aircraft from 1945-46. So I guess your also calling Oleg misguided?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely I'm calling Oleg misguided. It isn't like the man has never made any mistakes with this sim. His inability or unwillingness to rein in the 3rd party people happens to be one of them. Also, let's not forget that his original MiG-3U (of which SIX examples were ever made) opened the Pandora's Box of this entire sorry "tradition" of modeling one-offs to begin with; we had to wait for FB to get the MiGs with ShVaks and MGs, like 90%+ of the real MiG-3's fought with.

And, once again you keep talking about aircraft I want you or others to model. No, I'm talking about aircraft that played a significant role in WWII. For example, I happen to hate Mossies. But I would never come out and say they shouldn't be in the sim (at least now that it's expanded into the Western front). They were a significant type in the war, so they should be a welcome addition, no matter what I think of them personally. There is a lot of leeway in making choices from a list of planes that actually did something significant in the war, or were produced in larger numbers. Nobody has to approve of my personal list; in fact, I haven't even posted one. I've merely said that the Bi-1, I-185, Bf109Z, etc., certainly are NOT representative, significant or even USEFUL planes for a WWII set. Ditto for the Shooting Star and the Meteor.

So, to answer your question, HISTORY makes my choices (actually, suggestions is a better word) more valuable. Let's see you argue against that.

Gibbage also posted:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Simply because NO modeler will donate there time and money to build something they personally dont want to fly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely untrue. I happen to be modeling a Hudson bomber that I have little interest in flying that much (besides maybe taking a maiden voyage when it's done): I think I'll enjoy shooting it up quite a bit more. Also, the Meteor; nah, I'd rather be in the MiG-15 than the Mk8.

Again, I chose my subjects from a list the sim needed to be more complete and to cover its subject better. "Looking kewl" and my personal favorites weren't much of a factor, actually. Now, I will freely admit that a plane one likes is much more likely to spur interest in putting in the time it takes to model it, but I also will say that learning all about an unfamiliar plane while modeling it gives you a new appreciation for the type. I sure know a lot more about Meteors now than I did when I started on it, that's for sure.

And, knowing that you're working on a plane whose inclusion will increase the possiblities of good historical scenarios and campaigns for the sim; filling in holes in the sim; that's something everyone benefits from, whether the plane in question is your mount or your target.

Now why is that so hard for you to grasp?

Badsight.
03-25-2005, 10:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
No, The "idiots" I refer to are those with the "just be happy to get whatever pile of irrelevant nuts and bolts somebody cares to model" mindset. Also those who lack the ability to think critically and lash out at those who do. Take for example Badsight up above and his rants.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>being critical doesnt somehow elevate you , you moron , we all understand how the game is best served with the most used planes being prioritised

cant you quit with posting off-topic idears , you jump on these threads to push your personal gripes

make your own threads & stop hi-jacking every 3rd party plane thread you see

Badsight.
03-25-2005, 10:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
there is nothing wrong with people making planes they like

planes that dont suit _YOU_ are perfectly acceptable

no matter how much it irritates you <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>the only answer you have to that is your a killjoy that doesnt like seeing things not go his own way

well guess what , too bad

just stop making it everyone elses problem & deal with it by shutting up

Stiglr
03-25-2005, 10:42 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif That boy's gonna pop a vein and die of an anyeurism.... and he'll die without ever learning how to spell, or carry a logical argument. Shame.

Sharkey888
03-25-2005, 10:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Again, I chose my subjects from a list the sim _needed_ to be more complete and to cover its subject better. "Looking kewl" and my personal favorites weren't much of a factor, actually. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This NEEDS to be done in BOB.

I think what is not being realized is that it's not only 3rd party modeler time. It also takes 1C's time away from "important" models, such as the DO-17, to be used putting the ME-109Z into the game.

Badsight.
03-25-2005, 11:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
That boy's gonna pop a vein and die of an anyeurism.... and he'll die without ever learning how to spell, or carry a logical argument. Shame. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>& let me guess , a character assumption is what you consider to be a logical argument

what everyone but you sees here is a meteor v P-80 thread , but in your brain your whining gland gets triggered & it actually means you get to hi-jack it & turn it into a 3rd-party Assullt

the problem here isnt that 3rd party people get to supply plane models to Maddox Games , the real problem is that your not on strong enough medication

no-one that i have ever seen (bar one example) has ever said that the most used planes shouldnt be done first

your problem is with Maddox Games , so go take it to email

look below for more off-topic crying by Stigler

Stiglr
03-25-2005, 11:17 PM
*Sigh* Perhaps I can clear it up so that even Badsight will understand some simple concepts...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>what everyone but you sees here is a meteor v P-80 thread , but in your brain your whining gland gets triggered & it actually means you get to hi-jack it & turn it into a 3rd-party Assullt ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One, I'm not assaulting 3rd party modelers, rather their choices and two, "neither" is an option in discussing which of those two planes belongs in the sim most. That's not hijacking a thread, it's called "discussion".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>no-one that i have ever seen (bar one example) has ever said that the most used planes shouldnt be done first <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's wrong, too. Many have said "whatever floats the modeler's boat should be done", regardless of whether they're the "most used" or even at all historically relevant. And as you've also seen (and likely tried to ignore), some agree with my POV.

Keep trying, though. At least you got through a post without calling anyone a "POS" or raving like a madman. That's progress of a sort.

Bandit.426Cdn
03-25-2005, 11:36 PM
I think both Stiglr, Gibbage1 and goshikisen ALL have relevant points... no matter how much personal animosity seems to be getting in the way of rational discussion between two or more parties here.

Let me summarize:

1. The game engine itself has limitations - what some people perceive as weaknesses or omissions in some aircraft and features by Oleg and Co. is not entirely in their control with the basic, 4th generation revised coding now existant in the original game engine. You can only do so much with the core of the game. The original core of the game as coded, was meant to deal with the relatively short-ranged, ground-pounding eastern front. It simply wasn't coded to deal with the sheer variety of conditions and situations that the original game has expanded to become today.

2. The last iteration of the series - Pacific Fighters is the most flawed and incomplete of the series. Thats not an opinion, thats a fact.

I do think, however, it's the result of a cumulative problem that has existed at least since the release of IL2FB with 1:IC's way of doing business both in-house, and with third party modellers. Additions to the sim have been approached in a hap-hazard, non-logical manner, with no apparent planning of balanced, logical additions to the game to match the historical background of the game. Yes, by and large, modellers were volunteers. As such, we must be grateful that they put the effort into their models that they did. However, 1:IC should have at least had a better management system in place, to coordinate with the 3rd party modellers their model completion progress, ETA to completion, as well as vetting their apparent abilities in the first place, perhaps with a simple modelling test in place. For some third party modellers, taking on models was more about an ego-boost on a forum, rather than actually having the committment to complete the models themselves. One particular, un-named person comes to mind when i say this, and this person left Netwings (and the game) with several large holes in the planeset, that could well have been plugged in time by a substitute modeller, if the third party modellers had ongoing and effective two-way communication and supervision with 1:IC throughout the development timeframe, to detect that an issue existed with project completion in due time.

