PDA

View Full Version : Seriously, whats the future of Pacific Fighters?



VBF-83_Hawk
06-19-2005, 10:33 AM
It has been nine months since the release of PF. There has been patch after patch and we still dont know what the future holds.

There were suposidly copyright issues with allied planes thus the "reason" no flyable TBM although it already in the game. The P-51 Mustang, already in the game, was remodeled and named Mustang III, as well as the P-38 being updated as a higher horse power model. What gives here?

Also are the maps issues

So whats the future for PF. WIll it one day be complete?

All I ask is that when Oleg gets finished with this thing, I hope he gives the "engine" to someone who gives a rip so it can continue on and maybe one day be a "COMPLETE" PTO flight sim. There are enoough guys out there that enjoy designing these things, like the cockpit of the PBY, B-17 and the TBM so they can fly....as well as other IJN planes.

csThor
06-19-2005, 10:40 AM
Honestly? *imagine tombstone here*

BoB is the priority and all Maddox Games does is finishing what's finishable (which is not much) and then move over to BoB. This is also the way Ubisoft wants things to go. And re: Handing over the engine - forget it. Rather the Sahara will freeze over before that happens.

VBF-83_Hawk
06-19-2005, 10:56 AM
Makes me weary to pay my hard earned money for BoB if its anything like PF with all the missing airplanes, maps and its year long patches.

fordfan25
06-19-2005, 12:43 PM
yea i think PF was a let down when compaired to FB. the biggstr being the very half ***ed single player campaighns. i think the story goes that it was suposed to be the project of an out side dev. i wont say names in case this story is BS. and said out side dev could not eather handle it or bailed half way threw for what ever resone. so then 1c had to take over and finsh it up as fast as thay could because thay had to put BoB on hold while doing so. wich im sure put presure on them from UBI.

csThor
06-19-2005, 12:43 PM
TBH PF was a project that went awry - it was supposed to be a 3rd Party Job with Maddox Games offering technical assistance and incorporating the models into the game. In the end they had to do everything which left us with the shell of the PTO we have. I think on their own they would have never made a PTO game out of this engine.

Stackhouse25th
06-19-2005, 12:56 PM
they'll give us a few more planes, and then its BoB time

Tallyho1961
06-19-2005, 01:09 PM
My guess: People will keep flying it and have a great time doing so for a long time yet, as it is an excellent product.

RiesenSchnauzer
06-19-2005, 01:35 PM
It would be great if IC would turn the engine over to shockwave productions. They seem to do quality work and this would not result in a general leak of the engine to the public. This would also free up IC to focus on BOB.

Buzzsaw-
06-19-2005, 01:40 PM
At this point, considering the modelling of the aircraft in the game, as far as I'm concerned, the future is ZERO.

faustnik
06-19-2005, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
At this point, considering the modelling of the aircraft in the game, as far as I'm concerned, the future is ZERO.


It's not that bad Buzzsaw. The new intertia and torque effects seem great to me. Besides the broken Fw190 DM http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif the relative FMs seem pretty good. I don't see any other standouts. What in particular is bothering you?

Bearcat99
06-19-2005, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by Tallyho1961:
My guess: People will keep flying it and have a great time doing so for a long time yet, as it is an excellent product.

What he said......

Fennec_P
06-19-2005, 06:49 PM
The future of PF for me is countless more hours of online play.

With all the deficiencies, percieved or real, no other game deserves my time as much as PF.

I'll agree PF has some holes in content that would have been nice to fill. I, for example, would have liked to have made more ships for it, but events conspired to make it not be. I'm sure the modelers of other content ran into similar difficulties.

My understanding is that MG staff spent far more time than they intended on creating/fixing material for PF. I am thankful that the game turned out as well as it did, with lots of new planes, carriers, maps, ground objects, and now the improved FM. In any case, a worthwhile distraction until is BoB time.

And with the load of content in the current FB/AEP/PF bundle, some of which even I haven't had time to use yet, it'll continue to be fresh even if there are no more addons. Personally, I would enjoy the break to fully appreciate what is already there. Maybe fly all those planes I haven't tried yet.

Tooz_69GIAP
06-19-2005, 06:58 PM
Lets face it, PF is a complete screw up. Missing aircraft, bad map selection, missing ships. It's real only saving grace is you can merge it with FB, and even then we had fight tooth and nail to get that done.

It shouldn't have been started in my opinion. It wasted a lot of time.

Not that I'm ungrateful for being able to use carriers, and have some of these cool aircraft, I just think the entire project was mismanaged, and fell woefully short of the mark.

I think that we will probably receive one more add on, that we'll pay for, which I suspect will contain all the russian CD content, plus some extra stuff like the mossie, Ju-88, Ialian aircraft, and maybe some more, and then it will be on to BoB. And I think that is the right way to go about it.

Times have to move on.

fordfan25
06-19-2005, 07:07 PM
im beting this last update will be our last. maby 1 or 2 patchs to ajust some things.

Aeronautico
06-19-2005, 07:20 PM
What Tooz says, definitely.

WWMaxGunz
06-19-2005, 08:14 PM
Hard to believe. As of 4.01 we have much higher quality than the original bargain by far.
Yes, unforeseen events have made adding more US planes from certain corporations undoable
but instead we have an FM that's got so many real characteristics the dweebs can't understand
it. It's not perfect but hey the behaviour in general covers ground nothing else in combat
flights sims ever has!

Hey! Party time! This is a milestone in combat flight sims!

No bottles for babies, let them cry! They can go complain to M$! Now there's a company that
doesn't keep handing you patches for months on end, oh no! You get what you get and it sucks
but at least all the pieces are there even if they suck too! Booooooo-hoooooooooo! I want my
special pwanes! Whaaaaaaaaa!

VBF-83_Hawk
06-19-2005, 08:56 PM
Nice and respectful replys guys http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

LEXX_Luthor
06-19-2005, 09:07 PM
* New Idea *

Oleg should have done Pacific long ago, instead of the Western Euro AEP, and done it in depth. PF "incomplete" only shows how great the FB engine is for a Pacific air combat simulation. If you know where to look, the PF maps have the potential to be beautiful and realistic to the Pacific environment -- if they had been done correctly. As already noted above, the carrier ops are fantastic, and if Oleg had done a Pacific in place of AEP, the carrier ops would be even more in depth with the features the eventual PF team had planned later but never made it. Most importantly, Pacific is a semi~Forgotten battle, and AEP was a bit too close to Microsoft CFS3 western theater which is certainly not a Forgotten battle. Oleg does his best work when he follows the Forgotten theme.

charlielima
06-19-2005, 11:08 PM
Hey CSTHOR,
Good point! My concern is are the skinning guys prepared to respond to hell freezing over by a supply of winter/snow/arctic skins for our favorite north african, south east asian, and south pacific birds?
V\R,CL

crazyivan1970
06-19-2005, 11:17 PM
Write to your congressman http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Legal issues are not something made up just to pi$$ you off guys. It`s real and it`s unfortunate. Who to blame? I honestly don`t know.

As far as future goes, time will show. Nobody cancelled anything yet as far as list of the planes in developement. When and how they will be released to public, i don`t know.

BM357_Hitcher
06-20-2005, 08:38 AM
If the Northrop/Grumman aircraft are already in the game as non-flyable, as well as the Kate, then why can't cockpits be made for them so they can be made flyable?

Also, I thought UBI Soft already paid the licensing fees to Northrop/Grumman, so what is the remaining legal issue?

Many of us have written our Congressmen and there is some movement on these issues. I have not seen answers to my questions above. If they have already been answered, I apologize.

Thank you!

F16_Sulan
06-20-2005, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by Fennec_P:
The future of PF for me is countless more hours of online play.

With all the deficiencies, percieved or real, no other game deserves my time as much as PF.

I'll agree PF has some holes in content that would have been nice to fill. I, for example, would have liked to have made more ships for it, but events conspired to make it not be. I'm sure the modelers of other content ran into similar difficulties.

My understanding is that MG staff spent far more time than they intended on creating/fixing material for PF. I am thankful that the game turned out as well as it did, with lots of new planes, carriers, maps, ground objects, and now the improved FM. In any case, a worthwhile distraction until is BoB time.

And with the load of content in the current FB/AEP/PF bundle, some of which even I haven't had time to use yet, it'll continue to be fresh even if there are no more addons. Personally, I would enjoy the break to fully appreciate what is already there. Maybe fly all those planes I haven't tried yet.

I absolutely agree!!!
I may think that it would´ve been nicer if they spent the time making PF on other things, such as italian planes, russian bombers etc...

But I can understand that PF was needed to attract more people to the sim which is a good thing, I´ll agree it´s not a good standalone product, but it´s definetly worth it combined with FB and AEP...

Right now, if I were Oleg I think I´d like to concentrate on BoB and make it really nice, with all that has been learned from the IL-2 series. I have high hopes for BoB, and I think FB/AEP/PF is very enjoyable as is (just those few corrections)...

A.K.Davis
06-20-2005, 09:26 AM
You people have odd perceptions of value. While PF was certainly not the be all, end all of Pacific Theatre flight sims (which is, of course, just an ideal in our heads that differs from person to person), I certainly feel my $40 was well worth the content I received.

And so much of this was third-party initiated or driven that is kinda of pointless and presumptious to go on and on about what Maddox Games should have done.

Grue_
06-20-2005, 10:33 AM
The strange thing about PF is that they did all the difficult work of modelling the carrier landings and additional aircraft and then left out the relatively easy work of completing the set of objects/missions/campaigns etc. Obviously run out of time.

I think the developers will keep adding bits to the sim to maintain interest in the series until BoB is available. These will be in the form of additional planes, objects etc. I also think we will get to try out a lot of the BoB FM enhancements first introduced in 4.01.

Regarding offline play, I think anyone who hasn't tried DCG is really missing out on an excellent add-on.

http://www.lowengrin.com

RiesenSchnauzer
06-20-2005, 10:45 AM
Ivan,
I think people would be more inclined to get involved with the licensing issue if they had a clear idea from an official source about what actually happened and what they can do to help the situation. The general vibe from ubi and IC has been to mind your own business and stay out of it. For all we know ubi cut a deal with Northrop Grumman which would fall through if people started pressing the licensing issue.

I personally don't think people should do anything until they actually hear from Oleg asking for some help on the issue. Writing your congressman without knowing the particulars makes you look foolish and unprepared and that ends the issue there with most politicians.

A.K.Davis
06-20-2005, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by RiesenSchnauzer:
Ivan,
I think people would be more inclined to get involved with the licensing issue if they had a clear idea from an official source about what actually happened and what they can do to help the situation.

