PDA

View Full Version : BoB's OK, But I Will Pay For More IL-2 Add-Ons



LuckyBoy1
01-23-2005, 03:31 AM
1C: Maddox Games, I purchased Pacific Fighters the day it was released at my local EBGames store to add to my ACE installation. Unfortunately, my copmputer was not working at the time due to a power supply that took out many boards and the diagnostic and repair and rMA cycle was quite long. As a result, I was not able to install PF until the day the 3.04 patch was released. I followed the instructions and installed it on a computer that was NOT overclocked on the video card or CPU or anywhere else for that matter and although it was not in your instructions, due to the computer repair, it was installed on a freshly formatted hard drive 0 RAID array and all the latest/and or best drivers for this game and for my particular hardware were installed in the correct order. I have played less than 30 hours since the installation, but have found no major bugs or problems as some have reported. I play online with a bunch of guys who are having problems, but all of the people having problems that I play online with also installed the game on an overclocked CPU or the video card or both. The only player who does not overclock has not had these major problems. After the installation process and some brief testing, I have overclocked to levels reasonable for my PC and have had no problems with the game.

I'm not saying everyone who is having problems is also overclocking. However, some are using PC2700 RAM or even 2100 RAM in a computer designed for 3200 RAM and many have inadequate power service to the computer for a host of reasons. Then there are those who have not attended to cooling issues. I guess there are others who have problems who do not fall into one or more of these groups. In fact, I would be quite surprised to hear that there were not. After all, with this game pushing the limits of the code design and all the possible combinations of hardware, software and how the PC's are operated I am amazed there are not more problems. All I know is that I am beyond being very pleased with your efforts. The game is everything I hoped it would be and more. I have not had time to pick apart small things, but for such an enormous undertaking, you have done quite well.

They are starting to beg for BoB in the General forum now, but somehow, I can't seem to get excited about BoB. even if it does many wonderfull things, it still will be a limited theatre of operation WWII flight sim game and at this point, I am not all that interested in buying it. I would willingly give $40.00 U.S for a copy of each of these possible add-ons...

1) Meditteranean Add-on

2) A flyable 4 engine bomber expansion pack with the B-17, B-29 Lancaster and PE-8 made flyable. Yes, I would pay $10.00 a plane to see these planes made flyable. Your company is missing out big on an untapped market of people who would buy into the whole series when these planes were made flyable.

3) An China/India/Burma/Manchurian Add-on including Korea.

Yes, I would happily fork over a total of $120.00 for these three add-ons to the current game and feel most of us would as well. After all, there was no IL-2 or TB-3 in the Battle of Brittain!

Don't let the small minds out there who complain no matter what you do get you down. I know you once said something like it is easier to say a thing than to make a thing, but with as well as you have done on Pacific fighters, you make it seem almost easy! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Extreme_One
01-23-2005, 10:45 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

HelSqnProtos
01-23-2005, 12:01 PM
Its time to move on to the new engine. This one is done. I personally would not be willing to pay for more addons. I bought PF sole for loyalty reasons. I never play Pacific Missions -- neither do most people. Check the lobby lately? I understand your desire to see the new ships and especially the Med Theatre, my personal fave too. The fact is, this game engine is 5 years old, that is ancient in the gaming world. Its time to move on. With respect, I feel you are in the minority on this one.

FatBoyHK
01-23-2005, 01:41 PM
I would like to see more addons to the IL2 series, especially a flyable bombers addon, and a PTO/CBI/etc addon... indeed, PF is lacking "contents" badly....

I think the IL2 engine is not bad at all, even you rate it using today's standard. You see, how many of you guys can run the game in perfect/water=3?

I think Oleg can still use it for another 2 years.... I won't mind, and would even encourge, Oleg to stick with this engine and release "several" addons, earn some easy money to better milk their BoB....we can wait if Oleg keep releasing new content to the IL2 series.

to summarize, my suggestion is, 2 - 3 more addons for IL2, BoB push to Q4 2006.

joeap
01-23-2005, 01:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
Its time to move on to the new engine. This one is done. I personally would not be willing to pay for more addons. I bought PF sole for loyalty reasons. I never play Pacific Missions -- neither do most people. Check the lobby lately? I understand your desire to see the new ships and especially the Med Theatre, my personal fave too. The fact is, this game engine is 5 years old, that is ancient in the gaming world. Its time to move on. With respect, I feel you are in the minority on this one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With respect how do you know did you take a poll? You are only taklking about online. Offline is what most players play. I play both Pacific and ETO missions and know many others as well. There is still quite a bit to be added here. Certainly I wish to see the next step, changing weather and larger battles and of course the med. Just disagreed with your assumption.

3.JG51_BigBear
01-23-2005, 02:03 PM
I would also rather see Oleg and Company move onto BOB. Perhaps they could lisence the Il2 engine to a reputable third part developer and they could continue to produce addons for the series while Oleg works on the new engine. I definitely think there would still be a market for Il2 addons but I really hope they move on to BOB sooner rather than later.

AlmightyTallest
01-23-2005, 02:12 PM
Just wanted to say that the reason I got turned on to the Oleg Maddox sims was because of Pacific Fighters.

I would also like to see addons and improvements to the Pacific Fighters sim, even pay addons would be fine to me because Oleg would be able to generate more renenue with addon planes and ships, perhaps an improved campaign engine, and offset the losses he had with pirating of PF copies.

As well as using PF to experiment with features he may want to include into the upcoming BoB engine, I think it could be a win-win situation for everyone.

I definately vote to see more Pacific Fighters addons, to be honest the Battle of Britain isn't interesting to all of us, even if it has a better engine. Oleg is creating something for everyone though. Those of us who like the Pacific just got our sim only 3 months ago, and I'm sure many would like to see it get the same treatment IL2FB and AEP got in regards to addons and support. It is a standalone product like IL2FB afterall. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LuckyBoy1
01-23-2005, 02:33 PM
To me, this is NOT a BoB VS. IL-2 debate. I think people fear that there isn't enough Oleg to go around and that he sits alone in a sub-basement of some leaky building punching code! Remember, it is 1C Maddox games and there are other people working.I do not think continuing to work on IL-2 will substantially delay BoB.

