PDA

View Full Version : Falcon 4.0 The death of a Sim



Muddy17
11-19-2009, 09:51 PM
Falcon 4.0.
Well what can I say? The older guys here will remember maybe some of younger will know the new Falcon AF.
10 years is ago the worlds best most realistic sim came out and it was great.. Had the biggest online community and the most servers of any game, yep even better that air warrior 3!!

Then the MODS and USER MADE PATCHES came along!!

A 5 year high was brough down by people dinken with the sim in the honest effort to make it better..
Shortly after one group came another then another.. Well then servers started to dissapear because nobody knew where to play there version and .. EXTINCTION

If this is to remain viable then the mods must be tied in with the team diadlos patches. otherwise ,, will you have your IL-2 and I have mine but we cant play..Because there different and that sucks!!

Bearcat99
11-19-2009, 10:10 PM
Hmmmm 5 years huh... well I think this sim already has that beat..It has been peaking for the past 6 or 7 years at least.. The issues that you are concerned with are being addressed.. but in may ways I agree with you... and for me DT will always be the final say.. I just hope tat whatever mods there are will be compatible with DT's work.. otherwise the last DT compatible mod pack will be what I am using as far as mods go...

jarink
11-19-2009, 10:14 PM
I see where this is going...

The one big difference here is that Falcon 5.0 never came out, but IL2's replacement is pretty far along in it's development. Granted, there's no iron-clad guarantee that BoB:SoW will be released, but I wouldn't bet against it.

Muddy17
11-19-2009, 10:46 PM
Ok the time frame is out but the story is the same.. And you right Bearcat99 this has it beat, but WHY??? Because untill in the last caleder year we have all had the same thing!! and I do agree with Mods but I think the mods should be submitted to DT and relaesed with patches.

As for Jarink. Yes you are right as well but in a post right here on these boards the other day I read about plans to MOD SOW already!!
Its not even out yet and its not good enough for whoever it was..

Im just pointing out that this has happend befor where things get out of hand and 3 even 6 months ago some were comenting on it and everybody said it would balence out. Well it will not. and has not.
If AAA comes out with a UI for 409 and some have it but some have one of the others then some people will have 408 with mods and some 409 no mods,,yada yada oh ya thats whar we are at .

Muddy17
11-19-2009, 10:47 PM
By the way Not against mods but am for some control.

rettungferris
11-19-2009, 11:15 PM
IBTL

I'm new to Il-2, about 4 months and its been out since 2001?

If the Falcon thing happened, it hasn't yet. IL-2 will only die once everyone realizes how cool BOB SOW is and move on.

The sequel that does everything the old and much better + new features really helps.

Also I think IL-2 communities and modders have realized the mistakes of the Falcon Incident, and you can see they are trying some cohesiveness.

Gotta remember 10 years ago, the INternets was a different place, online gaming didn't have established rules, server admins had more power and communities didn't have a choice so they HAD to go with what admins directed . . . there was less adds and the economy was good.

It was said when they 1337 h4x0red IL-2's source, it would be dead by now, and it was haxored in 2006?

Even after BOB SOW, IL-2 will be around for quite sometime, catering to those with tastes Battle of Britian can't do . . . until the new series has "my favorite theater" come out.

As for modding BOB SOW, I think Oleg n Co already are addressing it ... they have tools to mod / make your own campaigns but they also have online locks and tools to make sure its legit . . . you can have your uberplane but online its all official.

They're still watching IL-2 but from a distance, letting Team D run the show.

Not so with BOB SOW, its their new baby. Anyone trying to tarnish it w/ weaksauce mods or fragment that new community they will cry foul, and call out to the community and everyone will come n together now and crush the evil doers.

Daiichidoku
11-19-2009, 11:25 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/Icansee-1.jpg

BillSwagger
11-19-2009, 11:41 PM
I'm not familiar with Falcon 4 and its travesty. what i don't quite understand is how people fear that Il2 could meet a similar demise.

Here's why i think not:

All mods run off the same root version of the game.
A server that uses 4.09m with mods, is the same no matter what pack you use. I can still play Joe Schmoe if he uses Super Pack 8, and i'm using Modest Pack 11. (fictional names)

I think people have this fear because a lot of servers are still using 4.08 or 4.09b1. As long as the servers run older versions of the game, then we might see some fragmentation. I wasn't familiar with Il2 when they went from 4.07 to 4.08, but i've read some really old posts that seem to indicate similar circumstances where some servers chose to run 4.07 for a while even when the new 4.08 patch was available.

I think in time every server will be running 4.09m (mods or not) and this fear of fragmentation will go away.



Bill

Rjel
11-20-2009, 12:26 AM
Judas, there are a lot of Chicken Littles around here.

Hawkbug
11-20-2009, 12:52 AM
The rumors about the death or Falcon are greatly greatly exaggerated. If fact the Falcon community is alive, well, and growing thanks to mods like Free Falcon 5 and Open Falcon.

But there are lessons the IL-2 community can learn from the fragmentation of the Falcon community. Namely when ego trumps cohesion then the community as a whole suffers. A better mouse trap is never a good thing if it comes at the expense of damaging the community for which it was intended.

jasonbirder
11-20-2009, 01:16 AM
Falcon 4.0 is alive and better than ever!
Talking about its demise is utterly ridiculous (and I presume indicates that some people can't find servers on hyperlobby where F16's in lime green skins can't dogfight other F16's in candyfloss pink skins...Guns and Heaters only...non of that complex BVR crap)
Open Falcon is by far the most realistic iteration of Falcon 4.0 and improves constantly...it has no challanger (even DCS Black Shark) for being the most realistic Sim of all time...
As for Online...I never have a problem finding some friends for a co-op and then getting stuck into a coimplex co-operative mission wuth proper planning...and mission execution!
Constant ongoing Mod of the base Falcon 4.0 by different Mod communities is what has made it what it is today...
Vive la differance!

TooCooL34
11-20-2009, 01:35 AM
Sorry to say this but, you don't know anything about F4 history. Utter nonsense.

Without that naughty user mods, Falcon4 has never, ever been playable software product.
Official F4 world was dead long long time ago.
It's the mod makers who gave life to dead simulation.

Then why we don't see F4 multiplayer servers? Cause IL-2 is more fun and we've been there, done that all and it doesn't provide dedicated dogfight, campaign or co-op environment.

Whatever some of you purists say won't change the current of IL-2 mod and online as long as you know the facts by contraries.

Yskonyn23
11-20-2009, 01:41 AM
Originally posted by jasonbirder:
Falcon 4.0 is alive and better than ever!
Talking about its demise is utterly ridiculous (and I presume indicates that some people can't find servers on hyperlobby where F16's in lime green skins can't dogfight other F16's in candyfloss pink skins...Guns and Heaters only...non of that complex BVR crap)
Open Falcon is by far the most realistic iteration of Falcon 4.0 and improves constantly...it has no challanger (even DCS Black Shark) for being the most realistic Sim of all time...
As for Online...I never have a problem finding some friends for a co-op and then getting stuck into a coimplex co-operative mission wuth proper planning...and mission execution!
Constant ongoing Mod of the base Falcon 4.0 by different Mod communities is what has made it what it is today...
Vive la differance!

While a tiny bit exaggerated (the detail of DCS:BS for example is at least on par avionics wise and much better flightmodel wise) I do agree with you that the Falcon community is still alive and well for now, but there are a few points here:
1) Windows Vista/7 64-bit has problems running FreeFalcon 5
2) NVidia cards and FF5 do not go along.
3) OpenFalcon's team has stated that OF is nearning the end of its life cycle and 4.8 will likely be the last version (IF it actually comes at all)

So yes, the Falcon community does seem to be on the decline, where the new FreeFalcon hoped for a bump it is greeted by many with a lot of problems on their end.
Lots of Squadrons of yore have closed (large FreeBirds as the biggest example).

So I think the point about fragmentation and many MODs is indeed valid. You can see a lot of threads on this forum about people being annoyed by the many mods and confused what to choose. That's why the unified mod project is nice.

Expecting MODs to go through DT and then in a patch is a bit unrealistic I think.

SeaFireLIV
11-20-2009, 03:10 AM
Actually, IL2 lasted as long as it did inmho because it was so hard for hackers (yes, that`s what they were initially) to break into IL2. Evene when they did it took a couple of years before it became widely modded as IL2 is now.

IL2 lasted about 6-7 years before mods came out with only utilities supporting it. I think that says more about Oleg`s credibility and IL2 than Mods. I certainly enjoyed the straight forwardness and ease and security of flying IL2 until the guts were cut open.

Mods give IL2 more life, but there`s no guarantee that it won`t get overdone as with falcon4. As for Falcon I never touched the Mods.

Another thing I sort of miss about IL2 now is discussion on aircraft etc is very difficult. No one is really sure of what version of IL2 we`re talking about when discussing WW2 aircraft. Aircraft discussion was always a hot subject, but I liked the fact that it was generally definable in one place- Oleg`s.

Now we have every tom,**** and harry with his version of how anything should fly or whether this strut or that strut should be someplace or can an aircraft perform this way or that way. Aircraft performances are anything now since anyone with the knowledge to mod can make it so.

Of course, I just keep to the aesthetic Mods, like clouds and sound. I`ve never really been impressed by aircraft Mods because i`m always thinking `How accurate is this? Or is this just someone`s personal wet dream?`

rnzoli
11-20-2009, 03:53 AM
Originally posted by rettungferris:
As for modding BOB SOW, I think Oleg n Co [..] also have online locks and tools to make sure its legit . . . you can have your uberplane but online its all official.
IL-2 also had locks, and it's gone.
Uh oh, we have heard so many times from Il-2 mod fans, that everything can be cracked/hacked anyway, so what the problem with opening the code for IL-2.

But then it's applicable for SOW:BOB as well, crystal clear.

If there is any benefit for opening the locked parts, there will be volunteers to unlock that too. It's a "whose **** is longer" type of competition in between IT geeks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Yskonyn23
11-20-2009, 04:00 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Another thing I sort of miss about IL2 now is discussion on aircraft etc is very difficult. No one is really sure of what version of IL2 we`re talking about when discussing WW2 aircraft. Aircraft discussion was always a hot subject, but I liked the fact that it was generally definable in one place- Oleg`s.

Now we have every tom,**** and harry with his version of how anything should fly or whether this strut or that strut should be someplace or can an aircraft perform this way or that way. Aircraft performances are anything now since anyone with the knowledge to mod can make it so.

Of course, I just keep to the aesthetic Mods, like clouds and sound. I`ve never really been impressed by aircraft Mods because i`m always thinking `How accurate is this? Or is this just someone`s personal wet dream?`

Well said and my sentiments exactly. I only use aestethic mods as well.

Skunk_438RCAF
11-20-2009, 04:26 AM
I think you failed to take into account that Falcon 4 has an extremely steep learning curve.

With Falcon 4 it will take people MUCH longer to learn the sim than it will for anything like Il2 or BOB. Falcon 4 is nice but there is too much overcomplicated hoopla that comes with it.

Most people dont want to spend a year learning systems and firing modes, they just want to point and shoot. I think this has contributed to the downfall of Falcon's popularity more than anything else.

Yskonyn23
11-20-2009, 04:30 AM
Originally posted by Skunk_438RCAF:
I think you failed to take into account that Falcon 4 has an extremely steep learning curve.

With Falcon 4 it will take people MUCH longer to learn the sim than it will for anything like Il2 or BOB. Falcon 4 is nice but there is too much overcomplicated hoopla that comes with it.

Most people dont want to spend a year learning systems and firing modes, they just want to point and shoot. I think this has contributed to the downfall of Falcon's popularity more than anything else.

If that were true, Falcon wouldn't have been popular in the first place, because it always had complexity from the get go.

Bremspropeller
11-20-2009, 05:46 AM
Well, now it's a complicated game with sh1tty graphics.

Bearcat99
11-20-2009, 05:49 AM
Originally posted by Muddy17:
Ok the time frame is out but the story is the same.. And you right Bearcat99 this has it beat, but WHY??? Because untill in the last caleder year we have all had the same thing!! and I do agree with Mods but I think the mods should be submitted to DT and relaesed with patches.

As for Jarink. Yes you are right as well but in a post right here on these boards the other day I read about plans to MOD SOW already!!
Its not even out yet and its not good enough for whoever it was..

Im just pointing out that this has happend befor where things get out of hand and 3 even 6 months ago some were comenting on it and everybody said it would balence out. Well it will not. and has not.
If AAA comes out with a UI for 409 and some have it but some have one of the others then some people will have 408 with mods and some 409 no mods,,yada yada oh ya thats whar we are at .


Ok.... This sim has been modded publicly for at least the past 30 months.. May I draw your attention to the posts linkied in this thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2601013236/m/7691081408). Bear in mind that those post were made in October of 07.. and by that time the "sound mod" as it was first called.. because that was what started it all.. had been floating around and rumored for @ 6 months..

Modding SoW... Yes you are absolutely right.. SoW will indeed be modded.. but these mod tools will be released officially by 1C and I don't that the code will be as easy to crack as the IL2 was.. and that was not easy... at all..

and .. it will balance out.. believe me... The fact that there are still people even flying 4.08m or 4.09b1m for that matter is way beyond me... and that has more to do with people being ignorant than mods. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to be flying anything other than 4.09m or 4.09mM.. Even the latest Zuti runs on 4.09.. and many of the issues with mods and compatibility comes from maps & aircraft.. and the Zuti MDF mod... All that will balance out over the next few months..


Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Actually, IL2 lasted as long as it did inmho because it was so hard for hackers (yes, that`s what they were initially) to break into IL2. Evene when they did it took a couple of years before it became widely modded as IL2 is now.

IL2 lasted about 6-7 years before mods came out with only utilities supporting it. I think that says more about Oleg`s credibility and IL2 than Mods. I certainly enjoyed the straight forwardness and ease and security of flying IL2 until the guts were cut open.

Mods give IL2 more life, but there`s no guarantee that it won`t get overdone as with falcon4. As for Falcon I never touched the Mods.

Another thing I sort of miss about IL2 now is discussion on aircraft etc is very difficult. No one is really sure of what version of IL2 we`re talking about when discussing WW2 aircraft. Aircraft discussion was always a hot subject, but I liked the fact that it was generally definable in one place- Oleg`s.

Now we have every tom,**** and harry with his version of how anything should fly or whether this strut or that strut should be someplace or can an aircraft perform this way or that way. Aircraft performances are anything now since anyone with the knowledge to mod can make it so.

Of course, I just keep to the aesthetic Mods, like clouds and sound. I`ve never really been impressed by aircraft Mods because i`m always thinking `How accurate is this? Or is this just someone`s personal wet dream?`

I dont think so.. I agree with you about why the sim has lasted as long as it has.. one reason anyway.. but I disagree with you about the aircraft... every Tom Di(k & Harry cannot mod this sim... not right anyway.. and the ones that do do aircraft are striving for accuracy .. at least from what I can see.. so this is not like in say.. CFS.. where anyone with a little patience and the easily available tools can mod just about anything in the sim.. This isnt like that... granted it can be done... but every T D & H has niether the time or patience to deal with it.. and frankly what I have seen in modded aircraft for this sim has largely been PDG.

Urufu_Shinjiro
11-20-2009, 05:59 AM
These conversations crack me up. What's the point? Are we all supposed to go "Hey, maybe he's right and these mods are bad stuff, let's go back to stock and no more mods"? Puh-lease, it's impossible to reverse the mod situation now, you don't have to like it, but you damn sure can't change it. Now perhaps we could influence the direction they take by community pressure, but so far they've handled it pretty good and the mod forums would be the place to apply that pressure.

WholeHawg
11-20-2009, 06:10 AM
Originally posted by jasonbirder:
Falcon 4.0 is alive and better than ever!
Talking about its demise is utterly ridiculous (and I presume indicates that some people can't find servers on hyperlobby where F16's in lime green skins can't dogfight other F16's in candyfloss pink skins...Guns and Heaters only...non of that complex BVR crap)
Open Falcon is by far the most realistic iteration of Falcon 4.0 and improves constantly...it has no challanger (even DCS Black Shark) for being the most realistic Sim of all time...
As for Online...I never have a problem finding some friends for a co-op and then getting stuck into a coimplex co-operative mission wuth proper planning...and mission execution!
Constant ongoing Mod of the base Falcon 4.0 by different Mod communities is what has made it what it is today...
Vive la differance!

+1

The one and ONLY reason Falcon is still being played over 10 years after its release is mods.

It would have been all but dead years ago if there were not mod-able.

I am an avid gamer and have been for many many years. The only game that I can think of that has maintained a substantial following and hasn't been mod-ded is Starcraft and thats in Korea.
I can think of a dozen games that were modded off the original Half-Life engine and the old crusty Quake engine that keep those games on the shelf for 5+ years until updated versions of those engines were released.

The fact is there is a NEED (Read Demand) among flight sim enthusiasts for a WWII sim. This game is the best fit for that (Read Supply). So regardless of its form this community will continue to thrive until something better comes along.

Through this sim I have started friendships that will last a life time. So take you doom and gloom visions elsewhere you really don't know this community.

mortoma
11-20-2009, 07:22 PM
First of all, problems that might stop a game from being played satisfactorily online will not necessarily stop it from being enjoyed offline, if it indeed has at least fair offline play. Of all the military sims I have played, I always enjoyed offline much better than online. I always prefer the ability to go online at times but it's not a end all if I can't. If at 5:00PM tomorrow all online play stopped for IL2 and never came back again, I'd still be playing. And if SOW came out with no online at all, I'd still buy it. Many wouldn't but it and would be outraged, but I wouldn't care much. Not everyone is an onliner. They say most simmer aren't. Can't vouch for the truth of that though.

SeaFireLIV
11-20-2009, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by mortoma:
Of all the military sims I have played, I always enjoyed offline much better than online. I always prefer the ability to go online at times but it's not a end all if I can't. If at 5:00PM tomorrow all online play stopped for IL2 and never came back again, I'd still be playing. And if SOW came out with no online at all, I'd still buy it. Many wouldn't but it and would be outraged, but I wouldn't care much. Not everyone is an onliner. They say most simmer aren't. Can't vouch for the truth of that though.

Same. Too many people rely on online overly much and no one ever considers that one day it might go poof! Of course Offline is very convenient and a no-time-waster unlike sometimes Online (lots of times actually). Regardless I am very much against games that make no effort to give the Offline Player any play at all.

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-20-2009, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by Muddy17:
Falcon 4.0.
Well what can I say? The older guys here will remember maybe some of younger will know the new Falcon AF.
10 years is ago the worlds best most realistic sim came out and it was great.. Had the biggest online community and the most servers of any game, yep even better that air warrior 3!!

Then the MODS and USER MADE PATCHES came along!!

A 5 year high was brough down by people dinken with the sim in the honest effort to make it better..
Shortly after one group came another then another.. Well then servers started to dissapear because nobody knew where to play there version and .. EXTINCTION

If this is to remain viable then the mods must be tied in with the team diadlos patches. otherwise ,, will you have your IL-2 and I have mine but we cant play..Because there different and that sucks!!

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

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-20-2009, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
These conversations crack me up. What's the point? Are we all supposed to go "Hey, maybe he's right and these mods are bad stuff, let's go back to stock and no more mods"? Puh-lease, it's impossible to reverse the mod situation now, you don't have to like it, but you damn sure can't change it. Now perhaps we could influence the direction they take by community pressure, but so far they've handled it pretty good and the mod forums would be the place to apply that pressure.

+1

stalkervision
11-20-2009, 10:24 PM
IMO mods EXTEND A GAMES USEFUL LIFE. Computer hardware and software advances are what eventually kills a game,not people that love the game so much they try to extend it's useful life. An analogy of sorts.

The b-52 is STILL flying due to mods to it basic systems all through the years. May Il-2 have as long a life.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

M_Gunz
11-20-2009, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
These conversations crack me up. What's the point? Are we all supposed to go "Hey, maybe he's right and these mods are bad stuff, let's go back to stock and no more mods"? Puh-lease, it's impossible to reverse the mod situation now, you don't have to like it, but you damn sure can't change it. Now perhaps we could influence the direction they take by community pressure, but so far they've handled it pretty good and the mod forums would be the place to apply that pressure.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif the truly practical view

megalopsuche
11-21-2009, 07:52 AM
I love that a EULA doesn't mean anything anymore. Call me a hypocrite, I use the UI because it's necessary for online play. If there were a viable no-mod alternative for online play I would never bother with mods.

My big gripe is the quality of the software. The modding community makes RoF look refined and bug-free.

Rjel
11-21-2009, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by megalopsuche:
My big gripe is the quality of the software. The modding community makes RoF look refined and bug-free.

That's just your opinion. There is a lot of good content out there. Pick the best and leave the rest. If you were really honest about it, not everything in the official game is of the same quality. THe P-40 series for example.

megalopsuche
11-21-2009, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by Rjel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by megalopsuche:
My big gripe is the quality of the software. The modding community makes RoF look refined and bug-free.

That's just your opinion. There is a lot of good content out there. Pick the best and leave the rest. If you were really honest about it, not everything in the official game is of the same quality. THe P-40 series for example. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Explain about the P-40?

jarink
11-21-2009, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by megalopsuche:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rjel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by megalopsuche:
My big gripe is the quality of the software. The modding community makes RoF look refined and bug-free.

That's just your opinion. There is a lot of good content out there. Pick the best and leave the rest. If you were really honest about it, not everything in the official game is of the same quality. THe P-40 series for example. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Explain about the P-40? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The P-40 visual model is horrible. The engine, tail and fuselage are all out of proportion and the dihedral of the wings is nearly 3 times what it should be. Easy stuff to fix without affecting game play, but Oleg never had it fixed.

megalopsuche
11-21-2009, 09:31 AM
Ok, that's what I was suspecting. It's important to distinguish between evaluations of the aircraft modeling, and whether the software runs as advertised. It's the latter that I'm talking about when I complain about mods. I know that they've done some really nice work on content, but at a high price in software quality, in my opinion.

Muddy17
11-21-2009, 09:37 AM
Ok some of you a missing the part where I said I do use the mods and enjoy them but what I was getting at was controll over what is released and how much

megalopsuche
11-21-2009, 09:59 AM
I think RoF has a lot of potential in how they've chosen to deal with mods. Their next patch is going to include a tool kit for those who want to mod the game, but all mods will have to pass developer approval to be incorporated into the game and its multiplayer ranking system. Simply bypassing the developer wouldn't be easy, as the software connects to their host every time you load it, even for "offline" play.

dahoyle
11-23-2009, 10:46 AM
Muddy17,

This is my first post on the forum, and I am responding as best I can to the last statement you made.

So, in your opinion, some mods are ok, but you think that there should be some sort of Mod Police. Exactly who gets that job? How is that done?

It is either all or nothing. If your favorite mods get to be released, then what gives anyone the right to say that someone elses favorite doesn't? That singular concept is totally ridiculous, and elitist.

How would you like it if you were running a mod, which you liked very much, and someone reported it to the Mod Police, and then suddenly, it was gone.

Since there are already mods, and pretty much anyone has the choice to use or not use them, then what exactly is your complaint. For any given server, the rules are pretty much dictated by that server. Don't like it, move on. You could certainly petition to have something changed, but unless it is your server, then that is pretty much all the input you are entitled to.

Your statement makes absolutely no sense to me, and I'm sure there are many as confused as I am as to how you would implement your "control".

WholeHawg
11-23-2009, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by dahoyle:
Muddy17,

This is my first post on the forum, and I am responding as best I can to the last statement you made.

So, in your opinion, some mods are ok, but you think that there should be some sort of Mod Police. Exactly who gets that job? How is that done?

It is either all or nothing. If your favorite mods get to be released, then what gives anyone the right to say that someone elses favorite doesn't? That singular concept is totally ridiculous, and elitist.

How would you like it if you were running a mod, which you liked very much, and someone reported it to the Mod Police, and then suddenly, it was gone.

Since there are already mods, and pretty much anyone has the choice to use or not use them, then what exactly is your complaint. For any given server, the rules are pretty much dictated by that server. Don't like it, move on. You could certainly petition to have something changed, but unless it is your server, then that is pretty much all the input you are entitled to.

Your statement makes absolutely no sense to me, and I'm sure there are many as confused as I am as to how you would implement your "control".


+1

megalopsuche
11-23-2009, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by dahoyle:
It is either all or nothing. If your favorite mods get to be released, then what gives anyone the right to say that someone elses favorite doesn't? That singular concept is totally ridiculous, and elitist.


Talk about appeal to ridicule... It also remains to be demonstrated that elitism is bad. Time to go back to your critical thinking textbook.

dahoyle
11-23-2009, 03:56 PM
I don't even know how to respond to that. For starters, it takes more than whining about the status quo to qualify as an elite, so if that is all you have to add to the discussion, then you have no grievance.

If you do in fact, contribute more, such as hosting a server, or actually publishing mods, then the popularity of, and use of your products, is a direct indicator of the amount of influence you deserve.

In the question of whether or not elitism is bad, then you need to define elite. If you are talking about a social class situation, then my previous remarks still apply. I don't particularly care for that sort of elitism, but I live in the real world, so I deal with it.

In the case of the other definition, whereas ones abilities and proven performance is the indicator, then of course, elitism is neither a good thing, or a bad thing. It is the person that makes a difference, and how they apply their talents.

De Opresso Liber

'nuf said.

dahoyle
11-23-2009, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by dahoyle:
I don't even know how to respond to that. How does that even relate to the discussion at hand, other than that you just couldn't make it a single moment more without opening your mouth. As near as I can tell, you neither added, nor attempted to add to the debate about mods. Please correct me if I am somehow missing a deeper meaning.

For starters, it takes more than whining about the status quo to qualify as an elite, so if that is all you have to add to the discussion, then you have no say so. That seems clear enough to me.

If you do in fact, contribute more, such as hosting a server, or actually publishing mods, then the popularity of, and use of your products, is a direct indicator of the amount of influence you deserve.

In the question of whether or not elitism is bad, then you need to define elite. If you are talking about a social class situation, then my previous remarks still apply. I don't particularly care for that sort of elitism, but I live in the real world, so I deal with it.

In the case of the other definition, whereas ones abilities and proven performance is the indicator, then of course, elitism is neither a good thing, or a bad thing. It is the person that makes a difference, and how they apply their talents.

De Opresso Liber

'nuf said.

jamesblonde1979
11-25-2009, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Well, now it's a complicated game with sh1tty graphics.

That crashes every 5 minutes...

GRRR!

Apart from that the work that has been done with it is great, I just wish it was more stable.

megalopsuche
11-25-2009, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by dahoyle:
If you do in fact, contribute more, such as hosting a server, or actually publishing mods, then the popularity of, and use of your products, is a direct indicator of the amount of influence you deserve.

No-cockpit servers are very popular, but they are crap. Popularity is not a measure of quality or merit.


Originally posted by dahoyle:
In the question of whether or not elitism is bad, then you need to define elite. If you are talking about a social class situation, then my previous remarks still apply. I don't particularly care for that sort of elitism, but I live in the real world, so I deal with it.

In the case of the other definition, whereas ones abilities and proven performance is the indicator, then of course, elitism is neither a good thing, or a bad thing. It is the person that makes a difference, and how they apply their talents.


I think it's pretty clear what elitism means with regard to mods, i.e. some people who have a clue decide on one mod-pack and surpress the attempts of others to turn the game into a circus.

AndyJWest
11-25-2009, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by megalopsuche:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dahoyle:
If you do in fact, contribute more, such as hosting a server, or actually publishing mods, then the popularity of, and use of your products, is a direct indicator of the amount of influence you deserve.

No-cockpit servers are very popular, but they are crap. Popularity is not a measure of quality or merit.


Originally posted by dahoyle:
In the question of whether or not elitism is bad, then you need to define elite. If you are talking about a social class situation, then my previous remarks still apply. I don't particularly care for that sort of elitism, but I live in the real world, so I deal with it.

In the case of the other definition, whereas ones abilities and proven performance is the indicator, then of course, elitism is neither a good thing, or a bad thing. It is the person that makes a difference, and how they apply their talents.


I think it's pretty clear what elitism means with regard to mods, i.e. some people who have a clue decide on one mod-pack and surpress the attempts of others to turn the game into a circus. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Arrogance is not a measure of quality or merit either. If you don't like a server, don't fly on it. That doesn't give you the right to decide what is 'crap'. Not everyone has the same opinions as you.

dahoyle
11-25-2009, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by AndyJWest:
Arrogance is not a measure of quality or merit either. If you don't like a server, don't fly on it. That doesn't give you the right to decide what is 'crap'. Not everyone has the same opinions as you.

That is exactly my point. There isn't necessarily a "best" package out there, but it can certainly be argued that one which is popular has met the needs of a lot of people. If you don't like it, then you certainly don't have to log in, but the attempt to force your set of needs on someone is utter BS. I haven't flown IL2 online, but I certainly appreciate the fact that a large number of people have offered a large variety of options. Had there never been a mod, that would be fine, but since there are, I very much appreciate the fact that I can most likely find an environment which suits me. Perhaps, as I said, if you offer nothing else, then a little gratitude for those that have is in order, even if you don't necessarily like their particular vision.

It is funny that you say that popularity is not a measure of merit, as that is typically how success in an endeavor of this type is demonstrated. This is a game, played for fun. The more people having fun, the more successful. Not sure what skewed criteria you are using to judge, other than maybe that everyone should think as you do.

megalopsuche
11-25-2009, 10:03 AM
If you haven't played online, then you don't realize what's at stake. That explains it.

I would never use a mod if it weren't necessary for online play. So the irony of being accused of arrogance by those who think it's no big deal to break EULA is pretty awesome.

dahoyle
11-25-2009, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by megalopsuche:
If you haven't played online, then you don't realize what's at stake. That explains it.

I would never use a mod if it weren't necessary for online play. So the irony of being accused of arrogance by those who think it's no big deal to break EULA is pretty awesome.

That's not at all what I am saying. I would actually prefer if there were no mods. That doesn't change the fact that there are, and each and every one of them is a violation of the EULA. With that single little detail in mind, then each and every one is equal, in that regard, so popularity is what sets them apart. Your position seems to be that some illegitimate mods are ok, while others are not.

If you were really as righteous as you seem to be claiming, then your position would be that "I used to enjoy this game, but can no longer play online without violating my ethics" It is notable that that is not your position, but rather seems to be that anyone who violates the EULA, should do so in a manner which is within the scope of your preferences, and therefore, allow you more places to play.

It seems to me that if you are not somehow connected to UBI, and therefor, the Mods are costing you a percentage of the royalties or something, then you have no more at stake than someone who prefers a different gaming environment, so that argument just doesn't wash. Again, it just boils down to "what I want is more important to me, so therefor it is more important" You have already demonstrated the extent of your ethics, in the matter. You are perfectly willing to violate them, as long as you get to play on a server which suits you.

stalkervision
11-25-2009, 11:18 AM
I am getting a strange feeling of deja vu .. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


As in this..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEf4P7lOFHw


Il-2's Flying Circus http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

megalopsuche
11-25-2009, 12:44 PM
My point about the Eula was that there's no room for any of us to start insulting or questioning character. I certainly am not happy about breaking it, but guess what, I don't have a choice if I want to enjoy multiplayer.

I understand that we all have different preferences, but without a standard version of the game online play will suffer.

AndyJWest
11-25-2009, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by megalopsuche:
My point about the Eula was that there's no room for any of us to start calling names. Anyway, the point is for everyone to be playing the same game. The reason for that is online play. I understand that we all have different preferences, but without a standard version of the game online play will suffer.

I've argued exactly the same thing. We need no more than two versions for online servers: 4.09m, and 4.09m with standard mod options. That has nothing to do with what difficulty settings the servers are on though. It was your dismissal of servers you don't like as 'crap' that I thought arrogant. Sorry if I offended you, but don't you think others might find your comments close to name-calling too?

megalopsuche
11-25-2009, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by AndyJWest:
I've argued exactly the same thing. We need no more than two versions for online servers: 4.09m, and 4.09m with standard mod options. That has nothing to do with what difficulty settings the servers are on though. It was your dismissal of servers you don't like as 'crap' that I thought arrogant. Sorry if I offended you, but don't you think others might find your comments close to name-calling too?

If I did then I apologize. I suppose insulting open-cockpit is close to insulting the people who enjoy it.

FYI, edited my post for clarity.

dahoyle
11-25-2009, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by AndyJWest:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by megalopsuche:
My point about the Eula was that there's no room for any of us to start calling names. Anyway, the point is for everyone to be playing the same game. The reason for that is online play. I understand that we all have different preferences, but without a standard version of the game online play will suffer.

I've argued exactly the same thing. We need no more than two versions for online servers: 4.09m, and 4.09m with standard mod options. That has nothing to do with what difficulty settings the servers are on though. It was your dismissal of servers you don't like as 'crap' that I thought arrogant. Sorry if I offended you, but don't you think others might find your comments close to name-calling too? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry, but I just don't agree. Which mods are allowed, is pretty much dictated by an individual server, unless I am just totally missing something here. Your gripe boils down to the fact that more don't suit you. There are no shortages of games, just shortages of games that you would like to, or can, participate in without running another version. You want everyone who operates outside your little comfort zone, to toe your particular line, specifically for your benefit, not the good of the game. The game is doing just fine.

As long as someone is willing to step up and host a server, and folks play on it, then the game will continue to do just fine, and one of the things which motivates someone to host, is the idea that they have some degree of creative influence in how it is played there. You want to kill the game, a really good start, now that the mod cat is out of the bag, is to force them to play a game that you prefer, rather than one that you prefer. I can guarantee that the number of online hosts will disappear almost overnight.

dahoyle
11-25-2009, 02:59 PM
The solution, is actually quite simple to define, and very difficult to implement. Instead of continuously dragging the subject up here, why not a referendum, that actually defines some concepts. Saying that there should only be 2 options, with one of them being the "standard mod options" couldn't be more vague. What exactly does that mean? I'll be the first to admit, that I don't know all the nuances.

The bottom line, is that there will be no "Mod Police". The solution is going to have to come thru consensus building, and that is going to require a lot of effort on someone's part, and it will not reach the goal that you want. It might minimize the number of mods, but I am quite certain that there will still be more than you like. In the end, there will be folks who want to play in those very popular "No-cockpit servers" which you disdain. You can bet they are popular because people enjoy them, and it is unlikely that they will toe any line just to suit a particular point of view or vision that they don't share. Much easier to present a strategy that unites those who are the same in principal, but differ in execution. In the end, as a particular version is used on more servers, then more people will run it, and conversely, then more servers will host it.

So, instead of pointing out differences between those who are by all estimation, too far one way or another to reach a consensus with, concentrate on the similarities of the versions which are closer together. Get one to give just a little, and you have one more running a common version. As it gains followers, other servers are likely to follow suit.

In the end, if the S.O.W. engines are significantly different, and superior to the current versions, then it will most likely be the death blow to current versions and mods. There will always be a following, but my guess is that many servers will go away, to offer the new game.

AndyJWest
11-25-2009, 03:36 PM
Dahoyle, I could have probably worded it better, but you misunderstand what I'm saying. At the moment we have servers supporting 4.08, 4.09b1m and 4.09m on HL, together with several different mod packs. If there was a 'standard' mod pack that everyone could install to use on all servers that suported mods, it would simplify things greatly, as would everyone using the same patch version - 4.09m being the only sensible choice now that it is out. As I understand it, the modding community is trying to work towards this.

None of this need affect what mods a particular server permits, if the system is properly designed.

Muddy17
11-25-2009, 04:29 PM
{{Posted Wed November 25 2009 14:36 Hide Post
Dahoyle, I could have probably worded it better, but you misunderstand what I'm saying. At the moment we have servers supporting 4.08, 4.09b1m and 4.09m on HL, together with several different mod packs. If there was a 'standard' mod pack that everyone could install to use on all servers that suported mods, it would simplify things greatly, as would everyone using the same patch version - 4.09m being the only sensible choice now that it is out. As I understand it, the modding community is trying to work towards this.

None of this need affect what mods a particular server permits, if the system is properly designed. }}



This is kinda what I was getting at, when I started this [sorry bout that]

dahoyle
11-25-2009, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by AndyJWest:
Dahoyle, I could have probably worded it better, but you misunderstand what I'm saying. At the moment we have servers supporting 4.08, 4.09b1m and 4.09m on HL, together with several different mod packs. If there was a 'standard' mod pack that everyone could install to use on all servers that suported mods, it would simplify things greatly, as would everyone using the same patch version - 4.09m being the only sensible choice now that it is out. As I understand it, the modding community is trying to work towards this.

None of this need affect what mods a particular server permits, if the system is properly designed.


I'm afraid I'm a bit lost here. I am all for a common mod set, but the server is the one who decides whether or not they are going to use it, so therefore, it is the server hosts who should be driving this train, or at the very least be highly involved in the input on what this standard mod entails. I'm quite sure that things are not quite as arbitrary as described. I sincerely doubt that anyone who started hosting since 4.09 release is using 4.08, but those who were using it prior, might have valid reasons for not updating. Who knows how much time they might have invested? Can they just update to 4.09, with 0 effort, and everything be just the same, or do they have to pretty much start over from scratch if they have some custom campaigns, or such. I don't know. I find it unlikely that someone is refusing to update, just to be different, if it is as simple as downloading the patch and plugging it in.

Correct me if I am wrong here.

TheGrunch
11-25-2009, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by dahoyle:
I sincerely doubt that anyone who started hosting since 4.09 release is using 4.08...
Yeah, sorry, you would be wrong on that one. The release of the Unified Installer 1.2 has left most people hosting 4.09b1 or 4.08, since UI 1.2 was incompatible with 4.09. Problem is, most people use the UI whether it's a good idea or not, so servers try to accomodate that or a lot of people go somewhere else.

Vipez-
11-27-2009, 09:10 AM
Falcon 4? Humm, never really got into that world.. Back in 1993 I was more enthusiastic with Falcon 3, which I believe was one of the best simulators ever made(with two Falcon 3 sequels) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .. Also the reason why I wasted all my money for CH Combat Stick when it was introduced http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

GIAP.Shura
11-27-2009, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by megalopsuche:
My point about the Eula was that there's no room for any of us to start insulting or questioning character. I certainly am not happy about breaking it, but guess what, I don't have a choice if I want to enjoy multiplayer.

I understand that we all have different preferences, but without a standard version of the game online play will suffer.

You always have a choice.

You could look for a server running vanilla IL-2 or if you are unable to find one you could host and hope that there are like-minded individuals (you know, the ones who have a clue, the elite) to join you.

Mod scenes are meritocratic. Mod packs will be launched and eventually the popularity of mod packs will whittle down the competition to one or two (two being more likely). This whittling down never occurs through the autocratic imposition of an elite (although it usually has a hand in the mod packs creation).

BillSwagger
11-27-2009, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by TheGrunch:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dahoyle:
I sincerely doubt that anyone who started hosting since 4.09 release is using 4.08...
Yeah, sorry, you would be wrong on that one. The release of the Unified Installer 1.2 has left most people hosting 4.09b1 or 4.08, since UI 1.2 was incompatible with 4.09. Problem is, most people use the UI whether it's a good idea or not, so servers try to accomodate that or a lot of people go somewhere else. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't it the other way around?
I get on HL, i see a server i like, but it doesn't use "next best thing" pack, it uses another version. So i'm forced to use a mod pack that suits the server. Its the servers that control which mods are used.
You can build a great mod pack that is standardized to allow 4.09m and modded 4.09m configurations. What good are they if the servers use a different version.
I think there is also an argument that packs that use SFS compression are forcing you to use mods that you would otherwise not prefer. Other than swapping textures, i don't see how a CRT=2 regulated server using decompressed mods is any different. The benefit of having compressed files is that the game loads faster, runs smoother.
Online mods should be standardized, where offline should be more pick and choose.

TheGrunch
11-28-2009, 03:27 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
I think there is also an argument that packs that use SFS compression are forcing you to use mods that you would otherwise not prefer. Other than swapping textures, i don't see how a CRT=2 regulated server using decompressed mods is any different.
The difference is that CRT=2 only really affects java class files, so you can change effects mods and things like that whenever you want without breaking CRT=2.