Don't you think they would ask if they wished people to become involved?

darkhorizon11
06-20-2005, 12:43 PM
There not accepting any more third party models however theres definitely at least enough planes to warrant a new add-on. As well as that feature that is finished that improves the pop up probem with ground objects.

Overall though, if this IS the final product for Pacific fighters then I'm sorry to say that I am definitely dissappointed.

crazyivan1970
06-20-2005, 01:50 PM
I doubt Oleg will discuss legal issues here, because he is not really involved in all that. I think think it`s more for UBI to make a statement... but who am i kidding. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

As far as third party AC is not being accepted... it`s true as far as i know, things that started will be more likely finished. Time to move on. PF already pushed BOB a year away.

A.K.Davis
06-20-2005, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
PF already pushed BOB a year away.

no, no, PF made BoB a year better. (get with the program Ivan). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

shinden1974
06-20-2005, 03:09 PM
By any flight sim standard this is the most remarkable product ever made...just on the theater covered alone.

If Microprose or Janes EA had taken off and endevoured to make the most complete WWII flight sim known to man...the eastern front would more than likely be the very last in the product line.

That said, PF is disappointing only because those of us here probably expected something as complete and rounded as forgotten battles. Taken as is, it's all there is of an up-to-date sim of the pacific theater.

When you think about it, it's amazing Oleg even decided to take this on. For the same reasons American companies were not going to cover the eastern front, Oleg had little reason to even want a Pacific sim. He did and for that, I'm grateful, I wish there was more, but all we can do is ask and hope, it's up to them.

I don't want Oleg to move on to BOB, and that's the truth, but It doesn't mean the end of everything, and maybe we should let this dog die. BOB offers the chance at a new engine that will be more catered to what Oleg had turned a limited sim like IL-2 into. This means more theaters, hopefully more planes quicker and eventually for those of us whose interest is the pacific...the sim we've always wanted since 1942:PAW and AOP.

VBF-83_Hawk
06-20-2005, 03:50 PM
I am greatful that Oleg "developed" PF. Yes, it does look like it is the Expansion Package "Stepchild". If Oleg, UBI, or whoever the heck ever owns it, wishes to no longer update it.....all I ask is to give it to someone who is willing to continue making it better.


I dont know about you guys but from what I read on many flight sim boards, most guys just want a fast plane and a quick kill no matter that final result of surviving. Nevertheless, I enjoy the WHOLE PACKAGE, to include flying around in a liasion Stinson L-5 just looking at the awsome landscape !! Many times I will find an empty server and just go flying around in the SBD at 500 feet just enjoying the game. There is also times I grab a 262 or a 163 and go as high as I can. The seaplane add was wonderfull and I really like Olegs last update on the A6M2-N.....I only wish there were more...like the Grumann Duck. Most guys say, "Oleg doesnt need to waist his time", well I disaagree......this is the only place I will EVER get a chance to fly these airplanes so I will take ALL THE PLANES I can get no matter what thay are. I also want a flyable Storch...and it aint even Pacific !!!

fordfan25
06-20-2005, 05:43 PM
well you have the guys who are not into the PTO and say it was a waist of time. to them maby. and then there are the people who love the pto and woulda said it woulda been a waist of time to put in planes from countrys that had small parts in the war. to them. im glade PF was made. was it all it coulda been or all i thought it was going to be? No. but ill take something over nothing as long as the something is not a tottle pile. PF was good enough that i didnt feel riped off but not good enough to make me jump up and down. like i said my biggst grip is the truly low qulity to the new PTO campaigns with there same 4 or 5 missions over and over. also a -4 corsair woulda been nice to match up with the ki84's http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif or a bearcat to smoke them hahaha

CapBackassward
06-20-2005, 06:24 PM
Pacific Fighters was never even imagined when IL 2 first came out. So we should remember that anything more after IL 2 FB is, 'icing on the cake.'

If having to pay for another add-on is where it is heading - in reference to all the legal Northrup\Grumman b. s. - then I'm more than willing to shell out another thirty or forty bucks with out blinking an eye. These guys - Maddox + 1C - have given us the best sim ever, to date, and to send some more money their way wouldn't bother me in the least.



my two cents,
Rick

GR142-Pipper
06-20-2005, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by csThor:
Honestly? *imagine tombstone here*

BoB is the priority and all Maddox Games does is finishing what's finishable (which is not much) and then move over to BoB. This is also the way Ubisoft wants things to go. And re: Handing over the engine - forget it. Rather the Sahara will freeze over before that happens. Given that the new flight model is already present with the release of 4.01, why even bother with BoB as a separate product? It's a hard enough market with all of WWII to pick from and this is clearly a subset of an already small niche. Personally, it's not all that exciting to fly a Spit Mk. 1 or early Hurricane when the mid/late war aircraft are already available and are much more interesting and fun to fly (again, IMHO). Unfortunately, BoB may be in for a very rough going in the marketplace.

....just my take.

GR142-Pipper

keben
06-20-2005, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:
It has been nine months since the release of PF. There has been patch after patch and we still dont know what the future holds.

There were suposidly copyright issues with allied planes thus the "reason" no flyable TBM although it already in the game. The P-51 Mustang, already in the game, was remodeled and named Mustang III, as well as the P-38 being updated as a higher horse power model. What gives here?

Also are the maps issues

So whats the future for PF. WIll it one day be complete?

All I ask is that when Oleg gets finished with this thing, I hope he gives the "engine" to someone who gives a rip so it can continue on and maybe one day be a "COMPLETE" PTO flight sim. There are enoough guys out there that enjoy designing these things, like the cockpit of the PBY, B-17 and the TBM so they can fly....as well as other IJN planes.

yes a b-17 thats great

CapBackassward
06-20-2005, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Given that the new flight model is already present with the release of 4.01, why even bother with BoB as a separate product? It's a hard enough market with all of WWII to pick from and this is clearly a subset of an already small niche. Personally, it's not all that exciting to fly a Spit Mk. 1 or early Hurricane when the mid/late war aircraft are already available and are much more interesting and fun to fly (again, IMHO). Unfortunately, BoB may be in for a very rough going in the marketplace.

....just my take.

GR142-Pipper[/QUOTE]

observation:
If BoB is as big a leap forward as IL 2 was when it first came out, then BoB just might be a bigger success than IL 2. Everyone who bought IL 2 and has been enjoying it over the last several years will probably buy BoB, and then there will be those that buy it because it is an historically popular subject. And, most all of these people know - there will be add-ons with BoB, as well.

Rick

A.K.Davis
06-20-2005, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
Honestly? *imagine tombstone here*

BoB is the priority and all Maddox Games does is finishing what's finishable (which is not much) and then move over to BoB. This is also the way Ubisoft wants things to go. And re: Handing over the engine - forget it. Rather the Sahara will freeze over before that happens. Given that the new flight model is already present with the release of 4.01, why even bother with BoB as a separate product? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm fairly certain they said there would be an entirely new 3D engine, terrain engine and campaign engine. FM is only one part.

crazyivan1970
06-20-2005, 08:19 PM
As A.K. said, BOB based on brand spanking new engine designed by MG, in which limitations of the current engine are accounted for. Besides, so called new FM in 401 is only 10-15% of complexity of what we going to see in BOB.

NonWonderDog
06-20-2005, 08:34 PM
Yeah, I get the feeling that the 4.01 FM is about as far as they could take it without adding lots of new data to all of the planes. It's an amazing leap forwards, but BoB will be much better still if the planes are designed with a complex physics system in mind.

MaxBruder
06-20-2005, 09:17 PM
All I can say is whatever is to come I certainly will buy it. I have had nothing but fun with this one, regardless of the bumps in the road. This subject is not easy to acomplice as many of the gripes point out, but I admire the attempt. Thanks Oleg and crew for what you have done.

GR142-Pipper
06-20-2005, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
As A.K. said, BOB based on brand spanking new engine designed by MG, in which limitations of the current engine are accounted for. Besides, so called new FM in 401 is only 10-15% of complexity of what we going to see in BOB. I was mistakenly under the impression that the 4.01 product incorporated the latest flight models, programming engine, etc. Good to know and I appreciate the clarification.

GR142-Pipper

crazyivan1970
06-20-2005, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
As A.K. said, BOB based on brand spanking new engine designed by MG, in which limitations of the current engine are accounted for. Besides, so called new FM in 401 is only 10-15% of complexity of what we going to see in BOB. I was mistakenly under the impression that the 4.01 product incorporated the latest flight models, programming engine, etc. Good to know and I appreciate the clarification.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Current FM only includes SOME complex functions that will calculate plane behavior in BOB... just some of it.

Bearcat99
06-21-2005, 05:11 AM
Originally posted by Tooz_69GIAP:
Lets face it, PF is a complete screw up. Missing aircraft, bad map selection, missing ships. It's real only saving grace is you can merge it with FB, and even then we had fight tooth and nail to get that done.

It shouldn't have been started in my opinion. It wasted a lot of time.


I totally disagree. First off... we didnt have to fight tooth and nail to get it mergeable. In fact.... if memory serves me well.... We were asked what we wanted... ad most of us said merged.. and thats wht we got... which was of course the only logical choice to make. I was looking over the flyables last night... while I would love to have a flyable Tempest,Avenger,Mossie & B-17 a flyable Stortch even.......in fact I would love it if every plane in the sim were flyable..... what we have is nothing to shake a stick at. Anyone who installs PF as a stand alone and keeps it that way after flying it for more than a month isnt much of a simmer anyway. Bad maps? Missing ships?.... While true there could be more in the way of maps...(That has been the case since day 1... IL2) I would rather have the limited excellently rendered maps we have rather than that ugly spottly, mottled world map in other sims. True there could be more ships as well... but we have a pretty impressive array already.... enough to get the job done and enjoy the product.

I know I will be flying this product daily GOD willing and the creek dont rise..... at leats until BoB comes out.. which I intend to have on my HD from day 1.

Tooz you said it was a waste of time and shouldnt be done...... I am glad we have it... I think it is well done and for me anyway it is a dream come true from the days I first got IL2 to this.

Tooz_69GIAP
06-21-2005, 05:54 AM
Well, like I said in the rest of the post, I am not ungrateful to have all the aircraft that we have from PF, and the carrier ops, etc, etc, however, I competely believe, and I don't think it is easy to dispute, that the entire project was completely mismanaged, and the final product did fall woefully short of the mark.

And perhaps I'm wrong, but as I recall, when PF was announced, we were told that it would be stand alone only. Then after about 2 or 3 months of protests, we were then given a poll, which came out as us wanting the abillity to merge the game with FB. So yes, I believe we did have to fight tooth and nail (or at least whine a lot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif ) to get a merged install option.

