PDA

View Full Version : Explaining why some are dissapointed



Oilburner_TAW
02-12-2005, 08:28 AM
For people who are truly interested in a task force vs task force battle (no land based planes), there are 3 plane types at a minimum to build a realistic scenario. Fighter, Dive-Bomber, Torepedo Bomber. The fact that both sides don't have these 3 types flyable is my complaint. I still love the merged game (best you can find anywhere) but I am dissapointed that the PTO will be left unfinished.

I think the main problem with the "negative" or "dissapointed" people is that they (and I am one of them) assumed the PTO would receive the same attention and eye for detail from Oleg and crew that has been used in the ETO. It is now becoming clear that this isn't going to happen and for people who are primarily interested in the PTO, this is a tough pill to swallow. Many of us assumed that the "big addon" that everybody seemed to be working feverishly on was to try and finish out the PTO before all focus was applied to BOB. It appears that this was not the case.

Pacific Fighters is still an awesome game the way it shipped from Ubi. However, Pacific Fighters is NOT to the PTO what IL2/AEP is to the ETO, and that is the root of most people's frustration/dissapointment.

However, it is still far and away the best available...

Oilburner_TAW
02-12-2005, 08:28 AM
For people who are truly interested in a task force vs task force battle (no land based planes), there are 3 plane types at a minimum to build a realistic scenario. Fighter, Dive-Bomber, Torepedo Bomber. The fact that both sides don't have these 3 types flyable is my complaint. I still love the merged game (best you can find anywhere) but I am dissapointed that the PTO will be left unfinished.

I think the main problem with the "negative" or "dissapointed" people is that they (and I am one of them) assumed the PTO would receive the same attention and eye for detail from Oleg and crew that has been used in the ETO. It is now becoming clear that this isn't going to happen and for people who are primarily interested in the PTO, this is a tough pill to swallow. Many of us assumed that the "big addon" that everybody seemed to be working feverishly on was to try and finish out the PTO before all focus was applied to BOB. It appears that this was not the case.

Pacific Fighters is still an awesome game the way it shipped from Ubi. However, Pacific Fighters is NOT to the PTO what IL2/AEP is to the ETO, and that is the root of most people's frustration/dissapointment.

However, it is still far and away the best available...

conundrumx
02-12-2005, 08:35 AM
Reading between the lines makes it seem like it's being dropped like a hot rock by Maddox. Everyone's going apesh$t over a few planes and maps that were done months ago but held back, and the promise for more planes that will likely never materialize. You're right though, it is a fun sim in it's current state and I will continue to fly PF. It's just very dissapointing.

3.JG51_BigBear
02-12-2005, 08:37 AM
I agree that its sad that this theatre is going unfinished and I was really looking forward to Oleg's usuall support but this was really intented to be an effort of third party modelers with Oleg's support. Instead Oleg and his team ended up having to do a lot of extra work because of the high standards for included material. After the whole copright debacle and all the work required to get some of third party stuff into the game, I don't blame Oleg for wanting to wrap this one up. Can't wait to see what BOB brings.

StG77_Fritz_X
02-12-2005, 11:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
Can't wait to see what BOB brings. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bless your optimism. I can wait. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Old_Canuck
02-12-2005, 11:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StG77_Fritz_X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
Can't wait to see what BOB brings. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bless your optimism. I can wait. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could it be that UBI has learned one of M$ most effective marketing ploys? You don't give the customer the full deal right away but leave them with an itch for the next best upcoming package. If 1C produces a comprehensive Pacific Theatre sim based on the BoB engine I'd come to the table with a big appetite based on what I've tasted in their present PF offering.

Stiglr
02-12-2005, 12:01 PM
Clearly, Oleg and team simply do not understand anything about the Pacific war besides a list of planes.

The IL-2 system as it stands is not set up to accomodate the Pacifc style of fighting. Bases are too far apart, distances to and from combat are too large, and nothing in the game design supports it.

To the guy who wrote of a "task force vs. task force battle", there is no map yet done for this system that is wide enough to place two task forces at historical distances. They did not park about 50 miles from each other and launch planes. 200 to 300 miles was more like it. Even for land based strikes, there are more instances where historic strikes are not possible (due to the launch and strike points not being on the same game map) than there are cases where they are.

Also, there is no reconnaisance role in the sim, which was of huge importance in this theatre.

So, the "Grumman problem" and holes in the planeset and any flight model quirks are really the little problems for Pacific Fighters. Fact is, this system is not designed to do more than add a few planes to construct dogfight arenas around "featuring" Pacific aircraft. It bears no other similarity to the theatre whatsoever.

Sharkey888
02-12-2005, 02:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Clearly, Oleg and team simply do not understand anything about the Pacific war besides a list of planes.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could not have said it better-you really nailed that one. It's just too bad since I really enjoy the PTO.

And while I will buy any 1C sim, I am very disappointed about "another" BOB sim. I think a USAAF/RAF bombing of Germany game would've been a much better choice. Not just for my preference but in actual games sold and profit!$$$$$

CreaseKeeper
02-12-2005, 02:32 PM
It's glaringly evident that PF don't mean squat due to the fact that this "add-on" has, what, 3 or 4 PTO planes? the rest of the hoard are ETO, and BoB is just more US/RAF vs Germany with a new engine.

I've gotta say I'm at least happy with what I have, just a shame that the PTO is treated like a red headed step child compared to the ETO and it's plane set. I guess if it weren't for Spits, stangs and Emils there wouldn't be a need for a fighter sim.

-S-

Tuba2004
02-12-2005, 03:38 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oilburner_TAW:
there are 3 plane types at a minimum to build a realistic scenario. Fighter, Dive-Bomber, Torpedo Bomber. The fact that both sides don't have these 3 types flyable is my complaint.

It's glaringly evident that PF don't mean squat due to the fact that this "add-on" has, what, 3 or 4 PTO planes? the rest of the hoard are ETO

Those two quotes also sum up my feelings. I already have the full IL2 through Aces with almost more planes than I can use. I thought this was going to be a Pacific based Simulation. While it appears most people choose to combine the Pacific and European theaters (not my set up or to my liking) so are thrilled with more ETO, the PTO still only have half a program. Being in my mid 60's, I thought I had good tollerance and could wait for things to be corected. However, I must agree torpedo planes, ships, etc. do not appear to be on the horizon or beyond. If the team can't or will not have time to complete this simulation, it would be nice if the code could be opened so others who do have the time and freedom could continue the completion of PF. This doesn't seem too extreem since a new engine is being used for BOB so company secrets would not be given away.

plumps_
02-12-2005, 05:57 PM
I don't understand how anybody can expect a "complete" PTO sim.

The eastern front has nevern been complete either, even though what we have there now is the result of 5-7 years of work (IL-2 was published in 2001, but the work started earlier).

Are you seriously expecting to get the same amount of material that was created for the eastern front within 7 years after only one year of work on the Pacific theatre?

The IL-2 series has always been somehow limited to certain aspects of the battles, but nonetheless has provided those with great fun who knew how to take advantage of the sim's potentials.

CreaseKeeper
02-12-2005, 06:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by plumps_:
I don't understand how anybody can expect a "complete" PTO sim.

The eastern front has nevern been complete either, even though what we have there now is the result of 5-7 years of work (IL-2 was published in 2001, but the work started earlier).

Are you seriously expecting to get the same amount of material that was created for the eastern front within 7 years after only one year of work on the Pacific theatre? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


No, but to have PF shelved for yet another ETO version is frustrating. It's like OK, there you go, live with it, we're off to create more LW and RAF planes.

I LOVE PF, and IL2, though I suck in LW planes and flying the uber-spit gets old after awhile. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

-S-

fherathras
02-12-2005, 06:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by plumps_:
I don't understand how anybody can expect a "complete" PTO sim.

The eastern front has nevern been complete either, even though what we have there now is the result of 5-7 years of work (IL-2 was published in 2001, but the work started earlier).

Are you seriously expecting to get the same amount of material that was created for the eastern front within 7 years after only one year of work on the Pacific theatre? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



well said! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



I have been waiting for a pe-2(one of the most important aircraft on the eastern front) for 5 years now..



and you guys get upsett over some ships after 4 months?



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

crazyivan1970
02-12-2005, 06:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by plumps_:
I don't understand how anybody can expect a "complete" PTO sim.

The eastern front has nevern been complete either, even though what we have there now is the result of 5-7 years of work (IL-2 was published in 2001, but the work started earlier).

Are you seriously expecting to get the same amount of material that was created for the eastern front within 7 years after only one year of work on the Pacific theatre?

The IL-2 series has always been somehow limited to certain aspects of the battles, but nonetheless has provided those with great fun who knew how to take advantage of the sim's potentials. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

plumps, you are making a waaaay to much sense, you better watch it buddy - it`s not allowed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Well said.

goshikisen
02-12-2005, 06:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by plumps_:
I don't understand how anybody can expect a "complete" PTO sim.

The eastern front has nevern been complete either, even though what we have there now is the result of 5-7 years of work (IL-2 was published in 2001, but the work started earlier).

Are you seriously expecting to get the same amount of material that was created for the eastern front within 7 years after only one year of work on the Pacific theatre?

The IL-2 series has always been somehow limited to certain aspects of the battles, but nonetheless has provided those with great fun who knew how to take advantage of the sim's potentials. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd agree with you if it weren't for the fact that Oleg's already said he's closing the book on IL2/FB/AEP/PF. IL2 had a good seven years of evolution and development... PF is the end of the road for this series, us PTO fans aren't going to get the luxury of evolution. There was a somewhat cryptic mention of third party development of the series in the future but Oleg told me himself that he's not making more ships.

Nobody here ever asked for or expected a "complete" PTO sim... just more than a half-hearted attempt. When people think of the Pacific War the first thing that comes to mind is ships... and aircraft flying to ships, from ships, and attacking ships. There, obviously is much more to it then that but every time I think of the PTO I hear the theme to "Victory at Sea". I don't think I'm alone. PF doesn't even come remotely close to doing the PTO justice in the ships department... give me a reasonable argument that says otherwise. I don't want or need "complete"... just raise the level from laughable to basic.

Now... you've had 7 years of evolution, and according to the latest add-on news you're also getting (potentially) 16 new aircraft for the ETO plus 2 maps. PF is getting 5 (make that 4 because the Betty was supposed to come with the sim when released) new aircraft and 1 map. PF is only out for 3 months and the attention is not only being focused on the next generation of sim but the lion's share of additional development for the existing series focuses on the ETO. Can you see why PF fans are disappointed?

Regards, Goshikisen.

p.s. why does it always seem like it's ETO enthusiasts and DF flyers who can't understand what this is about?

clayman_52
02-12-2005, 07:04 PM
Yes ... but while not complete, key elements were not missing.

I understand this may be out of Oleg's hands ... but still not happy about it.

On the other hand ... some PTO is "WAY" better than no PTO.

Like life ... it's all how we choose to look at it right. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<span class="ev_code_GREY">.</span>

rummyrum
02-12-2005, 07:23 PM
SO which is it, half empty or half full? At some point all things must progress. I look forward not just to BOB (see the forest ladies and gents) but the Med and so on and so on. If Maddox and crew was to keep pushing this version of the Il2 engine then it is very likely that UBI could all together decide to drop it all. THere have been many games just disappear and flight sims have a bad habbit of this...take Knights over Eurpoe......whfff gone. Let them move on so we can see lots of new things and in 20 years when flight sims are cool again you might get that uber pacific sim you always wanted. Anyone remember the few years folks used the yak as the p51 and spitfire. We got by and had a good time as well. Rumor is PF is not dead...shh http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Tailgator
02-12-2005, 07:34 PM
being a fan of naval aviation, bob has zero appeal to me. spits and 109s? been there, done that. maybe he should have the ark royal in it from the beginning? that might interest me whether its in a campain or not. but as much as id like to bomb the heck out of mildenhall and lakenheath i can live without it.

keep up the good fight goshikisen, your the ONLY one making any since http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

CreaseKeeper
02-12-2005, 07:43 PM
Those are the words I've been looking for, thanks Tailgator, "Been there done that" LW Vs RAF has been rehashed ad-nauseum. There haven't been many good PTO sims and since Oleg is the best, it was exciting to see one come out, just sad that the fire died so quick. BoB will be a good game, there is no doubt, probably the best. PF is the best ever PTO put out IMHO, but like goshikisen so eloquently put it, we as PTO fans wont see the evolution you ETO fanatics have seen. Whether or not the new engine brings a newer better PTO will remain to be seen. What we have now is the best, (only?) PTO out there, and I'm **** happy to see it, just don't feed me the BS that Oleg gives a **** about it anymore. Patch, add-on, what have you, we get 4 planes, ETO gets a ton more. BoB is the new baby now and PF, in his own words has been pretty much shelved. THAT boys and girls is why we're frustrated, we got a taste of something good, and the realization from what we've seen in IL2, FB, Aces, of what COULD be and but wont.