As far as the game code goes... care to show a specific example of how any new code would improve the game and exactly how it would do it? Or would it be just more pixel shader 3.0?!

Lukki
01-23-2005, 02:45 PM
Ach..IL-2 just needs more features. Like object viewer in arming screen with all the supercharger set altitudes (I hate guessing the altitude). More field of vision and the ability to lean to make full real servers playble. Full real is horrible to play. Very inconvenient, but so popular. :F In some planes, you can't even see all the instruments because you can't lean! That is horrible. You only see half of the clock in 109..was it K4. And I think it is Yak1b possibly where you don't see the compass! So you have the heading in the speed bar, lucky.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Not sure of that one. But these small things... Oh and the Russians don't have proper fighter-bomber in my opinion. 109s and 190s carry 500kg. What do the russians have? Mostly 100-250 kg ****! Even the Yak-9B doesn't get 500+ kg bomb for that extra something to drop at the enemy ships (you get 4x100kg, so it should be able to carry 500kg, really!). IL-2 also carries 100kg-250kg bombs or so.

Personally I am not looking forward to BoB. The reason: Spitfires and Hurricanes are..BORING!!! Ok so I felt Yaks were boring some time ago, but they are no longer overmodelled (they used to be godly or was it that we didn't have La7, Ki84, SpitIX and other uber..), thus fun, and now I think they are cool + aerodynamic looking. But not so with Spits and Hurris. Neveer. I hate them! Boring boring boring! I like eastern front!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

BoB needs to be very immersive. I want to see a zeppelin. I can always count on Bf-109E, too. :P

3.JG51_BigBear
01-23-2005, 03:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lukki:
More field of vision and the ability to lean to make full real servers playble. Full real is horrible to play. Very inconvenient, but so popular. :F In some planes, you can't even see all the instruments because you can't lean! That is horrible. You only see half of the clock in 109..was it K4. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately I doubt this will ever be fixed in the Il2 series because the cockpits aren't complete enough. They only look finished from a certain view point, once you start moving the point of view there is all sorts of missing stuff.

Aeronautico
01-23-2005, 05:07 PM
Agree with Fat Boy.

Actually, with Big Bear too...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>IL-2 just needs more features. Like object viewer in arming screen with all the supercharger set altitudes <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sooo true!

Capt._Tenneal
01-23-2005, 06:28 PM
Agree with LuckyBoy1. Actually I'd do just the opposite of Protos : I'd buy BOB for loyalty reasons, but will still play the IL-2 series. I'd only start switching to BOB once the Med or Eastern Front (the Pacific, maybe) are added.

So, thanks in advance to whomever Oleg decides to hand off the IL-2 games to make more add-ons. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Bull_dog_
01-23-2005, 08:55 PM
None of us has seen a final list of aircraft for BoB...but given the wide variety of aircraft available now and in the near future, compared to a 1940 BoB scenario...I suspect everyone will buy it and fly it, but I also expect that it will be fairly lame online to begin with...unless it contains aircraft through 1942.... I just can't get too excited about Spit Mk 1's and Hurricanes vs Bf 109E's and 110's....sure we may have a stuka or some other novelty aircraft but without a whirlwind, Fw, spit mk V, 109F, beau, typhoon, mosquito etc... I think online flying will get pretty boring pretty quick...now when those addies come out...watch out! A BoB/Med sim if done right and complete should have a substantial and varied plane list...should be fun!

Hetzer_II
01-23-2005, 11:05 PM
Hey boys, Im still waiting for stuff which was told to be in PF....

I will not buy the next addon.....

Chivas
01-24-2005, 12:57 AM
Pacific Fighters has delays BOB by atleast a year. It may have actually killed BOB because of the stolen copies. I bought Pacific Fighters but wish Luthier had never brought it up. I would sooner have seen Pacific Fighters with the new BOB engine.

carguy_
01-24-2005, 05:12 AM
I`m all for a FB replay.FB had been given new possibilities,flyable twin engine planes being one of them.

I`d like Oleg to put FB/ACE/PF into a DVD and add few new game features and a threater(Med!).It would be a single multi theater game I have always dreamed of.

Graphics are enough for me.I`d be willing to pay for a DVD with sound and weather code reworked completely.

The only issue is complications coonected with work needed to fix potential bugs and serious(I mean serious,no "Oleg plz fix roll rate off 2sec") FM/DM bugs.


Oleg said that they could work on this engine even two more years.I take it as an offer.We make more stuff,expand the game and you pay us.I would sure be happy to!

Anyone saying that we should move on to new engine is for me a kid looking for new graphic candy.New features can be implemented here and now,just give them an offer!BoB is just a new graphic engine.

v3.04 engine can be expanded into sub-BoB levels.

I will be bored with BoB after 3 months of playing.I WANT MY GUSTAAAAAV!!!!


You guys want to end FBAEPPF life too soon.It has extremely good graphics,all it needs is few more bells and whistles widening the immersion.Because immersion is all I care about.

BoB whining clearly shows who wants new graphics.


IL2 IS NOT HALF LIFE DAMM!T!!!

VF-29_Sandman
01-24-2005, 05:25 AM
i'd like more add-on's also. early model p-38's come to mind for the med/pto theater for starters. how about...the soloman islands for a map to be able to fly down the slot?

Hetzer_II
01-24-2005, 05:48 AM
Carguy, the FM of il2 is at its end.. it quiet cannot handle many things needed for a good simulation like jet behavior, torque of 2 engined planes, high aoa, high alt conditions, cem.... we have problems with netcode.. there are so many thing where IL2 was simply not made for...

I think there is no sense in spending more and more time for entering more and more stuff which cant be handled by the engine and which is producing bug after bug....

Just imho....