Perhaps rewarding the third-party modellers with free games, successful modellers given recognition in the game credits, and perhaps nominal cash gratuities would have gone a long way to encourage modellers to finish what they'd committed to do. As i understand it from observing the chatter on netwings.org, the former was done for some, but not for all. This was unfair to the third-party modellers.

With Pacific Fighters, the whole situation was apparently exacerbated mid-project by the Houdini-like disappearance of Luthier1. I don't know the story of it all, i've just caught snippets here and there of how it went down. The end result, Oleg Maddox was left holding the bag, and picking up the pieces. Basically, he'd been overwhelmed just trying to wrap up PF into a releasable form (no doubt with pre-Christmas pressure from UBIsoft not helping matters any) and move onto BoB - I don't think he had ANY time to pick up the pieces over at netwings.org, and basically whatever airplane and object models got submitted by modellers that weren't discouraged by lack of communication, were the ones that were released with the game. This left Pacific Fighters much less complete, than it should have been, especially as a standalone.

I'm not justifying the state of the game - I was personally disappointed with the result as was bought off the shelf, but i can understand some of reasons why the game is as it is now.

3. As part of the development process of BoB.. I hope Oleg does some serious examination of what went wrong, and what went right with the IL2FB* series - Personally, I think he needs to look at two things at LEAST, to make the project happen to both his, and the customers expectations, and to keep himself sane in the process

A. Prioritise: timeframe, 1st tier "must have models" and 2nd tier "if there is time models". If all of the first tier models get done, then and only then second tier models can then be assigned.

B. Communicate: talk or delegate responsibility to a responsible person to talk to the third party modellers and make sure things are happening, and happening in a timely basis. If things aren't getting done, move on to someone who can do the job, just don't wait and hold your breath. Talk to the target consumer (Us) - give us clearly defined and realistic expectations and timelines for the game, patches, features etc. Talking it up is fine, but if it talks the talk but don't walk the walk, the simulation falls down, much to the customers dis-satisfaction.

My $.02...

goshikisen
03-25-2005, 11:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The FACT remains that IF Oleg dictated what to make and what not to make, you would have no 3rd party models. Simply because NO modeler will donate there time and money to build something they personally dont want to fly.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the process was set up properly to begin with (for instance: a definitive list, from 1C not Luthier, of "must have" aircraft and a group of willing and capable volunteer modellers) you'd have people modelling aircraft they like AND the sim being properly served.

Gibbage, I understand your motivations but you can't definitively say that every modeller who ever donated their time did it because they were allowed to model one of their favorite aircraft. Some may be strong supporters of the game itself... or looking for a challenge. It may be their first try at a project for a game. Maybe just having a guy like Oleg give you the chance to make something for his series is motivation enough.

Who knows what motivates people? I can only speak for myself... and I know of a couple occasions where I've read a story or heard some fact about an aircraft that, up until that point, I couldn't have cared less about and it piqued my interest. The A4 Skyhawk and the Typhoon fall into that category. A friend asked if I'd build a Skyhawk kit for him and after beginning the project I found out how cool a plane it really was.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight:
you might have only flowen them once , but i like how you take that to mean everyone has only ever flowen them once
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't have to take everything literally... of course I don't mean that every single person who flew the Gotha only did it once. That'd be presumptuous and silly. The point I'm trying to make is you find very few (serious) online servers that allow this type of aircraft and the average gamer will find the flight characteristics too challenging to bother mastering. The Gotha is bloody hard to get off the ground much less effectively fight with. I can GUARANTEE you if a talented guy like Gibbage had turned out a Typhoon instead of a Horten Wing he'd find his handiwork being used by a broader range of people.

Badsight... if you have such a problem with Stiglr "interjecting" in threads then why don't you have a problem with yourself doing it here? It's like you've appointed yourself sheriff and you're hellbent on telling us what to do? Your doing the same thing that you purportedly despise. Unless a mod tells someone otherwise they can post whatever they like in whatever thread they wish. Is the irony lost on you?

Stiglr
03-25-2005, 11:56 PM
Bandit up above is spot on in cinching this all up. And it takes us back to my original answers to the original question:

1) NEITHER. Because neither were relevant.
2) Because the Allied-centric guys want what they think is the "best" counter to the Me-262, not necessarily its real adversary (which is the B-17 and B-24 or the few planes that might be able to catch it at times, the P-51 and P-47). And they especially can't stand the idea that the Germans ever had any kind of enjoyable advantage, even when history in this case says they most certainly did.

By the way, whatever did happen to Luthier? I thought he got put in some kind of producer or project manager spot for BoB??

(Yeah, yeah Badsight, that is off topic. Put down that rock, willya?)

goshikisen
03-26-2005, 12:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
By the way, whatever _did_ happen to Luthier? I thought he got put in some kind of producer or project manager spot for BoB??
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please say that isn't so...

Badsight.
03-26-2005, 01:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by goshikisen:
The point I'm trying to make is you find very few (serious) online servers that allow this type of aircraft <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>like quake servers mean anything other than air-quake & like the "serious" quake servers have to allow a plane in for it to also be considered a "serious" plane . . . . . this is the same spoil sport attitude you get everywhere . the Go-229 isnt around to fly anywhere in the world , its addition (& any other what-if) allows you too glimpse the what-if part of WW2

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by goshikisen:
The Gotha is bloody hard to get off the ground much less effectively fight with. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>so you know from all the DFing you have with the Gotha , right ?

fact is the Gotha is the single most deadly jet in FB , fact

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by goshikisen:
Badsight... if you have such a problem with Stiglr "interjecting" in threads then why don't you have a problem with yourself doing it here? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>well over the last 2 YEARS , any thread that had anything to do with 3rd party planes get hi-jacked by Stigler into his personal rant places

he takes them away from topic so he can critise left right & center about why his veiw isnt being followed & the sim suffering for it

it gets old , if he wants to discuss it he should MAKE HIS OWN THREAD & let it die the death it deserves

instead his constant moans get repeated dragging down the threads with them

Badsight.
03-26-2005, 01:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
bla bla bla. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

what he means is that he cant control the sims direction & hates it

& cant stand that people with the talent he doesnt posess dont do exactly as he wants

because thats his whole attitude boiled down to 1 sentence

wheres the thank you , you un-gratefull pos

Badsight.
03-26-2005, 01:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
1) NEITHER. Because neither were relevant. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> yea if your a complete kill-joy tard then that would qualify as a answer
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
2) Because the Allied-centric guys want what they think is the "best" counter to the Me-262, not necessarily its real adversary (which is the B-17 and B-24 or the few planes that might be able to catch it at times, the P-51 and P-47). And they especially can't stand the idea that the Germans ever had any kind of enjoyable advantage, even when history in this case says they most certainly did. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>wot a load of ****

the 262 is a joy killer online , its banned because WW2 CFS fans are generally not fans of jets , & in 44 with the Axis getting 262s all youll see is allied getting frustrated

no one plays a CFS for frustration , unless your a kill-joy tard

giving the allied side a Jet had nothing to do with historical useage & everything to do with CFS enjoyment , an alien concept to you stigler ?

thats right , not everyone has to stick rigidly to what happened in WW2

i know that bites but your just having to deal with it Stigler

Gibbage1
03-26-2005, 01:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by goshikisen:

Gibbage, I understand your motivations but you can't definitively say that every modeller who ever donated their time did it because they were allowed to model one of their favorite aircraft. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can definitively say that every modeler I know did it because of the love for the model subject. And since I orginized most of the modeling for Aces, I know a lot of the modelers. I have even met a few in person, along with metting Oleg a few times and even Ilya.