-S-

marcocomparato
02-12-2005, 07:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Old_Canuck:

Could it be that UBI has learned one of M$ most effective marketing ploys? You don't give the customer the full deal right away but leave them with an itch for the next best upcoming package. If 1C produces a comprehensive Pacific Theatre sim based on the BoB engine I'd come to the table with a big appetite based on what I've tasted in their present PF offering. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

interesting...

carguy_
02-12-2005, 07:51 PM
I`m actually quite surprised Oleg doesn`t aim for the US market.The attention the US stuff in the sim gets is priority.Decision to lure IL2 into western skies ahd been taken as a US market attack.Strange,I`m almost sure US market buys the majority but again Oleg points to western Europe?

I guess the team assumes that Yanks will take their time with BoB while patiently waiting for more UStype theater.

One simply cannot place a priority on all markets and satisfy Yanks,Brits,French,Brasilians,Germans whatever stuff he pulls off.

The way I see it some ppl finally wanted their stuff but suddenly heard *BZZZZZZZZZZT* sound.Back to the drawing board...BoB board that is.

AlmightyTallest
02-12-2005, 07:52 PM
I'm more intersted in naval aviation and warfare than the ETO as well. The ETO is well represented already, even by other developers over the years, and it's puzzling that after 6 or 7 years of ETO evolution with the IL2 series and the very recent release of PF, the ETO is still getting a large share of updates while we hear little about what is in store for the Pacific Theater.

Also, as usual, well said goshikisen, your posts make the most sense to Pacific Theater fans who understand the nature of the war in the Pacific. Each to their own I guess, I couldn't fault someone who is more interested in the Battle of Britain, or in the Eastern Front who simply isn't intersted in the theater of war that we are interested in. Ships were only a very large part of the war when it comes to the Pacific, to others a ship is a ship and that's all there is to it for them.

I really hope something could be done to address this issue with PF.

goshikisen
02-12-2005, 08:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rummyrum:
SO which is it, half empty or half full? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know rummyrum... you're right, it's not that big a deal and overall we have a great sim series on our hands. I just don't choose to say "Oh well... that's that" without making sure some sort of dialogue has occurred. I just found out that no ships were going to be added 2 days ago after maintaining a civil thread asking about the issue for over 3 months. I'm just slightly peeved that our 16 page thread, in Oleg's Ready Room no less, didn't get the slightest notice by anyone official... and on top of that we're told to clam up and like it. (at least that's what the locked threads and "my aren't those people irrational" messages tell me).

I've seen folks argue Revi sights, P-47 cockpits, .50 cal dispersion, & FM inconsistencies for weeks on end with some acting like total *******es doing it. I'll calmly sit here with my half empty glass making sure that PF doesn't go quietly into that good night. If people just settled with what they got then we wouldn't have seen half the changes we did in Oleg's series. Remember... PF has been out for 3 MONTHS.

I was hoping for that uber pacific sim years ago when programs like Aces of the Pacific were state of the art. I've got something pretty darn close in PF. Should I just lay down and wait another 20 years or so?

Regards, Goshikisen.

p.s. CrazyIvan... I know that you're in touch with Oleg and I hope that you'll convey to him that there are strong opinions about this subject on the ubi forum. We all think he kicks a$$ as a developer... there's just many that think he's abandoned this particular chapter of the 1C story far too early.

ImpStarDuece
02-12-2005, 09:30 PM
I think what we are seeing is the "Hangover" effect of the end of the evolution of FB and the beginnings of the evolution of PF.

Let me explain my thinking. The ETO theatre (both east and west) has been in the hands of players for roughly 4 years. That is a LOT of time for it to build impetus and momentum. As a result there are a LOT of projects still running and a lot of them finishing up and waiting for implementation. There is simply a surfeit of planes, maps, cockpits, ground models and other stuff that 1C has that they want to include. If it wasn€t for PF eating up resources then they COULD of already been included. Strangely enough, I didn€t hear too many ETO guys complaining about all the PTO planes being developed and placed in the sim at the expense of ETO aircraft. After-all, as it has been noted, some of us have been after some specific aircraft for anywhere up to 4 years, FROM THE ORIGINAL THEATER.

The amount of planes, maps, ground objects, flyables, ect in PF FAR EXCEEDS the amount of stuff that was delivered in the original game. I€m not sure but it probably outweighs the extra content included when FB as well. And your complaining? WHY. Yes, I understand that key ship classes are missing, yes, I understand that there are NO FLYABLE TORPEEDO BOMBERS. So what? I mean for the love of all that is unholy, the original IL2 shipped without a flyable Ju-87, in a ground attack sim! It only had 33 flyables, variations of 11 basic airframes. Compare that with PF; In upgrading from FB to PF you get another 15 basic airframe and 50+ flyables with variations. If you bought PF as a stand alone you can add 50% to that list again. And there is more to come.

I see a product that is unfinished. However, unlike some of you, I see TWO products that are unfinished. And that€s not a bad thing. The ETO still has reams of stuff left that could be included as does the PTO. There is so much out there that resourcing and modelling it all could take decades! Were people disappointed when it was announced that the Pacific was the new priority? Hell no, all of a sudden everyone is excited by a new theatre. A lot of us wanted the Med, to keep it European, but 1C decided to branch out.

PF is building speed. Look at the sheer number of Patches put out in the last 5 months! We are up to 3.04 with the possibility of 3.05 within the next month or two. Maybe even another after that. Who knows. I bought the original IL2 without the expectation of ANY support. Look where that ended up.

The future of PF isn€t all that clear. All the recent shenanigans, not only from outside influences but from inside the community, have left a pretty sour taste in my mouth. I am slowly seeing the forums turn into a whine fest again, despite the best efforts of the mods to uphold the open, liberal and informed traditions of the community. Stop complaining. DO SOMETHING. Make your voices heard. If you want more don€t demand it, don€t complain about it, don€t rant and rave and flame. Get off your ***, try and research, model, build something. What makes this a great sim, as opposed to a merely good one is that the community cares about the game, its direction and what they are doing about it. For me this is the FIRST online community I have been involved in and thanks to the great gents (and occasional ladies) here, it won€t be the last.

My point; what you see in the update isnt a lack of support for PF, its a glut of support for FB. In time and with paticence that support might just move over to PF.

VF-3Thunderboy
02-12-2005, 09:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I guess the team assumes that Yanks will take their time with BoB while patiently waiting for more UStype theater.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If carriers are included in BoB, then it could be expanded for US involvment IE:Atlantic Wildcats, (SBD's and TBD's-Gulp )
P-40s in the Med. Just the 2 flyable US planes would give it some Red White and Blue appeal, and they are popular US planes. Carriers also mean Marlets (Britt Wildcats) So you could have carrier ops if Carriers are included.

Bob threads should mention this NOW, if its not too late already! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

fordfan25
02-12-2005, 09:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oilburner_TAW:
For people who are truly interested in a task force vs task force battle (no land based planes), there are 3 plane types at a minimum to build a realistic scenario. Fighter, Dive-Bomber, Torepedo Bomber. The fact that both sides don't have these 3 types flyable is my complaint. I still love the merged game (best you can find anywhere) but I am dissapointed that the PTO will be left unfinished.

I think the main problem with the "negative" or "dissapointed" people is that they (and I am one of them) assumed the PTO would receive the same attention and eye for detail from Oleg and crew that has been used in the ETO. It is now becoming clear that this isn't going to happen and for people who are primarily interested in the PTO, this is a tough pill to swallow. Many of us assumed that the "big addon" that everybody seemed to be working feverishly on was to try and finish out the PTO before all focus was applied to BOB. It appears that this was not the case.

Pacific Fighters is still an awesome game the way it shipped from Ubi. However, Pacific Fighters is NOT to the PTO what IL2/AEP is to the ETO, and that is the root of most people's frustration/dissapointment.

However, it is still far and away the best available... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i like the game but i have to agree with you. i kinda saw this comeing back befor the game even hit the shelf. I new that thay had already started BoB and as old as the IL-2 eng was ect that this game prob would not get the time put in to it that fb ,aep got. i figured no big deal. but that was before i knew that there would not be any flyble carrier torp planes. i hate to bring this up but i feel it needs to be said. And i know its old topic please forgive me. the lack of late war USA fighters bothers me just as much. off line its no big deal but online its noticble. every tom di$k and hairy that fly USSR or Japan or Germen fly the latest fighters. on most servers i have flown on i might as well forget picking a hellcat because every plane on the other side is eather a yak9u, la7 or ki-84. and even the f4u is a bit over matched. IRL i think by the time those planes woulda been the normal enemy incounterd the -4 hog and p47-n would have been just as common.

the lack of ships on both sides USA and Japan is kinda a let down mostly i feel for the guys who use FMB and make there own campaigns.

how ever before any die hard fanboy brown nosers jump at me beating there chest like 3rd graders "U know who U are lol" i will say again that im glade to have a pto sim like this at all. and yes i do relaxe and play it. and no all i do is not complane. "kinda a preemptive fire hooseing for the flames http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif "

Charlie901
02-12-2005, 10:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clayman_52:
Yes ... but while not complete, key elements were not missing.

I understand this may be out of Oleg's hands ... but still not happy about it.

On the other hand ... some PTO is "WAY" better than no PTO.

Like life ... it's all how we choose to look at it right. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<span class="ev_code_GREY">.</span> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Not really dude!

"Some PTO" only means that we get a half hearted PTO sim instead of a great PTO sim. I don't see a lot of PTO sims comming out these days, so instead PF floods the market driving off any other potential PTO sim (including by Oleg) and we are stuck with less then if it was never produced.

heywooood
02-12-2005, 10:14 PM
....so far....

Charlie901
02-12-2005, 10:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AlmightyTallest:
I'm more intersted in naval aviation and warfare than the ETO as well. The ETO is well represented already, even by other developers over the years, and it's puzzling that after 6 or 7 years of ETO evolution with the IL2 series and the very recent release of PF, the ETO is still getting a large share of updates while we hear little about what is in store for the Pacific Theater.

Also, as usual, well said goshikisen, your posts make the most sense to Pacific Theater fans who understand the nature of the war in the Pacific. Each to their own I guess, I couldn't fault someone who is more interested in the Battle of Britain, or in the Eastern Front who simply isn't intersted in the theater of war that we are interested in. Ships were only a very large part of the war when it comes to the Pacific, to others a ship is a ship and that's all there is to it for them.

I really hope something could be done to address this issue with PF. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>.



Maybe its cause Oleg is from Russia and the PTO was a primarily, U.S. war. Besides, I think he realizes that the European Market does not want to play a primarily U.S. war sim. The almighty $$$$ goes toward a combined U.S./European Market, thus BoB.

Stiglr
02-12-2005, 10:19 PM
To plumps and some others:

It's not about the plane list, I keep telling you.

I bet most of us would be happy for now if you had a limited plane list, but you were still able to recreate some "typical" Pacific action.

But we can't. We still don't have torpedos modelled right, and no flyable torp bombers to fly missions in. Right there, you've gutted a good 25% of the action. The maps can't contain the action. A BIG strike two.

We've already seen the kludges in the FM necessary to get planes off a CV deck; you mean to tell me they didn't work this out WAY before release??

And, just stop it with the "US market" garbage already. If IL-2 weren't successful doing the Russian front, it wouldn't have been around long enough for the Amiwhiners to get all their western front planes, let alone surviving long enough to do Pacific Fighters.

You can play the "glass half full" card all you want, but, compared to the East Front, this one smacks of a very amateurish effort to capture any of the Pacific flavor.

heywooood
02-12-2005, 10:26 PM
lets see whats in the patch and in the pipeline before we....oh nevermind.

mbakes
02-12-2005, 10:31 PM
It's a game, yes an unfinished game , with promises not met , but so is life, go outside enjoy some sunshine, take your loses and move on. EA I hear has bought UBI so it is only downhill from here.

plumps_
02-12-2005, 11:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>fordfan25:
the lack of ships on both sides USA and Japan is kinda a let down mostly i feel for the guys who use FMB and make there own campaigns. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As a mission builder I don't feel the need to be pitied. I try to avoid battleships in my missions as these are huge FPS eaters. And I know that the average computer today is unable to handle realistic carrier task force battles. That's one more reason why I don't understand all the complaining. People are asking for some things which they won't be able to use properly anyway. I'm not trying to defend the lack of certain ships. Yes, it would be nice to have at least one ship of each class and country. But we do have something we can work with.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Stiglr:
... and no flyable torp bombers to fly missions in. Right there, you've gutted a good 25% of the action. The maps can't contain the action. A BIG strike two. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Download my QDPFSMP mission pack to fly missions in a flyable torpedo bomber. It's possible.

