PDA

View Full Version : Flyable F8F Bearcat & A7M Reppu?



dlian
11-30-2004, 12:59 AM
Does anyone know if a flyable F8F Bearcat and a A7M Reppu are being worked on by a 3rd party? I know that both didn't see combat service but it would be nice to fly them just the same.

dlian
11-30-2004, 12:59 AM
Does anyone know if a flyable F8F Bearcat and a A7M Reppu are being worked on by a 3rd party? I know that both didn't see combat service but it would be nice to fly them just the same.

DIRTY-MAC
11-30-2004, 02:08 AM
I dont think you will see these birds ever in PF

dlian
11-30-2004, 02:35 AM
Oh well, I was hoping for a Xmas present!

WUAF_Badsight
11-30-2004, 03:24 AM
both would be awesome to fly

hobnail
11-30-2004, 03:33 AM
Flyable Brewster and Nate, go early and go slow.

Stiglr
11-30-2004, 10:52 AM
Hobnail has the right idea.

Forget that "hardly flew" late war fantasy cr*p, and go for those earlier planes that had some character to 'em: some good things, some bad.

Daiichidoku
11-30-2004, 11:07 AM
no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no non on no non on no non on non on non on non on n no PLEASE!

As much as I love those types, and many other, they simply have no place in a "WWII" sim

Bad enough to suffer the 109Z I 185 et al

Geezus, lets have the AI types flyable before we even thionk about new types, let alone the marginal types

And why do we have the J*, but the Gladiator MkII remains AI? is it that much to convert to flyable? just dump the J8 cockpit in it....I can gaurantee, no-one will moan about that...or "temporary" generic cockpit or gunner positions in AI bombers

TooCool_12f
11-30-2004, 11:27 AM
Considering what Oleg himself stated long time ago about his policy about including planes (any plane made up to 1947 may be included if a modeler makes it with satisfying quality and provides sufficient data for DM/FM), they may very well be added

It's not important IMHO, whether they flew combat or not (any host can exclude any plane he doesn't want to see on his server, so... ), so, basically, if someone is interested in making it, I believe he can... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ZG77_Nagual
11-30-2004, 01:10 PM
I-185 did see some action - and was an early war design. Besides it is utterly hobbled by that uncomfortable throttle lever. (J2m will be nice)http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

F19_Olli72
11-30-2004, 01:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hobnail:
Flyable Brewster and Nate, go early and go slow. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You forgot Claude http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

p1ngu666
11-30-2004, 02:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
I-185 did see some action - and was an early war design. Besides it is utterly hobbled by that uncomfortable throttle lever. (J2m will be nice)http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

nagual, where u get skin from? share teh wealth http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Il2pongo
11-30-2004, 03:51 PM
I hope we get to see both of them. The bearcat especially.

Luftcaca
11-30-2004, 05:50 PM
what about the Tojo? will it make it into PF? I sure hope so

Stiglr
11-30-2004, 06:11 PM
Yes, Nazgual, the I-185 did see some action as a prototype... and by all accounts did pretty well.

But, this was so effectively counterbalanced by landing and maintenance issues that it wasn't put into production. What's that tell you? It tells me the plane was more a hazard to the pilot than to the enemy. And this from the Russians, who weren't exactly known for giving a sh** if the odd pilot came back or not.

Thus, a plane like that doesn't deserve to be flying around in the sim like everything about it was hunky dory.

ZG77_Nagual
11-30-2004, 07:45 PM
Well, I won't argue; but I think it belongs more than some - partly because this is, after all - a Russian built simm - and Polikparov was a great designer. I like seeing his work represented http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif And, however marginally, she did actually fly in the war.

Pingu - I built that skin - merged a couple of templates and used someone elses panel lines etc. but did the metal myself. I'll clean it up and get it over to IL2skins unless someone allready has a better one.

WUAF_Badsight
11-30-2004, 09:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daiichidoku:

As much as I love those types, and many other, they simply have no place in a "WWII" sim
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
how long have you been a part of the IL2 community ?

do you not realise that the original add-on for FB was planned to be a "LUFT-46" project ?

do the late war haters not realise that . . . . .

. . . . planes up to 1946 were always welcomed, there has never been ANY resistance from Maddox Games to including these planes

the only people who didnt want these planes in FB were some players

now that PF was spearheaded by people other than Oleg Maddox , we have have resistance to including late-war / fantasy planes

which sux

Stigler , for one , is totally wrong , they hurt the sim in no real way , they add to it

i know that getting the AI flyable first would be cool , but if your not prepared to do the work yourself , how about you just be shush on the matter ?

most A/C added after the release of FB were 3rd party

Stiglr
11-30-2004, 11:54 PM
Well, the original IL-2 addon turned out to be something USEFUL... it was, for the most part, full of planes that actually had an impact.

A few unfortunates keep creeping in, and because of them, there's now a precedent for "hardlyflews" "never flews" and other detritus that keeps players from exploring the history of WWII, which is rich enough without all these "airborne asterisks".

The_Ant
12-01-2004, 01:12 AM
No more after war/fantasy planes.Give us planes instead that should be there,which were used in WW2.
Ki-44,Avenger,kate,Helldiver,J2m3,N1k1,N1k2,F4u-4,Ki-45.

Il2pongo
12-01-2004, 09:46 AM
The Bearcat is a ww2 plane. In operational squadron service at the end of the war. The hate some of you show makes me think you dont even like aircraft.

Willey
12-01-2004, 10:08 AM
I am still an early Bf-110 whiner http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

ZG77_Nagual
12-01-2004, 10:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Il2pongo:
The Bearcat is a ww2 plane. In operational squadron service at the end of the war. The hate some of you show makes me think you dont even like aircraft. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course we HATE aircraft; why do you think we want to shoot them down? I particularly HATE teh F8f Bearcat - it is ugly and stupid and I HATE it. Aircraft are the scum of the earth and I HATE them all. Sometimes I hang out near airports just to be invigorated by the surging psychotic hatred I feel for airplanes - with their stupid wings and noises.

the subtle distinction is that the bearcat - operational or not - never fired a shot in action during ww2. The argument often made here is that only planes that at least fought a little bit in ww2 should be prioritized. The problem is that what gets built - in terms of planes the developer did not initially include is subject to the following laws:

1. If the developer has plans to include it and just didn't have time to get it in at first release.

2. Someone outside the development team wants it bad enough to build it to their specifications A: AND the developer thinks it's interesting and can get info to model it.

In the first case we users have some input - since the dev team naturally favors A/C that were present in theatre - it's possible we might exert a little influence as to which theatre aircraft outside the initial set get prioritized - though by now I imagine they've pretty much decided.

In the second Case - that is for planes that were not in theatre and did not see action you can see there is relatively little room for us to impact the decisions - other than maybe finding a willing modeler.

Stiglr
12-01-2004, 11:06 AM
Pongo, even "operational service" is not "combat service". They could deliver the planes to a stateside outfit that didn't even embark from San Francisco or San Diego, and that would count as "operational service".

Also, it's not that we "hate" these aircraft. We just don't want a bunch of idiots flying around servers in them, dominating the proceedings and enjoying all that added high performance, at the expense of other planes that actually DID something during the war.

Too many folks need more speed, more guns, more whatever to make up for their woeful stick skills. And their lack of historical knowledge, understanding, or even *respect*. All they care about is their ability to "pwn" other pilots. They'll fly anything that gives them that edge.

TooCool_12f
12-01-2004, 12:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Also, it's not that we "hate" these aircraft. We just don't want a bunch of idiots flying around servers in them, dominating the proceedings and enjoying all that added high performance, at the expense of other planes that actually DID something during the war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


actually, you're free not to fly with "a bunch of idiots"...

one may even ask, in the name of what would YOU decide what other people fly? a bit of tolerance would be welcome

dlian
12-01-2004, 05:05 PM
I've been away a few days since my original post. Gosh, I didn't expect it to create a debate! May I please call for a little goodwill and good nature in our posts.

I think many, if not all of us, play this sim because we have more than a passing interest in military aircraft. For me, I didn't know a lot about Soviet aircraft or of the Eastern Front before IL2. But the sim caused me to do much research about the Eastern Front and about the aircraft on both sides. I'm sure many of us did the same, and are much better informed as a result.

One recurring theme I noticed was the remarkable speed at which various aircraft types changed in a few short years. To pick one example, the Wildcat morphed into the Hellcat which then morphed into the Bearcat. Or another example, the Fw-190A series into the D model.

I don't know of any other sim which provides our community with a longitudinal study of aircraft development and some plain old fun at the same time.

Someone wanting to "fly" a Wildcat to a Hellcat and finally to a Bearcat shouldn't have to conflict with someone wanting to fly planes in a certain period.

It's perfectly understandable for people to want to restrict aircraft to those "within context." But that's why FB/PF have the facility to do just that. Indeed, many ubi.com and Hyperlobby games do impose such restrictions. And you know, when I find there aren't any games with conditions that suit me, I just host one myself.

I notice that there are already quite a few aircraft in FB/PF which never saw combat service. But they got in there because someone was sufficiently interested and talented to create it, and Oleg agreed to include it. Hence, we see the P-80, Bf-109Z, I-185 etc.

Some people have said that the focus should be on making existing AI aircraft flyable. I agree that would be nice. But remember that the extra non-combat service aircraft were created by volunteers.

It's natural for them to spend time on their "favourite" aircraft. Even so, if Oleg didn't accept their contribution as being "within context," then we wouldn't see them.

Since I don't have the time nor talent to create complex 3D models of existing AI or any other aircraft, I'm perfectly content to accept whatever the 3rd party volunteers create. Anything they put out is a free bonus for which I'm grateful.

This brings me back to my original post.

I asked if anyone knew whether a 3rd party (ie volunteer) was working on the F8F and A7M (as it would be nice to "fly" them). A simple yes or no was all I needed!

Stiglr
12-01-2004, 05:46 PM
For me, toocool, history is a pretty good guide of "what ought to be flown" and what ought to stay as a footnote in an aerial encyclopedia.

Although, you're right, "one is free not to fly with a bunch of idiots", one still is dependent on the entire community for that critical mass needed to have large, vibrant arenas and co-ops.

When large groups of people get enamored of these "hardlyflews" and "neverflews", just because they're ueber, many hosts lack the historical perspective to limit them. Let's face it, there are a lot of folks in here who have yet to crack open one book on WWII history.

So, you get servers full of planes which don't belong. Meanwhile, yeoman workhorse unsung hero planes go unexplored and unrepresented (need I mention RARELY seen) simply because they have a wart or two, or a challenge to overcome. Nobody wants to explore how that might have been done in history, they just wanna get to the part where THEY can kick some ****.

While this sim has certainly given us the choice and the flexibility, it has given precious FEW GUIDES or design elements that naturally guide people to historical matchups, well-fleshed out periods of history where specific matchups were key elements in the outcome, etc., etc. (in fact, the year guides are full of errors and distortions, where some planes are given introduction dates months out of whack). No, we just get a big toychest full of planes, and people all too often just pick out the shiniest, newest looking toys in the bunch: the "neverflews".

p1ngu666
12-01-2004, 06:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
Well, I won't argue; but I think it belongs more than some - partly because this is, after all - a Russian built simm - and Polikparov was a great designer. I like seeing his work represented http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif And, however marginally, she did actually fly in the war.

Pingu - I built that skin - merged a couple of templates and used someone elses panel lines etc. but did the metal myself. I'll clean it up and get it over to IL2skins unless someone allready has a better one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

cool it looks great, didnt know u skinned http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif, id love to get the psd if possible, ive got plenty of stuff to trade ya for it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

templates for most planes, and docs etc http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://premium.uploadit.org/pingu666/f4ftest.bmp

http://premium.uploadit.org/pingu666/p40btuskegee.bmp

stuff like that, templates http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WUAF_Badsight
12-01-2004, 10:18 PM
Stigler really just needs to be shush

FB was NEVER intended to be closed to "RL Combat A/C"

he just wants it to be that way

people are idiots for flying the best A/C they can are they Stigler ? why ?

this is a game , not RL history

your constant derision if annoying , because it has no place in the FB community

FB was NEVER meant to be a strict WW2 combat use only fighter sim

dont you get it Stigler ?

why are you so annoyed about late war A/C . . . . you do realise that people arnt under your control right ?

you do realise that people are free to play games their own way right ?

is this fact so hard for you to comprehend ?

DF servers online resemble absolutly nothing about history

if you want to get repeatedly shot down using a 350 kmh 1940 plane in a 1945 planeset room , the problem isnt with FB

its with you Stigler

fly on a different server , its not hard

WUAF_Badsight
12-01-2004, 10:29 PM
people dont install computer games to get history lessons

try Emils & Hurris in 1940 Stigler , whats fair with the massive climb & speed advantage

its as unfair as you fighting 262's with a LaGG

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
While this sim has certainly given us the choice and the flexibility, it has given precious FEW GUIDES or design elements that naturally guide people to historical matchups, well-fleshed out periods of history where specific matchups were key elements in the outcome, etc., etc. (in fact, the year guides are full of errors and distortions, where some planes are given introduction dates months out of whack). No, we just get a big toychest full of planes, and people all too often just pick out the shiniest, newest looking toys in the bunch: the "neverflews". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

again , try to start your own Thread about how stupid DF server makers are & keep out of 45 & 46 plane threads

you can do it , give it a go , after you ignore the first few threads , youll be cold turkey & no-one will who likes late war stuff will ever have to see your posts again

Stiglr
12-02-2004, 11:32 AM
WUAF Badsight posted:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>people dont install computer games to get history lessons <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif The intelligent ones do, Badsight.

It's the gamers with the sandbox mentality that can't ever get past the "my plane is bigger'n/faster'n/later'n your plane" level. You would be just as happy playing X-Wing or Tie Fighter. Just as long as you have "stuff to blow up", huh?

No, the whole POINT of a simulation based on history is to explore that history.

And yes, that does include dealing with better climbing 109s in a Hurricane in 1940. The real pilots had to do it, why can't you in a sim?

What it's convenient for you to forget, though, is that the German and Japanese pilots have to learn to deal with Russian, American and British planes that surpass theirs technology-wise later in the war. Where's the "fairness" then? You don't care then, since you have the advantage.

ZG77_Nagual
12-02-2004, 02:01 PM
Well, maybe it's just me - but this is an historical simulation. So it really depends on what kind of computer game you are installing. Personally, and I think for alot of us in this fairly esoteric genre - I am interested in the history, and historical context. The fun comes from playing within the 'rules' set by the historical realities of the A/C relative performance. Obviously it's not perfect, but that is what this kind of simm aims for - and pretty much defines it's particular appeal. I mean an interest in ww2 combat a/c IS and interest in history pretty much by definition.

