PDA

View Full Version : Ki-100-ko and other carrots



WTE_Gog
02-11-2005, 03:31 PM
So, I see by the latest non-update, because that's what it amounts to, a non-event, that the Ki-100-ko is now in the category of 'may or may not be flyable'.

I am sure Oleg assured everyone that it would be flyable months ago?

All you mods and fanboys here complain about all the whining etc when people say that they want this that and the other and what do the designers go and do? They now promise a new round of aircraft thet we 'may or may not get'. Some people should just shut up and stop promising stuff that they may...or may not http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif have trouble delivering.

All that this latest non-patch will do is get more people on here complaining about aircraft that they say they were promised but never got.

FFS 1C, NO MORE SNIPPETS OF INFO, NO MORE CLUES, HINTS, SCREENSHOTS ECT OF STUFF THAT WE MAY GET, JUST INCLUDE THE STUFF THAT WE ARE GOING TO GET!! If you did this, you would remove 75% of all the complaints on this forum overnight. Heck, when and if the Betty arrives I will disappear immediately from here....but definately not before.

WTE_Gog
02-11-2005, 03:31 PM
So, I see by the latest non-update, because that's what it amounts to, a non-event, that the Ki-100-ko is now in the category of 'may or may not be flyable'.

I am sure Oleg assured everyone that it would be flyable months ago?

All you mods and fanboys here complain about all the whining etc when people say that they want this that and the other and what do the designers go and do? They now promise a new round of aircraft thet we 'may or may not get'. Some people should just shut up and stop promising stuff that they may...or may not http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif have trouble delivering.

All that this latest non-patch will do is get more people on here complaining about aircraft that they say they were promised but never got.

FFS 1C, NO MORE SNIPPETS OF INFO, NO MORE CLUES, HINTS, SCREENSHOTS ECT OF STUFF THAT WE MAY GET, JUST INCLUDE THE STUFF THAT WE ARE GOING TO GET!! If you did this, you would remove 75% of all the complaints on this forum overnight. Heck, when and if the Betty arrives I will disappear immediately from here....but definately not before.

RocketDog
02-11-2005, 03:36 PM
Err... to quote the man himself,

"Ki-100-I Ko (flyable. ready)"

Regards,

RocketDog.

WTE_Gog
02-11-2005, 03:39 PM
Flown it lately?

Oh' you haven't....it must be in the next big patch....then again it 'may not'.

You miss the point. If any of the aircaft mentioned in the latest carrot don't eventuate, there will be countless posts on here saying 'Where's my Mossie you promised me in Feb 05!!!'
These people are thier own worst enemy.

3.JG51_BigBear
02-11-2005, 03:52 PM
I agree 100% with what you're saying. Could maybe be said a bit more diplomaticaly, but you defnitely have a point. This is kind of a half hearted response to a bunch of upset customers who are going to be more upset when they find that someof the things on that list ended up in the "may not be" category.

TriggerHappy57
02-11-2005, 04:26 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=8471088572&r=8471088572#8471088572

Nimits
02-11-2005, 04:46 PM
Do we even need the Ki-100? Supposedly it will "balance" the Japanese side online (i.e. give them something superior to all American aircraft as modled in the game). A flyable B6N, B5N, TBD, or TBF would add alot more to PF, though, than a souped up Tony.

Sorry for my rant (nothing personal is intended against Ki-100 fans); I'm just getting fed up with the way PF has been handled from the get go. I am about ready to reload CFS2 and just fly that with all of its wonderful add-ons.

Longjocks
02-11-2005, 05:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
Could maybe be said a bit more diplomaticaly <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is something I normally stress on most gaming/dev/publisher forums I visit. But I've found that one gets ripped to shreds on this forum no matter how nice and sincere you're trying to be, so there's no need to hold back.

To the topic starter - I also agree with you to some extent. But I also feel that some of this falls onto those that read everything as some sort of press statement instead of a post from a man just trying to be as open as he can.

Even I am a little frustrated with PF's status, but that's nothing if you're a part of the Operation Flashpoint community. Oh what I'd give for a 'may or may not' regarding OFP2 or even OFP Xbox. The PF community have some level of interaction with the devs and publishers on this series at least, the last OFP2 news was a couple of years ago.

Yes, there is a difference in a game yet to be released and a game that was released which fits the 'incomplete addon' catagory. I don't think that's so important in this argument though.

Obi_Kwiet
02-11-2005, 05:03 PM
You're right. This is going to be a poor excuse for a patch. A real patch, would contain no new content or FM/DM tweaks. It would fix a compatibility error with using some obscure piece of hardware like a duel Opteron configuration, which no one uses anyway.

Get a life, you spoiled whinier. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

3.JG51_BigBear
02-11-2005, 05:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
You're right. This is going to be a poor excuse for a patch. A real patch, would contain no new content or FM/DM tweaks. It would fix a compatibility error with using some obscure piece of hardware like a duel Opteron configuration, which no one uses anyway.

Get a life, you spoiled whinier. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The issue here is not that this patch is no good, the issue is that this is the last or close to the last patch. Sure there are things being said about some continued development but the reason many people purchased PF was because they heard of the unparralled support that Oleg offered for his products. If it wasn't for that support I would have stopped purchasing these games after the original Il2. PF isn't complete, its missing maps, objects, ships and most importantly planes. I don't fault Oleg for moving on to BOB, I don't think PF should have been released in the first place, but I completely understand the frustration some of the new players, and even the one's who have been playing for years, are feeling. We all paid for PF expecting one thing and we now are finding out we aren't getting as much of it as we expected. Thus is life, I would leave but unfotunately I'm so hopelessy addicted to this **** that I won't be leaving anytime soon.

Tailgator
02-11-2005, 05:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
You're right. This is going to be a poor excuse for a patch. A real patch, would contain no new content or FM/DM tweaks. It would fix a compatibility error with using some obscure piece of hardware like a duel Opteron configuration, which no one uses anyway.

Get a life, you spoiled whinier. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

nah the whining will really start when ki100s are the only thing flown lol

JG53Frankyboy
02-11-2005, 05:32 PM
well, actually itsw pilots will whine, not its oponents http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
i think a lot of peaple expect too much from this plane.
its majors good points:
-good realibility in comparison to other late war japanese planes
-easy to fly, even for less experienced pilots

dont count in the game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Giganoni
02-11-2005, 05:53 PM
Yes, the Ki-84, especially the b version will still be the best Army bird for fighting fighters. Ki-100 will be a decent fighter, for sure, but still really all it offers is more choice. Maybe it could be a decent altitude fighter but, I'm not sure. So Ki-61s, 84s and 100s up against the later US Army and Carrier planes. The georges would give the navy players a chance to square off better against the Hellcats. If they ever get in. Maybe someday they'll make the Ki-61 Tei which had 20mm cannon in the nose that would require a new model though because the nose was longer.

LEXX_Luthor
02-11-2005, 05:59 PM
WET:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Heck, when and if the Betty arrives I will disappear immediately from here....but definately not before. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Priceless

walsh2509
02-11-2005, 06:02 PM
Right all aircraft mentioned in olegs post are either a yes or a no! have to wait and see!

OK!


I bought PF as a stand alone, I have no other Il-2 sims, PF was released as everyone knows to early and was not finished, we all know that there was enough material for a 3rd disc! right!

All I want to know is when are we getting this missing 3rd disc!

I take it all that was mentioned in the post about the maybe planes has nothing to do with this missing material. What are the planes that would have been on this disc and when are we likely to get it!

For now i don't care about about any other planes that we may or indeed may not get!

Can anyone from the dev team tell us what was to be on the 3rd disc and when are we getting it?

Don't think that this an unreasonalbe question!

3.JG51_BigBear
02-11-2005, 06:16 PM
The third disk material contained the cockpit for the F2A-2 (which we got) and the cockpit and gunner stations for the Betty. That's about it.

walsh2509
02-11-2005, 06:25 PM
an extra 2 cockpit and some gunner stations could not fit on to the existing 2 discs? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

are you on the dev team?

Because I and a lot of others were put under the impression that there was a lot more than 2 missing planes (CP's GS's _of material missing from PF and all that was still to come!

No one at the time came out and said , all that's missing to make this the compelte sim , is 2 cockpits and some GStations..

Can anyone else confirm this ?

2 cockipts and some gunner stations !!

badaboom.1
02-11-2005, 06:53 PM
I think the problem [could be]that the majority of what was on that 3rd disk is now ahuge trademark/copyright hurdle! just my opinion.

3.JG51_BigBear
02-11-2005, 06:55 PM
Attention:
We simply ran out of space on our 2 CDs and had to remove some cockpits for
several flyable aircraft. Free add-on containing these aircraft will be made
available at www.pacific-fighters.com (http://www.pacific-fighters.com) for a free download.

Right from the game's readme. I guess I lied, they used the word several which would indicate three or more but since I don't remember seeing any screenshots or hearing of any other done flyables at the time PF was released I'm willing to bet they just mean the F2A-2 and the Betty. Nothing about whatever you're trying to say here: "CP's GS's _of material missing from PF and all that was still to come"

LEXX_Luthor
02-11-2005, 07:23 PM
Ya, Mitsubishi G4M1 "Betty" is the only thing Promised on the box that we don't have yet.

A finished battleship that was built at Newport News shipyard, now owned by Grumman apparently, could not be put in the CD for "copywrite" reasons. And it looks like if won't make it to PF.

F~104 Starfighter was in original Strike Fighters sim, but Lockheed didn't want F~104 in the Wings Over Vietnam sim which is built from Strike Fighters (like PF is built from FB), or the WoV developer didn't want to pay for a liscence to use Lockheed's product image or however it works.

jarink
02-11-2005, 08:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Ya, Mitsubishi G4M1 "Betty" is the only thing Promised on the box that we don't have yet. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the only thing I think Oleg really needs to deliver, since it is listed on the box as a flyable a/c.

You will note by my number of posts (this is #2) that I'm new here, but I have been down this whole "the deveoper owes xxxxx to us" road before with other games. Apparently some people not realise what it takes to research, create and test a flyable a/c model. From what little I have experienced with this game, I think Oleg and 1C deserve more gratitude than gripes. If this was a game from a different company (say, one that starts with "E" and ends with "A" and is two letters long) not only would this game not be 'complete', but you'd be lucky to get any support or free add-ons at all.

My 10-year old son and I are so hooked on this game already, I've started combing the local stores for copies of FB and AEP. I want more and I'm willing to pay for it!

p1ngu666
02-11-2005, 08:16 PM
saqson, said he had done a floatplane f4f or f6f too i think, and a carrier but im not sure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

dunno what all the fuss about ki100 is, itll be more potent, but it isnt some usn destroying wonderplane. wherent more ki100 made than f4u 1c? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

if u fly ki84, u fly a uber plane in the eyes of most. so u fly a zero or ki61, which really arent that great http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

i guess ppl fear ki100 as its got a larger number in its name, just like everyone tries the last zero's and spits and 109's etc http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

marcocomparato
02-11-2005, 08:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:

The issue here is not that this patch is no good, the issue is that this is the last or close to the last patch. Sure there are things being said about some continued development but the reason many people purchased PF was because they heard of the unparralled support that Oleg offered for his products. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thikn u make a decent point here. however, and i think waaay too many people are forgetting this, Oleg Maddox nor 1C or Ubi have officially announced ANYTHING AT ALL regarding future support and the add-on patch.

ALL that i have seen, gentlemen, is a couple of supposed emails sent as a response to new posters. No offense, but i dont condemn a game or its dev team based on an email. i have my opinions on what ive heard and theyre very much like yours....but for the luv of pete, lets keep it real.

LEXX_Luthor
02-11-2005, 08:57 PM
jarink, czech out Best Buy stores. They are stocking alot of FB Gold (which is FB + AEP) and PF.

Tell more about this 10-year old air crew member. What does he like to fly the most?


...oh hey pingu, what happened to PBY ??

Badsight.
02-11-2005, 10:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nimits:
Do we even need the Ki-100? Supposedly it will "balance" the Japanese side online (i.e. give them something superior to all American aircraft as modled in the game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
wow , you really have zero idea about what the Ki-100 is do you

jarink
02-11-2005, 10:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
jarink, czech out Best Buy stores. They are stocking alot of FB Gold (which is FB + AEP) and PF.

Tell more about this 10-year old air crew member. What does he like to fly the most? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just got paid, BB is on the list for the morrow! If not, I guess I'll order from Amazon.

His favorite is definitely the Beaufighter. He's also working on a career with a Seafire. Of course, he usually plays with the realism way down, but that's OK. I'm working on him to gradually turn different settings on. So far, we have about 1/3 of them turned on.

What I think is great is how this game is stimulting his interest in WWII aircraft. He can ID the most common ones already, although the Japanese ones usually give him trouble. He's already asked if we can start building models of some of the planes, just like I used to do with my dad.

3.JG51_BigBear
02-11-2005, 10:17 PM
Yeah the Ki-100 will have performance very similar to the Ki-61 already in game. The only significant difference in real life was engine reliability which won't really be a factor.

Giganoni
02-11-2005, 10:33 PM
Right, isn't it the G version of the109 the most manuverable? I'm not an expert on the 109, anyway if so thats what the Ki-100 should be. Most information I have on it have talked about it being more manuverable than the 61, with some minor top speed loss. I think a couple of sources have also implied that it was better fighting at altitude than the ki-61. Either way a more manuverable Ki-61 is not a bad thing but, the Ki-84 in this game is still the best remedy for a bad case of Mustang fever if your playing as Japan.

3.JG51_BigBear
02-11-2005, 10:41 PM
In real life I think the F models would probably be the most manueverable and pleasant to fly (seems to be the general consensus from pilot reports) but in game I think the G2 model is the best turn and burner. To put the Ki-100 a little more in perspecitve for people, it isn't that much faster than a 109E model and is slower than a 109F4. I definitely think it will be a cool addition to the game and fill out the Japanese side a little bit but its not going to be the uber fighter that some people are thinking. Its not even close to the Ki-84.

3.JG51_BigBear
02-11-2005, 10:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by marcocomparato:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:

The issue here is not that this patch is no good, the issue is that this is the last or close to the last patch. Sure there are things being said about some continued development but the reason many people purchased PF was because they heard of the unparralled support that Oleg offered for his products. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thikn u make a decent point here. however, and i think waaay too many people are forgetting this, Oleg Maddox nor 1C or Ubi have officially announced ANYTHING AT ALL regarding future support and the add-on patch.

ALL that i have seen, gentlemen, is a couple of supposed emails sent as a response to new posters. No offense, but i dont condemn a game or its dev team based on an email. i have my opinions on what ive heard and theyre very much like yours....but for the luv of pete, lets keep it real. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

None of this is about that e-mail anymore. If you go to the first sticky in this forum and follow the link over to ORR you'll see the list Oleg released today of what we might expect to see in PF.

Tailgator
02-11-2005, 11:20 PM
could be that the info i have is wrong but

ki61 (tony) - 320mph 2x12.7 & 2x7.7mm
ki84 (frank)- 337mph 4x20mm
ki100 - 341mph 2x12.7 & 2x7.7mm

F4U_Flyer
02-11-2005, 11:42 PM
"A finished battleship that was built at Newport News shipyard, now owned by Grumman apparently, could not be put in the CD for "copywrite" reasons. And it looks like if won't make it to PF."

I may be wrong on this but the trouble about trademarks didnt come up until a few weeks after release. If they had made that 3rd disk available for download immediately after release we wouldnt be having these troubles.
Im not happy seeing the torpedo planes missing from the dev list. Its just an incomplete game and with the talk of moving to bob , sounding more like an ms move! Say it isnt so but it may be too late for the torp planes! If they never show it will be a black eye on the il2 series which will turn off a lot of people , especially the pacific loving crowd! We shall see but it don't look good!!