LEXX_Luthor
02-12-2005, 11:40 PM
You are onto something plumps_

Nobody could ever run all those ships in a realistic fleet even if we had all the ships.

Still, British battleships at Pearl Harbour... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

That only proves Pearl Harbour should never have been mapped. I argued against it, but some demanded Pearl Harbour even if its never used more than once in a WAR. That is alot of ship and ground object modding for a one timer mission. So they went with British battleships you only see anchored at Pearl once in a WAR. Sounds like a good compromise solution to me. They got The Pearl without taking away too much Dev time for other things.

Demons7th_Wolf
02-13-2005, 12:13 AM
Yea i got say Pf was a little disappointed when it comes to map and Ships.

The PNG map we got really kind limits what the IJAAF or the IJNAF can do. I try convice one my friends who is Japanese to play it but he said to me that it kind pointless to try do the historical png threater when we don't got Rabual or the northern PNG island. He also said the 68th Sentai is going have problems when we don't got most of there bases like Alexishafen airfield.

The lack of Japanese BB,CV,CA,CL and DD really hurt the late war side. could have use some for something like the Battle of the philippine sea.

I only hope that Pearl Harbour Veteran don't see this game representation of Pearl Harbour when the Arizona or the Oklahoma is a British King George V battleship

goshikisen
02-13-2005, 12:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
My point; what you see in the update isnt a lack of support for PF, its a glut of support for FB. In time and with paticence that support might just move over to PF. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But isn't that part of the problem. The latest update puts a heavy emphasis on FB and the ETO. Why would a marketer lavish so much attention on last year's product when the new model's sitting on the showroom floor. It doesn't make much sense.

In a recent e-mail from Oleg he told me that most of his team had now moved on to BoB and that he was no longer accepting new work from modeller's for FB/PF. This would indicate to me that PF is far from building speed... it's actually winding down. 3 months into its public life. ETO = 4 years (5 or 6 years if you include development) vs. PTO = 1 year (perhaps). The mention of the Stuka is interesting in that IL2 was around long enough to see it eventually incorporated. Not only will we NEVER see an Avenger or Kate in this sim but also, after only 3 months on store shelves, 1C is turning the focus away from PF.

Plump - the FPS argument always seemed problematic to me. If we always aimed our games at the average market we would never have a sim like IL2. I've got a FMB file I've created in which the PoW and Tirpitz duke it out along with a couple support ships. I don't see a huge FPS hit on my machine when I run it. Some folks have invested in half good equipment and they'd like the option to use it. Oleg's commitment to realism has never been constrained by the limits of the average machine.

Regards, Goshikisen.

p.s. ImpStarDeuce, for what it's worth - In the past I've provided drawings and photos of Japanese ships to a modeller who already has his work in PF. I was happy to oblige but, unfortunately, I haven't heard a peep from him for over 2 months. I've also done research for aircraft skinners. I do what I can.

LEXX_Luthor
02-13-2005, 12:58 AM
You are looking for a Ship Sim. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

gosh:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I've got a FMB file I've created in which the PoW and Tirpitz duke it out along with a couple support ships. I don't see a huge FPS hit on my machine when I run it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Add far greater numbers of <span class="ev_code_yellow">combat aircraft</span> and the Famous framerate killing ship anti~aircraft fire and....Oleg posted that PF is not a Ship Sim.


However http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif if you like to make a list of the ships you think are needed, then we can pare it down http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif as a *compromise* that all can agree on.

We have more PF Japanese destroyers than FB Yaks ...well almost as many, and NO CRUISERS. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

I would be Happy with just 2 generic battleships, 2 cruisers, and 2 destroyers for both sides (Us and Jp), one for early WAR, one for late WAR each. That is (2+2+2)x2 = 12 ships.

You see the problem here. Much more than that and we approach the number of Flyable PF planes. This requires a Ship Sim to be done "properly" (and possibly the abandonment of BoB).

Make the List

MiamiEagle
02-13-2005, 01:20 AM
I have to admitt it, but I"am a little more than disappointed in his dicision to leave the Pacific Thearter for the same over done Battle of Britain.

Every time I look for a good World war two flight Simulator is almost always dedicated to the European Theater.

I"am a little more than tire of it. Their is nothing wrong with the European Theater of war. Its not that I do not like flying over Europe and shoot down Me109 anf Fw 109. Its that over done.

I was hoping that at last we would get another version of the Pacific Theater to rival Combat Flight Simulator two, instead all we get is a halve made or unfinish peace of junk.

I"am sorry, But i think that Pacific Fighter is too incomplete to be consider a great World war two flight Simulator.

I was just flying a mission two weeks ago thru the Dynamic Mariana campaign for the US Navy. Boy was it a boring mission. First of all it had Hellcats being escorted by Wildcats to bomb airfields at Tinian Island. Now thats unrealistic to say the least. Than it took for ever.Then when I got there, their where no AAA to defend the Island.

Now thats a example of a incomplete game. I was always hopful that Oleg would improve this game to the the point that it would rival CFS2.

Imagine if MS had not develped CFS2. Than their would not have been a dedicated Flight Simulator for the Pacific Theater in the Market.

Thats a shame that their is only one World war two flight Simulator dedicated to the Pacific war.

Shame on all you Combat flight Simulator developers.

I though I would ever say this, But shame on you Oleg. You defraud us big time.

This is not a comdemnation of the European Theater but a affirmation of the Pacific Theater.

What makes World war two facinating for me is its variety of Theaters and different culture involve in the conflict. Its not one or another Theater of war. Thats why I always wanted a balance Series of flight Simulators covering the whole war with equal dedication.

The biggest disappointment is in the ultimate disrespect when I heard that Patch 3.05 will not even have the rest of the planes and Maps needed to bring Pacific Fighter up to grade as promise. Most of the planes will dedicated to the European Theater.

I hope some one will come up to the plate and build us a well Balance and dedicated Simulator representing the Pacific Theater in the Future.

Thankyou
Miamieagle

Tailgator
02-13-2005, 01:34 AM
you guys really dont know that much about the PTO or you just dont care.

there was alot more to the naval aspect of it than just the 5 carrier vs carrier battles. the ordeal of the Kumano, the attack on the Nachi at manila bay and the attacks on the home islands towards the end of the war. not to mention the Yamato and Musashi. none of this worth doin with "generic" i.e. british ships. it kills the imersion of the game.

id be happy with 1 bb, 1 ca, 1 cl, 1 dd (thats 5 models since 1 american ca and both navys dd are reprecented) American and Japanese, estatic with 2 bb each one old one late. at least then both navys could be at least represented by their own ships.

the fps problem is nothing i havent been able to get around so far.

LEXX_Luthor
02-13-2005, 01:48 AM
Well, if you don't have generic Us and Jp, what real ships do you suggest?

You and gosh are the only posters here who know anything about WW2 naval Pacific, so...

~~&gt; Make the List

LEXX_Luthor
02-13-2005, 01:59 AM
Miami:: ask around for links to 3rd Party PF missions and campaigns.

You are old timer, and old timers here know to go beyond the stock FB/PF campaigns. I tried one (1) campaign (TB~3) and after I looked at the mission design I never bothered with them again. Actually, I am waiting to make my own Dynamic Campaign, but need more stuff and I am afraid if I start now, future game changes aand new features (overcast for example) will make my programming obsolete.

Now considering PF campaign with the exotic idea of using map "transfer" where you fly a campaign mission on whatever map is needed. After you finish your local mission you load and run the "AI mission" which conducts AI vs AI "offmap" battles across the Pacific but much diluted in numbers for performance issues to cover the vast area--similar in spirit to the idea of "AI Bubble" idea used in Rowan's MiG Alley and BoB to ease AI vs AI dogfights calculation far beyond player's visual range.

Map transfer is basically...if you are defending an island, you takeoff from the island map of the island you are defending. If you are attacking another island, your target is another island (on another map) so you have to takeoff in the ocean from a test runway surrounded by those Rock Of Gibraltar #10 FMB objects. This is for land based Army/Navy operations only. Carrier based ops can use, naturally, carriers so no transer needed. Sad but true, the 1 map 1 island setup in PF is a Disaster except for pure sea based carrier ops.

And I prefer to brutally maximize the number of aircraft in a mission, leaving calculation resources for few AI ships inside my AMD/Intel. That's why the I don't care that PF is not a Ship Sim.

Tailgator
02-13-2005, 02:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I though I would ever say this, But shame on you Oleg. You defraud us big time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

youve got no reason to attack oleg like that, but maybe english is not your first language?

LEXX_Luthor
02-13-2005, 02:28 AM
oops, my last post was to Miami, not Tailgator. Changed name.

Miami, ask around for 3rd Party stuff.

The explanation for dissapointment is the bitter old timers refusing to help or support Newbies but just being Bitter on teh internet. Especially the Newbies whose first flight sim is PF. Ya, with PF they need all the help they can get http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif but it works

269GA-Maxmars
02-13-2005, 02:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:

That only proves Pearl Harbour should never have been mapped. I argued against it, but some demanded Pearl Harbour even if its never used more than once in a WAR. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the PF game is called "Pearl Harbour" in Russia.. I guess they just HAD to include the setting..

269GA-Maxmars
02-13-2005, 02:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:

You can play the "glass half full" card all you want, but, compared to the East Front, this one smacks of a very amateurish effort to capture any of the Pacific flavor. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes but please everyone don't blame Oleg. He was not the initiator of this project, he made sure that it would be published, diverting other efforts from different projects to make sure it would (at least this is what we're told).

LEXX_Luthor
02-13-2005, 02:33 AM
Maxmars:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Well, the PF game is called "Pearl Harbour" in Russia.. I guess they just HAD to include the setting.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Marketing. If that's true, they are trying to make a link between 7 Dec and 22 June. Both dates live in infamy, even more so in Russia. German troops advanced 1000km from Poland to the Volga River before being pushed back. Japanese troops never advanced 1000km from California to the Mississippie River before being pushed back. Imagine the Ratings the USA History Channel could get with that.

Its interesting to compare the astonishing similarities between the Pearl Harbour and Operation Barbarossa surprise attacks, the open vulnerabilities of the victims, and even the Conspiracy theories about Roosevelt at Pearl and Stalin at Barbarossa.

Pearl Harbour map almost didn't make it. We had talks about it in the PF forum when it started up. The pure marketing name has nothing to do with the map, be sure.

....other than a Pearl map allows Pearl to be used for Marketing.

Giganoni
02-13-2005, 02:38 AM
I have not really been disappointed with the planeset of PF. Perhaps the Shiden not being flyable or realizing there will probably never be a flyable Toryu for PF is dissapointing. Oleg also explained his reasoning on not having a Ki-44 a long time ago (a much cried for plane among JAAF fans). Flying a torpedo bomber hasn't been important to me either. The campaign, has really been the dissapointment. I really don't understand some of the IJA campaigns such as Tarawa, or the sometimes odd planesets. A little army/navy co-operation would have been nice too (like the betties you can escort in Ki-43s). Yet, I am hopeful that there is still time it can be further improved.

DuxCorvan
02-13-2005, 04:22 AM
What really worries me now is that BoB will inherite both the material problems (lack of references for now uncommon aircraft) and the legal issues (US planeset) of the FB/PF series.

I mean, it's rather probable we'll never see a P-47, a F4F, a P-38, or a B5N in any BoB add-on or expansion, and this could doom BoB chances of growing up to the scenario extents of FB, being limited to early ETO, Eastern Front and Mediterranean. This is: without or limited US intervention.

AWL_Spinner
02-13-2005, 04:47 AM
Ok, my turn!

I guess it's inevitable that some people don't have the history of this title in mind when spouting off, after all some won't have come to these forums until after the game has been released.

Here are a few of the things that, to me as an old forum hack, are apparent and thus get me annoyed when reading some of the complaints. Some complaining is justified, but I think a lot of it is misdirected. You're victims of circumstance, not some deliberate plot. Apologies if this ends up being an essay.

