PDA

View Full Version : Phillipines Map Question



Smoker_96th
12-04-2004, 07:55 AM
~S~ everyone,

I ain't one to ask for alot, but I have a simple question/request; is it possible for a Phillipines map? At the very least, the island of Luzon and the Suragao Strait area. There was some major action in that area as most of you know.

I have been anxiously awaiting any answer on this due to the fact that I wanted to recreate the Battle for Leyte Gulf and other battles that happened in that region.

Any word that you might have on this would be greatly appreciated, and thanks for listening.

96th_Smoker_LtCol
Assistant War Officer
Mission Builder
96th Consolidated Air Force

Smoker_96th
12-04-2004, 07:55 AM
~S~ everyone,

I ain't one to ask for alot, but I have a simple question/request; is it possible for a Phillipines map? At the very least, the island of Luzon and the Suragao Strait area. There was some major action in that area as most of you know.

I have been anxiously awaiting any answer on this due to the fact that I wanted to recreate the Battle for Leyte Gulf and other battles that happened in that region.

Any word that you might have on this would be greatly appreciated, and thanks for listening.

96th_Smoker_LtCol
Assistant War Officer
Mission Builder
96th Consolidated Air Force

Zneg1
12-04-2004, 10:55 PM
I dont know if anybody has planned that including 1C:maddox games. It would very quite interesting to see this since the battle of Philippine Sea and Layte Gulf were one of the last intense WWII carrier-based fighting involving lots of aircrafts.

I personally want to see the December 8th attacks on Subic Bay, Sangley Point and specially Clark Field where P-40s and B-29s were based and a lot of them were hit on the ground.

Here are good websites that outlines it all:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-P-PI/index.html#16

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/I/index.html

http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/leytegulf.htm

http://www.combinedfleet.com/leyte.htm

chris455
12-04-2004, 11:30 PM
B-17s.
Not B-29s.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Zneg1
12-04-2004, 11:35 PM
Right B-17Ds http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif reading this stuff again it makes for one crazy campaign with planes of up to 350 on one side! Then look at all the ground targets scattered around the island, navy yards, railways depots etc...

of course not to mention that it was in these waters that the japanese fully first used their new weapon...the kamikaze

woofiedog
12-05-2004, 01:16 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gifHeres one of my old posts.

posted Dec 2, 4:32 AM
Here is a little info I found on Clark Airfield on 12-7-41 and through 12-31-41.

Here is a couple of Links
http://www.kensmen.com/dec41.html

http://members.chello.be/kurt.weygantt/worldwariiaces.index.html_saburosakai.htm

American Side
Monday 8 December 1941
The first word of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor is received on Luzon, Philip-pine Islands by commercial radio between 0300-0330 hours local. Within 30 minutes radar at Iba Field, Luzon plots a formation of airplanes 75-miles (120-km) offshore, heading for Corregidor Island. P-40's are sent out to intercept but make no contact. Shortly before 0930 hours, after Japanese aircraft are detected over Lingayen Gulf heading toward Manila, B-17's at Clark Field, Luzon are ordered airborne to prevent being caught on the ground. Fighters from Clark and Nichols Fields are sent to intercept the enemy but do not make contact. The Japanese airplanes swing East and bomb military installations at Baguio, Tarlac, Tuguegarao, and airfields at Cabantuan are also attacked. By 1130 hours, the B-17's and fighters sent into the air earlier have landed at Clark and Iba Fields for refueling, and radar has disclosed another flight of Japanese aircraft 70-miles (112-km) West of Lingayen Gulf, headed South. Fighters from Iba Field make a fruitless search over the South China Sea. Fighters from Nichols Field are dispatched to patrol over Bataan and Manila. Around 1145 hours a formation is reported headed South over Lingayen Gulf. Fighters are ordered from Del Carmen Field to cover Clark Field but fail to arrive before the Japanese hit Clark shortly after 1200 hours. B-17's and many fighters at Clark Field are caught on the ground, but a few P-4O's manage to get airborne. 2d Lieutenant Randall B. Keator of the 20th Pursuit Squadron (Interceptor), 24th Pursuit Group (Interceptor), shoots down the first Japanese aircraft over the Philippines. The P-40's earlier sent on patrol of the South China Sea return to Iba Field with fuel running low at the beginning of a Japanese attack on that airfield. The P-40's fail to prevent bombing but manage to prevent low-level strafing of the sort which proved so destructive at Clark Field. At the end of the day's action it is apparent that the Japanese have won a major victory. The effective striking power of Far East Air Force has been destroyed, the fighter strength has been seriously reduced, most B-17 maintenance facilities have been demolished, and about 90 men have been killed.