Petey78
01-24-2005, 06:21 AM
I'm completely with Luckyboy on this one, as I said in another thread, I'd happily pay good money for further add-ons. We have already got a multi-theatre sim and personally I think that the present trade off in graphics to performance is about spot on for current spec machines. Why are people desperately clamouring for something that's going to require a faster PC than most of us have currently got in order to run smoothly? My PC cost me GB1600 a year ago and the repayments still have two years to run. There's no way that I'm going out to by another one just to run a new sim! I bought LOMAC and played it briefly before sticking it back in the box and uninstalling it - Reason? It was BOOORING and it didn't run very well, I couldn't be bothered to try to sort it out, I have a horrid feeling that BoB would be the same. In fact, the same applies to pretty much every flight sim I've bought except for the IL2 range which I play daily for at least an hour. The graphics are perfectly adequate, OK, you can't move your head about much but everybody's in the same boat on that one so really there is no disadvantage. If anyone wants to poll on this one then feel free, I know where my vote would go! MORE PAYWARE ADDONS!

VVS-Manuc
01-24-2005, 06:41 AM
I say, give FB/AEP/PF one more big, final patch and then leave this engine alone. It is obsolete and lacking a lot of very important things for a real flight sim as Hetzer already mentioned. After this patch Oleg's team should concentrate on the BoB development.

Mjollnir111675
01-24-2005, 07:43 AM
I dont understand how many ppl consider this engine outdated!
From where I sit it is just getting to the point where the mainstream user can even get it runnin in a way that shows off what it CURRENTLY has to offer.
As for the F.M. at its end. I cant really say it has ever remained the same long enough to really know. It is changing constantly so how in Hades does ANYONE know?
I too believe that this engine can carry us atleast through a Med/Africa pack.
And who knows maybe=MAYBE the add-on is gonna change everyones opinion about what we currently have.
But if they do abandon this engine I would like fer them to atleast give us access to the sound files!

The BoB is interesting but seeing as it was a "battle" for what a little under 120 days seems it should be an expansion pack itself!!

Would be better to just start chronologically and begin with 9/1/39 and move forth.And complete the WHOLE frikkin war on ONE Game Engine!!

HEY 1-C: PIMP OUR TORP PLANES!!And their targets A.I. and D.M.!!

Aeronautico
01-24-2005, 09:14 AM
IL-2 engine obsolete? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Besides, who says 1C:Maddox is not working on BoB at the same time? You know: maps and planes for PF; engine code and features planning for BoB. It's not that everybody does everything in a developer's team: they are specialised and that's actually the best way to keep'em all busy, given that's too early anyway to work on BoB's details.

Hetzer_II
01-24-2005, 09:39 AM
Every minute which is spend in pf is a lost minute for bob.With the current limitation of the engine i dont see much use for new planes and maps. In many terms the existing planes have plenty of bugs and people wanting to add and add and add.

Why shold oleg implement many new features? Maybe he wants to save new things for bob?

Save all work for bob so it might be finished sooner as we think, with an engine which can handle all the things we want from it, that would be better than to have the wanted things but they work just 1/2...

And i repeat: After how we were/are treated with pf... i would not buy anything more...

Capt._Tenneal
01-24-2005, 09:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hetzer_II:

Save all work for bob so it might be finished sooner as we think, with an engine which can handle all the things we want from it, that would be better than to have the wanted things but they work just 1/2...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Temper your expectations for the BOB engine. It will not be the be-all and end-all that you hope. Several years after it's release, it too will be a limited engine. Then it's on to the next "ultimate game engine". It's the way of PC games.

I'd like to see work on both BOB and bringing the IL-2 series to the limit of it's capability.

VVS-Manuc
01-24-2005, 10:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Capt._Tenneal:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hetzer_II:

Save all work for bob so it might be finished sooner as we think, with an engine which can handle all the things we want from it, that would be better than to have the wanted things but they work just 1/2...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Temper your expectations for the BOB engine. It will not be the be-all and end-all that you hope. Several years after it's release, it too will be a limited engine. Then it's on to the next "ultimate game engine". It's the way of PC games.

I'd like to see work on both BOB and bringing the IL-2 series to the limit of it's capability. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It is already limited. Some examples? You cannot use moving AI objects on DF-Maps. It is not possible to use levers etc in cockpit just by mouseclick. No "real" wind and dynamic weather. A complex engine and fuel management seems not to be possible (now it is really a joke). A real dynamic offline or online campaign in a persistent environment is not possible. Limitations for mission builders because there is no possibility to work with triggers or random events and a lot more

Mjollnir111675
01-24-2005, 10:41 AM
So then I suppose we all should just abandon P.F.?
Look man we were sold an idea of a complete sim. Thats all.
No corporate espionage and piracy,third C.D.,sickness,trade issue,release date,2 week notice,Betty type-O,future add-on or anything else needs mentioning.
For one I have another 40 ducketts to spend on another flight sim or add-on by them or someone else.
BUT THATS NOT THE POINT!!
The point is that this game "needs a fixin" before they should even feel good about moving forth with BoB.
Whether they should even be working on another sim while the problems of P.F. still reign rampant is questionable at best.
And then we wait until they decide to revisit the pacific in HOW LONG???
I haven't any problems with waiting for them to re visit the PTO but I would atleast like to have a sim that will hold me over until then and that lives up to a 1-C Maddox sim!!
Alot of ppl just dont get it: This theatre attracted more ppl than you know!

"Fix the car that takes you back and forth to work. Then once at work you can build your future car!!"

HEY 1-C: PIMP OUR TORP PLANES!! 3.04M & BoB?! NEeeeVER heard of 'em!!

Hetzer_II
01-24-2005, 11:20 AM
Than take a look on the online servers.. how many fyl pto and on the others: how many missions are from pto?

But thats not the point here.
If youre one of the guys spending more mony and more time in your old car when you can have a newer for the same price... alright do it ;-)

Gato__Loco
01-24-2005, 11:25 AM
I also think that we can get a little more from this engine. FB-AEP-PF is still the best WWII flight sim on the market, and the engine is aging pretty well (despite its limitations like complex weather, high altitude physics, etc.). This is (in my opinion) what Oleg & Co. should do:

1) Wrap up the Pacific theathre. Add more planes (in particular flyable torpedo planes and the flyable Catalina) and ships, maybe another map or two, on a free add-on.