People come to a simm like this with different interests and attitudes - but in terms of what the simm itself is actually about - and what it's appeal is relative to other simms and 'computer games' it's whole premise really is based on History - and it's fidelity in rendering historical models accurately. We can argue about how well it does that, and there are planes and so forth that are not strictly historical - but overall thats what it is. So if you don't like history, and have no interest in it - there are lots of other products I think you'd find more interesting.

A.K.Davis
12-02-2004, 02:04 PM
Pointless argument. No one is modelling the Bearcat or Reppu. If some incredibly talented (would be necessary to finish in time and up to spec) person were to decide to start a new model now, I would strongly urge them towards any one of the important missing aircraft, for the sake of a better game.

Adding "what ifs" now would do nothing for the game when we are missing so many "whats." If we had even a semblance of an overview of the air war in the Pacific and Asia, then it'd be time to delve off into the year '46.

TooCool_12f
12-02-2004, 04:07 PM
considering "historical" confrontations, some "intelligent" people may also be interested in comparing the capacities in a hypothetical conflict (what if US had pushed forward east in europe in 1945? how would these aircreaft interact?)


even in flying "historical" matchs, you don"t get historical results, simply because you have a much more important proportion of "good pilots" on all sides today online than you had in WWII... in WWII, most pilots were average with some really bad pilots and a select few aces... online you have a much stronger proportion of aces and, therefore, you get flawed result anyway. you may get historical results if every virtual pilot had no choice but to use historical tactics rather than using the best his plane can give him... and which he knows because he knows history and his plane's and his opponents' strenghs and weaknesses...

Il2pongo
12-02-2004, 04:28 PM
Sure reads like hate.
All I am saying is if someone with the talent and the time wants to make the Bearcat, I support them in it. Why let geographical seperation keep the best US planes out of the game?
As to what the "rules" are to inclusion in the game and to be considered a ww2 plane. Make up your own and live by them in your home and on the servers you want to play with.
The bearcat is obviosly a WW2 plane.

Stiglr
12-02-2004, 05:53 PM
Yeah, a WWII-*era* plane. Just like a bunch of planes like it that really don't belong in the set, unless we ARE going for "Secret Weapons of the Whomever"... and I hope we don't get to that until we can get the REAL WWII right.

Toocool wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> in WWII, most pilots were average with some really bad pilots and a select few aces... online you have a much stronger proportion of aces and, therefore, you get flawed result anyway. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't fully agree here. I see as many clueless dweebs online as "aces" (depending on the day, I can be either one). You are correct in the assumption that on average the IL-2 virtual pilot's better, having had the benefit of many more flights and deaths and accidents to his credit. But that doesn't make anyone "good".

The bigger point, perhaps is, you CAN get fairly accurate seeming results from a sim that's done right, with historical matchups, historical objectives and conditions (and the players who strive to fight according to these, and not just furballing mindlessly). It's magic when it happens, because of the insight you get into what it might have been like.

Loki-PF
12-02-2004, 05:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Ant:
No more after war/fantasy planes.Give us planes instead that should be there,which were used in WW2.
Ki-44,Avenger,kate,Helldiver,J2m3,N1k1,N1k2,F4u-4,Ki-45. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dude, you forgot the F4U-4 in your list! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WUAF_Badsight
12-02-2004, 09:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
The _intelligent_ ones do, Badsight.
. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
no Stigler , they dont , they install Games to spend time at play

you read & study to get lessons on history

you are truly believe that by flying certian planes in a Dogfight room your replicating history

utter nonsense

you also have said we need icons to be more authentic !

again Stigler , just try & stay out of late war plane threads , you dont have anything to add except your view point of people should be denied them

(btw , your quite happy for one side to have better planes in the year 1940 or 41 or 42 , just not 1945 , thats called being hypocritical)

WUAF_Badsight
12-02-2004, 09:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
You are correct in the assumption that _on average_ the IL-2 virtual pilot's better, having had the benefit of many more flights and deaths and accidents to his credit. But that doesn't make anyone "good". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
you dont get it & you divert the direction of the thread Stigler

we are all WAY more experienced than WW2 pilots ever were

some of us have been flying week in & week out in flight sims doing all sorts of air combat , for over a decade

not to mention 4 years in Sturmoviks sim family alone

people do dumb stuff , but there is WAY MORE virtual experience flying in computer sims than there was real experience flying in the real skies

you wont type it so i will Stigler

you dont like people getting stuff that you dont like & you have to rubbish people for it

look around , we are not all like you Stigler

WUAF_Badsight
12-02-2004, 09:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
FB was _NEVER_ intended to be closed to "RL Combat A/C"

FB was _NEVER_ meant to be a strict WW2 combat use only fighter sim
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
conviently , i see you ignored this Stigler

Hoarmurath
12-02-2004, 09:41 PM
Badsight, you seem to think FB have been made for your personal needs. I don't remember where is posted anything official about your statements that FB isn't intended to be a ww2 historical combat sim.

WUAF_Badsight
12-02-2004, 09:42 PM
where did i say it was made for my personal needs ?

got a link ?

Hoarmurath
12-02-2004, 09:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
FB was _NEVER_ intended to be closed to "RL Combat A/C"

FB was _NEVER_ meant to be a strict WW2 combat use only fighter sim
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
conviently , i see you ignored this Stigler <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right here...

WUAF_Badsight
12-02-2004, 09:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
I don't remember where is posted anything official about your statements that FB isn't intended to be a ww2 historical combat sim. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
how long have you been a member of this forum then ?

it has never been announced in any way shape or form that FB was not meant to be based on history


& its poor comprehension of english to take what i posted as meaning that

what i said was the FB was never intended to be limited to planes that saw combat

do you understand that ?

also , seeing as you seem new here , the original expansion to FB , its original home was il2center.com

its was going to be . . . . wait for it . . . . "LUFT-46"

now lets try & stick to topic huh ?

WUAF_Badsight
12-02-2004, 09:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
FB was _NEVER_ intended to be closed to "RL Combat A/C"

FB was _NEVER_ meant to be a strict WW2 combat use only fighter sim
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
conviently , i see you ignored this Stigler <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right here... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
so you dont see the word "ONLY" there do you ?

huh ?

or the word "CLOSED"

how does what i said mean FB wasnt meant to be historical ?

in other words , your nit picking over something you didnt understand at first

please stick to topic !

Hoarmurath
12-02-2004, 09:55 PM
WUAF_Badsight

date registered : Sat April 12 2003 04:56

Hoarmurath

date registered : Fri November 22 2002 00:27

ok, i'm the new one here...

il2center never was an official website concerning IL2 or FB. It was a fansite. it was a very well documented fansite, and the home of the 3dmodelling community for the game, but a fansite nonetheless.

WUAF_Badsight
12-02-2004, 09:59 PM
you certinaly are

i registered this account with UBI at the end of November 2001

it got altered at the forum change

pointing out this fact doesnt alter the fact that you didnt understand correctly what i posted

i didnt say FB doest represent history

i posted that it was never intended to be limited to ONLY those A/C that saw combat

understand now newbie ?

Stiglr
12-02-2004, 10:20 PM
To say that it wasn't supposed to be limited ONLY to combat aircraft is just playing games with semantics.

I can tell you, that the original aim of IL-2 was to be a REALSTIC, HISTORIC flight sim. My box says, "WWII Combat Simulator". The copy on the back says it's supposed to be "...the most exciting and realistic combat flight experience you've ever had", among other platitudes.

I'm here to tell ya, that you can't even approach WWII if you have servers full of Bearcats vs. Reppus, or Pfeils vs. Spitfire XXIs, or whatever brew of "hardly/neverflew" hotrods you pick.

You may not like my assertion that the sim is best served by sticking to REPRESENTATIVE aircraft, but you can't say sh** about it. I've got history on my side, and all you've got is what you think is "kewl".

WUAF_Badsight
12-02-2004, 10:25 PM
then make a thread about it instead of rubbish late war plane threads with your opinions !

FB was meant to be a WW2 aircombat sim

what it wasnt intended to be was . . . . a sim that had itself limited to only planes that saw combat

that really rubs you the wrong way but its true

can you please post here why online DF rooms are maddox games responsibility ?

& why the fact that many dont suit you is also Maddox Games fault ?

if what you want is WW2 combat ONLY aircraft , then your playing the wrong game


now please ! stop crying about it & be a man !

go on , as soon as you overlook one late war plane thread it will just get eaiser & eaiser for you !

WUAF_Badsight
12-02-2004, 10:28 PM
what Stigler cant deny is , that the Reppu & Bearcat would add to this sim

by the fact that there would be 2 more planes alone is proof of this

let alone the expanded opportunitys & senarios that we could explore

Stigler likes rubbish these type of threads , but he just wants to limit everyone else to suit himself

dadada1
12-03-2004, 09:10 AM
These two are ultimate prop fighters, at the end of the piston engine era. Regardless of their service record I'd like to see them in this sim as I would like to see others included as well. May as well argue that Il2 should have remained a limited eastern front conflict and not included any western types as to exclude types because they missed combat. I love piston engined AC, if you don't like don't fly simple as that.

Sig.Hirsch
12-03-2004, 09:35 AM
The bearcat ?
didn't know it had fought , but ok , np , then put a FW-190 D12 , or a P-47 M , Spitfire XIV , a Typhoon or a Do-335 first http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
just kiddin http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stiglr
12-03-2004, 10:32 AM
Glad you asked, Badsight.

One, the developer has 100% control and responsibility for his product. He and his team made the decisions on what to model, both in terms of the planes and the entire physical environment. (As an example of this, muzzle flash: it was purely the team's choice and obstinance to keep the "atomic, cartoon flashes" as long as they did). Oleg chose to make the IL-2 series totally modular and open-ended, and I don't doubt that it's helped its sales.

But, I feel it has resulted in a lack of direction for the sim, and this is perpetuated online. I would have designed it to help players learn about "natural adversaries", historic battles and campaigns, the progression of the war, etc. You know, all that "book learning stuff" you're totally afraid of.

There is no doubt the original aim was to be accurate and historic, however. The end result is a different matter. We have also seen recently that some decisions are being made in an attempt to be more "popular" rather than to simply be correct (the ever-changing E-bleed and gravity, the dots du jour, etc.). I've no doubt Ubi is applying some pressure, but I also believe Oleg is caving in some, and has even made some admissions here that he has done so. To my way of thinking, Oleg should just make it as correct as possible, even if some don't agree with the end result (e.g., the FW190 canopy). At least he has some hard facts and diagrams to back up his modeling of that pit. The debate will of course continue to rage... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Now, some questions for YOU, Badsight:

What, exactly, would the Bearcat and Reppu ADD to the sim, besides just two more planes that look different, have high performance and can blow things up? Make a case that these planes actually belong, without simply pointing at other planes that also clearly don't belong but are in the set (like the I-185, the 109Z, the Bi-1, etc., etc. [there, I named them for you]).

Stiglr
12-03-2004, 10:48 AM
Dadada1 posted:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>May as well argue that Il2 should have remained a limited eastern front conflict and not included any western types as to exclude types because they missed combat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was a time when that argument actually raged here. P-51 fans wanted to shoehorn that plane in based on a 2-week excursion in support of the Southern Front oil field bombings... back when we didn't have any Hungarian or French maps.

Now that we have western maps, the argument goes away. But again, context. Context.

And again, idiocy... you have online maps of the Crimea that have 5x more P-38s and P-51s flying on them as there are Yaks or LaGGs. Ignorant, intellectually lazy revisionist history. You'd think the Russians didn't do anything in WWII but call in the 'murricans.

If you're saying you're a fan of all these fighters, you should be a fan of all the campaigns, too. I certainly wouldn't mind the occasional "what-if" provided we were much more likely to have the "what WAS" to contrast it with. Right now, we have precious few co-ops, DF servers or anything that does a good job of demonstrating the "what WAS". That's my real rub.

WUAF_Badsight
12-03-2004, 11:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I would have designed it to help players learn about "natural adversaries", historic battles and campaigns, the progression of the war, etc. You know, all that "book learning stuff" you're totally afraid of. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>because i dont play FB from a solely historical perspective it makes me "scard" or reading about history does it Stigler

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
There is no doubt the original aim was to be accurate and historic, however. The end result is a different matter.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>how so ? you trying to say that replicating what happened on the maps FB provides during WW2 is now not possible ?

since when ?

oh , since you joined a DF server ? , & how is a DF server historicall

you seem to want them to be , & with icons ! , theres no way that DF servers replicate WW2 , saying they can is totally false

you want combat sorties that replicate WW2 combat sorties , then fly COOP's like the rest of us

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Now, some questions for YOU, Badsight:

What, exactly, would the Bearcat and Reppu ADD to the sim, besides just two more planes that look different, have high performance and can blow things up? Make a case that these planes actually belong, without simply pointing at other planes that also clearly don't belong but are in the set (like the I-185, the 109Z, the Bi-1, etc., etc. [there, I named them _for_ you]). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well they give us more high performance DogFighting ability

they would open up the ability to view how these planes facing off played out

we all know 7 can read about what actually went down , theres no need to have FB to learn about that

but what computer games can open up is the what-if

there was a lot of prototypes & late-war planes that hardly got to see , if any , combat

the combat between many of these planes never had the chance to take place & thru FB it opens up that possibility , its called imagination Stigler , not everyone is a early war plane fan

your posting is narrow minded & mean spirited & based on a false perception that DF arena's are supposed to represent what happened in WW2 (as if they could)

you divert the direction of late war plane threads , if you cant add anything except critisim of late war plane fans , then do all that are a favour 7 just ignore them

its not hard & once you have passed on a few youll be on your way to cold turkey

Stiglr
12-03-2004, 12:23 PM
DF servers absolutely CAN simulate (not replicate, that suggests rote scripting and re-enactment, which is a totally different thing) real campaigns.

If the host takes the time to flesh out a map, put it on a dedicated server with some alternate front lines, targets, and some mission profiles to guide the players as to what it's all about... you can have pretty good ongoing scripted DF servers. There are some operating on HyperLobby now and again.