Rightly or wrongly. (in rough chronological order).

o Battle of Britain is announced.

o 1C add some novelty Pacific content to Forgotten Battles just for fun, to keep their customers happy. A Zero, palm trees, and an online Pacific map. This goes down well.

o Everyone enjoys this greatly, and starts clamouring for a Pacific add-on to FB. This was never planned and is not really suited to the engine. Hence the subsequent problems with land-based FB code and aircraft carriers, for example.

o Contractually, things are getting a little sticky for 1C as they're still spending all their time reacting to customer wishes and tweaking Forgotten Battles/AEP. UBI want the Battle of Britain work that they are already paying for, and 1C are contracted to. They don't want 1C to spend more time playing around with this old unprofitable title.

o A solution is proposed to produce a new pay-for Pacific add-on for FB, like the Ace Expansion Pack. This will be developed by several third party 1C affiliates including 3D modellers and coders, lead by Luthier. 1C after all have to concentrate on their contractual obligations - Battle of Britain. It's envisaged that 1C won't have (relatively) too much work to do for PF, other than quality checking and integrating it into the FB world when Luthier finishes it.

o There's a lot of demand on the forums for a standalone title. Half the people think it should be for FB/AEP only, half think that it's a new market and won't attract punters if they have to buy at least three titles (FB, AEP, PF) for it to run. This is contentious, it means a lot more work for the developers - especially as the punters insist the two are compatible online - and it's a close run thing. With hindsight, I bet they wish they went the other way and produced a combined install only. That way there wouldn't be nearly as many "second class citizen" concerns.

o Half way into the project, Luthier is abducted by aliens. No-one ever gets a decent official explanation but the project, despite being given the go-ahead by UBI, stalls. 1C, as they always do, don't want to let anyone down and thus pick up the whole caboodle and try to finish it as best they can whilst continuing with their other commitments.

o UBI are rapidly losing patience with this diversion and insist on an early release and then straight-back-to-work on BoB. After all, it's what they're paying for. From a business point of view this is a perfectly reasonable view. However PF is turning into the workload from hell for 1C who need a lot more time to finish it. Their hand is forced, and out it comes.

o The publishers expect that to be the end of it. 1C however are still trying to keep customers happy and still have to complete a promised add-on to Forgotten Battles, sidelined whilst PF took center stage. Now there's the additional demands of a new set of PF customers who want this to be an all singing all dancing immersive PF world, with a development cycle, and not the simple one-shot Pacific add-on to Forgotten Battles that was originally envisaged.

o Out come a series of patches for both product lines, which causes some issue with the publishers who aren't expecting to see any. We're now up to the fifth patch release for both and there's still more to come. None of which is paid-for work. "But we paid for PF!" cry the masses. Correct, you paid for what was on the box, and were promised nothing else. This means, when the Betty arrives, there's nothing else to which you are entitled. "But I think I'm entitled to seven years of free updates!" they scream, and off we go into a million forum threads.

I agree, it's perfectly reasonable to want some additional content. Many are arguing that a small update including two or three key aircraft and a smattering of ships would make a disproportionally big difference to the title's immersion, and this I can understand. Given past experience, 1C are going to want to please everyone all the time and will try and get this work done (or subcontract it) given that some of this material is already complete. Some stuff, however, is simply not possible to add because of the Northrop Grumman effect - the timing of that whole sorry episode is hugely unfortunate.

PF was only ever a nod to fans who wanted it. It was NEVER the start of a "new" 1C supported line; it was the last hurrah for Forgotten Battles. Maybe it shouldn't have been a standalone title, well, that's what people wanted. Which ever way 1C went with that one, it was going to bite them. As with so many things before, in trying to please people they've ended up with more hassle than had they never bothered. Would you really rather there was NO Pacific Fighters?

All that stuff about "it's only about the money". No, it's not, and if you've been around since IL2 you'd appreciate that. Hell, if you've every played CFS3 you'd appreciate that. Just to see the amount of stuff that's in here because people wanted it, and not because it was profitable, tells you that. And it's that community interaction that's liable to see at least some future additions happen from the Pacific want-list. Hang in there.

Battle of Britain : for goodness' sake stop with this monotonous "not the ETO again" drivel. It's been said over and over that BoB is the start of a new WWII product line, and it clearly makes sense to start at the beginning. For the historically challenged, this is 1939, not 1941. I'm hugely excited about the Polish and French add-ons that are ALREADY under development for 1939 and after those, 1C intend to move right the way through the world of conflict stopping in the Med and in Russia, eventually ending up in the Pacific again (only it'll be planned this time, not tacked on at the end).

Sorry, got a bit carried away there http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

goshikisen
02-13-2005, 08:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Well, if you don't have generic Us and Jp, what real ships do you suggest?

You and gosh are the only posters here who know anything about WW2 naval Pacific, so...

~~&gt; Make the List <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hello LEXX,

I posted this list in the "Ships - IJN in Perspective" thread yesterday. If 1C were able to add these ships I think it would be a good compromise and people wouldn't have to cringe when they built missions.

2 US Battleships (1 early and 1 late war)
1 IJN Battleship (Kongo class seems like a good rep.)
1 IJN Heavy Cruiser (Myoko class is a good general design)

The early war BB for the Pearl Harbor scenario and the late war (preferably the South Dakota class) for the US Fleet. Arizona and South Dakota were built by shipyards that closed in the mid-1960's and were not bought out by Grumman or any other history hi-jacking company.

Kongo would make for a great Japanese Battleship. It looks somewhat like other classes of Japanese Battleship and could be used as a "generic" BB. Yamato didn't see anywhere near as much front-line action as some of the older BB's... it would be nice to see but I don't think it's necessary. Kongo alone would be great.

Japanese Heavy Cruiser... Myoko class would do a good job of representing all of the CA's. The profile of a Japanese Cruiser is similar from class to class. They all had similar stacks and hull lines. Myoko seems to be the best general cruiser there is... the Takao's bridge structure was too unique for it to pass for all the CA's.

Now if we had just these 4 additions when PF was first released I would probably have posted one or 2 messages about "Wouldn't it be neat to have the Yamato" but for the most part I would have been perfectly happy with PF the way it is.

I know that PF is not a ship sim but at the same time it isn't exactly a flight sim either. It's a historical naval aviation / air combat sim. IL2 was never a tank sim but you'd have to agree that there are a number of basic tanks that are needed to assist in the suspension of disbelief. All I'm asking for is a BASIC level of ships... I don't want the world.

I can see some people will never understand this ships issue... it all has to do with our interests and priorities. I'm sure there are Finnish folks who had a hard time playing FB without a Fokker XXI and would shake their head if somebody told them to "just pretend". I can't pretend the Kirov is a Japanese Heavy Cruiser and many other folks here can't either. Why not put a bit more effort into this sim and try and get it up to par with the other great titles in this series.

My Mother in Law has just invited me out for Dim Sum and I'm getting long winded... gotta go.

Regards, Goshikisen

p.s. MiamiEagle... I share your frustration but I'd say it's less "shame on Oleg" (he's provided me with years of entertainment) and more "shame PF wasn't completed".

vonPletz
02-13-2005, 08:52 AM
AWL_Spinner

Well said http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Oilburner_TAW
02-13-2005, 10:27 AM
I just wanted to say thanks for letting me say my peace and to all the others who have kept this thread civil.

csThor
02-13-2005, 10:49 AM
It is clear to me that PF is a child of Luthier and not of Maddox Games - I firmly believe without Luthier's input there would have been no PF at all. As AWL_Spinner said Maddox Games merely picked up the pieces and glued them together so the release could take place at all. Don't flame them over something other people screwed up.

A few further comments from me.

1) As Stiglr said the engine is not suited to much else beside Eastern Front. It lacks accurate high-alt modelling, it lacks native support for 2- and 4-engined planes and it is not able to display large distances. I believe if Oleg had been forced to choose an AddOn to finalize the FB series he'd never thought about the PTO (my bet would be on some additional Eastern Front stuff).

2) Because of the nature of the whole project I find it strange to criticize Maddox Games for the exclusion of PTO objects from the "planned" list. After all 3rd Party modellers worked hard and long on these objects and these are the most complete of the whole bag. PTO objects were either made within the borders of PF or are still far too undetailed for inclusion.

3) Criticizing the choice of BoB for the next title is either a serious case of "sour grapes" or just because people fail to understand a few issues. Il-2 was also a game with a rather narrow focus that got broader with time. BoB - which is also a completely new engine and as such a potential reservoir for bugs and errors - is meant to be the start of a new series. Having a broad focus (such as Western Europe 1940-45) would only lead to a frittering of ressources because of the sheer number of planes, objects and other stuff.

Stiglr
02-13-2005, 11:14 AM
I might also add that the behind the scenes developer/Maddox/Luthier triangle matters not a whit to me as a consumer.

I know these realities all have an effect on things, but at the end of the day, I'm just looking at the sim I have on my hard drive and what it offers me.

heywooood
02-13-2005, 11:32 AM
AWL_Spinner

That was as complete and concise a synopsis as I have seen in a long time.

I think you captured it perfectly.

NorrisMcWhirter
02-13-2005, 11:33 AM
Hi,

Just view PF as I do; a stop-gap patriot-satisfying money spinner intended to keep 1C ticking over nicely, courtesy of cash from the lucrative US market, whilst they develop BoB.

Some people are quite correct; it is a token effort but that's a good thing as, personally, I'd rather have a 'next generation' European theatre sim than more messing about with the relatively uninteresting PTO.

Cheers,
Norris

heywooood
02-13-2005, 11:38 AM
please read also Cs_Thor and Lexx Luthors posts
in this thread to better understand 1c PF

also - they are the ones most pertinent to the title of this thread...'Explaining'....

Stiglr
02-13-2005, 11:39 AM
"...relatively uninteresting PTO..."

Now that shows exactly the lack of understanding of the theatre we're talking about more than anything else.

The PTO is not any less engaging than the Western Euro front or the Eastern Front. Each has different dynamics.

Thing is, IL-2 does a fairly good job of illustrating the EF, while the Western Front can't be done justice yet due to lack of maps and support for large bomber streams... and the Pacific isn't done right yet for a variety of issues we've already discussed.

Still, some would rather just shrug their shoulders and say "I'm not interested in the Pacific" rather than to learn anything about it.
This theatre has its share of legendary planes, pilots and missions, and is every bit as fascinating as the other theatres; at least to a student of history.

It's their loss, of course.

tralkpha
02-13-2005, 11:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
What really worries me now is that BoB will inherite both the material problems (lack of references for now uncommon aircraft) and the legal issues (US planeset) of the FB/PF series.

I mean, it's rather probable we'll never see a P-47, a F4F, a P-38, or a B5N in any BoB add-on or expansion, and this could doom BoB chances of growing up to the scenario extents of FB, being limited to early ETO, Eastern Front and Mediterranean. This is: without or limited US intervention. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

this is what worries me for all you folks who predict a return to the pto
what is a possible bob pto expansion going to be able to legally contain? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
kinda makes a wwi sim seem like the only unrestricted option http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

heywooood
02-13-2005, 12:02 PM
the PTO is a unique theater and definitely deserves a comprehensive effort dedicated solely to recreating it as completely as possible. A HUGE GINORMOUS TASK

Unfortunately - too many believed that was 1c's intention....Ilya?....thanks for talking it up, bro. Naturally some peoples imaginations ran wild and here we are.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

This is a Golden opportunity for some other developer...possibly a payware sim...since large revenue would be required to do it justice and pay off Grumman, to step up and do the PTO proper.

Lets face it - 1c is going to be too busy for a loong time on another project to compete with a real solid effort in the Pacific.

Targetware?.....

-HH- Beebop
02-13-2005, 01:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Also, there is no reconnaisance role in the sim, which was of huge importance in this theatre. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's what the full Mission builder is for. I don't think too many people would fly a stock "Recon" mission. Let's see, take off, fly forever, try and find a small dot on the ocean without being discovered, fly back, land. Total time in real life, 6-8 hours. This assumes you found something. Many flights found nothing. Exciting isn't it?
Most people want instant action, not boredom.
Personally I think PF give a good balance of what it might have been like to fly in the PTO.

sulla04
02-13-2005, 01:55 PM
I don't think anyone has mentioned this but if you've been playing and on these boards since the beginning you will see a pattern.After IL2s release there was supposed to to be a large addon for an addon price.That turned into FBs a full price game.After FB there was supposed to be a large addon for free that turned into Aces Ex.Now the content of both sims and the addon are superb and you definitely got your moneys worth.However ( and this is where I will be stoned to death),the stories have always changed with 1C since the beginning.So do not be surprised if there is an addon for $ to PF.It might be released only in Russia and we might have to make our feelings known.I agree completely with the people who believe that the PTO went right over 1Cs head.There maybe no Russian sources for Japanese planes but the rest of the world seems chock full.I saw it posted more than once that a specific plane could not be done because of the lack of pics etc.While these same planes are in museums in US and GB etc. having been put together piece by piece.IL2 was a mud movers sim as the name suggests,the sims started to go more toward fighters with FB and even more so with AE.I don't think it was a lack of info in the early reports of PF that caused a problem but a deluge of what was "supposed" to be in it.It now appears that PF and maybe the entire series is meant for online simming.Does anyone have an accurate # of sims bought compared to how many people play onlie.For my part I would be surprised if online players were greater than 10% of the whole.While we are on that subject as far as speed manuevering etc. I would not look at online play their are to many variables.I would just go by what you find offline.