2) Release one last free-add on for the eastern front, icluding the Murmansk map and the planes that are on the making (e.g. flyable Pe-2).

3) Do a pay add-on for the Mediterranean theater. This should be relatively easy. We got most of the planes (in particular with the italian planes that ones guys at the med club are modeling). We need two or three maps (Malta, Tunisia, Southern Italy) and we are set.

4) Say good-bye to this engine and concentrate on the new one.

Capt._Tenneal
01-24-2005, 11:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
But thats not the point here.
If youre one of the guys spending more mony and more time in your old car when you can have a newer for the same price... alright do it ;-) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Analogy is a little off. A lot of us will also buy BOB to support Oleg, so it's really like we'd like to spend more to trick out our old, classic car and ALSO own the latest sports coupe. We can and we will have both. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LuckyBoy1
01-24-2005, 11:48 AM
I really believe that BoB will not sell well. There is apparently a company that was involved in developing Cousin Billy's Combat Flight sim 2.0 that is going to come out with a Battle 'O Brittain game and from what I've heard, still another company that will do so as well. Both will do so before Oleg gets to it even if he drops everything else and hops to it. People are going to go to the game review sites and listen to the dim bulbs talk about how BoB is just another offering no matter how good it really is. The fact that UBI sends out copies of PF to be reviewed without having a UBI rep come along to help the reviewer understand what they've got is proof that it will not be marketed well and at least for online play, I predict it will be a graveyard.

Chivas
01-24-2005, 12:14 PM
BOB will do quite well thankyou. Thats if they can find away to avoid it being stolen. Yes you can buy another BOB for your $50, but would you sooner have a Porche or Volkswagon for the same money. I will buy both anyway http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I can't get over people saying BOB was only a short battle with just a few aircraft. Oleg has stated many times that BOB would be just the start of a long line of theaters using the BOB engine.

It would be nice if Oleg could lease the IL2 engine to a third party for future paid add-ons but I wouldn't invest my money in them. 90% of the paying customers will have moved on to BOB and its add-ons.

Actually we will be lucky if BOB ever sees the light of day. Have you seen a BOB screenshot lately........Oleg is the only one with the passion and ability to feed our addiction right now and he wants to move on...if he can make it pay. Thats the big question...........

Maybe you can do better....give it a try.

Capt._Tenneal
01-24-2005, 12:20 PM
The Friday Dev. Updates from UBI have dried up too. If work is progressing on BOB, at least continue to show some shots of how the aircraft and object modeling is progressing....PLEASE http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif.

Mjollnir111675
01-24-2005, 01:04 PM
The ONLY thing I want for free is the rest of P.F. they are workin on.
After that I'll pay for torp planes,maps, and an expanded fleetset,and I mean an EXPANDED FLEETSET! Covering not just the PTO fleets but an "amendment" to cover the ETO fleets. NO PROBLEMS!!
How much? Where do I pre-order at?
I'll pay for another Ostpak as well.
And check out the BoB timeline. It was short.
Hey they could always change the theatre to 1939 and change the title to:
Blitz Out Of Berlin!
Nah keep the friday dev updates. Let them just get the rest of pf done. Besides we are used to being in the dark!!

HEY 1-C: PIMP OUR TORP PLANES!! 3.04M & BoB?! NEeeeVER heard of 'em!!

LEXX_Luthor
01-24-2005, 05:41 PM
crazyivan posted last week that Oleg might let a "trusted" 3rd Party take over new FB (PF<span class="ev_code_yellow">?</span>) additions.

I'll have to look it up, but I *think* even Oleg posted the same thing, some Team is being hired to make some of the Russian CD stuff, so maybe this is the "trusted" Team.

You will have BoB, you will still have FB, and you will lose nothing

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

LEXX_Luthor
01-24-2005, 05:47 PM
Gato__Loco, since The Meds will probably (consult footnote below) be the first addon to BoB, at least after Poland/France addon, we won't see any The Meds addon for FB. Especially that The Meds offers nothing new for FB except....

(footnote)
Maps....Ian Boys posted at sinhq that Oleg has all maps of England and The Meds in "reserve." The sinhq board took a guess at what that means.

Bearcat99
01-24-2005, 06:50 PM
I can appreciate where you are coming from LB.. but I am with the person who said that Oleg should license the engine to a 3rd party developer and move on. Not because this engine is outdated.. on the contrary... though 5 years old this engine is STILL smokin.. it is still an incredibly versatile engine and you are right LB.. with each new upgrade I make my already highly ovrworked "OOooooooo!!" sensor gets sent through another grueling round of work. However the reason I think Oleg should move to BoB and either hire more peope if possible to work on IL2 addons or license it totally to a 3rd party... with QC limits of course to insure the quality... is that to stay here would be resting on his laurels.. and that is suicide. I hope that Oleg and his crew die very old, very wealthy men with a long line of flight sim success stories to their credit and the proper noteriety, accolades and respect in the industry that comes with maintaining the high level of product that so many of us have come to take for granted over a long span of time. They need to take this thing to the next level.. because if they dont.. someone else will. Id buy FB addons up to and after the release of BoB.... simply because it will start off as such a limited product.. But I will have it in my possession if not on my HD on release day (I say that because who knows what type of rig Ill need to run it.. or what will be available then) but I will be flying FB for a while..... even if I DO get BoB and LOVE it.

LuckyBoy1
01-25-2005, 12:27 AM
Barry, that is such a great post! Positive and full of the best sentiments of the Community. You show again the logic that there is room for BoB and further development in IL-2 at the same time.

My big worry for BoB is that it will be more taxing on our computers than what we are dealing with already. As it is, there is no reason for most people to upgrade their hardware beyond what it takes to run this game as it is now. Every other game I know of will run and run well on a rig that can grunt out this game in prefect mode and keep over 28 frames per second. As a result, not only will the average consumer be asked to buy a limited scoped game that has rivals from companies, while we know are less worthy, they are more familiar to the average dolt out there. Then to top it all off, in order for them to get BoB to play at the levels they expect, which is the quality of image they get in a first person sh!tter game, they will have to upgrade to a new rig just for that game.

