PDA

View Full Version : Torpedo Bombers: Yes or No (and PLEASE control yourselves!)



MeJoe
01-12-2005, 02:29 PM
When Pacific Fighters was released it was received with mixed reviews but one reaction common among both the praisers and the panners was considerable shock and surprise that the sim had no flyable torpedo bombers. An ommision so unbelievable in a Pacific War Sim from the same folks that produced the supurb "Forgotten Battles" and "AEP" that it was almost universally believed that the lack was surely the result of outside pressures to get the sim out before Christmas and that a future patch would surely fill the huge hole.

Now I read many posts here and other forums that, for various reasons, cast great doubt on Pacific Fighters ever seeing flyable torpedo bombers. These discussions have usually degenerated into shouting matches between the various factions where all discussion of flyable torpedo bombers is abandoned in favor of post after post of speculations on the mental and moral deficiences of ones opponent in the debate and inferences of highly unusual circumstances surronding his/her conception and birth.

While these sometime huge threads have provided some limited entertainment I have been unable to find a pony of knowledge in these oceans of manure.

Perhaps it is my own fault for not simply gritting my teeth and searching post after post through thread after thread for the answer but, as I sit here, I still dont know whether or not we will ever get flyable torpedo bombers. So....

Without once again rehashing the reasons, good or bad, why or why not we will or will not see flyable torpedo bombers or how wonderful or smelly Pacific Fighters is or is not with or without them and PLEASE, without any theories concerning unsusal personal habits, practices or ancestry of any posters .....

Does anyone here know whether or not we will ever get the **** things?

joeap
01-12-2005, 02:37 PM
You mean flyable carrier-based torpedo bombers we currently have:
IL2-T
HE-111
A-20
and
The Beaufighter with torpedos as the loadout. Yea would love to see a Kate or Avenger though.

GoToAway
01-12-2005, 02:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MeJoe:
Does anyone here know whether or not we will ever get the **** things? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes. Oleg Maddox and maybe a few people at 1C.

Nobody that speaks so authoritatively on this forum has a clue about what is actually going on.

What we do know:

Devastator: Apparently not enough info for the cockpits.

Avenger: Ample information, but the Northrop issue (which may or may not be resolved) comes into play.

B5N: Initially it was said that there were not enough resources, but this may have changed. I don't think there has been official word.

B6N and everything else: Not much has been said to my knowledge.

Chuck_Older
01-12-2005, 02:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by joeap:
You mean flyable _carrier_-based torpedo bombers we currently have:
IL2-T
HE-111
A-20
and
The Beaufighter with torpedos as the loadout. Yea would love to see a Kate or Avenger though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can get an A-20 off a carrier http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

joeap
01-12-2005, 02:47 PM
Cool, but will try the Lex or Sara. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

icrash
01-12-2005, 05:10 PM
Anybody tried putting the A20 in a campaign to fly off a carrier?

FF_Trozaka
01-12-2005, 05:10 PM
*sigh



FF_Trozaka
Founding member of Kate-whiners Anonymous

icrash
01-12-2005, 05:11 PM
OOOOOOOOOhhhhhhhhh I wanna join the Kate Whiner Anon pleeeaaaseee!

StG77_Stuka
01-12-2005, 05:30 PM
Another in a long line of legit question threads quickly gone off topic and turned to trash. Seems to be paralleling the IL-2 community these days. No official word on this MeJoe, certainly of great concern to many.

Chuck_Older
01-12-2005, 05:39 PM
The talk is of torpedo bombers. The ones we have.

The thread is about torpedo bombers, the ones we don't

I dunno, I'm not an English Major, but there seems to be some kind of commonality of topics here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

heywooood
01-12-2005, 06:18 PM
Yes - there does seem to be a run of less eloquent postings on these boards lately...

If I remember correctly, Oleg was not happy with the UBI PF box art for two reasons...

At first we thought it was only the inclusion of certain planes listed as flyable that were not in the release and still have not been added that had irked him...
And so far, only the G4M1 is absent though many in the community assumed the Avenger and the Ann would be included.."how can you have a PTO sim without them?" we asked.

As it turns out there was another problem with the box art and text....trademark, something something...

As I have always said - whatever add-ons we get are gratefully welcomed by me, but Oleg owes me nothing. I bought PF for what I was looking forward to...not what was or might be missing.
I hope the trademark issue gets resolved and I hope the patch, if it comes, will be able to address some minor glitches and if it includes a flyable plane or two, so much the better.

tascaso
01-12-2005, 06:53 PM
Well being one not to look at the water underneath the bridge...I am calling the PTO a wash. I really felt that the theater would take off with a VEF style online war. That has not come to fruition! The torpedo planes may never come either. Now HL is so clogged that it is very difficult to get online. I flew quite a bit last winter but not much this one so far. Well VEF3 may come along soon!

