PDA

View Full Version : The largest battleship ever built...



HANS-57
01-09-2007, 02:11 PM
Whenever I am creating a Japanese naval group I am dissapointed to discover that there is only one large battleship to choose from. They did after all have the largest battleship in the world with the flagship Yamamoto, and her sister ship which I can't name right now was a monster. Please can we at least have this bohemith modeled? It had 150 AA guns and a reach of 25 miles with it's huge cannons firing three thousand pound projectiles. We need at least two more large Japanise battleships. The Bismark would be great to have for the Germans while we are on the topic. This battleship was almost as big as Yamamoto. I can't imagine finishing this historic combat simulator without those two historic vessels to play with.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.futura-sciences.com/img/cev.jpg

NetDaemon
01-09-2007, 02:19 PM
I don´t think Oleg can model a battleship that never existed, such as the Yamamoto.

On the other hand, the japanese did build the battleship Yamato along with its sister, the Musashi.

But yeah, there´s a glaring lack of Battleship types in PF, namely those from countries other than the UK.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

======================================
AMD64 X2 4400+ Dual Core Toledo, ASRock 939Dual SATA2, 2GB Corsair DDR400 Ram, ATI All-In-Wonder X800XT, 2x Hitachi 120GB SATAs in RAID1 mode, Antec TruePower II 550W PSU.

Hunter82's IL2 Community PC Parts Store, MAGNUM-PC (https://magnum-pc.com/Search/External/)

HANS-57
01-09-2007, 02:54 PM
That's right, Yamoto! Sorry, I always get Japanses names mixed up.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.futura-sciences.com/img/cev.jpg

zbw_109
01-09-2007, 07:11 PM
Tirpitz is like Bismark but with more AA and no huge swastika painted on deck?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Deutsche Zentralbibliothek fur Wirtschaftswissenschaften

Treetop64
01-09-2007, 07:28 PM
"Yamamoto" is the name of the famous IJN admiral.

"Yamato" is the name of the battleship. "Musashi" was the sister ship. "Shinano" was to be the third unit in the class, but was converted to an aircraft carrier during construction as an emergency measure after the IJN's disaster at Midway.

The Bismarck and Tirpitz were virtually identical except for the paint applied to each ship, and the Tirpitz is modelled in the game.

There are a variety of Pacific naval combat units from both sides that are conspicuously absent. However, this subject has been gone over multiple times, and it is pretty much established that no more warships of any kind will be added to PF.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

------------------------------
"It breaks my heart, but I am almost certain that raaaid will get the Nobel Prize in physics before we get the Avenger in PF."
-- Zeus-cat
------------------------------

FritzGryphon
01-09-2007, 09:17 PM
The Bismarck and Tirpitz were virtually identical except for the paint applied to each ship, and the Tirpitz is modelled in the game.

The Tirpitz has significantly more light AAA. For example, Bismarck has 2 flakvierlings, and I think Tirpitz has 10 of them. More single 20mm and 37mm as well.

Tirpitz also has torpedo launchers, and better sensors. As well as many minor superstructure differences.

Here's a close look of it:
http://members.shaw.ca/evilgryphon3/tirpitz1.jpg
http://members.shaw.ca/evilgryphon3/tirpitz2.jpg

Treetop64
01-09-2007, 10:19 PM
...well, from a superficial observer. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I guess the Tirpitz would require some extra AAA to do somthing about the prospect of 12,000 lb bombs plunging through her deck armor. But torps? Isn't that, like, pre-dreadnaught philosophy?

Thanks. Learn something new every day. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

------------------------------
"It breaks my heart, but I am almost certain that raaaid will get the Nobel Prize in physics before we get the Avenger in PF."
-- Zeus-cat
------------------------------

joeap
01-10-2007, 02:03 AM
Treetop,remember that the Tirpitz, and other German ships, main mission was to attack merchant ships so the torps were considered a useful way to finish off crippled merchies.

ElAurens
01-10-2007, 04:35 PM
Don't tell the IJN that torpedoes launched from surface ships were an out of date idea.

Can you say "Long Lance"?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/554/elskiubikb4.jpg

"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature" - T.E. Lawrence

roybaty
01-10-2007, 06:25 PM
Didn't US destroyers use torpedo attacks to defend Taffy 3; I admit it was still kind of a "fix bayonets" moment from what I know.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-------------- QUICK SPECS --------------

-------------- HARDWARE --------------

SYSTEM: DELL XPS 600 3Ghz/P4/630
VIDEO CARD: nVidia 6800GS/256
RAM: 1 Gig DDR2 4200
HOTAS : Thrustmaster COUGAR
PEDALS: CH Pro Pedals USB
OTHER INPUT: Track IR2


-------------- SOFTWARE --------------

OS: Win XP Pro SP2
VOICE COMMAND: Shoot 1.6/VR Commander
COMMUNICATION: Teamspeak 2 R2
DX Ver: 9c

hening_880Sqn
01-10-2007, 08:11 PM
PT Boats would have been fun.
Victory ships too.....

leitmotiv
01-10-2007, 08:45 PM
With the really lousy ship damage modeling, there really is no point. PAC FIGHTERS was the chance to make the game a real rip-roaring anti-ship item, but the opportunity was passed. Maybe if Oleg can manage to produce his massive air/land/sea unified system, upon which he ruminates, in the next generation design.

goshikisen
01-12-2007, 10:53 PM
I could have sworn I saw a few screenshots of a model of the short-lived third sister, Shinano.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v460/goshikisen/goshikisenbw.jpg

Deadmeat313
01-13-2007, 12:56 PM
Tirpitz is very similar to the Bismarck, but recognisable because it causes more LAG. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it." --- Jack Handey

BSS_Vidar
02-09-2007, 01:13 AM
If the war would have gone on due to not dropping the atomic bomb, the largest battle ship's keel had all ready been laid. The Montana class BB's would have dwarfed the Yamoto and Iowa class battle-wagons. As long as a moder U.S carrier with 12x 18" guns on 4 turrets. 4 were scheduled to be built but were halted after the war was over. The lines of the Montana class looked a lot like an Iowa class, but on steroids.

gdfo
02-09-2007, 05:04 AM
If the title of the game was NAVAL Shturmovik then I would expect the great battle ships of WW2 to be in the game. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

whiteladder
02-09-2007, 05:41 AM
If the title of the game was NAVAL Shturmovik

Its not called Tree Shturmovik, house Shturmovik, train Shturmovik, tank Shturmovik etc etc but has all these items.
You Donkey http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

If you want to make more than an half hearted attempt at PACIFIC warfare you need to include SHIP`s. They didn`t or couldn`t so we will just have to live with it.

XyZspineZyX
02-09-2007, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by whiteladder:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
If the title of the game was NAVAL Shturmovik

Its not called Tree Shturmovik, house Shturmovik, train Shturmovik, tank Shturmovik etc etc but has all these items.
You Donkey http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

If you want to make more than an half hearted attempt at PACIFIC warfare you need to include SHIP`s. They didn`t or couldn`t so we will just have to live with it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it does have those items. Very basic and nondescript trees, houses and trains http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Ships too, very nondescript in general, and not all are represented- just ike not every tree, house, and train are represented http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tater-SW-
02-09-2007, 10:22 AM
Ships are hugely important targets for aircraft. Having at least a range of classes is important, particularly for the PTO and Med.

The worst thing about the ships is the lack of AI for them, or a more complex DM. No, it's not a ship sim, but a certain fidelity in all ground targets is needed as soon as the players are capable of engaging the ground targets. If players were solely fighters with the bomers/ground attack as AI for background, the current system would work. Once players are part of the attack, the DMs and traget response needs a certain level of care, r it gets pretty cartoonish. Strafing out tanks, for example, or BOOM---sink! shipping, even with a few rockets.

tater

whiteladder
02-09-2007, 02:14 PM
Ships too, very nondescript in general, and not all are represented- just ike not every tree, house, and train are represented



I was making two points really, a flight simulator needs more than just aircraft, it needs objects to populate its virtual world, a point that sometimes seems lost on some people. Hence the donkey comment, lineage of the game is ground attack, so ground objects are as important as the aircraft.

And yes some objects can be nondescript, you don`t need to model every different merchant ship that sailed the pacific in ww2, but at least ONE battleship from each of the main pratagonists would have been nice.

And because the battleships on each side were anything but nondescript and so recognisable substituting them with a british one ruins the illusion and reminds you that in fact we playing a game.

BlitzPig_DDT
02-09-2007, 02:29 PM
http://www.starblazers.com/images/gallery_images/10.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Harry_M
02-09-2007, 03:13 PM
Yes, it was being worked on at one time...what a shame, as I recall it was a nice looking model too...

http://www.netwings.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=...49&forum=DCForumID43 (http://www.netwings.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=549&forum=DCForumID43)

Harry_M
02-09-2007, 03:16 PM
SaQSoN:
"If you building the Yamato for the MG, then, I affraid, you're too late.
They olready have it. And even might include it in the summer'04 add-on... "

So what happened to it then?

gdfo
02-09-2007, 07:53 PM
Low Blow whiteladder! I am not a 'donkey'

This is a FLIGHT sim not a NAVY sim.

Yes there are tanks and other objects but they are not modeled to the detail the planes are.

GOT IT???? So do not make it personal!!

whiteladder
02-10-2007, 12:57 AM
OK I take the donkey statement back sorry.

It just you will see this response everytime someone asks about the inclusion of any object that isn`t an aircraft. You get the typical "this is a flight sim not a navy sim, tanks sim" etc.

Yes I do GET that it is a FLIGHT sim and not a NAVY sim. Do you get that if you want to add an expansion dealing with a predominately NAVAL theater of operations it may have been prudent to include more NAVAL elements, namely from Japan and America.

You can say it doesn`t need to have everything modelled in detail, I agree but with objects as distinctive and large as battleships the substitution of British battleships for Japanese ones grates on my eye and that of many others. You can`t compare a tank you will hardly ever see to a object the size of 2 football pitches.

But you and I will have to disagree about what should or shouldn`t be included in a flight simulator that calls itself PACIFIC fighters.


My flipant remark about trees, house etc was just to point out that aircraft simulators that makes a good job of convincing the users they are not in fact sat in front of a computer you have to make a convincing world. That world need to be filled with many more NON aircaft objects than the aircaft themselves and the better they are the better the illusion.

This goes both ways, if you look at a NAVAL game like Battlestations Midway it includes objects other than just ships, and make a decent job of making them look like they should.

Thats my point.

GerritJ9
02-10-2007, 03:07 AM
The "Montanas" were planned with twelve 16" guns as main armament, not 18". Designed displacement was 65,000 tons at full load, which makes the "Yamatos" the biggest, even if the "Montanas" had been completed.

norman888
02-10-2007, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by goshikisen:
I could have sworn I saw a few screenshots of a model of the short-lived third sister, Shinano.

Too bad it didn't fit on the CD... or was it the greedy Corporations http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v638/norman888/Shinano.jpg

BlitzPig_DDT
02-10-2007, 06:45 PM
Those arials (or whatever they are) would make landing a bit scary. lol

Would be cool to have in the game though.

Regarding Flight Sim vs Navy Sim - any flight sim needs to be both flight and ground sims in one. This one is a pretty good tank sim, all things considered, and PF should be a navy sim as much as a flight sim.

Ships are way too tough and have crappy DMs. Can you imagine how cool it would be to have fully complex internal damage models with accurate responses to weapons? To have AAA gunners you can force to duck (or kill) by strafing? To have ship's repair crews work to save and/or repair a ship in or after battle? And for that matter, to track such statuses over the course of a campaign?

That would rock and is something that really *should* be in a navy flight sim (which really, to be honest, is what it is, neither "flight sim", nor "navy sim", but both, a "navy flight sim").

Rattler68
02-11-2007, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by Treetop64:
...well, from a superficial observer. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I guess the Tirpitz would require some extra AAA to do somthing about the prospect of 12,000 lb bombs plunging through her deck armor. But torps? Isn't that, like, pre-dreadnaught philosophy?

Thanks. Learn something new every day. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature"><br/><br/>------------------------------
"It breaks my heart, but I am almost certain that raaaid will get the Nobel Prize in physics before we get the Avenger in PF."
-- Zeus-cat
------------------------------
Torps on ships outdated??
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/dd-963.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ddg-51.htm

Rattler68
02-11-2007, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
If the war would have gone on due to not dropping the atomic bomb, the largest battle ship's keel had all ready been laid. The Montana class BB's would have dwarfed the Yamoto and Iowa class battle-wagons. As long as a moder U.S carrier with 12x 18" guns on 4 turrets. 4 were scheduled to be built but were halted after the war was over. The lines of the Montana class looked a lot like an Iowa class, but on steroids.
Operational and Building Data: From: DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN NAVAL FIGHTING SHIPS, Vol. IV, p. 148
The name Montana was assigned to BB-67 on 28 December 1940; but construction of the Montana class battleship by Philadelphia Navy Yard, Philadelphia, Pa., was canceled 21 July 1943, before her keel was laid.

FennecP
02-12-2007, 06:32 PM
Yes, it was being worked on at one time...what a shame, as I recall it was a nice looking model too...

http://www.netwings.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=...49&forum=DCForumID43
Wow, that's an old thread. I started Yamato and Takao, but soon realized how hard Japanese ships were compared to US or British or German. Complicated, convoluted designs. Also, late-war battleships are very complex, with all their flak.

It would take the time to make 1 Japanese battleship what it would to make 2-3 smaller American ships. With the short time available, and the fact I sucked at modeling, I think it was better to do the more plentiful ships first, like destroyers.

Tater-SW-
02-12-2007, 08:56 PM
The radio masts folded down during flight ops.

JG54_Lukas
02-13-2007, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by norman888:
Too bad it didn't fit on the CD... or was it the greedy Corporations http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

A ship sunk before it was even completely fitted out isn't very useful for a flight sim, IMO.

PhantomKira
02-14-2007, 05:57 PM
We still correcting ship names? It's Bismarck, with a "c" before the k.

TheShark888
02-14-2007, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by FennecP:
I started Yamato and Takao, but soon realized how hard Japanese ships were compared to US or British or German.

So you are one of the people we can blame for part of the Pacific Fighters fiasco?!

FennecP
02-14-2007, 10:29 PM
So you are one of the people we can blame for part of the Pacific Fighters fiasco?!

Yup! Pacific is lame anyway. I hate fighter pilots and framerates, too. That's why I made the Tirpitz. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

J/k of course. I wish there had been more time to fill out PF.

By the way, this will be in 4.09. Mechs are new flyable, be sure. http://members.shaw.ca/fennec/stormcrow2.jpg

JG52Karaya-X
02-15-2007, 04:13 AM
Originally posted by TheShark888:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FennecP:
I started Yamato and Takao, but soon realized how hard Japanese ships were compared to US or British or German.

So you are one of the people we can blame for part of the Pacific Fighters fiasco?! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can never blame a third party modeller for not finishing his work, after all most of them are doing it for free and in their spare time, if you arent pleased with that then buy 3D Studio Max (just 1,000$ anyway) and take up the 3D modelling yourself.

BlitzPig_DDT
02-15-2007, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by FennecP:
Wow, that's an old thread. I started Yamato and Takao, but soon realized how hard Japanese ships were compared to US or British or German. Complicated, convoluted designs. Also, late-war battleships are very complex, with all their flak.

It would take the time to make 1 Japanese battleship what it would to make 2-3 smaller American ships. With the short time available, and the fact I sucked at modeling, I think it was better to do the more plentiful ships first, like destroyers.

All those arials would take a lot of time, I'm sure, but the Wave Motion Gun should have been pretty easy at least.

Though I'd hate to see what kind of FM it would have ended up with.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Tater-SW-
02-15-2007, 08:52 AM
I'd have rather had them fix the awful arrestor cables on the CVs and made fewer CVs. They stretch WAY to far before arresting a plane. Find some WW2 CV ops video on youtube, and measure how far the planes got before they stop and compare to Il-2. It's not even close.

BlitzPig_DDT
02-15-2007, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
I'd have rather had them fix the awful arrestor cables on the CVs and made fewer CVs. They stretch WAY to far before arresting a plane. Find some WW2 CV ops video on youtube, and measure how far the planes got before they stop and compare to Il-2. It's not even close.

Is that really an issue?

Compared to say.... the lack of decent DM for ships? (or any of a hundred other things)

I find that when the carrier is moving, they don't stretch as far as when it's static. I think that could have been a concession to DF server use, or it could just be an unintended side effect (ie - if they slow down at a given rate, then the ship not moving would require more 'stretch' to fully stop the aircraft due to higher speed differential).

Tater-SW-
02-15-2007, 11:05 AM
No, a decent DM, and some limited AI (circle to avoid DB or torpedo attacks, for example) would be better. That said, the arrestor cable issue was reported right when PF came out. Someone (properly, I think) suggested that they had likely modelled the stretch based upon modern, jet aircraft making traps. It's like they never saw movies of ww2 planes landing other than the one of the F6F crashing into the island, lol.

Actually, IMO they should have concentrated more on smaller ships. PF really needs a subchaser, luggers, various sized merchant shipping, transports, etc.

Harry_M
02-15-2007, 02:22 PM
I'm reading "A Glorious Way to Die" right now, great account of Yamato's last mission. Please no one spoil it... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Still waiting to hear what happened to the Maddox:1C (not Fennec's) version that they already had done... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

BlitzPig_DDT
02-15-2007, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by Harry_M:
I'm reading "A Glorious Way to Die" right now, great account of Yamato's last mission. Please no one spoil it... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Wait, do you mean Arrividerci(sp?) Yamato, or Final Yamato?


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

FritzGryphon
02-15-2007, 06:14 PM
I'd have rather had them fix the awful arrestor cables on the CVs and made fewer CVs. They stretch WAY to far before arresting a plane.

Oleg commented on this with PF release. He said they had problems with aircraft breaking apart on landing, so they had to reduce the tension.

Tater-SW-
02-16-2007, 06:48 AM
^^^maybe if the Grummans weren't so fragile in PF it wouldn't be a problem http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Honestly, that is actually why they were so tough (the landing speed of the IJN planes is so low they don't stretch the cables like the USN planes do... hmmm. I'm beginning to think this has some merit, the USN planes are not toughened up for CV landing.

BlitzPig_DDT
02-16-2007, 08:12 AM
There is something to that for certain.

However, it's really a minor issue. And one that is largely to do with the fact that carriers don't move in DF servers.

Tater-SW-
02-16-2007, 11:12 AM
There is no reason at a certain wire deflection the plane couldn't just "magically" stop and it would look right. That would be less gamey than hitting the trap at the speed used in RL and having the plane stretch the wire into the after side of the island.

BlitzPig_DDT
02-16-2007, 12:21 PM
Perhaps. But like I said, out of all the things that could be addressed.....

One thing to consider though is that doing that would add more coding to the app, which would require more debugging, and may even be exceedingly difficult to insert, depending on the existing architecture. It was probably easier to just rely on physics the same as anything else. It was probably considered too small an issue to really care too much about, but that's just a guess.

Tater-SW-
02-16-2007, 01:01 PM
I don't disagree, it's just another odd choice with PF. No maps suitable for long term play with army air forces, so the game becomes all about CVs---but the CVs are done poorly. <shrug> It's just end of game development ranting, heheh.

tater

BlitzPig_DDT
02-16-2007, 04:05 PM
I just want to see a well done F6F and not 40 very optimistic f4us. Some flyable torp bombers would have been nice too.

Beyond that, it would have been truly awesome to have real ship DMs, all internal damage modeled and tracked, ship crew damage (deaths) being part of that, and external gunners that duck and cover while being strafed, and of course, repair crews and such. Especially if that could be carried over in successive campaign missions so you can go back and try to finish the job or try to defend well enough to prevent them from finishing the job.

And of course, an F8F and F7F would just be the icing on the cake. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif


Things like how far the wire stretches don't even register for me. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TheShark888
02-16-2007, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:

<span class="ev_code_RED">You can never blame a third party modeller for not finishing his work</span>, after all most of them are doing it for free and in their spare time, if you arent pleased with that then buy 3D Studio Max (just 1,000$ anyway) and take up the 3D modelling yourself.

You sure can after all those projects were "reserved" by modelers of questionable talent and focus...preventing those with the talent and fortitude to get the job done!!

No offense to you FennecP but alot of doable projects went down the drain because of this "casual" attitude http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

FennecP
02-16-2007, 10:00 PM
You sure can after all those projects were "reserved" by modelers of questionable talent and focus...preventing those with the talent and fortitude to get the job done!!


Normally I would agree, but PF ships were pay projects by mostly pro people (maybe not me, but most). I shouldn't talk too much of it, but there was no reserving or dibs or anything. In hindsight I regret posting development pics, because lots of projects end up not being finished (or if finished, not included) for one reason or another.

Mostly people don't want to do ships. They are not as glamorous and exciting as plane exteriors, and have poorer reference.

After all, after PF was released, you didn't see any modelers stepping up to make battleships. There was time, after all. Instead there was Ta-183 and Lerche http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif Unfortunately I had school to go to and couldn't continue.

I think the ship set in PF is about as good as it could possibly have been. The addition of one-off battleships would have meant the loss of many common serial ships. Not an ideal situation, but that's how it is.