And now I'll get replies like...

Oleg and BoB rocks and we all will lay out another $3,500.00 U.S to play it!... come on! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Other will say that more games besides BoB will come out before then that will justify the upgrade. Oh really?... which ones?

Maple_Tiger
01-25-2005, 04:51 AM
I would like to see another P-47 variant. Well, what I mean ter say is, I would pay 20 dallars just for one P-47M or N.


Being that I was brought up by hand, beaten by my sister, and piss poor, thats sayen something. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

CHAV_
01-25-2005, 05:16 AM
Luckyboy from what ive seen from some of your posts in the recent past you have a pretty good rig, are you going to miss out on the chance to even try out Oleg€s latest offering for the price of a night out?
IM definitely going to get it and see how it runs, I build my own rigs & will put a bit of cash to one side so a reasonable upgrade wont be a problem, I have been surprised to read in this and other forums that even some well established long time il2 users have what can only be described as low end rigs maybe its time for them to upgrade?
If bob is really going to be a resource hogger then a lot of lowend users will be disappointed, but if it runs ok with an upgrade & a large enough crowd with decent rigs fly it ill join them and fly bob as well as il2fb pf.I don€t know what it€ll do for long term popularity & sales of the sim if demands an upgrade from the majority of users though.

joeap
01-25-2005, 07:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
Than take a look on the online servers.. how many fyl pto and on the others: how many missions are from pto?

But thats not the point here.
If youre one of the guys spending more mony and more time in your old car when you can have a newer for the same price... alright do it ;-) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Again like another person on this thread you ignore offliners, there are plenty who play PTO. Many like myself play both PTO/ETO very happily.

LuckyBoy1
01-25-2005, 10:47 PM
Well, offline or online if BoB needs more out of our computers, yes, some of us... a very few of us will have the ability to run it well. I read an article in the Wall Street Journal where it said the average home PC in the states still has about this...

1.8 GHz Pentium IV with 400 MHz front side buss and 256 KB of L2 cache.

A 64 MB video card and a great deal of them with onboard video.

Onboard sound.

40 GB hard drive with only 2 MB of cache.

256 MB of RAM.


How soon we forget when we start getting to the point where we can build our own rigs. We are the few amounst the few who even play flight sim games. Even the fastest of the AMD 64's won't do pixel shader 3.0 in this game with any decent frame rates. 1C: needs to wise up and stop bulkding games that only can be played on thge average computer 7-10 years after its initial release.

Chivas
01-26-2005, 12:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuckyBoy1:
Well, offline or online if BoB needs more out of our computers, yes, some of us... a very few of us will have the ability to run it well. I read an article in the Wall Street Journal where it said the average home PC in the states still has about this...

1.8 GHz Pentium IV with 400 MHz front side buss and 256 KB of L2 cache.

A 64 MB video card and a great deal of them with onboard video.

Onboard sound.

40 GB hard drive with only 2 MB of cache.

256 MB of RAM.


How soon we forget when we start getting to the point where we can build our own rigs. We are the few amounst the few who even play flight sim games. Even the fastest of the AMD 64's won't do pixel shader 3.0 in this game with any decent frame rates. 1C: needs to wise up and stop bulkding games that only can be played on thge average computer 7-10 years after its initial release. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whow 7-10 years. Are people still playing 10 year old games.

Luckily I can run Perfect settings with water 3 and have average frame rates in the seventies. But if I had an older setup the game is still very playable by lowering the settings in the Hardware Setup page.

I find Maddox games very scalable, and Oleg said if you can run FB with perfect settings you will be able to run BOB.

By the time BOB comes out most of us will be able to upgrade if need be. Time marches on. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LuckyBoy1
01-26-2005, 01:00 AM
I love these B.S. claims of 70 frames per second in prefect 3.0. Joe at www.magnum-pc.com (http://www.magnum-pc.com) didn't get those rates on his FX powered 939 pin 64 with an Ultra card running... and that was with the eye candy turned down. Scalable?... yes, that is great to a point, but when it comes to online gaming at least, the loss of eye candy means a loss of competitive advantage. After all, those who see first kill first, especially when playing full rediculous settings. Man, you gotta work on those lies!

Maple_Tiger
01-26-2005, 04:57 AM
I get an average of 50 FPS using water = 3. That is with no AA and AF, 1024 by 768 resolution.

If Chivas has a 64 bit CPU with 1MB of catch compared to my 3000 AMD XP with only 333mhz FSB. I think he very well could get an average of about 70 FPS without using AA and AF.

However, if I'm ground pounding, the FPS takes a big hit. Proubly due to my CPU lol.

IAFS_Painter
01-26-2005, 07:02 AM
In general I'm in agreement with LB and Bearcat here.

I'm baulking at the cost of getting my rig upto full FB standard (OK, it does handle FB/PF right nowhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif).
I anticipate that moving up to BoB will require a major HW upgrade - which, frankly, may put the game out of my pocket.

Chivas
01-26-2005, 11:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuckyBoy1:
I love these B.S. claims of 70 frames per second in prefect 3.0. Joe at http://www.magnum-pc.com didn't get those rates on his FX powered 939 pin 64 with an Ultra card running... and that was with the eye candy turned down. Scalable?... yes, that is great to a point, but when it comes to online gaming at least, the loss of eye candy means a loss of competitive advantage. After all, those who see first kill first, especially when playing full rediculous settings. Man, you gotta work on those lies! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AMD64 3800+ oc 2.5
Nvidia 6800GT OC
2 gig ram
1024X768 edited to add this
Water=3
Perfect settings
AA- 2XQ
AF- OFF
VSnc- OFF

BlackDeath Track AV-46 HIGH 66

Normal flying on and off line I can easily average 70-80 even in Warclouds with 40+ on-line.
It can drop low with multiply explosions going off, but I'm not a ground pounder so it never happens. It did have stutters in big furbals with AF turned on but disabled it was smooth as glass.

I won't bother asking for an apology. lol

LuckyBoy1
01-26-2005, 12:03 PM
And who wants to run this game with all the eye candy stripped off and dummied down? Get real frame counters!