IL2 was going to be IL2 3rd party aircraft or not. If some crazy devoted modeler gave sometihng extra, all the better. But without them, you have a lot less.

Im not even going to bother to try and explain it again. I will just state this. I know what I am talking about here. Every modeler I have spoken with did it out of passion. A love for the aircraft. Without that, there would be no Aces, and half the aircraft in PF would not have been done.

Beggers cant be choosers.

Gibbage1
03-26-2005, 01:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by goshikisen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
By the way, whatever _did_ happen to Luthier? I thought he got put in some kind of producer or project manager spot for BoB??
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please say that isn't so... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ilya is still alive and kicken. I recently got a few E-mails from him.

GerritJ9
03-26-2005, 01:52 AM
I like the Meteor Mk.3's looks....... but way before the Meteor, the Glenn Martin B-10 should get higher priority (even if only AI). It was used in significant numbers (by both KNIL and Philippine Air Force) against the Japanese in 1941-42 and saw widespread action over the Philippines, Malaya, Singapore, Borneo, Sumatra and Java.

Aaron_GT
03-26-2005, 01:59 AM
"Perhaps rewarding the third-party modellers with free games, successful modellers given recognition in the game credits, and perhaps nominal cash gratuities would have gone a long way to encourage modellers to finish what they'd committed to do"

At least the first two happen already, although sometimes people contribute without the hope of reward!

Perhaps in future (for BoB) Oleg should make the 3rd party process a bit more official and create a list of models that are required and allow these to be reserved and check on progress. It would mean less choice for 3rd party developers, though, and removing the freedom might remove the fun and mean less planes are made by 3rd party people, so it isn't a certainty such a process would have the intended effect. But maybe with such a process in place Stiglr would feel motivated to produce models for BoB as well as Targetware. (Targetware isn't a bad sim, but it has a poor offline experience and very few players online, which makes it problematic).

NorrisMcWhirter
03-26-2005, 03:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the 262 is a joy killer online , its banned because WW2 CFS fans are generally not fans of jets , & in 44 with the Axis getting 262s all youll see is allied getting frustrated <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's no reason to ban the 262 from servers especially those supposedly running 'historical' scenarios. Yeah, we know all about the inability to limit numbers of types of aircraft but that's only true for noob DF and not co-op; you hardly see any in co-op scenarios, either, though.

So, in that respect, Stig is entirely correct - the only reason something like the P80 would be introduced is because it gives the allies something superior (but completely a-historical) with which to deal with the 262....rather than giving them a Typhoon/Tempest which would have been more historical.

Oleg's not stupid - he knows what sells titles although the emphasis would appear to be shifting from quality to quantity.

Norris

p1ngu666
03-26-2005, 03:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the 262 is a joy killer online , its banned because WW2 CFS fans are generally not fans of jets , & in 44 with the Axis getting 262s all youll see is allied getting frustrated <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's no reason to ban the 262 from servers especially those supposedly running 'historical' scenarios. Yeah, we know all about the inability to limit numbers of types of aircraft but that's only true for noob DF and not co-op; you hardly see any in co-op scenarios, either, though.

So, in that respect, Stig is entirely correct - the only reason something like the P80 would be introduced is because it gives the allies something superior (but completely a-historical) with which to deal with the 262....rather than giving them a Typhoon/Tempest which would have been more historical.

Oleg's not stupid - he knows what sells titles although the emphasis would appear to be shifting from quality to quantity.

Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

imo, id like to see a a2 on warclouds or greatergreen, see how that would work.

go229 is best aircraft in fb, apart from a few things, rudder, low speed acceloration, the low rof of the cannons (which do hit hard)

it can outrun anything it cant outturn, and it can outturn a yak3.

stiglr why do u hate mossie? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666/mossiebright.jpg

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666/rearnossiebright.jpg

i always thought the mossie was cool, mainly because of the raids they did against the gestapo, SS, himmler and goering. imagine the fat man running away from radio station in berlin, in daylight, as mossies thunder overhead http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

imagine how he felt http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Badsight.
03-26-2005, 04:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
That's no reason to ban the 262 from servers especially those supposedly running 'historical' scenarios. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>well how else do you explain the 262's absence from DF servers apart from the fact that its too dominating

that & the fact that WW2 CFS fans are generally put off by non-prop combat , as in they either dont like jets or dont like how you have to fly different to the way you can with props


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Yeah, we know all about the inability to limit numbers of types of aircraft but that's only true for noob DF and not co-op; you hardly see any in co-op scenarios, either, though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> i have made & host many jet coops , but i too hardly get to see any besides that which i run myself . but look at what happens when you see Jets in a DF server , its everyone in them or guys who are not getting frustrated at not being able to catch & kill (as in 1944 axis / allies Me-262 v props) this bag of no-fun really goes down a treat http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
So, in that respect, Stig is entirely correct - the only reason something like the P80 would be introduced is because it gives the allies something superior (but completely a-historical) with which to deal with the 262....rather than giving them a Typhoon/Tempest which would have been more historical. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>well thats ignores the FACT that the P-80 was finished in 2003 & that the Tempest is still to be released

& why not give a Jet to both sides , i for one am badly hoping the VVS get the Mig-9 , as it is the Axis side have 3 jets to go with the excellent me-163

csThor
03-26-2005, 06:37 AM
Online Dogfight this, Online Dogfight that ... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

All I keep seeing is discussions about Online Dogfights. Folks - this game does not revolve around Online Dogfights only! These are - whatever work was put into the maps and scripts by their hosts - still Deathmatch style quick fun games at their base. I know about Warclouds and similar servers, but they do stand out of a mass of low-difficulty Quake-Servers and are perls among many simple stones. But still - according to Oleg himself - the Offline crowd, which doesn't really have a voice here and gets forgotten quickly, is the larger group of players. I am one of them, I gave up Online as I was looking for historical details and couldn't find them there. Is the addition of Bf 109 Z, I-185 or Go-229 really useful for them? Are there campaigns for them?

A 3rd Party model is more than just a new toy for the Dogfight fans. Offline fans, COOP fans do have different criteria to judge if the introduction of a plane makes sense or not. To me such a project has to be part of a package, a package that allows every kind of player to use it within the limits of the game. Let's take the possible first addition for BoB as example and imagine it would be Channel War 1941. Sure I'd like to see a Fw 190 A-2 or A-3, but these weren't there in 1941. Sure a P51 would be "kewl" for a dogfighter but it wasn't there in 1941. What was there were Bf 109 E-7, E-7/N, F-2, F-4, Spit Vb and Hurricanes plus the bombers, transports and torpedo bombers of its time. As Stiglr said history is the easiest common denominator to satisfy the needs of all players who have purchased FB/PF.

NorrisMcWhirter
03-26-2005, 08:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
That's no reason to ban the 262 from servers especially those supposedly running 'historical' scenarios. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>well how else do you explain the 262's absence from DF servers apart from the fact that its too dominating

that & the fact that WW2 CFS fans are generally put off by non-prop combat , as in they either dont like jets or dont like how you have to fly different to the way you can with props


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Yeah, we know all about the inability to limit numbers of types of aircraft but that's only true for noob DF and not co-op; you hardly see any in co-op scenarios, either, though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> i have made & host many jet coops , but i too hardly get to see any besides that which i run myself . but look at what happens when you see Jets in a DF server , its everyone in them or guys who are not getting frustrated at not being able to catch & kill (as in 1944 axis / allies Me-262 v props) this bag of no-fun really goes down a treat http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
So, in that respect, Stig is entirely correct - the only reason something like the P80 would be introduced is because it gives the allies something superior (but completely a-historical) with which to deal with the 262....rather than giving them a Typhoon/Tempest which would have been more historical. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>well thats ignores the FACT that the P-80 was finished in 2003 & that the Tempest is still to be released

& why not give a Jet to both sides , i for one am badly hoping the VVS get the Mig-9 , as it is the Axis side have 3 jets to go with the excellent me-163 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I know it dominates...and it should because it was simply ahead of it's time. Of course, no one bothers to go and hang around the field where the 262 is taking off and landing...they either ban it or stick an a-historical P80 on the map to "offset" it. Ridiculous.

Unfortunately, you're right in terms of when the aircraft were introduced and this is where we are at the mercy of who decides to model what. Like I said, it's both a fortunate and unfortunate situation because, on one hand, we have people spending a lot of time on models which may have not been viable (financially) unless they did it out of love but then we have it where someone thinks, "Oh, I think I'll model xyz this 'week' because I think it would be a useful addition to combat plane pqr"; and we know where that can lead.

There is no easy solution except to say that we should be marginally pleased to have these aircraft added but marginally disappointed that we have a disjointed and non-flowing process which may cause imbalances or historical recreational problems.

Perhaps a better solution would have been for Oleg/whoever to publish a list of aircraft which would be suitable for addition and then let modellers pick and choose which ones they'd like to do. Maybe that wouldn't have worked very well but I see that it would be no real difference from where we are now because I don't think what has happened has been the best approach either.

Norris

PS: It's admirable if you do actually run co-ops with 262s in. I'll be sure to keep an eye out for them because they are truly rare. It's a pity that Corsairs defending PH in 1941 are not so rare http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Sharkey888
03-26-2005, 09:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by csThor:
A 3rd Party model is more than just a new toy for the Dogfight fans. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As was said before, this is where history is the denominator. Making models just because it's your favorite plane should not be the only criteria used.

Gibbage mentioned all modelers that he knew of in IL2 had this motivation. Maybe that's the problem. And that's why we have a GO-229 and no MC200 or a KI-100 and no "Devastator." While the GO-229 and KI-100 may be great to fly in an online server, they leave alot to be desired when playing offline, or trying to make a campaign. And again I do respect Gibbages work very much http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

IL2 has been billed as this historical sim. Well, let's keep it that way. If you want to make an obscure plane for a sim, to fly online, make it for CFS3. This may sound kinda harsh but I am tired of IL2 being called so realistic etc when at times it is pure "<span class="ev_code_RED">Forgotten</span> Obscure Aircraft with no bearing on WW2 made just so people can fly them in online <span class="ev_code_RED">Battles</span>!"
And I really like obscure aircraft as long as they have a historical map to fly on, historical aircraft to fight against etc.

I am saying all this as a 95% majority person who plays offline all the time and has a minor voice on these forums.

There are good signs about BOB, with the crew making Poland 1939 and France 1940. I just hope the new added complexity of BOB doesn't make all of their hard work for nothing. And how are we ever going to have flyable B-17's or Lancasters!?

goshikisen
03-26-2005, 09:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
so you know from all the DFing you have with the Gotha , right ?

fact is the Gotha is the single most deadly jet in FB , fact
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please read what I wrote... I said the AVERAGE GAMER will find the flight characteristics of the wing difficult to master. I'm talking about Joe Average who runs the sim once in a while for a laugh. Many folks on this forum are interested in a challenge and take the time to explore the capabilities of an aircraft and learn to exploit its good points. The folks on this forum, unfortunately, are in the minority when we look at the total units of PF sold. If you take a green sim pilot and ask him to get a Spit off the ground and then have him take off in a wing... which is he going to most likely have the most success with? People's attention spans are very short... they'll take the easy ride for their entertainment value.

My point about the servers... you hear people on these forums lament the fact (or celebrate the fact) that jets aren't allowed in many of them. I can sympathise with Thor though... the secret weapons make it less fun for the offline folks (which I am most of the time).

Gibbage... it seems you are aware of the reasons why people model. I can't say I entirely agree with you on all counts but I defer to your experience on this one.

Monty_Thrud
03-26-2005, 10:26 AM
Warbirds_WF has the ME262, i flew on their server the other day, it had the bad weather winter map..it was great, nice to see the 262 again and from all the aircraft books i've read i knew the only way to take her down was hang around their airfield...so i jumped in a P38 with the extra .50's gunpods and of i flew to vultch got me one straight away...SHU-WEET http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Oh and i dont see what all this whining is for after this next patch and maybe possibly another patch ...thats all she wrote folks...sure i'd love to see more planes...Lancaster, DO17,Wellington bomber Spitfire MkI, Mk22, Huzzy Tankbusters,Typhoon, B29 flyable,PE8 flyable...etc, it just isnt going to happen...so lets move on

Stiglr
03-26-2005, 12:23 PM
Why do I hate Mossies? Because they're always running (not "extending", but flat out RUNNING) after getting in whatever kind of cowardly 20mm blast they can on their initial run-in. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But, that's just me...

=====

Also glad to see people finally seeing the hypocrisy in the "tit for tat" plane choice thing. The Allies cannot abide being at any kind of disadvantage, even if it's a historical one (e.g., not having a match for the Me-262). So, in such a case, they turn it into a "parity" argument. But, when the shoe's on the other foot, and it's late war and the Allies hold all the advantages in technology and numbers (as they should, actually), it's all about "being historical and correct" and the Germans and Japanese should just "shut up and take it".

p1ngu666
03-26-2005, 12:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Why do I hate Mossies? Because they're always running (not "extending", but flat out RUNNING) after getting in whatever kind of cowardly 20mm blast they can on their initial run-in. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But, that's just me...

=====

Also glad to see people finally seeing the hypocrisy in the "tit for tat" plane choice thing. The Allies cannot abide being at any kind of disadvantage, even if it's a historical one (e.g., not having a match for the Me-262). So, in such a case, they turn it into a "parity" argument. But, when the shoe's on the other foot, and it's late war and the Allies hold all the advantages in technology and numbers (as they should, actually), it's all about "being historical and correct" and the Germans and Japanese should just "shut up and take it". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and u cant catch them? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
mossie's where mostly strike aircraft, but it could be a capeable fighter http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

hmm if 20mm is cowardly, whats a 30mm? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LW has better planes pretty much, atleast in the disengaugement sense http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

and yeah, japanease are lacking, see corsair 1c vs the worst zero's cos mission bulider's dont know jack about zeros http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

hope we get more cos i like japanease planes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

im excluding the ki84 from this btw http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

goshikisen
03-26-2005, 01:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bandit.426Cdn:
I'm not justifying the state of the game - I was personally disappointed with the result as was bought off the shelf, but i can understand some of reasons why the game is as it is now.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bandit... you wouldn't happen to be involved in project management would you? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

In my time in development I've learned that talented programmers and designers usually don't make good project managers. It takes a particular type of person to see the project as a whole and marshal talent in an effective way. From anecdotal evidence it seems that Maddox Games needed someone to step into this role... at least when it came to the PF part of the Sturmovik saga.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
Oh and i dont see what all this whining is for after this next patch and maybe possibly another patch ...thats all she wrote folks...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm with Tooz on this one... I'd like 1C to re-evaluate their way of doing things for future projects such as BoB. Some people here don't like it but I think the criticisms must be made so the message gets across... direct e-mail to the developer doesn't always work and doesn't do much for drumming up support. "It's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease" as my grandma used to say and I'll squeak whether people like it or not. A good developer will appreciate this sort of dialogue. Whether badsight and others want to acknowledge it or not... I think everyone here is an IL2 enthusiast. We all want to see this series do well.

Remember... folks like stiglr, Thor et al. are thinking long term, big picture. They aren't out to crucify talented 3rd party modellers. If that's what you think they're doing then you aren't listening to what they're saying.

Regards, Goshikisen

p.s. - Monty... do you own a Truimph? I like classic British bikes. I know it's not kosher to some but I've got my eye on a brand new Triumph Speedmaster. The reviews say this bike is impressive in almost every way.

Bandit.426Cdn
03-26-2005, 02:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by goshikisen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bandit.426Cdn:
I'm not justifying the state of the game - I was personally disappointed with the result as was bought off the shelf, but i can understand some of reasons why the game is as it is now.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bandit... you wouldn't happen to be involved in project management would you? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

In my time in development I've learned that talented programmers and designers usually don't make good project managers. It takes a particular type of person to see the project as a whole and marshal talent in an effective way. From anecdotal evidence it seems that Maddox Games needed someone to step into this role... at least when it came to the PF part of the Sturmovik saga.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Close enough.. I'm involved with Manufacturing and packaging production management http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Many of the same principles apply, and when you micro-manage some aspects of something while neglecting other aspects, without looking at the bigger picture of what the final result should be, things like PF happen http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stiglr
03-26-2005, 02:49 PM
For what it's worth, I have had some success at communicating with the 1c group via email. And some of my ideas have actually found their way into the sim. This was very early in the IL-2 lifespan. Then, it seems, they weren't so thinskinned about criticism. But then, they also had developed a modus operandi of only responding to certain types of criticism, and cutting off dialogue on certain other things. This isn't entirely Maddox' fault. No doubt, a lot of that had to be driven by the distributor's production schedule, where to stay on track, they had to "lock up" certain portions of the code or fail to deliver the product on time according to contract. Unfortunate, but a reality of the gaming business.

Still, Goshisiken is right, I am thinking big picture, and I do want the sim to succeed. If the sim does better, I enjoy it more, so I have a vested interest.

But, that never means I have to hold my tongue in the interest of salving someone's ego. In my industry, (advertsing) my work is up for savage criticism all the time, and one quickly discovers in such an environment that it doesn't work to just get defensive and lash out at people for having an opinion. If somebody brings up a criticism, and the viewpoint has merit, you have to deal with it: address the criticism, or deflect it with facts, reason, or alternatives. If you can't do that, then perhaps something is wrong with "your baby" and needs to be addressed.

Badsight.
03-26-2005, 02:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
WAlso glad to see people finally seeing the hypocrisy <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>oh jeez as if this is a brownie point winning war

what is their to finally see Stigler ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

the 262 is left out for reasons of gameplay pure & simple

just as the P-80 is added to counter it when it is available online

it has nothing to do with hypocrisy & everything to do with having fun

not everyone is a kill-joy tard like yourself , people play these games for F-U-N , & theres nothing fun when you hve a 16 ppl server thats 8 262s v props

people get frustrated , leave , & get anti jets

get over your stupid "allies cant stand" attitude , your such a axis fanboy it literally oozes

theres a reason you dont host your own DF rooms , because you would be in their on your own , if you dont like that the community isnt just how you want it to be , so what just STFU anyway . 3rd party people shouldnt have to be stuck to doing exactly as you want , your problem is that Maddox Games dont do exactly as you say they should

well tuff s**t

no-one would ever say that these planes are more usefull than the most represented stuff , but Maddox Games accepted them & added them

Maddox Games didnt make all the planes we think should be here

see where this is going you ******* , next 3rd party plane thread , just walk away , keep your piehole shut , & if you cant do that then delete your system 32 folder anyway , do it for the community , as a favour

TAGERT.
03-26-2005, 03:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Why do I hate Mossies? Because they're always running (not "extending", but flat out RUNNING) after getting in whatever kind of cowardly 20mm blast they can on their initial run-in. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But, that's just me... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WOW! Mr. History is upset with people who fly the mossies Historically? What a hypocrit!

Stiglr
03-26-2005, 04:00 PM
@TAGERT,
Just cuz I said I didn't like how Mossies fly doesn't mean it can't be historical.

The way I fly a Bf109, I'm sure it aggravates the hell out of my opponents. Nothing wrong with someone flying to the strengths of his aircraft. The idea is to frustrate the enemy.

You're gonna have to do a lot better than that to label me a "hypocrite". Why not take an easier route, Tags, and admit that what I wrote about the Allied flyboys is absolutely true. Not only in this community, but in many others as well.

@Badsight:
I have this mental picture of you, redfaced as a beet, eyes all squinted in helplessness and pain, at the very idea that there's someone more intelligent than you, better able to communicate than you, and who scores logical points against your arguments with such ease that it makes you look like a total idiot. And then you post another one of your blustery, flustered, spittle-fueled diatribes as your best answer. God, that must be SO frustrating.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Badsight.
03-26-2005, 06:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
@Badsight:
I have this mental picture of you <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>thats your problem

just quit spamming 3rd party threads with your off-topic whining

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
there's someone more intelligent than you, better able to communicate than you <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>well fortunately it isnt you

if you hadnt noticed im not debating any points with you here , im telling you to quit with the spam , make your own thread , & to STOP diverting other peoples

your problems are no one elses

but i guess it your basic nature to be a kill-joy tard

goshikisen
03-26-2005, 06:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
"S T F U" "ungratefull POS" "kill-joy tard" "you *******" "keep your piehole shut"
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Talk about undermining your own credibility. This is the type of response we see from folks who can't take the time to string together a coherent rebuttal. A real ambassador for the IL2 series.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
if you hadnt noticed im not debating any points with you here
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's right... you're not debating. It's more like a steady flow of verbal diarrhea.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
your problems are no one elses
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I can safely say that Stiglr's problem is also mine, csThor's, Tooz's, Norris's, Bandit's, Sharkey's... to name a few. Your anger and bile spewing is your own.