Japanese Side
On December 8, 1941, only hours after Pearl Harbor, Sakai flew one of 45 Zero‚‚ā¨ôs from Tainan Squadron that attacked Clark airfield in the Philippines. "We started our day at 0200 hours. Our take off was ordered by the commander Saito, but a fog came in and we were delayed. We stayed with our planes waiting, and had breakfast. We received the news of the attack on Pearl Harbor and the Aleutians, and we wondered if the Americans would be expecting us during our attack. Finally at 1000 we were ordered to take off. The mission started badly when a bomber crashed on take-off killing all of the crew. We took off and reached 19,000 feet when I saw a formation of American bombers coming towards our airfield. The Americans always had great reconnaissance and knew where we were. Our orders as the top fighter cover were to attack any aircraft coming towards the base, so we attacked and allowed the others to continue on. Then we saw that these planes were Japanese Army bombers on a routing flight, and no one had informed the navy that they were coming or even in the area. This was almost tragic. We reformed and continued on. When we arrived over Clark Field we were amazed that we had not been intercepted, although there were five American fighters below us who did not attack, and we could not; our orders were to not engage until all of our bombers were in the area. I was also amazed that all of the American planes were in perfect alignment for an attack, and we strafed and bombed, and thoroughly destroyed everything. After the bombers destroyed the base I saw two B- 17s and went into a strafing attack. We had already dropped our empty external fuel tanks, and we swept in with guns blazing. My two wing men and I shot them up, and as we pulled out the five P-40s we had seen jumped us. This was my first combat against Americans, and I shot down one. We had destroyed four in the air and thirty-five on the ground. This was my third air victory, and the first American, but not the last. I flew missions the next day, and the weather was terrible, a rainstorm that blinded us. The third day was 10 December and we had twenty-seven fighters on this sweep, and this was when I caught a B-17 that was flown by Captain Colin P. Kelley. This was the first B-17 shot down during the war."

woofiedog
12-05-2004, 01:43 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Heres a few Links on Clark Air Base.

http://www.clarkab.org/history/

http://www.aviationarchaeology.com/src/AARmonthly/Mar1941.htm

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/st/~ehimchak/Dec.1941.html

http://www.worldwar2history.info/Army/nurses/Clark-Field.html

Fehler
12-05-2004, 02:22 AM
I was disappointed when I discovered that this map was left out of PF. The invasion of the Philippines was perhaps more important to the Japanese strategy than Pearl Harbor (That's why they invaded it and not just bombed it)

On a personal note, my uncle was captured during the invasion and forced to march the long road to Bataan. He escaped captivity with the help of the Philippine resistance fighters and fought the Japanese until General Mac's return.

My wife is a Filipina and her family also fought for the resistance force. I had the fortune of meeting one of my mother-in-laws best friends that, as a 12 year old girl, watched the Japanese kill her entire family. She carried a Japanese bullet in her leg until her death in 1998.

All that aside, there could be many great missions planned for both early and late war mission makers in the Philippine Islands. The hardest part would probably be getting fairly accurate maps of the islands as they were in 1941-1945. The land mass of the Philippines is ever changing since it site right on the Pacific rim of volcanos. But I really think that in this case, close enough is really close enough.

The Okinawa map is so nice, but I really would love to see the Philippines in PF some day...