Also, read again what I said about what-if vs. what-was. If the sim were simply more structured so that the what-if portion were, what, 20% of the game, and the history 80%, then I'd have no problem whatsoever with the hardly/neverflews. But, it's totally without any structure, so if a plane is available, it's suddenly as viable as any of the planes that *should* be there. So, seemingly, every Japanese pilot in 44 or 45 had a Frank strapped to him, and nobody will fly a Zero, simply because it's a challenge to do so. Or an even better example: more people will jump in "one of the six ever produced" MiG-3Us than to jump into one of the MG-armed MiG-3s that actually fought most of the air battles. (Just a few examples of the narrow-minded "gottawin" mentality of many DF players).

WUAF_Badsight
12-03-2004, 12:50 PM
dude , DF rooms are about virtual air-combat

they have nothing to do with history , i mean , are you ******ed ?

we have a REFLY button !

plenty fly Zeros when Franks are available , go to HL now & look

& DF room hosts are responsible for the maps the host , they dont have to listen to you & you dont have to fly in their servers

Stiglr
12-03-2004, 04:40 PM
Your thickheadedness notwithstanding, DF servers CAN and DO have historical matchups, maps, etc.

It's all in how they're drawn up.

WUAF_Badsight
12-03-2004, 06:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
DF servers CAN and DO have historical matchups, maps, etc.

It's all in how they're drawn up. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
& whats stopping that from happening if late 45 & 46 planes are added to the game ? nothing , its as you say , 'how the hosts draw up them up" , so stop moaning off topic !

your just complaining that not enough of this is happening right now & want the planeset limited so people are forced to use A/C that suit you

no one online is forcing you to use late war planes , but your not happy unless people are forced to play your way

this has nothing to do with late war inclusion but your annoyance with DF room hosts

in other words , make your own thread & stop posting in threads like this one !

first you said :
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
DF servers absolutely CAN simulate real campaigns.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
now your changing it too
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
DF servers CAN and DO have historical matchups. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
yes but DF servers have nothing to do with History , all they are good for is facing planes & players off against other planes & players

you want it axis v allied with same year , & you can & do right now

what late war plane fans want is to simulate late 1945 & 1946 history http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"the what if the war carried on" history

so now Stigler , stop posting un-related subject matter in late war plane threads & stay on topic , or make your own threads where you moan at all the free DF room hosts about why they are so stupid in your opinion

Stiglr
12-03-2004, 06:20 PM
Both those statements are along the same line of reasoning, there's no "changing from one to the other".

It seems you can't read either one properly, or you'd realize the next part of your post is totally wrong.

DF servers and historical/matchup faithfulness are not mutually exclusive.

DF does not have to mean "quick and stupid"; it can, but it does not have to.

p1ngu666
12-03-2004, 08:08 PM
be tempting, also bearcat with 4 mg guns wont blow u up easy, but itll sit on ur 6 like a la7 :\

id rather have a strike airfaft rather than a fighter

Loki-PF
12-03-2004, 08:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
DF servers and historical/matchup faithfulness are not mutually exclusive.

DF does not have to mean "quick and stupid"; it _can_, but it does not have to. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

GodD@mn1t!! I gotta agree with Stig on this one point. With the caveat that the good historicals are few and far between but usually populated with a *different* type of gamer.

Stiglr
12-03-2004, 10:47 PM
Loki wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>usually populated with a *different* type of gamer. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep. A better-read one with more attention span, more capacity to accept and take on challenges, and less likely to "have to blow some'n up inside 5 minutes, or it's not fun anymore". One who realizes that without the history, all you have is a pure "Star Wars" style game.

You read Badsight's rantings, and you can easily see the truth lurking under the surface: he thinks these '46 planes, being later and greater prop birds, will give him an advantage he can't get with earlier planes. More speed, more power, more guns, more whatever.

I hate to break it to him, but, a good pilot will likely do fairly well in any aircraft, because he'll have absorbed the lessons of aerial combat. It sure helps to have an ueberplane under you, to make up for the mistakes anyone will doubtless make, but a good pilot can make do with an average (or worse) plane and still do well with it.

J30Vader
12-03-2004, 11:39 PM
I didn't complain about the 46 expansion pack for AOTP. If the same planes get into PF I will not complain.

I didn't install PF to learn history. I would hate for someone to do a report on the Pearl Harbor attack and say "The targets were 7 battleships of the King George V class." Or how about Avengers at the Coral Sea battle?

I didn't install Russo-German War to learn about the Eastern Front. Or Battle of Britan by Talonsoft to learn of that battle. Or War in Russia, or Pacific War, or Prelude to Waterloo to....., well you get the idea.

I play PF and its ancestors because I like aircraft. If the game was true to history, then the USMC campaign can never go past Wake Island.
I don't want or need a history lesson from my game. What fun would anyone have if they always got to play Gen. Pickett, knowing the charge will fail?

Whatever aircraft gets added I will appreciate. Regardless if I use it or not. I am **** glad that there are people out there who have the skill, tools, and time to model aircraft.

WUAF_Badsight
12-03-2004, 11:47 PM
rantings Stigler ? i just want you to stop posting BS about why these planes shouldnt be in FB/PF

what happens when your in a 45 plane only server Stigler ? all sides ?

what happens when your in a 43 only server Stigler ? all sides ?

wheres this advantage that i seem to need then ?

plz make your own thread about why DF rooms are hosted by idiots

& stop spamming your **** opinions about FB & late war planes in these type of threads . . . . . . this isnt a thread about how to host realistic DF rooms !

if you dont think i can compete , then do plz take me up on one of my "challenges"

i have requested a 1v1 from you in the past , any settings & any plane , but you have only ever given me excuses !


the more you post , the more it shows how you look down on online gameplay , face it , you dont like the way most DF rooms run & it annoys you

thats the only real reason you are filling threads like this with off-topic mis-direction !

Loki-PF
12-04-2004, 09:48 AM
Guys,

This has been an intersting thread and one that I've been thinking alot about in the back of my head for awhile.

The decision of later war or no late war, or prototype or no prototype, has already been made yes? I think we can all agree on that.

I'm not making a judgement value here on weather or not the game would have been better or not one way or the other... just stating a fact.

So, given that what we have is what we have, I think that *balance* would be something to strive for. ie make sure that one side didn't have ALL the late war planes, or make sure that the early early war birds are balanced so that historical df-co-op server can be built as well.

Sometimes, I think some of the posters here want the IL2 series to be their own personal "Smithsonian air and space museum" so they can fly rare and exotic types.... Fer Chri$$akes! This is and ACM sim not "flight" sim.

Stiglr
12-04-2004, 10:12 AM
Really? I don't see "ACM" anywhere on the packaging or the marketing materials. I see "flight sim" just about everywhere.

I also see "realistic", "authentic" and "historic" in multiple places.

And Vader, if you didn't install the sim specifically to learn history, guess what? You got the opportunity to for free, as an added bonus. Incidentally, that's why the planes are based on real historic ones, and the maps are based on real places. All that? It's "history". Shame on you if you waste it, all in the name of turning circles 'til you puke. Learning something isn't all bad, try it some time.

You guys wanna have at that again, and make it convincing this time?

And Badsight, what I'm trying to get you to understand is that DF servers don't have to be stupid. It's only if the host and the players design them that way.

'Nuff said on this.

Loki-PF
12-04-2004, 01:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Really? I don't see "ACM" anywhere on the packaging or the marketing materials. I see "flight sim" just about everywhere.

I also see "realistic", "authentic" and "historic" in multiple places.

And Vader, if you didn't install the sim _specifically_ to learn history, guess what? You got the opportunity to for free, as an added bonus. Incidentally, that's why the planes are based on real historic ones, and the maps are based on real places. All that? It's "history". Shame on you if you waste it, all in the name of turning circles 'til you puke. Learning something isn't all bad, try it some time.

You guys wanna have at that again, and make it convincing this time?

And Badsight, what I'm trying to get you to understand is that DF servers don't _have to_ be stupid. It's only if the host and the players design them that way.

'Nuff said on this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stiglr,

I know where you are coming from....But hear me out and see if you can see where I am coming from. I'm going to run with your logic for a bit and see where it takes us! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

If this is a flight sim first and foremost, and an ACM sim secondaondarily, then why all the drama about FM accuracy? No need to be all that accurate right? I mean it's not as if anyone is actually going to try to outmanuever anyone else, yes?

If this is a flight sim first and foremost, and an ACM sim secondarily, then the more planes the better yes? Why would you argue against late war birds or exotics or any plane for that matter? Makes no sense in the context of a "flight sim" does it.

When you read "Realistic" on the package of this box, what exactly is being claimed as realistic? The flight conditions? Do we have magnetic declination, icing, winds aloft, jetstream, to deal with? No of course not. What we have is "Realistic" flight models and industry leading damage modeling. Now why would damage modeling be important in a "Flight sim"? Sounds like something much more appropriate to an ACM sim to me.

When you read "Historic" on the box, what do you think it means? Are we getting "Historic" flight conditions? Things like lack of trained pilots, lack of spare parts, lack of avgas quality fuels? Nope! What we get are "Historic" matchups in AIR COMBAT! FW vs B-17's Emils on Aircobras etc. etc.

OK so here is where I'm going with all this rambling. This next is obviously just my opinion, and everyone's going to differ... Ultimately the only one who matters is Oleg and Co. My *opinion* is that this sim is an ACM sim first and foremost. Planes should be added accordingly, such that "realistic", "authentic" and "historic" matchups can be re-enacted on a co-op basis or on a DF basis. Thus my point earlier regarding *balance*. How is anyone going to set up an "realistic", "authentic" and "historic" DF or Co-op server for say the invasion of Okinawa, if only one side hase planes from 1945? Not too "realistic", "authentic" and "historic" is it?

I also think that planes should be added to the game in light of this. Lets take a favorite of mine the PBY. I really wan't this in the game. Not to fly, but rather to use to build "realistic", "authentic" and "historic" missions around. If I want to toodle around in a PBY I can do that right now in MSF and a heck of alot more "realistic", "authentic" and "historicly" accurate I might add, (speaking of flight conditions here). Lets face it, no ones going to do any ACM in a PBY. What I would love though is to fly topcover for a PBY on a search and rescue mission though... So my vote would be to add something that I love like the PBY as an AI only and give presedence to the fighters as flyable first and Jabos a close second, with bombers third, and support aircraft a distant fourth.

Stiglr
12-04-2004, 05:47 PM
Well, having a PBY in the sim would be great for those who might like to undertake recon missions, SAR missions, even bombing missions (yes, they did do bombing...and depth charging, IIRC). And, they were used by the dozens in the Pacific, so they're quite representative. Much more so than any Bearcat or Reppu.

All that stuff you mentioned with regard to ACM game vs. historic sim is really not so relevant. Both of them are part of a good flight sim. Historic flight sim, of course.

No, we don't have de-icing in the sim, nor do we have random engine failure, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's so much less realistic. I'd gauge that by how close to flight test performance numbers the sim planes can get. That's a pretty good yardstick.

Sig.Hirsch
12-04-2004, 07:48 PM
The historical accuracy and atmosphere of the game is very important for me ,that's why i bought the game , i don't care about planes that never saw combat nor about new ubber planes

I care for FB to be a flight sim that is constantly improving in term of realism of the A/C , FM , DM , and all possible bugs that occur sometimes patch after patch and i respect the work done by Oleg in that regards .

If we have new planes , i'd rather give the priority to planes that saw intensive combat and action in WWII , those who made History , you know

That's why i'm so excited about how BoB (the next sim of 1:C Maddox ) will be like , with less aircrafts , but far more realism and authenticity , i can't wait for it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
12-04-2004, 10:43 PM
For me this sim is all "what if"... that is, "what if I were a fighter pilot".

And so in that sense, making Bearcats and Tigercats available is entirely consistent with why I play the game. I love airplanes and want to fly em all.

Realism is highly important to me (insofar as the equipment must all behave realistically) but as far as I am concerned, adjusting historical availabilities, etc so that other planes can fight that otherwise didn't is all part of the fun. As long as the engine is realistic, alternate history scenarios are just as good as historical recreations to me!

The F8F and F7F are fascinating aircraft... I'd love to see how they would have performed.

Bring em on, I say!

TooCool_12f
12-05-2004, 07:47 AM
Stirgl, it's strange how you give and argument and it's opposite in the same thread.

if dogfights CAN and DO (according to you) replicate realistic conditions, what do you complain about? even today you have planes that would be totally out of line on some maps.. and you know what? they are excluded from them (see you own comment). adding more planes, whatever they are wouldn't change things at all..; you'd have still totally open eservers and others, with closed planes choices - the "realistic" ones..

so, what's the point? complaining for complaining? since anyone can choose what planeset he will fly in, saying "this or that plane most not be added for realism's sake" is irrelevant...

if a plane is built and it fulfills addition conditions (given by oleg a couple of years ago - accurately built, with sufficient data for FM and DM ), and that has flown before end of 1947, it can be added. Therefore, reppu, bearcat, tigercat, if they all fulfill the conditions I just enumerated should be added... I hopefully they will be.. the more the better..

badatflyski
12-05-2004, 10:20 AM
just for info:

The most poeple of the european il2 community, would like to see real airplanes first in place of those 46' coke cans!Planes that really flyed in combat.
pe2/pe3/storch/ju88/tempest/typhoon/do335/m-406/d-520/pzl37/pzl43/he219/swordfish/spit14/do-17/do-217/lancaster/wellington/bv222/do-24/

wanna some more ????
So please stop talking about "what if" or "what as" bull*** otherwize we gonna demand the AC Graff V¶n Zeppelin with the ju87 en the 109 in navalized versions until 48!and we gonna kick american's asses in the pacific!

There are some better things to do than argue over a plane that never flew in WW2 just because somone want to have air-superiority 'cause he can not fly!

this kind of toppic would be erased from this forum, no place here for such ****!

Vraiment trop nazes ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

oleg; keep on going man! u're the best!

Stiglr
12-05-2004, 10:58 AM
TooCool, I'm simply saying, for the time and effort it takes to get a plane into the sim, we should concentrate on the ones with a significant service record, is all.

Bearcats, Reppus, all people want these for, is they think they'll magically make them better and make up for their lack of ability to score in other, earlier planes (the ones that actually did the fighting in the war). It's just ueberism, pure and simple.

Since these people admit they "don't read" and don't care to learn about history, why do they care about a plane that's just an asterisk on the tail end of prop military plane development? They really don't. It's just one they happen to know the name of that they think might make them a decent sim pilot. This is far easier than actually flying a representative WWII plane and learning something about tactics, maneuvering, situational awareness, and using the good and bad traits of an "honest" aircraft to win anyway.

You notice these guys rarely ask for a early war plane, right? Well, the farther back you go, the less capable, less armed, lower engine-powered the planes are. That would make their minimal skills even worse: imagine, having to kill with just two rifle caliber machine guns or something...