But I will say that I have virtually no interest in the south pacific airwar in the context of a flight sim. I would have far prefferred an asia mainland focussed sim, with all the crazy variety in IJA fighters and bombers, and the british spits, hurries, mossies, beaus, and the chinese aircraft, etc.

But, if I'd have had my way, we wouldn't have seen the pacific at all, it would have been the Med, as for me that is pretty much the most interesting theatre of the airwar for me. I am hoping the Med sim 1C are planning will incorporate Greece, and Egypt, etc, as well as Malta, Italy/Sicily, etc.

And if we don't get to fly a Swordfish over Taranto I'm gonna cry http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Chuck_Older
06-21-2005, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
PF already pushed BOB a year away.

My recollection was that BoB was conceived before PF



****************************

4.01 is the current state of the art for BoB Beta. Basically, the sim is now a beta from now on, to test out stuff for BoB

So in that regard, the future of PF is evolutionary- it will be a direct ancestor of BoB. PF's future is BoB- in fact, you're playing a small part of it's future every time you play v4.01

A.K.Davis
06-21-2005, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
PF already pushed BOB a year away.

My recollection was that BoB was conceived before PF </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, and work on BoB likely started before PF as well, but for obvious reasons, any time spent on PF is time not spent on BoB, aside from beta FM.

BSS_Vidar
06-21-2005, 04:18 PM
This is great news, and has made me interested in BoB again. As of late, I've been workin' my bunz off trying to get a good beed on targets while my nose flops all over the place behind an evasive bogie.

Let's hope all the additional calulations in this new FM that we have NOT seen yet will give us the torque and P-Factor we seek for added realizm, but still be able to give us positive control of the nose for more realistic gunnery platforms.

zoomar
06-22-2005, 11:25 AM
I just don't get the whining about PF. Out of the box and stand alone it is the most complete Pacific War sim ever. It is well worth 50 bucks without any patches or add ons. Merged with FB/AEP and with all the FREE patches and addons IC Maddox has produced the best combat flight sim ever. Yes, I would like to fly the Kate and Avenger, Yes, at least one Japanese CA or BB and a US BB would be nice. Yes, in general there could be more Japanese planes. And yes, like all IL2-based games, PF/AEP/FB could use a little more "fun" in the single player campaigns. But it's got a long future on my PC even if Oleg and Co. never give us anymore patches or addons.

Tater-SW-
06-22-2005, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by Tooz_69GIAP:
Well, like I said in the rest of the post, I am not ungrateful to have all the aircraft that we have from PF, and the carrier ops, etc, etc, however, I competely believe, and I don't think it is easy to dispute, that the entire project was completely mismanaged, and the final product did fall woefully short of the mark.

The sad thing is that it fell short of the mark soley because of project management issues, not the engine, not the total amount of stuff.

IMO, the largest failures were things that could have been different, with no, or even less work involved.

Better map choices---but with less roads/etc that Ian has said really slow down making maps. This would have possibly fewer, but more senisble map coices, all that would have been easier to make. Net work same or less than PF. Priority for maps should have been on maps with bases for both sides over as long a time period as possible. The small island maps seem like they must be pretty easy (no roads, and so flat the AI doesn't need loads of coding for TO and landing to avoid terrain), so those can be used to bulk up the map list for CV ops (Midway, Wake, etc).

Prioritized ship/ground target list. Same number of objects, or even the same number of POLYGONS spent for PF, but eliminating some semi-useless stuff like IJA armor (rarely used enough to justify different types of tanks for them). Ships picked by class first for IJN and USN, then filling in the remaining ships (better a US or IJN BB than RN, for example).

Prioritized plane choices. Pick planes based upon the smart map choices to fill in lists by types for each side. Anything additional is gravy.

Without changing the total effort, PF could have been so much better--that's what is sad.

All that said I'd buy it again.

tater

VBF-83_Hawk
06-22-2005, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by zoomar:
I just don't get the whining about PF. Out of the box and stand alone it is the most complete Pacific War sim ever....

I bet you drive a camaro with a V-6 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

goshikisen
06-22-2005, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
The sad thing is that it fell short of the mark soley because of project management issues, not the engine, not the total amount of stuff.


I can remember following the progress of the 3rd party modellers (what little I could decipher due to NDA) at Netwings while PF was being developed. If I had a dollar for every time a modeller said they couldn't get in contact with the "project manager" I'd have ahhhh... lots of dollars. I knew there was something wrong when important elements of the sim were being neglected because of poor communication.

Dunkelgrun
06-22-2005, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by Tooz_69GIAP:
Lets face it, PF is a complete screw up. Missing aircraft, bad map selection, missing ships. It's real only saving grace is you can merge it with FB, and even then we had fight tooth and nail to get that done.

It shouldn't have been started in my opinion. It wasted a lot of time.

Not that I'm ungrateful for being able to use carriers, and have some of these cool aircraft, I just think the entire project was mismanaged, and fell woefully short of the mark.

I think that we will probably receive one more add on, that we'll pay for, which I suspect will contain all the russian CD content, plus some extra stuff like the mossie, Ju-88, Ialian aircraft, and maybe some more, and then it will be on to BoB. And I think that is the right way to go about it.

Times have to move on.

I'm with you Tooz. Good post.

Let's hope that 1C:Maddox make a business program for BoB and stick to it. No more half-arsed stuff.
Plan the whole thing, including 3rd party add-ons. WW2 took 6 years, **** it they could even release it in real time and we'd all have a ball! Would mean that the French and Polish add-ons came out first though!

Cheers!

crazyivan1970
06-22-2005, 04:15 PM
PF should have been an addon, as it was planned in the beginning. But things went some other way. And to say more, inclusion PF into AEP/FB combo was result of Olegs struggle with UBI and support of the community - remember the poll? UBI wanted stand alone, end of story. So we got a bit lucky here IMO. If it wasn`t compatible with FB/AEP i would buy it just as a matter of support... but wouldn`t fly it, me thinks. More of the ETO person i am. So yes, maybe PF as a stand alone could have been better... but between legal issues and all other things...maybe it didnt come out as we expected. In my mind, PF will always be a great addon, introduction of different theater - which is fantastic.

Chuck_Older
06-23-2005, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by zoomar:
I just don't get the whining about PF. Out of the box and stand alone it is the most complete Pacific War sim ever.

It may be the most complete Pacific Air War sim you have seen, but Aces of the Pacific was in fact much more cohesive and complete as an overall project

Buzzsaw-
06-23-2005, 11:11 AM
Salute

PF maps should have been done at 1/2 scale.

Either that, or sea areas compressed.

That way, we could have had a New Guinea map that included Guadalcanal and Rabaul, in the same size as the current New Guinea map.

The whole thing about the Pacific, is that the fighting generally took place in a small area, but the distance required by one side or the other to get to the place where combat was occurring was huge.

Tater-SW-
06-23-2005, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by goshikisen:
I can remember following the progress of the 3rd party modellers (what little I could decipher due to NDA) at Netwings while PF was being developed. If I had a dollar for every time a modeller said they couldn't get in contact with the "project manager" I'd have ahhhh... lots of dollars. I knew there was something wrong when important elements of the sim were being neglected because of poor communication.

Yeah, I followed on netwings as well. Seems like whoever was in charge went AWOL and left poor Oleg holding the bag.

tater

Tuba2004
06-23-2005, 03:43 PM
Anyone who installs PF as a stand alone and keeps it that way after flying it for more than a month isn€t much of a simmer anyway.
Well Bearcat99 while I usually find your comments worth while, and while you are welcome to your view point, I personally don't find some of the merged aircraft flying in the Pacific Theater. Therefore, I can not agree with your conclusion, if we are considering a truthful recreation of the war in the Pacific. But then I am not much into the "what if" part of simulation.
I guess your "If you don't do it my way you aren't worth much" attitude had escaped me in your past posts. I personally have always felt that either stand alone or merged, historic or what if they had developed and used that earlier, etc. were equally acceptable and worth while. You are, after all, doing this primarily for your enjoyment not the acclamation of others. It seems uncalled for to disrespect others because they choose to follow a different path than what you have chosen.

WWMaxGunz
06-23-2005, 11:37 PM
I see Bearcats point that a real sim fan would want as many planes, maps, etc, as possible.
Why make 2 installed programs that take up more room than one merged?

And as a practical matter, how else can you get the latest improvements for FB unless it is
merged with PF? You can't!

So it's not eliteism, just sense.

Enforcer572005
06-24-2005, 11:21 PM
I just wanna say that i would gladly pay full price for a commercial adon that added a passable number of ships and fixed a couple of maps etc....I am grateful for what we have. however i make this observation....

1.BEarcat wasnt being disrespectful, just making a valid point about the lowered standard that PF-unfinished represented. Idont see how one could be concerned with incorrect planes messing up the realism of a naval sim that deosnt at least have a BB, CA,CL, DD, class for each cmbatant. even the premie born MS CFS2 had that covered. and a carrier sim without wind over the deck? still cant figure how the CVE works.

2.And Brit BBs at pearl? I bet the russain simmers who bought a sim called "pearl harbor" (which is what i believe it is called there) were a little shocked to see KGV class BBs populating Ford Island.

3.Not complaining, i understand why. Have any of you guys any experience with MS cfs2? That had the potential of bieng excellent, if not for the myriad of never adressed bugs and a FMB that was next to useless.MS ignored it like they do all thier messed up products, adn that prevented it from reaching its potential, even wiht user made fixes/adons.

4.PF is a good adon, but i have 40+ bucks waiting in case they want to market a little more completion. I dont think we will ever actually get a complete pacific sim in this entire industry because of bsness, resource issues. Chuck was right, for its day, pacific aces was great. at least the stuff we have works.the carriers and ships are extrememly well made though, and the flying is great. im just a little sad at the potential being lost, but Oleg has a bsness to run.Hes done alot for us. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

heywooood
06-25-2005, 12:08 AM
there will always be something you've got - and something you want...the real trick is to bring them together.
AoP was great in alot of KEY ways and it was lacking in some.

Did we maybe expect AoP only better?....yes.

Was PF given the same effort pound for pound as FB/AEP?...no - for whatever reason you like.

Did we think that would be the case?...no.

Is PF so poor as either standalone or addon that it should have never been born?...not in my oppinion, but thats just me.

I hope there will be more added to PF in coming days for a few reasons - but I dont expect much with BoB on the horizon.....Too bad.

VBF-83_Hawk
06-25-2005, 09:57 AM
I am greatfull that my dad bought me a 65 Corvett, with a few patches here and there such as new tires, radio, paint now I just need to get that final patch for it....the engine http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Chuck_Older
06-25-2005, 10:34 AM
Will your Dad adopt me?