Zneg1
12-05-2004, 04:46 AM
From the looks of it, based on historical acounts replicating the events from 41-45, this map will be a massive undertaking since it involves so many places and has a wide variety of scenarios not to mention the mother of all sea and aerial battle of WWII (The Batte of Leyte Gulf).

I too was disappointed but I kind of expected it since its such a massive campaign to do. I do want to help in making this work if anybody is interested in making it. I am a fairly competent graphic artist/image editor/3d modeler.

I too have a personal stake in this matter since my grandfather was stationed at Sangley Point (aka Cavite Naval Yard) during WWII and lived to tell about it. He never made me forget WWII from pictures, books and stories that he had. This is probably why I am a WWII enthusiast today.

A.K.Davis
12-05-2004, 11:47 AM
You could not have one map with all of Phillipines. Too big.

Would need multiple smaller maps.

Stiglr
12-05-2004, 04:12 PM
Ah, the Achilles Heel of the IL-2 map system. The "Postage Stamp" phenomenon.

If I have my way*, you can bet the Phillipines and the Dutch East Indies will make an appearance in Targetware!!!

===============================================
*That's why I'm modeling Nates, Nells, Hudsons and stuff like that!

A.K.Davis
12-05-2004, 07:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Ah, the Achilles Heel of the IL-2 map system. The "Postage Stamp" phenomenon.

If I have my way*, you can bet the Phillipines and the Dutch East Indies will make an appearance in Targetware!!!

===============================================
*That's why I'm modeling Nates, Nells, Hudsons and stuff like that! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

STFU already Stiglr. Getting really old with the Targetware BS. Most sites would have banned you already for this.

Stiglr
12-05-2004, 09:19 PM
But this one has not. Comparison is relevant.

So, YOU STFU.

woofiedog
12-05-2004, 09:48 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif I'm very sorry to read your only addition to this Game resently Stiglr... is argument and some self anger.

A.K.Davis
12-05-2004, 10:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
But this one has not. Comparison is relevant.

So, _YOU_ STFU. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Comparison is irrelevant. Only RAM limits size of PF maps. Targetware gets away with larger maps by having less detail, less objects and simplified terrain. That's why PF looks one way and Targetware looks another.

Stiglr
12-06-2004, 11:08 AM
By comparing the two titles, visuals-wise, you just invalidated your entire argument. It's certainly relevant.

Yes, I'll freely admit IL-2 has a better graphics package than TW. You can see where the dev time and focus is for both titles.

Me, I'd rather the FMs be accurate before it "looks better". Especially since, even with the great graphics, you still aren't ever fooled by IL-2 to think you're *actually there*, like in a Star Trek holograph room.

I find the suspension of disbelief occurs in the events and the simulation. The eye candy helps the immersion, sure, but it doesn't make up for glaring errors and omissions in the physical modeling.

Punkfriday
12-06-2004, 12:57 PM
Clark Field!!!
my dad was born in '46 and grew up on clark field/manila!
(grandpa flew C-47s)
so i would love to see Clark Field!

joeap
12-06-2004, 01:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
By comparing the two titles, visuals-wise, you just invalidated your entire argument. It's certainly relevant.

Yes, I'll freely admit IL-2 has a better graphics package than TW. You can see where the dev time and focus is for both titles.

Me, I'd rather the FMs be accurate before it "looks better". Especially since, even with the great graphics, you still aren't ever fooled by IL-2 to think you're *actually there*, like in a Star Trek holograph room.

I find the suspension of disbelief occurs in the events and the simulation. The eye candy helps the immersion, sure, but it doesn't make up for glaring errors and omissions in the physical modeling. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I like Voltaire's quote "I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death nadanada" so don't listen to the others. But I am curious, why are you here? Really? I never got into CFS3 but don't hang around the CFS sites criticising it...well once I got into a big debate but saw it was pointless so just walked away.

Stiglr
12-06-2004, 02:51 PM
I'm here because there are aspects of the sim I like. And I'm hoping it can get even better.

Why are YOU here?

sapre
12-06-2004, 03:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I'm here because there are aspects of the sim I like. And I'm hoping it can get even better.