123_Tony_123VEF

m.manson2004
01-13-2005, 01:41 AM
we are not going to get any torp bombers or anything of any significance in the future because anyway there is almost nobody left to do the work.To make it worst 95% of all projects given to the netwings gang has been rejected,uncompleted or abandoned.Dont forget they took of with the project already having decided not to include them as flyables,all the debates on various forums about this subject are just gossip and of no value.The solution is another developer poping up and declaring he is working on a serious A-Z pacific sim 1941-1945 with nothing missing which would be a 4 dvdrom pack selling i presume for not less than 100usd retail.Until then my friends we had better go do something else in life and hope in the future.Dont forget many of us old timers had been waitting since 1994 and we will maybe have to wait another 10.
manson

FF_Trozaka
01-13-2005, 05:12 AM
<<<not eloquent but at least on topic

DuxCorvan
01-13-2005, 09:24 AM
We will never have them. I know, because there has never been a clue about that posibility. I said it the day the official list of aircraft was posted here. I said there was surely a powerful, never revealed reason not to have them. Nobody believed me.

Will you believe me now? I don't know why, but we'll never have them.

So, now that you all have the answer, just let it be. Satisfied?

Now go play, or grab a pen and paint something.

And to help to finish off this agonizing thread, there goes something really OT:

A good plate of Spanish callos!

Buen provecho.

http://www.madridejos.net/Gastronomia/Fotos/callos.jpg

m.manson2004
01-13-2005, 10:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FF_Trozaka:
<<<not eloquent but at least on topic <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
KATES ANONYMOUS
You can count me in as well,long time ago the full documentation on its cockpit and that of the Jill where sent to them,do you think they said thank you or budged an inch?
manson

FI-finbar1
01-13-2005, 10:57 AM
Dux.
I hope your wrong but suspect your right,whatever we shall no doudt witness as many unhappy people, as happy when the patch brings forth it's contents.Here I must own up tohaving tried and failed to get an A-10 off the deck,B-25 as well for that matter must go back and try gain.
By the way I have never seen Tripe look so appealing.
Pardon my paranoia but if Oleg and team are still invloved in PF who is working on BOB?

Capt._Tenneal
01-13-2005, 11:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FI-finbar1:
Pardon my paranoia but if Oleg and team are still invloved in PF who is working on BOB? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Luthier ?!?! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

joeap
01-13-2005, 12:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
We will never have them. I know, because there has never been a clue about that posibility. I said it the day the official list of aircraft was posted here. I said there was surely a powerful, never revealed reason not to have them. Nobody believed me.

Will you believe me now? I don't know why, but we'll never have them.

So, now that you all have the answer, just let it be. Satisfied?

Now go play, or grab a pen and paint something.

And to help to finish off this agonizing thread, there goes something really OT:

A good plate of Spanish _callos_!

Buen provecho.

http://www.madridejos.net/Gastronomia/Fotos/callos.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mmmmm looks good ...Ot but what part of Spain are you from?

Stiglr
01-13-2005, 12:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GoToAway:
Devastator: Apparently not enough info for the cockpits.

B5N: Initially it was said that there were not enough resources, but this may have changed. I don't think there has been official word.

B6N and everything else: Not much has been said to my knowledge. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bullsh*t. The usual weak excuses. Just look at this:

Devastator Walkaround (http://tbd_devastator.tripod.com/)

So much for the Devastator. That's more photographic info than you normally get for a multicrew plane.

I own a copy of the Maru Mechanic that details both Kate and Tenzan, and these sources are even more fleshed out.

These are all weak LIES, folks. LIES.

DuxCorvan
01-13-2005, 02:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by joeap:
Mmmmm looks good ...Ot but what part of Spain are you from? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm from Santander, capital town of the northern Spanish region of Cantabria... I was born just 30km away from the pic in my sig. It's a lovely city by the sea.

Now I live and work in Cadiz, in the south of Andalusia. As I've said a million times, it's the most ancient city in Western Europe -founded by Tyrian Phoenicians ca.1000 BC (maybe because it resembles Tyrus so much!). Also a nice city, almost an island. I've always lived by the sea, and I need to have the sea near: I just would feel like claustrophobia if I lived in an interior city.

