PDA

View Full Version : Shockwave should also do 3rd party modelling for this series



Haigotron
08-19-2007, 10:03 PM
Not that I am saying that RRG's quality is inferior, but having Shockwave handle any third party birds would ensure only the best quality models.

First let the nay sayers speak

FritzGryphon
08-19-2007, 10:08 PM
First!

I'm not sure I understand. All of the Shockwave stuff is decidedly inferior to BoB previews.

The FW-190 is particularly bad. The skin is hardly started, compared to free skins made by the good skinners around here. At a glance, the polycounts of their planes are enormous, but lacking any fine detail that you see even in the nicer IL-2 cockpits.

Shockwave seems to like FS, CFS and BoB because they can control the quality standads, and sell work that is relatively easy to make for big money to a captive market. Plus, no damage models, or collision boxes for any FS planes. I'm not sure they would be interested in SoW.

Like Gibbage once said, there's way more money in CFS and FS, and less work.

It's not that Shockwave sucks, they're just in a different business.

Haigotron
08-19-2007, 10:11 PM
woah boy, i should never drink and post again....i assumed shockwave (i've seen the 109 and the spit) was one of the best 3rd party crew out there, well i stand crooked yet corrected...

tagTaken2
08-19-2007, 10:35 PM
Hell, drinking and posting are pretty much synonymous for me. Go nuts, I say. In vino veritas.

With regards to shockwave, I'm not sure they're all the same people... like ubi is not just maddox games. I've referred to shockwave as an entity for the BoB:WoV team, but I believe they're just the publishers.
The screenshots I've seen from wings of power... bleh.

NAFP_supah
08-20-2007, 10:33 AM
Check out there most recent offerings for FSX. Way beyond what we have seen in this game looks wise and light years ahead in quality of simulation. I am not seeing much at all from BoB so I wouldn't know if its better or not.

SeaFireLIV
08-20-2007, 10:54 AM
To be honest, there`s not much I can say. I really like their BOBwov, since I can really see the work in there. However, as for the rest of their products, not sure.

I`d keep it to Oleg as far as third party skins is concerned, but I would be interested in seeing them do an offline campaign for Oleg as long as Shockwave and UBI don`t get too greedy over the cash side of things.

p-11.cAce
08-20-2007, 11:18 AM
Way beyond what we have seen in this game looks wise and light years ahead in quality of simulation.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Sounds like a Faux news quote - please explain exactly what you mean by "light years ahead in quality of simulation".

Blondeknght
08-20-2007, 12:24 PM
I have asked the same question of Shockwave and they declined. The said they aren't interested and the "Man hours" to upgrade the out dated game engine would not be cost effective.

leitmotiv
08-20-2007, 01:28 PM
I am not impressed by all of Shockwave's stuff, but some of it is inspired, like the He 219 package, which I hope they upgrade to FSX. I don't own the brand-new B-17G for FSX, but it looks pretty good. The modeling and artwork on the recent "World War II Fighters" for FSX was inferior, but the FMs seemed spot on. Flight Replicas does the best work for FSX I have seen (109G package, 109K package, Me 262 package). AlphaSim does very good work, but not quite up to Flight Reps.

stalkervision
08-20-2007, 01:53 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
First!

I'm not sure I understand. All of the Shockwave stuff is decidedly inferior to BoB previews.

The FW-190 is particularly bad. The skin is hardly started, compared to free skins made by the good skinners around here. At a glance, the polycounts of their planes are enormous, but lacking any fine detail that you see even in the nicer IL-2 cockpits.

you mean like this..?

http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/store/fw190/screenshots/46.jpg

or this..

http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/store/fw190/screenshots/42.jpg

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

NAFP_supah
08-20-2007, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Way beyond what we have seen in this game looks wise and light years ahead in quality of simulation.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Sounds like a Faux news quote - please explain exactly what you mean by "light years ahead in quality of simulation". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Most airplanes do not store their fuel in one big tank, often their fuel is placed in four tanks. Most of the time two in the wings and then some placed in the fuselage. There is a knob on most planes, ww2 planes just as cessna's and microlights or 747's, that let's you select from which tank you want to drain fuel. Microsoft flight simulator 4 had this upon it's release in 1989. In PC gaming I'd call a 28 year lead a light year. Question answered?

Bremspropeller
08-20-2007, 01:59 PM
stalker, does the pit belong to that plane?

stalkervision
08-20-2007, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
stalker, does the pit belong to that plane?

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

Bremspropeller
08-20-2007, 02:03 PM
lol, so much for accuracy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

stalkervision
08-20-2007, 02:05 PM
http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/store/fw190/screenshots/47.jpg

Features
Built with "Absolute realism" flight technology
- Can be flown "by the book"
- Built with rare historical flight test reports
- "Absolute Realism" means the entire flight envelope is modeled via the actual pilot's training manuals
- Authentic cruise performance under various conditions with realistic fuel economy
- Absolute Realism even delivers authentic "distance-to-altitude" performance under various power settings
- High engine torque means full power cannot be applied with brakes on or aircraft will "nose over"

Gorgeously constructed aircraft, inside and out, down to the last rivet

Professionally recorded and mastered engine sounds
- Realistic, deep radial engine characteristics captured inside and out at all power levels
- Stall buffet, canopy, ground roll, flaps, gyro, and authentic cockpit wind

Both modern and veteran warbird pilots helped create the "feel" of flight

"Wings of Power "Special Effects" package includes:
- Historically accurate lighting for stunning nighttime visuals
- Realistic startup visuals modeled after the real aircraft
- Belly landings with realistic effects and physics programming

Shockwave's new standard for high quality manuals
- 130-pages in full 8 X 11"
- Absolute Realism Certified Specifications
- Rare historical data included
- British formerly top-secret plans to capture the Focke Wulf
- Tactical trial reports
- Letter from Air Chief Marshal to the Under Secretary of State
- Authentic hand-written German flight test reports

sounds like junk doesn't it.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Bremspropeller
08-20-2007, 02:07 PM
Now that would be the correct a/c for the given pit-pic.

stalkervision
08-20-2007, 02:13 PM
maybe this one..?

http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/wingsofpower/info/forumpicts/fw_ln/release/image005.gif

http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/store/fw_ln/screenshots/c9.jpg

http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/store/fw_ln/screenshots/e2.jpg

stalkervision
08-20-2007, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Now that would be the correct a/c for the given pit-pic.


Yup.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

p-11.cAce
08-20-2007, 02:21 PM
Question answered?
What happens when you line up on a P-51's six and pull the trigger with all that "absolute realism"?

Then ask yourself "self, if I did not have to worry about a DM or ballistics modeling what other little things could I model more accurately?"

You are right - one of those things might be fuel systems modeling. However I find that most missions in IL2, due to map size, would not require much in the way of fuel management even if it were available - at least nothing more than chucking the drops and switching to mains. Since you have to hit a key to release drops I'm not sure that adding another key or mouse click adds "light years" to a sim but I could be wrong.

stalkervision
08-20-2007, 02:24 PM
maybe Shockwave should model FritzGryphon pulling his head out of his butt just to make his stupid statements especially realistic.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

stalkervision
08-20-2007, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Question answered?
What happens when you line up on a P-51's six and pull the trigger with all that "absolute realism"?

Then ask yourself "self, if I did not have to worry about a DM or ballistics modeling what other little things could I model more accurately?"

You are right - one of those things might be fuel systems modeling. However I find that most missions in IL2, due to map size, would not require much in the way of fuel management even if it were available - at least nothing more than chucking the drops and switching to mains. Since you have to hit a key to release drops I'm not sure that adding another key or mouse click adds "light years" to a sim but I could be wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then you asks yourself, "self given the evidence to the contrary does one believe shockwave couldn't handle that also given what they have done with these aircraft..?" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.gamershell.com/tv/2856.html

NAFP_supah
08-20-2007, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Question answered?
What happens when you line up on a P-51's six and pull the trigger with all that "absolute realism"?

Then ask yourself "self, if I did not have to worry about a DM or ballistics modeling what other little things could I model more accurately?"

You are right - one of those things might be fuel systems modeling. However I find that most missions in IL2, due to map size, would not require much in the way of fuel management even if it were available - at least nothing more than chucking the drops and switching to mains. Since you have to hit a key to release drops I'm not sure that adding another key or mouse click adds "light years" to a sim but I could be wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Firstly, You asked me to explain how Shockwaves addons were light years ahead in quality of simulation, I did. Then you come up with the old "There is no combat" bit. What did you expect for the FSX engine? It doesn't have combat (yet). What you are doing is as if people would be lambasting oleg for not modelling squat in his shipping and complaining how poor a ship simulator IL-2 is. FSX was never designed as a combat sim. In the modelling of aircraft systems, flight modelling and just plain old visual modelling Shockwave is ahead at the moment. Just look at the progress shots of their P-40.

If you want to claim you are developing flight simulations leaving the most basic aircraft systems out doesn't fly (forgive the pun) with me. It's like Colin McRae Rally games not having any shifting gear at all ... little things? You think all aircraft have an "I" key in the cockpit that starts the engine? wether it's a 109, a spitfire, a mustang or a LaGG-3 the start up is the same, just ram the "I" button. I find that boring and feel it would add to the planes if you would need to learn the procedures (this could be optional).

Secondly, at the moment Shockwave is already adding damage models to their machines for FSX which allows for much greater complexity then FS9 did. The development times for their aircraft is way lower then Maddox games for their engine (current one, let alone the time it will take to develop for the new engine with the more complex models etc.). Also they're allready adding these things PLUS the guns and damage models to their Battle Of Britain game. If they were interested in the IL-2 engine that would be fantastic but I think they are right that it is really starting to show its age. Perhaps Oleg should allow them to develop addons for the new engine. That might be the best of both worlds. I don't think Oleg is a dunce but I think he is making some strange choices .. but in the end it's his game and he can make (or break) it whatever way he wants.

p-11.cAce
08-20-2007, 03:20 PM
You think all aircraft have an "I" key in the cockpit that starts the engine?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

leitmotiv
08-20-2007, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by NAFP_supah:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Question answered?
What happens when you line up on a P-51's six and pull the trigger with all that "absolute realism"?

Then ask yourself "self, if I did not have to worry about a DM or ballistics modeling what other little things could I model more accurately?"

You are right - one of those things might be fuel systems modeling. However I find that most missions in IL2, due to map size, would not require much in the way of fuel management even if it were available - at least nothing more than chucking the drops and switching to mains. Since you have to hit a key to release drops I'm not sure that adding another key or mouse click adds "light years" to a sim but I could be wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Firstly, You asked me to explain how Shockwaves addons were light years ahead in quality of simulation, I did. Then you come up with the old "There is no combat" bit. What did you expect for the FSX engine? It doesn't have combat (yet). What you are doing is as if people would be lambasting oleg for not modelling squat in his shipping and complaining how poor a ship simulator IL-2 is. FSX was never designed as a combat sim. In the modelling of aircraft systems, flight modelling and just plain old visual modelling Shockwave is ahead at the moment. Just look at the progress shots of their P-40.

If you want to claim you are developing flight simulations leaving the most basic aircraft systems out doesn't fly (forgive the pun) with me. It's like Colin McRae Rally games not having any shifting gear at all ... little things? You think all aircraft have an "I" key in the cockpit that starts the engine? wether it's a 109, a spitfire, a mustang or a LaGG-3 the start up is the same, just ram the "I" button. I find that boring and feel it would add to the planes if you would need to learn the procedures (this could be optional).

Secondly, at the moment Shockwave is already adding damage models to their machines for FSX which allows for much greater complexity then FS9 did. The development times for their aircraft is way lower then Maddox games for their engine (current one, let alone the time it will take to develop for the new engine with the more complex models etc.). Also they're allready adding these things PLUS the guns and damage models to their Battle Of Britain game. If they were interested in the IL-2 engine that would be fantastic but I think they are right that it is really starting to show its age. Perhaps Oleg should allow them to develop addons for the new engine. That might be the best of both worlds. I don't think Oleg is a dunce but I think he is making some strange choices .. but in the end it's his game and he can make (or break) it whatever way he wants. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well writ.

I find this rear-guard action by the IL-2 buffs fascinating. It is an antique about to be replaced by a mega-combat simulator. FSX is a superlative flight simulator---the FM is much superior to FS9 (i.e., unforgiving), and for the experience of virtual flying in terms of terrain, modeling of the aircraft, weather, "seeing" (6 DOF), system failures, and, everything but baddaboom, it looks and feels better than IL-2. Big deal. If you are hell-bent on shooting, it will never cut the ice. For me, I like learning more about airplanes than boom stuff.

leitmotiv
08-20-2007, 04:02 PM
P.S. And, fer petessakes, why this sanctification of IL-2 as if it were the ne plus ultra of airplane simulators? It has well-known flaws which critically affect its utility such as the inability to realistically handle high-altitude flight, and the "torque light" on takeoffs (try a IL-2 classic full-power takeoff in FS9 or X WWII fighters and you will be in the trees to the side of the runway). It's cookie cutter trees and buildings look so 2001.

IL-2 is a slam bam game for the online crowd, and, I reckon, it will retain this appeal for some time into the future.

stalkervision
08-20-2007, 04:43 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Blood_Splat
08-20-2007, 04:49 PM
I wish they would have stuck with B17 II.

p-11.cAce
08-20-2007, 05:13 PM
I wish they would have stuck with B17 II.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I know -imagine oleg fanbois like me posting on an IL2 forum - who would have thought?

Skycat_2
08-20-2007, 07:39 PM
I've tried various FS add-ons and the Shockwave fighters continue to be my favorites. I spend most of my FS time in the WOP P-47 Thunderbolts, flying both the Thunderbolt mega-pack (in FS2004) and the "WWII Fighters Special Edition" version (in FSX). These videos demonstrate the Shockwave Thunderbolt in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aa09tTAkHgI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHR77xO-_vc

I don't have Trackir so I don't get quite as realistic a viewing experience as the creator of the video, but otherwise I've been enjoying learning how the FS version compares with the real version. Last week I had a rough landing when the gear delayed in dropping:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v62/Skycat/CrashLikeThunder.jpg

I'm not necessarily a Superfan of all of Shockwave's planes, but their best offerings meet or exceed the competition. This is the cockpit of the WWII Fighters Spitfire I:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v62/Skycat/Rivers/FS2004/WW2Spit_01.jpg

And the Shockwave Bf109E:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v62/Skycat/Rivers/FS2004/Nepal_09.jpg

Sure, they don't have guns or complicated damage models. FS planes do have random failures and other 'complications' however. Also, center of gravity changes as fuel is burned. Details like this do make for a different flying experience. This thread at SimHQ introducing the upcoming P-40 says a lot about the overall FS experience:
http://www.simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&...4&page=1#Post2274244 (http://www.simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2274244&page=1#Post2274244)

ElAurens
08-20-2007, 07:56 PM
Nicely modeled "skid" marks and bent prop too I see...

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

PB0_shadow
08-21-2007, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Nicely modeled "skid" marks and bent prop too I see...

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

Shhhh. They're light years ahead in skidmarks. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

But they couldn't model the propeller correctly.

Who cares? Propellers are not interesting in a flight sim, uh?

Math exercise for one; 1989 + 28 = 2017. They sure are some years ahead http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

joeap
08-21-2007, 03:39 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
IL-2 is a slam bam game for the online crowd, and, I reckon, it will retain this appeal for some time into the future.

Damn you haven't read some of the stuff I've written? Thee are some superb offline 3rd party campaigns for the Il-2 series that folks with no expectation of monetary reward have created. The online crowd included those who are interested in realistic combat and online wars with objectives and teamwork.

I am not against other sim though far from it. I don't see why both sides are being so agressive.

HuninMunin
08-21-2007, 03:47 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Nicely modeled "skid" marks and bent prop too I see...

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

Look, for normaly talented PC pilots it's not really essential what crashing planes look like but rather how they look flying.
I can of course understand that you have to emphasize on damage visuals though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

NAFP_supah
08-21-2007, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You think all aircraft have an "I" key in the cockpit that starts the engine?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good to see you agree with me, otherwise you might have come up with some actual arguments.

checkout this link (http://shockwaveproductions.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8576) for more pictures of the P-40 by shockwave. If the upcoming Flying Tigers game by shockwave is any good Oleg might have some competition at last. Nice for the people here who like the pacific theater over the european theater too!

leitmotiv
08-21-2007, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
IL-2 is a slam bam game for the online crowd, and, I reckon, it will retain this appeal for some time into the future.

Damn you haven't read some of the stuff I've written? Thee are some superb offline 3rd party campaigns for the Il-2 series that folks with no expectation of monetary reward have created. The online crowd included those who are interested in realistic combat and online wars with objectives and teamwork.

I am not against other sim though far from it. I don't see why both sides are being so agressive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Joeap, frankly my interest in IL-2, online and offline is 0 for the reasons I enumerated over and over. I can understand why onliners would continue to play IL-2 after BOB is released, but I see no reason for offliners to waste their time with an obsolete system. My interest is in BOB. As soon as BOB is released IL-2 goes off my HD.

leitmotiv
08-21-2007, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by NAFP_supah:
checkout this link (http://shockwaveproductions.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8576) for more pictures of the P-40 by shockwave. If the upcoming Flying Tigers game by shockwave is any good Oleg might have some competition at last. Nice for the people here who like the pacific theater over the european theater too!

Aieeeeee! Looks like Shockwave has made a quantum leap in aircraft modeling since BOB II. Wonderful stuff, and the good news is that, maybe, there will be some stiff competition between 1C and Shockwave which can only be good for the consumer, and, yes, it will be a good thing that there will be a Pacific Theater sim at the same time we get BOB. Nice timing on Shockwave's part.

SeaFireLIV
08-21-2007, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I see no reason for offliners to waste their time with an obsolete system. My interest is in BOB. As soon as BOB is released IL-2 goes off my HD.

I really don`t see IL2 as obsolete offline at all. When I jump into the cockpit of an I16, P40 or La5, or a hundred other aircraft it all comes back to me just how well made and long-lasting this sim is. I chase after a Stuka, shoot at it, watch bits fly off it as it struggles to get away, then suddenly it`s gear flies off, now it`s a one legged Stuka. More shots, it catches fire and spirals down, one wing snapping off.

Or what about looking at the clear crisp detail of each aircraft in close up dogfight view over numerous terrain types.

In no other sim do I see AI aircraft succesfully rollover crashland, the AI pilot jump out and run, in no other sim can I watch in joy as recognisable parts of planes break off to wear I hit.

Destruction and crashlanding details of yours and their aircraft is still the best there is and AI still gives a damn good fight, especially if more than one of them are on you. With DCg I can overdose off IL2 to my heart`s content.

The only thing I wish IL2 had was a 6D0F cockpit, slightly better AI and more aircraft in the sky at once which of course BOBWOV does, but BOBwov is pretty old and it too has its bugs.

Obsolete?

Not yet.

p-11.cAce
08-21-2007, 10:51 AM
Good to see you agree with me, otherwise you might have come up with some actual arguments.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

NAFP_supah
08-21-2007, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I see no reason for offliners to waste their time with an obsolete system. My interest is in BOB. As soon as BOB is released IL-2 goes off my HD.

I really don`t see IL2 as obsolete offline at all. When I jump into the cockpit of an I16, P40 or La5, or a hundred other aircraft it all comes back to me just how well made and long-lasting this sim is. I chase after a Stuka, shoot at it, watch bits fly off it as it struggles to get away, then suddenly it`s gear flies off, now it`s a one legged Stuka. More shots, it catches fire and spirals down, one wing snapping off.

Or what about looking at the clear crisp detail of each aircraft in close up dogfight view over numerous terrain types.

In no other sim do I see AI aircraft succesfully rollover crashland, the AI pilot jump out and run, in no other sim can I watch in joy as recognisable parts of planes break off to wear I hit.

Destruction and crashlanding details of yours and their aircraft is still the best there is and AI still gives a damn good fight, especially if more than one of them are on you. With DCg I can overdose off IL2 to my heart`s content.

The only thing I wish IL2 had was a 6D0F cockpit, slightly better AI and more aircraft in the sky at once which of course BOBWOV does, but BOBwov is pretty old and it too has its bugs.

Obsolete?

Not yet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know about the AI, Most of the time the other 11 aircraft in my flight are off chasing a single bogey that is allready on fire while the other 11 bandits work me over in plain view of my AI flightmates. Doesn't do much for me. Also the shoulder shooting, kill stealing, crashing into terrain, in ability to level bomb in some planes that really should have that and the insane death wish of AI chasing me all over the bay of finland back to my base over the russian fleet and several large AA pockets losing them half their formation just to kill me kinda put me off the campaigns for IL-2. I hope BoB is better, but if I hear Oleg saying he likes scripted campaigns better :S Talk about 0 replay value.

leitmotiv
08-21-2007, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by NAFP_supah:

I don't know about the AI, Most of the time the other 11 aircraft in my flight are off chasing a single bogey that is allready on fire while the other 11 bandits work me over in plain view of my AI flightmates. Doesn't do much for me. Also the shoulder shooting, kill stealing, crashing into terrain, in ability to level bomb in some planes that really should have that and the insane death wish of AI chasing me all over the bay of finland back to my base over the russian fleet and several large AA pockets losing them half their formation just to kill me kinda put me off the campaigns for IL-2. I hope BoB is better, but if I hear Oleg saying he likes scripted campaigns better :S Talk about 0 replay value.

Agree. My main objection is the lack of 6 DOF, but the things you cite are very annoying, too. Well, MAW is going to be getting the mother of all dynamic campaign systems, if you are to believe their hype. There are enough pots on the boil to promise an interesting time in flight sims ahead. For ages it was just IL-2.

Chivas
08-21-2007, 11:24 AM
I have no problem with Shockwave doing aircraft models for IL-2, as long as they meet Olegs standards. I doubt it will happen as they are a direct competitor with their BOB WOV and FT combat flight sims.

We should be in for some interesting times in the next year. KOTS and SOW look to set new standards in combat flight sims. Shockwaves FT with the Merlin engine may also be in the mix but we have seen nothing from them.

Von_Rat
08-21-2007, 11:25 AM
don't know about the AI, Most of the time the other 11 aircraft in my flight are off chasing a single bogey that is allready on fire while the other 11 bandits work me over in plain view of my AI flightmates.


AI hell,,,,online its the same thing with human players. lol.

Chivas
08-21-2007, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">don't know about the AI, Most of the time the other 11 aircraft in my flight are off chasing a single bogey that is allready on fire while the other 11 bandits work me over in plain view of my AI flightmates.


AI hell,,,,online its the same thing with human players. lol. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How true...although you can have squad m8's who would clear your six knowing full well they signed their own death warrant.

LEXX_Luthor
08-21-2007, 11:35 AM
That's why you fly with people you know. You don't hang out with people who cheat you if they had an opportunity. Its called basic social common sense. (*)

(*) Footnote added later -- its seems to not be common in some places now.

LEXX_Luthor
08-21-2007, 11:51 AM
leitmotiv::
P.S. And, fer petessakes, why this sanctification of IL-2 as if it were the ne plus ultra of airplane simulators? It has well-known flaws which critically affect its utility such as the inability to realistically handle high-altitude flight, and the "torque light" on takeoffs (try a IL-2 classic full-power takeoff in FS9 or X WWII fighters and you will be in the trees to the side of the runway). It's cookie cutter trees and buildings look so 2001.

IL-2 is a slam bam game for the online crowd, and, I reckon, it will retain this appeal for some time into the future.
The simplicity and ease of flying FB/PF may be why its popular for non-paying Online players. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Granted, I don't know of other equivalently modern Online capable WW2 cfs that are any more complex or "realistic(tm)" that are also finished products ready to rumble in the marketplace.

For lack of space, FB/PF is also off my hard drive. But, its on a backup hard drive I've got stashed somewhere around here. I would still fire it up just to fly that I-16 and some others -- not to mention the 3 gigabytes of Awsim skins put out by the skin sculptors at ye olde il2skins. No other sim even today compares to early FB when it comes to the classical Easter Front planeset, before Oleg dropped the ball by copying Microsoft's 1944 West Euro Microsoft Online Dogfight Microsoft Theater Microsoft planeset (whatever).

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/Lexx_Luthor/Smileys/smokin.gif I already have Windows as a simulation of an operating system.

Skunk_438RCAF
08-21-2007, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Nicely modeled "skid" marks and bent prop too I see...

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

A little respect man...we dont even HAVE skid marks in Il2...and the props bend when they sometimes shouldnt even bend!

Haig? Why have you stirred up the hornets nest?

SeaFireLIV
08-21-2007, 12:08 PM
I think i see what`s happening here. An old girlfriend said this once...



"Familiarity breeds contempt."



You all gotten so used to IL2 you`re tired of it and can now only see the negatives as if the positives don`t exist any more.

Happens in all things. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

p-11.cAce
08-21-2007, 12:20 PM
And God help you if you point out positives or try to answer some of the complaints http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif I always wonder why people who obviously think IL2 is inferior bother to come here and complain - the only answers I can come up with are:
1. They are unaware of the age of the sim engine and that the developer is focused on the next generation and therefore will not be wasting resources fixing things here
2. They have a vested interest in a competitors product and are trying to attract sales
3. They truly have no lives and somehow find comfort by snarking others and "proving" their superior skills and tastes in flight simming.

Monty_Thrud
08-21-2007, 12:38 PM
I was hoping Shockwave would do something with "B17 Flying Fortress The Mighty 8th"...graphics, etc.

Chivas
08-21-2007, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
And God help you if you point out positives or try to answer some of the complaints http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif I always wonder why people who obviously think IL2 is inferior bother to come here and complain - the only answers I can come up with are:
1. They are unaware of the age of the sim engine and that the developer is focused on the next generation and therefore will not be wasting resources fixing things here
2. They have a vested interest in a competitors product and are trying to attract sales
3. They truly have no lives and somehow find comfort by snarking others and "proving" their superior skills and tastes in flight simming.

They could post at the other forums but there is nobody there.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

NAFP_supah
08-21-2007, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
And God help you if you point out positives or try to answer some of the complaints http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif I always wonder why people who obviously think IL2 is inferior bother to come here and complain - the only answers I can come up with are:
1. They are unaware of the age of the sim engine and that the developer is focused on the next generation and therefore will not be wasting resources fixing things here

Painfully aware of that and looking forward to the next generation from Maddox games. I'd just like to discus my hobby with other people who have the same hobby. I have as much right to voice my opinion about this hobby as you have. Atleast I don't think discussions are best served by posting single emoticon replies http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



2. They have a vested interest in a competitors product and are trying to attract sales


I write reviews for flying-legends, some of shockwave products ... I am no fan boy, some of their earlier release were just plain awfull when compared to other benchmark releases (Mainly RealAir Spitfire though all their planes are the best of their class). I have absolutely no interest in shockwave as a company other then that of a user of their software.



3. They truly have no lives and somehow find comfort by snarking others and "proving" their superior skills and tastes in flight simming.

Oeh cheapshots and low blows. I have quite a busy life between work, flying IRL, fixing up my house, a girlfriend and this hobby. Can the same be said about you? If it can then good for you!

p-11.cAce
08-21-2007, 12:59 PM
Can the same be said about you?
Have a wife, full time job + 3/4 time school (A&P program), restoring 1925 arts and crafts style bungalow, member Caesar Creek Soaring Club, member USHGA, member SSA - sp yeah, I guess good for me. Oh and I do have a vested interest in UBI just so we are all above board http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

NAFP_supah
08-21-2007, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
[QUOTE]Oh and I do have a vested interest in UBI just so we are all above board http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

hmhm. Anyway, UBI is just the publisher ... not the developer.

p-11.cAce
08-21-2007, 01:10 PM
The developer is not a publicly traded company - UBI is. Google UBSFF http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

joeap
08-21-2007, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:

Joeap, frankly my interest in IL-2, online and offline is 0 for the reasons I enumerated over and over. I can understand why onliners would continue to play IL-2 after BOB is released, but I see no reason for offliners to waste their time with an obsolete system. My interest is in BOB. As soon as BOB is released IL-2 goes off my HD.

That's great and I respect you for it, I just ask (from the folks I like and respect here) the same for the fact I do like and continue to play Il-2 46 both on and offline. As for BoB, bring it on, I'll buy it the minute it comes out...but will continue to play Il-2 til BoB expands outside the well worn 1940 format. Cheers. Yes am on my 3rd beer and had a pretty ****ty day at work today.

Gibbage1
08-21-2007, 02:44 PM
Lets put it bluntly. Oleg wont let 3rd party dev's put aircraft into his game. Here is the reasons he gave me.

#1, all code and tools is in Russian.

#2, they did not document the procedures, and what little documentations they have is, again, in Russian.

#3, its a VERY VERY complex process requiring programming, and lots of it. There is NO simple tool like you have with CFS and FS. FM and DM needs to all be programmed in. This takes a LOT of time and skill.

#4, even if 1-3 was fixed with GREAT cost to Oleg, there would be no real way to keep people from cheating with the tools like there was in CFS.

Why does RRG have the ability to made 3rd party aircraft? Simple. Ilya spent MONTHS learning how, and he knows Russian. He has also worked with Oleg for years, and has built a trust with him.

Shockwave is working on there own stuff. Some that I have even helped with on there next sim. I also still do a lot of work on FS add-on's. Like I said, its a lot easier, and pulls in more money.

If you cant accept the reasons, tough. There is nothing you can do about it. The good news is, Oleg learned from his errors in IL2, and is going to be more 3rd party friendly for BoB. So there may very well be a lot of 3rd party stuff for BoB. If there is good money in it, im sure you will see Sockwave building aircraft for it. Im sure you may even see some of my own! I have quite a large inventory of WWII game models http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

joeap
08-21-2007, 04:24 PM
Nice to hear Gib. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

leitmotiv
08-21-2007, 04:41 PM
Love your P-38, G---great work always.

leitmotiv
08-21-2007, 04:47 PM
I think all this internecine carping is ridiculous. It is like being aggrieved because a person looked forward to PAC FIGHTERS and was not wanting to play 2001 IL-2 first edition anymore. BOBSOW will make IL-2 look basic. Some of us like 6 DOF and the advanced graphics of FSX, or the bomber-heavy order of battle in MAW, or the real UK atmosphere of BOB II. So what? IL-2 is not a universal bromide. Why think this way? Vive la difference.

DustyBarrels77
08-21-2007, 06:13 PM
the showave aircraft are more polys but where it matters bobsow is such waste of polys modeling the internal structures which are just for looks and wotn have over stressing and engine mounts the sheer off all ac from damage or torque, these are models that are 3-6 years old btw for those compairing and they are for 6dof support for years now, i think bobsow pits look excellent, but the view systems are useless the way the revi reflection goes off the site in different view switchs.

The one thing is bob sow will have is weapons, which matters most. I do like the fms alot better of the shockwave ac and are closer to the real performance testing in all catagories of flight and the real sound is 35% of the immersion compaired to the **** sound we have here and will have in sow. we will also have the same crappy complex engine management and fms in bob sow and the other thing the fs series does is reflective models and flat mat models, in sow the ac look way to glossy and fms center axes wobble is just silly. Real are are so much more stable especially the heavier ac. I agree with the original poster and shockwave does an excellent job at what they do.

Both have thier good and bad points time instead of the **** posts mocking shockwave would be nice to see them be a part of this game as well and probally will in the future if sow takes 3rd party aircraft by modelers which was said by maddox. The only problem is with bob sow we will have less content just for graphics to me that sucks.

i would have rather seen a full world terrain engine with the fb aep pf models work on real sound and updating the existing models a bit, that and working on visability distances and hugh multiplayer ability like wwiiol and those type of games, but everyone has a different opinion and thats mine.

Ill tell you want, as someone who flys in real life i think fsx and that series fly more like real ac rather then a plane on rubberbands which is weightless like some aerobatics ac.

I think oleg has some strong points in stalls but they need alot of tweaking but olegs sim in that aspect feels like it could be worked on to be better then fsx's stall, another thing is flap lift and glide slopes dont get those right you got your self a game with the right chart numbers but not a accurate flightmodel which we have here.

maddox should look into xplane8 and condor soaring sim for a peak to get basics of flight done better.

my dream game is wwii fighters airframe overstressing, wiiols online players, fsx scenery flight models reflective models cem weather sound differential breaking and complex ac controls to start the planes. cfs2 cfs3 damage fx with primary and secondary explosions causing damage, bomb impacts of the shockwave bob,Olegs anticheating and host difficulty locks.

Therion_Prime
08-22-2007, 03:28 AM
my dream game is wwii fighters airframe overstressing, wiiols online players, fsx scenery flight models reflective models cem weather sound differential breaking and complex ac controls to start the planes. cfs2 cfs3 damage fx with primary and secondary explosions causing damage, bomb impacts of the shockwave bob,Olegs anticheating and host difficulty locks.

My thoughts exactly.

Without hesitation I would pay a monthly fee for something like this.

It's time for a bigger, better wwiionline!

stanford-ukded
08-22-2007, 03:46 AM
WW3 online! Oh yeah.

MrMojok
08-22-2007, 03:48 AM
I do miss that sound of wings flexing in Janes WW2F.

tagTaken2
08-22-2007, 07:30 AM
Is there anything that compares to the screenshot detail we've seen of the BoB cockpits? Every time I see some hyped game, I'm disappointed with interiors.

I understand that people whinge about detail overkill, and time that could be spent on other, value-added features, but supposedly the point of total cockpit detail was for use in film/documentary, and thus a money generator.

Chivas
08-22-2007, 11:58 AM
If BOB SOW's graphic engine is anything like FSX....I'll throw up on my keyboard. Even IL-2's sun, water, shoreline, building placement, damage model and low level ground textures are better than FSX. FSX does alot of other things very well.