Why are YOU here? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
For me it sounds like your just throwing a 3-yearold tantalum and not giving any constructive ideas at all.

A.K.Davis
12-06-2004, 03:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
By comparing the two titles, visuals-wise, you just invalidated your entire argument. It's certainly relevant.

Yes, I'll freely admit IL-2 has a better graphics package than TW. You can see where the dev time and focus is for both titles.

Me, I'd rather the FMs be accurate before it "looks better". Especially since, even with the great graphics, you still aren't ever fooled by IL-2 to think you're *actually there*, like in a Star Trek holograph room.

I find the suspension of disbelief occurs in the events and the simulation. The eye candy helps the immersion, sure, but it doesn't make up for glaring errors and omissions in the physical modeling. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FB/PF does not just have "better graphics" in the terrain department. The terrain is more detailed, more interactive and more immersive. We're not just talking lighting effects here, but what is actually present in the simulated world. FB/PF has more in less area, but at any given point on a map, FB/PF's terrain is far superior to Targetware. This has real consequences for gameplay.

If you want to fly from Henderson to Rabaul in Targetware while being lulled to death by the DOS-era terrain, great, but we don't really want to hear about it anymore. The first 10 times was plenty.

FB/PF problem is not that it lacks Targetware's terrain system, but that it lacks more FB/PF maps covering the relevant areas.

joeap
12-06-2004, 05:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I'm here because there are aspects of the sim I like. And I'm hoping it can get even better.

Why are YOU here? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well wouldn't know it...90% of what I read is TW rox and Il falls short...but whatever. No matter to me.

As for me, well I am here:
1)To get tips on how to fly and fight
2)To get tips on how to optimise my system, like uninstalling the latest java helped a lot.
3)learn about real aviation and history.

Stiglr
12-06-2004, 08:58 PM
A.K. Davis wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>FB/PF problem is not that it lacks Targetware's terrain system, but that it lacks more FB/PF maps covering the relevant areas.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, the problem is more profound than merely relevant areas: IL-2 maps seem to lack the SIZE, square mileage wise, to portray the Pacific in ways that make for proper missions. Unless you use airstarts, you've got NO WAY to get a map large enough to encompass sortie points and target areas. Rabaul to Guadalcanal, Moresby to Rabaul, the list goes on and on.

Incidentally, this is not a problem with Targetware... despite what you think of it's graphics. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Tater-SW-
12-06-2004, 09:15 PM
Stiglr is completely right about this. Like it or not, the PF is different than the ETO. Campaigns are virtually impossible except for CV based units except for tour limited to a couple months, or shorter.

With the exception of a very limited time period on the NG map, there is are no possible campaigns with offensive and defensive missions. Even the Guadalcanal map is too small to accurately portray offensive strike missions against retiring Tokyo Express ships. Even areas absurdly close, like Russell Island is missing.

Rumors of maps liek Rangoon are out there, but Rangoon is an awful choice unless done vastly larger than any Il-2 map ever made over land areas since it will be taken so quickly. Whatever the limits to map size (Ian said it was mostly a labor issue as I read him) they need to be bigger for the PTO, and within whatever limits they face need to be selected VERY carefully by people well versed in the history. The Early Guadalcanal map demonstrates a certain degree of cluelessness, frankly (in its defense, it's a trivially easy map to make since all it is is added water, no modelling at all). Putting any kind of priority on making a Wake map instead of adding even 1 island to the NW of Guadalcanal is a mistake, IMNSHO.

I'd add that one thing TW has that should be borrowed if at all possible is the notion of a "disengagement circle" that checks the remaining fuel, and lets planes RTB without the flight. It would make airstarts feel more realistic at least.

tater

A.K.Davis
12-07-2004, 12:04 AM
No, he is completely wrong. PF's maps are not small because they trade area for fancy graphics. They trade area for realistic terrain detail, which is actually an important factor in a simulation of the air war in WWII. It's not just "eye candy."