BTW, that dish, callos is made of beef tripe, yes. The red things are chorizo, cured sausage of pork meat and paprika, and the black ones are morcilla, pork blood with rice and spices. And before someone says 'ugh!' I'll say: try it first, and you'll think otherwise about tripe. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

jdlnorcal
01-13-2005, 02:18 PM
Good work Stiglor; you called their bluff, onthe details, what's the next excuse that they will try?

DuxCorvan
01-13-2005, 02:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
These are all weak LIES, folks. LIES. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Noooo. It's that it fitted not in the 3rd CD... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

CaptJodan
01-13-2005, 02:31 PM
It seems these threads about torp bombers always degenerate, no matter what someone says.

I've also been wondering for the definative answer, but it seems as if it's still just all a bunch of speculation, which perhaps a lean towards "No, never."

I'm pretty confident we'll never see the Avenger, despite it's desperate need to be in game as flyable, as well as the B5N. Obviously the Devastator should be flyable, but then I thought this of the Avenger and B5N, and if those don't make it in, it doesn't look good.

Stiglr
01-13-2005, 03:24 PM
I wouldn't mind any kind of answer, really, as long as they'd just friggin' level with us instead of giving us some b**lsh** excuse that doesn't even hold water.

It makes you question some of their "explanations" for the flight and damage models, too.

zoomar
01-13-2005, 03:35 PM
I am also disappointed about the lack of carrier-based torpedo bombers, especially the B5N and Avenger. But I'd prefer to think about what we have: a really excellent Pacific War combat simulator with far more flyable and AI planes than anyone might have imagined two years ago when the little palm trees started showing up on the IL2 development update screenshots. Put things in perspective. Before PF all we had was CFS2 with its, what, 5 or 6 flyable planes and few AI ones? And, yes, the IL2 and A20 can takeoff from a carrier in this game so you can slap a star or meatball on these babies and pretend. Remember a little thing from our childhoods called "imagination"?

CreaseKeeper
01-13-2005, 04:05 PM
Just curious, what is the issue with Northrop not letting the Avenger to be used? Any specifics?

-S-

SKULLS_Exec01
01-13-2005, 05:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zoomar:
I am also disappointed about the lack of carrier-based torpedo bombers, especially the B5N and Avenger. But I'd prefer to think about what we have: a really excellent Pacific War combat simulator with far more flyable and AI planes than anyone might have imagined two years ago when the little palm trees started showing up on the IL2 development update screenshots. Put things in perspective. Before PF all we had was CFS2 with its, what, 5 or 6 flyable planes and few AI ones? And, yes, the IL2 and A20 can takeoff from a carrier in this game so you can slap a star or meatball on these babies and pretend. Remember a little thing from our childhoods called "imagination"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I also have no prolem pretending - sure if an il-2t that will take off from a carrier, thats great, paint it navy blue call it good. EXCEPT we do need to return (at least once in a while) and to land so please ADD A HOOK!!!

Frankly -I want an aveng... as much or more then anyone else but if it is a Northrop thing - then screw the avenger and lets just have a modified il2t - as long as I can land it also, it works for me!!!

m.manson2004
01-13-2005, 09:38 PM
missing flyable carrier torp bombers excuses
--------------------------------------------
I have been saying since day one of the opening of the forum that its all Bu...ht,but its incredible how people can be gullible,why dont our cute moderators send a copy of PF to the following:

President Bushs father
US NAVY PACIFIC chief of staff
veteran us navy pilots
Veteran British pilots
Veteran Anzac pilots
Emperor Hirohito junior
Admiral Yamamoto junior
Admiral Nagumo junior
Admiral Nimitz junior
Admiral Fletcher junior
Admiral King junior

and ask them to give their opinion on the sim?Want to bet Bush senior will kick the moderator out of his office when he comes back for interview?

manson

m.manson2004
01-13-2005, 10:08 PM
DUX CORVANS TORP BOMBER SPECIAL

BTW, that dish, callos is made of beef tripe, yes. The red things are chorizo, cured sausage of pork meat and paprika, and the black ones are morcilla, pork blood with rice and spices. And before someone says 'ugh!' I'll say: try it first, and you'll think otherwise about tripe.

i would rather stay without torp bombers if i must eat that to get them,besides, what would Mohammed say.
manson

FI-finbar1
01-14-2005, 02:39 AM
Never mind Mohamed,what would Marty Feldman say.

DuxCorvan
01-14-2005, 04:06 AM
Well, you lose it. Since you never tried it, you won't miss it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

SeminoleX
01-14-2005, 09:26 AM
So conventional wisdom says we will never have carrier based torpedo planes.

Hmmmm.

That's a very good sign we will have them soon.

I'm optimistic now.

Daiichidoku
01-14-2005, 09:37 AM
Cmon, Stiglr, those things just dont have enuff detail for Olegs exacting standards...hows he gonna get the colours JUST right with B&W photos?

Dont post your propaganda here, Stiglr!

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

Daiichidoku
01-14-2005, 09:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I wouldn't mind any kind of answer, really, as long as they'd just friggin' _level with us_ instead of giving us some b**lsh** excuse that doesn't even hold water.

It makes you question some of their "explanations" for the flight and damage models, too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


At least they give SOME kind of explaination for those

How about feeding us ANY sort of line on the atrocious collision model?...I wont even bother with a whiny example of this...you all know what Im talking about

Stiglr
01-14-2005, 12:23 PM
Well, to be fair to Oleg, NO sim has ever handled collisions in a satisfying way.

I've always wanted to see "backchecking" and "agreement" among the players involved for collision modeling. The "lag model" for collisions whereby one plane can sense a collision and the other plane not, it just produces completely ridiculous results.

I'd much prefer a one or two second delay and then have a wing rip off BOTH PLANES than to have collisions that one plane flies away from totally unscathed.

And, if all of that is too much to take, fine: just give both planes the benefit of the doubt and let the guns decide the issue.

Mjollnir111675
01-14-2005, 02:54 PM
Yes fine and all wanting an accurate collision model but who in hades is still alive to give any close recollection to a collision and how close it is in a sim? I remember ppl cryin bout this on b-17 and all I can really say is "Man if they are comin atcha that quickly,in friggin flames who cares?IT IS ALL ALUMINUM!! Gimme a demo derby sim and I'll give an excrement about collision!! Except about landing,ground control and lemme refer back to my dec. 7 th post of an assignable wind value for the flight deck throughout the friggin "sim".
And for m.p. I would like to see a map that has two opposing carriers 180 degrees opposed orbiting on an endless sea tween each other. The only adjustables would be the ditance 'tween said carriers and the ASSIGNABLE wind value for the flight deck!! No islands or anything else!! i guess anything more would be just pickin up a 45 and callin it quits!!

@Stiglr:chek yer p.m.

dannyworkman
01-14-2005, 10:05 PM
Why cant they be called Southrope and p48's and aBengers we would know what they ment

ReligiousZealot
01-15-2005, 12:15 AM
I posted something of similar interest earlier about the lack of airplanes that the community wants to see...and I'm betting the community would welcome the addition of new airplanes, such as carrier based torpedo bombers, even if the cockpits weren't 100% accurate (I myself say, "give me a reasonable set up and I'm happy...as long as I have the basic gauges I'm good") My post about new content (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=9291018652&r=9291018652#9291018652)

m.manson2004
01-15-2005, 03:01 AM
REF LAST 2 POSTS
----------------
Allow me to put some order

You can write P47, Avenger, tbf1c,on the outer box but not the name of the manufacturer without their consent,you can write their name inside in your iner leaflet without their consent e.g. hystory books,Take a look at "the first team".clear now?

Every body has been saying that they dont mind near perfect or "as close as possible" cockpits
for the KATE, DEVASTATOR, AVENGER but they have never replied from day one.You will hear unjustified rumours from third parties about this missing and that and those not available but none are true,just excuses for the gulible.Why are they beating about the bush?simple,no competition,costs and attitude.Are we going to see them in the future?no.

manson
manson

ReligiousZealot
01-15-2005, 02:10 PM
It never hurt anyone to be optimistic...if we don't see them, that's ok, if we do, cool. The point is, what is the community willing to do to get them? I said in my thread (see above post) that I'd gladly fork over more cash for an expansion pack with the aforementioned airplanes in it. If 1C:Maddox released an expansion pack containing new flyable planes that the community wants, the money that comes from that could be used to resolve the licensing issues, any of you other guys agree with me on that? I'd say Torpedo bombers as a free addon is unlikely, but as I said before it doesn't hurt to be optimistic.

StG77_Stuka
01-15-2005, 02:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ReligiousZealot:
It never hurt anyone to be optimistic...if we don't see them, that's ok, if we do, cool. The point is, what is the community willing to do to get them? I said in my thread (see above post) that I'd gladly fork over more cash for an expansion pack with the aforementioned airplanes in it. If 1C:Maddox released an expansion pack containing new flyable planes that the community wants, the money that comes from that could be used to resolve the licensing issues, any of you other guys agree with me on that? I'd say Torpedo bombers as a free addon is unlikely, but as I said before it doesn't hurt to be optimistic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The planes are already in the sim. Why should 1:C or UBI have to pay more for adding a cockpit? But when it comes down to it I'm with you, I'd gladly put out the money to pay these greedy manufacturers.

Mjollnir111675
01-15-2005, 04:20 PM
Yep I am MORE than willing to cut a check to anyone who is or will be thinking of including them in a future add-on and to be just like the fans of this dev I will obtain and send all required ref..
I have more built up angst about FINISHING this installment before they go fussin with BlOB.

But the point that most are missing is:
How can a dev team actually believe they could go into this half-booty? Which go ahead and argue that they didn't!! I only need to refer back to posts that i didn't even include myself in but even by posts you original il-2 fans have even stated.
Or heres a good ref:"How do I get my gear down or chocks freed?" from manual to execution:RUSHED AND HALF-ANUSED!!
And lettuce not forget the myriad on screen typos that reads "IM goin down" when the pilot is clearly screaming something else!!
They couldn't see this coming? Honestly now!
The biggest mis-print on the box is NOT the BETTY, it is at the top where it says Strategic Simulations. There aren't any strategic elements that even appear in this GAME.
I haven't seen ANYTHING in this <AHEM> sim that has any links to being a strategic ANYTHING!!
No matter my efforts of destroying this or that it doesn't slow supply chains or troop movement or anything else STRATEGIC.
A tactical sim it may be but strategic..NEVER!!
But I guess that is a translation error huh?
And dont hold yer breath about the "new" patch.
It was already mentioned that it would be a "SMALL" patch for whatever that means(anyone in the know care to clarify?). And when a poster asked about said Small patch that question fell to the wayside because everyone kissin anus to jockey for whatever it is that they want whether it be an a/c fm,dm tweaked or a new a/c altogether got in the mans way.No surprise there!!
And in the end what does it matter?
Most of the research,bug catching and all other tech data has been found and reported by the CUSTOMERS when it should have never left house INCOMPLETE!!
And BTW I would really like to see pictures of this "BLEEDING EDGE" equipment they program this "stuff" on.It really is funny they dont have these issues.
AND I'd also like to see their ref library. I hear too much that ppl are sending in info to them to use.
WAIT A TIC!! ISN'T this THEIR DARNED JOB?
I didn't know all of the ppl who send in info were gettin the recog they deserve.Havin to tell THEM where to get ref's on ebay!!TRULY AS PATHETIC AS A DEV COMES!!
And I also dont want to hear that "WE dont have these a/c in russian museums" either.Seems Teut and his gang at Wings had ZERO probs gettin here to visit the armor museum here in the states to get BOTH SIDES of armor data . You tellin me that UBI doesn't even give you enough budget leeway to get a darned plane ticket and come to a place where there ARE these planes in the aluminum flesh in order for a more accurate less patch requiring game?If so all I can say is ditch 'em and find a diff publisher!!Contract allowing.Or perhaps BlOB is the last game under their contract with Dubisofty and they just want to get it too outta the way!!HMMM?! Lets all hope this is the case. But I guess that is a financial prob cuz they cant afford real in house beta testers.
And you can bring up the whole issue of the customer is the one who is SUPPOSED to find bugs but I disagree.
Ok maybe concerning see through wings and graphical glitches but the tech details should be addressed BEFORE the games release.And by Odin the next time they have a game release it AND dont give in to these "bookworms with wings",the "Veterans nephew's" or the "simulated pc pilots" who have flown nothing more than a desk chair on wheels across their home study!!I believe I have been closer to flying in my Chevelle than most of these non-pilots have been on their p.c.'s!!
I personally am not nor have I ever been a pilot.That is why I dont get involved in fm or dm threads and it was interesting to see the thread pertaining to real life pilots.The accomplished present pilots should be the ONLY ONES to be able to have an affect on f.m.'s.
Dms can only be guesstimated at best under any circumstances.All threads pertaining to f.m.'s should be locked for everyone but the noted r/l pilots. NO MORE of this chapter 5 para 4 sent. 12 regurgitation B.S.!!I personally wouldn't take ANY vets word for anything pertaining damage or flight characteristics mainly because of the sense of nationalism they ALL had!
And if they were pressured to release it early consider this:
Was it really rushed or did the devs give some ridiculous date of completion that they couldn't live up to?
From the totally incomplete theatre,non moving carriers,missing(whether promised or not!) a/c that BELONG in a P.T.O <ahem> sim to myriad other overlooked no-brainers this is hopefully the death knell to "no competition" or maybe death to this de..err.
Yes VERY true : "Its the best thing goin!"
But you know honestly that isn't sayin a darned thing!!
All that means is that we either play this GAME or we dont fly anything at all.What a soviet state of mind!!"you eatsk leather bootski or you simply dont eat!"
And it IS cool that torp plane non-fans have their say in whether they want the torp planes modelled. TOTALLY FINE!No probs with that here
BUT..
How can anyone here REALLY HONESTLY say this is a pto sim with ALL of it s glaring deficiencies?

You see its actually 1-C maddox's fault!! They are the ones who TRIED to turn a surface attack sim into some unter-uber-high altitude fighter sim. NOT US!
We all know the carrier wing division amongst actual fighters and torp planes.
The whole thing is one weak attempt to entice the one of the biggest sales sectors they have to achieve (probably lack luster sales http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif ) and they want US to be happy with a half-anused approach?And they wonder why the "amis,yanks" or whatever parlance of our time ya'll may use, aren't happy"
I really am tired of the whole copy/trademark thing.REGARDLESS OF THE FACTS someone from 1-C or Ubi should've been doing their homework!!PERIOD!!
But it seems that homework and research is a failure across the board for these devs and pubiclsher!!
AND the whole charity for the tsunami victims while noble UBI really needs to back these devs and any other they may have instead of trying to hop on the politically correct bandwagon to help everyone else when they cant even help their own developMENTAL brethren.
Lets just start a "Bring 1-C to America fund".
And if we are successful we can all help them get Pell grants or if there are any veterans amongst them they can do as I did and use their V.A. benefits to attend a/n university where they can ACTUALLY learn global business practices!!
And Religious Zealot: if you really want torp planes like ALOT of us do,move to russia they have them there!!
Stuka: That is another point. It was written in white where someone said that "all planes presently in sim will NOT be affected"
Yet there is talk of yet ANOTHER f-4 variant.cant have too many f-4's I guess.
But I guess the hold up is mabe Oleg doesn't want to include a finished Avenger w/o including the Imp. J. equiv. Imagine all the beeyotchin!!
And about this fighter jock national bias issue:
NOONE is more biased as to the a/c that may appear in this sim except for the DEVS themselves!! Hence the TotallyButt-3 4M-17.

Hey 1-C: PIMP MY TORP PLANES SUCKAS!!!

JaggedRaven
01-15-2005, 05:41 PM
Nice points...but I think someone needs more fiber in their diet... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Mjollnir111675
01-15-2005, 06:08 PM
@JaggedRaven:
"someone needs more fiber in their diet..."

LOL!! Yeah probably!! I guess hops and Barley do not count huh? Are you sure? Even when fermented? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif But I did switch to "Whole Grain Total"! Wait a tic I just brought General Mills(or whoever) down on this web site!Beware all of you future cereal simulator devs,Dont put Snap ,Crackle OR Pop on the box of your breakfast sim!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif
Schucks!

Hey 1-C:PIMP MY TORP PLANES SUCKAS!!

AVG_WarHawk
01-15-2005, 09:56 PM
I'd gladly pay for aircraft add-ons, and Pacific Fighters won't be a complete product without flyable carrier borne torpedo planes, namely the Avenger http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

m.manson2004
01-15-2005, 10:51 PM
for the new byes that means

flyable
DEVASTATOR
KATE
AVENGER
JILL
then the remainder of the maps

phillipnes
south china
dutch indies
Burma
malaya

and we will take care of the missions.You cannot set up real dynamic campaigns lets say from day one all the way up to tokyo managing resources,counter attacks,reckon,map movement,strategy changes, results,etc,the engine is not designed to handle that, forget it.

manson

Zarathael
01-16-2005, 05:35 PM
One must give you credit Mjolnir, right or wrong, (I think your opinions run a fair gamut of both, but then, I'm sure mine do as well) your posts are always entertaining.

To be complete, I think the sim needs;

Flyable
Kate
Avenger
Tenzan
Devastator

N1k1
N1k2
J2m
J7m
Ki-100
Karyu
R4Y

F4U-4
F2G Super Corsair
P-47N
F7F
P-55

Ships

Yorktown Class carriers
Late war Japanese carrier
2 each IJA&American Battleships

More maps, most specifically Rabaul, Truk, And the Solomons chain, and Northern Japan

This all asks for a lot, but this is my definition of "complete". I derive this definition by comparison to the level of detail found in the Eastern front/FB. We have how many variants of Panzers available? and we have two carrier classes and no Battleship classes available for the major combatants of the pacific war? These ships are just as important for a pacific sim as the variety of ground vehicles is for the eastern front. (More so in my opinion, I can distiguish ship classes from a few miles out... can anybody say that about the armor?) Oh well, enough of that. I KNOW that there is no way all of this will ever be done, because the sim is at the end of it's support life. But well, it's all I have, because I have no interest in BOB whatsoever.

icrash
01-16-2005, 09:22 PM
What if the "accomplished present pilot" has never flown that particular plane? There are some that don't exist, are only left as static displays, or are replicas. This would be great for flying current planes. It would only be so-so for real warbirds left. Your "accomplished present pilot" doesn't fly the warbird like it was meant to and probably has no idea of what it could really do. I don't think it is fair to discount a Vet's view on FM / DM as strictly nationalism. There are other things invovled. You were told to fly a plane and didn't get to fly every plane in your country's arsenal much less that of the enemy. How much of your view on a plane was skewed due to sheer amount of time in one over another? What about the pilot's actual skill level versus the true capabilities of the plane? A Vet can reasonably be expected to tell you what kind of damage the plane they flew the most could take and how the plane handled. They would only be a good source for that particular plane as it related to them. I wouldn't expect a Mustang jock that had to fly a '47 for three missions to be able to tell me much about the '47. He just hasn't had enough time in that bird to provide an accurate assessment of what it could do. As far as DM's, depends on the plane design and gunnery skills. I would expect something without self-sealing tanks to explode or catch fire easy. It also depends on MY ability to exploit this. Maybe a kill was a fluke, but having only shot down one of plane "x", it would be easy to assume this was the norm for that type of plane. I'm not saying everything a Vet says is the gospel. Time changes memory and the fact you're flying for your life can distort what you see or think you see. I just think you can't blow off a guy that flew a warbird for somebody who never has. I'd rather have a Mustang with a skewed FM due to guys who flew it than due to what some Cessna jock thinks it flew like.

matthewlue
01-17-2005, 02:59 AM
I have given up PF already, instead i re-installed the 6-years old Falcon4.0 with the latest free 3rd-party addon to it & have alot of fun. as long as there are no flyable carrier-based torp. bombers & a improved graphic engine( NOT resources-hungry), I will not switch back.
I will watching to see if there are any improvement though.

Flydutch
01-17-2005, 03:15 AM
Yes!

What is A serious WWII Carrier Sim without Fliyable Dauntless, Avanger, Swordfish, Barracuda & SIA Marchetti 97!?....

Pretty nice to look at but less fun to play with!

joeap
01-17-2005, 04:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flydutch:
Yes!

What is A serious WWII Carrier Sim without Fliyable Dauntless, Avanger, Swordfish, Barracuda & SIA Marchetti 97!?....

Pretty nice to look at but less fun to play with! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What are you talking about???? The Dauntlass IS flyable already?? We have Zeros, Vals, Corsairs, Wildcats and Hellcats B-25, A-20s...plus mmore stuff to come. A Swordfish is being developed look at Netwings.

Philipscdrw
01-17-2005, 05:24 AM
Well, I think that whining at 1C or Ubi won't help - if this forum gets too full of offensive stuff, they'll stop readlng it or close it down. TBH, I was disappointed when the sequel to FB was announced as the Pacific Theatre instead of the Mediterranean, which is far more diverse and continues the 'forgotten battles' theme, and more suited to the Il-2 engine (second-line fighters and naval aircraft, which I expect would fight at lower altitudes).

The thing that annoys me more, is that we were told the Betty was completed but couldn't come with the CDs because of the lack of space. I was expecting it in a patch within a week of launch. Where is it, why will no-one tell us where it is?

Mjollnir111675
01-17-2005, 08:11 AM
@Zarathael,
That is what I mean. Compared to the eto and all of its slick representations down to some very strange things that I would never think of seeing in a sim, the pto repesentation is just awful. Not that it has cruddy graphics or anything else.Just that it is WAY undermodelled.THE WHOLE THEATRE.