Do us a favour Badsight... lay off the cursing and name calling. It's like school in the summertime... No Class.

Badsight.
03-27-2005, 12:26 AM
goshikisen , im not here dis-agreeing at all about which planes add to the sim , but to Stiglers constant & unending moan that he trots out at every opportunity he can , wether its related to the thread topic or not , for the LAST 2 YEARS

its gotten way past old

hes a thread sabotager , & hes been told before in the past but he cant help himself , he wants to change the discussion to his pet hate topic , happened before & hes going to try & do it again

why cant he answer about why he does it

why cant he keep his off-topic whining to threads specifically related to his pet hates , EVEN when things get changed for the better the first reply he makes is another moaning whine about why it should have happened sooner

this is far from the first thread hes trashed

& hes not even right on the thing that bugs him , & that is that 3rd party moddelers dont think the same way he does , they model for the funof it & make planes they like , which he looks down & rubbishes far & wide , saying that the "problems" in the sim are because hiis point of view isnt followed

hes been told over & over why these planes are here but he still wont shut up about it

thread hi-jacking anit a big deal untill you see the same guy do it over & over again for over 2 years

like i said ,its way past old

Aaron_GT
03-27-2005, 01:33 AM
Stiglr,

It could be that by making himself available to the community Oleg has had to put up with so much criticism, a lot of it probably ill-informed (not suggesting that is the case from you - the reverse in fact), that he's just got fed up with the whole process, like someone who has been nagged again and again. So then any criticism, even valid, might be liable to piss him off.

Monty_Thrud
03-27-2005, 11:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> p.s. - Monty... do you own a Truimph? I like classic British bikes. I know it's not kosher to some but I've got my eye on a brand new Triumph Speedmaster. The reviews say this bike is impressive in almost every way.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, i've got a 1979 Triumph Bonneville, 1998 Thunderbird, 1968 BSA Starfire...but have you seen the new Norton (http://www.nortonmotorcycles.com/) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Stiglr
03-27-2005, 12:25 PM
Aaron_GT wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It could be that by making himself available to the community Oleg has had to put up with so much criticism, a lot of it probably ill-informed (not suggesting that is the case from you - the reverse in fact), that he's just got fed up with the whole process, like someone who has been nagged again and again. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have a feeling that's what happened, too.

But, it's no excuse.

For one thing, being right, and then being forthcoming with the documentation goes a long way towards settling these matters. I find it pretty funny that we "mere players" get challenged to produce all kinds of facts and documents for our assertions, which we produce, I might add, and then when it's time for Maddox to show his facts to support why modeling is a certain way, suddenly there's all these reasons it can't or won't be released. Frankly, it smells of b***sh**.

Second, any simulation attempting to mimic reality and history is going to be put up next to a very big yardstick; it's just par for the course. I'd think at some point, like with the FW190 view controversy, Oleg would just dig in his heels and make a decision and live with the criticism. It seems that now he's gotten to the point where he's changing things to be popular, and that's just another kind of 'wrong'.

In the end, if they could simply "get it right", more of us would be happy with the results.

Sir-Tiedeman
03-27-2005, 01:32 PM
badsight



You seem like a very resonable person,
but it looks like the anger is taking over.


the dark side is strong

Stiglr
03-27-2005, 03:00 PM
What part of "just get it right and the rest will sort itself out" is angry?

Sir-Tiedeman
03-27-2005, 04:03 PM
sorry about that stiglr.


I meant badsight. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif



Post edited.

Stiglr
03-27-2005, 04:25 PM
Oh, yeah, there you've got it pretty much right.

I just don't know where you get the "reasonable" part. I haven't heard Badsight say a thing yet that didn't read like it had a spray of spittle trailing behind it.

Or anything like a decent rebuttal to any argument I've made. That's where I think the anger springs from: frustration.

Badsight.
03-27-2005, 05:10 PM
Stigler , im not replying to you

im telling you to make your own thread where you gripes wont be off-topic thread wreckers

you have already been told in the past why you are wrong & what the real cause is


Sir-Tiedeman , im not angered by Stigler , online hes no real threat , but here at this forum hes dragged down threads away from what the starters have wanted to dicuss for the last 2 years anytime 3rd party planes were mentioned

if you see him at HL , its a blue moon he flies , he goes there to argue & moan . if he wanted to discuss why 3rd party moddelers need to be like him & do what he wants , he should post why in a thread about that topic

HerrGraf
03-27-2005, 06:53 PM
Gentlemen:
There is lots of room for disputes....... however there is never any need for vulgarities! No matter what one thinks of anothers opinions, swearing will gain you no points in an arguement. There are some here that I beleive have their head stuck up *********, but I will only debate the points of their arguement- not what I believe their mental capacities are.

goshikisen...the Speedmaster is a sweet ride if you like cruisers. If you are ever in Southern California, stop by So. Cal. Triumph in Brea Calif. and take one for a test ride. Better yet, try theRocket Three for a really awsome ride.
Monty_Thrud.... you need to change the Thunderbird logo to a Daytona logo (more in line with the game [unless you like flying Blenheims]). I will reserve my opinion on the new Norton until I get to ride one. Up close they do look good, but the proof of the pooding is in the taste. By the way one of my rides is a 1975 Mk III that I have owned and ridden for twenty-five years.

goshikisen
03-27-2005, 09:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HerrGraf:
goshikisen...the Speedmaster is a sweet ride if you like cruisers. If you are ever in Southern California, stop by So. Cal. Triumph in Brea Calif. and take one for a test ride. Better yet, try theRocket Three for a really awsome ride. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I was 10 years younger I may have been keen on a Daytona but these days a Speedmaster is more my pace. I live on the opposite side of the continent from you but thanks for the offer.

what the heck... might as well - One Japanese Cruiser, One Japanese Battleship, One American Battleship.

panther3485
03-27-2005, 09:19 PM
Hi guys,

I acknowledge the right of 3rd party developers to produce whatever they want, and good on 'em.

But in terms of general sentiments, I empathise with Stiglr and goshikisen. I would truly love to see something near 'historically complete' planesets, with aircraft types being prioritized according to the extent of the service they actually saw.

But I don't know how to do this myself, so I rely on the game/sim producer and the 3rd partly guys with the know-how to do it! In general, I'm happy with the work that everyone has done and I just HOPE that the remaining gaps will eventually be filled!!! (Yeah, yeah, I know - but I'm an optimist, right!)

Keep up the good work,
Happy simming/gaming to all,

panther3485

PBNA-Boosher
03-27-2005, 10:29 PM
This thread makes me really sick. All a bunch of bickering.

JR_Greenhorn
03-27-2005, 11:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
Yes, i've got a 1979 Triumph Bonneville, 1998 Thunderbird, 1968 BSA Starfire...but have you seen the new Norton (http://www.nortonmotorcycles.com/) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>While the jury is still out on the latest Norton, it is refreshing to see that this time around the new bike is an honest attempt to bring the spirit of classic Nortons up to date. Odd that it took a company from Oregon to try that approach!

Thank goodness the previous revivalists got caught up in the typical legal squabbles. While the Nemesis could have been an interesting bike, it never should have been designed under the Norton name. Same goes for the old Wankel rotary bikes from two and a half decades ago. Is it that hard to come up with a new marque to sell bikes under?

Have you guys seen the recent doings under the fabled Vincent name? Talk about your sacrilege!



Monty, is your Bonnie an 8-valve TSS, or did that model come a bit later?


I've got a '98 Thunderbird Sport--nice bike, I've been happy with it.

Stiglr
03-27-2005, 11:11 PM
panther wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But I don't know how to do this myself, so I rely on the game/sim producer and the 3rd partly guys with the know-how to do it! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is another part of the dynamic. Resources for building new planes are scarce. Not many people with the experience and talent to do it to IL-2 standards, the software costs a helluva lot of money, and then there's the time itself.

Thus, since not everybody can make whatever they want, well, call me naive, but I'd like to think that those who can would have a little bit more self-control and wouldn't have to be told that a Bi-1 isn't as important or valuable to the entire community as a plane, any plane, that actually flew in combat during WWII.

So, I'm saying there's a middle ground; yes, teh 3rd party modelers should have freedom to choose what they want to model and no, the 3rd party modelers shouldn't have to model planes they abhor or have absolutely no interest in... but then again, they should be able to intelligently choose from a list of planes that have some utility and "belong" in the sim much more than others. And they should take on a little bit of responsibility to the community they're contributing to, and make their choice really count for something. To make up a list of those planes doesn't take that much effort.

Aaron_GT
03-28-2005, 01:59 AM
" the software costs a helluva lot of money,"

I take it, then, that The Blender is not up to the job?

I tried to use 3D tools myself to contribute but it just did my head in.

Aaron_GT
03-28-2005, 02:03 AM
stiglr wrote:
"But, it's no excuse."

He's human, married, and with a young child (and probably sleep deprivation), so I think it's not unreasonable.

"For one thing, being right, and then being forthcoming with the documentation goes a long way towards settling these matters. I find it pretty funny that we "mere players" get challenged to produce all kinds of facts and documents for our assertions,"

That's probably to weed out the people who have seen a few Hollywood films and are purely whining that they can't be John Wayne.

"which we produce, I might add, and then when it's time for Maddox to show his facts to support why modeling is a certain way, suddenly there's all these reasons it can't or won't be released. Frankly, it smells of b***sh**."

In my opinion the conspiracy theory should be the last resort. Oleg has revealed some of his sources but kept some quiet. In some instances it seems he has made exclusive licensing deals to use that information for the production of his sim. In releasing that information to support his assertions he'd effectively be republishing it, and might get into legal hot water. Plus if there is hard to get information that he has access to it prevents CFS3 modders (as an example) using it, which maintains a competitive advantage for Oleg. And when all said and done, and even given his dedication to the idea of WW2 aviation, maintaining that edge so that he can feed and clothe his family is probably important to him.

Aaron_GT
03-28-2005, 02:07 AM
"So, I'm saying there's a middle ground; yes, teh 3rd party modelers should have freedom to choose what they want to model and no, the 3rd party modelers shouldn't have to model planes they abhor or have absolutely no interest in... but then again, they should be able to intelligently choose from a list of planes that have some utility and "belong" in the sim much more than others. And they should take on a little bit of responsibility to the community they're contributing to, and make their choice really count for something. To make up a list of those planes doesn't take that much effort."

There would likely be a rump of planes that would go unmodelled due to unpopularity so there would be a need for in house modellers to cope with this. The other theoretical problem is with quality, but it seems that the models from 3rd parties Oleg has selected have been fine, so there seems to be no lack of modelling talent.

However, Stiglr, if you are serious about this, you could always volunteer to model some planes for BoB - the ones that are needed but are unpopular. You are obviously up to the task of modelling planes. I've tried to contribute in ways that I am able to, but 3D modelling is not one of them, unfortunately.

Badsight.
03-28-2005, 02:16 AM
theres a few planes that amaze me as to why Maddox Games didnt make them for FB's release

i mean 3rd party guys are just doing this stuff in their free time & this community hears so much about them & thier projects it seems that the focus is on them instead of the actual games developer

why no PE-2 or Hs-129 are partly due to lack of resources , but still filling out the important planes is , should be , & remain the job of the Games maker

its a CFS sure , but no-one can deny its trying to replicate WW2 aeiral warfare

Badsight.
03-28-2005, 02:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
However, Stiglr, if you are serious about this, you could always volunteer to model some planes for BoB - the ones that are needed but are unpopular. You are obviously up to the task of modelling planes. I've tried to contribute in ways that I am able to, but 3D modelling is not one of them, unfortunately. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>your forgetting who Stigler is

he's anti-FB since day one , Targetware is his baby , he plays FB because no-one plays Targetware

hes far & away more happy camping here with his critisim's

Taylortony
03-28-2005, 04:55 AM
Ahhh back to the bickering I see.....He only asked why not the Meatbox lol.........I can see Gibbages Point to a T........... Myself I only skin Planes I like or are interesting, Skinning the likes of the PE2 etc is not my forte and I leave that to the VVS skinners amongst us.... I can understand the Meteor debate, BTW the only reson it didnt do much more than take down the V1 was it was forbidden for it to operate over the other side of the channel..... On the P-80 though I would add.......... be honest here..... how many have you ever seen on line in a game??????????
you have more chance of getting Pingu666 on your six than seeing one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif and thats saying something http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Stiglr
03-28-2005, 01:41 PM
I don't know that I've got the experience to tackle the IL-2 standard for 3D art. Lots more polys, lots more details. And, if what I've read is any indication, the upcoming BoB now involves modelling the entire endoskeleton of the aircraft, ribs and all! Yikes!!

The sim I'm doing models for has a much stricter poly budget (and hence, less detail in the shapes modelled), and I'm working hard to contribute stuff there. And, of course, learning more and more with each project.

Aaron_GT
03-28-2005, 04:07 PM
Your TW stuff doesn't look too bad, Stiglr. I am sure we could get you up to FB standard. BoB looks to be a very challenging standard, especially looking at those cockpits (mouthwatering, but then I'm not doing the modelling!!)

BaldieJr
03-28-2005, 04:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
However, Stiglr, if you are serious about this, you could always volunteer to model some planes for BoB - the ones that are needed but are unpopular. You are obviously up to the task of modelling planes. I've tried to contribute in ways that I am able to, but 3D modelling is not one of them, unfortunately. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>your forgetting who Stigler is

he's anti-FB since day one , Targetware is his baby , he plays FB because no-one plays Targetware

hes far & away more happy camping here with his critisim's <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You is wrong. Stiglr rarely plays. He prefers to camp in HL and remind everyone of his existance.

HerrGraf
03-29-2005, 10:08 PM
While on the topic of Nortons (and to temp. highjack this thread), The International Norton Owners Rally will be held in Oregon this July. Anyone wanting to see first hand the newest Norton will not get a better chance than that.

DmdSeeker
04-02-2005, 06:55 AM
Whilst agreeing with the thrust of Stilgr's point; a far more frustrating failure in my eyes is that we have no way to use many of the planes we already have.

Even the rarities such as the Gotha or the 109Z; is there a campaign for these??

I really don't understand why planes are included in the game for which there are no missions nor campaigns.

This is also my biggest gripe with PF; and why I won't be standing in the que to buy BoB.

IL-2 is good enough for me with respect to graphics and physics; it's the game it's self, the interface, the level of immersion in the game, the interaction with the rest of the virtual squadron which so drasticaly needs improvement.

As a Sim; IL-2 is far ahead of EAW. As a game; it still as yet to catch up. Actualy; as a game; RBII and Airwarrior 3 offline both did a better job of suspendings one's disbelief.

GerritJ9
04-02-2005, 09:14 AM
A bit off topic, Nortons....... NORTONS???????? AAAARRRGGGHHHH!!! Valved Horrors!!!!!!! Two-strokes rule!!!!!!!!!!!
Kawasaki Mach III 500 and Mach IV 750 owner.

Franzen
04-02-2005, 04:45 PM
I can understand both sides of the argument, both Stiglr and Gibbage are right.

I don't like video games and never have. I have a stack of about 70 games to prove that. I only ever played them once, but couldn't get interested.

Then IL-2 first came out and I thought it was the "game of all games". It was somewhat historically accurate. Although it was missing some planes, I didn't mind and flew everyday. As time went on we got patches and more plane, then FB and more patches and planes. Then the game evolved further.

After FB and a couple of patches, I started losing interest. We started getting "what if" planes. I would go online, start my flight, and end up lost in the Bermuda Triangle. I would get attacked by Hitler's UFO's or the Allied's post war blunders. I remembered taking off in 1942 and crashing in 1948. The interest level dropped even further. Then along came PF and totally killed my interest, but that's another topic.

About 6 months ago I uninstalled FB-AEP-PF, gave away my sticks and throttle, then stripped my pc as an organ donor. All I'm hoping for now is that BoB will be more historically accurate, and maybe even stay that way.

In my case, Stiglr's argument supports my feelings and experience with this sim. But at the same time I can fully understand Gibbage's argument. As far as I know these guyz are sacrificing their time and money and doing a **** good job to give us more. I appreciate that, they are definitely artists.

If I had to make a score, I'd say 55% for Gibbage and 45% for Stiglr. I think the root of the problem may be from Oleg himself, but not intentionally of course. I think it might have been useful to make a list in the beginning, limiting the developers in choices.

I hope this problem will be rectified in BoB. If not then I'll just forget the IL-2 series altogether. I'm not suggesting anyone give up the game, I'm just telling my thoughts and experiences.

Fritz Franzen

HerrGraf
04-02-2005, 06:04 PM
GerritJ9: Kawasakis' are only good for B&Z, while the Norton can T&B and B&Z. You must live in Kansas where there are no corners.
Franzen: I agree that Oleg should put realistic containment on the submissions that he will receive for new planes. There are some very obscure prototypes that people could submit just because they are interesting.

Monty_Thrud
04-03-2005, 05:26 AM
Well said Franzen, i hope you will be reinstalling IL2 for the new addon.

OT...my mate had a Kawasaki Mach IV 750, a beautiful machine, back when Kawasaki could could make engines out of real metal, they had a beautiful sheen to them...however, as my mate testifies...their handling was appalling and the brakes equally so. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

GerritJ9
04-03-2005, 07:38 AM
HerrGraf...... I live in the Netherlands, actually. And we DO have corners here, lots of them. H1s and H2s are excellent B&Z machines, way better than Notones. Plus, they don't have main bearings that fail at 2,000 miles if you're lucky..... or electrics by Lucas, Prince of Magical Darkness. And contrary to popular opinion, they do handle reasonably well- well enough, in fact, to upset riders of far modern machinery in corners during the annual "Dijkentocht", a touring trip on the river ****s on Easter Sunday here.... twisties from start to finish. Modern rubber and decent shocks work wonders on these machines. And while the brakes are not up to modern standards (certainly not the front drum brakes on early H1s which are terrible), they are no worse than those on most machines of that period.

Badsight.
04-03-2005, 07:43 AM
nothing is more un-reliable than 70s Ducatis , you can take that & Bank it

& dude , give up the 2-stroke kwakas , they'll be the death of you

Franzen
04-03-2005, 08:40 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
Well said Franzen, i hope you will be reinstalling IL2 for the new addon.

Sorry, don't think so. I'll wait until after the first few patches for BoB are out. Since I dissected my pc to harvest the organs I have nothing to play on. I can't see myself buying another pc for a long time. Not trying to be negative, just practical.

Fritz Franzen

HerrGraf
04-03-2005, 02:12 PM
GerritJ9: If you know of Nortons that blew thier main bearings at only 2,000 miles, then they were not running Super Blend bearings (or whomever assembled the engine did not know what they were doing).

Years ago, a good friend had a Kawi. 500 that I got a chance to ride on occasion. My inpressions were that it was very quick, but sensitive to heat. (Quick when the weather is cold, but down on power when the weather is hot.) The frames exhibit quite a bit of flex in relation to British motorcycles. The motors need to be rebuilt every winter to keep running strong. This last bit is much easier on a two stroke though than on any four stoke engine. One of the big failings of the early Kawis. was their electronics. This seems to have left more Japanese machines on the side of the road than any other cause.
You are correct about upgrading the rubber and shock absorbers inproving old equipment. My wife and I belong to the local R.A.T. organization (one of several bike organizations we belong to) and I too have blown away much newer machines, with twice the horse and much more improved brakes, when riding up in the local mountains. Great fun to pass new equipment when on "antique" machinery. Might be the pilot, not the machine though.

Check out http://www.hooliganfilm.com/damride.html
It's a website on a local documentary on BritIron. We get about 500 machines to show up every year.

Taylortony
04-03-2005, 02:39 PM
Are we talking the Kawasaki KH500 S1C 2 stroke triple?????????????? I went from a KH250 to that and it was AWESOME..........A mind boggling wet yer pants and let it trickle down your leg excitment..... went like sh*t off a shovel but didn't corner to well.......... the Spare spark plug set holder under the seat should have told me something but it was not needed..... rain however converted the triple into a twin as the middle cylinder always cut out........... was an awesome machine and I miss it still, they go for silly figures these days.......... ahhhh remember caning it down the dual carriage towards Basingstoke and looking in the mirrors to see nothing but blue smoke http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif was like a destroyer on heat when it was wound open.......... often thought there must be a little gremlin in the exhausts blowing down a tube and shouting to the engine room ...Captain to Engine Room MAKE SMOKE http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

han freak solo
04-03-2005, 08:00 PM
Man, those 2-stroke street bikes were the coolest little wheelie machines ever! My first ride was a 1979 Yamaha RD400F Daytona Special. Scared the cr@p out of me daily. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Later 4-strokes never got the butterflies going in me like that Yamaha did. Except a 2001 Triumph Speed Triple. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif