PDA

View Full Version : Plane Whines, you spoiled brats



VBF-83_Hawk
12-04-2004, 01:32 AM
I really do get sick and tired of people complaining about the planes available or not, in Pacific Fighters. I dont care what we have or dont have, guys have to make crude remarks about them in some fashion or form. I am certainly not asking for more of a particular type of plane but I would like to see as many planes as Oleg can make. I would like to see every available plane from China's Curtiss Biplane Hawks thru Japan's A5M thru whatever. Stop complaining. I have seen more planes in Il2 than any other flight sim. I admit that almost every patch should include a flyable plane but gesh, give Oleg a break, this is by all means the best flight sim I have seen.

Go ahead, prove me right, flame away! I can almost make a list of the guys who will flame and those who wont. Enjoy!

Weather_Man
12-04-2004, 02:06 AM
Something from VT-83 would be a good start. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Anyways, look at it this way. If the complaining stops, then we've lost interest. When we lose interest, then Oleg loses. It's all part of a healthy cycle. Gotta take the bad with the good.

VBF-83_Hawk
12-04-2004, 02:18 AM
We need to stop acting like children, dont complain. Post requests and facts, leave out the childish remarks.

If a plane does not perform as it should, certainly post it it a constructive, non complaining manor. GUys should respect it and keep thier flames to themselves. I am guilty too, just trying to be constructive instead.

Question: shouldnt the F4U-1D fly at xxx at 5,000feet?

Answer: No, data shows that.....
Reply: But I read that.......
Reply: thats right or wrong because......

BTW, yes, I would like to see a flyable TBM as well as the SB2C. The SB2C was not well liked but I want to see ALL WWII aircraft in here. I think Oleg is doing an outstanding job! We shouldnt have to whine in order to get more planes or corrected flight models. I think Oleg is intelllllllegent enough to know that we all want different planes, good or bad.

FI.Snaphoo
12-04-2004, 02:29 AM
Good points posted...

I think as stated, there should be a less whiny way to explain the need for a particular fix/plane/map/ThingX into the game. And if it's not answered or acknowledged, then it's not important to the company. And it's time to be an adult and move on with what you have. I too feel that Oleg and company have done an outstanding job with everything. I have had more fun and frustration with this game than any other game I've ever played. Period. The community is great. I've met some really great people and learned from them, p**sed a few off, and generally been impressed with the level of support by the game makers as well.

I'm not a fanboy. I'm too apathetic for it. I don't care how much effort someone put into a game. Everyone puts a lot of effort into making a game. But when I see company people coming in and supporting a game, in the forums, I find that impressive. Not everyone does that, and I have to give them respect for going the extra kilometer. I find the whine posts to be disrespectful of that effort given.

No game will ever be perfect, that I've found. There will always be problems. But this is one of the better games/sims out there.

HotelBushranger
12-04-2004, 02:29 AM
Weather_Man's got a ****ed fine point there
How bout some Vultee Vengeance dive bombers for the RAAF? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

VBF-83_Hawk
12-04-2004, 03:06 AM
I'm sure the Stinson L-5 would be the less flown, but I would love to go sight seeing in it. I have about 40 hours logged flying a real one. I'm sure the only chance I will ever have to fly another one will be in a flight sim.

triggerhappyfin
12-04-2004, 04:30 AM
No harm in ppl whishing planes to be included in the game. It sort of points out where the decires lie. The only thing is when forwarding our whishes we should make the propotions politely.

LeadSpitter_
12-04-2004, 04:41 AM
Dont get me wrong but we paid alot for this game 30 fb 30 aep 40 pf, i think its well worth it and agree with you on this game including the most aircraft. Cfs2 i had somthing like 800 ac but not were all great quality as this game.

There hasnt been one plane sim that did not have complaining about fms and i dont see more complaining here then any of the other flightsims of the past.

I also feel we need more flyables in the PF set as well as the eto.

for PF there is not really much we can do without flyable carrier based torpedo bombers and we all really would like to see some of the 4 engine heavy bombers flyable.

On il2center and netwings there was over 18 planes suppossably finished but who knows if they made it in game or not. I have seen the claude model years ago on il2center i dont know if its the same model but it looks like it, it was also in the sukoi.ru forums. The other japanese ac i have not seen any dev before so its good to see new ac are being made even if they are ai only and hopefully they will become flyable one day.

I think alot of people feel a little ripped off with PF i do.

To me this is all we got for 40

flyables

p40b
b25
wildcat
hellcat
corsair
a20
dauntless
val

I do not count old models of different variants new flyables or consider 40 new flyables with PF when theres 3-4 versions of each same model.

It seems we got more for less with FB and AEP and it is the same game engine.

but then again we got alot of maps and new ships and ground items in PF and im sure thier will be new flyables along the way. Im certainly not satified with PF at the moment and thinks it need alot of work still and I think oleg and team will keep up the work as they have in the past.

I also think calling someone a spoiled brat is not called for, people throw around the word whine way to easily here and it is ment to help the game out. Many of us care about fms and the game becoming more realistic rather then a easy game for first time users to do well immediatly.
There are alot of fms that still need tweaking but alot have gave up trying to help paying for sourced dated data and figure it to be useless to try and help the dev team anymore.

DuxCorvan
12-04-2004, 04:51 AM
You forgot beau, tony, oscar and early P-40s -a different plane from the ones we had, IMHO.

Anyway, it's true FB packed more.

But they have us hooked, so... why complaining? Nobody forced me to buy it, but my adiction. If I'm an adict to Il-2 series, then everything they add is likely both to satisfy me and make me greed more.

We will never stop whining, because the mine of WW2 planes will always be full, and we won't be completely satisfied till it's empty. We are hopeless, kids. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

SeaFireLIV
12-04-2004, 05:06 AM
Well, you gotta admit there are A LOT of planes in this sim already, more than in any other sim ever! I have played quite a few sims and have wowed when the numbers went from 3 to 8 to 16 and even 30 odd in one sim, but so many in IL2 with pretty accurate FMs and cockpits?

It really ought to go into the ******ss Book of Records - seriously.

CHDT
12-04-2004, 05:10 AM
The "I'm so tired" post of the week http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Macca_Man
12-04-2004, 05:35 AM
all good points, however oleg did promise the release of the Missing planes when PF went live and ofcourse it didnt happen and a few weeks later Still no luck..

its understandable people will be Pissed at that.

VBF-83_Hawk
12-04-2004, 05:46 AM
$40 is not a lot of money compared to $15 bucks a month to play Aces High.

Stupid me was paying $300 to $400 a month to play WarBirds 2.xx @ $2.99 per hour!!!!!

IL-2 is God's gift to flight sim buffs!

402Cdn.Valkyrie
12-04-2004, 05:47 AM
I agree with Hawk on all his points. And about the add-on, you cant help human error and someone got sick... What is there to be bad about? But please if you, the once that are pissed, can do the sick guys job better... Be my guest!

sapre
12-04-2004, 07:33 AM
Combat Flight Simulator 2 flyable planes

Japan:
A6M2
A6M5
N1K2

America:
P-38
F4F
F6F
F4U

7 total.

Pacific Fighters flyable planes

Japan:
A6M2
A6M3
A6M5
D3A1
Ki-43
Ki-61
Ki-84

America:
A-20G
B-25J
F4F
FM-2
F6F
F4U
P-38
P-39
P-40
P-47
P-51

British
Seafire
Spitfire Mk.8

20 total

Got the picture? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Airmail109
12-04-2004, 09:39 AM
Gimme a Mossie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go on u know u want to..........PLEASE!!!!!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Zneg1
12-04-2004, 10:11 AM
Interesting to thosee who are saying they only got this much plane with PF. Was there any guarantees on the box that says 'future patch will guarantee such and such planes to be flayable'. I don't think the PF box lied in outlining what's to be expected from it UNPATCHED...Also is there a feeling that PF costs less than you paid for it?

Time and again, sadly ,people who play this game have no concept of how HARD it is to first research the data, specs and blueprints and photographs, then you have to ask or find somebody who will be able to model the exterior (fuselage, wings) and SEPARATELY model the cockpit (and the other positions), then code all of that to see if it works as people expect it based on reading it from some book based on personal experience or accounts.

One thing not being mentioned here is that not all the assigne or modelled 3d planes and cockpits makes it to the game why? because some do not satisfy the requirements or the quality that is needed in the game so it gets shelved. I certainly hope that people realize that there is a big plus already in us having the ability to send and get feedback from the developer, give us some flyable planes during patch for free and fix the game whenever we find something wrong with it with enough documentation.

I certainly believe that Oleg should release an add-on pack US,Japanese,German or Italian,French and Finnish planeset for those who wants them. Have you seen the myriad of add-on for MS-based fli-sims? They take up a whole rack in the store!

TAGERT.
12-04-2004, 10:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:
I really do get sick and tired of people complaining about the planes available or not, in Pacific Fighters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Complaining.. yes that gets old.. Asking questions or expressing what you would like to see, hell it is a forum, that is just one of the things it is for, feedback! In my Why No F4u-4 thread Im not complaining as much as Im asking about the thought process behind what is and is not included.. In that there is no consistancy to it.. As far as I can see. Some of the versions of the F4u that are in the game now, only a few hundred were made, yet the -4 there were over 2000 made before wars end.. Yet it is not in the game.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:
I dont care what we have or dont have, guys have to make crude remarks about them in some fashion or form. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I didnt either.. in that my mind set use to be.. Any plane is better than none.. But once you start looking into what we have vs. what we dont have.. Well it just does not make much sense.. For example.. Ask youself.. A pacific sim without torp planes?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:
I am certainly not asking for more of a particular type of plane but I would like to see as many planes as Oleg can make. I would like to see every available plane from China's Curtiss Biplane Hawks thru Japan's A5M thru whatever. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There, see, not so bad is it? This is the type of request alot of people make around here.. Not a whine.. Just feed back.. The only dif between your and mine is I asked for some detail on how the decision process is done to select one plane over another.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:
Stop complaining. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%! Dont complain on the number of aircraft in PF, because it has more planes in it then just about any sim ever made.. Thus silly and ignorant to complain about the numbers of aircraft.. But as to the types.. I think it is fine to not only ask why.. But to complaine about it. Feedback.. alot of what Oleg does is based on it. Seems the planes added have no reasoing behind them, and are based off the squikie wheel process.. If so, then complaining may be the process that gets planes selected.. Thus Start Complaining! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:
I have seen more planes in Il2 than any other flight sim. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Because it is 3 flight sims in one.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:
I admit that almost every patch should include a flyable plane <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What? Man.. that is crasy imho.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:
but gesh, give Oleg a break, this is by all means the best flight sim I have seen. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:
Go ahead, prove me right, flame away! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Define flame.. In that you got the word complaining all mixxed up.. I just hope your definition of a flame is NOT someone that disagrees with you.. Because if so than my reply would be a flame to you, in some parts.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:
I can almost make a list of the guys who will flame and those who wont. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Cookie?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:
Enjoy! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Same!

XyZspineZyX
12-04-2004, 04:14 PM
I think the issue here is civility and maturity... it's sad that these are in such short supply in the world today.

Really there is really nothing inherently unreasonable about requesting specific new aircraft!

The problem as I see it is just the manner in which such requests are made. People just plain need to grow up and not let their emotions drive them to crudeness as if they were children.

Aaron_GT
12-04-2004, 04:48 PM
" Some of the versions of the F4u that are in the game now, only a few hundred were made, yet the -4 there were over 2000 made before wars end"

They made 12,000 Avro Ansons. Where's my Avro Anson?

WTE_Gog
12-04-2004, 05:31 PM
You will find your Avro Anson parked next to the Harvard/Texans, which are just beside the Boeing Stearmans and Tiger Moths.

This is a WW2 Combat flight Sim not a 1930's training simulator. Sure, the odd Anson may have been used by I dunno, Coastal command or got shot down whilst on a jolly during the BoB but I think we can do without it.

As for the rest of the posts here, finally, some well thought out responses to some of the inadequacies identified in PF! Bravo! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AlmightyTallest
12-04-2004, 05:42 PM
I didn't think the Avro Anson served in the Pacific theater during WWII in relatively large numbers, if it did then I believe that it should be modelled for PF. I'm not able to find much info on it fighting in the Pacific during WWII though.

The F4U-4 on the other hand has documented proof that it was fighting against Japan in WWII off of Okinawa among other areas. There were also more F4U-4's produced and that fought in WW2 than all the F4U-1C's ever produced. Same with the cannon armed F4U-4B, 297 of which were manufactured, and served before the end of the war.

I'd still like to see a flyable George, and the B-25H or Hard nosed J model. TBF would be nice also. I'm sure some of this will be addressed in future patches for us. At least I hope they will. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WTE_Gog
12-04-2004, 06:38 PM
Almighty Tallest and others,

Heres a question for you, a hypothetical.

Two aircraft, aircraft X and aircraft Y.

They both fought in the PTO.

They made 300 of aircraft X and 2000 of aircraft Y.

Aircraft X was fighting from 1941 to 1945 and fought in several operations including some of the most pivotal battles in the PTO.

Aircraft Y however, fought only in 1945 and only in a relatively small AO.

Which of these aircraft should be included into PF first?

TAGERT.
12-04-2004, 06:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
" Some of the versions of the F4u that are in the game now, only a few hundred were made, yet the -4 there were over 2000 made before wars end"

They made 12,000 Avro Ansons. Where's my Avro Anson? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You dont get it do you? Are you trying to not get it? So simple.. Here is a summary for you thickness.. Out of all the F4u VERSIONS that were build, flown, and faught, the -4 was one of the largets produces version of the F4u's. Yet the -4 is NOT in the game, and other, less produced, thus less flown, thus less action are in the game. Is it sinking in yet? If not, PM me and Ill draw you a picture.

AlmightyTallest
12-04-2004, 09:12 PM
WTE_Gog, excellent point. But the answer is not so simple.

Since we already have a few rare, late war Japanese aircraft in Pacific Fighters that historically fought very late in the war against some of America's late war aircraft, (Some of which currently aren't in the sim.) we really can't make a choice. We only can go by what is currently in this sim. And since there are some late war Japanese aircraft, that have very low production numbers and which also fought in a relatively small AO the question naturally arose about the same possibility of including late war Allied aircraft.

I would agree with you that the aircraft that was in the war longer, and had a longer and larger production run should be modeled in the sim first. Our question stems from the fact that we already have some late war Japanese aircaft, and others with low production numbers and such, so we wanted to know if the Allies would be getting the same.

The other problem we are having is that there seems to be absolutely no information anywhere that would tell us that the F4U-4, P-47N or other Allied late war aircraft are even being considered for inclusion into Pacific Fighters. Yet there is talk of a flyable George, J2M3, Ki-100, but no info or even rumors about late war Allied planes for the campaigns in Pacific Fighters.

One other issue is the offline Campaigns. Even though a plane may have served for a short time in the war historically, that doesn't mean it didn't do a lot of sorties within that time, and that the same has to be so in this sim. Playing an offline campaign in a late war aircraft consists of about the same number of flyable missions in that type of aircaft as any other early or more common aircraft that fought in the war that is modeled in the sim.


What would your choice or actions be Gog, given the information above? I like the late war Japanese aircraft being included, make no mistake about that, but I would like to see the same treatment for Allied aircraft as well, both for historical reasons, and for fairness. But we don't know if that's going to even happen, or if it does how far down the road would it be?

I'd like to see the TBF, and the Jill as flyables as well, since we do need flyable torpedo planes in a Pacific warfare sim.

We just want to know is all, and to have things match up historically in the sim.

WTE_Gog
12-04-2004, 10:58 PM
Yep, I understand where you are coming from mate. I get the impression that aircraft selection for the game is very haphazard, maybe they threw darts at a poster of all the worlds WW2 aircraft and this is the result. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

My own opinion is that the basic workhorses should be included first. That's all the aircraft that most people would agree carried the major workload in their given role for that particular country, things like 109, 111, 190, 110, 87 and so on for Germany and P51, 47, 38, 40 and so on for USA, anyway, you get the point. Once you have the basics then move onto the less common, like the Dora's and 410 etc etc for Germany and the Typhoons and Mozzies for the UK and A-20 and B-25 and so on.

Now, once that is down pat, go for the rarer stuff but still aircraft that did fly in at least reasonable numbers, like the 262, the Ki-100, the F4U-4 falls into this category for me not because of how many were made but more so because of it's impact on the war in a global sense.

Once you have all these aircraft, THEN start including the wierd jets and prototypes.

The fact that we have weird jets and proto's and not a single Japanese Torpedo bomber is just plain strange and very hard to understand.

Good luck with your Corsair! I think you will get it and probably before a lot of other aircraft that deserve it more.

Cheers

Aaron_GT
12-05-2004, 08:47 AM
"You dont get it do you? Are you trying to not get it? So simple.. Here is a summary for you thickness.. Out of all the F4u VERSIONS that were build, flown, and faught, the -4 was one of the largets produces version of the F4u's. Yet the -4 is NOT in the game, and other, less produced, thus less flown, thus less action are in the game. Is it sinking in yet? If not, PM me and Ill draw you a picture."

Er.. I am not thick in the slightest. I don't think personal insults are warranted.

I understand that you want an F4U-4.

However there are plenty of other planes that served longer in larger numbers and with a more significant role that are not. Yes there are some planes which saw action in small numbers in the game, however it does not logically follow that this is a good reason to include more that saw action in small numbers.

So assuming you want to see planes included that saw action in significant numbers I'll support an F4U-4 if you support the inclusion of a Barracuda, Fulmar, Firefly, Hurricane IV, flyable Blenheims (all served in numbers in the Pacific).

Sakai9745
12-05-2004, 09:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I don't think personal insults are warranted.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pretty much the purpose of this post, and I whole-hearted agree. What's the average age of the community here? I'd be surprised if it was less than mid-30s. There's no reason to sink down to such a level just because 'Plane A' didn't make it into the game or 'Plane B' just doesn't seem to fly right.

GT182
12-05-2004, 09:08 AM
Look at it this way... When Oleg is satisfied with the new planes that are to be added, he'll put out the patch for them.

Want, want, want. Everyone's sounding like a that little 3 year old spoiled kid I saw in the grocery store checkout, throwing a hissy fit because his mother said he couldn't have something. It's time to sit back and relax. So we have to wait. Did you ever think that the wait might be better for us all in the long run?

And remember this... "You can't alway get what you want!"

TAGERT.
12-05-2004, 10:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Er.. I am not thick in the slightest. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Dissagree 100%.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I don't think personal insults are warranted. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nice try.. but for those who have been following the F4u-4 thread will know that you were just taking another swipe at me with your simple more AC before less AC view of the world. It is a neat theory, but, one that is not consistant. I would be all for the work horse first idea.. If it was appllied evenly.. But it isnt.. And only a thick person or someone who just joined this forum in the last week would not realise that.. And by looking at your registered date you have been here longer than a week.. So, which is it? Are you thick, or are you trying to not get it? Just so you can take those more AC over less AC swipes at people who dont agree with you?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I understand that you want an F4U-4. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>See.. that shows you dont understand at all.. As I have said before.. I want to know *why* no F4u-4. That is to say when faced with all the F4u's versions one could make.. Why was the F4u-4 not one of them.. Why was the -4 which was produced in much greater nubmers than most other version of the F4u not included.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
However there are plenty of other planes that served longer in larger numbers and with a more significant role that are not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And however there are plenty of other planes that served LESS in SMALLER numbers and with a LESS significant role that ARE IN THE GAME NOW.. AND MORE ARE ON THE WAY! See two can play that game!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Yes there are some planes which saw action in small numbers in the game, however it does not logically follow that this is a good reason to include more that saw action in small numbers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You seem to be under the impression that I am interested in your logic.. Im not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
So assuming you want to see planes included that saw action in significant numbers I'll support an F4U-4 if you support the inclusion of a Barracuda, Fulmar, Firefly, Hurricane IV, flyable Blenheims (all served in numbers in the Pacific). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yawn.

AlmightyTallest
12-05-2004, 10:45 AM
I agree with you completely Gog, the only thing that had me confused was that some of the late war and rare fighter aicraft seemed to be leaning toward the Japanese in Pacific Fighters. I'm with you on wondering about why a single Japanese Torpedo bomber, and planes like the TBF, or Devastator weren't included when PF came out as well.

I'm sure there's some reason, I heard it was difficult for Oleg to get details on the cockpit layouts for the Japanese Torpedo bombers, but hopefully Oleg and his team will have things sorted out.

Thanks for the good luck wish on the Corsair, though if it's not included I'm okay with it. I just wanted to know the reasoning behind not considering it for Pacific Fighters, and thought that in a historical sense the plane could match up with it's Japanese late war contemporaries in the campaign off Okinawa.

I would like to see the other aircraft included that had a larger impact on the war included first though, as you have said. But already getting or possibly getting a flyable Ki-100, J2M3, George, Ki-84-C all within two months of PF's release in the U.S. has a lot us just wondering about why the Allies didn't get the same. The Netwings forum even has tons of people wanting a flyable Ohka, with cocpit details posted, yet no one seems interested in the F4U-4 as of yet.

I'm sure it will be sorted out though, Oleg and team have provided 2 major patches that address many of the bugs discovered in PF already, as well, they've shown shots of new aircraft that are being added, and there's sure to be more flyables as long as he continues to support his sim.

Aaron_GT
12-05-2004, 11:01 AM
"Nice try.. but for those who have been following the F4u-4 thread will know that you were just taking another swipe at me with your simple more AC before less AC view of the world."

Whilst I disagree with your views on the subject, and your devotion to them sometimes frustrates me I have no resorted to personal insults.

TAGERT.
12-05-2004, 11:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Whilst I disagree with your views on the subject, and your devotion to them sometimes frustrates me I have no resorted to personal insults. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well I call em as I see em.. You on the other hand do resort to personal insults.. Your just dance around it more.. For example, in the F4u-4 thread your reply to me was as follows.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT from Why No F4u-4 thread:
Hmm I can see I am going to have a bit of a bang-my-head-against-a-wall experience such as I did trying to explain Bayesian statistics, so I give up. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, you can try and play the high road guy now in a new thread.. But those who have been around know the real deal. As for the THICK vs. TROLL thing.. Your tac of just repeating the same tired question over and over.. Even after I have answered it many times in many ways, is frustrates.. And is very troll like.. I know my answer was clear, because other responded to it and got it.. Yet you didn't, so, your either trying to not get it, or thick.

Now let me guess.. This is the part where you try and sell the no personal insults thing or ask the same question again?

WOLFMondo
12-05-2004, 11:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AlmightyTallest:
The other problem we are having is that there seems to be absolutely no information anywhere that would tell us that the F4U-4, P-47N or other Allied late war aircraft are even being considered for inclusion into Pacific Fighters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Someone was working on a P47N and no where has Oleg said he wouldn't allow it in, it just needs someone to model it since the original modeller as far as I remember lost all his work.

LeadSpitter_
12-05-2004, 12:03 PM
it got canceled unfortunatly wolfmondo. I think priller was the one making the adjustments to the d model but did not know 3dsmax enough to complete it from what others have said.

DarthBane_
12-05-2004, 04:27 PM
This game graphic engine cannot provide us with metal surface simulation, it has no reflections nore bump mapping, but it could present 100% acurate zeppelin outside. Therefore i would like a flyable zeppelin. Seriously!

killer2359
12-06-2004, 05:07 AM
I find the criteria applied in determining exactly what is a whine to be a bit hard to fathom.... - no, wait... I just figured it out - anyone who doesn't display the right degree of obsequiousness is whining!! Oh, that makes everything so much easier to understand!

On a serious note, I really don't understand the level of offence that is engendered by certain comments - as far as I'm concerned someone can bleat all they want - if I don't agree or think it's rubbish then I won't pay any heed and that's that - if what they've said is interesting then I'll look closer and think about it - but level of OVERreaction on this forum is just nuts!

Like I said elsewhere, IMO the fanatical fanboys (and don't kid yourself - if you don't like anyone saying anything negative about the game then you're a FANBOY!) are the real enemies of 1C:Maddox games because they actively marginalise and attack more mainstream opinions and - **surprise** - it's the mainstream game buyer who will ultimately make or break 1C:Maddox.

You clowns will do me out of enjoying more 1C:Maddox creations if you keep this nonsense up - because you WILL give the company a reputation as being only for REALLY hard core simmers and it will not survive.

WOLFMondo
12-06-2004, 06:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
it got canceled unfortunatly wolfmondo. I think priller was the one making the adjustments to the d model but did not know 3dsmax enough to complete it from what others have said. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We can always live in hope someone will take it on.

mortoma
12-06-2004, 10:25 AM
I look at this issue entirely differently and in an intelligent and fresh way. While I never even once begged or whined for aircraft to be included personally, I thank God for those who have whined and moaned!!

Because of their whiney little pathetic cries, we do indeed have more aircraft than we otherwise would have by now!! I'm not stupid you know. People who whine are often disrespected and derided, but they have their place in the scheme of things. And they will always exist in all game forums, whether we like it or not. I happen to like it.

TheEngine88
12-06-2004, 01:52 PM
If everyone had simply meekly accepted FB, or AEP, and just "shut up" as has been suggested, would this game have evolved as much as it has? Oleg may be a great flight sim producer, but I'd be willing to bet that he's not a psychic. Without input from the community, he has neither the info, or the motivation to provide changes and/or improvements.

Do these criticisms need to be civil and constructive? Absolutely. But there has grown a mentality around here that any and all criticisms/suggestions are simply "whines", right down to a moderator or two who threatens to ban any and all who have the temerity to question anything Oleg or Ubi do. Things have gotten pretty dogmatic on both sides, at times. Criticism is not automatically evil, at least in free countries...

Bearcat99
12-06-2004, 03:53 PM
I look at it this way.... I paid $49 for FB,$39 for AEP and $39 for PF.. I wont include BoE. Thats a $130 sim in my book. Now it gos for $70 if you get the GOLD and PF. I bought FB when it first came out.. same wit The AEP. On the release day I took off from work and went to EB Games to pick up my preorder. AFAIC... this is all one sim. At $70 it is a steal. Thee is nothing like it and even thiugh there may be planes missing.... what is here and the FMs available are better than anything else out. I dont get the whining and crying either. Sure Id love to have every plane in the sim flyable and a few more flyable as well... but if Oleg were to decide to no longer support this sim after whatever he has in the works already I wouldnt feel ripped off. Ill be doing this sim for at least an hour a day for the next few years GOD willing (That means barring some unfortunate fiancial or physical pitfall), probably more..... It is hands down the best money I have spent on entertainment to date.

lrrp22
12-06-2004, 04:43 PM
I think this whole F4U-4/Spit XIV/P-47N "Whine" thing can be distilled down to the fact that Russian, German and Japanese late-war super planes are all included to one degree or another, while US and UK planes are all locked at early 1944 plane sets and performance levels.

The fact is that most people who fly FB/AEP/PF like to fly the later hot rods, myself included. This means that those who happen to favor British or American aircraft usually end up facing hordes of historically rare opponents flying at often very enthusiastic performance levels. US/UK fans do not have the option to fly historically significant aircraft such as the F4U-4, Spit XIV, Tempest V and P-47M/N against the oppositions late-war uber planes. In fact, even the 1944 plane set we do have, like the P-51B/D and Spit IXLF, are locked at late 1943, early-1944 power levels- further contributing to the sense of imbalance.

AlmightyTallest
12-06-2004, 04:54 PM
Well said, lrrp22.

The other thing is that some of us prefer a certain theater of operations. Some enjoy their sim on the Eastern Front, others the European Theater. I personally prefer the Pacific, which prompted me to purchase this sim, and I'm not very interested in the Battle of Britain, though others certainly are.

I enjoy PF very much, but would like to see more of it, in the form of new aircraft that participated in the war, new ships that were there, and perhaps some improved AI or Dynamic Campaign engine that would create an even more realistic or exciting experience both offline and online.

Are we whining? I don't think anyone really is. This forum is public domain, and is accessed by fans from all over the world and since we are allowed to post, we post about things that are important to us that we think would improve the sim. Oleg and company don't have to listen to us, but we can at least ask about things for this sim.

unseen84
12-06-2004, 05:14 PM
All I know is that the fanboys annoy me a lot more than the whiners do. For better or worse, the whiners will always be around, in spite of the efforts of some here to eliminate all whines and complaints in all forms.

Yeah, I guess we should all just shut up. No new planes are needed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Now, give me a flyable Devastator. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Bearcat99
12-06-2004, 06:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheEngine88:
If everyone had simply meekly accepted FB, or AEP, and just "shut up" as has been suggested, would this game have evolved as much as it has? Oleg may be a great flight sim producer, but I'd be willing to bet that he's not a psychic. Without input from the community, he has neither the info, or the motivation to provide changes and/or improvements.

Do these criticisms need to be civil and constructive? Absolutely. But there has grown a mentality around here that any and all criticisms/suggestions are simply "whines", right down to a moderator or two who threatens to ban any and all who have the temerity to question anything Oleg or Ubi do. Things have gotten pretty dogmatic on both sides, at times. Criticism is not automatically evil, at least in free countries... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didnt see this post before but since I have now..... keep in mind.. my beef is not with criticism. If you re read my thread up top I said that criticism is good... but as I said I for one want the flow to exist. I dont want a situation where there are all these rants full of !@#$% and ++++. Questioning UBI and Oleg? Be my guest... I do it too when I think its right... and my poison may be your pleasure and vice versa... but that other stuff? The accusations? The flames? The cursing and outright contempt? Ive had it.... If I see it be sure that I will handle it. I dont see why people cant bring their issues to Oleg without calling him a liar or a fool.... and I wont have it. I just wish people would look at what we have and calm down. It seems almost as if the past 3 years of support have been for nothing and we still treat 1C like it was MS. I would be shocked if BoB came out and stayed there. I would be willing to bet that it will start with the BoB and then take a move forward... maybe even as far as Korea and I wouldnt be surprised at all if it went backwards as well to WW1. I bet a lot of the stuff we now have in FB3.0 is experimental stuff first planned for BoB but as usual they are experimenting trying to find a better way to do it. The gist of my point is remember who we are dealing with. Until they prove otherwise... we should give tem the benifit of the doubt. This sim is so far removed from FB 1.0 as to be another sim.

killer2359
12-06-2004, 08:45 PM
The "right" sort of criticism apparently consists of very careful questions posed in a flowery bed of obsequiousness. Cut the **** huh? - the fact is that anything less than fawning adoration draws very rapid and often vitriolic attacks.

"The accusations? The flames? The cursing and outright contempt?"

??? - I see this more from avid PF / IL2 / FB etc. 1C:Maddox SUPPORTERS.

Want to alienate the broader mainstream community and put 1C:Maddox out of business? - then carry on guys...

TAGERT.
12-06-2004, 09:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
I think this whole F4U-4/Spit XIV/P-47N "Whine" thing can be distilled down to the fact that Russian, German and Japanese late-war super planes are all included to one degree or another, while US and UK planes are all locked at early 1944 plane sets and performance levels.

The fact is that most people who fly FB/AEP/PF like to fly the later hot rods, myself included. This means that those who happen to favor British or American aircraft usually end up facing hordes of historically rare opponents flying at often very enthusiastic performance levels. US/UK fans do not have the option to fly historically significant aircraft such as the F4U-4, Spit XIV, Tempest V and P-47M/N against the oppositions late-war uber planes. In fact, even the 1944 plane set we do have, like the P-51B/D and Spit IXLF, are locked at late 1943, early-1944 power levels- further contributing to the sense of imbalance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agree 100%