Once again, the only thing that limits the size of PF maps is the level of detail and number of objects included on the map. You could trade less realism in the terrain and get to fly for hours and hours from Henderson to Rabaul. It's a simple trade-off. However, I would venture to say a majority of flight sim users would trade the ability to make half-day flights for more realistic terrain and detail on a smaller map.

PF could easily handle maps the size of Targetware's. Just ditch all the objects and greatly simplify the terrain detail. But then, guess what? It'd look just like Targetware.

The problem we have in FB is not the terrain engine, it's the choice for coverage in the existing maps and the lack of maps covering other areas.

I would love to hear someone make a technical argument as to why Targetware's terrain system is more advanced than FB/PF. Then I'd love to see Oleg's response (or Ian's, or Luthier's).

Would be most amusing.

Copperhead310th
12-07-2004, 04:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
I was disappointed when I discovered that this map was left out of PF. The invasion of the Philippines was perhaps more important to the Japanese strategy than Pearl Harbor (That's why they invaded it and not just bombed it)

On a personal note, my uncle was captured during the invasion and forced to march the long road to Bataan. He escaped captivity with the help of the Philippine resistance fighters and fought the Japanese until General Mac's return.

My wife is a Filipina and her family also fought for the resistance force. I had the fortune of meeting one of my mother-in-laws best friends that, as a 12 year old girl, watched the Japanese kill her entire family. She carried a Japanese bullet in her leg until her death in 1998.

All that aside, there could be many great missions planned for both early and late war mission makers in the Philippine Islands. The hardest part would probably be getting fairly accurate maps of the islands as they were in 1941-1945. The land mass of the Philippines is ever changing since it site right on the Pacific rim of volcanos. But I really think that in this case, close enough is really close enough.

The Okinawa map is so nice, but I really would love to see the Philippines in PF some day... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep i was very disapointed too that we didn't get this map with release. it is a very important map set. I asked Luthier early on before PF was even finnished if there would be a Phil. map and he assured me there would be. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
they should have 4 maps.

1.Souhtern Phill & the Archipeligo (SP?) including the Islands of Mindora & Mindoro.

2. Leyete Gulf & coastal region

3. Luzon

4. i'm forgetting this one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Also 2 more New gunia maps would be nice as we only have the southern portion.
IMO with PF far too much attention was paid to the naval air war side of things. the USAAF paid a MAJOR part in the SW PTO.

WOLFMondo
12-07-2004, 04:23 AM
East India and Burma would be nice for some SEAC action for the RAF.

VVS-Manuc
12-07-2004, 04:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
No, he is completely wrong. PF's maps are not small because they trade area for fancy graphics. They trade area for realistic terrain detail, which is actually an important factor in a simulation of the air war in WWII. It's not just "eye candy."

Once again, the only thing that limits the size of PF maps is the level of detail and number of objects included on the map. You could trade less _realism_ in the terrain and get to fly for hours and hours from Henderson to Rabaul. It's a simple trade-off. However, I would venture to say a majority of flight sim users would trade the ability to make half-day flights for more realistic terrain and detail on a smaller map.

PF could easily handle maps the size of Targetware's. Just ditch all the objects and greatly simplify the terrain detail. But then, guess what? It'd look just like Targetware.

The problem we have in FB is not the terrain engine, it's the choice for coverage in the existing maps and the lack of maps covering other areas.

I would love to hear someone make a technical argument as to why Targetware's terrain system is more advanced than FB/PF. Then I'd love to see Oleg's response (or Ian's, or Luthier's).

Would be most amusing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

realistic terrain in PF? I cannot speak of "realistic" if the Owen Stanley Range mountains on the New Guinea map are only as half as high as in reality. Or if there are streams on the map, which are only narrow little rivers in the real world. Or roads and railways, which have 45 and 90 degree angles instead of smooth curves

Tater-SW-
12-07-2004, 07:51 AM
Odd since in another forum I asked Ian "Ian, I know PF isn't your bailiwick, but are map sizes limited primarily by land area, or objects?"

and he replied: "Primarily objects. However the method u suggest won't really work as objects added in the FMB "cost" far far more resources than objects hard-coded in the map. For example there are close to half a million objects in Kurland - try that in the FMB.

Also objects take time, but not nearly as much as the elevation map or roads/bridges. So a large land area is scary [Smile]"

I was suggesting "blank" maps without towns on them that mission builders could populate as needed with houses.

So it is limited by objects placed (houses, etc) but more by the elevation maps and roads.From the horse'smouth.It is not an "eye candy for size trade.

tater

Tater-SW-
12-07-2004, 07:54 AM
I'd add that even within the current size constraints, maps, or positions of maps were badly chosen.

tater

Stiglr
12-07-2004, 10:40 AM
Targetware uses maps to 500 meters/pixel resolution. There's plenty of detail in the ground contours.

Whether anyone takes the time to go in and hand sculpt certain mountains, ridges and shorelines (where action is likely to happen) is another matter, even for a map that's 90% water.

Also, Targetware uses some of the same terrain techniques; its terrain textures are still in their infancy in some respects. But, you look at the Target:Korea landscape, and compare it to :Rabaul and you'll see it looks much more detailed.

Still, I'd argue both of them have enough "detail" to get the job done: you know which way is up and which is down, you can tell jungle from grasslands, you can make out shorelines, and you can see villages and ground units. IL-2 has much more detailed bridges (but alas, you can't score victory points for them in a scenario!), and builds villages building by building with objects, which is more necessary in Russia than it is in New Guinea.

But both sims have the "can't see trees from 90 degrees" problem (which manifests itself most at very low alts and when you're on the ground).

Tater-SW-
12-07-2004, 10:52 AM
The "can't see the forest" problem is trivial to fix. Give the FMB a single poly object that is a side view (elevation) of jungle. You'd place a few of these in areas where it matters---near targets expected to be attacked at low alt, and friendly airbases.

So simple.

BTW, it looks like you could have a Guadalcanal to Bouganville map in PF and still have less land area to model than the NG map. It would contain vitually no roads or bridges (unlike NG), which eliminates some of the problems Ian suggested tie up mapmaking time. That map alone would provide over a year of back and forth action for both sides.

tater

Stiglr
12-07-2004, 11:02 AM
I've often thought the exact same thing myself, Tater! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

You could line these up in an oval around an airfield perimeter and get the effect for negligible frame rate/performance hit.

Tater-SW-
12-07-2004, 11:20 AM
Yeah, I even made pictures: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=8041000042&r=8041000042#8041000042

Oleg said they already have this object pre-il-2 release, but didn't like the way it looked on hills. I tried to explain that I didn't want them to retrofit it to ALL forests, but to give it to us as an FMB object. Oh well.

tater

Stiglr
12-07-2004, 11:31 AM
That post says, for BoB, they "found a solution". Dying to see what that might be.

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

VVS-Manuc
12-08-2004, 02:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
That post says, for BoB, they "found a solution". Dying to see what that might be.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
be patient. only 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 years to wait http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Stiglr
12-08-2004, 10:38 AM
Interesting design choice, Tater.

They didn't like the stairstep appearance of trees on hills, but it's "OK" for a pilot to fly headlong into a forest that's basically invisible from a low, straight on angle.

Hmph, that's real immersive.

Capt._Tenneal
02-14-2005, 11:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Ah, the Achilles Heel of the IL-2 map system. The "Postage Stamp" phenomenon.

If I have my way*, you can bet the Phillipines and the Dutch East Indies will make an appearance in Targetware!!!

===============================================
*That's why I'm modeling Nates, Nells, Hudsons and stuff like that! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stiglr, does Targetware have any offline play or is it online only ? If no offine, any plans to in the future ? Dynamic campaign and all that.

Stiglr
02-14-2005, 12:29 PM
Nope, it's online only, with a few target ranges for bombers and such, and the ability to test fly whatever planes you want.

And that suits me just fine. I'm not interested in what anybody does flying against AI routines on his own PC. Flying against other people (or at worst, a mix of human and AI) is IMO the only real measure.