ZK-DABLIN
07-10-2005, 12:26 AM
I sense alot of discomfort towards Oleg and his team. I can see the point of those who allow themselves to complain about what Pacific Fighters is missing as a flight simulator.

Some of you may only have Pacific Fighters, failing to realise that PF is no supposed to be an isolated simulation environment but a sequential effort to develop the most realistic and comphensive combat flight simulator to ever take precence in our entire existance.

Pacific fighters is a combribution to the bigger project which was started as IL-2 Sturmovik, and through the various sequals such as AEP, and Pacific Fighters and soon to be Battle of Britain and the numerious free downloadable pathes has grown to the point of imphrension.

You guys must try and understand that this flight simulator is a major logistical nightmare and anyone of you who has created anything atleast worthwhile must realise the effort to create what has already been created let alone the 10,000 extra other things people complain about in their disrespectful attemt to shoot down this flight simulator for any of its shortcomings.

This is far from a complete flight simulator. Oleg and his team are completing this simulator in a really intuitive manner, and by creating these sequals like Pacific Fighters and soon to be Battle of Britain; they are bridging the major gaps in the simulator and also attracting new interests to the game from other major areas of the world. Many saw the world from a different point in the war. This difference allows varying perspectives if what makes a good WW2 combat flight simulations.

IL-2 was originally created in the Eastern Theatre for the very reason Oleg and many of his comrades are from Russia including this simulator itself.

He has made an unbelievable effort to bring this game to other people from different parts of the world, catering to their needs and interests to complete what they have done.

I believe, if any of you have any problems with this simulator, it is far from anyone elses problem apart from yourself. You are not seeing the bigger picture here and through your ignorance are allowing your objections to only slow things down here for all of us and Oleg and his team.

Is this what Oleg has to put up with? How can he complete anything if all you do is complain and ask why? If you cant help improve this simulator then really you should just keep your opinions to yourself.

Grow up, and get a hobby!

Good Work Oleg; and his team ... keep the good work up.

Regards, ZK-DABLIN

GR142-Pipper
07-10-2005, 01:39 AM
Originally posted by ZK-DABLIN:
(...snip...)You guys must try and understand that this flight simulator is a major logistical nightmare and anyone of you who has created anything atleast worthwhile must realise the effort to create what has already been created let alone the 10,000 extra other things people complain about in their disrespectful attemt to shoot down this flight simulator for any of its shortcomings. You're right, it is somewhat of a nightmare. However, this nightmare is largely a creature of Oleg and company's own doing.

There are FAR too many aircraft types in this game and instead of having fewer aircraft and having them done right, the choice was made to have more and have them done to a highly mediocre level. This was a significant strategic mistake, both from code maintenance/development and marketing points of view. Now Oleg and company are having to deal with this Frankenstein and it's not easy as you correctly cite.

Furthermore and after countless patches, I'm not at all confident that the Battle of Britain offering will be a success either. It holds no interest for me but time will tell if enough others will be.

GR142-Pipper

BSS_Vidar
07-10-2005, 02:56 PM
You've made a valid point there Pipper. We got quantity instead of quality. Making PF an add-on didn't help matters much either. It should have been a Stand-alone.

This is the main reason why LOMAC developers absolutly refused to add more aircraft. It would have deminished the realism dramaticaly. There's so much to learn just in the aircraft they do have in-game. With the addition of Flaming Cliffs, LOMAC is the closest thing to an OFT/WST put on a PC I've ever seen. I should know, I have a couple thousand hours in Operational Flight Trainers/Weapon Systems Trainers.

Hopefully, this will be -what we called in NavAir- a "Lessons Learned" when it comes to the development of BoB, and future PC Flight Sims. The aircraft that were actually in the BoB should be all that we see.

Bearcat99
07-11-2005, 07:37 AM
Originally posted by Tuba2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Anyone who installs PF as a stand alone and keeps it that way after flying it for more than a month isn€t much of a simmer anyway.
Well Bearcat99 while I usually find your comments worth while, and while you are welcome to your view point, I personally don't find some of the merged aircraft flying in the Pacific Theater. Therefore, I can not agree with your conclusion, if we are considering a truthful recreation of the war in the Pacific. But then I am not much into the "what if" part of simulation.
I guess your "If you don't do it my way you aren't worth much" attitude had escaped me in your past posts. I personally have always felt that either stand alone or merged, historic or what if they had developed and used that earlier, etc. were equally acceptable and worth while. You are, after all, doing this primarily for your enjoyment not the acclamation of others. It seems uncalled for to disrespect others because they choose to follow a different path than what you have chosen. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I see Bearcats point that a real sim fan would want as many planes, maps, etc, as possible.
Why make 2 installed programs that take up more room than one merged?

And as a practical matter, how else can you get the latest improvements for FB unless it is
merged with PF? You can't!
So it's not eliteism, just sense.

That is my point exactly... not elitism at all. I dont see how anyone who considers himself a flight sim fan and a warbird fan to boot can fly in this sim (PF) for more than a few weeks and not want to check out the other aircraft in the series.... even if their heart is always in the Pacific. People will spend $60 to go to a bad movie..... and complain ad nauseum about a $40 piece of software that they can use again and again.. I just dont get it...... and while I agree PF should have been an add on from the jump
and $10 less to boot... I am having a ball with it ... especially with this latest patch.


Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ZK-DABLIN:
(...snip...)You guys must try and understand that this flight simulator is a major logistical nightmare and anyone of you who has created anything atleast worthwhile must realise the effort to create what has already been created let alone the 10,000 extra other things people complain about in their disrespectful attemt to shoot down this flight simulator for any of its shortcomings. You're right, it is somewhat of a nightmare. However, this nightmare is largely a creature of Oleg and company's own doing.

There are FAR too many aircraft types in this game and instead of having fewer aircraft and having them done right, the choice was made to have more and have them done to a highly mediocre level. This was a significant strategic mistake, both from code maintenance/development and marketing points of view. Now Oleg and company are having to deal with this Frankenstein and it's not easy as you correctly cite.

Furthermore and after countless patches, I'm not at all confident that the Battle of Britain offering will be a success either. It holds no interest for me but time will tell if enough others will be.
GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mediocre? Sorry.... I just dont see mediocre flight models anywhere in this sim, and the fact that all of the planes fly slightly different in itself is amazing, we have differing models of the same planes with varied armament.. fantastic if you ask me....... even FB1.0 wasnt mediocre.... not completely "accurate" as far as you can get on a PC simulator? Sure... but mediocre? Naaaaaaaa I just dont see it. If this is mediocre then what do you consider good? and...... my consistent question...... Where is the "better" WW2 sim? It isnt..... as a total package this sim is top dog and AFAIC it should be looked at as ONE 5CD sim.... not two seperate products... If PF had been sold as a stand alone I dont think it would have done as well... even if it did have "more stuff".

I also dont see this Frankenstein you are referring to either Pip..... I think Frank is wearing a tux and doing a little softshoe routine... I seem to see that FB and the Aces GOLD are getting rarer and rarer on the shelves as time goes by.

I personally think BoB will be a huge success since, if 1C remains consistent, the missing 85-90% of the FM that we see here in 4.01 that will be present in BoB will be mind blowing...... PPUs, Vector expansion,totally new graphics engine,look at the damage model on the tempest..... that is just a smidgen of what BoB will be like.... , rerworked AI with more commands to give them, plus the prospect of expanding to other theaters..... and I dont think the QMB in BoB will be the same... I am hoping that it will be able to incorprate all the maps in the sim and future maps as well... in fact.. I hope they incoorporate something like the UQMG into the QMB of BoB.... For me it will be a no brainer..... if for no other reason than to support the product to insure that the expansion does occur. When I first got IL2 -and I know I am not alone in this- I wished I HAD Mustangs,Spits,Jugs,Lightnings,CorsairsmZekes,B-17s (even if only AI), B-25s...- So the prospect of the same thing happening in what will begin as a limited theater, limited plane set sim.... Hmmmmmm that sounds familiar.... - just makes me want to keep on flying this one till that time arrives. I hope BoB is delayed until it is ready..... and we more than likely wont see it until 06-07..... but I am hoping that UBI will learn from it's mistakes.

I also think the final chapter is not written on FB either... I thionk there are a few more treats coming down the pike. Free or pay... they will be on my HD.

Monty_Thrud
07-11-2005, 09:33 AM
I also think the final chapter is not written on FB either... I thionk there are a few more treats coming down the pike. Free or pay... they will be on my HD.


I'm with you, if those Aircraft in the "waiting for" list are in it and flyable, i'm a very happy man http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

FB/aep/PF has been on my HD since day one(it owns E drive), and i'm still loving it...ok theres some bugs to be ironed out but i believe Oleg and crew will deliver the cherry for the icing on this wonderful cake...be sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

YAKMAN1968
07-11-2005, 10:49 AM
Show me one game thats bug free???????????

BTW IL2+addons own my F drive

shinden1974
07-12-2005, 09:06 PM
lemme try and sum this up:

in the days of Hellcat ace (1984) we moved a little gunsight thingy toward vaguely airplane like blocks and pressed the button to watch barely visible blocks cause a larger pile of blocks. when you pushed down it got faster, when you pulled up you got slower and higher.

Community reaction: COOL!!! A FLIGHT SIM!!!!!

Then there was AOP with much more recognizable airplane like shapes, somewhat recognizable terrain, and a somewhat accurate cockpit along with torpedo bombing, carrier ops and an actual FM...(1992)

community reaction: OMG! This is the most amazing thing ever built by man! HOLY ****, I just trapped in a hellcat!!! (tears, sobbing)

then there was 1942:PAW (1994) featuring top-of-the-line for the day graphics, a comprehensive planeset (with missing and later added P-38, sound familiar?), virtual cockpit, and everything in AOP but better.

Community reaction: look...GRASS! I can pan my cockpit too, neato. check out this dive bomb view on the val...sweeeet.

CFS2 came, which out of the box was AOP with better graphics and no bombers.

Community reaction: uhhh...where's the planes, why is this game not as good as 1942? (after a thousand 3rd party downloads...) This ones pretty good!

Now there PF added to Il2:FB and AEP, the biggest planeset yet seen in a flight sim (without inconsistent 3rd party downloads). An 'outdated' graphics engine that is the best of any WWII flight simulator in the planet, hyper accurate models and cockpits, along with a decent and improving flight model (compared to what? CFS2 after getting the 1% planes? FS2004? methinks it's alright). just missing some flyable carrier torpedo planes and that's not even the developers fault and betty, now fixed.