@ icrash: You bring great points to light. But all I am really sayin is that they should obtain various records of all a/c they wish to model and just average them out and DONT go fussin with them after release.Thats all.Too many:"I found new data that lists a new top speed as 3kph faster for the (abc-123),so please lets change it!" threads.
Second:I also agree that under the pressures of combat that a pilot may have distorted thoughts ,vision ,sense of time,extreme adrenaline levels and more.Totally agree with that.Add to that decades of time between the last time they were actually in said a/c.
I am in no way brushing off any veterans recounts. How can one judge which veteran is actually recollecting anything near truth or just being loyal to a particular airframe?
WHO DO YA TRUST?
Next: All I meant by the accomplished pilots was that of anyone who plays the game who can get a hand in on fm's it should only be them.
Not because they are a cessna jock,commercial airline pilot ,a modern day fighter pilot or even if they HAVEN'T flown said WWII warbird. But because they atleast they know the fundamentals of flight and more importantly how it should "Feel". Moreso than I ever would and most others.So they have a basic starting point.After that it is all once again speculation for the most part.
But if I saw a post where the all of the r/l pilots agreed and were happy with how each plane handled I would be happy with that.But the constant fm battles and consequencing patches to please everyone doesn't please everyone! Its the constant fm dm changing that keeps most from even wanting to get to know a particular a/c or any and ultimately the game itself.
Take myself, I have finally gotten used to the Wildcat.BUT I am sure once the new patch comes she will yet again be different.Another reason why I stay with the surface attack a/c.
And really it does boil down to more than just torp planes. As stated above the representation of the whole theatre doesnt live up to the detail set by its predecessor.
But I do try to fly the game(fb/aep mostly) atleast once a day time permitting.So I cant say that I am gonna go to any other sim.

Hey 1-C: PIMP OUR TORP PLANES!!

icrash
01-17-2005, 02:15 PM
Mjollnir, after reading the last reply, we are on the same page. 1C needs to get as much flight
data as possible, average it out and leave it. The analogy to what 1C does is like a parent with a whining kid. They give in just to shut them up because it is easier on the short term. The problem is it never ends and snowballs. Mastery of one plane is almost impossible because you never know what is going to change from one patch to the next. Vets are the best source on the old warbirds because of first hand experience with them. Like you say it is all subjective to the individual pilot.(Something I tried to point out but probably didn't get thoughts and type in sync.)This is a problem that won't change because of the age of the planes being modeled and what the pilots went through & their age. Current pilots would stand a better chance at guesstimating how something handled but still wouldn't have the first hand experience. The FM would still be off, but it would have to be better than what a non-pilot could do using second or third hand info. Overall, PF seems to be a rush job probably done to shut up all the whining kids going Daddy Daddy I want PF now.

No601_prangster
01-17-2005, 03:06 PM
Hey all you winers! If you don't like the game don't play it. I'm sure nobody will miss you. Bye http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Philipscdrw
01-17-2005, 03:53 PM
Heh - "winers" - maybe that's what the wait for Grumman to stop being greedy little censored words will drive us to...

cwojackson
01-17-2005, 04:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by No601_prangster:
Hey all you winers! If you don't like the game don't play it. I'm sure nobody will miss you. Bye http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactly! However, you do realise that the "winers" who don't play PF are also less likely to spend good money on the next offer from 1CMaddox as well.

I bought PF in November. At that time, by 1CMaddox's own comments, the game I purchased was incomplete but this would be corrected in a large patch two weeks following the U.S. release. Here it is two months later and 1CMaddox is silent.

Pacific Fighters is incomplete (by 1CMaddox's own admission, by as much as a CD worth of data), the campaign play is extremely lack luster (the majority of buyers are stand alone players) and the absence of any carrier based torpedo planes is very disappointing.

So am I likely to buy Battle of Britain?

Absolutely. However, it's the BoB being developed by Shockwave that I will be buying an advanced copy of. I won't be making another 1CMaddox purchase like that ever again.

Philipscdrw
01-18-2005, 12:13 AM
Come off it - 1C BoB will be excellent. I hope it will be closer to the original Il-2 in philosophy than to PF. I loved Il-2 v1.0 when it was brand spanking new - a real feeling of cutting-edge DM and FM, huge variety of aircraft, and the whole thing being a labour of love... PF feels a bit more like a commercial product designed for a wider market, IMO.

cwojackson
01-18-2005, 12:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
Come off it - 1C BoB will be excellent. I hope it will be closer to the original Il-2 in philosophy than to PF. I loved Il-2 v1.0 when it was brand spanking new - a real feeling of cutting-edge DM and FM, huge variety of aircraft, and the whole thing being a labour of love... PF feels a bit more like a commercial product designed for a wider market, IMO. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It will be closer in development life to PF then IL-2...and we've all seen how excellent PF isn't. Of course that will all be corrected in the NEXT fix.

The good news is, the folks at Shockwave seem to have it together.