Tooz_69GIAP
02-12-2005, 12:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by F4U_Flyer:
"A finished battleship that was built at Newport News shipyard, now owned by Grumman apparently, could not be put in the CD for "copywrite" reasons. And it looks like if won't make it to PF."

I may be wrong on this but the trouble about trademarks didnt come up until a few weeks after release. If they had made that 3rd disk available for download immediately after release we wouldnt be having these troubles.
Im not happy seeing the torpedo planes missing from the dev list. Its just an incomplete game and with the talk of moving to bob , sounding more like an ms move! Say it isnt so but it may be too late for the torp planes! If they never show it will be a black eye on the il2 series which will turn off a lot of people , especially the pacific loving crowd! We shall see but it don't look good!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I may be wrong, but I'm sure I read some stuff that the lawyers got involved just before the release, and they had to crop a bunch of stuff coz of that, and combined with some daft thing about Ubi only allowing 2 CDs, and so you have PF.

Badsight.
02-12-2005, 12:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tailgator:
could be that the info i have is wrong <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>looks it

t0n.
02-12-2005, 01:09 AM
Where does this "Missing 3rd CD" thing come from? I remember Oleg saying that they were only allowed two CD's, and that it couldn't all fit, but nothing about a full 750MB of additional content.

I agree with the original poster though. The list Oleg was kind enough to share is going to come back to bite him in a months time.

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

Tailgator
02-12-2005, 01:31 AM
ton-i think the 3rd cd thing comes from the read me.

oops ki100-360mph

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki100.html

F4U_Flyer
02-12-2005, 01:49 AM
Thats kind of true. Just prior to release there was talk about the fact that ubi would only allow 2 cd's so oleg put most of the content in those 2 and said the rest ( along with the read me ) of the flyable cockpits would be included in a future patch. It was never said what those aircraft were that part was speculation. But for most of the guys who like the pacific over the eastern and western front it seems missing maps , ships and torpedo bombers for both sides just equals an incomplete game. This is the reason for most of the gripes that come about. One thing i dont understand is if they are working on BOB why are they continuing to propose release of the british and german and whatever other country planes instead of finishing the pacific aspect of " Pacific Fighters " ? They will make bob , then another eastern front then a western front and the med and then pacific , but since they don't seem to interested in the pacific now what makes you think they will be in the future?
Just the ramblings of a person who thought he was getting a complete game and not just an incomplete addon.

Tailgator
02-12-2005, 01:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by F4U_Flyer:
Thats kind of true. Just prior to release there was talk about the fact that ubi would only allow 2 cd's so oleg put most of the content in those 2 and said the rest ( along with the read me ) of the flyable cockpits would be included in a future patch. It was never said what those aircraft were that part was speculation. But for most of the guys who like the pacific over the eastern and western front it seems missing maps , ships and torpedo bombers for both sides just equals an incomplete game. This is the reason for most of the gripes that come about. One thing i dont understand is if they are working on BOB why are they continuing to propose release of the british and german and whatever other country planes instead of finishing the pacific aspect of " Pacific Fighters " ? They will make bob , then another eastern front then a western front and the med and then pacific , but since they don't seem to interested in the pacific now what makes you think they will be in the future?
Just the ramblings of a person who thought he was getting a complete game and not just an incomplete addon. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ya i hear ya, logic will bite ya everytime, but will lightning strike twice such as when bob makes it to the PTO will they do it halfazzed again?

Badsight.
02-12-2005, 01:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tailgator:
ton-i think the 3rd cd thing comes from the read me.

oops ki100-360mph

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki100.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Specification of Kawasaki Ki-61-I-KAIc
One Army Type 2 twelve-cylinder liquid cooled engine (Kawasaki Ha-40) rated at 1180 hp for takeoff
Performance: Maximum speed 366 mph at 13,980 feet


Specification of the Kawasaki Ki-61-IIa :
One Kawasaki Ha-140 twelve-cylinder liquid-cooled engine rated at 1500 hp for takeoff
Performance: Maximum speed 379 mph at 19,685 feet

so Baughers site has the Ki-100 being slower than the Ki-61 I & II model & the Ki-84

Tailgator
02-12-2005, 02:10 AM
yep and as i usually fly f6f-3s i want to whine for a f8f after i read that and the ki84 specs
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

engaurd and airmail ought to love that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Badsight.
02-12-2005, 02:21 AM
well the Ki-61 aint much of a fighter , who knows how the Ki-100 will improve on it in FB , we read that it was nicer handeling than the -61 , ok , but the -61 is slow & this thing is slower again so Baughers (very accurate) site says

& yes , i agree with you , if the PTO is ever re-created with BoB's new engine it should be much much better than this version

RocketDog
02-12-2005, 02:49 AM
The Ki-100 will be a reasonable low-altitude dogfighter. It will not be as good as the Ki-84. It should just about be able to hold its own against Hellcats, but will not do well against well-flown Corsairs.

Regards,

RocketDog.

Blue = F4U-1D
Red = Ki-100

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/RocketDog/Image1.jpg

Giganoni
02-12-2005, 03:39 AM
In the IJA campaign there really should be the Ki-61 available later on in New Guinea since that is where it supposedly became a shock to American pilots, especially those in P-40s. Obviously the Ki-61 isn't much of a fighter against the manuverable hellcats and fast corsairs.I feel it is adequate against P-40s and P-38s if there is an advantage.

The Ki-100 has the same armament as the Ki-61 I Tei (often miss labeled as Ki-61 I kai C by english sources). Also same armament as the Ki-61 II. So it has decent armament. The manuverability will be its saving grace. Average fighter really. The George if it becomes flyable and the Ki-84 should be the prime fighters.

Sakaida praises the goshikisen's ability to intercept B-29s, but I don't recall anyone else touting its prowess in high altitude.

lucas_valentine
02-12-2005, 11:58 AM
I've just spent the last week flying nothing but Ki-61's online and I can tell you it is a fantastic plane. It is almost as manuverable as a Spitfire and on a number of occasions I have out-manuvered Zeros! You all say its not much of a fighter, but I beg to differ. At one point during an online dogfight I hadn't been shot down for an hour and several other people on the server had all change to Ki-61's! I will admit it is not a friendly plane to fly at first, but then again nor is an FW190, but when you get used to it, it's a lovely ride. What's more it looks all wrong, which makes it much more fun in my opinion. Personally I am looking forward to the Ki-100 as I believe it will be an overall improvement on the Ki-61 and will also give the Japs another plane as they don't have many at the mo.

VW-IceFire
02-12-2005, 12:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lucas_valentine:
I've just spent the last week flying nothing but Ki-61's online and I can tell you it is a fantastic plane. It is almost as manuverable as a Spitfire and on a number of occasions I have out-manuvered Zeros! You all say its not much of a fighter, but I beg to differ. At one point during an online dogfight I hadn't been shot down for an hour and several other people on the server had all change to Ki-61's! I will admit it is not a friendly plane to fly at first, but then again nor is an FW190, but when you get used to it, it's a lovely ride. What's more it looks all wrong, which makes it much more fun in my opinion. Personally I am looking forward to the Ki-100 as I believe it will be an overall improvement on the Ki-61 and will also give the Japs another plane as they don't have many at the mo. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree. The Ki-61 is a fine aircraft...and the 20mm armed veriant is excellent at dispatching the opposition.

The Ki-100 won't be better than the Ki-84 in any way really but it should be a nice plane to fly and a good aircraft for variety sake. It should be just fast enough to get in close and apparently its even more agile than the Ki-61s so manuverability will surely be great http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

How on earth the original poster puts the Ki-100 in the may or may not be flyable category is beyond me. Its pretty clear: its coming...eventually.

3.JG51_BigBear
02-12-2005, 12:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Ki-100 won't be better than the Ki-84 in any way really but it should be a nice plane to fly and a good aircraft for variety sake. It should be just fast enough to get in close and apparently its even more agile than the Ki-61s so manuverability will surely be great http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

How on earth the original poster puts the Ki-100 in the may or may not be flyable category is beyond me. Its pretty clear: its coming...eventually. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It will be nice for variety and should be slightly more manueverable but it still won't have the speed to get in close. The Ki-100 and the Ki-84 are in two completely different leagues.

EnGaurde
02-12-2005, 08:56 PM
WTE_Gog

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> So, I see by the latest non-update, because that's what it amounts to, a non-event, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

online rants and childish tantrums make baby jesus cry. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

and He kills a fluffy cute kitten to make you feel guilty. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

i lurve this sim as much as anybody.

but i do take it lightly, and i do not require the How Do I Keep My Faith In Humanity Now A Russian Developer Wont Do What I Want therapy session from my local shrink.

Sheesh.

Lighten Up !

Or mebbe find something more vital to you than what 1C sells? I hear something called a "girl" can be fun... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

1C?

Olegs direction?

que sera....

EPP-Gibbs
02-13-2005, 05:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jarink:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Ya, Mitsubishi G4M1 "Betty" is the only thing Promised on the box that we don't have yet. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the only thing I think Oleg really _needs_ to deliver, since it is listed on the box as a flyable a/c.

You will note by my number of posts (this is #2) that I'm new here, but I have been down this whole "the deveoper owes xxxxx to us" road before with other games. Apparently some people not realise what it takes to research, create and test a flyable a/c model. From what little I have experienced with this game, I think Oleg and 1C deserve more gratitude than gripes. If this was a game from a different company (say, one that starts with "E" and ends with "A" and is two letters long) not only would this game not be 'complete', but you'd be lucky to get _any_ support or _free_ add-ons at all.

My 10-year old son and I are so hooked on this game already, I've started combing the local stores for copies of FB and AEP. I want more and I'm willing to pay for it! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed...it seems to be the same effect as giving a child presents.

(1)The more you give, the more they want.
(2)The more presents they have, the less value each one has.
(3)The better the present is, the higher the expectations are for the next one.
(4)Any shortfall on the parent's side in meeting these elevated expectations results in hysteria and disappointment.

Uncanny parallels with certain sections of the IL-2 community?

I'm just eternally grateful to have what we've been given. Cheers, IC! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

S.taibanzai
02-13-2005, 05:48 AM
Walkaround & cockpit pics real K-100 ko

http://users.pandora.be/Aircraftwalkarounds/Images/KawasakiKI100/KawasakiKI100/



Role Fighter

Crew One

Engines 1 x Mitsubishi Ha-112-II air-cooled radial

Span 39ft 4.1/2in

Length 28ft 10.1/2in

Height 12ft 3.1/2in

Max. Speed 367 mph

Range 1,243 miles

Armament (nose) 2 x 12.7mm MG
(wings) 2 x 20mm cannon

Bombload Two drop tanks
or two 551lb bombs



When we last left the story of the Ki-61, the Japanese Army was faced with the unhappy prospect of all those Ki-61-II airframes sitting around waiting for installation of their Ha-140 liquid-cooled engines. The Ha-140 engine had proven to be totally unreliable, and, to make matters worse, the factory manufacturing the Ha-140 had been destroyed in a B-29 raid. Since Japan desperately needed aircraft capable of intercepting the B-29, in November of 1944 the Ministry of Munitions instructed Kawasaki to install a different powerplant in the Ki-61-II in an attempt to get as many aircraft in the air as possible.
After some sniffing around, Kawasaki finally settled on the 1500 hp Mitsubishi Ha-112-II fourteen-cylinder double-row radial engine. This engine had established a standard of easy maintenance and reliable service, which contrasted markedly with the notoriously unreliable and temperamental Ha-140. However, the Ha-112 was a radial engine, and, with a diameter of four feet, the installation of this engine in a fuselage only 33 inches wide provided a major challenge. However, the Kawasaki concern was guided in its work by being able to study the engine mount in an imported Focke-Wulf Fw 190A, an example in which a wide radial engine had been successfully installed in an airframe with a narrow width. In addition, the same Mitsubishi Ha-112 radial engine had been successfully installed in the Aichi-built D4Y3 (Allied code name JUDY) dive bomber, earlier versions of which had been powered by a liquid-cooled engine.

The new project was sufficiently different from the Ki-61 Hien that it was assigned a new Kitai number: Ki-100. Three Ki-61-II airframes were experimentally modified as Ki-100s by the installation of the Ha-112 radial. The first Ki-100 prototype aircraft made its first flight on February 1, 1945. The results of the flight testing exceeded everyone's expectations. The Ki-100 was about 600 pounds lighter than its Ki-61-II predecessor. Maneuverability and handling were markedly improved due to the lower wing and power loading. Although the maximum speed of the Ki-100 was slightly lower than that of the Ki-61-II because of the higher drag exerted by the radial engine, this performance could be reliably attained because of the better reliability of the Ha-112 engine. The design was ordered into immediate production as the Army Type 5 Fighter Model 1A (Ki-100-Ia).

The first Type 5 fighters (Ki-100-Ia) were direct conversions of existing Ki-61-II airframes. 271 airframes were converted between March and June 1945, and were immediately delivered to operational units.

The Ki-100 was simple to fly and maintain. Even the most inexperienced pilots were able to get the hang of the Ki-100 relatively quickly. The Ha-112 engine proved to be quite reliable and simple to maintain. In combat, the Ki-100-Ia proved to be an excellent fighter, especially at low altitudes. It possessed a definite ascendancy over the Grumman F6F Hellcat. In one encounter over Okinawa, a Ki-100-equipped unit destroyed 14 F6F Hellcat fighters without loss to themselves. When the Ki-100 encountered the P-51D Mustang at low or medium altitudes over Japan, it was able to meet the American fighter on more or less equal terms. The outcome of P- 51D vs Ki-100 battles was usually determined by piloting skill or by numerical advantage rather than by the relative merits of the two fighter types. However, at altitudes above 26,000 feet, the maneuverability of the Ki-100 began to fall off rather severely and the fighter was at a relative disadvantage in intercepting the high-flying B-29.

So far as I am aware, the Ki-100 never had a separate Allied code name assigned to it. It may, for all I know, have been known under the code name of its predecessor --- TONY.

By June, 1945, all of the Ki-61-II airframes had been used up, and further Ki-100s were built from the outset as radial-powered machines. This version was designated Ki-100-Ib. The Ki-100-Ib differed from the Ki-100-Ia in having an all-round vision hood similar to that fitted to the experimental Ki-61-III. The first Ki-100-Ib fighters were built at the Kagamigahara and Ichinomiya Kawasaki factories in May of 1945, but production was severely hampered by the continual Allied bombing. Plans had been made to produce 200 fighters per month, but the Ichinomiya plant was forced to shut down in July 1945 after having built only 12 aircraft, and the Kagamigahara plant had its production severely curtailed by aerial attacks. By the time of the Japanese surrender, only 118 Ki-100-Ib aircraft had been delivered.

In an attempt to improve the high-altitude performance, the Ki-100-II version was evolved. It was powered by a 1500 hp Mitsubishi Ha-112-II Ru with a turbosupercharger and water-methanol injection to boost power for short intervals. Because of a lack of space, the turbosupercharger had to be mounted underneath the engine without provision for an intercooler and its associated ducting, with air being ducted directly from the compressor to the carburetor. It first flew in May 1945. The lack of an intercooler limited the high-altitude performance of the Ki-100-II, and the turbosupercharger added 600 pounds to the weight, which reduced maximum speed by 15 mph at 10,000 feet. However, the boosted high-altitude power enabled a maximum speed of 367 mph to be be reached at 32,800 feet (the cruising altitude of the B-29 during daylight operations). It had been planned to begin production of the Ki-100-II in September of 1945, but only three prototypes of this high-altitude interceptor had been produced by the time of the Japanese surrender.

A total of 396 Ki-100s were built, including 275 Ki-61-II conversions, 118 Ki-100-Ib production aircraft built from scratch, and three Ki-100-II prototypes. Most of them were assigned to the defense of the home islands, operating from Chofu and Yokkaichi from the spring of 1945. At the end of the war, two Ki-100-Ibs were shipped to the USA for evaluation. I don't know what happened to these planes. Presumably, they were scrapped in the late 1940s, along with a lot of other captured Axis aircraft.

Specification of Kawasaki Ki-100-Ia Army Type 5 Fighter Model 1a:

One Army Type 4 fourteen-cylinder air-cooled radial (Mitsubishi [Ha-33] 62 or Ha-112-II) rated at 1500 hp for takeoff 1350 hp at 6560 feet and 1250 hp at 19,030 feet.

Performance: Maximum speed 360 mph at 19,685 feet and 332 mph at 32,810 feet. An altitude of 16,405 feet could be attained in 6 minutes. Service ceiling 36,090 feet. Maximum range 1367 miles. Dimensions: Wingspan 34 4 7/16 inches, length 28 feet 11 1/4 inches, height 12 feet 3 5/8 inches, wing area 215.3 square feet.

Weights: 5567 pounds empty, 7705 pounds loaded.

Armament: Two fuselage-mounted 20-mm Ho 5 cannon and two wing- mounted 12.7 mm machine guns.

Sources:
Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1979.
Famous Fighters of the Second World War, William Green, Doubleday, 1967.
War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume 3, William Green, Doubleday, 1964.

JG53Frankyboy
02-13-2005, 05:55 AM
sure, it will be a deadly oponent for the F6F !

but F4U, P-51 , P-47 , P-38 pilots will just have to keep the speed high.

S.taibanzai
02-13-2005, 05:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RocketDog:
The Ki-100 will be a reasonable low-altitude should just about be able to hold its own against Hellcats,

Regards,

RocketDog.

Blue = F4U-1D
Red = Ki-100

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/RocketDog/Image1.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Wrong !!!!!


Read again, tel me where do you get the info that the KI-100 was a low altitude fighter ?
And can barely stand vs the Hellcat

You are so wrong

Even the p-51 got troubles when they encouter the KI-100

VMF223_Smitty
02-13-2005, 06:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
I agree 100% with what you're saying. Could maybe be said a bit more diplomaticaly, but you defnitely have a point. This is kind of a half hearted response to a bunch of upset customers who are going to be more upset when they find that someof the things on that list ended up in the "may not be" category. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since when was diplomacy a common commodity on this forum. I want, I need, I didn't get. Scream, yell, threaten, stomp your feet.

VMF223_Smitty
02-13-2005, 06:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

Agreed...it seems to be the same effect as giving a child presents.

(1)The more you give, the more they want.
(2)The more presents they have, the less value each one has.
(3)The better the present is, the higher the expectations are for the next one.
(4)Any shorfall on the parent's side in meeting these elevated expectations results in hysteria and disappointment.

Uncanny parallels with certain sections of the IL-2 community?

I'm just eternally grateful to have what we've been given. Cheers, IC! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hit the nail on the head there 'ol buddy.

EnGaurde
02-13-2005, 07:13 AM
ee gads.

that post about the kids and how they see freebies, is astounding.

paraphrased, comes to mind.

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

RocketDog
02-13-2005, 07:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S.taibanzai:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RocketDog:
The Ki-100 will be a reasonable low-altitude should just about be able to hold its own against Hellcats,

Regards,

RocketDog.

Blue = F4U-1D
Red = Ki-100

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/RocketDog/Image1.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Wrong !!!!!


Read again, tel me where do you get the info that the KI-100 was a low altitude fighter ?
And can barely stand vs the Hellcat

You are so wrong

Even the p-51 got troubles when they encouter the KI-100 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We are not getting the Ki-100-II. We are getting the Ki-100-I. This has been very clearly stated in the development updates.

The figure posted shows the in-game performance curves for the Ki-100-I variant that we are getting. They clearly show that the Ki-100-I will struggle against Allied aircraft like the F4U. As you can see from the figure, the F4U is faster at all heights, but the maximum speeds of the aircraft start to diverge significantly above about 3,000 m. By 7,000 m the F4U is almost exactly 100 kph faster than the Ki-100-I. At this height the Ki is also outclimbed by the F4U. The speed difference is a huge advantage for the F4U and means that the Ki-100 will be little more than a target if faced by even moderately well-flown F4Us. If I were flying a Ki-100-I with the performance characteristics suggested by IL-2 compare, I would attempt to keep the fight below 3,000 m and force as much energy bleeding as possible to capitalise on the better turn rate of the Ki. Against the P-51 it would also suffer, but against the slightly slower Hellcat it would have more of a chance. However, the same general conclusion applies.

If you believe the Ki-100-I is going to be an effective high-altitude fighter people will look forward to meeting you online http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Regards,

RocketDog.

Atomic_Marten
02-13-2005, 09:11 AM
Guys wait then see. We may all be surprised by Ki100s chars, but then again, aome of may not be http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

My personal opinion is that Ki100 will be very good fighter, but for ultimate destruction you will stil need Ki84C.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Asgeir_Strips
02-13-2005, 09:49 AM
To be completely honest, i would rather see some american battleships, japanese cruisers, Maps of the whole Solomon islands chain, New guinea , philippines and China, but that's allready mentioned.. And of course aircraft like the TBF,TBD, B5N , B6N B7A..... Couldn't care less about the Ki-100 , unnecessary imo....

And last but not least, more carriers... I dont think we really need all those 1945 airplanes. but i think we need more of the planes that fought early in the war, and all fronts.. Thats what really matters to me.. Not that we have all those uber exotic planes that fought in like 3 moths or so....

RocketDog
02-13-2005, 10:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Asgeir_Strips:
Couldn't care less about the Ki-100 , unnecessary imo....
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm really looking forward to it because in late-war scenarios it will at able to take on the P-51s, F4Us, F6Fs, P-47s (D standing in for N) and Seafires that operated over the Japanses mainland without being totally embarrassed. At the moment we've only got the Ki-84 (and a suspiciously good one at that) as a flyable to take on quite a range of the Allied stuff. Without a Ki-100 or George or Raiden as flyable there's not much choice for the IJA/N player.

Of course, I agree it would be nice to see some early-war aircraft, but I will be happy with whatever we get.

Regards,

RocketDog.

ElAurens
02-13-2005, 11:40 AM
I will never understand complaining about free aircraft. The KI-100 will be a nice addition to the rather limited Imperial Japanese plane set.

And please, the focus on top speed is somewhat misplaced. There is no doubt that speed is an important advantage, but, when it gets "down and dirty" and we all know that online it does, agility is a good thing to have. the KI-100 wil be more agile than the KI-61 and have greater acceleration.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Aero_Shodanjo
02-13-2005, 10:08 PM
It seems that some ppl here dont understand that bigger number doesnt always means far better overall performance.

As many in this thread has pointed out, the Ki-100 was mainly a modified Ki-61 fitted with radial instead of inline engine.

Here's a partial list of main (operational) Japanese army fighter planes during the war:

Ki-43 Hayabusa (allied codename: Oscar)
Ki-44 (allied codename: Tojo)
Ki-61 Hien (allied codename: Tony)
Ki-84 Hayate (allied codename: Frank)
Ki-100 Goshikien (modified Ki-61 with radial engine)

So there it is. Bigger designation number doesnt always means superior performance.

Speaking about B-29 intercept, Japanese has atleast one type of fighter that designed specifically to counter B-29. But AFAIK the war ended before this type managed to get airborne:

Ki-94II
http://www.samoloty.ow.pl/rys/rys056.jpg
www.samoloty.ow.pl/str088.htm (http://www.samoloty.ow.pl/str088.htm)

Cess-SGTRoc
02-14-2005, 06:32 AM
I spoke to an employee at a large software store today and found something that set me back.
I asked him why there where so many IL2 Forgoten battles games and PF boxes that where brought back to the store and traded in. Also the Gold versions, they where going for very little money at all.
He stated that the game is brought back almost the same day when most buy it. I asked why, and he stated that it was because all the planes where not in the game, and when they read the file from the game that it said the rest of the planes would be released in a few weeks, and they came here to the forum and found they where not even out yet. He also stated that the ones who bought PF and found that they could not play on line inless they had the Merged version loaded, then they would have to go and buy the older games to get it to work they would say no.

Also they found that the patchs for the sim wher hard to find and to get sorted out to install.

I thought about this and for us, the die hard flight sim fans this is the best game out and we will do what it takes to be able to fly. But to the avarage gamer they will not. And when you see all you have to do to just play the sim online it is a task that most will not take or some , afford.

So I called my brother , he is one of the players who like the sim and bought up the the AEP version, and I asked him why he did not keep going. He stated to me that he had bought PF and waied for the { Other CD to Be released }. and when it did not come as stated he said it was to much trouble and a mess of patches to keep buying , he then said he sold it on Ebay. Hmm , I told him it was not that hard and he said Hey they did not even put in all the american planes in the PF, you cannot even fly the sim battles with the most basic planes that where on the ships at the start of the war.
Well I see his point but for me the game is alot of fun, but I am seeing that for most it is not, and for the avarge person who playes games it is to them at least to hard to pull all the parts together to just to get to fly.

One other thing the employee of the store said that botherd me, was that the Managment is not in any hurry to carry this game anymore because of the way it has been marketed, and that there had been to many complaints about the company not even taking the time to get the last CD out for PF as it was stated in the sim.
There was a note on the shelv where the PF boxes where, it said that the store was not responsable for the last CD that is stated in the paper work of the cd, and that the buyer would have to contact the game supplyer on this.


Well I do not know but to look at it from there point of view ,The sim may just be to much of a hassle to carry.
I just hope we can find a place to buy BOB when it comes out. Because this sim , no matter how good it is , Is at this time getting a bad rap hanging around its neck.

And yes I would like to Buy BoB, but this time , before ordering online before the sim even hits the shelves, I am going to wait till it has been out for awhile and make sure my self that all of the sim is there and that it is just what it has been advertised as.

Because as much as I like to fly the sim and yes I do love it, the planes that where promised to us in the print of the PF cd did not come as stated . And now reading the Post by Oleg , it does not look like the will come. I am just a little skiddish about what is printed on the box and in the paperwork.
Yes it is one of the best, and yes I have been flying it sense the demo first came out. Wow what along time ago that seems now.

But is some ways I have to agree with my Brother and the people who are bringing the sim back, it's not all there or here , how ever you may wish to look at it.

And then to read in Olegs post that the PE2 is out and has been out for awhile, but just in Russia. Why . All of us have been waiting for that aircraft for along time. Infact the last thing I read about it is that it was to hard to model and would not be put in the sim . Hmm.

RocketDog
02-14-2005, 07:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cess-SGTRoc:

He stated that the game is brought back almost the same day when most buy it. I asked why, and he stated that it was because all the planes where not in the game, and when they read the file from the game that it said the rest of the planes would be released in a few weeks, and they came here to the forum and found they where not even out yet. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do not believe you.

At all.

I think you are 15-years old and making this up.

Regards,

RocketDog.

VW-IceFire
02-14-2005, 08:15 AM
I would doubt that the vast majority of people would bring it back because of those reasons. Most players are not aware of the issues here and I'd be quite surprised if they were. Very surprised infact.

We're all in tune with things because of this active and closenit community.

Blackdog5555
02-14-2005, 09:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Asgeir_Strips:
To be completely honest, i would rather see some american battleships, japanese cruisers, Maps of the whole Solomon islands chain, New guinea , philippines and China, but that's allready mentioned.. And of course aircraft like the TBF,TBD, B5N , B6N B7A..... Couldn't care less about the Ki-100 , unnecessary imo....

And last but not least, more carriers... I dont think we really need all those 1945 airplanes. but i think we need more of the planes that fought early in the war, and all fronts.. Thats what really matters to me.. Not that we have all those uber exotic planes that fought in like 3 moths or so.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree 100%..the six new Italian planes will be good for attacking Ethiopia or Albania but not much good for defending the Phillipines. My love is recreating historical battles. without decent maps PF will never be complete. Its still a very nice patch. I have a high end system and wanted terrain to lok more like it does in FS2004 wher New Guiene is actuallt 12,000 ft. at its highest like in RL. Turquoise Lagoons and lush tropical forests. Yadda yadda. Kingfisher and PBY, flyable TBMs would have made the game a 5 out of 5. Thanks Oleg for a very nice sim. please give the community a SDK package for terrain building (sp)..Cheers LOL

DuxCorvan
02-14-2005, 10:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
...the six new Italian planes will be good for attacking Ethiopia or Albania but not much good for defending the Phillipines. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In fact, those planes are there because a group of 3rd party Italian fans worked a lot, fast and well. If someone had made those planes, and their cockpits earlier, then they would be there too, but, unfortunately, a contract clausule denied the 3rd party the ability to know what was being developed and what not, and many aircraft were 'reserved' by Luthier's team, that were never made on time or well enough. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

WTE_Gog
02-14-2005, 05:24 PM
No-one can in ,good conscience complain about certain aircraft not being available for PF.

This posts purpose was to highlight to, well anyone, that the designers do themselves no favours by saying publicly that certain aircraft will be available 'soon', thier delivery record in the past is not complementary.
There should be one gripe and one gripe only on here and that is the Betty. It was on the box, the excuses came and said it would be available very soon and it didn't come.

Secondary to the Betty is the Ki-100-ko, only because Oleg said it was done and would be released with v 303. It didn't happen.

All the rest, like the P47N, F4U's, Dornier Pfiel, Ju88, Mosquito etc etc have to be seen as a bonus and will come when they do (if they ever do). We have no right to complain about them because they were never on the box or in the immediate post PF release documents.

All the problems and whining that goes on here are either a direct result of morons and there over inflated wish lists for aircraft that hold a special place in thier hearts that they think they have some god given right to fly or directly from comments made by 1C employees or the sites many fanboys that are kept 'in the loop' by 1C.

This is all perpetuated by the poor, almost non-existant comms from 1C in relation to what the community will be getting. Notice I said WILL BE GETTING, not may be getting.

A question for the fanboys. Picture your number one fave aircraft in PF, the one that you fly almost exclusively online. Now imagine it never came with the game. That is how Betty pilots feel, that is why I bought PF, because I wanted to sink allied ships in a medium bomber. That is my specialty and the other members of my unit will back me up and that is why I am p.issed at the developers and that is why, once the Betty is delivered, that I will no longer come here and complain because as far as I will be concerned, they would have made good on thier promise and I will have what I bought the game for.
Is that too hard for some of this posts participants to understand? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

ImpStarDuece
02-14-2005, 06:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:

without decent maps PF will never be complete. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm...

Have you look at previous MAddox products? PF shipped with 13 new maps, not including multiplayer or variations on theme, many larger than any that had been attempted or implemented in the sim before.

The original IL2, plus FB, plus AEP, only has 13 maps. I dont know why your complaining. No-where have I ever seen the claim 'able to recreate EVERy battle in the PTO' for the sim. You have a limited selection, but its still MORE of a selection than was included in any previous product released by 1C or any of its competition.

I think many of the more vocal people here would of been happy with a more concentrated sim. If, instead of attempting a representative sample of the PTO airwar, PF had been concentrated around, say, the first 6 months of the war, would that of made you happier?

Its a big job to represent ANY theater of the war. Planes, ships, tanks, airfirlds, maps, terrain sets, weapons ect. Stuff is ALWAYS going to get left out. Maybe the developers had slightly different priorities fromthe (major) customer base.

I'm just going to shrug my shoulders, stop visiting the forums so much and go and play the game. Why? Well, despite the flaws, its a fine piece of flight simming and a hell of a lot of fun!

If you combine

carguy_
02-14-2005, 07:15 PM
Great as I see many ppl who took the game back done it because of their STUPIDITY.The sim is sentenced to being dumped by lazy 'casual players' who are preaching CFS to the heavens and who frankly are the majority of the whole gaming world.
At least they don`t come here and brag about how they hate the game like some do.

Yeah you can flame me all you want for not being politically correct.

When I first played IL2 I dumped it on me shelve for 2 months and got hooked once I looked into it.

I have never managed to get my father into IL2.He wants to get into action fast and just shoot stuff and think he is able to fly an airplane LOL.He stalls on easiest settings and doesn`t even understand how is looking around in the plane done.Even if he`s working hard,he has 2-3 daily free(boredom) hours but he`s too lazy to look into IL2.I guess many players feel the same.

As for PF the only thing Oleg owes to them is the Betty.I agree on that.Anything beyond stated on the box/readme is FREE ADDON damm!t!!!

As for me once I witnessed the support I`ve never seen ANY developer covering so many promises.


PF as a game is missing Betty.With it it will be complete.

Missing ships/planes/objects?Yeah I can brag about German battleships or Arado bomber or whatever the game will NEVER be complete if one thinks that way.

H@ll we shouldn`t even be getting bugfixes if the game runs well on every machine!


The future of 1C:MG sims has two ways to go.Become arcade to be easy for the public or continue being hardcore and getting small sales.Cuz whenever gets very good,a vast majority of morons will mess it up.

However I agree on the general idea.You don`t like the game,just take it back,problem solved.

Cess-SGTRoc
02-14-2005, 07:47 PM
RocketDog It really does not matter if you beleive me or not. And to ages stick to playing the sim.

And yes I do know and I am sure that I am informed on this sim more than you would ever know.
After being here for all these years it bothers me for the outcome of this sim. I think that Oleg is being led around , but I am sure that he is learning. But after having to listen to some of the users on here there is no wonder that messages are emailed to us now instead of posting here himself.

Blackdog5555
02-14-2005, 09:55 PM
Impstarduece, (may the force be with you) I dont know what your point is except im sure your very bored. My point is simple. for "Pacific fighters" the developers have proposed to offer a couple of possible Japanese planes and one new map for a possible "free patch". possible Singapore map. You are impressed by the Developers work with his "13" maps. I am not impressed by the maps. (BTW My junk CFS2 has about 100 maps some better than PF), In PF Tinian Is a joke. Wake, Midway and Tarawa, etc. all have the right shape and basic airstrip location but beyond that they might as well be Fantasy Island for their resemblance to anything in the PTO. All The Terrain Building software is just showing its age. Old. There was no effort to create any "real" historical events and no real PTO historical characters were used (mentioned yes). Really, most people dont give 2 shakes about the real history of WWII in the PTO. I do care. Just my personal opinion. For alot of people, Pacific Fighters is just a first person shooter or a flight sim without terrain. Who cares. If you like the terrain and maps then you are easily satisfied. good for you. As if anyone cares i would like the dveloper to provide a SDK (software developer Kit) so the community can build its own, better terrain. It will never happen.I have the merged package. The merged planeset is ok. Ok, so dont drink the Romulan Gin. The 151/20 are perfect too. I like the 50s. Really. Lucky to get 4 out 5. cheers

Blackdog5555
02-14-2005, 09:56 PM
And yes, Im am bored too!

ImpStarDuece
02-14-2005, 11:02 PM
I am at work and addmittedly slightly bored so I might just waste someones bandwidth with a reply.


My point, my point. I knew I had one around here somewhere. Ah, there it is! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

My point is this: The game we have is the game we have. Our complaining isn't really worth our time. Its not perfect. PF is far from it. For some people there are some GLARING, unforgivable, ommisions http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif. Not for me though.

For me its the best there is http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif. Its the best product of its type on the market, BAR NONE. There has been an INCREDIBLE amount of work that has gone in this expansion of the serise. More work than was ever intended. Most people cant see the forest for the missing trees though.

What we have isn't the complete pacific war air sim that many people were looking for. Here is the thing though; it was never intended to simulate EVERYTHING in the PTO. Funny that. Its not a sample sim, to be sure, but its not a comprehensive theater sim either. It was never claimed, anywhere, that it was going to be. We were going to get the Pacific Theater to play around in, a new sim in as much that FB was an extension of IL2.

As a standalone it is passable. Good? Maybe. Great, perhaps not. As a merged game it is fan-freaking-tastic. But, the same could be said about IL2 and FB, because that is basically what FB was.

For me I would of like to have seen this sim released slightly differently and the marketing to have been a little different. My personal preference would of been PF as a standalone and PF automatically bundled with FB/AEP. I would of marketed PF as an adjunct to the IL2 family, not a standalone. It raisd expectations unnecessarily high and its popularity with newcomers has been adjusted.

PF/IL2/FB are a different ball game from pervious sims. They are supported and modded and pushed and pulled but its done insode, internally, with a degree of quality control that I, for one, like. I hget the screaming heebies when old hands from CFS2 and 3 come in here maoaning and complaining abut this and that. Its like a basballer showing up at a test match cricket game and balling out the umpire about whats wrong with the game.

I have my game. I was happy with FB, but i'm much happier now that I have my hands (for all of 3 weeks so far) on PF. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif I will enjoy whats there, support the company that has given me so many free addtions to the serise and leave the nay sayers by the wayside. I know what its like to complain and whine about a game, I also know the futility of it. One of my old handles here was CF3Sux http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WTE_DuStA
02-15-2005, 02:20 AM
and why did it take many many months to get the dedicated server. that alone could very well have killed the community off.

WTE_DuStA
02-15-2005, 02:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
A question for the fanboys. Picture your number one fave aircraft in PF, the one that you fly almost exclusively online. Now imagine it never came with the game. That is how Betty pilots feel, that is why I bought PF, because I wanted to sink allied ships in a medium bomber. That is my specialty and the other members of my unit will back me up and that is why I am p.issed at the developers and that is why, once the Betty is delivered, that I will no longer come here and complain because as far as I will be concerned, they would have made good on thier promise and I will have what I bought the game for. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



I haven't seen many ppl that can fly a he-111 better than Gog

JG53Frankyboy
02-15-2005, 03:48 AM
im realy very seldom asking for planes to ad.
because i know how much work it is to do one , and if the planes are comming from 3.party designers, it should be their choice what they are doing because its their time !

BUT , UBI/Maddox sold a STANDALONE game called PacificFighters. yes, i could imagine before that the maps and planed would NOT represent the whole pacific war.
also , as mainly building coop missions (for the VOW2 pacific campaign) and realy enoying mostly playing coop missions (im very seldom on digfightservers) i PERSONALLY can live with the carriertorpedobombers as AI only , sad but ok.
nevertheless, the kind of plane im realy missing for historical missions is a IJAAF bomber (Ki-21, Ki-48 as i already said).

these announced planes for the future are all very welcome and nice - but as to remember , the sold that PF - and the most dont fit in the pacific ! also for the late italians (im soory for that, and they are realy just an example !) there is no map at all !
and thinking of the manpower for their work , its still a pitty for me that there is no armybomber( sure as AI only)announced.
well, perhaps there will be a surprise , who knows.

Asgeir_Strips
02-15-2005, 08:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:

without decent maps PF will never be complete. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The original IL2, plus FB, plus AEP, only has 13 maps. I dont know why your complaining. No-where have I ever seen the claim 'able to recreate EVERy battle in the PTO' for the sim. You have a limited selection, but its still MORE of a selection than was included in any previous product released by 1C or any of its competition.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would YOU have created a Pacific War Sim without, the whole theater of ops? Its okay if they state that they are only going to make certain maps, but its called "Pacific Fighters" and then i think that everything that is connected to the PTO is in the game, if its not stadet otherwise... Personally i dont think thats too much to ask.. And don't call me a whiner or a n00b or something like that!

I think PF is a good game, but i would only give the game a rating 4/6 points, or kuje 75-80%/100% because the game could be SO much betterm but 1C wasted its opportunity, lets hope they make a better PTO addon based on the BoB engine in a couple of years..

Blackdog5555
02-15-2005, 10:45 AM
Yes, I quess its the eternal debate over wether the glass is half full or half empty. For a flight simmer this is a dream come true (almost) since nobody else is making good high fidelity Combat sims. My comments are not..repeat, not complaints. Just observations. LOL. But doing Pacific fighters without the "slot", Soloman Islands (Munda) cant have a good VMF214, (no Pappy). Without CBI map you dont have Flying Tigers, Without Darwin, you dont have the Defense of Australia. No Philipines, no Leyte Gulf. No mainland Japan, no B29 escort, Dutch East Indies..no bla bla bla etc etc etc..See, I dont care about planea or the plane sets. (I wish we had a Ki27 and Claude for the Japanese side But no China theatre so...o well.) I just think the Developer made a huge mistake in leaving out 75% of the Pacific Theatre of operations. I would buy it as an addon. Most the maps in PF involve mostly land invasions/ operations. A SDK would help. Anyway, I will live..lol. The glass is 80% full if your talking planes. The glass is 25% full if your talking the PTO. Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Asgeir_Strips
02-15-2005, 01:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Yes, I quess its the eternal debate over wether the glass is half full or half empty. For a flight simmer this is a dream come true (almost) since nobody else is making good high fidelity Combat sims. My comments are not..repeat, not complaints. Just observations. LOL. But doing Pacific fighters without the "slot", Soloman Islands (Munda) cant have a good VMF214, (no Pappy). Without CBI map you dont have Flying Tigers, Without Darwin, you dont have the Defense of Australia. No Philipines, no Leyte Gulf. No mainland Japan, no B29 escort, Dutch East Indies..no bla bla bla etc etc etc..See, I dont care about planea or the plane sets. (I wish we had a Ki27 and Claude for the Japanese side But no China theatre so...o well.) I just think the Developer made a huge mistake in leaving out 75% of the Pacific Theatre of operations. I would buy it as an addon. Most the maps in PF involve mostly land invasions/ operations. A SDK would help. Anyway, I will live..lol. The glass is 80% full if your talking planes. The glass is 25% full if your talking the PTO. Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Couldn't have said it better meself, and i too would buy a new addon with maps and new planes, if they were to release one sometime.......

WTE_DuStA
02-16-2005, 05:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EnGaurde:
WTE_Gog

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> So, I see by the latest non-update, because that's what it amounts to, a non-event, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

online rants and childish tantrums make baby jesus cry. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

and He kills a fluffy cute kitten to make you feel guilty. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

i lurve this sim as much as anybody.

but i do take it lightly, and i do not require the How Do I Keep My Faith In Humanity Now A Russian Developer Wont Do What I Want therapy session from my local shrink.

Sheesh.

Lighten Up !

Or mebbe find something more vital to you than what 1C sells? I hear something called a "girl" can be fun... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

1C?

Olegs direction?

que sera.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


i think he is entitled to his opinion and its warranted as things that were promised from the very beginning have not been followed through with. We paid for a game that was supposedly 3 cd's , so where is the third cd .


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Since when was diplomacy a common commodity on this forum. I want, I need, I didn't get. Scream, yell, threaten, stomp your feet.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well how else are things going to be done .


I for one would rather see the planes we were promised from the beginning than these new planes. No we shouldn;t be made to pay for patches that should be providing us with that "3rd" cd . Stop working on new planes and provide us with the magical 3rd cd .


After all this fiasco i would be surprised if as many people bought BOB straight away . I know it will be doing the rounds on bittorrent sites unless there is some kind of copy protection . If i remember correctly we were supposed to be able to run dedicated co-op servers as well, whatever happened to that promise . Seems to me there have been too many broken promises. Maybe Oleg should become a pollitician :P

EnGaurde
02-16-2005, 06:05 PM
hmmm you do have a point with the buying of BoB straight up idea.

the other side of that coin is that the negative-nancys that love to come on these boards and write everything off ad nauseam ad infinitum, and the resulting b!tch fight about it, would skew the actual situation somewhat as to if enough was missing to bother me if at all.

i'll still buy BoB, seeing i know it will be a playable, fun sim with plenty of depth to immerse myself in despite the inevitable shortcomings it will have.

Tailgator
02-16-2005, 07:12 PM
the one thing i dont understand about these arguements is why some are so against anyone that wants some PTO content added? its only 3 months old.

myself im alittle tired of the little ETO ankle-biters *yap yap yapin* at us, and then running to other threads and triing to hop onto olegs lap to *pant* for more ETO content

after all, if its time to work on bob, its time to stop working on ETO as well.

flame on

ElAurens
02-16-2005, 07:58 PM
I have to agree with Tailgator here.

goshikisen
02-17-2005, 09:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nimits:
Do we even need the Ki-100? Sorry for my rant (nothing personal is intended against Ki-100 fans). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The question should be "do we need the bubbletop version of the Goshikisen in addition to the razorback...?" and the answer to that question would be "yes". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ships too...

VW-IceFire
02-17-2005, 01:45 PM
If we operated on the principle of not having unecessary aircraft in the game then we'd just have two generic aircraft: one painted red and the other painted blue. They'd have the best flight models ever http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

...but my entertainment value would be so much less. Why have any plane? Why bother with anything at all then? Ki-100 is a great plane to add to the lineup, it gives the Japanese another aircraft to fly, another fighter to combat the varried massses of Allied aircraft, and another piece of history to learn about it.

To me this is so much more than just "another game". Its a entertainment product that very seriously looks at a piece of history and attempts to replicate it...

The thing that separates the average gamer and the average PF player from a simulation and avaiation buff is not in the playing of the game (or the proficiency) but in the time spent learning and knowing the history. The Ki-100 offers us another possibility for that...like ANY plane does.

ElAurens
02-17-2005, 04:09 PM
Think of the Ki100 as a better accelerating, more maneuverable, better climbing, and better armed KI61.

Sounds good, doesn't it?

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

goshikisen
02-17-2005, 06:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
Think of the Ki100 as a better accelerating, more maneuverable, better climbing, and better armed KI61.

Sounds good, doesn't it?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd like to think that the Ki-100's story, in a way, mirrors that of the Langnasen Dora. An existing airframe rethought and adapted to fill a need.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
If we operated on the principle of not having unecessary aircraft in the game then we'd just have two generic aircraft: one painted red and the other painted blue. They'd have the best flight models ever
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Icefire... your argument for the inclusion of the Ki-100 is exactly my thinking on the ships issue. Well said.

Regards, Goshikisen.

VW-IceFire
02-18-2005, 07:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by goshikisen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
Think of the Ki100 as a better accelerating, more maneuverable, better climbing, and better armed KI61.

Sounds good, doesn't it?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd like to think that the Ki-100's story, in a way, mirrors that of the Langnasen Dora. An existing airframe rethought and adapted to fill a need.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
If we operated on the principle of not having unecessary aircraft in the game then we'd just have two generic aircraft: one painted red and the other painted blue. They'd have the best flight models ever
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Icefire... your argument for the inclusion of the Ki-100 is exactly my thinking on the ships issue. Well said.

Regards, Goshikisen. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
For sure...I'm disappointed that we're going to miss some of the ships that were planned. Its very unfortunate.