PDA

View Full Version : OFFLINE CAMPAIGNS PF vs. FB



zarskoe
11-30-2004, 03:25 PM
I played more PF Campaigns to evaluate the performance of DGen and the resulting off-line campaigns.

More in detail I experienced Coral Sea Campaign, Guadalcanal Campaign, Iwo Jima campaign.

My setting for Dgen are:

[Dgen]
AirIntensity=Hight
GroundIntensity=Medium
MissionDistance=40
RandomFlights=4

I found a very low activity, when compared to russian front Campaigns of Il2 FB.


In Coral Sea Campaign I experienced too few engagements. Many missions are poore scouting routine, with not action at all.

Even when You are called to a scouting patrol, or searching for a downed pilot, you could expect to meet some enemy recon plane or an enemy patrol.

In Il2 FB you were used to meet more enemy flyghts in a single mission as a result of your

RandomFlights=n

settings.

But this parameter seems not to work at all in PF.

If you consider that the spaces to travel are higher, and the mission times longer many missions results in a boring experience.



In Guadalcanal Campaign, Iwo Jima Campaign, the mission are often the same: same target, same location, same enemy opposition. Again there `s a low variability in mission outcame probably due to the absence of RandomFlights.

I also noticed that when you destroy ground target like hangar you will find it untouched in the subsequent mission.

In Guadalcanal Campaign escort mission are non-sence: infact enemy planes appears on escorted bomber target area but they leave soon, so there` s no chance of interaction between enemy flights.

In Iwo Jima Campaign things are really confused due to the low dimension of the isle. Japanes planes are often destroyed to ground before taking-off by enemy ground forces fire. Some time a japanese flight try taking-off fron airfields already occupayed by enemy forces.

As a US pilot I destroyed many and many time the same ground target: a group of truks, some guns or some flaks emplacement, but always I find them in the same position and in the same number in the subsequent mission.


I think that offline campaigns in PF offer the player a really frustrating experience. This impression is particularly true for old offline players that experienced

the high dynamic action of il2FB campaigns.

Some suggestions?????

Activate the RandomFlights=n parameters also in PF

Give user the possibility to customize Flights distances to target and incidence of engagement.

Increase the engagement variability in single campaigns: at the present, in a single campaign the mission kind, the opponent, the target area are often, too often the same.

PF offers a rich collection of flyable and AI only planes: why during a campaing you meet always the same opponent ????

Rework ground warfare so to avoid confused situation in reduced spaces: many pacific islands are really little when compared to dimension of the areas on russian-germen theater.



In my opinion with IL2-FB-AEP the possibility to experience a dynamic, action-full, user-customizable set of campaigns made of a good game excellent one; with PF standing the present DGen performance this possibility is gone lost.



zarskoe

Jieitai_Tsunami
11-30-2004, 04:23 PM
I tried to play some of the Japanese missions. I tried being Dai-I flight leader in the Wake island mission. I lead of flight of 6 Zeros Vs what seemed to be 20 Wildcats.

That was OK but almost impossible so I flew as wingman. Flew there and then flew back and landed, no action at all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Then I flew the Ki43, saw some P39s in formation and one after an other shot them all down with about 4 kills in all.

Tried a Val pearl harbour mission and had to wait ages for the speed up but that mission was OK.

Alot of the Japanese wingman missions seem like you are flying 1000s of miles just to come back or face either unbeatable opponents or feeble opponents which can be shot down in afew bursts.

I've never played a game discounting LOMAC that was so incomplete and lies on the back of the box.

These games get worse and worse, I guess by the time BOB comes out you will only get about 4 aircraft and wait for each new aircraft in a patch.

I don't want to think what off-line players must be thinking http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif.

My games going on E-bay with LOMAC.. What turd.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=8150808233&ssPageName=ADME:B:LC:UK:1

SeaFireLIV
11-30-2004, 04:30 PM
When will you guys get it?

The Pacific is HUGE - a massive wide open area of sea. The Frontlines are not clearly defined as with the West and Eastern Fronts.

Some of you would rather historical accuracy was thrown out of the window so you could have your quick fix, console type fights. The only way to get it is in QMB.

Otherwise look at it as a way of learning HOW IT REALLY WAS for the American, British, Australian and Japanese fighters in real life. Loooong periods of nothing much with intense activity for about 5-10 minutes, then nothing again. You`re learning something you can now tell your history teacher!

And if you hate it so much, take it back to the shop. Why are you still here?

Sheesh.

Jieitai_Tsunami
12-01-2004, 03:54 AM
Why would any one want to play a game that was so boring that you are yawning all the way though and don't even feel like landing at the end. I suppose pilots in WW2 did spend alot of time bored in the barracks but why does that boredom have to be modelled in game too?

If you read Saburo sakai's book, most of the missions he mentioned had some kind of action in them.

Who wants to play a game where nothing happens? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

SeaFireLIV
12-01-2004, 04:07 AM
I really do feel like I`m talking to children sometimes. (I probably am).

Look, Saburo sakai's not going to write in his book,"Today a had a 1 hour flight before I met the enemy. Yesterday, I flew for 2 hours before I saw anything..." In detail.

Why? Cos He`s just going to write the interesting events that a reader might want to know. Also, because this is NORMAL ROUTINE for him. Flying for 1-2 hours would be nothing. But HE still had to FLY those distances.

Perhaps if he knew that a great flight sim was going to be created he would`ve mentioned more of the `boring` bits to you. And I`m pretty sure he`d want you to fly as REALISTICALLY as you could if you were going to fly in respect of his name!

The_Ant
12-01-2004, 05:47 AM
The game is perfectly fine as it is.It´s not historical correct in missions vs kills,it should even be more missions less kills.Do you think every pilot in WW2 had the same fights/action as we have ingame LOL.
Many flights in ww2 were without enemy contact.
Heres a nice one iv´e finnished one campaign as luftwaffe in aep/fb,with around 150 missions flown and i had around 470 kills.How realistic is that!.The same happend with my japanese Navy campaign in pf with 64 missions and 157 kills lol.Even the WW2 veterans would think thats Wrong.The real listing should have been something like 800 missions and 157 kills,then it would have been a little more correct.

TacticalYak3
12-01-2004, 07:21 AM
Wow, it continues to amaze me when someone is critical of these very long flight times and boring combat how history is used by others to defend this very weak point in the game.

Is historical accuracy really the only factor in gaming? With respect, give yourself a good head shake mate. Real WW2 pilots had all day and night to fulfill their orders; their lives were on the line. We are talking about fathers and busy students with limited gaming time.

Furthermore, while there were shorter flight times in the other theatres, there were also certainly very long ones. So why didn't the purists argue to Oleg during FB/AEP to disable the flight length parameter? Why can there not be some choice given to IL-2 fans that prefer, for whatever reason, some mission parameter options.

If PF was to be the saviour of flight sims to get new blood, do you guys really think someone new would generally want to fly for so long and see the same boring stuff?

Of course some like it this way. I respect that and am very happy for them. But why must you nullify our criticism? This is a video game. It falls into the category of simulation. It must at the end of the day provide a realistic representation of WW2 flight combat while providing enjoyment to the gamer.

It is generally failing in the later with respect to offline play for a number of IL-2 fans. Simple to understand and maybe even respect, no?

I don't expect those who don't bother to play offline (or online) campaigns to care or take up the cause. But for others to argue history must prevail over gaming enjoyment is getting very frustrating to us who were expecting so much more from campaigns in PF. Clearly DGEN/NGEN can place targets closer together and provide more variety.

Zarathael
12-01-2004, 07:22 AM
If you're dissappointed with PF/FB or LOMAC, I don't think you should consider yourself a fan of flight sims period. Sure they have problems, but they are by far more stable and complete than any others I've played, and this comes from experience as I've experimented with nearly everything else that has come out in the last few years.

As for the long distances of the missions, once more, the pacific is a big place. That's all that needs to be said about that. I have noticed a frequency of attacking the same targets (essentially flying the same mission over and over again), and that gets a bit irksome, BUT there is definitely a historical precedent for that as well. you think that when fighters were called on for close air support on okinawa that they took off, flew one mission to a given area, bombed it and all the enemy troops were dead? Historically, pilots often did have to go after the same areas and the same targets repeatedly, because often enemy positions would take a lot of ordinance to completely pacify. If you'll notice, in most of the repeat missions, the specific target will be different, although the area, flight path and most other mission parameters are very similar. I think the reason for this is the efforts of the team to simulate this type of attrition warfare, of slowly wearing a given position down. Didn't really say I loved doing it though.

There are some things I would like to see fixed or improved in the game, things I'd like to see added, but all in all I still think it outclasses anything else I've run across. I admit I'm a junkie for the pacific war, and that might give me some sort of bias, but well, cfs2 was all we had for that. CFS2 was a great game, and I played the hell out of it, but I always considered it a game, not a sim. but that's another topic for another time perhaps. bye all. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Zarathael
12-01-2004, 07:32 AM
Also, for all of you complaining about long flight times. have you noticed that the little brackets [ ] will speed up the game by up to 8x?

or that in the control setup you have an option of assigning one of you keys to speed up the program? It basically jumps you from waypoint to waypoint, and comes back to normal space when there are enemies nearby?

goes a long way toward speeding up that boring flight time.

I by far prefer the inclusion of these long missions (and these are nothing compared to the 8,12,15 hour flights that the pilots actually had to contend with in reality) than to be insulted by having something else dumbed down to appease the mainstream mind.

thankee all

nakamura_kenji
12-01-2004, 07:47 AM
tip for not like long time flight people switch autopilot speed time 8x read book enemy near until ^_^

widgeon
12-01-2004, 08:21 AM
I think the point some are making is that; the option to make the campaigns more varied, with increased probability for action would be a good thing.

Those wanting strict realism would still get it their way, nobody would lose. Why do some of you respond as though this sim is a pie, and if someone gets something you feel you will lose something.

You sound like liberals, and thier view on progressive tax structure. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif


Widgeon

Jieitai_Tsunami
12-01-2004, 08:31 AM
I don't mind long flight times, flying for an hour or so is no problem for me. The missions just don't seem to make sense some times. A KI43 mission I flew seemed like the ai Hayabusa did not know how to fly straight. I was doing some crazy manoeuvres to keep in formation with them.

In IL2 you felt like you were actually flying the missions. You took off and tried to keep in formation until at target then did what you had to do and get home. If you did any mistakes like chose to keep on a bandit too long you might be shot down.

The missions here just seem like it would not matter if you did not fly at all. I actually crashed landing on a carrier and it said 'Mission complete!' lol. The missions just seem like they have been hashed together without any thought..

A.K.Davis
12-01-2004, 08:40 AM
the randomflights variable has no effect on PF campaigns. Random flights are now linked to the AirIntensity variable. Starshoy is considering changes on this.

Starshoy is also considering a variable that will allow players to use ahistorical short ranges for the carrier battle campaigns.

cueceleches
12-01-2004, 08:50 AM
Well, it´s simple. If you want an arcadish, fast action, boom-boom game, get Crimsom Skies or CFS3. PF is more serious than that, IMHO. Otherwise, fly online, where you will be able to take off, shoot and land five times each minute.

TacticalYak3
12-01-2004, 09:48 AM
Absolutely right mate. No middle ground to be sought. Campaigns are wonderful the way they are. Options would ruin the game for everyone. Only true elite sim pilots should be playing IL-2 anyway. Anyone who would like the option to reduce flght times to say @ 10 minutes to target area, without using speed hacks, should be playing Crimson Skies. Roger, thanks! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

SeaFireLIV
12-01-2004, 09:54 AM
Well as long as Starshoy doesn`t force us all to fly 2 feet to every island and have an instant battle every time we start a flight in Campaign.

Sure, make it an option for the `quck-fix adrenalin` kids, but leave the rest of us who want a little realism to have the default distances (yes, and I do use accelerate).

NorrisMcWhirter
12-01-2004, 09:57 AM
Hi,

I don't mind the flight times to and from target but sometimes they can be a little OTT especially if the pub is opening in the near future http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

That's not to say that they shouldn't be in there but perhaps an alternative time skip should be employed? I realise this is difficult because there is always something going on in a PF mission (ground forces battling it out/other flights) but just think of the effect that this is having on people new to the game.

No doubt someone will say, 'Well, we don't care what they think - they can go and play Crimson Skies' but it does matter because these people contribute the revenue required for 1C to develop BoB etc...something which is often overlooked.

Cheers,
Norris

cueceleches
12-01-2004, 09:58 AM
I must say that many times, on missions over long distances, there are other events developing around, and I find myself spending most of the flight to the target watching other aerial fights, ships pounding shores, or whatever is happening in the theater. I find it very fun, it is like watching a movie.

Saburo_0
12-01-2004, 10:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
the randomflights variable has no effect on PF campaigns. Random flights are now linked to the AirIntensity variable. Starshoy is considering changes on this.

Starshoy is also considering a variable that will allow players to use ahistorical short ranges for the carrier battle campaigns. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yep, don't sell the game yet!!
Personally i support shorter distances or a greater time compression, but have found the New Guinea IJA campaign not too bad with 8x.

to be honest 50 mins of uninterupted game time is hard to come by. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif so don't appreciate folks who say that makes me a Quake gamer. But it seems to me that PF was forced out the door for the holidy shopping season & Starshoy is still working on improvements. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif From most game developers i would be upset too i suppose but since the team is still at work on it I don't mind.
Oh & have yu tried : http://www.lowengrin.com/news.php
Dynamic Campaign Generator, Haven't tried it yet myself but some swear by it.

Capt._Tenneal
12-01-2004, 10:08 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

No no no ! I want do different things in PF. I want to shoot down mucho Zeros and then fly B-25 off the Hornet and join Jimmy Doolitle to bomb Tokyo like Ben Affleck ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Saburo_0
12-01-2004, 10:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Capt._Tenneal:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

No no no ! I want do different things in PF. I want to shoot down mucho Zeros and then fly B-25 off the Hornet and join Jimmy Doolitle to bomb Tokyo like Ben Affleck ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rude.
But thankfully the devlopers aren't, and are willing to work to make the game more enjoyable. Yes I said game, it's imposible to simulate being shot at. What did that Belgian WW1 ace say- "Being shot at is bad for ones nerves. "

Wallstein
12-01-2004, 11:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zarskoe:
I played more PF Campaigns to evaluate the performance of DGen and the resulting off-line campaigns.
--------------------------

I found a very low activity, when compared to russian front Campaigns of Il2 FB.
zarskoe <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hello blokes! I`d like to say something, not to comment each every statement one by one.

In general, as far as I have found out, the basic idea of the long flights and rare engagements with the enemies are just accurate, nothing but true according to the history. In reality there must have been combat missions without meeting any hostile aircrafts just as those kind of "boring" flights took place in every other front as well. I`m quite assured that the real WWII -pilots considered them selves very lucky after every such a mission. In fact - I suppose - as the great combats took place rarely with weeks or even months in between, there must have been tens and tens of purely patrolling- and observing flights without seeing anything else but the sea, sky, isles and occasional villages, fishing boats etc.

So, anybody who feels like being bored with those long flights can do two things: either quit playing and change to another simulator, or they can speed up the game letting autopilot operate. As a new phenomena we have got in PF possibility to speed up the game up two 12X realtime, I guess. One has to map the appropriate key himself to use that ability. My choise is Ctrl+Ӟ (I don´t know what english keyboards have instead of that letter, I mean the letter "a" with two little dots on it).

The 12X speed up -function is smart. First, it switches off the screen making it black and showing the clock on the right lower corner of the screen. (That clock shows the same time as the clock in the cockpit) Then, when either a waypoint or enemy (Enemy near!) has been reached, the speed up functions switches back to normal time automatically and the normal view of the screen will be instantly back again. It is very usefull. I suggest that you read more about this function from the "Read Me" -bulletin.

And then there was criticism against the targets. I don´t know if you kids knew this, but the Pacific is a large, very large ocean with tiny little isles here and there. When the opponents in war (Japan and America) concentrated their troops and equippment to the battle-area (can´t say battle field in this case), they had to get the men and their stuff to those isles. When the enemies attacked, they had to attack those isles and no other isles. In case of invasions the isles had to be strafed and bombed and in many cases for several times and later in the war surprisingly long times, even as long as for several days. Those combat missions must have been all the same one after one: Taking off from the same carriers and finding/fighting one´s way to the target, the same isle as yesterday.

For the bombers and strafers the targets were always the same: accommodation, supplydumps, vehicles, bunkers, guns of all kind and ships. In fact there was not many other types of targets available. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

All in all, I don´t understand what you, many of you, are criticising. You have got easier aeroplane handling (compared to that what the original IL-2 Stormovik was), the American side allways wins... what else do you want? Isn´t this excactly what has been demanded. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Let´s have fun
Wallstein

TacticalYak3
12-01-2004, 11:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Let´s have fun
Wallstein <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There - you said the magic words! C'mon guys another senseless debate.

Please let's stop calling everyone kids. You're guys are probably older than me - I'm just 35 with a family (girl 12/boy 10) and work full time.

Not a fan? Been playing and paying IL-2 for 2 years. Spent countless hours playing and building missions, campaigns, and enjoying online with my squad.

Of course having working DGEN parameters isn't going to ruin the present game experience. Personally seems strange to argue about wanting these long flight times but also using time acceleration where you gaze at a blank screen - there's a real sim killer. At least I can appreciate those that actually love flying an hour to the target zone.

The challenge for any game developer is presenting the simulation that will appeal to the widest possible audience. Hence, open cockpit, icons, and a whole host of CEM options that can be turned off.

Folks playing without more difficult settings hasn't taken away from my IL-2 experience yet. And Oleg would certainly cease from producing flight sims if the end product became a Crimson Skies game.

SeaFireLIV
12-01-2004, 11:50 AM
Well I`m 38 and I still want the normal default lengths and I DO use accelerate. Look at it this way... I don`t possibly have the time to fly EVERY mission in normal time, I`d love to and I have very rarely. the point is I want to `feel` i`m in the same situation as those guys in reality and that I can, if I wish, actually go the whole hog! Sometimes I stop the acceleration and just fly with the group for a few minutes (check my cockpit) look around and hit accelerate again. Also, with the latest patch look closesly at the number counting time- it`s actually FASTER now.

I do not want to be FORCED into a quick-fix time. QMB will do that and I never use it.

But what`s the point, you want your quick fixes and you won`t change. All i`m doing is making sure that we who want the default times will still have it...

I have flown full length missions on the Eastern front and will at some point give it a go in PF!

Saburo_0
12-01-2004, 12:55 PM
Well put Yaktical!

Personally not unhappy with PF campaigns now but might enjoy the option to shorten flights further. i certainly understand people who find the flight times a problem & don't think they should be whipped for saying so. Would hate for them to give up on PF. The more the merrier i say. Options options options, can't go wrong with more options.

TacticalYak3
12-01-2004, 01:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Well I`m 38 and I still want the normal default lengths and I DO use accelerate. Look at it this way... I don`t possibly have the time to fly EVERY mission in normal time, I`d love to and I have very rarely. the point is I want to `feel` i`m in the same situation as those guys in reality and that I can, if I wish, actually go the whole hog! Sometimes I stop the acceleration and just fly with the group for a few minutes (check my cockpit) look around and hit accelerate again. Also, with the latest patch look closesly at the number counting time- it`s actually FASTER now.

I do not want to be FORCED into a quick-fix time. QMB will do that and I never use it.

But what`s the point, you want your quick fixes and you won`t change. All i`m doing is making sure that we who want the default times will still have it...

I have flown full length missions on the Eastern front and will at some point give it a go in PF! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oleg promises me we will BOTH be happy mate. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Now get up into your plane so I can shoot you down! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

[insert group hug]