Chivas
01-26-2005, 12:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuckyBoy1:
And who wants to run this game with all the eye candy stripped off and dummied down? Get real frame counters! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eyecandy stripped off and dummied down????

I have everything maxed out in the Video Modes with Perfect mode and Detailed clouds etc.
Water=3 in the conf ini

With 2XQ I have no jaggies

I don't see much difference with AF maxed on or off.

With a 22" MultiSync FP2141 SB @100hz the game is beautiful.

I would send a screenshot if I took the time to find out how, but you would just find a way to Dis that to.

LuckyBoy1
01-26-2005, 01:43 PM
I don't see much difference with AF maxed on or off...


Shows the limitation of the card, not its capabilities.

Screen shots don't show real world frame rates... even with the counter going. All you have to do is let the like Black Death track loop around a ctime or two with the counter going and you'd have whatever frame rate you want.

Chivas
01-26-2005, 03:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuckyBoy1:
I don't see much difference with AF maxed on or off...


Shows the limitation of the card, not its capabilities.

Screen shots don't show real world frame rates... even with the counter going. All you have to do is let the like Black Death track loop around a ctime or two with the counter going and you'd have whatever frame rate you want. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


"Shows the limitation of the card, not its capabilities."

LMAO...Maybe there is a card that displays AF better but not many. I just don't see that much difference.

The one setting that really brings FB to life is the Digital Vibrance setting. This is one reason I upgraded to the Nvidia card over the ATI card, other than water=3. Although both are great cards.

Try going into the Color Correction and setting Digital Vibrance to Medium, then change to advanced mode from standard mode in Color profile and pull the center spot down and to the right with your mouse. Adjust to taste. It sharpens all your colors...very nice effect.

LuckyBoy1
01-27-2005, 05:29 AM
Bottom line for me is that those who have access and have tries both the new nVidia cards and the ATI cards keep the ATI cards.

But back to the subject at hand. Sure, keep doing the BoB thing, but also keep doing the IL-2 thing. I will pay for more!

Dutchfalcon46
01-27-2005, 07:03 AM
Isn't it possible that once BOB is out with the New engine we could have a remake of FB and PF.
maybe with some extra features but uptodate with graphics, etc. I realy love the Eastern Front an d would like to play it for years to come alittle bit flyable airplanes would be nice though. For PF is anice game but the flying time over the water where nothing happens is in my opinion too long.

Maple_Tiger
01-27-2005, 07:23 AM
Yes, Digital Vibrance is nice. I noticed I can go from 50 FPS to like 10 or something when ground pounding. It slows right down.

BigganD
01-27-2005, 04:30 PM
More work on BoB! il2 is all ready old, and he wont get any new customers only il2 fans.

Maple_Tiger
01-31-2005, 07:28 AM
I would pay 5 bucks for a flyable C-47 with 3, gunner, gatling guns. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Maple_Tiger
01-31-2005, 07:32 AM
I was snooping around in the Confin thingy and noticed that effects was set to 2.lol

Huxley_S
02-01-2005, 08:01 AM
After all these years working on the IL2 series, the 1C team must now know exactly how to make a combat flight sim that makes the IL2 series seem old and decrepid.

Sure the BoB is going to be demanding on even the highest spec machines at full graphics settings, but you can bet that if you can run IL2/FB at a reasonably high graphics setting that you will be able to get at least the same quality and performance out of BoB and there's no reason why the Theatres you love from the previous titles can't be incuded also.

My expectations of BoB are

1. Vastly improved presentation and interface.
2. A new mission builder that allows far more flexibility and ease of use.
3. Flight models that are designed from the bottom up to accomodate single and multi engined a/c.
4. Completely new and improved AI.
5. Ability to move head position in the cockpit.
6. A more varied, detailed and interesting offline campaign mode.

There should be no reason at all why all the maps from IL2/FB could not be imported into the game. Only the landscape detail, textures and ground objects would need to be redone.

It seems to me that most of the hard work for BoB has been done already in the IL2 series, i.e. collecting all the real world data on flight models, weapon loadouts, ammo dispersion, map design etc etc. All this can be reused by the 1C team as often as they like. I'm sure that with at least some of the external a/c models it is possible to rework them with relatively little effort to use them in BoB.

The real challenge for Oleg and the 1C team is to take all the information they have amassed and all the experience they have gained and develop the ultimate air combat simulator. I'm sure they'll do it too!

Agamemnon22
02-01-2005, 10:21 AM
You know, the longer the line of add-ons the less customers you get at each succesive add-on, especially in a situation like this where you need all previous add-ons to play the next one.
Think about it, add-ons don't bring new people into the game, they're targeted at people who already play it. Some of those may choose not to buy the next add-on thus excluding themselves from the following one. How many people bought AEP? I think its safe to say 99%. How many bought PF? not everyone, there are people on this board without it. So it goes...

Therefore, once in a while a developer needs to clear the slate with a new stand-alone title.

DONB3397
02-01-2005, 12:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Agamemnon22:
You know, the longer the line of add-ons the less customers you get at each succesive add-on, especially in a situation like this where you need all previous add-ons to play the next one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You may be right. But this sim (IL2+AEP+PF) might represent a new model.

With previous WWII sims (Janes, CFS, etc.) there were no serious upgrades. When a new program in the genre hit the market, only hardcore simmers went back to these. But 1C has continued to add value to the IL2 series with patches and upgrades. The online community may be the largest of any flight sim. Just as important are the skinners, mission-builders, even movie makers...who have heavy commitments and personal (creative) investments in the sim. Are we likely to leave these completely? Probably not.

From a sales standpoint, interest will certainly decline and eventually may disappear. But there are still sales to be made with the hardcore, committed simmers, I think.

Yes, I'll buy BoB the day it arrives. But I would also lay out money for IL2+AEP+PF upgrades that expanded the maps, missions and planesets. And it looks like I'm not the only one.

Agamemnon22
02-01-2005, 03:09 PM
We wouldn't leave the Il2 community with the skinners, movie makers, modders, etc. They would all (or and overwhelming majority) migrate to BoB. We wouldn't be losing people, but picking up some new fans who may later go back and see what this Il2 thing was all about.

The issue I see though, is the choice of theater. The reason for Il2's original success was the eastern front. It was something new, something noone's done before. BoB has been done, and is even done (in essence) in Il2, since you have a lot of the planes from the battle. You have the Emils and the Hurris, there wont be much new in flying them against each other in a different game. If there's no story mode, the map matters very little, IMO. So, personally, I'm not crazy about the choice of theater, WWI maybe a much more attractive setting. Korea to an extent. But, anyway, I'm sure the folks from across the pond will disagreehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LuckyBoy1
02-01-2005, 03:41 PM
You Hostess Ho-Ho's are still assuming two things...

1) That it is a BoB or IL-2 thing and that simply is NOT the case. BoB will be BoB when it gets here and not a moment before even if work continues on IL-2.

2) That your computer and everyone elses will run the BoB code as well or better than it does IL-2 and that as a result, sales will be all rosie with BoB. You've already said... and who knows what is true... that BoB will have this extra eye candy and that extra eye candy. Ok, a more efficient code, but a more efficient codse will only go so far!

Agamemnon22
02-01-2005, 05:31 PM
You're overestimating BoB's requirements. I work on games that are slated for 2006-2007 release, and they run fine on my machine. Granted it's powerful for todays standards but its not that far out of reach. Just a AMD64 3000+ and a GF6800. Tons of people have systems like this, and by BoB's release it'll be standard. That system you described as average in the US at the moment was top of the line say... 2 years ago? Maybe a bit more?

Also, no developer would make something that doesn't run on current hardware. That's commercial suicide http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LuckyBoy1
02-01-2005, 07:04 PM
Oh... you mean a game like... Forgotten Battles?!

Look, from the officially released info and if you think this won't bog down what you've got now, you are whistling in the wind...

Even more precise flight model €" Based on the Forgotten Battles FM development with additional modules of precise calculations.

New weather effects (non-constant on the map area) - New €œsky€, especially at altitude, clouds, rain, etc that will look and works better than in FB.

New 3D engine - highly detailed objects and ground, including coastal lines and sea. Expandable with add-ons for new theatres.

Air-stream effects - When flying directly behind another aircraft, there will be a noticeable realistic prop-wash effect.


Enjoy choking on all that new eye candy and efects because my wallet and my spirit is tired of this chase!

LuckyBoy1
02-01-2005, 07:12 PM
Here's more... because as we all know, the devil's in the details!...

Maddox: In addition to making the textures considerably nicer, we will also be improving the detailing of the models greatly, including the ground models. The tanks/AA guns etc. will have detailing above that found in recent land warfare simulations. The aircraft will be thousands of polygons ahead of what is currently available.

In addition, we plan immense improvements in sky, cloud and land environments - after all, you spend more time looking at those than at your aircraft.

Agamemnon22
02-01-2005, 09:50 PM
FB ran fine on an average computer at the time of its release. Not at full settings, obviously. On average settings. Average computer, average settings, what can ya do...

I don't expect to run BoB at full detail with every option on my current rig, of course not. But from what you listed nothing really scares me. Would like to see some more specific info, which I think you should wait for as well before giving into this panic. Like I said, I work with things you will not see for at least a year, I know what I'm talking about, trust mehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Noone's choking on anything. Would you prefer we just stop progress altogether? I guess we don't really need more precise FM's...

LuckyBoy1
02-01-2005, 10:09 PM
The average home PC at the time of FB's release was somewhere around a Pentium III with 128 MB of RAM and a 32 MB video card and onboard sound. Medium settings on that?

How soon we forget! If Oleg holds to history, he will punch the code so the medium setting people will have to have a Prescott 3.2, an Audigy or NForce sound, a 16 pixel pipeline video card and a Gig of RAM. If you think by the end of next year this will even come close to representing the average PC out there, then I'd safely say you live in a "Shoots & Ladders" game kinda world because that's just not reality.

I'm not saying I don't want the game. I'm just saying that the more you overtake the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the works.

Let's try not to whine for everything and more in the next generation code.

LuckyBoy1
02-01-2005, 10:12 PM
And if you think I'm going to go from smooth as silk and no jaggies to choppy, short and fuzzy and pay for the trip, think again! I'll simply wait until I've got the rig to run it the way I'm used to running this game now.

LEXX_Luthor
02-01-2005, 10:17 PM
Right on Aggy, you pretty much back up my experience with FB. I started playing FB 1.0 with...

Athalon 1700+
256MB 133MHz SDRAM
Trident Blade integrated motherboard video http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

All I needed was a cheap ATI~9200 upgrade last year to play full Excellent settings at 1152x864x32, and the giant Finland map ran okay with 256MB SDRAM (I keep my Windows clean), once it loaded of course--the load time is why I never played Finland map with my old machine.

Now running...

Semperon 3100+ (basically, Athalon64 2800+)
1GiG DDR
ATI~9200

Agamemnon22
02-02-2005, 12:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuckyBoy1:
The average home PC at the time of FB's release was somewhere around a Pentium III with 128 MB of RAM and a 32 MB video card and onboard sound. Medium settings on that?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And FB seems to have caught on http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
You also gotta consider we're talking about an average gaming pc, not glorified typewriters. Noone buys serious games for those http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Either way I'm not trying to bury FB or anything like that. Like someone said, a 3rd party could take over further FB additions. I'm just seeing a lot of this "OMG I have to buy a supercomputer to play BoB when it comes out, so I think I'll pass" and its entirely baseless.

G'night

LEXX_Luthor
02-02-2005, 07:08 AM
Aggy:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>lot of this "OMG I have to buy a supercomputer to play BoB when it comes out, so I think I'll pass" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The opposite Xtreme are some here who say they want to rush out to upgrade for BoB right now.

Socket754 Semperon Users are so much more...mmm...psycho balanced. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Maybe by BoB we will have multiple monitors to play Pilot, Gunner, and Radio Man all at one time. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Obi_Kwiet
02-02-2005, 02:50 PM
We need to move on to a new engine. I will miss the aircraft library, but we gotta move on some time. I think the BoB engine will be allot more expandable, as it is being built with expandability in mind, and Il2 wasn't.

BTW the B-29 is done and waiting to be put ingame.
It will be here soon.

Agamemnon22
02-02-2005, 05:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Maybe by BoB we will have multiple monitors to play Pilot, Gunner, and Radio Man all at one time. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Gonna need 5 monitors, Radioman has 3 guns to fire!

Chivas
02-02-2005, 06:21 PM
IMHO when most simmers see and play BOB their time flying FB/PF will dry up. Even if they have to fly BOB with reduced settings. Time will tell, but I believe BOB will improve on FB in every aspect. We've all migrated from other great flight sims that required lesser systems, and upgrade our system to run FB, so I don't see that trend changing in the future.

Bearcat99
02-03-2005, 06:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuckyBoy1:
I love these B.S. claims of 70 frames per second in prefect 3.0. Joe at http://www.magnum-pc.com didn't get those rates on his FX powered 939 pin 64 with an Ultra card running... and that was with the eye candy turned down. Scalable?... yes, that is great to a point, but when it comes to online gaming at least, the loss of eye candy means a loss of competitive advantage. After all, those who see first kill first, especially when playing full rediculous settings. Man, you gotta work on those lies! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can get 70fps on perfect water=3..... just not in the Pacific..LOL... What I would love to se in BoB is a sim that at the level equivalent to excellent here a sim that looks like perfect and is less taxing than perfect now. Id like to see it with similar scalable geaphics.. keep in mind that in addition to the excellent,perfect etc settings.... with the conf.ini settings the visual scalability becomes really versatile.. I mean.... there are 3 levels of perfect water!! I think this sim will be hot for a long time.... I am thinking also that the BoB engine will not be too dissimilar from this one... just that the differences in the engine will have more to do with the layering of the models themselves and the rendering of maps etc... I think that graphically it will more likely be similar to this.. just like FB is similar but not quite...if you look at it.. the same as IL2...... from a sheer looks standpoint. Can you imagine having a graphics engine where if you have hole in your side you can see the pilost legs moving.... or discernable pieces falling off?

JG7_Rall
02-03-2005, 10:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuckyBoy1:
The average home PC at the time of FB's release was somewhere around a Pentium III with 128 MB of RAM and a 32 MB video card and onboard sound. Medium settings on that?

How soon we forget! If Oleg holds to history, he will punch the code so the medium setting people will have to have a Prescott 3.2, an Audigy or NForce sound, a 16 pixel pipeline video card and a Gig of RAM. If you think by the end of next year this will even come close to representing the average PC out there, then I'd safely say you live in a "Shoots & Ladders" game kinda world because that's just not reality.

I'm not saying I don't want the game. I'm just saying that the more you overtake the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the works.

Let's try not to whine for everything and more in the next generation code. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Guess what, gamers don't have the "average" pc. The average pc includes people who use their computers soley for things like MS word and for school and buisness purposes, which don't require state of the art technology like gaming computers do. There are many more ppl who have those types of computers than gaming computers.

Having said that, I'm with bearcat on this one. IL2 FB AEP PF is great, but it's got its limitations. It's still got room to be built on, but BoB is worth having to possibly upgrade my rig IMO. If you don't want to, fine. No one is forcing you to buy the game. I don't see why you're complaining that Oleg is creating a new game that you might not be able to run. Would you rather that no one be able to play the game just because you'd rather more IL2 addons? More Il2 addons means a later release date for BoB, and some of us are really excited for BoB. If you can't afford to upgrade your computer to at least run BoB on minimal settings, then either get a job or work some overtime. Judging by your 5000+ posts, you've got a lot of free time and it wont take very long to save up for a new rig if you convert some of that free time into some more productive work. Maybe you've got a wife and kids to feed, I dunno, sorry if I'm falsely assuming on this.

Anyway, BoB's the way to go IMO. One last big patch for PF (torpedo's, new maps that are WIP, planes that were submitted long ago, etc) and then either drop IL2 or give it to a reliable 3rd party to work on, then drive towards completing BoB.

Obi_Kwiet
02-03-2005, 11:15 AM
People! It will be designed with the later hardware in mind, but even on reduced settings it will look alot better and play alot smoother than FB does now. Clam down, and quit whining about a game that you haven't even seen a screenshot of yet.

piloteer81
02-07-2005, 04:42 PM
I have every faith in olegs team on this one. From the thousands of rants and raves on these forums I think they have a pretty good idea of what to do to please the majority, but there will always be some that reject what they do.

Of course they are going to be aiming the game at DirectX 9 graphics cards, so anyone with less than a radeon 9800 pro, or similar Geforce fx card will be hard pushed to play BoB at any worthwhile settings. But this is the same accross the board. Doom 3, Halflife 2 etc etc, they all demand a lot, so why should Bob not be at the cutting edge of graphics? I think Oleg has done a great job at keeping both sides happy, but you have to appreciate that time has moved on from pentiumIII and geforce3 and 128mb of ram. You wouldn't expect to run half life 2 with a spec like this so why expect to run the best combat flight sim that is in the pipeline and hasn't even been released yet?



This in my view is where Microsoft have fallen short with CFS and FS. Graphics wise, IL2 wiped the floor with anything Microsoft came up with, although FS2004 did show some potential, especially with aircaft modelling and detail. FB/PF already have the best graphics going, but I'm sure they will make tweaks to make them look and run much better, especially on high end PC's.

One of the main system drains is the number of aircraft in any one game. At the moment this is as default, a pretty low number and clearly not very realistic. Any more than 30 or 40 planes, add a bit of smoke and water effects, and even high end systems will struggle in most scenes. What BoB has promissed is a hole new engine both in terms of graphics and AI, as well as being able to allow much larger numbers of aircraft to appear in each mission.

In the battles over London, there were often over 100 aircraft so the new engine should be capable of this, and more, especially if they even think about portreying US daylight bomber raids and RAf bomber raids for that matter.