Vipez-
02-17-2007, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by TheShark888:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:

<span class="ev_code_RED">You can never blame a third party modeller for not finishing his work</span>, after all most of them are doing it for free and in their spare time, if you arent pleased with that then buy 3D Studio Max (just 1,000$ anyway) and take up the 3D modelling yourself.

You sure can after all those projects were "reserved" by modelers of questionable talent and focus...preventing those with the talent and fortitude to get the job done!!

No offense to you FennecP but alot of doable projects went down the drain because of this "casual" attitude http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, you got some attitude.. If I were you, I would appreciate everything third party modellers have done for this simulation, after all it's not like they get paid for it (or do they ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif)

Tater-SW-
02-17-2007, 06:02 PM
Regarding BBs in PF, I'd have no problem if they added NO new BBs past what was in il-2. Better would have been at least an IJN CA. Far far more useful would have been a new merchant ship (larger), and a large oil tanker (skinned as japanese, plus commercial, plus grey as a fleet oiler for all sides). The Liberty ship was done, we saw pics, what happened to it?

KNowing there would be no proper BBs, they should have not wasted time on the Hawaii map since the lack of the iconic targets makes the map silly.

My biggest complaint regarding shipping is that they didn't at least try to think outside the box, and reskin some of the il-2 ships to give the appearance of more ships.

BlitzPig_DDT
02-17-2007, 06:42 PM
But there are lots of BBs in IL2. Golden ones. And usually spewing forth from small caliber soviet MGs. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

TheShark888
02-18-2007, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by Vipez-:
Wow, you got some attitude.. If I were you, I would appreciate everything third party modellers have done for this simulation, after all it's not like they get paid for it (or do they ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif)

Yes, I am kinda jaded after seeing pics of Do-17's, He-177's, He-100's, Devastator's, IJN Cruisers, USS Yorktown, P-61's, etc, etc, only to NOT have them in game http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Pacific is my favorite Theater and I have a bad feeling that we won't ever see it done by Oleg again! If it couldn't be done in IL2 standards, I doubt it will ever be done in SOW standards!!

I just pray that the Med will finally be done by them by the end of the decade http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v638/norman888/hornet.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v638/norman888/natori.jpg

Treetop64
02-18-2007, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by Rattler68:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Treetop64:
...well, from a superficial observer. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I guess the Tirpitz would require some extra AAA to do somthing about the prospect of 12,000 lb bombs plunging through her deck armor. But torps? Isn't that, like, pre-dreadnaught philosophy?

Thanks. Learn something new every day.
Torps on ships outdated?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bro, I was referring to torps launched from a battleship. I am more than aware that torpedo warfare was a viable option for other units, like destroyers, subs, cruisers, etc...

310th Falcon
02-18-2007, 02:07 PM
You can visit YAMATO museum at Kure city in Japan
website:
http://album.nikon-image.com/nk/NK_AlbumPage.asp?un=97313&key=555537&m=0

http://image1.photohighway.co.jp/se-bin/MyPhoto.dll?Vi?p1=NK098_312&p2=4342320225qz11&p3=0jpg&p4=7271962&p5=


Best Regards

wonmoi
02-19-2007, 10:45 PM
Hey NetDaemon, I note you have SATAas at RAID 1 mode. What is the advantages of having RAID 1 in gaming? Or is it for backing up your data?

GriffonFury
02-20-2007, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by HANS-57:
Whenever I am creating a Japanese naval group I am dissapointed to discover that there is only one large battleship to choose from. They did after all have the largest battleship in the world with the flagship Yamamoto, and her sister ship which I can't name right now was a monster. Please can we at least have this bohemith modeled? It had 150 AA guns and a reach of 25 miles with it's huge cannons firing three thousand pound projectiles. We need at least two more large Japanise battleships. The Bismark would be great to have for the Germans while we are on the topic. This battleship was almost as big as Yamamoto. I can't imagine finishing this historic combat simulator without those two historic vessels to play with.<div class="ev_tpc_signature"><br/><br/>http://www.futura-sciences.com/img/cev.jpg

GriffonFury
02-20-2007, 06:13 PM
The Yamoto and Musashi were the two big IJN Battleships you are thinking about. Fabulous monsters they were too! Badly used by the IJN though....

GriffonFury
02-20-2007, 06:21 PM
All academic now folks...if the Musashi and Yamoto had been used for pounding Guadalcanal instead of being used as floating hotels for IJN stuffed shirts in Truk...