Bearcat99
02-13-2005, 02:03 PM
Spinner you got most of that right.... I have stayed out of this because most of you know where Im coming from and are probably just as sick of hearing it as I am of hearing all the complaints.... but Spinner... from what I understand folks had been clamoring for the Pacific for this series for quite some time... even before the move west. In fact when the poll was taken..... remember the poll? (Which theater would you like to see next.... ) I think it was a tossup between the Med and the Pacific. We have no idea when negotiations started between Luthier and 1C about this project so we really cant speculate at all. While I can understand where some of you are coming from and I can really appreciate the thoughtfullness and deliberation with which some of you have handles the whole obviously painful (to you) subject, it just seems to me that it is pointless and to keep going over this well trod ground again and again... is just like..... eating your vomit over and over again. My feeling is that while not a "full blown" Pacific sim...... this Pacific is better than any other I have flown....... especially if the programmability and scalability of the sim itself and all the tools that come with it are fully utilized. We have guys crying about missions too long....... guys complaining about no reconnesence ....... guys complaining about missing flyables, missing ships, missing objects..... when in reality.... all this was just a fantasy in 2002. I am glad that we have what we have.. I have Corsairs,Tonys,Zekes.... how many P-40 variants? The addition of all this Italian aircraft is obviously an attempt to satisfy the Med cravings that have been going on around here for some time...... Since all this griping and complaining... justified or not... wont do JACK....... why not just enjoy what we have. I wonder what UBI soft would do if all those who are disatisfied sent their CDS back with reciepts dated within the past 2-3 weeks demanding a refund? Ahhhhhh but theres the rub!!!! You cant get it off your HD.

I dont have this first hand but here is why I think the BoB was chosen ..... look at what Oleg said..... If I am not mistaken he said that BoB would be spreading out after it's initial release..... IMO there is no better place to start than the BoB from a time standpoint.... unless you want to start at the Spanish Civil War... which would have been nice but didnt happen...... 1940..... before Barbarosa... before Pearl...... before the whole Med campaign..... it seems to me that BoB was a good place to start if you plan to move out from there.. what I would love to see is the sim expand in chronological order...... (Ok.... ok.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif) from BoB.... to all the other theaters.......

I think this Pacific theater is better than no Pacific theater..... or the "other" Pacific theater... as far as all the differences that make this sim the classic work of art that it is. So thats my story and Im sticking to it......

carguy_
02-13-2005, 02:43 PM
I wonder what UBI soft would do if all those who are disatisfied sent their CDS back with reciepts dated within the past 2-3 weeks demanding a refund? Ahhhhhh but theres the rub!!!! You cant get it off your HD.


The cat is out of the bag.How can you really say you`re not satisfied if you keep playing the sim day by day?!


BTW BoB idea stinks for me.Will have to wait for G6 as much as Mossie guys.And it takes more than a quote to make me believe an Emil will be enough accurately modelled to make me stay with it more than few months.Hopefully the Focke Wulf will be king of `42 skies in BoB.

Extreme_One
02-13-2005, 03:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Spinner you got most of that right.... I have stayed out of this because most of you know where Im coming from and are probably just as sick of hearing it as I am of hearing all the complaints.... but Spinner... from what I understand folks had been clamoring for the Pacific for this series for quite some time... even before the move west. In fact when the poll was taken..... remember the poll? (Which theater would you like to see next.... ) I think it was a tossup between the Med and the Pacific. We have no idea when negotiations started between Luthier and 1C about this project so we really cant speculate at all. While I can understand where some of you are coming from and I can really appreciate the thoughtfullness and deliberation with which some of you have handles the whole obviously painful (to you) subject, it just seems to me that it is pointless and to keep going over this well trod ground again and again... is just like..... eating your vomit over and over again. My feeling is that while not a "full blown" Pacific sim...... this Pacific is better than any other I have flown....... especially if the programmability and scalability of the sim itself and all the tools that come with it are fully utilized. We have guys crying about missions too long....... guys complaining about no reconnesence ....... guys complaining about missing flyables, missing ships, missing objects..... when in reality.... all this was just a fantasy in 2002. I am glad that we have what we have.. I have Corsairs,Tonys,Zekes.... how many P-40 variants? The addition of all this Italian aircraft is _obviously_ an attempt to satisfy the Med cravings that have been going on around here for some time...... Since all this griping and complaining... justified or not... wont do JACK....... why not just enjoy what we have. I wonder what UBI soft would do if all those who are disatisfied sent their CDS back with reciepts dated within the past 2-3 weeks demanding a refund? Ahhhhhh but theres the rub!!!! You cant get it off your HD.

I dont have this first hand but here is why I think the BoB was chosen ..... look at what Oleg said..... If I am not mistaken he said that BoB would be spreading out after it's initial release..... IMO there is no better place to start than the BoB from a time standpoint.... unless you want to start at the Spanish Civil War... which would have been nice but didnt happen...... 1940..... before Barbarosa... before Pearl...... before the whole Med campaign..... it seems to me that BoB was a good place to start if you plan to move out from there.. what I would love to see is the sim expand in chronological order...... (Ok.... ok.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif) from BoB.... to all the other theaters.......

I think this Pacific theater is better than no Pacific theater..... or the "other" Pacific theater... as far as all the differences that make this sim the classic work of art that it is. So thats my story and Im sticking to it...... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

So no surprises there then... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I'm just sick of hearing about what this sim hasn't got instead of what it has got.

Enjoy what you have.

Capt._Tenneal
02-13-2005, 03:30 PM
Nice points by everyone. A lot of long replies to digest, both sides are obviously passionate about their point of view, have valid arguments and are not holding back. I hope this doesn't get locked soon. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

3.JG51_BigBear
02-13-2005, 04:10 PM
Let me start by saying that at this point Oleg could probably poop on a CD smear it around and I and many others here would run out and buy it, the next week we'd be complaining that it isn't chunky enough, but that's always been part of the fun of these forums and the community as a whole. I just think Oleg needs to be careful. In the US the Pacific theatre is important to us, its where we arguably did most of our hardest fighting and it produced some of this countries greatest heroes of the conflict, I would also think its one of Oleg's largest markets. It seems as though PF has attracted a whole new group of players to the game, even people that owned Il2/FB/AEP who played casually seem to have become far more interested in the series after the release of PF. The problem is that they're getting on board at the tail end of this great game. BOB will be great and I can't wait for it, but for the players that haven't gone through the evolution of this series I'd imagine its kinda hard to stomach the sort of half finished nature of PF. For the people that have been watching these forums for the last four years what happened with PF isn't hard to understand and, for me at lease, is wasn't really unexpected. But I imagine there are a lot of dissapointed new players who don't really understand just how far this game has come. There is a lot to praise about this game but we have to be honest with ourselves and realize that it isn't done. People who play a spit and polished game like Doom3 or Half-Life 2 aren't going to appreciate the haphazard way in which Il2 has been put together and buying a product to find out that they basically got short changed out of some of the most important aircraft in the conflict aren't likely to be return customers. Another thing to remembers is that a majority of people that play this game probably don't haunt these forums on any sort of regular basis and have no idea what is going on. All they know is what they got doesn't seemed finished and there are plenty of used copies at my local EB to prove it. Just my 2 cents.

AWL_Spinner
02-13-2005, 04:12 PM
Surprisingly few harsh words on this thread so I doubt it'll be locked (yet) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bearcat and Extreme_One, I agree totally about what this sim actually can offer.

It's a crass generalisation and doesn't apply to all, but by and large those who shout the loudest (generally with Caps Lock on) are those who've not the imagination or the inclination to explore what this sim actually has to offer.

Interesting thread a while back about what percentage you actually use. I'm somewhere in the middle, I've dabbled but there's still a load I've not seen. Even after all this time there are things that take me by surprise.

Some of the things that seem so important to people - so big, apparenly, that you'd think they actively hate playing the game because of them (why keep playing?) - should really be looked at in context.

I've wanted a Ju88 from day one. A Mosquito; a Dornier Do-17. An English channel map; an eight gun Spitfire, early Heinkels. None of these things are present - and haven't been for YEARS. However I don't obsess about it and let it ruin my enjoyment - I instead prefer to enjoy the modelling fidelity, the sensation of flight, the enormous breadth of the mission builder; the geniuses who run the involving online wars and the immersiveness of squad play. Not to mention this community who have supplied so many models and campaigns, and the interaction with a small and responsive developing house.

Oh, and I've learned a lot here. Considered myself quite a student of the aerial war but I've picked up a whole load about the Eastern Front, and the Pacific. I look at the Italian fighters thread in ORR and see some things I'm going to enjoy picking up there, too. And roll on Poland, 1939.

But then I'm just a fanboy, right? I look around, but I can't see those sorts of things anywhere else....

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

No601_prangster
02-13-2005, 05:04 PM
I agree with you AWL_Spinner. As a member of an RAF squadron who have been doing regular weekly campaign missions for the last year and a half recreating the Battle of France day by day and now Malta I know what it's like not having the correct map or all the right aircraft for a theature. What we can do is improvise and use our imaginations and because of the dedication of the mission builders I've never before had such immersive and realistic games. If we don't have an Italian bomber we use a russian one and instead of a map of France we use part of Russia and give everyone a printable version with the names changed.

Yes in an ideal world you would want every plane ship and map but not having them doesn't stop you from enjoying the game. After all the more you put into the game the more you will get out. And finally for any one playing offline you are missing out on so much, join a sqaudron and see how great this game can realy be.

Prangster's Mossie Page (http://www.ijeremiah.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/mossie/mossie.htm)

Latico
02-13-2005, 05:04 PM
It seems that most of these posts on this threat have been civil and legitimate. As much as I enjoy this sim, it is still lacking to me. Perhaps it's because I'm something of a history buff/student of WWII, especially of the PTO.

I suppose if none of the users of the air combat sims had any knowledge of WWII history, the developers/publishers wouldn't have any problems in satisfying their customers. We'd simply not know what is missing and be happy with what ever they provided us.

I surely wouldn't want to see every last ship that was involved in the PTO, but a reasonable representation of classes would have been nice. I found it reather odd that we have both the Lex and Sara AND generic Lex CLass carrier. I mean....what do we need with a generic Lex class when we have both in the already. But yet, we don't have the Yorktown class carrier. The three Yorktowns bore much of the brunt of the early war, with the CV6 USS Enterprise being the only surviver of the war, involved in almost every engagment against the IJ forces in the Pacific. So what if 1c has to obtain a license from NG to add them to the sim. License fees are usually added to the cost of production of a product and passed on to the consumer. Nothing new about that. Oh, but then, the consumers would complain that they have to pay more. Hmmmm...... well, just how much have some of us spent to upgrade our PC's so we can run the game or for additional hardware such as TrackIR? Far more than the cost of the IL2 series software, I'm sure.

I wonder how many have noticed how relatively easy it is to record our flights with the .trk/.ntrk feature and then create mini movies? I'vee been tossing the idea around in my head as to whither it would be possible to create feature length documentaries, with added material, as educational history videos that could be distributed on DVD for schools and such (with 1c/Ubisoft's premission of course). Such a project could be done as a community effort with any profits from sales of the DVD documentaries to be donated to world charities. But with missing maps and other historical objects such as ships and some planes it would be lacking in historical accuracy (like the movie "Midway") Just a thought, anyway.

I think the biggest challenge to combat sims these days is going to be the fact that so many of the users of such sims are knowledgeable about the history. Those are the people that are going to hold the dev's to accurate standards, IMHO. Will the Developers of such programs be up to the challenge? we'll see. So far they seem to be looking for the easy way around. But yet, are we the consumers, willing to shell out the price that will have to be paid for such accuracy? That's another unanswered question.

Zneg1
02-13-2005, 07:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> There maybe no Russian sources for Japanese planes but the rest of the world seems chock full.I saw it posted more than once that a specific plane could not be done because of the lack of pics etc.While these same planes are in museums in US and GB etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I for one would be interested in proving this one. Show us reliable and clear documentation that exists preferably in color at high resolution so you can see everything without guessing. Also the planes in museums, you will be lucky if you can get close for cockpit shots and also be lucky if its not a reconstructed plane with Allied equipment fitted. I would like to be REALLY wrong on this one.

LEXX_Luthor
02-13-2005, 07:30 PM
We can handle these posters, we have the time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Notice they never post in threads started by real life cockpit modders.

Zneg1, please start a <span class="ev_code_yellow">B6N cockpit references</span> in ORR (Oleg's Recovery Room.