Community reaction (in some quarters): Oil cooler in wrong place! Fix (insert plane) or I'll hate you forever! My guns too weak, his is too strong, your stupid! this a conspiracy, oleg hates america! I like beta I'm not supposed to have, give me beta or I'll insult you ad nauseum and throw a f'ing fit, this improves the game! Flight model sux, doesn't go into unrecoverable spiral when I pull up 1 degree at 300 Km in P-51! Flight model sux, I flew (insert plane) in WWII, I know planes, your stupid, I hate you! I'll never buy your product again, it doesn't work when I install without reading the manual! You don't talk to us to give us the planes you owe us, you hate us and your mean!

we have come a long way baby!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

stubby
07-13-2005, 12:14 PM
shinden1974 - you're spot on baby! if folks didn't ***** about rivets, canopy beams, ammo belts, tire pressure, under modeled tail hook assembly, over modeled RAF googles, blah blah blah..this forum would get boring very quickly. Il2 series is the BMW 8 series of flight sims - it's that simple. Oleg is a victim of his own success. He's raised folks expectations to an almost unreachable level. But then again, as we all know, squeeky wheel gets the grease. Most of the whining, cryin', *****ing stems from like .0006% of the flight sim community. It's just their mouths are bigger than the rest such that their issues seem to carry weight.

Bearcat99
07-13-2005, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by stubby:
shinden1974 - you're spot on baby! if folks didn't ***** about rivets, canopy beams, ammo belts, tire pressure, under modeled tail hook assembly, over modeled RAF googles, blah blah blah..this forum would get boring very quickly. Il2 series is the BMW 8 series of flight sims - it's that simple. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Oleg is a victim of his own success</span>. He's raised folks expectations to an almost unreachable level. But then again, as we all know, squeeky wheel gets the grease. Most of the whining, cryin', *****ing stems from like .0006% of the flight sim community. It's just their mouths are bigger than the rest such that their issues seem to carry weight.

Hmmmmm..... now why does that strike a chord with me..... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I seem to recall..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif now let's see where was it..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif.....

Oh yeah!!!!! here (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/983106852/r/983106852#983106852) it is!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Dexmeister
07-13-2005, 02:44 PM
I just wanted to pipe in as yet another guy who's followed this sim since day 1, bought each $60 box UBI threw onto the shelves, patched and tweaked to no end, and yes, got lots of fun out of.

I waited as long as most of you for 4.01. Some think it's great, some don't.

Well I use a Matrox Parhelia and 3 screens, and have with this sim since FB.

Patch 4.01, after all the waiting, presented me with a video issue where I basically have a choice of flying in gunsight (zoomed in) mode, or else not at all.

This is a simple coding error Oleg's team overlooked, which 2 seconds of QA would have caught. It's happened before, so I've waited for the next patch to fix it, multiple times.

Now again, after all the waiting for 4.01, which we know took an unbearable length of time to get, I'm sitting here with a sim that's useless to me.

I posted something in "THE" bug report thread, no response.

I know to many of you this is nothing big, but as far as I'm concerned, Oleg and all his truly great work is now useless to me, until the next patch is out, whenever that is.

In the meantime I've pretty well lost interest in this series and went back to FS2004 and XBox for my entertainment.

LEXX_Luthor
07-13-2005, 04:18 PM
Go Brother Bear. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif The ideas of both of these Mediocre posts can only cripple the flight sim genre, by keeping all flight sims restricted to the 2 or 3 most popular 1944 arcade Dogfighter planes, and cause the flight sim genre to always be a small "niche" market (something we seem to be Proud of it seems).


GR142-Pipper::
There are FAR too many aircraft types in this game and instead of having fewer aircraft and having them done right, the choice was made to have more and have them done to a highly mediocre level. This was a significant strategic mistake, both from code maintenance/development and marketing points of view. Now Oleg and company are having to deal with this Frankenstein and it's not easy as you correctly cite.
BSS_Vidar::
We got quantity instead of quality.
Of course, only the planes *they* like should be made Flyable.



<span class="ev_code_yellow">Fascinating clinical behavior observations::</span>

(1) The posters who enjoy little known planes, like CR.42, never post there are Too Many planes.

(2) The people who claim Oleg makes Too Many planes only make posts about the traditional "WW2 flight sim" late war 1944 planes, the same ones over and over again.

This webboard behavior is very consistent, and shows how even bitter Old Timer flight simmers can cripple flight simming when they hope to keep others from simulating air warfare.

The strategic brilliance in making many planes Flyable is that once they are in, then we increase the Quality all around. This is one of the keys to the future success and growth of the flight sim genre beyond the "niche" 1944 Dogfight airplane game.

shinden1974
07-13-2005, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by Dexmeister:
I just wanted to pipe in as yet another guy who's followed this sim since day 1, bought each $60 box UBI threw onto the shelves, patched and tweaked to no end, and yes, got lots of fun out of.

I waited as long as most of you for 4.01. Some think it's great, some don't.

Well I use a Matrox Parhelia and 3 screens, and have with this sim since FB.

Patch 4.01, after all the waiting, presented me with a video issue where I basically have a choice of flying in gunsight (zoomed in) mode, or else not at all.

This is a simple coding error Oleg's team overlooked, which 2 seconds of QA would have caught. It's happened before, so I've waited for the next patch to fix it, multiple times.

Now again, after all the waiting for 4.01, which we know took an unbearable length of time to get, I'm sitting here with a sim that's useless to me.

I posted something in "THE" bug report thread, no response.

I know to many of you this is nothing big, but as far as I'm concerned, Oleg and all his truly great work is now useless to me, until the next patch is out, whenever that is.

In the meantime I've pretty well lost interest in this series and went back to FS2004 and XBox for my entertainment.

well, yeah, you have an actual serious problem, and I hope 1C listens to your concerns and fixes it. At least you're not a whiner, your reaction is the same as most sane people should be...try to get it fixed, else move on and enjoy yourself. If the itch gets too big and 1C decides to ignore you, you can try a different setup someday, or not.

Truth is, some bugs and concerns never get addressed, just the way this ball bounces. the guys who bought CFS3 will never get some of their issues resolved...ever. I like legit threads where we reasonably discuss actual bugs, test them out and discuss them. the stuff that bugs me is the personal attacks, the victimization addiction and crude whining that infects certain people...it's a mindset based on poor character.

LEXX_Luthor
07-13-2005, 04:50 PM
BSS_Vidar::
This is the main reason why LOMAC developers absolutly refused to add more aircraft. It would have deminished the realism dramaticaly. There's so much to learn just in the aircraft they do have in-game. With the addition of Flaming Cliffs, LOMAC is the closest thing to an OFT/WST put on a PC I've ever seen. I should know, I have a couple thousand hours in Operational Flight Trainers/Weapon Systems Trainers.
The LOMAC Devs don't add Flyable aircraft because the modern Avionics take more programming than the flight models. One of the Devs posted at LOMAC board that the main reason they won't add any other country planes is that each nation has vastly differing avionics, and to bring just one plane in from another nation would be like programming a whole new sim, because of the avionics. If LOMAC really wanted good international sales, they would think *independently* and do 1950-1970 combat jet sim, with correspondingly primitive (although not always "simple") Avionics. Right now they are limited to one (1) map, and when I remember that, I don't feel so bad about the PF. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

RAF92_Moser
07-13-2005, 08:42 PM
Right Shinden. You know you made a good game when the customers just can't get enough!!!

J_Weaver
07-13-2005, 09:42 PM
The future of PF for me is many, many more hours of fun. Yes, PF has its troubles, but I can't think of another flightsim that doesn't. I'm not interested in hyper-realism. I'm happy, if a plane prefors reasonably close to its real life counterpart. I love the great variety that PF offers.

mothyp
07-14-2005, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tallyho1961:
My guess: People will keep flying it and have a great time doing so for a long time yet, as it is an excellent product.

What he said...... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

what they said

GR142-Pipper
07-14-2005, 02:34 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Mediocre? Sorry.... I just dont see mediocre flight models anywhere in this sim, and the fact that all of the planes fly slightly different in itself is amazing, we have differing models of the same planes with varied armament.. fantastic if you ask me....... even FB1.0 wasnt mediocre.... not completely "accurate" as far as you can get on a PC simulator? Sure... but mediocre? Naaaaaaaa I just dont see it. If this is mediocre then what do you consider good? and...... my consistent question...... Where is the "better" WW2 sim? It isnt..... as a total package this sim is top dog and AFAIC it should be looked at as ONE 5CD sim.... not two seperate products... If PF had been sold as a stand alone I dont think it would have done as well... even if it did have "more stuff". Then we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I see this sim slipping slowly backward. There are more planes added but their flight characteristics are becoming stranger and stranger. We now have Yaks being outturned by 109s, P-51s/F4Us/P-47s that are simply uncompetitive in anything other than a BnZ environment, AI gunners in the back of 110s that only need one round to kill a pursuer, a disappointingly crude implementation of the aircraft carrier environment, 109 engines that instantly change the energy state of the aircraft while Allied planes suffer from a 3-5 second delay to realize power changes, etc., etc, etc. The list goes on and on and is why this game is becoming increasingly mediocre. These issues have been around for quite a while as well. Sure the graphics are good but if the flight characteristics of the aircraft are way off it's moot.


I also dont see this Frankenstein you are referring to either Pip..... I think Frank is wearing a tux and doing a little softshoe routine... I seem to see that FB and the Aces GOLD are getting rarer and rarer on the shelves as time goes by. I think you're looking at this game through rose colored glasses. If you think that this game is a financial "success" you had better think twice. It's a very small community and as one who has run a software company for quite a while, I know what it takes to be a "success". This game is not even close. So how many do you think they've sold? 10,000 copies maybe? 20,000 at best (which I doubt)? Even at $50 a pop, that's only $500k - $1 million, gross...VERY small potatoes in the software marketing game.


I personally think BoB will be a huge success since, if 1C remains consistent, the missing 85-90% of the FM that we see here in 4.01 that will be present in BoB will be mind blowing...... PPUs, Vector expansion,totally new graphics engine,look at the damage model on the tempest..... that is just a smidgen of what BoB will be like.... , rerworked AI with more commands to give them, plus the prospect of expanding to other theaters..... and I dont think the QMB in BoB will be the same... I am hoping that it will be able to incorprate all the maps in the sim and future maps as well... in fact.. I hope they incoorporate something like the UQMG into the QMB of BoB.... For me it will be a no brainer..... if for no other reason than to support the product to insure that the expansion does occur. When I first got IL2 -and I know I am not alone in this- I wished I HAD Mustangs,Spits,Jugs,Lightnings,CorsairsmZekes,B-17s (even if only AI), B-25s...- So the prospect of the same thing happening in what will begin as a limited theater, limited plane set sim.... Hmmmmmm that sounds familiar.... - just makes me want to keep on flying this one till that time arrives. I hope BoB is delayed until it is ready..... and we more than likely wont see it until 06-07..... but I am hoping that UBI will learn from it's mistakes. It's not UBI that needs to learn. It's Oleg and his development team. UBI is the distributor, nothing more. Oleg and team code the product. First lesson in ANY software product...finish it. We have had a series of unfinished chapters in the IL-2 development cycle. They just don't seem to be able to conclude anything before embarking on the next "great idea". The result is the product is not only not finished, it becomes impossible to support. This is the lesson that I hope Oleg really stares in the face before proceeding on ANY new IL-2 add-on or the BoB product.

Lastly and importantly, I really would like Oleg and his team as well as the people at UBI to achieve some solid financial rewards for their respective efforts. For this to occur, however, there has got to be a much more disciplined and focused effort on producing quality representations (read that, accurate) of the aircraft and scenarios being modeled. In that regard, following the "less is more" philosophy would be my recommendation.

GR142-Pipper

Lerxster
07-14-2005, 02:34 AM
What you guys need is a Timeout (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/34810483/p/1)

crazyivan1970
07-14-2005, 04:13 AM
It`s too bad you feel this way Pipper, i wont even comment on that. Apparently everyone became a gawd dang expert in everything. I am loss for words. Didn`t know that you were from ungreatful crowd. Oh well.

GR142-Pipper
07-14-2005, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
It`s too bad you feel this way Pipper, i wont even comment on that. Apparently everyone became a gawd dang expert in everything. I am loss for words. Didn`t know that you were from ungreatful crowd. Oh well. Ivan, I'm not ungrateful for anything. I just call it like I see it so please don't assign any motives for my commentary other than their face value. Like others, I simply want the game to accurately reflect the capabilities of the represented aircraft. My view is that it's off and getting further off with each successive release. Maybe you feel otherwise and that's fine by me.

GR142-Pipper

NorrisMcWhirter
07-14-2005, 12:43 PM
Like others, I simply want the game to accurately reflect the capabilities of the represented aircraft. My view is that it's off and getting further off with each successive release. Maybe you feel otherwise and that's fine by me.

GR142-Pipper

^ Something I've felt for some time only I think it applies to all aircraft.

Am I ungrateful? Maybe. Have I cried that this, that or the other *has* to be in the game? Nope. I just went out and purchased the upgrades.

What is ungrateful is promising copies of games to people who have contributed their time and effort to bettering them and then failing to deliver. Wouldn't you agree?

Ta,
Norris

GR142-Pipper
07-14-2005, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Like others, I simply want the game to accurately reflect the capabilities of the represented aircraft. My view is that it's off and getting further off with each successive release. Maybe you feel otherwise and that's fine by me.

GR142-Pipper

^ Something I've felt for some time only I think it applies to all aircraft.

Am I ungrateful? Maybe. Have I cried that this, that or the other *has* to be in the game? Nope. I just went out and purchased the upgrades.

What is ungrateful is promising copies of games to people who have contributed their time and effort to bettering them and then failing to deliver. Wouldn't you agree?

Ta,
Norris </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, I would agree. At the end of the day, I'm not interested in flying artifically disadvantaged OR artifically advantaged aircraft. Just portray them accurately and let the game players choose the aircraft of their preference. No more, no less.

GR142-Pipper

deathping---
07-14-2005, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tuba2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Anyone who installs PF as a stand alone and keeps it that way after flying it for more than a month isn€t much of a simmer anyway.
Well Bearcat99 while I usually find your comments worth while, and while you are welcome to your view point, I personally don't find some of the merged aircraft flying in the Pacific Theater. Therefore, I can not agree with your conclusion, if we are considering a truthful recreation of the war in the Pacific. But then I am not much into the "what if" part of simulation.
I guess your "If you don't do it my way you aren't worth much" attitude had escaped me in your past posts. I personally have always felt that either stand alone or merged, historic or what if they had developed and used that earlier, etc. were equally acceptable and worth while. You are, after all, doing this primarily for your enjoyment not the acclamation of others. It seems uncalled for to disrespect others because they choose to follow a different path than what you have chosen. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I see Bearcats point that a real sim fan would want as many planes, maps, etc, as possible.
Why make 2 installed programs that take up more room than one merged?

And as a practical matter, how else can you get the latest improvements for FB unless it is
merged with PF? You can't!
So it's not eliteism, just sense.

That is my point exactly... not elitism at all. I dont see how anyone who considers himself a flight sim fan and a warbird fan to boot can fly in this sim (PF) for more than a few weeks and not want to check out the other aircraft in the series.... even if their heart is always in the Pacific. People will spend $60 to go to a bad movie..... and complain ad nauseum about a $40 piece of software that they can use again and again.. I just dont get it...... and while I agree PF should have been an add on from the jump
and $10 less to boot... I am having a ball with it ... especially with this latest patch.


Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ZK-DABLIN:
(...snip...)You guys must try and understand that this flight simulator is a major logistical nightmare and anyone of you who has created anything atleast worthwhile must realise the effort to create what has already been created let alone the 10,000 extra other things people complain about in their disrespectful attemt to shoot down this flight simulator for any of its shortcomings. You're right, it is somewhat of a nightmare. However, this nightmare is largely a creature of Oleg and company's own doing.

There are FAR too many aircraft types in this game and instead of having fewer aircraft and having them done right, the choice was made to have more and have them done to a highly mediocre level. This was a significant strategic mistake, both from code maintenance/development and marketing points of view. Now Oleg and company are having to deal with this Frankenstein and it's not easy as you correctly cite.

Furthermore and after countless patches, I'm not at all confident that the Battle of Britain offering will be a success either. It holds no interest for me but time will tell if enough others will be.
GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mediocre? Sorry.... I just dont see mediocre flight models anywhere in this sim, and the fact that all of the planes fly slightly different in itself is amazing, we have differing models of the same planes with varied armament.. fantastic if you ask me....... even FB1.0 wasnt mediocre.... not completely "accurate" as far as you can get on a PC simulator? Sure... but mediocre? Naaaaaaaa I just dont see it. If this is mediocre then what do you consider good? and...... my consistent question...... Where is the "better" WW2 sim? It isnt..... as a total package this sim is top dog and AFAIC it should be looked at as ONE 5CD sim.... not two seperate products... If PF had been sold as a stand alone I dont think it would have done as well... even if it did have "more stuff".

I also dont see this Frankenstein you are referring to either Pip..... I think Frank is wearing a tux and doing a little softshoe routine... I seem to see that FB and the Aces GOLD are getting rarer and rarer on the shelves as time goes by.

I personally think BoB will be a huge success since, if 1C remains consistent, the missing 85-90% of the FM that we see here in 4.01 that will be present in BoB will be mind blowing...... PPUs, Vector expansion,totally new graphics engine,look at the damage model on the tempest..... that is just a smidgen of what BoB will be like.... , rerworked AI with more commands to give them, plus the prospect of expanding to other theaters..... and I dont think the QMB in BoB will be the same... I am hoping that it will be able to incorprate all the maps in the sim and future maps as well... in fact.. I hope they incoorporate something like the UQMG into the QMB of BoB.... For me it will be a no brainer..... if for no other reason than to support the product to insure that the expansion does occur. When I first got IL2 -and I know I am not alone in this- I wished I HAD Mustangs,Spits,Jugs,Lightnings,CorsairsmZekes,B-17s (even if only AI), B-25s...- So the prospect of the same thing happening in what will begin as a limited theater, limited plane set sim.... Hmmmmmm that sounds familiar.... - just makes me want to keep on flying this one till that time arrives. I hope BoB is delayed until it is ready..... and we more than likely wont see it until 06-07..... but I am hoping that UBI will learn from it's mistakes.

I also think the final chapter is not written on FB either... I thionk there are a few more treats coming down the pike. Free or pay... they will be on my HD. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you make a standalone and a merged version, you absolutely have to support both versions at an equal level. Standalone is a stepchild. Hire more people.

LEXX_Luthor
07-15-2005, 01:36 AM
Pipper this page::
...let the game players choose the aircraft of their preference. No more, no less.
Pipper last page::
There are FAR too many aircraft types in this game
Nobody at this webboard knows what the 2 Pippers are posting about.

WWMaxGunz
07-15-2005, 01:56 AM
I think I can see some of Pippers point.

There are so many planes that patch to patch 1C simply does not have the time to get them
tweaked to the new changes/improvements.

It is just that simple. I saw it in the La5FN first this time, there are some seriously
warped-flight planes in PF.

So I am hoping that FM tweak work is done in earnest in a most organized manner with respect
to all the planes to the same standards which I trust if 1C has the time will happen and
then we get a final patch somewhere with nothing new in FM except planes adjusted right
and tested to death against exploitable and non-exploitable but highly annoying special ways of flying that kill immersion so badly. If the plane should be losing alt or even falling in spin, I should not be able to climb in it!

GR142-Pipper
07-15-2005, 04:10 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Pipper this page:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...let the game players choose the aircraft of their preference. No more, no less.
Pipper last page::
There are FAR too many aircraft types in this game
Nobody at this webboard knows what the 2 Pippers are posting about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Let me clarify. There are too many planes to be supported given the obviously limited staff available to Oleg. All I want to see are accurately modeled aircraft and no more of them than are fully supportable. The players can then choose their preference from this pool of supported planes.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
07-15-2005, 04:12 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I think I can see some of Pippers point.

There are so many planes that patch to patch 1C simply does not have the time to get them
tweaked to the new changes/improvements.

It is just that simple. I saw it in the La5FN first this time, there are some seriously
warped-flight planes in PF. Exactly. That was indeed the straightforward point I was trying to make.

GR142-Pipper

VVS-Manuc
07-15-2005, 05:40 AM
Originally posted by shinden1974:
lemme try and sum this up:

in the days of Hellcat ace (1984) we moved a little gunsight thingy toward vaguely airplane like blocks and pressed the button to watch barely visible blocks cause a larger pile of blocks. when you pushed down it got faster, when you pulled up you got slower and higher.

Community reaction: COOL!!! A FLIGHT SIM!!!!!

Then there was AOP with much more recognizable airplane like shapes, somewhat recognizable terrain, and a somewhat accurate cockpit along with torpedo bombing, carrier ops and an actual FM...(1992)

community reaction: OMG! This is the most amazing thing ever built by man! HOLY ****, I just trapped in a hellcat!!! (tears, sobbing)

then there was 1942:PAW (1994) featuring top-of-the-line for the day graphics, a comprehensive planeset (with missing and later added P-38, sound familiar?), virtual cockpit, and everything in AOP but better.

Community reaction: look...GRASS! I can pan my cockpit too, neato. check out this dive bomb view on the val...sweeeet.

CFS2 came, which out of the box was AOP with better graphics and no bombers.

Community reaction: uhhh...where's the planes, why is this game not as good as 1942? (after a thousand 3rd party downloads...) This ones pretty good!

Now there PF added to Il2:FB and AEP, the biggest planeset yet seen in a flight sim (without inconsistent 3rd party downloads). An 'outdated' graphics engine that is the best of any WWII flight simulator in the planet, hyper accurate models and cockpits, along with a decent and improving flight model (compared to what? CFS2 after getting the 1% planes? FS2004? methinks it's alright). just missing some flyable carrier torpedo planes and that's not even the developers fault and betty, now fixed.

Community reaction (in some quarters): Oil cooler in wrong place! Fix (insert plane) or I'll hate you forever! My guns too weak, his is too strong, your stupid! this a conspiracy, oleg hates america! I like beta I'm not supposed to have, give me beta or I'll insult you ad nauseum and throw a f'ing fit, this improves the game! Flight model sux, doesn't go into unrecoverable spiral when I pull up 1 degree at 300 Km in P-51! Flight model sux, I flew (insert plane) in WWII, I know planes, your stupid, I hate you! I'll never buy your product again, it doesn't work when I install without reading the manual! You don't talk to us to give us the planes you owe us, you hate us and your mean!

we have come a long way baby!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
right on, but nearly 20 Spitfire or YAK variants are a little bit too much http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
07-15-2005, 06:16 AM
With respect to 'too many planes', I'm quite sure there are although you cannot simply just 'count' the number you have to fly as most are simply variants with similar FMs. This should, theoretically, reduce the amount of testing required...

However, you have to wonder how much testing (and of what type) actually gets done when you end up with oddities like the 190 DM. You might expect to get an oddity with a less 'used' aircraft such as, say, the Gladiator...but the 190?

As I said before, when you can see that the game core files have been compiled the day before a patch release, it doesn't instill a lot of confidence in the process.

On a more positive note, you have to hand it to Oleg and co for producing what amounts to the most stable game I think I've ever seen on the PC; I can count the number of CTD's I had on one hand.

Ta,
Norris

dazza9806482
07-15-2005, 06:31 AM
Absolutely Norris, I love FB's stability.

its rock solid and really stands out compared to Valves Source Engine and fuggin Rome Total War

it has a curious crash routine- it only seems to CTD when im about to win a staggering victory.

usually i get bummed all day without a hitch.

NorrisMcWhirter
07-15-2005, 06:40 AM
Ah, you'll have hit the following piece of code:

if(StaggeringVictoryImminent() == TRUE)
{
if(DoesDayOfWeekHaveA_T_InIt() == TRUE)
{
CrashToDesktop();
}
else
{
while(1)
{
}
}
}

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

EDIT: pants formatting!

Ta,
NOrris

|CoB|_Spectre
07-15-2005, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
It's not UBI that needs to learn. It's Oleg and his development team. UBI is the distributor, nothing more. Oleg and team code the product. First lesson in ANY software product...finish it. We have had a series of unfinished chapters in the IL-2 development cycle. They just don't seem to be able to conclude anything before embarking on the next "great idea". The result is the product is not only not finished, it becomes impossible to support. This is the lesson that I hope Oleg really stares in the face before proceeding on ANY new IL-2 add-on or the BoB product.
GR142-Pipper

My first awareness of IL-2, IIRC, was around the time I'd moved from Janes WWII Fighters into CFS2. The eye-catching screenshots certainly made it a product worth monitoring. When the pre-release demo was made available, I grabbed hold of it and haven't let go through all the patches, addons to the present. Being a private pilot, I found it behaved the closest to flight physics of any sim I'd seen up to that point.

My impression is that it's not simply a matter of not being "able to conclude anything before embarking on the next 'great idea'", but it is truly an ongoing work in progress. Programming has come a long way from assembly language code on 8-bit platforms and the designer's palette has expanded greatly. It's amazing how far we've come, but desktop computing still has very real limitations, particularly if you need to make your sim playable by more than just those with bleeding edge p.c.'s. What Oleg and his team have presented is the result of the sweat of their collective brows. They have created the sum total flight experience with all the sights and sounds...nothing was "off the shelf". This takes man-years (no offense, ladies) to achieve and no doubt has had much refinement and optimization reminiscent of the assembly programming days, just so the game will run well on a variety of platforms. I have never seen more efficient code for online air combat than their's. By comparison, Janes WWII Fighters was a warpfest. There is no roadmap, these guys are blazing the trail.

As in aircraft design, game design is a series of compromises governed by its purpose and patrons. What began as the western world's first exposure to the airwar on the Eastern Front, WWII air combat affecionados begged for more...more types/models, more western aircraft, more maps and theaters. How can any businessman be blamed for trying to give his patrons what they want and are willing to pay for?

Throughout the short history of the IL-2/FB/AEP/PF series, I'm sure the development team has learned many things, all in the quest for an improvement over the previous version. The hard coding of the sim has got to be cumbersome to work with, but the payoff has been an incredibly hack-resistant and enduring flight sim. The latest patch has provided a glimpse into the physics modeling coming down the pike. Every change has been met with the usual array of accolades and complaints, but most have taken it in stride. Some would be satisfied with a handful of planes if it meant greater fidelity in FMs, while others prefer a greater variety of planes and are less preoccupied with things like FMs and DMs. It is unclear how much more "accuracy" could be obtained with today's computers even if the game was limited to just two opposing aircraft. While I haven't always agreed with 1C's changes, they have given far more support than any other software development group I can think of. I foresee continued experimentation and refinement in their pursuit of excellence will give us all a better product as time goes by. Air combat of WWII has captivated my interest all my life. All manmade products are less than perfect, but sometimes when I'm flying FB/AEP/PF, I realize this is the game I waited most of my life for.

Platypus_1.JaVA
07-15-2005, 04:46 PM
I am a first time visitor to this thread and without going trough all of the five pages, I must say that PF is really an add-on to FB/AEP. Sure it has stand-alone capabilities but, it is still essentially an add-on for me.

Monty_Thrud
07-16-2005, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by YAKMAN:
Show me one game thats bug free???????????

BTW IL2+addons own my F drive

These bugs are to important, to not fix

LEXX_Luthor
07-16-2005, 04:57 PM
FB/PF is rock solid for a computer game. I am finding the StrikeFighters to be the same way.

Pipper::
Let me clarify. There are too many planes to be supported given the obviously limited staff available to Oleg. All I want to see are accurately modeled aircraft and no more of them than are fully supportable. The players can then choose their preference from this pool of supported planes.
We do appreciate the Clarification. However, no player can Choose anything after you take it away from them.

I will admit (with hindsight) AEP was a mistake, as Western Front adds nothing not available in Microsoft and every other WW2 combat flight sim made. Oleg should have gone straight to the Pacific instead of AEP, and done it right! Oleg does his best creative work when he follows the Forgotten Theme, and I consider Pacific a semi-Forgotten battle.

LEXX_Luthor
07-16-2005, 05:13 PM
AEP was a mistake
That is a steep claim. What I mean is...mmm...AEP is "fun" of course, naturally, but fails to advance the combat sim field, mostly because everybody makes identical content WW2 Western Front sims, and the focus on Western Front has stagnated the combat flight sim market no matter the vast increase in Fancy Grafix over the decades. IL~2/FB Eastern Front, for the first time in sim history, shows one can Profit by ignoring the western self advertised Marketing Experts(tm).

GR142-Pipper
07-17-2005, 03:16 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
I will admit (with hindsight) AEP was a mistake, as Western Front adds nothing not available in Microsoft and every other WW2 combat flight sim made. Oleg should have gone straight to the Pacific instead of AEP, and done it right! Oleg does his best creative work when he follows the Forgotten Theme, and I consider Pacific a semi-Forgotten battle. It sounds like we're in violent agreement. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
07-17-2005, 03:24 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
(...snip...)IL~2/FB Eastern Front, for the first time in sim history, shows one can Profit by ignoring the western self advertised Marketing Experts(tm). As a small aside, I have the original IL-2 game on my hard disk and played it yesterday. What a kick. The "fun" factor was higher than what we have today. Just my take.

GR142-Pipper

LEXX_Luthor
07-17-2005, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
(...snip...)IL~2/FB Eastern Front, for the first time in sim history, shows one can Profit by ignoring the western self advertised Marketing Experts(tm). As a small aside, I have the original IL-2 game on my hard disk and played it yesterday. What a kick. The "fun" factor was higher than what we have today. Just my take.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ya, but I love Bf~110, and if Bf-110 gets Axed because Bf-110 is Too Many Planes(tm) than flight simming will remain a "niche" market, although we Old Timers/Timerettes seem to be Proud of our niche Status, so we may want to keep our Status secure, although we can't actually say that.

Bearcat99
07-17-2005, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
I will admit (with hindsight) AEP was a mistake, as Western Front adds nothing not available in Microsoft and every other WW2 combat flight sim made. Oleg should have gone straight to the Pacific instead of AEP, and done it right.

And Oleg going to the Pacific would have.... Think about what you just said in this post..... I guess you never heard of Microsoft's CFS2? That is just ludicrous.... any theater that 1C decided to go to would have been GREAT!!! Whatever has been done by MS... it wasnt this good... even For FB 1.0.. h@ll IL2 was better than anything MS had... These FMs... even the old ones... are better than anything else out. Western front... eastern front..... Med... Pacific.... whatever.. besides.. Oleg didnt decide to go to the Pacific... Luthier did... and for all the flak about this sim it is amazing to me

zoomar
07-18-2005, 11:48 AM
Every theatre IC Maddox has decided to enter they've done a much better job than Microsoft. None of the IL2 derived titles were unnecessary as far as I'm concerned.

But I bet we've seen about the last of PF. Effort will go into BoB and then they'll gradually expand to other theatres, probably first in western europe and the med and then tackle the Eastern Front and Pacific

Mikel05
07-18-2005, 12:38 PM
I have been reading thru these forums for the past few days, getting info on PF and finding some great skins and learning about what has transpired since IL2, which I have, but never really got into when it was released.

CFS2 was my first sim and I loved it, did everything there was to do, even imported parts from other MS sims until finally going to FS2002. (as a designer/modeler/repainter, etc, also)
Needless to say, I have been missing combat flight sims and went out and got PF last week and I am blown away! Runs great, looks great, plays great (although more ships and objects would be nice) and has a very believable feel to it.

You can imagine my dismay to read thru all the threads here to realize that there probably won't be 3rd party support to keep it going (something that MS spoiled you with in CFS2)
Personally I could care less about BOB, played Rowans version in the past, have the Shockwave version coming and would rather see them improve more upon the PTO more than anything else. I am really looking forward to any new content as it means more options to the gameplay and REALLY hope that this sim is allowed to have future support, either thru the company or 3rd paty. designers.

Michael

msalama
07-18-2005, 12:39 PM
Just my take.

...whereas mine was just the opposite - fired up the original just for the hexx of it a while ago, battled for a bit in a Yak-3, thought "too much of a toy, this one" and finally turned it off.

But each to their own, of course...

msalama
07-18-2005, 12:42 PM
...and got PF last week and I am blown away!

Have you patched it up yet? If not, then please do yourself a favor and do it immediately! You're in for an even bigger treat if you do http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LEXX_Luthor
07-18-2005, 05:45 PM
Bear, I know what you are saying, and CFS2 is rather old now, and apparently was "okay" for its time. Pacific is a semi~Forgotten battle, and not covered very often, but is covered rarely, from time to time, so its not a Forgotten battle.

p1ngu666
07-18-2005, 07:34 PM
burma and mainland activities are forgotten.
apart from the avg that is

96th_Nightshifter
07-18-2005, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by Mikel05:

You can imagine my dismay to read thru all the threads here to realize that there probably won't be 3rd party support to keep it going (something that MS spoiled you with in CFS2)
Michael


Yeah I loved CFS2 BUT what really destroyed that game in the end was the endless 3rd party involvement and the total open source of the code - Grew to love it and then grew to hate it with a passion due to NOT being able to fly online without being hounded by cheats, it was apparently a very simple procedure to edit the code and make your plane better than it should be - shame really but hey that's M$oft for you.

My taking on THIS sim is that it has a few things missing, it should have been standalone and given it's due attention - am I sorry I payed for it? H&LL NO!!!! This is the flight sim I have always dreamed of owning and I thank Oleg and his team for their continued support - we may not get everything we want but that's life, appreciate what you have and enjoy the prospect that it may not be finished yet.
When BoB comes out I will buy it - no doubt about it.

shinden1974
07-18-2005, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by Mikel05:
I have been reading thru these forums for the past few days, getting info on PF and finding some great skins and learning about what has transpired since IL2, which I have, but never really got into when it was released.

CFS2 was my first sim and I loved it, did everything there was to do, even imported parts from other MS sims until finally going to FS2002. (as a designer/modeler/repainter, etc, also)
Needless to say, I have been missing combat flight sims and went out and got PF last week and I am blown away! Runs great, looks great, plays great (although more ships and objects would be nice) and has a very believable feel to it.

You can imagine my dismay to read thru all the threads here to realize that there probably won't be 3rd party support to keep it going (something that MS spoiled you with in CFS2)
Personally I could care less about BOB, played Rowans version in the past, have the Shockwave version coming and would rather see them improve more upon the PTO more than anything else. I am really looking forward to any new content as it means more options to the gameplay and REALLY hope that this sim is allowed to have future support, either thru the company or 3rd paty. designers.

Michael

That echoes exactly how I felt when I first saw PF in the shelves, I'd heard about it, with some bad-mouthing from the CFS2 crowd, but buying FB gold and installing the whole thing really opened my eyes...WIDE. I had Il2, I'm a old sim-nut and I try to get them all...but it sat in my bin barely used...I had little interest in it...really focusing on learning the sim and flying broke me and I got into all of it, ETO and all.

It eats me up this thing...there's no way I can go back...I load up CFS2 once in a while to fly the Shiden...but it's not the same, even flying a p11 in Il2FB-AEP-PF is better than flying my favorite in CFS2 (actually I'm starting to like that thing...maybe I need to get into these early wars a little more!).

I definitely fall into the complainer crowd, although it's over content things and honestly, read all of goshikisen's posts about PF and he basically lays it all out articulately without being a pathetic troll. There really isn't much more to say anymore, just go through the archives like I have and you'll get the picture...We basically have 1 patch left and the possibility of up to 3 russian add-ons that may come here, may not, with some PF content. I'm looking forward to them now and I'm not going to pine away for the could-have-beens anymore.

WOLFWotan
07-19-2005, 09:11 AM
I'm a dedicated offline simmer and for me the future of PF lies in the 3rd party campaign addons, namely Wings Over Waves and Wings Over Jungles by http://www.pluswave.de. Currently I'm flying Rebirth of Honour which converted a brilliant sim into a terrific gaming experience.

This was my _only_ gripe with the IL2-series, and it's fixed for me. I'm satisfied with the plane set, the maps, the skins, the flight model, the grafics and so on.

Of course I'd like to see more torp planes, JU88, the Mossie (please), Tempest and so on but I don't think PF-merged is bad without them - on the contrary it's brilliant for me and nearly the only offline game I play.

I'm looking forward to countless hours of flying fun on my computer :-)

That's the future of my copy of PF.

Bearcat99
07-21-2005, 09:59 PM
The thing I like is that I can go from Midway to D-Day... all in the same arena... and one thing you have to keep in mind guys.. some of you may not know this.. but PF was not Oleg's baby.. it was Luthiers baby... and there were problems..... and 1C stepped in.. but the intitial thrust was Luthiers..... I remember the first time I flew IL2 and I said to myself... man this sim is great.... I wish I could fly a bigger variety of planes... and boy... carriers would be nice....... and here we are.... I do hope that Gruman issue can be worked out before it is all said and done though... but if it isnt..... Ill still be flying..

Mikel05
07-24-2005, 05:43 PM
Nightshifter, I totally understand, I had the same isues with MP for CFS2, seemed every server I flew on was full of modded aircraft, no fun at all and extremely frustrating! But I loved the 3rd party addons, especially the modern military ones.

I design with 3DSMax and Gmax and I was in the middle of a really intense naval battle in PF (after being shot down) yesterday and couldn't help but think how cool it would be to make a drivable PT boat and get into it on that angle (yeah, I know I can probably get Silent Hunter for that, but I like variety in one sim)
Maybe a plugin or exporter for new aircraft/objects, who knows.

Either way, I am really enjoying this sim and just ordered the earlier FB and AEP so I will probably have many more moments where I would want to build something for the sim. BOB can take it's sweet time as far as I'm concerned.

Michael

NS38th_Aristaus
07-27-2005, 06:32 AM
I design with 3DSMax and Gmax and I was in the middle of a really intense naval battle in PF (after being shot down) yesterday and couldn't help but think how cool it would be to make a drivable PT boat and get into it on that angle (yeah, I know I can probably get Silent Hunter for that, but I like variety in one sim)
Maybe a plugin or exporter for new aircraft/objects, who knows.

Yes it is cool. I have one for CFS2

Scen
07-27-2005, 12:04 PM
Just to bring up a very DEAD horse...

After reading about BOBII I still can't help think PF and beyond would be great with 6DOF Tracker Support.

yeah yeah I know it's not going to happen.

Just take a look at some of the cockpit work for BOBII and say you wouldn't want to see it in IL2. I may just pick up the title to have 6DOF while I wait for Olegs version.

Scendore

Tuba2004
07-28-2005, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:
Makes me weary to pay my hard earned money for BoB if its anything like PF with all the missing airplanes, maps and its year long patches.

Bump!
It seems a rather high price to for the product to just have the added ability land and takeoff from a carrier and have a few new flyable planes
Since I already had IL2, FB, and AEP, for me, Pacific Fighters has not added that much.
But then, I was expecting a Complete Naval simulation like 1942 PAW. But one with up to
date graphics, etc. that modern computers can now provide.
To me, Pacific Fighters is more of another update for FB and therefore, should have been advertised and sold as such. Of course, I say this as part of the minority group that mostly prefers to fly PF as a stand alone virgin simulation. I try not to use a handball at the tennis court even though they share some similarities.

BlackStar2000
07-29-2005, 07:54 AM
http://www.eliillinois.org/30020_00/main/3031.4X%20Funeral.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
07-29-2005, 08:38 AM
If I have it right - PF started out as a semi-independant project undertaken by some very qualified modelers. It ended up taking much more of the 1c teams time and energy than originally intended and became a large, full-on project without really having been planned in that way.

As for complaints about 'missing planes' etc. etc. Well, personally, it's the best pacific simm I've ever seen. Certainly blows the doors off Microsoft, I don't see any 'missing planes' based on what was promised - I think I heard there was some mistake in the packaging at some point - but I don't know what. Frankly it delivered way more than I was expecting adn the aircraft are superbly modeled. Even CFS2 with the 1% or Wells models cannot begin to approach the sophistication of these flight models. The out of the box models provided by microsoft were simply a joke - they had information in the manual that was directly contradicted in specific instances by the a/c performance. It was completely sloppy and haphazard. Lets not even get into the graphics.

I think - after this next addon/patch - we should expect support for the il2/fb/pf series to fade as energies continue to congeal in the next generation BoB project and it's follow-ons.
In other words it's pretty much time - or will be as soon as we see the next patch - for us all to stop expecting much in the way of growth for this series of simms and just settle in and enjoy them as they are.

Blackdog5555
08-01-2005, 02:28 AM
I think people forget that there are not too may game developers that are building sophisticated warbird sims. The planes are clearly the stars in this series and 1c has done a great job in replicating their look and flight. PF was a bargain just for the F4U and F6F and the carriers, plus the P38L late is the only FM of a P38 off the shelf.... ever. BOB will be a must have just for the new high res 3D cockpits. Hopefully the BoB will not be "Forgotten Terrain Testures and objects" or forgotten "history of the war". (I prefer scripted missions).

AWL_Tonedog
08-04-2005, 09:35 AM
Well IMO i think the people to blame are the ***hats that own the rights to those said Aircraft.

I dont care much for the maps in PF or the whole PF product, but I do think the extra planes are a welcome addition, These are what Makes the IL2 series special for me, and we have loads now. Fantastic.

I think Oleg and 1c do what they can with often limited resources and I have 100% respect and confidence in them.

Cheers for a great sim, the only game that has ever kept me occupied long term (for over 2 years now).

Bring On BoB I'm sure that will be great too.

Cheers.
AWL_Tonedog.

Targ
08-07-2005, 01:17 PM
It's the man not the machine, plain and simple. If you can not have fun playing this sim than that is not the problem of anyone else other than you and it is high time you looked in the mirror.

VFS-214_Hawk
08-07-2005, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by Targ:
It's the man not the machine, plain and simple. If you can not have fun playing this sim than that is not the problem of anyone else other than you and it is high time you looked in the mirror.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif