PDA

View Full Version : Can we actually lay to rest the Nakajima B5N2 "Kate", et al?



Pancrazio_380
10-28-2005, 02:33 PM
I am recently joining this community having purchased PF but days ago and owning IL2 Sturmovik at realease.

I am impressed to find the same damage modelling, flight model fidelity, and "fun factor" still in Maddox games.

I am sure the issue of the "Kate", etc. has been beaten back to life. I do not know if Maddox has provided specifics if he still has interest in developing the torpedo bombers of the Pacific Theatre.

Can that be known? Has that already been communicated? I will not seek a refund or turn the CDs into coasters if I find there are no plans in the future. I am only interested in knowing whether or not development will commence. I am aware of the difficulties Oleg is having in obtaining complete specifications of the aircraft interior.

The year long mark is approching since PF release. There is talk of open source development in the near future. Is information on the Kate that hard to obtain? Given the wealth of info in libraries, on internet, at Amazon.com, should we still have hope these aircraft will be present?

I would like to be optimistic considering I just bought the game but I am sure you old hands may have a different perspective. Don't reply with rants, disgruntled postures, etc.

I want an honest opinion if I should have hope in this. Otherwise, I will be in the sky droppin bombs on ya *** and shooting your prop off http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Kuna15
10-28-2005, 03:35 PM
Hey mate take a look here

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/8371080943

That is about it as far as future planes additions are concerned.

Pancrazio_380
10-28-2005, 07:19 PM
B6N2 Plane but no cockpit made yet. Hmm So Battle of Britain is the next sim from MAddox but ...

Add-ons are about to be caput. B6N is updated B5N oh well

MeJoe
10-28-2005, 10:43 PM
Whatever may be PF's value as a flight sim it is a lousy as a Pacific War sim. The back of the box promises:

"From the creators of the critically acclaimed IL-2 series comes an accurate and acton-packed re-creation of the epic battles of the Pacific"

Even after the 402 patch can any here take the present mix of acft/maps/targets and "re-create" *any* "battles of the Pacific", "epic" or otherwise?

There are many who make excuses but I doubt if any of those who long used IL2/AEP could honestly make the case that PF is anywhere nesr on par. It matters not at all who or what is or is not to blame. The fact remains that the reputation 1c Maddox built with FB/AEP was lost with PF.

One can look forward to Battle of Britain and HOPE for a good game but can any here look at PF and produce a reason why any should EXPECT a good game?

The last complete PTO simulations were written ten years ago for DOS.

csThor
10-28-2005, 11:41 PM
a) PF was not the brainchild of Maddox Games but of Luthier who also collected the team of 3rd Party Developers who made the objects and maps.
b) It is obvious that he had planned far too optimistically and wanted more than his team could deliver in the timeframe specified by Ubisoft.
c) It is rumored that even the finished objects had to be corrected or even completely remade by Maddox Games (which was not planned in the contract for PF).
d) According to SaQSon Ubi was contacted by Grumman a few days before the release and demanded money for using their intellectual property. Ubi made a deal but Oleg canceled most developments for PF - probably because he didn't want another situation like this.

IMO PF was foul right from the start. Not only that it proved that 3rd Party Developers often have trouble with Maddox Games's high standards it also showed that overly optimistic planning can be a major problem. And last but not least I believe that the choice of the PTO was the worst possible one as the characteristics of the theater really show the weaknesses of the Il-2 engine:

- limited map size
- the FM was never planned to simulate carrier operations
- extremely simple ship AI
- simplified torpedo use
- inability of the engine to display large number of planes

BoB on the other hand is an in-house development of Maddox Games and the planned start of a new series. It can be better than PF (with ease) as the timeframe, the area and the required object pool is far smaller than for PF.

MeJoe
10-29-2005, 03:31 PM
None of what csThor wrote modifies or corrects my post in the least.

If you still have the PF box pick it up and look at it. There in the lower right corner will be "1C Maddox Games". Various references to Oleg Maddox and IL-2 all over the box.

It matters not one bit what explainations, excuses, reasons, or whatever the truth "is out there..." That there may be a lively discussion of the reason why the paitent lies dead on the table none of this will make the patient any less dead.

I agree with csThor that PF was foul from the start but to know who the stink will cling to one needs only look at the PF box.

Nimits
10-29-2005, 05:03 PM
Whatever may be PF's value as a flight sim it is a lousy as a Pacific War sim. The back of the box promises:

You summed up the big problem right there. Pacific Figters is probably the best sim available that includes PTO planes, ships, and maps. But, as a acutal simulator of the air war in the Pacific Theater 1941-1945, it pales in comparison to 1942 Pacific Air War, Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator 2, Aces of the Pacific, or any of there PTO brethern that have preceded PF.

In answer to the original question of this post, I am 99.9% sure we will never see a flyable torpedo bomber in Pacific Fighers. Most reasonable hope for that is gone. However, Luthier is evidently still working on some new content for Pacific Fighters (Philippines map), Ian is working on a Burma map, we will probably be getting an AI B6N, and there is an external model of the TBD that, while never promised or finished, look salmost ready and could be included if the 1C team could be convinced to finish it. And, while Grumman did throw a monkey wrench into the PF release, I think the decision to not include an Avenger cockpit was due more to Oleg's frustration than any legal or economic barriers; Ubisoft already paid Grumman there fee for using Grumman's intellectual property (which includes the Avenger), and an Avenger cockpit, at least released as a part of a free patch/add-on, should be covered by previously paid fees. The long and the short of it is, some limited development of Pacific content for Pacific Fighters is ongoing; until I hear from Maddox, Ian, Luthier, and everyone else involved, that development of PF is completely and irrevocably stopped and 0 new planes, ships, or maps are coming, I will continue to cling to the unreasonable hope of the .1% chance that we will actually get a flyable carrier-based torpedo bomber or two.

heywooood
10-29-2005, 09:23 PM
the fatlady has'nt so much as cleared her mighty throat as of yet, and here yall are playin' taps.

HotelBushranger
10-29-2005, 09:50 PM
Good first post http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

rugame
10-30-2005, 02:09 PM
At the end of the day 1C and Oleg put there names to PF.....

And i am sure collected some of the profits

PF was a poorly a executed product, I can only hope that a future Pacific based sim can get it right.

I honestly think that 'they' should be reminded of its flaws so as to not repeat the process in future.

raisen
10-31-2005, 04:12 PM
>>At the end of the day 1C and Oleg put there names to PF.....

And i am sure collected some of the profits

PF was a poorly a executed product,<<

To be honest I was disappointed most with how the sim measured up to the marketting rubric on the pack. Planes mentioned explicitly on the pack being missing, was arguably the most galling. Marketting of course isn't a Maddox function, it's Ubi...

I thought that the quality of the content that was present was at least as good as that in the previous titles.

When flying Warbirds years ago I specialised in bombers (Ju88's with KG2), and I prefer bombers now, the lack of Japanese carrier based torpedo bomber for player use, is a bit poor. The lack of the Betty didn't go down too well either, but I really don't feel that these are issues that anyone could honestly blame Oleg for.

I blame the parents.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Raisen

raisen
10-31-2005, 04:25 PM
I honestly think that 'they' should be reminded of its flaws so as to not repeat the process in future.

I wish that this approach had worked for me in my professional life, 'cos I really don't appreciate the vast security holes that I had to spend my time plugging.

Penguins really are the best if you actually want to do some work.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Raisen

Nimits
10-31-2005, 06:06 PM
the lack of Japanese carrier based torpedo bomber for player use, is a bit poor. The lack of the Betty didn't go down too well either, but I really don't feel that these are issues that anyone could honestly blame Oleg for.

Actually, I think you can in part. From what I gather on the forums, Oleg could put a cockpit into the Avenger (and definitely could give us flyable TBD, B5N, and B6N), but simply choses not to (though your right to the extent that luthier, not Maddox, had original responsibility for the sim).

raisen
11-01-2005, 03:24 AM
It may be within his power now, but at the time that the PF product was released, I think the publishers tail "wagged the dog", so to speak. No doubt the packaging was already printed. As a result we got less than expected, and less than was advertised on the packaging. Release schedules and deadlines seem to be everything to many publishers, I suspect because they need to demonstrate some sort of return on shareholders investment.

With regard to any Grumman types of course, the situation is now so politically and financially loaded that anybody preparing a flight sim for market now may well choose to simulate theatres that are unlikely to generate litigation.

I am of the opinion that the events of the last couple of years is going to blight the development of all sim products for years to come. IP (intellectual property) land grabs are going on throughout industry and the cases all have one thing in common.... Litigation is kind of like poker. Whilst it's a gamble, the odds are with whoever has the chips.

Outside of gaming, (remember British Telecom laying claim to the idea of the hyperlink ?)companies have filed suits where the case is of somewhat limited merit, but the cost of defending the case is more than the company getting sued can afford. In these circumstances the recipient of such a suit has to make a choice, what is the level of risk, do we have enough chips on the table to call, and is it worth the time and effort of doing so....Settle or fold ? Thankfully British law is a bit different, the case was thrown out, although the tactic isn't unknown here.

Bad enough getting sued by a company that might just be on solid ground, but a couple of cases from chancers and bang goes the R&D budget.

Raisen