Here is page 27 of Aggy22's <span class="ev_code_yellow">Pe-2 cockpit references</span> ORR thread...not even Locked, yet http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

~&gt; http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=431102621&p=27

Thanx

Stiglr
02-13-2005, 07:30 PM
The salient point, zneg is that is not necessary to have such "perfect" sources to model a cockpit, if for no other reason that this system does NOT model all the systems, and the pits are not "manipulated" by the player (like the A-10 cockpits of old where all the switches worked).

You can have quite a bit of "guesstimate" and still arrive at a pit that is pretty indicative of what a pilot at the controls saw. In the end, even having individual pits for planes is a bonus; sims for years got by with "generics". Now, I'm not saying we should settle for that, but having a reasonable facsimile, and knowing that not every wire bundle, not every switch, not every nut and every bolt modeled is not the problem. Just in the last few months we've seen some posts that show that some of the in-game 'approved' pits still have a few little inaccuracies in them. But, so what?

I've always considered it Oleg's main blindspot that he doesn't put as much rabid focus on getting the flight models and damage models as accurate as he wants the pits to be, and for this he has many more "credible" sources.

sapre
02-13-2005, 07:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Extreme_One:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Spinner you got most of that right.... I have stayed out of this because most of you know where Im coming from and are probably just as sick of hearing it as I am of hearing all the complaints.... but Spinner... from what I understand folks had been clamoring for the Pacific for this series for quite some time... even before the move west. In fact when the poll was taken..... remember the poll? (Which theater would you like to see next.... ) I think it was a tossup between the Med and the Pacific. We have no idea when negotiations started between Luthier and 1C about this project so we really cant speculate at all. While I can understand where some of you are coming from and I can really appreciate the thoughtfullness and deliberation with which some of you have handles the whole obviously painful (to you) subject, it just seems to me that it is pointless and to keep going over this well trod ground again and again... is just like..... eating your vomit over and over again. My feeling is that while not a "full blown" Pacific sim...... this Pacific is better than any other I have flown....... especially if the programmability and scalability of the sim itself and all the tools that come with it are fully utilized. We have guys crying about missions too long....... guys complaining about no reconnesence ....... guys complaining about missing flyables, missing ships, missing objects..... when in reality.... all this was just a fantasy in 2002. I am glad that we have what we have.. I have Corsairs,Tonys,Zekes.... how many P-40 variants? The addition of all this Italian aircraft is _obviously_ an attempt to satisfy the Med cravings that have been going on around here for some time...... Since all this griping and complaining... justified or not... wont do JACK....... why not just enjoy what we have. I wonder what UBI soft would do if all those who are disatisfied sent their CDS back with reciepts dated within the past 2-3 weeks demanding a refund? Ahhhhhh but theres the rub!!!! You cant get it off your HD.

I dont have this first hand but here is why I think the BoB was chosen ..... look at what Oleg said..... If I am not mistaken he said that BoB would be spreading out after it's initial release..... IMO there is no better place to start than the BoB from a time standpoint.... unless you want to start at the Spanish Civil War... which would have been nice but didnt happen...... 1940..... before Barbarosa... before Pearl...... before the whole Med campaign..... it seems to me that BoB was a good place to start if you plan to move out from there.. what I would love to see is the sim expand in chronological order...... (Ok.... ok.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif) from BoB.... to all the other theaters.......

I think this Pacific theater is better than no Pacific theater..... or the "other" Pacific theater... as far as all the differences that make this sim the classic work of art that it is. So thats my story and Im sticking to it...... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

So no surprises there then... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I'm just sick of hearing about what this sim hasn't got instead of what it _has got._

Enjoy what you have. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What do we have right now?

Stupid AI
Buggy DGen
No complex DM
No torp bomber
No IJA bomber
No ships

Is this it?

LEXX_Luthor
02-13-2005, 07:37 PM
Its possible the newer cockpit grafix are a training ground for future Maddox sim modders, which will be more advanced than original FB.

But, Stiglr has a point too...

MiG~3 cockpit is my Fave FB/PF cockpit of all time -- the cockpit I see the most of (that and I~16).

For the Newbies...

World's largest, and only, MiG~3 website ~~&gt; http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/mig3.html

Zneg1
02-13-2005, 07:48 PM
Look I've said it again and again Russian documentation and german are different with Japanese. I don't have to tell you guys how much access and deep relationship Oleg has with Russian aircraft industry. As for the Germans, they documented everything with their Leica IIIc since that was issued by the Luftwaffe!

As for NOT needing everything to be correct, well I beg to differ there, since we won't hear the end of it if anything is just amiss on a flyable cockpit, even just a little knob.

My comment is not just about the Jill but about everything else. There seems to be limited documentation on Japanese planes specially cockpits compared to Russian,Herman and American planes. For obvious reasons USAF planes are the most documented, then the German and Russian industry.

PS: as part of propaganda Hitler and Stalin ordered photographic documentation which was not needed as much in Japan (for obvious reasons) nor did they have reliable cameras as well. No Nikons or Canons then only leicas and Rolleiflexes. Ok Hansa Canon made Leica copies in 1935...

LEXX_Luthor
02-13-2005, 07:58 PM
Or post the thread on PF forum. Torpedo planes are of interest to everybody (except the Depress who didn't find any ships in their box of PF http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

Thanx

LEXX_Luthor
02-13-2005, 08:05 PM
That reminds me...gosh, that sounds like a working compromise. Thanx.

gosh's The List::
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Arizona (battleship
South Dakota (battleship)
Kongo (battleship)
Myoko (cruiser)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Put your sheilds up. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Somebody will post they are Dissapointed with you as much (or more) as they post they are Dissapointed with Oleg because you don't include [SHIP] that saw service in WW2 Pacific. And that's the problem, it was such a vast naval war only a Pacific Ship Sim can have them all.

...naturally, I would prefer the Mississippie (was there one lol I don't even know?)

Tailgator
02-13-2005, 08:42 PM
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/battleships/mississippi/bb41-miss.html

lol

Tailgator
02-13-2005, 09:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Put your sheilds up. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Somebody will post they are Dissapointed with you as much (or more) as they post they are Dissapointed with Oleg because you don't include [SHIP] that saw service in WW2 Pacific. And that's the problem, it was such a vast naval war only a Pacific Ship Sim can have them all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes Luthor correct, as ive stated in another thread "the whining goes on forever and the insults never end" sad but true on the state of pretty much all forums. but i do try not to insult anyone except my two ex-wives and even then i try to make it humorus

LEXX_Luthor
02-13-2005, 10:02 PM
Thanks Tailgator for the Mississippie link.

Moving on... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Gibbage:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Sadly, the PBY 5A for IL2/PF is dead.

I do plan on converting my work into FS2004 so all is not lost.

~&gt; http://www.netwings.org/dcforum/DCForumID43/1326.html
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

csThor
02-14-2005, 02:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
"...relatively uninteresting PTO..."

Now _that_ shows exactly the lack of understanding of the theatre we're talking about more than anything else.

The PTO is not any less engaging than the Western Euro front or the Eastern Front. Each has different dynamics.

Thing is, IL-2 does a fairly good job of illustrating the EF, while the Western Front can't be done justice yet due to lack of maps and support for large bomber streams... and the Pacific isn't done right yet for a variety of issues we've already discussed.

Still, some would rather just shrug their shoulders and say "I'm not interested in the Pacific" rather than to learn anything about it.
This theatre has its share of legendary planes, pilots and missions, and is every bit as fascinating as the other theatres; at least to a student of history.

It's their loss, of course. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stig I consider myself quite interested in WW2 air war, but I can't help but say that the PTO leaves me cold as well. I do have a little literature on the general course of war in this theater, but to me - as a german - the PTO is just as alien as the Eastern Front might be for an American.

goshikisen
02-14-2005, 08:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by csThor:
Stig I consider myself quite interested in WW2 air war, but I can't help but say that the PTO leaves me cold as well. I do have a little literature on the general course of war in this theater, but to me - as a german - the PTO is just as alien as the Eastern Front might be for an American. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

csThor, I think you've gotten to the heart of the problem. We all enjoy the series but some of us have different interests and priorities. How many of us knew anywhere near as much as we do now about the VVS before the release of IL2?

I can remember, as a very young child, my father having built some 1/32nd scale kits of a Flying Tiger Hawk and an A6M5. That shark mouth painted on the front of the Hawk is one of my earliest and clearest memories. I think of the PTO in the same way others think of the ETO. I suppose if you don't have so much interest invested in a particular theatre then maybe one or 2 destroyers and a carrier are perfectly adequate. For those in the know, however, (and from this thread and others I know that there are many of you out there) KGV's at Pearl Harbor is the equivalent of asking us to pretend that the Sherman is a Tiger.

From what I've seen at Netwings someone is working on a Fairey Swordfish. What if Oleg announced tomorrow that he was making a North Atlantic Standalone Flight sim. The focus being torpedo bombers, anti-submarine missions. How would you feel if he said "we've got the Bismarck (just use Tirpitz) and we've got the Prince of Wales but we don't have any time to model the Prinz Eugen so please substitute the USS Indianapolis for it... also, the Hood, you're going to have to use the Kirov in place of that. British Destroyers... you've already got some American and Japanese Destroyers, substitute those in. We also won't have time to model the interior of the FW-200... please use the TB-3 instead." I don't think ETO folks would be too enamoured with that idea. They'd wonder why Oleg had even bothered to attempt a sim like that.

As it now stands PF is like a model kit... but we've opened the box to find some of the major pieces missing. Some will say that a ship is a ship... just put another one in and pretend it's something else. I would counter by saying... why would we need 6 or 7 variants of the 109. A 109 is a 109 is a 109 isn't it? We certainly don't need to have a Panzer III because we already have a Tiger..? Get my thinking. If we can get wound up about umpteen variations of a particular aircraft, certainly we can provide PF dive bombers and medium bombers with credible targets. (before anyone jumps all over me... I think having many versions of the 109 is a good thing, not a bad thing, just playing devil's advocate)

Ships were pivotal to the PTO and PF seems to lack a fundamental understanding of that theatre.

- on a side note -

ImpStarDeuce mentioned earlier that those critical of PF should do something more than just debate the issue on this forum. I've said before that I've provided research to skinners and modellers in the past but I thought I'd try something different. I have the plans for a whole whack of IJN cruisers so I thought I'd make an attempt at modelling one. I've modelled in 3D before but been away from it for some time. Anybody have any resources that would help me modelling the IL2 way? I also have little knowledge of the modelling protocols maintained by 1C. Don't know if I'll ever get the content in the sim (heck, I may not get very far) but I thought I'd give it a try. Below you'll see some Myoko class hull profile lines I set up in a vector drawing program. Also scanned a whole series of plans.

Regards, Goshikisen.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v460/goshikisen/myoko.gif

SeminoleX
02-14-2005, 09:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by plumps_:
I don't understand how anybody can expect a "complete" PTO sim.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe because that's what they were lead to believe they would get?...even if only by implication.

After all Aces Of The Pacific did a fairly decent job covering the entire PTO way back in the early 90's. Who would have thought the ball would be dropped considering Il2's past achievements?

If PF had been only made available as an add-on it might have been more understandable that it is less than comprehensive....but the title was sold as a stand alone Pacific War sim. You can't get around that fact no matter how one bends over backwards to rationilize.

Liquid-Koshed
02-14-2005, 09:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
To plumps and some others:

It's not about the plane list, I keep telling you.

I bet most of us would be happy for now if you had a limited plane list, but you were still able to recreate some "typical" Pacific action.

But we can't. We still don't have torpedos modelled right, and no flyable torp bombers to fly missions in. Right there, you've gutted a good 25% of the action. The maps can't contain the action. A BIG strike two.

We've already seen the kludges in the FM necessary to get planes off a CV deck; you mean to tell me they didn't work this out WAY before release??

And, just stop it with the "US market" garbage already. If IL-2 weren't successful doing the Russian front, it wouldn't have been around long enough for the Amiwhiners to get all their western front planes, let alone surviving long enough to do Pacific Fighters.

You can play the "glass half full" card all you want, but, compared to the East Front, this one smacks of a very amateurish effort to capture any of the Pacific flavor. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stiglr ive read a few of your contributions to these forums you are obviously well read on ww11 aviation and many aspects of ww11, the way you sharply correct the less informed is funny some times but in this case coming onto the of forum just to say it doesn€t interest you or is uninteresting or €œvery amateurish €œ just as many people have learned they may not get the amount of support from 1c maddox they expected is a bit pompous. You would be hard pushed to find any project that hasn€t been financially underestimated ran over time and buget and needed many corrections during and after completion of the initial project, particularly in the aviation world, I cant think of one sim that hasn€t required updates or patches and has been totally finished and bug free out of the box to the standard that customers had expected .I think it was an error for 1cmaddox to promise further updates of missing data because of the need for a third disk etc,(even given a mention in the PC pilot pf review) because he did people are rightfully expecting the missing content ,PF has only been out for a few months and to be unclear about the content for future updates isn€t the best way to proceed,the question is at which point is a sim fully patched and any further enhancement just a bonus? Some support for a new sim (perceived as a new stand-alone sim by many) such as PF should remain, I think to keep the large loyal fan base and potential BOB customers happy.

DuxCorvan
02-14-2005, 09:47 AM
Bah, if you like war planes, you like war planes, whatever the scenery is.

The problem is that many of you don't like air warfare per se, but want to reenact patriotic deeds and national legends.

I enjoy the same PTO, ETO, MTO and Eastern Front; the same WW1, than SCW, WW2, Korea or Vietnam. Because I simply LOVE ALL those magnificent machines and ADMIRE ALL the men that rode them.

That's why I'll never understand those guys that fly only one plane, or only one side, or only one theater, or only one time, or 'feel ashamed' of flying with axis/allies. They don't like flying a warbird, they just want to win World War Two for the first -or second- time.

I'd fly PTO more often only if they had enhanced the offline part of experience to make it more immersive. As it is, from an offline point of view, PF always lacks 'something'. It can be a crucial, well-known ship, or an historical plane, or the proper map, or a mission build shortcoming. There's no way you can reproduce a historical mission because you always miss one or another of the pieces.

That's what I like the less. What I like most: all the rest. And if they put the Betty in, I'll try to kill Yamamoto in a P-38, and tomorrow I'll try to save him from P-38s, both flying his Betty or the Zero escorts. I like the whole sandwich, not only the inner part.

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

womenfly
02-14-2005, 10:07 AM
Watched the History channel the other day and they had a series on the Pacific War. All it showed was battle groups with Carriers, cruisers, support ships, and aircraft. Not much on land combat. Lots of combat at sea with dive bombers, fighters, torpedo planes and kamikazes trying to take out each other. I thought that was what the PF war was.

Am I missing something in a game called Pacific Fighters?

csThor
02-14-2005, 10:11 AM
Goshikisen

My post was solely aimed at Stiglr, because I think I needed to make a point. I prefer to be better informed on topics that rouse my interest than have an average knowledge on everything (jack of all trades, master of none). I wasn't argueing that PF fans should swallow their disappointment and "get over it". I can definitely see your problems and - if it was in my own interest to have the PTO object list get bigger - I'd agree with you. Of course I cannot say I'm displeased with the "european" content of the addon (or better the planes and maps still under development) and the decision to leave the FB engine for BoB. Doing otherwise would be lying.

I would love to see a few more ships, too, but (as expected) I'd think of a few others - Prinz Eugen, Lützow, german Destroyer type 1936B from 1944 (is it obvious that I'm working on Kurland? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif). I had to swallow that we would not get any new objects, either, although I deemed a few more "flesh" on the german naval and ground objects list as essential (10,5cm lFH 18, 3,7cm Flak 36/43, 7,5cm Pak 40 etc). Luckily the russian "Tashkent" looks very much like a german destroyer Type 1936 so I can live with it. This of course hurts my sense for historical details, but on the other hand my sense for reality says that Maddox Games had to make a cut at some point and move on. It's their business and they're not the Salvation Army.

Stiglr
02-14-2005, 10:33 AM
Zneg wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As for NOT needing everything to be correct, well I beg to differ there, since we won't hear the end of it if anything is just amiss on a flyable cockpit, even just a little knob.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unmitigated rubbish.

1) Somebody just this month pointed out a few "quibbles" with the Yak 9 pit, backed up with photo evidence. Is everybody in uproar over it? No. The Yak 9s still appear to fly fine.

2) Fplanes with rare resources, who's gonna quibble with a knob or switch when they have no contradicting sources of their own? Who's even going to NOTICE it? Especially when that knob or switch has NO utility in the sim itself.

It's STUPID to think that this should be a showstopper. Not being able to find any kind of flight test data, now that's a stopper.

Stiglr
02-14-2005, 10:48 AM
@Koshed:
I'm not complaining at all about any "lack of patches and support". Oleg's been great about this. I am complaining about the lack of added depth and content to the system. Fixes are great, but the system has not grown any, except in planeset length. This is the crux of the problem: you don't create the Pacific simply by adding the Zero and Corsair and a few other notables, and treat it all like it's "Russia, only with a lot of water". The failure of the team to deal with the mission distance issue, to support and properly model torpedos (and torpedo bombers, a HUGE part of the campaign and the doctrine for the entire theatre), the inability of the maps to cover the action... all these point to a complete and utter lack of understanding of the subject.

@Thor:
I can't tell you how to "feel" about the Pacific war, but origin of country shouldn't be your only barometer for interest in this genre. Sure, a favorite legendary plane or pilot might be the thing that gets you into it at first, but if you have an open mind, you should be able to "get into" aircraft, history, campaigns and legends that you knew nothing about before. With as large a planeset list as this sim has, I'd like to think one would become an overall WWII aviation enthusiast and want to learn as much as he could about ALL of it. But, *shrug*, I guess that's just me.

@womenfly:
History Channel is limited by what stock footage it can throw together. There was *much* more combat over land (and "shore" installations) than there was the classic "sea battles" of Midway, Coral Sea, Phillipines, etc.

You've got the entire early Phillipines/DEI campaign, New Guinea, the Island Hopping Campaign, Battle of the Bismark Sea, the siege of Rabaul, all kinds of fighting from '42 - late 44 and early '45 that made use of airpower.

Of course, I'd fault the sim for not making that obvious. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The Pacific, if you look at it, was a battle of SUPPLY, while the combatants first thought it was a battle of navies and their biggest BATTLESHIPS.

One13
02-14-2005, 11:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by goshikisen:


- on a side note -

ImpStarDeuce mentioned earlier that those critical of PF should do something more than just debate the issue on this forum. I've said before that I've provided research to skinners and modellers in the past but I thought I'd try something different. I have the plans for a whole whack of IJN cruisers so I thought I'd make an attempt at modelling one. I've modelled in 3D before but been away from it for some time. Anybody have any resources that would help me modelling the IL2 way? I also have little knowledge of the modelling protocols maintained by 1C. Don't know if I'll ever get the content in the sim (heck, I may not get very far) but I thought I'd give it a try. Below you'll see some Myoko class hull profile lines I set up in a vector drawing program. Also scanned a whole series of plans.

Regards, Goshikisen.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v460/goshikisen/myoko.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Go to the Il2 modelling forum on Netwings, you can find all the information you need there.

csThor
02-14-2005, 11:37 AM
Stig - I prefer the term "hobby historian" over "aviation enthusiast". That's my interest, even getting into number crunching on OOB's, claim lists and similar statistical stuff. I am doing this for the LW only and would never dream of doing the same for the RAF/USAAF/VVS/IJAAF/IJN. I leave that to the specialists of these air forces. My "pet" - the Luftwaffe - has so many details to read about, to find out that it takes more than a lifetime. I do have an overview on the course of the PTO war (to a certain detail) and for me that's enough. I deem that a thing of basic knowledge - anything further is specialisation.

EDIT: I forgot - a second but also major problem is the availability of literature. There's a lot of stuff available on the ETO/Eastern Front here in Germany (much is rubbish, some diamonds and some so-so books) but the PTO is much of a terra incognita. The only available books are either direct US imports or pretty "general" (not to say shallow) which brings several problems for me:

a) I would have to invest a fortune into books.
b) The great majority is only dealing with the US view and leave the japanese side out completely.
c) The few books available on the japanese side are mostly of technical nature and I am no rivet counter - my interest is with operations/units/pilots etc. Such stuff is not available (or at too high prices).

Stiglr
02-14-2005, 12:14 PM
Well, I think we agree more than we disagree, Thor. I have much more interest in the LW and the IJA/N than I do with any of the Allied forces... but by investigating my favorites, their enemies come into play, so I learn a little something about other forces anyway.

And, the times when I did "take a flier" on something off the beaten track, I was very pleasantly surprised. For example, two books I've read about Spit pilots, "The Big Show" and "Fly For Your Life", are among my all-time favorites, even though the RAF is about the last air force I have a burning interest in.

At the end of the day, it was still about airplanes, mortal danger, and tons of courage. Doesn't matter, then, if the pilot's sitting in a Spit, a 109, a Zero, or a Hellcat. It's inspiring and interesting all the same.

goshikisen
02-14-2005, 01:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Of course, I'd fault the sim for not making that obvious. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The Pacific, if you look at it, was a battle of SUPPLY, while the combatants first thought it was a battle of navies and their biggest BATTLESHIPS. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's interesting to read how ill prepared the Japanese were on the supply end of things. It seems they really did think the war would be relatively short.

PF is incredibly narrow in focus when you look at the whole PTO picture. I'd just be happy if they fleshed out what little they've chosen to incorporate. PoW with no Singapore map, Pearl Harbor map with no Arizona, HAWK 81-A-2 with no Burma Map. You wonder if they randomly chose PF projects out of a hat with no basic plan to work from.

PF just doesn't fit into the list of quality products that Oleg is famous for.

- speaking of interesting reading -

I too am not the biggest RAF fan but I've spent the last couple days reading "Typhoon Pilot" by Desmond Scott (RAF - RNZAF). I had no idea the attrition rate of RAF ground attack pilots. Saburo Sakai was famous for many things but the thing he was most proud of was never losing a wingman. Scott on the other hand was lucky if he returned from a mission without losing his wingman. Ground attack is scary stuff.

Sharkey888
02-14-2005, 01:06 PM
I really hope BOB makes enough $ to get us into the Bombing of Germany. The Med, if done completely, NOT like PF, will also be great.

Here's a pic to stay on topic.............
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v638/norman888/Oyo8389Jul45.jpg

sulla04
02-14-2005, 02:35 PM
Back to the resources for Japanese planes issue.I've seen at least 5 posts that had technical data with photos that were offered up to 1C.Also are you telling me that the Smithsonian and other collections just stick in anything for guages etc. when they are missing a part?Sorry I don't think so.I have been to the Smithsonian "aircraft graveyard" ( for lack of a better term.The vast area that they build the aircraft in and I would not tell those guys that they are just sticking in whatever.The people who offered up the data also offered to translate for 1C.Also there is a sight on the web that has been mentioned several times where you can buy the data needed.No 1C has no obligation whatsoever to produce more models,but the resources are there.On a separate topic I suggest to everyone to load PF once more and watch the screens as it is loading.About 40% are of torpedo attacks from planes also there are quite a few different ships than seem to be in the game itself.I don't believe they are madeup scenes they appear to be game screenshots.

Zneg1
02-14-2005, 03:23 PM
AFAIK for reliable japanses planes here are the only ones available:

Maru Mechanic series (japanese)
Polish Kagero (polish/english)
Koku Fan Illustrated Special Series (japanese)
Model Art Special issue Series
Monogram Close Up series

All of these books are out of print or circulation. The last time I tried to obtain a Maru Mechanic series book on e-bay the bidding went up to $125. BTW most of the readily available references are photocopied or scanned pages in black and white with almost no detail. The actual books are always better since it shows all the details you need but these are either not available or expensive to obtain.

As for Stiglr's comment do you guys agree? A mistake is okay on a japanese plane because there was not enough references and research that could be done? This however does not apply to all the japanse planes since some have better references than others.

Interestingly most of the people who commented negatively have not done this kind of job themselves. Also it requires for you to speak and read another language for you to be able to get by nicely when you got a question about a specific part.

Also for the record, I did not mention anything about a SHOW STOPPER just explained that reality of how things are to get something FLYABLE in this game.

'And that's all I have to say about that...'

PS: I am NOT complaining just saying how things are...

goshikisen
02-14-2005, 03:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zneg1:
As for Stiglr's comment do you guys agree? A mistake is okay on a japense plane because there was not enough references and reserach that could be done?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd say best possible guess when there is no prototype to work from is more than acceptable. I know that Hasegawa have a relatively recent 1/48th scale kit of a Tenzan as well as a Kate. I wonder where they would have got the cockpit info for their kits. I wonder if the kits themselves would offer up anything useful in the cockpit department.

Zneg... out of interest, you have other models in IL2/FB/AEP/PF? Your B6N External looks great.

Stiglr
02-14-2005, 04:14 PM
Zneg wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Interestingly most of the people who commented negatively have not done this kind of job themselves. Also it requires for you to speak and read another language for you to be able to get by nicely when you got a question about a specific part. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, here I speak from experience. I've modelled Japanese planes where I had to make some educated guesses about areas that I didn't have photos for. And I've had to work with someone to translate Kanji so I could make use of the excellent attention to detail you get with a Maru Mechanic. On the other hand, the absolute absense of any good sources for a Nell bomber has required me to make use of a lot of Ki-21 Sally data and visual references to make a "decent attempt" at filling in a Nell pit. What I've arrived at, a Nell pit structure, control panel, throttle and crew stations with Sally placement of side consoles, is the best I can do. And (if I'd done it for IL-2) it would work fine in game.