One should see through the "where's my ueberplane" whines for what they are. They're a simpering, sniveling request for the flight sim eqivalent of "game codes and cheats". Instant solutions to make the effort go away. Bad, bad effort!

Here's where the rubber meets the road: if you're a German pilot and you can't kill in a 109 or a Focke Wulf; if you're a British pilot and can't kill in a Spitfire; if you're a Japanese pilot and can't kill in a Zero; a VVS pilot and you can't kill in a Yak9, Yak7b, LaGG-3 66 or god forbid, a totally overmodelled P-39; or you're an American pilot and can't kill in a P-40, P-47, P-51, F6F, F4U-1 or P-38 (wow, some list!), let's face it; you can't kill PERIOD.

Put the work in.

Tater-SW-
12-05-2004, 11:08 AM
I'm willing to bet stiglr can tell a zero from an oscar from a zero, he's no dummy like the guys at Curtis http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif &lt;G,D,R&gt;

tater

Aaron_GT
12-05-2004, 03:30 PM
Stiglr wrote:
"Well, having a PBY in the sim would be great for those who might like to undertake recon missions, "

What happeend to the flyable PBY? I passed on the chance I had to take photos of the interior of one as I thought Gibbage had all the info he needed? Maybe Gibbage is just busy (isn't he back in regular employment now) and it is just taking longer than expected? Let's hope for a surprise appearance of a flyable PBY in the patch! It would be very nice to have.

I do agree that we should concentrate on planes with significant service record, though. I think this is why Tagert and I are disagreeing as I think there are planes with more service record than the F4U-4 as yet unrepresented in the sim, and given that effort from Oleg's team is finite concentrating on ones that saw significant service makes more sense. If the sim ends up having a more Luft 46 (or Korean War) focus, then fair enough, but I think we still have a lot of WW2 planes to work on yet. Even with the likes of the late war IJN and IJA planes the Japanese contingent of planes is still relatively small, for example, with no flyable twins whatsoever.

Tater-SW-
12-05-2004, 03:49 PM
As I recall there were far more PBYs built than most japanese types, excluding the Zero and Oscar. I think it was ~5000 PBYs built.

PBY would be a blast to fly, particularly as a black-cat bomber.

tater

Mjollnir111675
12-05-2004, 03:53 PM
Oh yeah!!! PBY!!
and the occasional asw patrol!!!
c'mon random subs and a pilot rescue ability in real time!!!
man the PTO really brought forth alot of snafu's!!!

Il2pongo
12-05-2004, 06:10 PM
What a joke.
stigler. if you make your decisions about what you want in the game based on the size of your johnson thats fine. I just like the Bearcat and would use it for exactly the same thing I use the F4F and the Gladiator for. Setting up what if missions for me to fly myself to enjoy the planes and see how they work. For me IL2 et all is like playing with my model aircraft and looking at them from all angles and saying what if..

I didnt know there were actually people that are trying to prove something with the game. Now that I have read the rantings of one, I have to say I dont think the game is much good for that.

If they do an addon with the Bearcat, Tigercat and a dozen other late war to after war US planes inculding the P51J and the B36..Im all over it. Ill pay the price of admission just to goof around with them.
You wont buy it..cause you hate those planes and they ruin your manhood or something..we got ya.

ZG77_Nagual
12-05-2004, 06:27 PM
I poop on this thread

WUAF_Badsight
12-05-2004, 10:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Bearcats, Reppus, all people want these for, is they think they'll magically make them better and make up for their lack of ability to score in other, earlier planes (the ones that actually did the fighting in the war). It's just ueberism, pure and simple. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
your so wrong its not funny

the thought that they are liked as A/C never crossed your mind ?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Since these people admit they "don't read" and don't care to learn about history, . . . . . . . . It's just one they happen to know the name of that they think might make them a decent sim pilot. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
thats assuming that only the stupid & FPS players like late war A/C

in other words , your on a high horse & are trying to say you have the high moral ground because you dont want late A/C

i.e "im educated & fans of late war stuff are ignorant"

nice assumption Stigler http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
This is far easier than actually flying a _representative_ WWII plane and learning something about tactics, maneuvering, situational awareness, and using the good and bad traits of an "honest" aircraft to win _anyway_.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
care to back that statement up ?

im online now & ready for schooling Stigler , name the plane & settings , im good to go

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
you notice these guys rarely ask for a early war plane, right? Well, the farther back you go, the less capable, less armed, lower engine-powered the planes are. That would make their minimal skills even worse: imagine, having to kill with just two rifle caliber machine guns or something.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
care to back that statement up ?

im online now & ready for schooling Stigler , name the plane & settings , im good to go

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
One should see through the "where's my ueberplane" whines for what they are. They're a simpering, sniveling request for the flight sim eqivalent of "game codes and cheats". Instant solutions to make the effort go away. Bad, bad effort!. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>care to back that statement up ?

im online now & ready for schooling Stigler , name the plane & settings , im good to go

cut the BS & put up , cause you aint going to shut up

your so full of it its not funny

they are planes with fans who know their history & want high performance

if you cant cut it , i bet youd want everyone elses ability limited too Stigler

Stiglr
12-05-2004, 11:53 PM
Fans of late war planes are all well and good... there are actually many that are representative models. Your P-51Ds, your P-47Ds, your 109Ks, your Fw190Ds, your La7s, your Yak 3s, etc. etc. etc.

These planes are plenty to get the job done. Why do you need to have some "hardlyflew"?

As for the challenge, perhaps we will meet online someday. Should be interesting to be sure.

WUAF_Badsight
12-06-2004, 12:53 AM
whats the more important question is why you feel the need to belittle people over the fact that they like planes like the F8F & A7M

these represented the pinnacle of WW2 engineering

they were among the top Prop Fighters ever designed

your bias against them doesnt spring from their performance , it comes from your frustration with online DF servers & because of this your opinions have no place in threads like these

you need to start your own thread

it would be about DF room hosts & why they are ignorant & why their desire to shoot planes down , regardles of the setting , is indicative of a pathetic lack of knowledge

im sure they would all listen

you could be the great "how to host a proper DF room" teacher

in the meantime , how about you delete the folder "system32" on your C-Drive

if you cant find it , then try keeping out of late war plane threads & with your mis-directing peeves

huh ?

Tater-SW-
12-06-2004, 08:38 AM
While I don't have anything against any particular plane being modelled at some point, personally I feel that it would be a waste of time to add two "might have been" planes when the current PF planeset has so many glaring holes in it. As the designers have said, making a cockpit is as hard or harder than making an external plane model, so those 2 suggested flyables would displace 4 AI planes (or 2 more flyables).

Given that the IJAAF completely lacks a bomber, I'd prefer to see ANY IJAAF bomber before either of "never fought" uber planes. I'd actually prefer 4xAI, and solely IJ planes that are lacking, quite frankly (and cockpits can always be added later, so it's not like AI planes are "wasted" when it comes to flyables). The Nick, Sally, Helen and Nell leap to mind as desperately needed aircraft (3xIJAAF, 1xIJNAF bombers).

tater

Stiglr
12-06-2004, 10:47 AM
Maybe he'll listen, Tater, but probably not.

Listen, Badsight....I happen to be a closet Bearcat fan myself. I saw one in a Hertiage Flight alongside the other Grumman Iron (an F3F, a Wildcat and a Hellcat) and was amazed at the power edge it seemed to enjoy over the others. Wow.

But, that's exactly why I don't wanna see these planes in the game. People will stop flying Hellcats for the power boost. That's just WRONG. The Bearcat did diddly-squat in WWII, and that's the impact it should have in IL-2: diddly-squat.

As I said, if you can't kill Zeros in a Hellcat, you just flat out suck, and you need to improve your flying. Planes are not "magic pills" that make you a better sim pilot.

Il2pongo
12-06-2004, 12:11 PM
Its nothing to do with flying online. I dont fly online. ( I have Aces High for that)Its to do with enjoying the plane.
But even if it was to do with flying online, saying that its better to add planes that will not ever be used online except in a server that would restict the use of the bearcat anyway, because you think that the bearcat would get TOO MUCH use is silly. The game is to provide fun to all the purchasers..not you.

GR142-Pipper
12-07-2004, 01:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
TooCool, I'm simply saying, for the time and effort it takes to get a plane into the sim, we should concentrate on the ones with a significant service record, is all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agree completely, especially given the limited resources that any company that services a niche market (like this one) faces.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Bearcats, Reppus, all people want these for, is they think they'll magically make them better and make up for their lack of ability to score in other, earlier planes (the ones that actually did the fighting in the war). It's just ueberism, pure and simple. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> While some people like the high performance piston aircraft of that very late/early post war period, I tend to share your view that it's mostly a performance matter for the reasons you have cited. (...snip...)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You notice these guys rarely ask for a early war plane, right? Well, the farther back you go, the less capable, less armed, lower engine-powered the planes are. That would make their minimal skills even worse: imagine, having to kill with just two rifle caliber machine guns or something... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There's also another reason for that which could be a bit beyond the obvious. Most of the maps that are played on are simply WAAAY too big...even for the faster aircraft. If you add to that aircraft that are on the slow side, the game just gets glacial in its pace and boring to the point of annoyance. Not fun.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>One should see through the "where's my ueberplane" whines for what they are. They're a simpering, sniveling request for the flight sim eqivalent of "game codes and cheats". Instant solutions to make the effort go away. Bad, bad effort! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That certainly fits some but it would be a mistake to lump all legitimate criticism and commentary into that category...and I really don't think you mean to.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
12-07-2004, 01:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Stiglr:
Since these people admit they "don't read" and don't care to learn about history, . . . . . . . . It's just one they happen to know the name of that they think might make them a decent sim pilot. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>thats assuming that only the stupid & FPS players like late war A/C

in other words , your on a high horse & are trying to say you have the high moral ground because you dont want late A/C
i.e "im educated & fans of late war stuff are ignorant"

nice assumption Stigler http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The guy's not saying that at all. Badsight, you have a bad habit of getting a thought in your head (often incorrectly, btw) and then going off into left field with some strange extrapolation of your misconceptions.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
This is far easier than actually flying a _representative_ WWII plane and learning something about tactics, maneuvering, situational awareness, and using the good and bad traits of an "honest" aircraft to win _anyway_.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>care to back that statement up ?

im online now & ready for schooling Stigler , name the plane & settings , im good to go <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So how did this all of a sudden become all about YOU, Badsight? SOME people DO hide behind high-performance aircraft. Not all by any means whatsoever but some do for the very reason that Stiglr says...the plane can make up for a lack of skill.

It's true in real life and it's true with this sim.

GR142-Pipper

Aaron_GT
12-07-2004, 03:40 AM
"whats the more important question is why you feel the need to belittle people over the fact that they like planes like the F8F & A7M"

I don't think Stiglr is. He's just stating that he feels the priority should be 'bread-and-butter' planes rather than ones that saw little service. I am inclined to agree. I could list a whole series of early and mid war planes that saw service with the FAA, RAF, RAAF, etc in the Pacific in numbers of 1000 or more that are not yet in the game.

With regard to Stiglr's piloting skills, I've encountered him on the Targetware servers. He knows what he's doing!

Daiichidoku
12-07-2004, 09:44 AM
At least on his views about "mostest" types and other of marginal "legitimacy" for inclusion in FB, I have to agree with Stiglr, his views mirror my own

Better to have a Korea sim with FB what ifs and ubers as its cr@pplanes, lol

That 1C includes types that played no part in WWII, or saw combat service or was produced in VERY small numbers is irresponsible, especially given the glut the "honest" types ( or as Stiglr says, those that are "representitive" of real WWII type) that are not included

A 109Z instead of a Mossie? a I-185 instead of a Vultee Vindicator or P 66 Vangaurd? sheesh!

I also love, as does Stiglr, and Badsight, given their comments, ALL warbirds, the cr@p, the ubers, the experimentals et al....but this game is vaunted as a historic WWII flight combat sim, not Crimson skies or SWOL...fill up the "real" types first, then think about any extras or what ifs, please...this lack of consistency weakens the game, not to mention the skills of the pilots who insist upon flying the "point-shoot-kill" types

I also dont buy that excuse, "if its in the game [or server], why shouldnt I fly it?" well, for one thing its an excuse instead of saying " I have no skill or sense of challenge, and if there was anti-gravity spheres eq'd with reactive armour and unlimited ARAAMs I would fly it cuz am enthralled by things going boom", and for another, its usually the guys flying Ki84Cs, La7s, etc that scream the loudest when in a server featuring jets, even just the Me 262 ( quite a legit type, numbers and combat service, and a huge impact on WWII aviation and subsequent, as well ) OMFG a jet, or Jets are uber, dont fly them

So when THEY want to take a type a cut above other prop types, its ok, but as soon as a jet is seen they freak...funny thing is, at least in an arcade server, jet are far from uber, even a good jet pilot has a challenge in taking off, extending to an operating alt and speed, gettting a clean kill, and RTB in one piece...

Only a fool sees a jet as a greater threat than a La7 or Yak 3P or Ki84C ( again, in an arcade server when S.A. is NP with externals and padlocks )

Il2pongo
12-07-2004, 11:45 AM
I dont know what posts by stigler you guys are reading. But here is what I read.
"Bearcats, Reppus, all people want these for, is they think they'll magically make them better and make up for their lack of ability to score in other, earlier planes (the ones that actually did the fighting in the war). It's just ueberism, pure and simple.

Since these people admit they "don't read" and don't care to learn about history, why do they care about a plane that's just an asterisk on the tail end of prop military plane development? They really don't. It's just one they happen to know the name of that they think might make them a decent sim pilot. This is far easier than actually flying a representative WWII plane and learning something about tactics, maneuvering, situational awareness, and using the good and bad traits of an "honest" aircraft to win anyway.

You notice these guys rarely ask for a early war plane, right? Well, the farther back you go, the less capable, less armed, lower engine-powered the planes are. That would make their minimal skills even worse: imagine, having to kill with just two rifle caliber machine guns or something...

One should see through the "where's my ueberplane" whines for what they are. They're a simpering, sniveling request for the flight sim eqivalent of "game codes and cheats". Instant solutions to make the effort go away. Bad, bad effort!
"

how can you say this idiot has a valid opinion? I am just curios about the Bearcat and the best way to find out is to have it in Il2.

stigler just posts from hate and a want of control over others.

Stiglr
12-07-2004, 12:10 PM
Wow, guys, thanks for the support! It appears some people have my back on this!!

So, now, folks who simply don't like my sarcastic posting style can perhaps listen to those who are more moderate in their postings...but who still agree with me on this point.

Zarathael
12-07-2004, 01:55 PM
I've seen several points of view here in this, all of them valid from the particular point of view expressed by the poster. Problem is, we have a lot of people with different points of view!! People are flawed that way. Hopefully one day soon they'll invent a drug that we can all take so that we'll all think and feel the same way about everything. I'm sure somebody's working on one somewhere.

Until then, here's my perspective.

I've read the books, done the research on wwII aviation since I was 8 years old. I don't claim to be an expert by any means, but it's safe to say I KNOW the history. I believe that probably describes just about 100% of the people who bought this game. Mainstream Joe average has no interest in it, why should we feel obligated to teach history to him when he's not going to buy the sim anyway? Let him go watch football with Mary Jane Rottencrotch, we'll fly our sims.

Admittedly, I rarely fly online, because I've never seen the point behind an airborne free-for all wrestling match, which is all I've ever been privy to. I'm not saying that defines the entirety of the online community, but it defines the vast majority of it. It is a SPORT and that's a lot farther from anything I want to be involved in than any simulation of 1945-46 aircraft.

And if you want to gripe about the unfairness of people choosing uber planes all the time, and the historical inaccuracy of it, consider the unfairness of a casual player who goes into the DF server, chooses his Ki-84 and goes up against someone in a wildcat who spends roughly 2 to 6 hours every day doing nothing but dogfighting. Is that really "fair?"

As for inclusion of late war/post-war types, the more the merrier. As for including more types not yet represented, the more the merrier. As for making more AI only flyable, Hell yes. I guess what I'm getting at here is that anything anybody wants to add, I'll take. And considering that most of the add ons are 3rd party, well it's entirely up to them what they make, because well, it's their choice. If they can do it up to Oleg's standards, I have no right to complain if they build an su-27. They're doing on their own time with their own resources.

Stiglr
12-07-2004, 05:06 PM
I hear you on this, really I do, but consider this:

one point I'm making is, why should we pour time and effort into WWII 1946 when we can barely do justice to WWII 1937 - '45?

I mean, how many of us "oldtimers" to flight simming have taken part in a decent simulation of the MAJOR battles of WWII? Midway? Kursk? BoB? Tobruk? Malta? Rabaul? Guadalcanal? Big Week over Germany?

Very few of us. For my part, I can remember ONE decent attempt each at doing Midway and Big Week at Warbirds (with recon, strike planning, the whole works), ONE good New Guinea '43 campaign at the same place, and NOTHING with the others.

Given the "open, unstructured" nature of the design and presentation of this sim, the online wars might have a shot at creating this, but I haven't seen anything real close to it.

But, the fact is, the sim CAN make a decent attempt at most of these pivotal campaigns. It's the unstructured nature and, I hate to say it, the lack of knowledge in the community, that makes this such a rarity. You can get maybe the flavor of one slice of a campaign in a well-done mission, or settle for an offline campaign with cheating AI and totally scripted timeline, but it's not quite the same.

So, if we haven't yet scratched the surface of WWII, why are we obsessing on the '46 stuff? (if perhaps NOT for the ueberplane reasons we discussed above)?

Anybody wanna tackle that?

Il2pongo
12-07-2004, 07:39 PM
your assumption that "lack or knowledge" leads to interest in the last aircraft in WW2 and is responsible for the lack of structured recreations of the critical battles of WW2 is fantasy.
You have no idea what your talking about, no idea of the knowledge base or flying skill of the people you insult and no idea of the impact of including the F8F Bearcat in the game.

Your just a clueless dweeb that somehow got the idea in your head that your justified in being insulting and that your opinion on others desires for the game has any relivance at all.
It has none.

It seems you feel that if every mission in ww2 could be recreated you would be recognised as some kind of sim god or something. Well you wouldnt be, you would still be an anoying dweeb.

LEXX_Luthor
12-07-2004, 08:53 PM
Don't let Stirgl fool ya'll. TagertWare flight sim has great potential to explore alternative events, and TagertWare is known for its MiG~3U Over Rabaul online fantasy campaign where Japps change secret radio code 1942 and Ussia no longer has hysterically correct advantage of breaking radio code. TagertWare Developers know well that such non~hysterically correct explorations open new worlds of flight simming for their customers, as does Bf~109Z, MiG~3U, I~185, and He~100.

Although not interested in Bearcat myself, but as Flyable MiG I~224 would be Awsum! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif sure, why not Bearcat?

GR142-Pipper
12-07-2004, 10:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
your bias against them doesnt spring from their performance , it comes from your frustration with online DF servers & because of this your opinions have no place in threads like these <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There you go again, Badsight, trying to put words in other people's mouths and then trying (and failing) to package it as your definition of "fact".

Once again, all Stiglr was saying is that there are some players who choose the highest performing aircraft because they couldn't compete as well if they didn't do so....and he's right.

Lastly, who are you to tell anyone else that their opinions have no place here? You're by absoluely no means the arbiter of that. Everyone has a view and everyone is entitled to offer an opinion. You, me, Stiglr, anyone. Who knows, we all just might learn something from them.

GR142-Pipper

Stiglr
12-07-2004, 10:54 PM
Lexx_Luthor wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Don't let Stirgl fool ya'll. TagertWare flight sim has great potential to explore alternative events, and TagertWare is known for its MiG~3U Over Rabaul online fantasy campaign... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

TAGERTWARE??? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Isn't that the F4U-4-only sim I keep hearing about??? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Shame on the bastards for placing MiG-3U in the Pacific!

Zarathael
12-08-2004, 12:10 AM
As for why we want late war/1946 aircraft? I know there are tons and tons of obnoxious 8-12 year olds, and those with the mentality of obnoxious 8-12 year olds, who DO want them in there just to give them an advantage for online play. just don't allow them. exclude them, ridicule them and hand them their a**es. This is one of the few places where we can actually shoot people for being childish. Take full advantage of it.

Why do I like having the late war machines involved? I don't play online, at least not very often. that is at best a tertiary concern for me. I like using the FMB to create my own missions, my own campaigns, some based on history, some not. I have studied this stuff since I was a kid. I like the idea of having a sim that is as powerful as this one for covering the entire range of the conflict, and I think that being able to explore the what if's is a key point to doing that. Those of us who have an interest, all of us wonder, well, what if Japan had won at midway, what if the asassination attemts on Hitler had succeeded, what if Patton hadn't stopped at Berlin, What if Stalin hadn't stopped at Berlin, what if Hitler had never broken with Stalin, What if the manhattan project had failed? the possibilities are endless. Thinking along these lines doesn't make us ignorant of history, or disrespectful, it just means we're thoughful. One of the great things about this sim is that it's becoming so expansive that we can actually begin to simulate those kinds of things. That's why I like having the late war machines as well as the early ones. Broadens the scope of what is possible with the sim. How can that be a bad thing? I also have faith that at some point almost every machine that really fought will be represented if the current trend continues, so I'm not so much worried about that. If anything, what I'd like to see addressed more than anything else right now is the lack of variety with ship models...

WUAF_Badsight
12-08-2004, 12:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Wow, guys, thanks for the support! It appears some people have my back on this!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
what ? your only reason for posting in the negative is that you dont like the way online DF servers are run

you have not once been able to prove that these planes would hurt the sim in any way as you say it would , because its a rediculous thing to say

what would happen is that people would get more choice of planes to fly , duh !

you can have historical plane match ups RIGHT NOW

what your trying to do is FORCE people into this type of DF arena

first you say that online DF server can replicate historic settings . . . then change meaning to historic match-ups . . . THATS A BIG DIFFERENCE

your totally wrong about online DF servers being able to replicate anything historic , except for relative plane performance

players , numbers , size & operating difficultys are NOT moddeled into FB

but still you post like you have some moral high ground to save the un-educated heathens on

get off the horse Stigler & save your BS for the correct threads

Daiichidoku
12-08-2004, 01:29 AM
Wow....where to begin???

Ok, Zarathael, my question to you is...where does it start or end? ...that is, sure you (and others) want what ifs...but remember, simply, that this is a WWII sim, and should have representitive ac types, not marginal ones...what if, what if, what if...what if matter/anti matter drives, photon torpedoes, wave-motion guns and the like were invented?...just a simple "what if", but if this kinda stuff is excercised in Fb, then would you want to see those things in FB? a WWII sim?...dont THINK so..x wings are certainly "what if", and you can find those in OTHER, NON WWII games...he wants a bearcat, she wants a reppu, he wants an F 86 sabre ( hey, design studies began before the end of WWII...thats as legit as the "proposed" 109Z based on the 109G we now have in FB ), she wants an F 22 Raptor...


IL2pongo and Badsight....whoa there doogies!

Stiglr and MOST other here are presenting thier views in a reasonable manner, and while not speaking highly of those who fly uber types, they are NOT conducting any personal attacks on any individual...seems the two of you are NOT contributing to this thread, but just bashing someone with different views than your own, and doing so unprovioked, ssave by your own hostility ( or perhaps, fear or inferiority issues, I dont know...Im not going to attack anyone about it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

IL2 pongo, you keep saying ( to Stiglr ) "you know nothing, nothing, nothing"...well, fo rone thing, PROVE he knows nothing...wheres YOUR wealth of knowledge, or at least give your opinion on the subject at hand, sheesh!...and why the personal attack? you call him at various time an idiot, a dweeb, a clueless dweeb, and also infer he has a semi-pseudo-megalomania or domination/control issues..please stop, sir....it is telling on you, dig?

Badsight, while you dont have the tongue of il2 pongo, your post is still more or less quashing whatever Stiglr has to say, and is not really a rebuttal, if thats what you were trying to achieve...lemme take up some of your points in a rebuttal...

so what if he doesnt like the way df servers are run...does it matter if he doesnt like it?...and why are you ASSUMING that is his reason to post?...if you ever take the time to read his many posts, you will see that he strives for a better game, believe it or not

Stiglr doesnt need to prove these planes would hurt the sim, the proof is already prescetented in the guise of marginal, ridiculous and/or even speculative types flooding df servers, causing among other things, some misinformation about WWII aviation, and while this is NOT an educational game by any means, many who cant wont or dont do any research will end up thinking reams of mig3Us, La73xB20, Yak 3P(deployment 1946!) 109Z I 185 F4U 1C ki841C YP 80 Go 229 and or other types abounded a one time or another during WWII...IMHO, thats wrong to do , at least in a sim touted as a WWII sim...these types dopnt amount to a hilll of beans in regards to the war proper, or largely to aviation development in general

The other harm it has dome to the sim is to keep SOME ppl away from online altogther, cuz they cant stand luckyy glancing hits or two from a ki84C blowing up thier heavy type bomber completely and the like...

Yes, you CAN have historical match ups, youre absolutely right (see, you dont have to always disagree with ppl! lol) but IMO, he not tryiong to force anything, but perhaps to enrich the virtual WWII flight combat sim experience...surely, using a more challenging type that one cant simply point-shoot-kill is FAR more representitive of the real battle in the air oif WWII, and shows that the piltos then HAD to have training and skill to score kill, all the while trying to not get killed by the guy behind him, trying just as hard...look at the I 185...for 42, its an amazing plane that no obstacle should have been enuff to keep it out of production, no matter what...that it did should have been enuff to keep it out of FB, too

Online Df servers CAN simulate historical encounters...not a wide range or em, but it can...Yamamoto intercept, henderson field battles, JV44 operations wioth 262s, D9s , stangs and jugs, and many other same scale encounters CAN be done online df servers....repeatedly, at that

Is Stiglr on a high horse? amybe, maybe not, only his crewchief knows fer sure...but I like where that horse is going, so Im with stupid...( trying hard not to equate Stiglrs high horse with il2pongos and badsights ...ummm donkey...nope, I wont say anything alluding to that, gotta keep it civil, hehehe) JK! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Really tho, this is a forum, say what yo uwant, but TRY to keep it in the context of the thread and TRY not to include personal attacks, k?

Just so I can follow my own advice, Im not fo rthe bearcat or reppu in FB/PF becuz Id rather see earlier types that played a real part in the war in this war game...thank you

GR142-Pipper
12-08-2004, 01:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Stiglr:
Wow, guys, thanks for the support! It appears some people have my back on this!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>what ? your only reason for posting in the negative is that you dont like the way online DF servers are run <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Tell us, where did Stiglr ever say that. Let me help. He didn't.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>you have not once been able to prove that these planes would hurt the sim in any way as you say it would , because its a rediculous thing to say <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What he said was that it's a WWII sim and it would be best to have production WWII aircraft as participants.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>what would happen is that people would get more choice of planes to fly , duh !

you can have historical plane match ups RIGHT NOW <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> He never said there couldn't be.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>what your trying to do is FORCE people into this type of DF arena <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So tell us, just "who" is he trying to "force" to do what?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>(...snip...)but still you post like you have some moral high ground to save the un-educated heathens on <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> "Moral high ground"?, "uneducated heathens"?..."Power to the People!", "Free Huey", "Attica, Attica, Attica"...HA.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>get off the horse Stigler & save your BS for the correct threads <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Does this mean that Stiglr won't be getting a Christmas card from you this year?

GR142-Pipper

Aaron_GT
12-08-2004, 04:07 AM
Stiglr wrote:
"Very few of us. For my part, I can remember ONE decent attempt each at doing Midway and Big Week at Warbirds (with recon, strike planning, the whole works), ONE good New Guinea '43 campaign at the same place, and NOTHING with the others."

Actually some of the best recreations for scenarios I've seen were with old Warbirds 2.7. The Battle of Britain series (in 2000 I think) was rather atmospheric. Formation flying, going on patrol, chasing Ju88s out to sea and the like. Good stuff.

I've had some good times in IL2 as well, of course, although it isn't a MMOG it is good for things like squadron versus squadron (plus a goal, some AI).

dadada1
12-08-2004, 05:44 AM
One of the things that seems to be overlooked in this thread is that some of the additional AC we have in this sim were produced by third parties in no way connected with Oleg and his developement team. Are you saying that if a third party who'd like to model and fly either of these aircraft in the sim should make something your interested in, or feel is more relevant instead? If so, let the book burning begin.

Daiichidoku
12-08-2004, 09:03 AM
Well, a third party modeller made the 109Z for FB....thing is, the real one never flew...the one we have in the game was never even built, it was a proposal....a paper plane

So if a third party modeller makes any other type that never flew, that was only on paper, you would still want that?

Do you realize just how many ac were on paper but never built during 39-45?

Would you really be happy with several of types that all have FMs with no hard fligth data on them, that fly according to what is estimated and speculative, instead of having at least some basis in reality?

Believe me, you dont want that...you'd see all the late war German stuff, like TA183s etc...ufos....

Dont get me wrong, I love all these types, but I dont feel they belong in a WWII sim thats strives for accuracy....one can NEVER be sure of relative acuracy with a type that never flew

dadada1
12-08-2004, 09:44 AM
As for the Ta 183, I would'nt want that in the sim, I'm not really a fan of stovepipes. I don't think anyone is arguing for the inclusion of these types either, I would'nt be interested. F8F is different. Its still flying now and a reliable and accurate fight model could be included in game. I would argue about the total accuracy of this sim having flown a light AC myself but thats a whole other thread. What I do object to is people trying to limit my choices. Anyone can host a game and limit the planesets, thats a choice people have. Anyone wishing to fly on these servers can thats their choice. I would like to fly an accurate representation of the F8F, Sea Fury, Reppu, thata would be my choice. What I do beleive about my choice is that its not imposing limits on anyone.

WOLFMondo
12-08-2004, 09:58 AM
I agree, its down to the server owners and map makers to decide what planes to put on maps. Its a bit of a moot point not including planes because of potential inbalanced with online DF servers although I've always thought planes that flew and fought should have priority over ones that didn't but its down to Oleg and the third party modellers and what they choose to model.

Stiglr
12-08-2004, 10:33 AM
What 3rd parties do, and what people do with their offline boxed sim are totally out of this discussion.

The problem is, there's a larger community, us, to consider. Because the sim is so unstructured, every plane released is as "valid" as any other. It shouldn't be that way, IMHO, but it's like Pandora's Box. All the Bi-1s, 109Zs and other totally idiotic boondoggles become as completely usable and viable as your standard 109Es, Yak 9s and other planes that truly deserve the spotlight. That's the problem: this sim has no controls, and we need those in the community, if we're going to fly together online, which is the optimum scenario to enjoy this sim.

This is why I'm totally against these "never/hardlyflews". But it's partially OUR fault. On the one hand, we all pay lip service to the idea of "seeing what it was like", but jettison history at the first whiff of some drawing board wonder, or take umbrage at someone who posts he'd like the sim to remain, for the most part, historical. And, even worse, by and large, few of us even bother to do even cursory research in order to design both DF, or coops that borrow from history. Nope, straight to the "all planes" setup (which, for all intents and purposes, means 5 or 6 high performance uebers, since no other planes have a chance).

I wouldn't post against these '46 planes if the community would exercise more self control, and you could pretty much find a 80/20 mix of historical vs. what if stuff online. But that's not what happens. Neverflews tend to dominate the proceedings, until a few people finally decide enough is enough and just ban them. If a plane's going to be 'banned' by hosts, that's a telling sign that someone shouldn't have wasted all the hours modeling and coding the ****ed thing in the first place.

Il2pongo
12-08-2004, 10:37 AM
diechiwhatever
I question the reasoning power of someone who doenst see that a terrible flame against all the holders of a certian opinion is a terrible flame against each of them. You ignore stiglers behavior and attack mine. Im not going to repost his trash again. If you were really interested in the dynamics of this thread you can see it easily enough.

As to your opinion. You and stigler seem to think that a plane should not be introduced if it would be too popular and used by too many people. You seem to think that in fact the effort to develop a plane should be spent on planes that will by your own argurment never be used.

So you see, your argument is assinine. The bearcat was a production WW2 fighter in squadron operational service in ww2.

I fully understand the problem with uber planes dominating a server. In AH we perk such planes so that they will not run roughshod over the whole comunity. But I dont play this game online. I am merly interested in the planes and what a given server admin allows on his personal server is none of my business.

Daiichidoku
12-08-2004, 11:43 AM
il2pongo,

right or wrong, Stiglr has made his posts without calling anyone an idiot or clueless dweeb. YOU did

Put up a post that expresses your opinion, or reasoning behind your POV and I may refute, rebut or even argue your points, if I dont agreee, or I will give my support to you if I do agree, or both, if i both agree and disagree with whatever aspect of your post strikes me to do so. I have NOT attacked you, but pointed out that your name calling and bashing is not constructive



Perhaps you should read both Stiglr and my posts in this thread...its not a point of not wanting type due to its percieved popularity or use by too many ppl. the reason we dont like them? read Stiglrs posts, he says it in black and white, and has never said anything about not liking them due to popularity..I know you say, "it seeems" this way, and thats your perception...but plz read again, its pretty clearly stated why both he and me are not fans of these types IN THE GAME, I will tell you now that I at least, I cant speak for Stiglr in this regard, tho I suspect that he feel sthe same, love and are enthusiastic about late war/experimental/marginal types IRL, but have no or very littel place in this game

as fo rmaking cr@p types, if they are built, many ppl will fly them, eventually...not even counting those that KNOW whats what and will flock to these types

As for the Bearcat, a type I love, its great looking and very capable, but should not be in PF, as it never flew in combat, anywhere, at any time

Cr@ppy P 59 airacomets were production types, (albeit in small numbers) and were in regular squad service during WWII, even if used for jet training once it was found they suck...think they should be in the game?

Sorry, but Bearcats do NOT warrant inclusion to this game, they never saw action in it....a Fokker X deserves inclusion before any Bearcat

Hell, Id liek to see the A/B 26 Invader here, but even tho it has numbers, and combat action, its still way down the list of important or inflential (at least in terms of the war) types....

goshikisen
12-08-2004, 11:50 AM
We need a Helldiver, Avenger, Shoki and Toryu as these aircraft were actual participants in the Pacific War. In my opinion we should cover off the aircraft that played a part in the Second World War before we move on to aircraft that didn't participate in the conflict.

Aaron_GT
12-08-2004, 02:04 PM
"As to your opinion. You and stigler seem to think that a plane should not be introduced if it would be too popular and used by too many people."

No, that's not his point at all. His point is that planes which saw significant combat service should be prioritised (all other considerations being equal) for inclusion over ones that did not see service in WW2. Of course Oleg is dependent on 3D modellers to create the models.

In a sense totally paper planes like the 109Z present less of a workload to Oleg than ones that did fly. The F8F saw no combat service in WW2 that I am aware of but examples exist thus Oleg needs to take more care in terms of the accuracy of the 3D models, FMs, etc. Basically it is a load on Oleg's team to add the plane but one that cannot be used in any historically valid WW2 scenarios.

We have essentially finished models of planes that did see combat service (at least two other models of Beaufighter, Tempest V, Mosquito IV, Mosquito VI and Spitfire XIV, Devastator) though, not to mention a host of AI planes (not least the Avenger and the G4M, Ju 88, Pe 2 and more B25s and A20s) that to my mind should receive priority treatment since they saw combat service, and in some cases extensive service.

The likes of the Ta183, F8F, etc are historically interesting or historical in war zones other than WW2 but they are available for other simulators (X-Plane, FS2004, CFS3) which are open architecture and the inclusion of which does not impinge on the developers in any way but also come without any official seal of approval in terms of quality. There are a whole host of excellent quality planes for FS2004, though. In fact I sometimes get tempted to buy FS2004 to fly the likes of the Ju 52.

It's horses for courses, I suppose. The IL2 series excels at being a combat sim with great looking aircraft and scenery, but it is a closed simulation which gives some control on quality of the models within it, but does mean that there is a bottleneck.

Perhaps at some point in the future Oleg might spin off the IL2 engine and let another developer licence it for more open-ended development in areas that don't compete with BoB (e.g. general aviation, WW1, Korea).

LEXX_Luthor
12-08-2004, 04:53 PM
pongo:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But I dont play this game online. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, don't let these arcade gamers discourage you from experimenting.

We have seen in this thread that many of our old timers here never found out that their dogfighter servers can limit plane sets. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The more mass produced planes are represented in FB first. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif Compare the real life number of types of planes designed but not accepted with the number of types of "real" planes used in combat. But, FB has more "real" types than "fantasy" types.

There once was an interesting post about 109Z being made as "experiment" in FM programming, and took little cockpit design resources. The potential here is designing flight sim FM without the need for historical flight test data--much like modern aircraft are desinged on computers. Of course in such FM programming, the planes that do have flight data recorded and preserved can used to test how well the FM programming is. This could be the future of flight sim design, and indeed, it would be required for a realistic World War 1 flight sim which has little if any data recorded at the extent of WW2 flight testing.

I~185 was made as special favour to relations of one of Oleg's sources, and the western arcade gamers who never heard of I~185 are just jealous--of what I don't know, or they act jealous. I recognize the behavior that jealousy creates. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Not to mention, the Do~335 (now in progress http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif ) is the ONLY "fantasy" type that you won't see these arcade gamers Whine about. Do~335 does have a rather bizzare cult status among western flight simmers (possibly ALL flight simmers)--a kinda "sinister" attraction. You will find no Whines about Do~335 from the fake gamers who Whine about I~185. Partly related may be the Do~335 pilot headrest padded with human hair delivered from the extermination camps (or so I read). Military Aviation Enthusiasts have love for all aircraft of World War 2.

The problem is, we need ALL planes designed between 1935 and 1945. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Il2pongo
12-08-2004, 05:32 PM
dichidoku
Have you even read the thread? give your head and your agenda a shake. your incorrect. Or your more conserned about my concise insults then with verbose ones your buddy spouts.
I will quout him..read it carefully.
"Bearcats, Reppus, all people want these for, is they think they'll magically make them better and make up for their lack of ability to score in other, earlier planes (the ones that actually did the fighting in the war). It's just ueberism, pure and simple.

Since these people admit they "don't read" and don't care to learn about history, why do they care about a plane that's just an asterisk on the tail end of prop military plane development? They really don't. It's just one they happen to know the name of that they think might make them a decent sim pilot. This is far easier than actually flying a representative WWII plane and learning something about tactics, maneuvering, situational awareness, and using the good and bad traits of an "honest" aircraft to win anyway.

You notice these guys rarely ask for a early war plane, right? Well, the farther back you go, the less capable, less armed, lower engine-powered the planes are. That would make their minimal skills even worse: imagine, having to kill with just two rifle caliber machine guns or something...

One should see through the "where's my ueberplane" whines for what they are. They're a simpering, sniveling request for the flight sim eqivalent of "game codes and cheats". Instant solutions to make the effort go away. Bad, bad effort!
"
read the whole thread. I didnt start the flaming here. He has no justification for leaving the Bearcat, an operational aircraft used in ww2 in squadron servcice out of the game so he insults the knowledge, skill, morlals and ethics of those of us who want it.
He absolutly started the flaming in here.
Its not enough to just say you dont want it, if you must insult the people that do then you get the same back.
So quite your nonsens about how correclty he is behaving. The only reason there are flames in this thread is becuase he wants them here. Take it up with him.

Stiglr
12-08-2004, 05:48 PM
il2pongo writes...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>an operational aircraft used in ww2 in squadron servcice <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, right, at some stateside base, or stowed aboard a ship when the a-bombs were dropped.

You have yet to prove this plane did anything anywhere in ANY war. It wasn't even used in Korea, for chrissakes. Is that justification enough?

This kind of "lying with statistics" and semantics is laughable. And, you try your hardest to miss the point we're getting at by attacking my writing style (which, yes, is designed to irritate YOU and people who think like you).

LEXX_Luthor
12-08-2004, 06:02 PM
Actually, I kinda agree with Stiglr, but if we look at FB, almost all, about 95%, planes made Flyable are mass production planes.

For every 20 mass produced "real" plane, we get 1 "fantasy" plane. I think that's a reasonable balance.

I don't have a problem with multiple Requests for "fantasy" planes, because such Requests have no influence unless somebody with Extreme high skills and resources already wants to do a "fantasy" plane.

Indeed, the real life skills of these "fantasy" plane modders make me laugh at those amatuers here Whining about "fantasy" planes.

Granted, I agree that early WAR and pre~WAR should be given more emphasis, but you must find modders who think the same...and who have Extreme high skills (I do not). However, unfortunately, as my "fantasy" plane dream is late WAR uber MiG I~224 and MiG~13 (mix propulsion prop driven jet turbine which saw squadron service with Baltic Fleet in late 1940s), I can't Whine about others who also desire "fantasy" planes...even if they are Hollywood "fantasy" planes shown every nite on teh USA Dogfighter Channel. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Stiglr
12-08-2004, 07:21 PM
It's not just the ratio of the planes, Luthor, it's that they can be used without any regard to their participation or impact (or lack of same). That's the problem.

As I've said before, if people would use the fantasy planes for an occasional what-if instead of "their main ride" because it's "kewl" and "roXxoRz" and lets them score kills with impunity, well then, fine.

But, we already know that the community as a whole just doesn't do that. They regard any plane available as "fair game" as any other.

WUAF_Badsight
12-08-2004, 09:48 PM
& thats OT

how the community plays FB is what your complaining about . . . . its a moan that deserves its own thread entirely

you say that people playing FB the way they want is the "problem" , so its easy to see that your motorvation is to restrict peoples choices & control how people choose to use FB

what annoys you , & what you have no control over is that online DF rooms at HL are not under your control , a host has ZERO obligation to set a DF map up in any way other than how he likes

deal with it

you are not Forced to play with these people

but YOU are trying to Force you preference upon everyone else online

OT post that is the norm for you in threads like these

you have yet to start the 'how to properly host a online DF room" thread like your supposed to have done by now

no instead you continue to gripe about this in threads like these

Daiichidoku
12-08-2004, 10:33 PM
Badsight, please tell me how Stiglr can possibly FORCE ppl to do as he wishes?...its impossible...so your whole notion that he is "trying" to force ppl's will is ludacris

He voicing an opinion, which you may or may not agree with....anyone who hosts a server who reads this cr@p may or may not be influenced by what he, or anyone says...please, dont bandy about words like "force"....it jus' don' cut it, dig?

IMO, Stiglr is not out to force anything, but to share his feelings about it, and maybe "enlighten" others who approach the game as an airquake, who's got the biggest member....maybe, just maybe, his hope is that instead of a buncha point-shoot-kill players, there may be players who will take the time and lumps in cr@p planes to learn proper tactics, use there head and eyes, and thus, in the end, both have a new respect and realization fo rREAL wartime pilots that had to make due with eq that wasnt the best there was, and also truly make playing this game an experience not to be matched by any other game otu there...otherwise, FB is just quake or DukeNuke or unreal etc but with 360 motion instead of gravity bound lunkheads with wave-motion guns and the like

Geez, some of you guys are SO reactionary and spaztic, cant hold a convo or discussion, but instead lash out with personal attacks, or emotional outbursts to either "defend" the poor, downtrodden peons from a Tyrant liek Stiglr, or save face cuz one knows they can only fly an uber to get anything done in the game

Stiglr most certainly did NOT start any flaming here....he presented his views on the subject of Bearcats and and Reppus, and by extension, to all "uber" types...maybe you disagree so strongly to his posts that it offends you, but THAAT, my friend, is NOT a flame..calling ppl idiot or dweeb or misspelling thier callsign when it is on the monitor in front of you is insulting, and THAT is a flame

Grumman Bearcats stayed stateside during the war, except AFAIR a single detatchment was on a carrier by VJ day...soon thereafter many went to Naval reserve units....

Squadrons were formed,, indeed....but I dont think they were ever operational..remember, a unit must first build profiency on type, then move to where they are to operate, THEN they must acclimatize, work out airframe/engine bugs that may pop up due to local conditions, get familiar with the area fo rnavigational purposes, do recce to determine possible tgts or threats and train yet again, for whatever specific missions they may have in the area, and/or to deal with whatever certaintype of enemy ac the latest intelligence says they will likely face...only than is a squadron OPERATIONAL...big, big difference from just being in the area with a given type of ac, n'est pas?...If you, il2 pongo, or anyone else can show that Bearcats were OPERATIONAL in PTO, Id like to see it...I dont think that was the case, but lets see, shall we?...certainly, though, NO Bearcat was EVER in combat with any type at any time, any where, unless you count mock dogfights fo rtrainiing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


LEXXX, you say 1 in 20 types in FB are the fantasy types...just wondering...does that ratio include all the variants and sub-types of each ac?...You know, if you classify each plane by family, it reduces the number we have...4 kinds of spit V, 4 of Mk IX, 2 of MkVIII, 2 seafires, and so on, for example....not to mention the various Yaks, Migs, P 40s, 109s, 190s, etc

LEXX_Luthor
12-09-2004, 12:15 AM
WUAF you are correct, they don't know FB servers can BAN the planes they don't like. Or they didn't know earlier and learned in this thread, but are keeping Quiet.

Daiich:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>LEXXX, you say 1 in 20 types in FB are the fantasy types...just wondering...does that ratio include all the variants and sub-types of each ac?...You know, if you classify each plane by family, it reduces the number we have...4 kinds of spit V, 4 of Mk IX, 2 of MkVIII, 2 seafires, [2 I~185s] and so on, for example....not to mention the various Yaks, Migs [like MiG~3U], P 40s, 109s, 190s, etc <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oleg's attention to minor variants of mass produced types demonstrates his focus on "real" planes over "fantasy" planes.

Pay Attention please. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WUAF_Badsight
12-09-2004, 01:11 AM
Daiichidoku:
Registered: Thu September 09 2004

ive seen Stigler post from Way before September 04

ive had multiple conversations about this very topic before online with him

i know where he's coming from , & its from indignation at online DF rooms . he also moans at full switch settings , they are not "real" enough for him either because of no icons ! ! (doesnt like to hunt for dots)

instead of posting his opinions about this in the proper threads , he moans in threads like this about all the fantasy planes , without reason . inclusion of these planes add to the sim not detract from it as he would have you believe

if he is in a room with these planes , then hes gaming with people that are not his kind of flight simmer , instead of accepting this , he would have FB restricted to none of these fantasy planes ever being added , i.e. selfish !

the way he likes to play is already capable with FB right now !

this is not enough for him & he wants these planes taken away from the everyday user so they are forced to play FB the way he likes

i.e. narrow minded & mean spirited

i for one am sick of him spamming threads about late war planes with his mis-directing moaning when its not the place for it

6 pages & he still wont shut up about it

Il2pongo
12-09-2004, 01:33 AM
I am not trying to prove it did anything in the war. It was in active squadron service on its way to the front on a carrier when the war ended. There may bave been a Jap sub within a mile of the carrier at some time!
It didnt see combatm, I never said it did. But it was an active service fully developed fully in production WW2 fighter.

No matter that Dean left it out of Americas 100k. Hes a weany too.

Its like you guys are tying to roll back what the game is and change it. The game is an encyclopedia of WW2 aircraft. Once one or two countries ultimate planes were in, all should be in. Do I think that OLeg and co should drop everything and make the bearcat? No and I never said that. I never even said I would like to see the bearcat the most or even more then any number of other planes.
But I would like to see the bearcat. Thats what the thread asked. That is my answer. And anyone that says it implies something about my intelligence, depth of knowledge or game skill is just an idiotic ***.
Sorry you dont like to hear that. But its self evident.

LEXX_Luthor
12-09-2004, 01:38 AM
WUAF:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>i for one am sick of him [Stiglr] spamming threads about late war planes with his mis-directing moaning when its not the place for it <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, late WAR planes are NOOB planes, after all.

Granted, I want late WAR NOOB MiG I~224 to compete with NOOB Ta~152, but at least I~224 is not Hollywood/Dogfighter Channel NOOB plane. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Flyable Polikarpov I~17 would be Awsum. What flight sim will be The First to make Flyable He~100D? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif -- a squadron flew for Heinkel factory defense.

Aaron_GT
12-09-2004, 01:48 AM
pongo: I guess we should also get a Tempest II, then, since two were dispatched for service in India in June 1945.

dadada1
12-09-2004, 03:56 AM
Surley one of the great things about this sim is that you the user are given options and can game any way you like. What I really object to is people imposing on me, their own self rightous methodology of how the game should be played, therfore taking away any choice I might wish to excercise in the matter.

Lexx, as for the Ta 152 we have in game being (I hate this slang term) NOOB. I can think of at least 10 AC in this sim that deserve this accolaide rather before mention of the Ta 152 we have.

Il2pongo
12-09-2004, 12:27 PM
I wouldnt oppose it Aaron.
The spit 21 was operational at the end of the war. As was the meteor..lets see em.
Really to me the primary thing is the resources that it takes to implement the things and is good information available to model them. Obviolsy that has to be focused by Oleg but for both the F8F and the Tempest II that data is available.

Stiglr
12-09-2004, 01:13 PM
Well, pongo, although we didn't change your mind about the Bearcat, at least now you see the reasons why we think it has no place in the sim: you listed them in one of your last posts.

This sim is NOT an encyclopedia on WWII aircraft, and I challenge you to find that kind of copy in anything on Maddox literature.

It does however, claim to be a "realistic WWII flight sim"... a LOT. Realistic, I'd think, would imply that you would see the planes in it that actually fought in WWII. So scratch yer Bearcat.

Despite what Badsight moans on and on about, it's not "my personal control over everybody and their brother's DF room" that I'm talking about. Although I am talking about the community at large. There's a subtle difference there. While I acknowledge that I can't control how people set up their servers (nor do I claim any right to do so), there still remains an issue with the sim's design and how it is ultimately used by the community, because that affects ALL of us.

Same argument on cigarettes: we all know they kill, the ciggie companies know they kill, but it's not *totally* their fault that people smoke them. Still, the way they're "designed" and produced (to be addicting as all hell) has a profound effect on their actual use in the marketplace. If they weren't so addicting, the smokers would stop smoking for the obvious health benefits; it's a testament to their addictive quality that even when people know they're killing themselves with them, they still don't quit.

To carry that analogy to IL-2, it has few design elements that create or enforce or even suggest historical matchups, and in the marketplace, any plane is as viable as another, and the average users either don't know or don't care about their relevance (segue to the discussion on people's usual reason for uebers). Thus, the entire community can be affected by the (mis)use of these planes (which usually manifests itself in overpopularity of never/hardlyflews). This misuse, taken as a whole, IMHO seriously erodes at the basic premise of the sim: to be a "realistic WWII simulator".

So, I'm campaigning on the premise that, while it's nice to perhaps explore a what-if or two, the sim should remain rooted in the REAL WWII. Thus, resources should be directed primarily at planes which DID appear, fight and have an impact on WWII.

Daiichidoku
12-09-2004, 01:41 PM
Well put, Stiglr....

An encycopedia of planes would be fitting for the FS series, or X planes....

One-offs, experimentals and types that didnt see combat really do not, and should not, fall into the context of FB

Please dont mistake me, pongo, or anyone, I love all these birds, from WWI scouts armed with sidearms and "airhooks" to the pinnacle of prop developments, mixed power craft and jets (up until they got turned into human-carrying robots...not that I dont like em, but they dont hold a certain appeal to me as the earlier jets)

Lets wait for (and support) a "realistic" Korea sim, wether by 1C or whoever, that will include many of the types that are more appro to that scenario than FB

I certainly would be far more satisfied (and quiet) if these types were classified as such in FB...to package them as a kinda of SWOTL add-on to FB, to delineate them as "specials", apart from "representitive" types....may help host set up servers that are a little more descerning about what goes in it

One wants to fly ubers, then fly ubers with other ubers about...wanna fly cr@pplanes, then do so with other cr@ppers

I know, you know, everyone knows planesets can be tailored, but with a clear knowledge and understanding of what's what things will be easier to make more reasonable, realistic servers

This game in no way makes any claim to be educational...but it couldnt hurt to add a bit o learin to ppl who may have no idea about WWII aviation

Il2pongo
12-09-2004, 02:21 PM
And I think your collective 100 line babble slaping each other on the back is just nonsense.
You have no say about what the game "is" or "isnt" You chose to insult people into agreeing with you and it failed. Some dont care enough about the bearcat to want it in the game. Some do. That is all there is. All you insults and babble are irrelivent.

The most pathetic part is that you feel it some how makes you tough or better then others to not want the bearcat in the game. That is really really sad.
But slap away..your a real pair of winners, glad you like each other.

BEARCAT TO IL2!!!
and throw in the La9 and Seafury while your at it.

Daiichidoku
12-09-2004, 03:37 PM
ummmmmmmm...ok.

But tell me, just how, exactly, have we insulted anyone?...

Certainly havent called anyone idiots or dweebs....

Please also tell us, exactly, where we have ever said that not wanting the Bearcat, or whatver type in FB, makes us "tough" or "better" than others

Perhaps you THINK that it does...if so, then state it as such, plz do not state it as fact wihtout proof

For the record, it doesnt make me feel tough or better than anyone that I would rather not see a certain type in FB

Seems to me that you are actually the one flaming, and using insults in this thread

In fact, even though it may please you, I wont post this thread anymore to respond to any of yours, as I see no point...you are stagnant...and thats a fact, not an insult

LEXX_Luthor
12-09-2004, 04:10 PM
Daiich:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This game in no way makes any claim to be educational...but it couldnt hurt to add a bit o learin to ppl who may have no idea about WWII aviation <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Before the FB, nobody at this webboard but a few Military Aviation Enthusiasts ever heard of BI~1.

Most never heard of I~185. I did but never paid much attention until now. Worse, even I never heard of Bf~109Z until the FB. I don't know if Ussian Microsoft would ever have us learn about BI~1.

This is one good reason for a good balance between "real" types and "fantasy" types, about 20-1 ratio in our sim.

J_Weaver
12-10-2004, 04:58 PM
There are many aircraft that just missed WWII that I would love to see. But as some have already said I beleive that we need to fill in the gaps first. We are still missing some important planes like the Avenger, Helldiver, Kate, Mosquito, etc. I for 1 would love to have a F7F and a F8F. Every time I think about these planes I wonder why they missed Korea. Planes like the F7F, F8F, and P-47N all greatly surpassed the P-51 in their ground pounding abilities, but never made it in to Korea. When it comes to piston engine aircraft these babies were as close to an uber plane as possible. I would love to be able to fly them. Sadly though, I doubt that we'll ever be able to fly any of these old birds.

GR142-Pipper
12-10-2004, 07:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
The problem is, we need ALL planes designed between 1935 and 1945. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, we really might not after all. The problem for ANY developer is that as they expand their product, they must SUPPORT their product. Over time, this becomes increasingly difficult to do in a reasonable time frame while maintaining a high level of quality. This is why thought should be given to limiting the lesser important aircraft as well as cease having even too many sub-variants of even the important types. (I mean do we really need a P-51B and C? Do we really need an F4U-1A, -1C, -1D as well as a possibly upcoming F4U-4? Do we really need all the 109 variants?, etc.) The support effort just gets to be too much and forward progress in developing the game slows.

My view is that it's best to keep the number of aircraft (whatever that number is) such that they are an asset to the game and not a burden on it.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
12-10-2004, 07:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by J_Weaver:
There are many aircraft that just missed WWII that I would love to see. But as some have already said I beleive that we need to fill in the gaps first. We are still missing some important planes like the Avenger, Helldiver, Kate, Mosquito, etc. I for 1 would love to have a F7F and a F8F. Every time I think about these planes I wonder why they missed Korea. Planes like the F7F, F8F, and P-47N all greatly surpassed the P-51 in their ground pounding abilities, but never made it in to Korea...... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The F7F and the TBM did see service in Korea.

GR142-Pipper

Daiichidoku
12-10-2004, 11:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
The problem is, we need ALL planes designed between 1935 and 1945. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, we really might not after all. The problem for ANY developer is that as they expand their product, they must SUPPORT their product. Over time, this becomes increasingly difficult to do in a reasonable time frame while maintaining a high level of quality. This is why thought should be given to limiting the lesser important aircraft as well as cease having even too many sub-variants of even the important types. (I mean do we really need a P-51B and C? Do we really need an F4U-1A, -1C, -1D as well as a possibly upcoming F4U-4? Do we really need all the 109 variants?, etc.) The support effort just gets to be too much and forward progress in developing the game slows.

My view is that it's best to keep the number of aircraft (whatever that number is) such that they are an asset to the game and not a burden on it.

GR142-Pipper <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Maybe on day FB will be open coded and users can do mods

Aaron_GT
12-11-2004, 01:16 AM
The code doesn't need to be open to add planes, necessarily, just the architecture. However I think judging from what Oleg has said here I think each plane needs some amount of coding (for special features?) so it would be presumably difficult to open architect at the moment - too many interactions.

By the way, Stiglr, nice Ki-27 model of yours over at the Target Rabaul site.

Aaron_GT
12-11-2004, 01:24 AM
"Actually, we really might not after all. The problem for ANY developer is that as they expand their product, they must SUPPORT their product. Over time, this becomes increasingly difficult to do in a reasonable time frame while maintaining a high level of quality."

This is the point I was trying to make over in the PF forum's F4U-4 thread. I'd be over the moon to have the likes of the F4U-4 and F8F in the game, but resources are limited. Oleg has said that the 3D model is 10% of the story (probably why the likes of the Tempest V and Mosquito, although the 3D is done are not yet in the game). So each new plane, given the architecture of the game, is a strain on Oleg and his team and limits the numbers that can be in the game due to practical considerations. Given this it is probably worth prioritising planes that saw a decent amount of service where the 3D model and other data exists. Already we see problems in which it is hard for them to check DMs for all planes when a global change to the modelling is made (which might be a bug fix).

Now the presence of things like the 109Z cut across the principle. If I'd been Oleg I wouldn't have added the 109Z. Just because we have some planes that don't match the sensible suitability criteria means that other planes that don't match them should be allowed in too. Two wrongs won't make a right.

If it was possible given Oleg's team size to have the F4U-4 and F8F without affecting the chances of other more common planes into the sim (e.g. Beaufighter TF.X) or the quality of the product then I saw go ahead, they would be nice to have. I just doubt we can have our cake and eat it on this matter without paying more for the game to allow Oleg to have a bigger team.

Stiglr
12-11-2004, 10:40 AM
Aaron GT wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If I'd been Oleg I wouldn't have added the 109Z. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, you mean the MiG-3U. You know, the 6-example plane with the big gun. That's the original plane that provided the precedent for all the neverflew/hardlyflew fans to point at to "justify" their choices. Followed quickly by (unfortunately) the very first 3rd party submission, the useless Bi-1. Those two, by and large opened the floodgates of irrelevance.

WUAF_Badsight
12-11-2004, 01:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Actually, you mean the MiG-3U. You know, the 6-example plane with the big gun. That's the original plane that provided the precedent for all the neverflew/hardlyflew fans to point at to "justify" their choices. Followed quickly by (unfortunately) the very first 3rd party submission, the useless Bi-1. Those two, by and large opened the floodgates of irrelevance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

what a load of ****

1946 planes were going to be allowed in FB right from the release

you do remember the IL2Center dont you Stigler ?

if you do then your trying to spin the truth with BS & Lies

the Original expansion for FB was planned as a "LUFT-46"

your late war moaning is unfounded . . .. . . late war planes have NEVER been considered as unfit for inclusion

only you Stigler , not the games maker

WUAF_Badsight
12-11-2004, 01:10 PM
in other words . . .

there is NOTHING wrong with late war & 1946 A/C being added to the game

except for Stigler's sensesibilitys being offended (big deal http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif) , they add to the game in a way that allows people to play out what these A/C might have done if they ever faced each other

& you even can exclude them from online Air Quake (thats what DF rooms are btw Stigler) rooms if they were added

imagine that Stigler , if they were in the Game your prissy point of view still wouldnt have to be offended by seeing them in your Quake session

Stiglr
12-11-2004, 01:46 PM
Well, we will see...
I'm betting on the inclusion of planes with some kind of track record (witness the new AI Claude, Tenzan, etc., which only need pits to be flyables).

All much more worthwhile than the hardly/neverflews.

Copperhead310th
12-11-2004, 01:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
there is _NOTHING_ wrong with late war & 1946 A/C being added to the game
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok tell you what i'll buy that line.
PROVIDED it includes the same thing for all sides both Axis & Allied. As for the Luft 46 thing i plainly remreber sveral allied types being planed for the 1946. Surely you wouldn't want a sim filled with 1946 luftwaffle Uber planes flying against 1944 model us aircraft (what we have) and only a few 1945 types.
then agian....maybe YOU would.

Which brings to mind the next UBER LW plane to hit the sim. not here yet but soon. the DO-335. What's next the Mellinum Falcon painted up in RLM colors with Blakencross & Swastika? or some other rare LW uber plane that barely got of the drawing baord much less the flightline?

WUAF_Badsight
12-11-2004, 03:29 PM
absolutly

it wasnt going to be Axis A/C only

Stigler is trying to say that they dont belong , when they were planned for inclusion right from the first add-on

(btw , whats "uber" about the Do-335 ?
is it that its German ? you havent even flowen it yet it was a fast heavy interceptor)

LEXX_Luthor
12-11-2004, 05:44 PM
With a ratio of about 20 "real" planes to 1 "fantasy" plane, FB has an excellent mix for all flight simmers to explore.

I think I may count them up tonight. I know there are borderline "real-fantasy" or "fantasy-real" types that saw some combat in small numbers...Me~163, TB~3 + I~16 parasite, MiG~3U, He~162, I~185, Ta~152H, Yak~9B, Me~262 with big gun, He~111Z, etc.... P~80 saw one combat mission but no combat. Some of these had far more combat missions than others, but still far less than the commonly accepted "real" planes.

So who says what makes a "real" plane?

The Modder! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Daiich:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Maybe on[e] day FB will be open coded and users can do mods <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Users are making mods as we post. Ask somebody for "netwing" modder website. Just don't post gaming diaper rash there among professional modders.

Stiglr, you may like to see this ("open coded" SF)....its a riot, and its Brutal. Poor Strike Fighter Newbie. And it shows what would happen if FB became "open coded" and scattered across teh internet.

Holliday:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Except the 404 part. Which is what I got. Someone answer the question for this guy.

~ http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=121;t=001746
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Atzebrueck
12-11-2004, 05:45 PM
...

Atzebrueck
12-11-2004, 05:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
Which brings to mind the next UBER LW plane to hit the sim. not here yet but soon. the DO-335. What's next the Mellinum Falcon painted up in RLM colors with Blakencross & Swastika? or some other rare LW uber plane that barely got of the drawing baord much less the flightline? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The first flight of the 335 has been at Octobre 1943. Since then 40 planes have been built.

Regarding the choice of planes:
The modelers, not having a contract with IC, invest their freetime and don't get money for it. It should remain their choice which type they want to see in game. To pick up the example of the 335 again, I think it should be included because of its unique concept, because I like it and because I see AEP/PF as the last chance for a lot of years to fly it in a good sim.

Still, it depends on IC, which models they want to include. If they have more than one plane to choose from, I'm sure they'll pick the one with less bugs, with better looking model/textures, which was more important for WW2 etc. to insert first. But until that point of time, it's the task of the modeler ... and if you think the "hobby-modelers" create the wrong planes, then it's your choice to do the ones being on top of your priority list.

LEXX_Luthor
12-11-2004, 09:13 PM
Just counted all Flyable planes in QMB.

I considered MiG~3 with AM~38 as 'real' and Me~2621a/4U as "fantasy" (correct me if I am wrong) so that leaves us with...

179 Real planes
12 Fantasy planes
Well done Oleg. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

---------------------------------------


However, some suggest we consider sub~types as the same type, and not count subtypes.

Real plane list, not counting sub~types...

A6M
Bf-109
Fw-190
Spitfire
MiG~3
CANNOT COMPUTE
Not counting sub~types makes MiG~3U as real as the [real life] pilots who flew it in combat.


179 Real planes
12 Fantasy planes
Well done Oleg. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif More of both soon, NOW! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

GR142-Pipper
12-12-2004, 03:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Actually, you mean the MiG-3U. You know, the 6-example plane with the big gun. That's the original plane that provided the precedent for all the neverflew/hardlyflew fans to point at to "justify" their choices. Followed quickly by (unfortunately) the very first 3rd party submission, the useless Bi-1. Those two, by and large opened the floodgates of irrelevance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

what a load of ****

1946 planes were going to be allowed in FB right from the release

you do remember the IL2Center dont you Stigler ?

if you do then your trying to spin the truth with BS & Lies

the _Original_ expansion for FB was planned as a _"LUFT-46"_

your late war moaning is unfounded . . .. . . late war planes have _NEVER_ been considered as unfit for inclusion

only you Stigler , not the games maker <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Badsight, you're missing the point. The discussion about the '46 planes, etc. is becoming (if it hasn't already in fact become) moot. The fact is that Oleg and his development team have limited resources and the requirements to both include additional aircraft as well as support existing aircraft/game features are growing...and this growth is occurring from both ends.

The bottom line is that a critical look at what is buildable/supportable given the reality of these finite resources mandates that ficticious/experimental/"few in service" planes will likely not be included.

We have a very clear choice: a higher quality game or a lesser quality game. Priorities have to be established and some aircraft aren't going to see the light of day. I vote for a higher quality game with fewer aircraft ("fewer" being a relative word...we have so many already).

GR142-Pipper

Aaron_GT
12-12-2004, 03:56 AM
"Actually, you mean the MiG-3U"

That too, but at least it actually flew!

Aaron_GT
12-12-2004, 03:58 AM
"PROVIDED it includes the same thing for all sides both Axis & Allied."

If it means the British get some 1944 planes (other than just the Beaufighter Mk. 21) then it would be nice. As it is all the Allied late war planes added seem to be US ones. Hopefully the Tempest V will be in the patch at least. We don't have that many British planes, period. (variations on 4 types only, one of which was obselete by the beginning of WW2 anyway).

Aaron_GT
12-12-2004, 04:02 AM
Well said, Pipper. Right on the nail.

That Oleg has agreed that things before 1947 can be included doesn't mean that it makes sense for them to be included if it means (due to limited resources) it compromises overall quality of the ability to keep up quality and add planes that did see service. For example the Mosquito (VI and IV) is finished in terms of 3D modelling including a cockpit for the VI and yet there is no word on the inclusion of it. And they both saw extensive service. (Imagine the hoo-haa if the F4U-4 model and cockpit had been completed and submitted and Oleg hadn't mentioned anything about its inclusion!)

NORAD_Zooly10
12-12-2004, 03:53 PM
ok, ok play nice gents/ladies this is such an old discussion (why isnt this/that in the game).
if you have a problem with a certain plane DONT fly it or keep out of servers that have the plane selectable, its not rocket science chaps.
quit the moaning please, this is a dying genre and we need to be more constructive than this. Oleg is a godsend to us flightsimmers, lets not get into pointless arguements.
~S~
Zooly

LEXX_Luthor
12-12-2004, 05:19 PM
Our genre is only now being re~born as we post. Microsoft pulled out of the flight sim market. I don't know if we realize how important this is for the *software* market of decent flight sims.

You will still have Windows, you will lose nothing.

Aaron_GT
12-13-2004, 01:24 AM
I don't think Microsoft has pulled out of the flight sim market. Combat flight sim, perhaps, but the general aviation market is a bigger market.

JG53Frankyboy
12-13-2004, 05:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
............................................
The problem is, we need ALL planes designed between 1935 and 1945. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well, im personaly more of the opinion it would be nice to have all warplanes that fought 1939-1945 AND we have a map (means:you can start-fight-land on!) for !
its very anyoing, from the point of historical missiondesign, to have planes that flew actually of none of the given maps.
also that very often needed "AIRSTART" setting (US over Berlin, IJNAF over Guadalcanal, B-29/P-51 over Japan &lt;-AND you have no landingbase there http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ) is my concern http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

so, they should ad a "small Atlantis2" island in the southeastern corner of the Kyushu map (Kyushu2) to made Iwo out of it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif .
also a Base on the NorthWestern Corner of Guadalcanal .
with Berlin, no way, so, Airstart is ok there, i alwasy let the US fighters land in the most northeastern base http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

LEXX_Luthor
12-13-2004, 06:26 PM
Some nice stuff you can do though.

With the new Test Runways (under Static Ships in FMB) you can set the runways on land or water anywhere on the map...or if you edit mission text file, you can place the runways off the map like, for example, 300km west of Berlin off the map. For water, you can arrange a good number of those Gibralter Rock objects right up to and around the test runways and build a small hilly island out in the ocean.

The nice thing about using Test Runways far off the map is that you can leave the aircraft takeoff and landing waypoints in a corner of the map somewhere, and SET the takeoff and landing waypoints to the runway, then edit mission text file and change runway location to far off the map. The planes will operate from and to the test runways anywhere provided you SET them to the runway.

For ocean its not too bad, but for Berlin map, all you get for your escort missions are blank off~map flat terrain. It may be more visually interesting to make B~17 missions take off on the East side of Berlin map...if you can mentally handle that.

Mission text file waypoint and location positions are in meters, NOT kilometers.

JG53Frankyboy
12-13-2004, 06:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Some nice stuff you can do though.

With the new Test Runways (under Static Ships in FMB) you can set the runways on land or water anywhere on the map...or if you edit mission text file, you can place the runways off the map like, for example, 300km west of Berlin off the map. For water, you can arrange a good number of those Gibralter Rock objects right up to and around the test runways and build a small hilly island out in the ocean.

The nice thing about using Test Runways far off the map is that you can leave the aircraft takeoff and landing waypoints in a corner of the map somewhere, and SET the takeoff and landing waypoints to the runway, then edit mission text file and change runway location to far off the map. The planes will operate from and to the test runways anywhere provided you SET them to the runway.

For ocean its not too bad, but for Berlin map, all you get for your escort missions are blank off~map flat terrain. It may be more visually interesting to make B~17 missions take off on the East side of Berlin map...if you can mentally handle that.

Mission text file waypoint and location positions are in meters, NOT kilometers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i know all this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
im working with these "Tricks" all time while making the Pacific campaign for the online event VOW2 ore making NorthAfrica/Reichsverteidigungs missions. its just not the same.

and its sill very annoying to let the Japanes forces have Airstart in the northwest and letthem land on these "testbases" on Maliata in the Guadlacanal missions http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

LEXX_Luthor
12-13-2004, 07:43 PM
You can have them take off on the test bases, you don't have to air~start.

LEXX_Luthor
12-13-2004, 08:22 PM
Aaron_GT:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I don't think Microsoft has pulled out of the flight sim market. Combat flight sim, perhaps, but the general aviation market is a bigger market. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good Point. I will remember that. !!!!!

Still, its Good News for all interested in combat flight sims.

Aaron_GT
12-14-2004, 01:12 AM
True, LEXX. As while MSFS scenery with add ons for VFR and the like is fine for practising general aviation and navigation or for flying at 10,000 feet it really ruins the effect for a combat sim if you need to do any ground pounding and you realise the ground looks like a bad 1970s axeminster carpet!

Copperhead310th
12-14-2004, 02:31 AM
It makes NO sence that the Axis guys have 1945/46 aircraft and the Alies get what? 1944?
Puuulese! what do we have?
P-80 (jet) = auto ban on all decant servers.
F4u-1C (Cannons) banned...marked as "too uber"

and bad sight....your wrong. the 1946 was NOT axis only. ask gibbage. he started the GO-229 & the P80. and as i rememeber...P-80 was done because Oleg WANTED it.

WUAF_Badsight
12-14-2004, 04:17 AM
Copperhead , learn to read

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
absolutly

it wasnt going to be Axis A/C only <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>