But here's the thing: it has NO effect on the game. If you can get the cockpit framing right (so you get a representative view to the outside) and you get an accurate front panel (which is where your focus is well over half the time), the rest is really incidental. If the flap switch is on the left, and in my cockpit it's on the right, what is the effect on how the game is played?

NONE. You still have to hit "Q" to lower flaps (or whatever key you assign to it), or hit some button on your gear (which might be a different button than I use on mine)... the effect is the same in game. No advantage or disadvantage, no difference. What IS important is that the modeling for the plane is right, so you drop the right amount of flap, and it has the proper effect on how the virtual plane flies.

So, the difference between a 100% accurate pit and a somewhat less than accurate pit will likely only affect the negligible percentage of people who have actually sat in that pit or who have photo references. Close in this case, WILL get you a cigar. What's important to note, perhaps, is to not miss where a plane might not have a particular type of system, and it's modelled in the game. Example: if your pit research for an Ishak missed the fact that it has a lever that has to be hand-cranked 40 times over a one-minute period to get the gear up, and you allow the game system to use the one-button push hydraulic system that does the job in 5 seconds. That is the kind of thing you want your research to discover for you, even more important than the actual placement of the handle and whether you can see a 3D chain attached to it. Because having to crank a handle for a full minute could be a factor in the sim if you, say, have to scramble from a base under attack.

Sure, complete accuracy should be a goal. But, for cockpit modeling, the absense of visual references to make it totally faithful should NOT result in the plane not being modeled at all; especially if that plane is crucial to the planeset.

Sharkey888
02-14-2005, 04:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zneg1:
AFAIK for reliable japanses planes here are the only ones available:

Maru Mechanic series (japanese)
Polish Kagero (polish/english)
Koku Fan Illustrated Special Series (japanese)
Model Art Special issue Series
Monogram Close Up series

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't forget:

AJ PRESS (polish)
MILITARIA (polish)
MBI (czech)
GAKKEN (japanese)
AVIA BOOKS (polish)

And this is off the top of my head. I think the 3D modelers should check out plastic modeler sites for links to good references etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Sure, complete accuracy should be a goal. But, for cockpit modeling, the absense of visual references to make it totally faithful should NOT result in the plane not being modeled at all; especially if that plane is crucial to the planeset. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree completely. I've gone through that making PLASTIC models and I had to imagineer it! Again to NOT make a plane flyable because of a lack of "perfect" color cockpit photos or drawings is just ludicrous http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

sulla04
02-14-2005, 04:44 PM
I realize that some sources are hard too get but they do exist and I'm sure if contacted some if not all of orginizations etc would have donated the needed info.We have a ubbelievable source of historically correct planes in this sim.Mr. Maddox outdid himself on the eastern front,but I believe the expectation from the beginning of PF was that he would go to the nth degree to get PTO planes as he did with eastfront ones.I'm in total agreement with Stiglr if the pits are not "clickable" they don't need to be 100%.I checked out the pit once to see the rudders move etc and then I've never looked at them again.There is no need it is just eyecandy.Flightmodels in a sim have to be right on not a pressure gauge.

Giganoni
02-14-2005, 05:22 PM
I think its easy to understand why many Europeans would not be interested in the PTO. Maybe 1C would have been better starting off with a small add-on consisting of the Nomonhan Incident. The lasting appeal of the IL2 series for me is those "Forgotten Battles" and I think the Nomonhan would have certainly been one. Of course being a JAAF nut I probably would have complained about not including the PTO. People today complain about not having earlier planes for the Nomonhan. So, either way 1C would lose.
I was just hoping for a better offline campaign in PF. Not really the navy campaigns, they are fine, the army ones mostly. Flying a torpedo bomber for me just means I'll have to click the refly mission button over and over as I get shot down by that insane AA.

PF merged is still amazing though because you can do so much with it. Want to see who would win the skies in a hypothetical invasion of Russia by Japan in 44? You can. Want to prove the allied pilot claims that Japan had German or Italian planes (when they first saw the Tony in New Guinea) you can. Really only your imagination and hard drive space are your limits. I think that is why many of us still play this sim everyday.

Smidlee
02-14-2005, 05:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Extreme_One:

I'm just sick of hearing about what this sim hasn't got instead of what it _has got._
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So you got someone reading this forum for you? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I disappointed because there was no warning on the box "PTO ships are not included" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Tailgator
02-14-2005, 06:05 PM
ya know we keep getting the "PTO shut up and enjoy what youve got" line. and the more diplomatic guys on that side of the asle almost perswade me to do so...but...when i see some on your side begging for ETO content to be added and it looks like youll get it it just distroys your whole arguement for me.

so maybe the ETO should practice what they preach

xTHRUDx
02-14-2005, 06:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I disappointed because there was no warning on the box "PTO ships are not included" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


again they should have used the better term, "PTO ships may or may not included"

heywooood
02-14-2005, 08:05 PM
"future 1c BoB customers may or may not be realized"....how does that one sound?...

Many of our regulars are registering at Shockwave....myself included..no reason why a flight sim fan couldnt have two BoBs on his hard drive, but only one will win the Battle of Coasterpile...

PF could hurt Oleg more than he knows...

ofcourse BoBII looks to be online first...MP maybe...whereas Oleg seems to favor MP first and then offline as a byproduct...so maybe the twain shall co-exist peacefully.

AWL_Spinner
02-15-2005, 03:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Tailgator

...but...when i see some on your side begging for ETO content to be added and it looks like youll get it it just distroys your whole arguement for me. so maybe the ETO should practice what they preach
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif We had a Russian front without a flyable Me-110 for about two years, and still don't have a Russian Front with a Ju-88 or a Pe-2. So I wouldn't say that the Eastern Front gets everything it needs in anything approaching a timely fashion.

Where I can maybe appreciate where you're coming from is that the standalone package doesn't have anywhere near as much "other" stuff to engage yourself in as the merged install.

With the merged install there's enough material in there to keep us amused for years without missing one or two core components. I'm looking forward to the new stuff, but it's just icing on the cake - I've got more than I need now.

From reading all these posts I guess that's not true of PF standalone. A dedicated Pacific product relies far more heavily on it's handful of core items, as the theatre itself is nowhere near as diverse as the combined Eastern and Western fronts. Thus the problem when a couple of them are absent.

Liquid-Koshed
02-15-2005, 03:47 AM
Comments & extensive drivel withdrawn im going to do some flying instead http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
02-15-2005, 05:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
"...relatively uninteresting PTO..."

Now _that_ shows exactly the lack of understanding of the theatre we're talking about more than anything else.

The PTO is not any less engaging than the Western Euro front or the Eastern Front. Each has different dynamics.

Thing is, IL-2 does a fairly good job of illustrating the EF, while the Western Front can't be done justice yet due to lack of maps and support for large bomber streams... and the Pacific isn't done right yet for a variety of issues we've already discussed.

Still, some would rather just shrug their shoulders and say "I'm not interested in the Pacific" rather than to learn anything about it.
This theatre has its share of legendary planes, pilots and missions, and is every bit as fascinating as the other theatres; at least to a student of history.

It's their loss, of course. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why is a lack of interest a lack of understanding? I have no interest in Forumla 1 racing but I understand how it works as I have always been interested in motorsport. The PTO simply doesn't do anything for me much in the same way as procession 'racing' F1 doesn't.

So, how can it be a loss to choose not to know about something I'm not interested in? If anything, reading about the PTO is just a loss from spending time on other more interesting subjects - loss is purely a matter of perspective. It's not something that is absolute.

As to the game - it says 'Pacific Fighters' on the box - that's what you got. It didn't suggest you got a full theatre but, rather, that you could "re-live" some unspecified "famous battles."

Clever, those marketeers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,
Norris

Stiglr
02-15-2005, 10:21 AM
I say it's a lack of understanding because, if you read the majority of these posts, their "preferences" are keyed mostly by their own nationality or by their (scant) knowledge of one or two aircraft.

Your analogy about racing is sort of apt, I suppose, seeing as one person might like some aspects of auto racing, but not like F1 in particular...

but I'm convinced that most people who "don't like the Pacific" would finish that sentence with "because there weren't any Germans there" or "because there weren't any [fill in name of non-Pacific aircraft] there"; and because they think it's all like Midway: launch from ships and go find that one spot of ocean to do a divebomb or torp attack on.

I've found that all the theatres of aerial combat were interesting, but for different reasons. Once you learn about some of the challenges, the goals, the strategies of those theatres, they become interesting, if you're a student of WWII history, or of aerial warfare.

Of course, we will always have those people whose imagination can never get past "who can turn the tightest circle at 250 feet", too. But, you get out of this hobby what you put in. I feel those who use sims like this as a springboard into a study of history get more out of it than those who just want "flying Doom". IL-2's history proves it; many of us knew bugger all about the Eastern Front before it appeared, and while it may not be our absolute favorite theatre, we know our Lavochkins from our Yakovlevs now. That in itself is progress.

As for the nationality issue, it's kind of like the Olympics. People who root for those athletes who simply command attention, not just "the American guy" or his own countrymen, probably enjoy watching more. I myself tune OUT the Olympics because of the flagwaving and "medal counts"; I'd prefer to simply watch THE SPORTS, if the telecast style would allow it.

This is all my opinion, mind you. But, I think there's more than a grain of truth in it.

DuxCorvan
02-15-2005, 10:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
(A lot of smart things)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just my point before, Stiglr. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BSS_Goat
02-15-2005, 01:12 PM
I agree w/ Stiglr...... now that He11 is frozen anybody got some skates?

Bearcat99
02-15-2005, 03:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sapre:

What do we have right now?

Stupid AI - Maybe but they are smarter than the AI in any other WW2 sim that I am aware of.

Buggy DGen - Yeah.... cant argue there... but again it isnt the worse one I have seen.

No complex DM - You have GOT to be kidding... on this one you are juyst flat our wrong... Just how complex do you want? Complex enough to see your temp gauge rise and your oil pressure drop after a hit to the engine.. and then your engine sieze up on you? Complex enough to have wheels blown out of wheel wells by flak or well placed cannon fire? Complex enough to be able to roll up on a plane you are trailing and ... depending on whether or not it had a metal or woode tail and how deep in you were.. either shred his rudder with no harm to your engine... or shred his rudder .... or rip off an elevator.. and damage your engine in the process forcing you to land..... No collision bubbles here. I could go on about the DM.... You are just absolutely flat out blind as a bat dead wrong on that one..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

No torp bomber - You me ran flyable.... it's coming.....

No IJA bomber - Again....you mean flyable..... it's coming..

No ships - LMAO..... maybe not enough classes for you.... and others.... but NO SHIPS!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif C'mon......!!!! That one doesnt even deserve a response.... Dont you realize that just the fact that we even HAVE ships that we can effectively land and take off from is absolutely amazing considering where this engine started!!!!!

Is this it? - No there is more coming... stay tuned...... LMAO.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What we have is a multi front, multi national, graphically stunning, WW2 Air Combat flight sim that is unparallelled. I challenge you to find it's equal..... you may find one that has a few better features.. but pound for pound.... facet for facet... this sim has no competition. You have enemy AI that can range from dumb as a post to extremely difficult to hit... and avoid... sure the friendly AI could be better... but you know what...... I DIDNT HAVE FRIENDLY AI THAT I COULD COMMAND IN THE OTHER SIMS I FLEW...... stiupid or otherwise. Planeset? Ok so we have no torp bombers... but what we do have is over 125 planes some multivarients.. but.. and here is the real kicker.....each one flies uniquely!!... plus they are un moddable so the flight characteristics are the same for everyone who bought the sim. We have a developer who is still working to deliver... if I had a Franklin for every piece of software that I bought that didnt live up to it's expectations I would have thousands by now........

Me personally? No.. I am not crazy about the PTO...... thats one reson why I never got too much into CFS2.... but I am crazy about flight sims.. and to me.. to have one sim that I can use to fly on multiple fronts.... with varying weather... sure it isnt dynamic .. it doesnt change.. but that lightning in here? AWESOME!!! The snow?? Niiiiiiice http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif. So to sum it all up... I dont know what sim YOU are looking at but the sim I paid my hard earned money for.... all 5CDs (6 if I include the BoE add on) is a masterpiece that still occupies my intrest.. in fact it is even MORE intense now than it was the first day I booted it up and did my first IL2 "OHHHHH $$$HHIITT!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif"