PDA

View Full Version : asking again...please enable no-cockpits for AI types



Pages : [1] 2

Daiichidoku
04-26-2007, 09:35 AM
before there is absolutely NO more development on il2

PLEASE enable AI types to be flyable with generic cockpits, or "related" pits that are "close"

failing that, if its too much work...then how about flyable AI types that work with "wonder woman" views?

this cant be asking a lot, and would only increase the available types to players to enjoy

what say you?

Daiichidoku
04-26-2007, 09:35 AM
before there is absolutely NO more development on il2

PLEASE enable AI types to be flyable with generic cockpits, or "related" pits that are "close"

failing that, if its too much work...then how about flyable AI types that work with "wonder woman" views?

this cant be asking a lot, and would only increase the available types to players to enjoy

what say you?

xTHRUDx
04-26-2007, 10:36 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

DKoor
04-26-2007, 10:52 AM
Out of all threads I approved in my life, this one I approve the most.

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

Pollack2006
04-26-2007, 11:01 AM
I say no.

There are more than enough flyables and I don't want some half-arsed mongrel aircraft with either simplified FM/DM or generic cockpits polluting the game.

stalkervision
04-26-2007, 11:23 AM
ahh cartoon charactors are always complaining about something..blah blahh this and blah blahh that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

AKA_TAGERT
04-26-2007, 12:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
before there is absolutely NO more development on il2

PLEASE enable AI types to be flyable with generic cockpits, or "related" pits that are "close"

failing that, if its too much work...then how about flyable AI types that work with "wonder woman" views?

this cant be asking a lot, and would only increase the available types to players to enjoy

what say you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100,000,000,000,000,000.00%

For all the bombers and torp planes! Fighters, no.

Col._King
04-26-2007, 01:16 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

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

Daiichidoku
04-26-2007, 01:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pollack2006:
I say no.

There are more than enough flyables and I don't want some half-arsed mongrel aircraft with either simplified FM/DM or generic cockpits polluting the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

if you dont fly them, your delicate sensiblilties will not be upset, Nancy (TMtagert)
guess you just dont see the value in being able to intercpet Emilys or Dianhs or me 323 Gigants online...or even seeing the value in having french flyables, so we can do battle of france scenarios, eh?

besides, if its implemented for no-cockpit/wonderwoman...one would never see a pit, half-assed or not

guess you jsut didnt think that far though, didja?

DKoor
04-26-2007, 04:26 PM
To all you naysayers: Megile's ceiling cat proclaimed all of your posts null and void http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Pollack2006
04-26-2007, 04:47 PM
My decision is final.

LEXX_Luthor
04-26-2007, 05:15 PM
Yes! Oleg's paying customers can use generic cockpits if they wish to, and they may not use generic cockpits if they don't want to.

JG54_Lukas
04-26-2007, 08:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pollack2006:
I say no.

There are more than enough flyables and I don't want some half-arsed mongrel aircraft with either simplified FM/DM or generic cockpits polluting the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What he said.

TC_Stele
04-27-2007, 01:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG54_Lukas:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pollack2006:
I say no.

There are more than enough flyables and I don't want some half-arsed mongrel aircraft with either simplified FM/DM or generic cockpits polluting the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What he said. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That should be up to the server administrator to decide. If you don't like it, just leave the server, besides the good servers would know what not to put in based on the FM/DMs out there.

Daiichidoku
04-27-2007, 06:26 AM
guess i can understand a dissenter-they dont actually have to see a generic cockpit....and it doesnt matter if theyres even NO cockpit to look at...just knowing its there is enough to turn thier delicate stomachs

and of course, FM accuracy is THE benchmark of this game...look at the La7...or P 38...et al


take the hair out, guys, its gonna lead to an infection

Bearcat99
04-27-2007, 06:29 AM
It sounds good but how would the no cockpit option work in a server with locked pits? Just asking.....

Daiichidoku
04-27-2007, 08:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
It sounds good but how would the no cockpit option work in a server with locked pits? Just asking..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well, Bearcat....i would HOPE that they would add generic pits..or a "related" pit (B25J pit for B25H, N1K1a pit for N1K1, Betty pit for Emily, Val pit for Judy, for examples))
this would address it for FR users

of course, this would present SOME amount of work to do

that is why i also suggest enabling them with wonderwoman views, failing the first option

this way, it should be even easier to implement then generic/"related" pits....sadly though, it would be of no benefit to FR guyshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

but even if only that, FR will lose nothing...and arcaders will gain SO many more planes, and so many more options for historic scenarios (battel of ffrance anyone? attack JP oil refineries with avengers? black cat patrols in PBYs?)

this is especially important, given that commercially, IL2 is dead, and they will not squeeze any more life outta it...

make this one nice parting gift for the game we all love, and love to hatehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
04-27-2007, 02:43 PM
This has been suggested to Oleg many times and every time he said no. Damn shame too.

new-fherathras
04-28-2007, 04:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pollack2006:
I say no.

There are more than enough flyables and I don't want some half-arsed mongrel aircraft with either simplified FM/DM or generic cockpits polluting the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



I agree.

kh0503
04-28-2007, 04:45 AM
(cough) Secret Weapons Over Normandy (cough)

TooCooL34
04-28-2007, 04:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pollack2006:
I say no.

There are more than enough flyables and I don't want some half-arsed mongrel aircraft with either simplified FM/DM or generic cockpits polluting the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Saburo_Sakai_
04-28-2007, 05:47 AM
THIS IS FANTASTIC IDEA.FULLY APROVE

Monguse
04-28-2007, 11:32 AM
I would welcome the idea of providing some sort of generic bomber cockpit and gunners position. The B25 top turret could be recycled to fit the B24 and B17, this also goes for the tail turret for the B17 and window gunner positions for the B24 and B17. The ball turret on the B17 and the B24 are a different matter and I'm sure something could be done. The only glitch would be the Emerson turrets on the B24. But if its generic so be it.

The bombardier station for both the B24 and B17 could be borrowed from the B25.

Allowing generic cockpits for the rest of the aircraft especially the bombers would definitely in increase off-line and on-line campaigns.

I for one would welcome generics for all the AI with hopefully some additional tweaking for their FM and DM.

Mega Missions (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/5041098355/p/2)

Nimits
04-28-2007, 09:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It sounds good but how would the no cockpit option work in a server with locked pits? Just asking..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe it wouldn't; but it would still be a good idea for more relaxed realism servers.

Comrade_Sasha
04-30-2007, 07:05 AM
Of course, all of this *could* be passed on to the gaming community IF a SDK (Software Developer's Kit) were issued for individual use. I play Red Orchestra- ground warfare, Eastern Front- and the publishers provide us with an SDK so that those interested enough can 'get into' the vehicle files and alter them to provide for different weapons variants and performance (such as tweaking the numbers to make tank 'X' run at historical speeds or give tank 'Y' a heavier gun to reflect a later model, or give tank 'Z' some armor skirts). The RO community has come up with some excellent variants based on the original models provided by the game publishers, and it hasn't hurt the retail sales of the game at all.

So, all we are really asking for is- if the developers aren't going to include all those other wonderful aircraft and variants- is to be given the tools to do it ourselves. I, for one, would love to be able to recreate the Doolittle mission to Tokyo in accurate aircraft instead of subbing a B-25J which is far too heavily armed for the period. I'd love to be able to fly a PBY, or a B-17 (models already available, bt interiors not done, nor flyable at present) or even be able to create a Bachem 'Natter' for grins and giggles.

If the IL-2 series has reached it's peak and will no longer be added to, PLEASE give us the tools to keep it going past its shelf life- we love the game and want nothing more than to make it 'our own' once ongoing development is over with.

csThor
04-30-2007, 07:16 AM
You're missing the breaking point of your idea, Comrade_Sasha:

Red Orchestra was designed with user modding in mind right from the start. The basic game engine allows this. The basic Il-2 engine was never meant to be accessed by persons outside of Maddox Games and so the engine was not designed with modification in mind. So there's no SDK because it was never thought of.
Secondly a first person shooter, even one with some relative realism as RO, is a much different beast than a flight simulation. Look at the FM/DM wars in the past and the present and I'll tell you that "modding" is a can of worms of hitherto unknown dimensions. There are just too many self-proclaimed experts on many matters - the "community" would simply explode. Thanks, I'll pass.

AKA_TAGERT
04-30-2007, 07:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Comrade_Sasha:
Of course, all of this *could* be passed on to the gaming community IF a SDK (Software Developer's Kit) were issued for individual use. I play Red Orchestra- ground warfare, Eastern Front- and the publishers provide us with an SDK so that those interested enough can 'get into' the vehicle files and alter them to provide for different weapons variants and performance (such as tweaking the numbers to make tank 'X' run at historical speeds or give tank 'Y' a heavier gun to reflect a later model, or give tank 'Z' some armor skirts). The RO community has come up with some excellent variants based on the original models provided by the game publishers, and it hasn't hurt the retail sales of the game at all.

So, all we are really asking for is- if the developers aren't going to include all those other wonderful aircraft and variants- is to be given the tools to do it ourselves. I, for one, would love to be able to recreate the Doolittle mission to Tokyo in accurate aircraft instead of subbing a B-25J which is far too heavily armed for the period. I'd love to be able to fly a PBY, or a B-17 (models already available, bt interiors not done, nor flyable at present) or even be able to create a Bachem 'Natter' for grins and giggles.

If the IL-2 series has reached it's peak and will no longer be added to, PLEASE give us the tools to keep it going past its shelf life- we love the game and want nothing more than to make it 'our own' once ongoing development is over with. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I hope and pray that Oleg never releases anything that allows anyone to change anything

AKA_TAGERT
04-30-2007, 07:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
You're missing the breaking point of your idea, Comrade_Sasha:

Red Orchestra was designed with user modding in mind right from the start. The basic game engine allows this. The basic Il-2 engine was never meant to be accessed by persons outside of Maddox Games and so the engine was not designed with modification in mind. So there's no SDK because it was never thought of.
Secondly a first person shooter, even one with some relative realism as RO, is a much different beast than a flight simulation. Look at the FM/DM wars in the past and the present and I'll tell you that "modding" is a can of worms of hitherto unknown dimensions. There are just too many self-proclaimed experts on many matters - the "community" would simply explode. Thanks, I'll pass. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

jasonbirder
05-01-2007, 07:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I hope and pray that Oleg never releases anything that allows anyone to change anything </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why???
Surely people can see that fantastic work community modding has doen with games like F4 Falcon with the Superpak and Freefalcon Mods, F/A18 and the Team Superhornet Mods or casting the net wider...what people have done with Silent Hunter 3 and Enemy Engaged Apache Havoc...

Why do people still insist on claiming that allowing community modification of this game would be the end of the world...

Most games where a serious community led modding programme has gone forward have been significantly enhanced...

Yet why when anyone suggests it for Il2 do people immediately cry like Chicken Little that "The Sky is Falling In" ???

AKA_TAGERT
05-01-2007, 07:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
Why??? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Because (see following)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
Surely people can see that fantastic work community modding has doen with games like F4 Falcon with the Superpak and Freefalcon Mods, F/A18 and the Team Superhornet Mods or casting the net wider...what people have done with Silent Hunter 3 and Enemy Engaged Apache Havoc... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Fantastic for OFFLINE play.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
Why do people still insist on claiming that allowing community modification of this game would be the end of the world... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not the world, just the ONLINE world.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
Most games where a serious community led modding programme has gone forward have been significantly enhanced... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
For OFFLINE play, but history has shown that it 'kills' ONLINE play. The CFS series is a perfect flight sim example. By 'kill' there is two ways to do it..

1) Different versions

Thus you don't know if the other guy is cheating by tweaking his P-51D FM to fly like a F-15!

But, lets assume that you could come up with a method to insure that everyone is using the same FM tweak/mod/cheat that you are using. Which brings us to case 2

2) Split the allready small comunity.

In that it would result multiple MOD versions being used ONLINE. And the problem with that is the flight sim community is not big enough to support all multiple versions. Never has been, and most likly never will be. I mean think about it.. IL2 is sold world wide and the most people I have seen in HL is about a thousand spread out over many servers, but on average HL has about 400 people in it. Do you know what percentage 400 people is relitive to the number of people there are in the world? Or do you know what percentage 400 people is relitive to the number of people playing games ONLINE? Or do you know what percentage 400 people is relitive to the number of people that bought IL2? In all three cases I is less than 1 percent! (read definition of a small comunity)

As a mater of fact it can barely support options within one version. For example, just with the options we have now it causes a split in the community ONLINE. Where half of the people play in the server that has 'No Cockpit' enabled and half play in the servers with 'No Cockpit' disabled. Which results in about 4 servers with about 20 to 30 people each. Instead of one server with 100 people in it.

If I had my choice, ONLINE play would be full real and those 'dumb it down' options would only be able to be used for OFFLINE play.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
Yet why when anyone suggests it for Il2 do people immediately cry like Chicken Little that "The Sky is Falling In" ??? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Because of the effect it has had on other flight sims. I would be all for an SDK that allowed 3rd party maps, and 3rd party things to put on maps.. vehicles, buildings, etc. But I would not want an SDK that allowed any 3rd party aircraft! Unless they could 'only' be used OFFLINE!

That is to say, if you want to make yourself a P-51D with the FM of a F-15 to use OFFLINE to pwon your AI.. Knock yourself out! But don't allow anything like that ONLINE.

Capt.LoneRanger
05-01-2007, 08:08 AM
As said before, the FM and DM of those A/C is very much simplified, so I disagree with that.

Offline it may be fun, sure, but as with LOMACs replacements models, it's rather for screenshots or flying with externals on, as the flight-modell and avionics are pretty silly.

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

I'd rather like Oleg and his team get BoB ready and have addons for multi-engined bombers, then.

jasonbirder
05-01-2007, 08:34 AM
Ah the age old argument...
It didn't work with CFS2 so it won't work...FULL STOP...

When there is one example of chaos...and multiple examples of success i'm inclined to believe that success is more likely than failure...
For every CFS2 problem...there is a Falcon4 or Team SuperHornet Success

As for them only working for OFFLINE or being fantastic for OFFLINE play...I used to fly Falcon 4.0 online far more than I ever do FB/AEP/PF and we never had any problems at all...we just made sure that whoever we were flying with was patched to the same version and away we went (and don't talk about complexity/community spilts...The Falcon 4.0 dance was famous for its intricacy!) Why on earth would it be that only OFFLINE fliers desire a more realistic, complex, varied and immersive game...surely thats of equal interest to ONLINE fliers too...Or wouldn't extra maps, realistic loadouts, new flyables etc etc be of any interest to ONLINERS?

Why insist that allowing community Mods would be the death of ONLINE flying...to fly online know on hyperlobby requires knowing what the current version is, downloading it and patching to that level...and will in all probabilty involve another patch cycle (to 4.09m) in the near future...if that doesn't fragment the community...why would having an accepted and well supported community mod to add on top of that be any different?

I'll take your word that modding in CFS2 killed the game (as it was never a game I played) but it certainly never killed online Falcon 4.0 play and there is still a thriving online F/A18 community all flying with the TeamSuperHornet mods...so for every negative, there is a positive...besides it would be relatively easy to ensure different versions were incompatible...thereby preventting any so called online cheating...
I personally find it extremely hard to believe that the online community is packed with people itching to "cheat" - is it really true that if there were a way to "break the system" everbody would suddenly be swooping round in UFOs...if thats the case perhaps the problem does not lie with people wanting to open the game up to third party modification...but within the online community itself...

Why is there an assumption that allowing third party modifications is "dumbing down" surely the whole point is that it will do the opposite!
And why the implication that its the OFFLINE community that wants a dumbed down option...when you've already pointed out that the half the online fliers want Wonderwoman views, padlock & Map Icons...something that this offline flier wouldn't dream of using!

Daiichidoku
05-01-2007, 08:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
As said before, the FM and DM of those A/C is very much simplified, so I disagree with that.

Offline it may be fun, sure, but as with LOMACs replacements models, it's rather for screenshots or flying with externals on, as the flight-modell and avionics are pretty silly.

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

I'd rather like Oleg and his team get BoB ready and have addons for multi-engined bombers, then. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

so what?

the Lagg STILL has simple DM

do you refuse to fly in a server with Laggs in it?

besides, there are many planes that are so over or under modelled anyhow, adding a few simple FMs wont hurt (especially if they are restricted to bobmers only, for example)

AKA_TAGERT
05-01-2007, 08:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
Ah the age old argument...
It didn't work with CFS2 so it won't work...FULL STOP... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So what part of you can you can do what you want OFFLINE did you not understand?

Just don't kill the OFLINE community in the process!

Fly your P-51s with the F-15 FM to your hart's contend OFFLINE! Just don't allow it ONLINE and there will be no problems.

SAVVY?

As for the rest of your so called successful MODS.. ONLINE.. I would not call a group of 15 guys online a success. That based on my experience of flying flight sims online since 1992. Your mileage may vary.

As for CFS2 being just one example.

Hardly.

All three of the CFS games had the problem, thus three cases.

There are other examples, for a quick list, pop over to HL and look at all the sims that are supported and note the rooms are empty most of the time and even when they are active they are lucky to muster 20 people.

Is that you definition of success?

And those are the ones that you actually heard about. There are several other online sims that you ever even heard about because they were not even worth playing OFFLINE let alone ONLINE.

Capt.LoneRanger
05-01-2007, 08:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:


so what?

the Lagg STILL has simple DM

do you refuse to fly in a server with Laggs in it?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I do.

And beyond that, even the worst modelled flyable outclasses even the best FM/DM of an non-flyable plane for obvious reasons.

jasonbirder
05-01-2007, 09:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fly your F15 P51s as much as you want OFFLINE, just don't allow them ONLINE </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As i've said above http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The community mods i'm familiar with were as succesful ONLINE as OFFLINE...
As already confessed I have no experience of what happened with CFS2, but why would FB/AEP/PF necessarily have to follow that model (and that is a long time ago...) rather than other games where community modding has created a more realistic (and generally more complex and difficult to master) sim?
Why would only OFFLINE fliers be interested in more realistic weapons load outs...new maps, new ground objects, more realistic damage models and AI for Ships...realistic torpedo release perameters etc etc, surely thats of equal interest to OFFLINE and ONLINE fliers?
Why the obsession with modding being used to create enhanced FMs & DMs? Is the ONLINe community really full of people that want to go online in joke planes and win at any costs..regardless of the enjoyment and realism of the experience? If it is...and given the frequency with which this issue is brought up I can only assume there must be an element of truth in it...thats the fault of the ONLINE community...not people that desire having the game opened up...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fly your F15 P51s as much as you want OFFLINE </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Is this meant to imply that OFFLINE fliers are less commited to a realistic combat simulation experience? If, as you've already said half the ONLINERS are flying around using Wonderwoman View, Padlock & Map Icons - its a pretty strange accusation to make!

Daiichidoku
05-01-2007, 09:32 AM
Jasonbirder, TAGERT is correct

the only reason this game is not rife with punk-*** cheaters is keeping the source code closed

as much wealth to the game modders WOULD bring, it aint worth it if i have to deal with homing mk108 shells, invulerable zeros and ratas that fly at 33,000ft

Capt.LoneRanger
05-01-2007, 09:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
Is this meant to imply that OFFLINE fliers are less commited to a realistic combat simulation experience? If, as you've already said half the ONLINERS are flying around using Wonderwoman View, Padlock & Map Icons - its a pretty strange accusation to make! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Why? Even if it is correct, that half the players online fly with wonderwoman-view, which is not even true on a server with wonderwoman-view enabled btw., then how do you know, offline, this view isn't used even more?

That's like "Hey 1% of all PC-users are convicted for using an illegal Windows copy, that means everybody else has a legal copy."

jasonbirder
05-01-2007, 09:44 AM
So in essence...unlike the other Flights Sims I've experienced...where community modding has bought players a richer, more complex experience..in Il2 it would merely be used to create UFOs...
In other flight sims it has made life more difficult for the player...In Il2 it would be used to make life easier for the player.
In other flight sims it has created more difficult FMs, less powerful weapons, more dangerous AAA...in Il2 it would be used to produce the reverse...
Don't understand whats so different about this game prepared to the others I am familiar with (Falcon 4, Janes F/A18 and Dangerous Waters) and these are all games where community mods have gained wide use ONLINE as well as OFFLINE but if you guys tell me that all some ONLINERS want to do is cheat...I'll take your word for it...what a sheltered life I've led!!!

Monguse
05-01-2007, 10:19 AM
I have one simple question. How many flavors of Unix are there?

Hence the code base for IL2 should never ever be allowed to be modified other than the developer.

Getting back to the request at hand. I for one would still like the ability to have a generic cockpit for all AI aircraft or allow the floating camera in F8 and F2 (external chase and rotating external without padlock) only on AI.

Daiichidoku
05-01-2007, 11:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Monguse:
Getting back to the request at hand. I for one would still like the ability to have a generic cockpit for all AI aircraft or allow the floating camera in F8 and F2 (external chase and rotating external without padlock) only on AI. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

even this would do nicely, allow ppl in FR servers to be able to fly a bomber to decent effect from ext views, as they can now in arcade servers...but without any padlock

Capt.LoneRanger
05-01-2007, 12:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Monguse:
Getting back to the request at hand. I for one would still like the ability to have a generic cockpit for all AI aircraft or allow the floating camera in F8 and F2 (external chase and rotating external without padlock) only on AI. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

even this would do nicely, allow ppl in FR servers to be able to fly a bomber to decent effect from ext views, as they can now in arcade servers...but without any padlock </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


But it is allready possible to fly AI-planes with outside-views?! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Actually, these servers convinced me, that flying AI planes is no different from flying target drones.

AKA_TAGERT
05-01-2007, 12:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
As i've said above http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The community mods i'm familiar with were as succesful ONLINE as OFFLINE... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
As i've said above http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Based on my 15 years of experience of flying ONLINE.

3rd party MODS kill!

Which is exactally why IL2 ONLINE is by far the most popular no-pay ONLINE sim for 6 years running..

NO 3rd party MODS!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
As already confessed I have no experience of what happened with CFS2, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yet it does not stop you from making assumptions based on it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
but why would FB/AEP/PF necessarily have to follow that model (and that is a long time ago...) rather than other games where community modding has created a more realistic (and generally more complex and difficult to master) sim? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
As i've said above http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The model does not mater, either way will be bad for ONLINE community.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
Why would only OFFLINE fliers be interested in more realistic weapons load outs...new maps, new ground objects, more realistic damage models and AI for Ships...realistic torpedo release perameters etc etc, surely thats of equal interest to OFFLINE and ONLINE fliers? Why the obsession with modding being used to create enhanced FMs & DMs? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You don't even realize it.. But you just answered your own question. In that what may be MORE REALISTIC to you may not be to someone else. Sadly 99% of what is real is based on our perception and not any FACTS. Thus you get a room full of 10 people and allow them to MOD it to what they 'FEEL' is real and you will end up with 10 totally different versions.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
Is the ONLINe community really full of people that want to go online in joke planes and win at any costs..regardless of the enjoyment and realism of the experience? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You don't even realize it.. But you just answered your own question. In that what may be JOKE to you may not be to someone else. Sadly 99% of what is a joke is based on our perception and not any FACTS. Thus you get a room full of 10 people and allow them to MOD it to what they 'FEEL' is joke and you will end up with 10 totally different versions.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
If it is...and given the frequency with which this issue is brought up I can only assume there must be an element of truth in it... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well look at the bright side.. You got the whole ASSume part down to a tee!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
thats the fault of the ONLINE community...not people that desire having the game opened up... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dream on

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
Is this meant to imply that OFFLINE fliers are less commited to a realistic combat simulation experience? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
If, as you've already said half the ONLINERS are flying around using Wonderwoman View, Padlock & Map Icons - its a pretty strange accusation to make! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not based on my 15 years of experience.. Your mileage may vary

jasonbirder
05-01-2007, 01:27 PM
Rather than make supposedly witty one line retorts to my points...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You got the whole ASSume part down to a tee </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Dream on </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or trying to imply that ONLINE FLIERS are realism hungry recreators of historic world war 2 Aerial Battles and OFFLINE fliers swoop around flying Jets vs Bi-planes with Map Icons on and Wonder Woman view enabled...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Originally posted by jasonbirder:
Is this meant to imply that OFFLINE fliers are less commited to a realistic combat simulation experience?

Yes
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Perhaps you could explain what is different about this game and community that means we cannot support a succesful community based Mod and development programme to enhance the game for both ONLINERS and OFFLINERS benefit...
If it can be done in Falcon 4.0 and Dangerous Waters...games I have played ONLINE far more regularly and with far more positive experiences than I have IL2 why can't something similar be implemented in this game?
Instead of looking at reasons we can't do it or shouldn't do it...we should be looking at ways it can be done and how it can be implemented to everyones benefit...
Surely things like - realistic load outs, new ordanance (Panzerblitz anyone?), more realistic Ship AI and DMs, more realistic torpedo release parameters, new maps, new objects (more ships anyone?), the ability to give pilots and gunners different skill levels etc etc etc is going to be of interest to both ONLINERS and OFFLINERS alike...

AKA_TAGERT
05-01-2007, 01:54 PM
Like I said.. You dont even realise you answered your own question

jasonbirder
05-01-2007, 02:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You dont even realise you answered your own question </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're not wrong...I don't
So what was my answer...

AKA_TAGERT
05-01-2007, 02:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
You're not wrong...I don't </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Two wrongs make a right?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
So what was my answer... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Than re-read my post to you.. Slowly.. Paying close att to the part where I said "You don't even realize it.." twice.

jasonbirder
05-01-2007, 02:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You don't even realize it.. But you just answered your own question. In that what may be MORE REALISTIC to you may not be to someone else. Sadly 99% of what is real is based on our perception and not any FACTS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
When I was talking about REALISM I specifically refered to Load Outs, Ship Damage models and AI and torpedo release parameters...
Am I to take it from your statement that its just my perception that these could be significantly improved...

Of course...I'm sure that when I talk about community and third party modification of the game you are reading improving the FM of the modders favourite airplane
When I talk about additional historically accurate loadouts you are reading improving the FM of the modders favourite airplane
When I talk about adding extra maps and objects you are reading improving the FM of the modders favourite airplane
When I talk about improved Ship DMs and AI you are reading improving the FM of the modders favourite airplane

HELLO!!! There is far more to this game than merely Flight Models...

AKA_TAGERT
05-01-2007, 03:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
When I was talking about REALISM I specifically refered to Load Outs, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you think the area of load outs is crystal clear cut FACT that is not open to debate! YOUR WRONG! There are plenty of 30 page threads here going back and forth about what kind of drop tanks were or were not made for XXX plane let alone used on XXX plane.

Thus we are back to square one.. what may be REALISTIC to you may not be to someone else.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
Ship Damage models </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
ERROR! That is totally subjective and open to interpretation.. Just like plane FMs! Read no real world data!

Thus we are back to square one.. what may be REALISTIC to you may not be to someone else.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
and AI and torpedo release parameters... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
A bug is bug. I would rater live with a bug like that, that can be delt with by adj the mission file that to give some 3rd the keys to the candy store.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
Am I to take it from your statement that its just my perception that these could be significantly improved... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No! In that your perception is in error, in that it is yours and not mature enough to realize that what may be REALISTIC to you may not be REALISTIC to someone else, let alone REAL!

Thus we are back to square one.. If the provided a SDK that allowed you to tweak it for OFFLINE play, than no problem! Fly you P-51 with .50cals that hit like a 88m shell! I don't give a rip about what you do OFFLINE! Just don't allow such MODS to be used ONLINE by anyone!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
Of course...I'm sure that when I talk about community and third party modification of the game you are reading improving the FM of the modders favourite airplane </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So what part of me saying..

<span class="ev_code_yellow">"I would be all for an SDK that allowed 3rd party maps, and 3rd party things to put on maps.. vehicles, buildings, etc. But I would not want an SDK that allowed any 3rd party aircraft! Unless they could 'only' be used OFFLINE!"</span>

Did you not understand?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
When I talk about additional historically accurate loadouts you are reading improving the FM of the modders favourite airplane </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So what part of me saying..

<span class="ev_code_yellow">"I would be all for an SDK that allowed 3rd party maps, and 3rd party things to put on maps.. vehicles, buildings, etc. But I would not want an SDK that allowed any 3rd party aircraft! Unless they could 'only' be used OFFLINE!"</span>

Did you not understand?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
When I talk about adding extra maps and objects you are reading improving the FM of the modders favourite airplane </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So what part of me saying..

<span class="ev_code_yellow">"I would be all for an SDK that allowed 3rd party maps, and 3rd party things to put on maps.. vehicles, buildings, etc. But I would not want an SDK that allowed any 3rd party aircraft! Unless they could 'only' be used OFFLINE!"</span>

Did you not understand?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
When I talk about improved Ship DMs and AI you are reading improving the FM of the modders favourite airplane </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So what part of me saying..

<span class="ev_code_yellow">"I would be all for an SDK that allowed 3rd party maps, and 3rd party things to put on maps.. vehicles, buildings, etc. But I would not want an SDK that allowed any 3rd party aircraft! Unless they could 'only' be used OFFLINE!"</span>

Did you not understand?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
HELLO!!! There is far more to this game than merely Flight Models... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
HELLO!!! If you would read what is written instead of ASSuming what I said you wouldn't make so many errors! With that said, your the poster boy of the kind of guy I would not want to allow an SDK fall into the hands of! If you make these kinds of errors here, imagine what you would do with something complex like load outs or damage models.

jasonbirder
05-01-2007, 03:55 PM
I'm sure there are some useful points somewhere buried in that diatribe...
But I can tell your heart isn't in it...I've never once mentioned changing Aircrafts FMs and DMs...but I've already been accused of
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">make yourself a P-51D with the FM of a F-15 to use OFFLINE to pwon </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fly your P-51s with the F-15 FM </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fly you P-51 with .50cals that hit like a 88m shell </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I guess to some people...all the positives that we could get if the game was opened up pale into insignificance against the possibility that you might encounter some punk kid whose plane flies 5 KPH faster than it should do in an online dogfight room...

AKA_TAGERT
05-01-2007, 04:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
I'm sure there are some useful points somewhere buried in that diatribe... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Be sure!

I'm just glad you realised you mistake..

That it is you who is reading into things..

As in seeing things that are not there..

As in ASSuming.

All the while missing what is actully being said.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
But I can tell your heart isn't in it... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Like I allready said..

You got the ASSume part down pat!

Guess you missed that too?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
I've never once mentioned changing Aircrafts FMs and DMs... but I've already been accused of
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">make yourself a P-51D with the FM of a F-15 to use OFFLINE to pwon </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fly your P-51s with the F-15 FM </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fly you P-51 with .50cals that hit like a 88m shell </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So? I mention the extreams to make a point. Don't take it personal! I was not saying you would, just that you could.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
I guess to some people... all the positives that we could get if the game was opened up pale into insignificance against the possibility that you might encounter some punk kid whose plane flies 5 KPH faster than it should do in an online dogfight room... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Like I said.. You don't even realise you have the answer to your questions

LEXX_Luthor
05-01-2007, 04:44 PM
You hit the nail! http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/Lexx_Luthor/Smileys/thumbs.gif

jasonbirder:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I've never once mentioned changing Aircrafts FMs and DMs...but I've already been accused of
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">make yourself a P-51D with the FM of a F-15 to use OFFLINE to pwon </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fly your P-51s with the F-15 FM </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fly you P-51 with .50cals that hit like a 88m shell </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I guess to some people...all the positives that we could get if the game was opened up pale into insignificance against the possibility that you might encounter some punk kid whose plane flies 5 KPH faster than it should do in an online dogfight room... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

These are the stock accusations of the hardcore old timer FB/PF Online gamer and ex-Microsoft Online Cheat Victim -- and strangely -- these old timer gamers openly refuse to support Oleg's desire to prevent Online cheating (see ElAuren's Pay~To~Play poll thread).

Yes, although Oleg has proven otherwise recently in his desire to open BoB And Beyond to modding including Online play, to these ex-Microsoft Cheat Victims, all the positives of a moddable sim must be sacrificed for "cheat free" Online gameplay -- recall the Trim Wars where some Online players including self-advertised "real life" commercial pilots tried to deceive the non-flying community about how aircraft trim works for pilots.

And it turns out, we seem to have learned right here there never was any Online cheating in the Microsoft sims, just angry and bitter accusations of cheating! And that's what we get here, accusations of wanting to cheat, or wanting to play Offline, with the List you quoted above, to anyone who desires a more developed simulation beyond what the developer has the resources or the imagination to do.

LEXX_Luthor
05-01-2007, 05:04 PM
As for "opening" FB/PF to the general community, I'd say sorry -- the sim is done. Its time for BoB And Beyond with open moddability designed in from the start.

AKA_TAGERT
05-01-2007, 05:53 PM
Poor Nancy

LEXX_Luthor
05-01-2007, 06:43 PM
Poor Microsoft Online Cheat Victim http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
05-01-2007, 07:30 PM
What ever gets you to sleep at night Nancy.

Capt.LoneRanger
05-02-2007, 03:25 AM
The only thing that keeps games alive online for more than a few month is cheat-protection. That's a fact.

If you play moddable games, like CFS, Falcon, LOMAC, SH3/4 or other games, you KNOW that there are cheats online, because it is not as uncommon as some people want to tell us, here.

The difference is, though, that most of the community turned away from those games, because of that modability even online and the little rest are mostly honest hardcore-fans, because they know each other and are mostly well organized in squadrons and clans.

For IL2 this is simply not true, yet. There are many new players to the game and the community online is extremely active compared to those of the named games. I agree that this sim should be made modable at a certain point, but that point is definitely not reached, yet.

VF101_Sakai
05-02-2007, 04:26 AM
Hi again chaps.I see you turned this topic to wrong way.Please stay with main idea from first post.Will say it again.

THIS IS FANTASTIC IDEA.Mr OLEG SHOULD MAKE IT!!

LEXX_Luthor
05-02-2007, 05:13 AM
Agreed! The idea of generic cockpits works for other lite sims as well. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


CaptLoneRanger:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The only thing that keeps games alive online for more than a few month is cheat-protection. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oleg's continued support and development (unlike Microsoft) and the majority of paying customers -- Offline players -- keep the Online game alive here... As one rare and honest FB/PF Online player poasted at simhq...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If not for the Offline base, we'd all be paying 12$ a month to fly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Capt.LoneRanger
05-02-2007, 07:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Agreed! The idea of generic cockpits works for other lite sims as well. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


CaptLoneRanger:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The only thing that keeps games alive online for more than a few month is cheat-protection. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oleg's continued support and development (unlike Microsoft) and the majority of paying customers -- Offline players -- keep the Online game alive here... As one rare and honest FB/PF Online player poasted at simhq...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If not for the Offline base, we'd all be paying 12$ a month to fly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Really? I rather think this a reason why offline-playing keeps interesting, cause several added planes have limited DM/FM-details and most of them are rarely seen online.

Still my vote is NO.

AKA_TAGERT
05-02-2007, 07:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
The only thing that keeps games alive online for more than a few month is cheat-protection. That's a fact.

If you play moddable games, like CFS, Falcon, LOMAC, SH3/4 or other games, you KNOW that there are cheats online, because it is not as uncommon as some people want to tell us, here.

The difference is, though, that most of the community turned away from those games, because of that modability even online and the little rest are mostly honest hardcore-fans, because they know each other and are mostly well organized in squadrons and clans.

For IL2 this is simply not true, yet. There are many new players to the game and the community online is extremely active compared to those of the named games. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed 100%!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
I agree that this sim should be made modable at a certain point, but that point is definitely not reached, yet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed 100%!

That point being when there is only about 20 people left playing it that all know each other vary well and would not think of cheating each other. Which is where sims like Falcon 4.0 and CFSx are today..

Which some call successful sims?

But I digress!

The only difference here is those sims got that way due to MODS! Where as the only way IL2 will only have 20 people playing it is if a better sim to comes out (see def of beter sim below) or years from now when IL2 is so old that it won't run on what ever the current OS is without some kind of XP emulator! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As for IL2, as long as no 3rd party planes can be added to IL2 and used online it will remain viable online, and thus popular.

The only way to kill it off will be to create a newer/beter sim that also does not allow 3rd paty planes to be added and used online.

On that note CFS2 and CFS3 both came out during/after IL2 and tried to unseat IL2 as the best online sim..

But..

Due to the ability to add 3rd party add-ons those two sims they never stood a chance and simply died out..

Unless you consider 20 or so people world wide flying it online as living?

But I digress!

If Oleg's BoB allows 3rd party planes to be used online it will not be as popular online as IL2 is!

Sure initially it will appear to unseat IL2..

But..

As soon as the 3rd party addons start showing up it will have the same effect that 3rd party add-ons have had on all flight sims. That being the core users will go somewhere else and leave but a few 'buddies' to play the sim.. 20 or so for a few hours a day.

Which is good news for IL2!

In that 'somewhere else' they will go will be back to IL2!

This is why I am glad to see that Oleg is washing his hands of IL2 and moving on. In that it means if he is not willing to fix a bug in IL2..

Than it means he is not likly to spend any time making an SDK for IL2 that allows 3rd party add-ons!

So BoB will be a win win!

If BoB does not allow 3rd party add-ons to be used online, unless they are Oleg approved add-on, than BoB will be the new/better sim that will unseat IL2 as the best sim online..

But..

If BoB does allows 3rd party add-ons to be used online, than it will go the way of Falcon 4.0, CFSx, LOMAC, SH3 where the only people playing it will be the OFFLINE folks with their F-15 P51D FMs and the 20 or so buddies that will play it ONLINE.

jasonbirder
05-02-2007, 09:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Agreed 100%!

That point being when there is only about 20 people left playing it that all know each other vary well and would not think of cheating each other. Which is where sims like Falcon 4.0 and CFSx are today..

Which some call successful sims? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you look at numbers playing on Hyperlobby then there is an element of truth in that...but most ONLINE play for sims like Falconn 4.0 & Dangerous Waters (they are the ones I can aomment on with authority) are arranged on a hosted or IP to IP basis...Saying they are no longer popular because there is nobody playing it on Hyperlobby or ASE is like saying World of Warcraft or Unreal Tournement are unpopular because there is nobody on Hperlobby!
Look at the activity levels of forums like Frugals World or Subsim and tell me these are unpopular games... Who and why would the communities of these games go to the trouble of creating huge, intricate, complex and realistic Mods for these games that significantly changed the way they were played (in the same way as the release of 4.01 did for FB/AEP/PF) if it was just a handful of players...
And lets be honest...on another level...whats wrong with the idea of playing with people you know, can trust not to cheat and will contribute usefully to a mission!!! Isn't that what we all want in the end!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The only difference here is those sims got that way due to MODS! Where as the only way IL2 will only have 20 people playing it is if a better sim to comes out (see def of beter sim below) or years from now when IL2 is so old that it won't run on what ever the current OS is without some kind of XP emulator! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Part of the reason that IL2 is so popular online...is not its lack of Mods...but the low barriers to entry...Its a relatively simplistic game (though mastering it is difficult) typical missions are very short, Hyperlobby "come as you are missions" mean you can log onto a server and start flying straight away without any need to wait, for mission briefing or planning...and it also has huge scalability...as many people fly cockpit off, padlock on, icons on as fly it full real! BEsides if popularity is a measure of quality...none of us would be flying sims at all...we'd all be playing FPS or RTS games...modded or not!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for IL2, as long as no 3rd party planes can be added to IL2 and used online it will remain viable online, and thus popular. The only way to kill it off will be to create a newer/beter sim that also does not allow 3rd paty planes to be added and used online. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IL2 is popular, because it is the only real option in a popular genre...It has no real competitiors...it doesn't owe its popularity to the lack of mods...as to the game itself...how popular was EAW in its hayday? If another competitior comes along its popularity will diminish...particularly if those competitors offer a more immersive and complete environment to fly in...Its popularity is not down to the fact there is no third party and community modding...but because it is quite literally the only game in town, that coincidently is not open to community modding...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">On that note CFS2 and CFS3 both came out during/after IL2 and tried to unseat IL2 as the best online sim.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

CFS2 came out before IL2 and was very popular for a period...CFS3 was unpopular because it was sh*te...not because there were third party modifications available...arguably mods like the Firepower heavy bomber mod made the game more not less attractive.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the ability to add 3rd party add-ons those two sims they never stood a chance and simply died out..

Unless you consider 20 or so people world wide flying it online as living? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you call games still going strong despite having been developed 8 years ago...with a strong and active community, ongoing 3rd party and community development, continued commercial development and releases dying out then yes...if you simply use number of players online in "come as you are" public servers as a measure of success and quality then why are you playing a flightsim at all...there are plenty of First Person Shooters and Real Time Sims that dwarf of the popularity of all Flight Simulators put together...I personally look for a realistic, immersive and challenging simulation of conflict in an Era which interests me rather than merely "following the crowds"


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If Oleg's BoB allows 3rd party planes to be used online it will not be as popular online as IL2 is!
Sure initially it will appear to unseat IL2..
But..
As soon as the 3rd party addons start showing up it will have the same effect that 3rd party add-ons have had on all flight sims. That being the core users will go somewhere else and leave but a few 'buddies' to play the sim.. 20 or so for a few hours a day. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really can't see that once BoB is released and people have had time to go through the necessary hardware upgrade cycle that many people will continue to play IL2...After all how many still play EAW or original IL2 for all the good points of both sims...Modabilty or not, isn't a major issue formsot people..they just want "the best" whatever that may be at one particular time...Are you seriously suggesting that BoB will be popular until the release of say a third party Battle of France and Spanish Civil War expansion is released...at which point instead of embracing the new scenarios and planes..uses will run terrified back to original FB/AEP/PF/1946???

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is why I am glad to see that Oleg is washing his hands of IL2 and moving on. In that it means if he is not willing to fix a bug in IL2..
Than it means he is not likly to spend any time making an SDK for IL2 that allows 3rd party add-ons! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If Oleg is really washing his hands of IL2 where is the harm in releasing an SDK that will allow the community to continue to improve, expand and devlop the game, long after its commercial viability has passed...I for one would look forward to flying a Swordfish or an A5M http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If BoB does not allow 3rd party add-ons to be used online, unless they are Oleg approved add-on, than BoB will be the new/better sim that will unseat IL2 as the best sim online.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Regardless of Mods or not BoB will unseat IL2 as the best Prop Sim...unless another prop sim appears on the horizon

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If BoB does allows 3rd party add-ons to be used online, than it will go the way of Falcon 4.0, CFSx, LOMAC, SH3 where the only people playing it will be the OFFLINE folks with their F-15 P51D FMs and the 20 or so buddies that will play it ONLINE. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why are you so obsessed with people creating uber-FMs and DMs for planes...my experience with other games is that it simply doesn't happen, it may have done in CFS2...but thats only one example...what other examples of Flight Sims are there where this has happened (and lets be honest...very strange things can happen with Microsoft Software can't it) It never happened in Falcon 4.0, never happened in F/A18 and never happened in Dangerous Waters (i'll take advice on the situation with games like LOMAC and SH3) if anything most mods that were created were built to create a more challanging playing experience...reducing the effectiveness of player controlled weapons and sensors etc etc...Quite the opposite of what you fear may occur...

AKA_TAGERT
05-02-2007, 09:41 AM
Like I said.. You allready have the answers to your questions.. You just don't realise it

LEXX_Luthor
05-02-2007, 01:35 PM
jasonbirder:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If Oleg is really washing his hands of IL2 where is the harm in releasing an SDK that will allow the community to continue to improve, expand and devlop the game, long after its commercial viability has passed...I for one would look forward to flying a Swordfish or an A5M http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oleg is opening BoB And Beyond for you to mod as much as you like, except full size maps. Oleg wants YOU to independent mod for the next sim, as do I.


TAGERT:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If BoB does not allow 3rd party add-ons to be used online, <span class="ev_code_yellow">unless they are Oleg approved add-on</span>, than BoB will be the new/better sim that will unseat IL2 as the best sim online. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Only Oleg-Approved 3rd Party mods will be allowed under the the Oleg-Approved server option, leaving the Open Mod Servers and Offline play fully moddable, except full size maps.

JG53Frankyboy
05-02-2007, 01:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
...............Oleg is opening BoB And Beyond for you to mod as much as you like, except full size maps. .............. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC also such added planes will have only limited FM/DM of the SoW engine . Full FM/DM is still in Maddox's hands.

LEXX_Luthor
05-02-2007, 01:56 PM
JG53:; <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">IIRC also such added planes will have only limited FM/DM of the SoW engine . Full FM/DM is still in Maddox's hands. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you "recall correctly" you should have an Oleg quote on that. We never saw it here. Wouldn't surprise me, as FM/DM-ing can become very complex, although with diminishing returns for the paying customer if there is no correspondingly detailed and immersive Air War simulation or gameplay.

AKA_TAGERT
05-02-2007, 02:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Only Oleg-Approved 3rd Party mods will be allowed under the the Oleg-Approved server option, leaving the Open Mod Servers and Offline play fully moddable, except full size maps. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is too bad.. In that the Open Mod Server will still have the effect I described.

But..

With the Oleg Approved Addon servers it might give us a fall back position other than IL2?

Assuming the Open Mod Servers experience does not turn off people so much that they give up on sim as a whole.

For example, The option to fly all those sims I already mentioned in their default un-modded states still exists.

But..

Nobody does..

Well, cept for 20 or so buddies..

Long story short, this Open and Oleg Approved servers may sound like the best of both worlds.. and as I have told you before, I hope for our sake I am wrong.

But..

Game history says otherwise.

Time will tell!

But you have to wonder..

Why fix it if it isn't broke?

I mean Oleg has already proved with IL2 that if your provide a cheat free 'standardized' set of planes that it will beat out other flights sims online that don't offer 'standardized' planes (read allow 3rd party add-ons).

By 'beat out' I mean more than 20 buddies flying it online for a few hours a day a few days a week.

I mean your original argument was the ONLINE users are just a small fraction of all the users and that the OFFLINE market is where the money is. That and the OFFLINE types want the ability to use 3rd party add-ons. Which is why Oleg is changing his ways from controlled add-ons to un-controlled add-ons.

But now your singing a different tune, after I pointed out that if the OFFLINE folks don't care about playing ONLINE, and they are the bigger market, than it wont affect them or sales if Oleg simply does not allow 3rd party add-ons (un-controlled add-ons) to be used ONLINE.

I guess that made too much since and thus exposed that your original argument was nothing more than a front for your true addenda. In light of the fact that you had to change your tune after I pointed that out to you. The only un-answered question here is what is your real addenda?

Monguse
05-02-2007, 04:23 PM
Since the focus has changed yet again.

Generic cockpits for AI created and provided by the developer.

NO MODS that change the FM, allow alpha channels; zero, squat, none.

Since no one answered question of "How many flavors of Unix are there?" The answer is many:

http://www.albion.com/security/intro-3.html

Too many for a cohesive operating system for all. Hence we have either Linux, Windows, Mac

So, how ever many flavors or Unix there are will be small to how many flavors of any game will be created if mods are allowed.

Want to kill this sim? Open it to mods. The lobby will be unplayable except for a very few that "believe" a certain way.

That's my opinion. Of course the ONLY opinion that counts is the developer.

I for one am happy it's locked.

Again, generic cockpits for AI created and provided by the developer would be a much welcomed addition by many to the end of a great series.

AKA_TAGERT
05-02-2007, 06:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Monguse:
Since the focus has changed yet again.

Generic cockpits for AI created and provided by the developer.

NO MODS that change the FM, allow alpha channels; zero, squat, none.

Since no one answered question of "How many flavors of Unix are there?" The answer is many:

http://www.albion.com/security/intro-3.html

Too many for a cohesive operating system for all. Hence we have either Linux, Windows, Mac

So, how ever many flavors or Unix there are will be small to how many flavors of any game will be created if mods are allowed.

Want to kill this sim? Open it to mods. The lobby will be unplayable except for a very few that "believe" a certain way.

That's my opinion. Of course the ONLY opinion that counts is the developer.

I for one am happy it's locked.

Again, generic cockpits for AI created and provided by the developer would be a much welcomed addition by many to the end of a great series. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%!

If it took more work to just enable the bombers with WW cockpits than just providing WW cockpit for all AI planes I wouldn't loose any sleep over it! In that the servers that did allow the AI fighters with the bad FM's would be very noobish from the start and I wouldn't be flying there anyway!

But the many servers that would now be able to turn off externals and have a flyable B17 would far out weight any negatives of those few noob servers with AI fighters enabled.

LEXX_Luthor
05-02-2007, 07:23 PM
Monguse:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Want to kill this sim? Open it to mods. The lobby will be unplayable except for a very few that "believe" a certain way.

That's my opinion. Of course the ONLY opinion that counts is the developer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Almost there. The developer is planning to open BoB And Beyond to modding, except full size maps. The developer does NOT wish to open the old FB/PF sim for two (2) reasons. As csThor stated clearly, the FB/PF sim is not designed for open modding, and *no* modder can do it unless they are professional computer programmers with budgeted funding, or so its believed. Second, those wanting open modding sim will just have to wait for BoB And Beyond and pay Oleg for the new series of sims. That is Business.

Opening the sim to modding can never "kill" any sim, unless its developer-unsupported Online play only.

LEXX_Luthor
05-02-2007, 07:37 PM
TAGERT -- Why fix it if it isn't broke?

Its broke as a business model. As rnzoli told us, FB/PF Online gameplay has stagnated. As far as I know, what Oleg is planning has never been done before -- open mod and closed mod server options in a non-PayToPlay environment. Its an experiment. That's Business.

I think, I hope, that Oleg is trying to attract and keep greater numbers of Offline customers and greater numbers of Online players, as well as keeping an option for the Few and Proud "hardcore" in a cheat-free competitive Online gaming environment -- and "free" play -- one that is not Pay-To-Play ("but not yet time" ~ Oleg at sukhoi.ru).

The Open/Closed mod servers are an experiment that can only benefit Oleg's business. If it succeeds, Oleg keeps the reliable Offline customer base, if it fails, Oleg keeps the reliable Offline customer base and can always dump the Open/Closed server experiment. Now, if Oleg takes his business Online Pay-To-Play, Oleg can dump the Offline base which I can only imagine is what Oleg would love to do long term. Oleg is a far greater fan of Online gameplay than you or any of these Online gamers at this webboard. Shucks, the man went and made his own Online Dogfight focused simulation when the self-boasting "hardcore" Online shooter gamers here were accusing each other of "cheating" at the Microsoft sim webboards.

AKA_TAGERT
05-02-2007, 08:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
TAGERT -- Why fix it if it isn't broke?

Its broke as a business model. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
On that note, what is your def of Oleg's business model..

this week?

In that when we first talks about this a few months ago you said ONLINE users are just a small fraction of all the users and that the OFFLINE market is where the money is. That and the OFFLINE types want the ability to use 3rd party add-ons. Which is why Oleg is changing his ways from controlled add-ons to un-controlled add-ons.

But now your singing a different tune, after I pointed out that if the OFFLINE folks don't care about playing ONLINE, and they are the bigger market, than it wont affect them or sales if Oleg simply does not allow 3rd party add-ons (un-controlled add-ons) to be used ONLINE.

I guess that made too much since and thus exposed that your original argument was nothing more than a front for your true agenda. In light of the fact that you had to change your tune after I pointed that out to you. The only un-answered question here is what is your real agenda?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
As rnzoli told us, FB/PF Online gameplay has stagnated. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Relative to what?

CFS3?

If so.. Hardly.

Relative to some Quake type game?

If so.. Not hard to belive!

Why?

Because I realize what you have yet to realize. That being the flight sim community is small relative to any FPG Quake type of ONLINE game. Which is why it is so important not to splinter the already small group into several sub groups. The way you do that is have one standard game for all to play.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
As far as I know, what Oleg is planning has never been done before -- open mod and closed mod server options in a non-PayToPlay environment. Its an experiment. That's Business. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nope! All games that allow 3rd party add-ons have the ability to run a MOD version or the STOCK version. But once the MODs become avail hardly anyone plays the STOCK version anymore.

Why?

Well because they can go find a MOD that makes their fav plan fly the way they think it should fly. In that they think they know better than someone like Oleg. Once they go there, they will never be happy with the STOCK versions became it does not match their perception of what is 'real'! Thus they call the STOCK version uber or porked depending on how they fav plane stacks up against the other STOCK planes. Thus resulting in death of the flight sim.. Cept for the 20 or so buddies that ill meet up once or twice a week to play for a few hours.. Like the do in Lomac, Falcon 4.0, CFS2, CFS3, etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
I think, I hope, that Oleg is trying to attract and keep greater numbers of Offline customers and greater numbers of Online players, as well as keeping an option for the Few and Proud "hardcore" in a cheat-free competitive Online gaming environment -- and "free" play -- one that is not Pay-To-Play ("but not yet time" ~ Oleg at sukhoi.ru). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Funny, in that is not what you said a awhile back. You said the OFFLINE is such a small percentage of sales that it does not mater, and that is why Oleg is making BoB with MOD abilities to attacked the 'BIG' ONLINE crowd.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
The Open/Closed mod servers are an experiment that can only benefit Oleg's business. If it succeeds, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If, but as I pointed out that experiment has already been done, and failed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Oleg keeps the reliable Offline customer base, if it fails, Oleg keeps the reliable Offline customer base and can always dump the Open/Closed server experiment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Easy to say.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Now, if Oleg takes his business Online Pay-To-Play, Oleg can dump the Offline base which I can only imagine is what Oleg would love to do long term. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I would love that! Pay to play sims is where it is at IMHO! Problem with the current crop of pay to play sims is they are old! Older than IL2's graphics engine! The neat thing about pay to play too is it has a filtering effect that tends to get rid of a lot of the kids! In that kids tend to have that high score Quake kind of attitude!

But, this is all news to me! If you have a link where Oleg states he is planing on doing pay to play I would love to see it and save it in that it does give me hope!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Oleg is a far greater fan of Online gameplay than you or any of these Online gamers at this webboard. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Disagree 100%!

In that Ill bet you that Oleg did not pay $12/hr to play Air Warrior online back in the early 90s which resulted in a monthly bill around $500! Where as I did!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Shucks, the man went and made his own Online Dogfight focused simulation when the self-boasting "hardcore" Online shooter gamers here were accusing each other of "cheating" at the Microsoft sim webboards. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That makes him part business man and part sim fan IMHO.

LEXX_Luthor
05-02-2007, 08:22 PM
TAGERT:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In that when we first talks about this a few months ago you said ONLINE users are just a small fraction of all the users and that the OFFLINE market is where the money is. That and the OFFLINE types want the ability to use 3rd party add-ons. Which is why Oleg is changing his ways from controlled add-ons to un-controlled add-ons.

But now your singing a different tune, after I pointed out that if the OFFLINE folks don't care about playing ONLINE, and they are the bigger market, than it wont affect them or sales if Oleg simply does not allow 3rd party add-ons (un-controlled add-ons) to be used ONLINE.

I guess that made too much <span class="ev_code_yellow">since</span> and thus exposed that your original argument was nothing more than a front for your true <span class="ev_code_yellow">addenda</span>. In light of the fact that you had to change your tune after I pointed that out to you. The only un-answered question here is what is your real <span class="ev_code_yellow">addenda</span>? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have changed my tune, as you have noted here, Oleg has changed his tune....That's Business.

TAGERT:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Which is why Oleg is changing his ways from controlled add-ons to un-controlled add-ons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AKA_TAGERT
05-02-2007, 08:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
I have changed my tune, as Oleg is singing a different tune, as you noted here...That's Business. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, I am talking about how you changed your tune <span class="ev_code_yellow">after</span> I pointed out that if the OFFLINE folks don't care about playing ONLINE, and they are the bigger market, than it wont affect them or sales if Oleg simply does not allow 3rd party add-ons (un-controlled add-ons) to be used ONLINE.

I guess that made too much since and thus exposed that your original argument was nothing more than a front for your true agenda. In light of the fact that you had to change your tune after I pointed that out to you. The only un-answered question here is what is your real agenda?

LEXX_Luthor
05-02-2007, 08:30 PM
TAGERT:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I guess that made too much <span class="ev_code_yellow">since</span> and thus exposed that your original argument was nothing more than a front for your true agenda. In light of the fact that you had to change your tune after I pointed that out to you. The only un-answered question here is what is your real agenda? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Define "since?" Your question makes no sense.

LEXX_Luthor
05-02-2007, 08:38 PM
....yes I could be attracted to Online play by a Spanish Civil War modded independently by JG_Tuckies team. Thus my interest in the open mod servers. I'd rather see JG_Tuckie come back to Oleg's sims rather than wait for the releace of TargetWare Forever.



TAGERT:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Oleg is a far greater fan of Online gameplay than you or any of these Online gamers at this webboard. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
In that Ill bet you that Oleg did not pay $12/hr to play Air Warrior online back in the early 90s which resulted in a monthly bill around $500! Where as I did! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Poor Nancy

That would be about 1000$ today here in Ussia after the devaluation of the US dollar bill since 2001. Maybe Oleg did pay 5000 rubles per month over there in Russia, or however the currencies converted, and he decided it was cheaper to make his own sim.

JG53Frankyboy
05-03-2007, 03:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:

If you "recall correctly" you should have an Oleg quote on that. We never saw it here. ................. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

at least i understood it the way i claimed it....... well actually Oleg is not speaking about the DM, sorry http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m...101054943#7101054943 (http://forums.ubi.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/8371080943/r/7101054943#7101054943)


and about the topic:
sure, Maddox can enable the no-cockpit view for the AI planes (with a switch to the bombardier sight in the bombers, like in the Pe-2) that they can be used offline or the "wonder woman view" servers - i couldnt care less http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
05-03-2007, 08:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Define "since?" Your question makes no sense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
For you?

Sure no problem!

With regards to this never being done before

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
As far as I know, what Oleg is planning has never been done before -- open mod and closed mod server options in a non-PayToPlay environment. Its an experiment. That's Business. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nope! All games that allow 3rd party add-ons have the ability to run a MOD version or the STOCK version. But once the MODs become avail hardly anyone plays the STOCK version anymore.

Why?

Well because they can go find a MOD that makes their fav plan fly the way they think it should fly. In that they think they know better than someone like Oleg. Once they go there, they will never be happy with the STOCK versions became it does not match their perception of what is 'real'! Thus they call the STOCK version uber or porked depending on how they fav plane stacks up against the other STOCK planes. Thus resulting in death of the flight sim.. Cept for the 20 or so buddies that ill meet up once or twice a week to play for a few hours.. Like the do in Lomac, Falcon 4.0, CFS2, CFS3, etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
....yes I could be attracted to Online play by a Spanish Civil War modded independently by JG_Tuckies team. Thus my interest in the open mod servers. I'd rather see JG_Tuckie come back to Oleg's sims rather than wait for the releace of TargetWare Forever. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ill say it again, I have no problem with 3rd party add-ons for OFFLINE play. It is the ONLINE play I am concerned about. In that based on 15 years of ONLINE play experance it has been proven time and again that if the sim allows anyone to add planes to the sim it results in killing off the sim.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Poor Nancy </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nothing poor about it! $12/hr was more of a RICH Nancy scenario!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
That would be about 1000$ today here in Ussia after the devaluation of the US dollar bill since 2001. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Poor Ussia

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Maybe Oleg did pay 5000 rubles per month over there in Russia, or however the currencies converted, and he decided it was cheaper to make his own sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is a neat theory.. but do you have any comments me pointing out to you that there is nothing new here and that it has all been tried before and failed?

AKA_TAGERT
05-03-2007, 08:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
that they can be used offline or the "wonder woman view" servers - i couldnt care less http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is the whole point.. if they made the 'No Cockpit View' (aka WW view) 'the' standard view for AI planes than you could set the server to disable WW views and externals.

At which point when you fly an AI bomber you would not see a 3D rendered cockpit in the standard view, you would see the WW view as the standard view. That is to say, the WW view would become the standard view for all the AI only planes.

Doing this would allow all those AI types of bombers and torpedo plans to be used ONLINE in realistic servers with externals and WW view turned off.

I would love to be able to fly a TBF torpedo plane or B17 online! I wouldnt even care if I could NOT jump to the gunner positions!

Granted, the FM's for these planes are not up to par.. Thus I would not fly in any server that enabled some of the AI fighers. In that it would not be fare to have that FM and the WW view while the regular fighters can not use the WW view. But the ability to be able to make use of the bomber and torp planes would be great.

Diablo310th
05-03-2007, 08:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
that they can be used offline or the "wonder woman view" servers - i couldnt care less http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is the whole point.. if they made the 'No Cockpit View' (aka WW view) 'the' standard view for AI planes than you could set the server to disable WW views and externals. At which point when you fly an AI bomber you would not see a cockpit in the standard view, you would see what you normally see when in WW view, in that it is not the standard view for AI planes.

Doing this would allow all those AI types of bombers and torpedo plans to be used ONLINE in realistic servers with externals and WW view turned off.

I would love to be able to fly a TBF torpedo plane or B17 online! I wouldnt even care if I could NOT jump to the gunner positions!

Granted, the FM's for these planes are not up to par.. Thus I would not fly in any server that enabled some of the AI fighers. In that it would not be fare to have that FM and the WW view while the regular fighters can not use the WW view. But the ability to be able to make use of the bomber and torp planes would be great. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

mrsiCkstar
05-03-2007, 11:11 AM
jasonbirder:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> For every CFS2 problem...there is a Falcon4 or Team SuperHornet Success

As for them only working for OFFLINE or being fantastic for OFFLINE play...I used to fly Falcon 4.0 online far more than I ever do FB/AEP/PF and we never had any problems at all... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jason, right now there are 3 major versions of Falcon 4 available... Allied Force, Open Falcon and Red Viper. Out of all those 3 only ONE is stable enough online. Guess witch one? Yep, Allied Force. And Allied Force ALSO happens to be the only version out of those that is being developed by a team and has been released commercially, and it also happens to be the only version that cannot be modded by the community with the exception of some minor mods like StopWorks Pits and HiTiles which are both commercial as well and Lead Pursuit approved.

I don't wish to drag an arguement on but I just felt I needed to point out some things.

I'm not familiar with Jane's F/A-18 but I've read that it has many issues as well as far as online playing is concerned.

So out of all of those mods the ones that are open and freely moddable and free, are not stable enough for consistent online play, only the closed, non moddable version has stable online play witch I enjoy regularly with my Wing mates... who all say they like some of the features in Red Viper, but the online play sucks majorly.

By the way another point to consider is that yes the Falcon community is split in 3 between the users of all of the said mods and down over at Frugal's there's plenty fighting going on about which version is the best or most realistic. And it's mostly all started and fueled by OF and RV users going over to the AF forums to talk **** about AF... funny that.

AKA_TAGERT
05-03-2007, 12:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mrsiCkstar:
Jason, right now there are 3 major versions of Falcon 4 available... Allied Force, Open Falcon and Red Viper. Out of all those 3 only ONE is stable enough online. Guess witch one? Yep, Allied Force. And Allied Force ALSO happens to be the only version out of those that is being developed by a team and has been released commercially, and it also happens to be the only version that cannot be modded by the community with the exception of some minor mods like StopWorks Pits and HiTiles which are both commercial as well and Lead Pursuit approved.

I don't wish to drag an arguement on but I just felt I needed to point out some things.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>Interesting!

Thanks for the feedback!

In light of AF being closed, cept for some cosmetics, I think I will buy it now!

In that up to now I thought it was just some re-release that included some of the best user mods but was still open to tweaking!

Now that know it is closed..

I am interested!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mrsiCkstar:
So out of all of those mods the ones that are open and freely moddable and free, are not stable enough for consistent online play, only the closed, non moddable version has stable online play witch I enjoy regularly with my Wing mates... who all say they like some of the features in Red Viper, but the online play sucks majorly.

By the way another point to consider is that yes the Falcon community is split in 3 between the users of all of the said mods and down over at Frugal's there's plenty fighting going on about which version is the best or most realistic. And it's mostly all started and fueled by OF and RV users going over to the AF forums to talk **** about AF... funny that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not suprising at all!

In that is what has happened to every flight sim that has allowed 3r party add-ons in the past 15 years that I have been playing ONLINE.

I only hope Oleg has better luck than all the sims that have tried it before him.. but if history tells us anything, it will not work.

Oh sure, it will more than likly hit the inital sales mark, i.e. $ which is the only thing business men like LEXX_Luthor are interested in..

But..

It won't have the long life staying power that the 'closed' IL2 product has had ONLINE.

Cept for the 20 or so buddies that get tother once or twice a week to fly a few hours.

Daiichidoku
05-03-2007, 02:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Granted, the FM's for these planes are not up to par.. Thus I would not fly in any server that enabled some of the AI fighers. In that it would not be fare to have that FM and the WW view while the regular fighters can not use the WW view. But the ability to be able to make use of the bomber and torp planes would be great. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hehe..i remember LOVING every minute of flying the He 162 when it was still AI..actually got some kills in it too

but that "dangerous" simple FM had it so the 162 would suddemly blow up, reaching 600 or 700 kph!

for bombers, it doest really matter so much

for fighters, well....while i dont personally like the idea of simple FMs....would it give an edge over "normal" types?

i jsut cant see any simple FM being somehow uber...if anythign , they probably perform worse than they should!

but the value here, to enable bombers and "strike" types is immeasurable!

AKA_TAGERT
05-03-2007, 04:51 PM
Good point.. Not sure if the FM's of the AI planes are uberish.. As you pointed out it may have more to do with dumb downed DM's in that even the user planes that the AI can fly can do things in them that we users can not do! As in that track someone posted showing a ZERO diving at speeds that would rip the wings off if we tried. Speeds well past the point where he wings come off for us.

LEXX_Luthor
05-03-2007, 05:33 PM
JG53, thanks for the link...

Oleg:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Note for the third party developers about these features of BoB:
we don't give full access to source code. We give access just for some <span class="ev_code_yellow">basic tunings of FM</span> and animations which will be possible to use only in single play custom made special room missions and only in special online room for such planes.
If it will be not possible to make such a scheme then we will cancel the work over custom planes... and will keep just objects and maps.
And will repeat we don't give ability to create the big maps, which we will keep for ourselves that to make new sims of new theaters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Given its Olegish we don't know if that means restricting access to full FM, as Oleg says good 3rd Party work will be accepted for "official" game use, and that may mean full FM for the modders, or Oleg will fill in full FM details in mods he likes. More significantly, the whole thing is not in the bagg yet, and could yet be cancelled if it doesn't work out.

About the ancient Flacon sim, it was abandoned by its Developer/Publisher, while Oleg will not abandon whatever sims he works on. As we witnessed last page (http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) , Oleg is a far greater fan of Online simming than any self-advertised "hardcore" online player at this webboard, as he created his own Online focused sim and offered it to players without Online Pay-To-Play.

...and he hasn't abandoned it, and won't, until BoB And Beyond.

AKA_TAGERT
05-03-2007, 06:28 PM
Ever notice how Lexx side steps the issues and cherry picks the part of the posts he wants to address and trys to discredit and or simply ignore the parts that don't agree with his agenda. Which is only 2nd to his ability to flip flop on a subject.. In that not too long ago he held up Falcon 4.0 as an example of a successful sim that allows MODs.. Now that it has been pointed out that is not the case, and that they went as far as to disable the ability to MOD it he trys to discredit that sim by calling it ancient. Too funny, I predict that in a few more months he will be telling us all how MODs should not be allowed! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BSS_Sniper
05-03-2007, 06:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
before there is absolutely NO more development on il2

PLEASE enable AI types to be flyable with generic cockpits, or "related" pits that are "close"

failing that, if its too much work...then how about flyable AI types that work with "wonder woman" views?

this cant be asking a lot, and would only increase the available types to players to enjoy

what say you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100,000,000,000,000,000.00%

For all the bombers and torp planes! Fighters, no. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif times 1,000,000,000,000

Daiichidoku
05-03-2007, 07:19 PM
this is what we could draw upon for more excited, varied missions

more variety; more targets!!!!!

for space, extra variants of me110, me 210, ki46, hs129, avenger/tbf, ju52, b17, b25, DBs, SBs, Sally and Blenheim have been omitted, making an additional 2 dozen potential flyables in one fell swoop

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/MIA.jpg


on SoW

one of the FEW things in admin/policy Oleg has got completely right, allowing 3rd party mods with OA(Oleg Approved(TM)) servers, and no holds barred for anything else
best of both worlds, wonder if i will be able to pull myself from KOTS or T34 vs Tiger to experience it

LEXX_Luthor
05-03-2007, 07:44 PM
Daiich:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">one of the FEW things in admin/policy Oleg has got completely right, allowing 3rd party mods with OA(Oleg Approved(TM)) servers, and no holds barred for anything else
best of both worlds, wonder if i will be able to pull myself from KOTS or T34 vs Tiger to experience it </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Apparently its not in the bagg yet. We shall see. I would be interested in seeing JG_Tuckie's Spanish Civil War team create a 1936-1939 themed Online War mod for BoB And Beyond. Although modding a full size map would be a problem -- perhaps Oleg would create a special map for serious 3rd Party modding teams if Oleg does not plan to visit such unique theaters during the life of BoB And Beyond.

Daiichidoku
05-04-2007, 09:12 AM
bump for this bad boy

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/henschel_hs129.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/hs129_04.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
05-04-2007, 12:08 PM
So am I the only one that noticed that Lexx did not address anything mrsiCkstar had to say about how it did not work for Falcon 4.0?

Daiichidoku
05-04-2007, 12:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
So am I the only one that noticed that Lexx did not address anything mrsiCkstar had to say about how it did not work for Falcon 4.0? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

he doesnt have a TRACK, he knows lack of TRACKS makes you teflon http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Capt.LoneRanger
05-04-2007, 03:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
So am I the only one that noticed that Lexx did not address anything mrsiCkstar had to say about how it did not work for Falcon 4.0? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean a comment like on top of this page?


IMHO the apparently different problems, modding and making cockpits for nonflyables is very much related.

When I played Falcon4 online, there were some interesting mods being released, to make all planes flyable. Some were honest players, but I also witnessed a B52 with a Mig29s FlightModell on a campaign-server and an A10 flying Mach2.

As some with the same experience posted this before, we've been down that road. I didn't like it and I'm very glad this is handled differently by Oleg and I'm glad we don't have simplified cockpits for non-flyables.

LEXX_Luthor
05-04-2007, 06:14 PM
Capt:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">When I played Falcon4 online, there were some interesting mods being released, to make all planes flyable. Some were honest players,... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
There ya go. I've been thinking, players who play with people they know, and many LAN players, may benefit from 3rd Party aircraft modding. Did the Flacon sim have FM file checking?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...but I also witnessed a B52 with a Mig29s FlightModell on a campaign-server and an A10 flying Mach2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Got Track?

Are there Flyable aircraft mods in Flacon? Do the modders make unique cockpits for different planes, and can cockpits be used for any aircraft? If so, that could be an alternative to StrikeFighters for me....or does everything use the same stock F-16 cockpit?

--

AKA_TAGERT:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So am I the only one that noticed that Lexx did not address anything mrsiCkstar had to say about how it did not work for Falcon 4.0? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Indeed, we still need to talk about Oleg not abandoning his Online sims like the Microsoft and Flacon publishers.

Capt.LoneRanger
05-04-2007, 11:04 PM
Apparently these mods have been adopted for F4:AF, also. A mod called RedFalcon seems to be able to do the same for F4:AF. Cockpits are enabled for non-flyables, like the F22, MIG29, F14, F18, B-52.

I don't know how it this is handled for this mod, but first versions of the original mods were simply adding the F16C-Block52-Cockpit to the other planes, giving them the exact same avionics and mostly even flight characteristics. (I tested it myself, once, interested in the B52. I had the F16-cockpit, with radar and everything, but with 38xMK84 loaded....)

I have no video or tracks. This was like 4 or 5 years ago.

AKA_TAGERT
05-06-2007, 04:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Indeed, we still need to talk about Oleg not abandoning his Online sims like the Microsoft and Flacon publishers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That and you have one less flight sim to use as an example of how 3rd party add-ons result in a better flight sim.

As a mater of fact, when you look closely, you have no good examples.

AKA_TAGERT
05-06-2007, 04:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
So am I the only one that noticed that Lexx did not address anything mrsiCkstar had to say about how it did not work for Falcon 4.0? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean a comment like on top of this page? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
As in my comment on mrsiCkstar's comment at the top of this page?

If so, than yes, like that.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
IMHO the apparently different problems, modding and making cockpits for nonflyables is very much related. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Related..

But very different..

In that the AI planes FMs and/or DMs may not be as 'good' as the user planes, at least there is only one version of them. Where as with MODs you can end up with many versions of the same plane. That is the inharent problem with 3rd part add-ons (aka MODS)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
When I played Falcon4 online, there were some interesting mods being released, to make all planes flyable. Some were honest players, but I also witnessed a B52 with a Mig29s FlightModell on a campaign-server and an A10 flying Mach2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactally my point. If you leave it to the 'user' to decide what is right and what is wrong than you will end up with as many versions as there are uses!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
As some with the same experience posted this before, we've been down that road. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yup! I have seen it happen every time it has been tried in the past 15 years of playing flight sims ONLINE. As for OFFLINE, there is no issues! If a guy wants to tweak his P-51 FM to fly like a F-15 it does not bother me one bit! But leave that kind of stuff to OFFLINE only!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
I didn't like it and I'm very glad this is handled differently by Oleg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
and I'm glad we don't have simplified cockpits for non-flyables. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Again, apples and oranges!

In that making the WW view the standard view for all AI planes will NOT result in 15 different FM versions of each AI plane ONLINE.

You will only see the ONE version!

Thus a standard!

Granted, it may not be as good as an FM & DM as the user flyable planes.

But..

The benifit of being able to use a B17 in a COOP or DF mission ONLINE far out weights the potental few servers that may make use of some of the AI fighers in that I can simply choose to NOT fly in those servers. IMHO

Daiichidoku
05-06-2007, 04:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
The benifit of being able to use a B17 in a COOP or DF mission ONLINE far out weights the potental few servers that may make use of some of the AI fighers in that I can simply choose to NOT fly in those servers. IMHO </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

stop being so reasonable, TAGERT, this is the Zoo!

really though, i have no idea how mods and stuff got into this dicussion, has nothing to do with WW views (or generic/related pits) for AI

AKA_TAGERT
05-06-2007, 07:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
stop being so reasonable, TAGERT, this is the Zoo! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I can not help it!

It is in my nature!

It comes natural! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
really though, i have no idea how mods and stuff got into this dicussion, has nothing to do with WW views (or generic/related pits) for AI </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, as Lone pointed out, it is related.. thus it gets mentioned.. but as I pointed out it is very different.

jasonbirder
05-07-2007, 03:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You will only see the ONE version!

Thus a standard!

Granted, it may not be as good as an FM & DM as the user flyable planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This says it all for me...essentially you don't mind if something is sh*te...as long as it is equally sh*te for everyone...
Seems as close a defination of gaming over simming as you can find! In that you are far more interested in some kind of artificial game balance...than realism.

Daiichidoku
05-07-2007, 06:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
This says it all for me...essentially you don't mind if something is sh*te...as long as it is equally sh*te for everyone...
Seems as close a defination of gaming over simming as you can find! In that you are far more interested in some kind of artificial game balance...than realism. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you dont have to fly shiite planes enabled in WW

you can shoot at them instead..ever think about that?

half of the cummunity fly BS i-185s Lerches and +25s et al, now THATS removed from realism

AKA_TAGERT
05-07-2007, 10:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
This says it all for me... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So?

Now let me get this straight..

I thought you left..

But..

As in turns out, you have been lerking here all this time..

And you choose 'my' reply to jump back in on this thead instead of addressing mrsiCkstar reply to you about F4?

Your so called perfect example of a MODEABLE sim?

Please!

You can do better than that!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
essentially you don't mind if something is sh*te... as long as it is equally sh*te for everyone... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So what part of 'standard' are you having troulbe with?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
Seems as close a defination of gaming over simming as you can find! In that you are far more interested in some kind of artificial game balance...than realism. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hardly!

Has nothing to do with blanace and everything to do with what mrsiCkstar said about F4..

You know..

That reply to you that you failed to address becaue it totally debunked everything you were trying to say F4 was.

jeff2kar
05-07-2007, 11:16 AM
Wow, i read through this lengthy post, and found nothing but personal opinion shadowing constructive ideas.. Here is mine.....&gt; I could give a flying load how people feel about online play. people trying to control others payed for gaming wishes, for the sole fact of maintaining their "15 years of sim flying" domination on public servers, is absurd. Server admins have control of this. I ( and here comes my opinion) feel i have paid for this game, over and over again. Many games i own ( and have only paid for once) have continued my enjoyment 100% due to the mods available. I enjoy making missions offline for single player mode, and would very much enjoy a default cockpit for AI planes. I find it very disgusting I have to limit my enjoyment due to some sweaty brown-eye's lack of open-minds. Now when i look into purchases, i look at the replayable aspects to it, and the modification abilities. not for cheating, for pure enjoyment and Imagination. I support this request, and one more Oleg no, no more Oleg purchases, as i have spent quite a bit of money on this IL2 series already.

AKA_TAGERT
05-07-2007, 11:51 AM
Poor Nancy

Daiichidoku
05-07-2007, 12:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jeff2kar:
I enjoy making missions offline for single player mode, and would very much enjoy a default cockpit for AI planes. I find it very disgusting I have to limit my enjoyment due to some sweaty brown-eye's lack of open-minds. Now when i look into purchases, i look at the replayable aspects to it, and the modification abilities. not for cheating, for pure enjoyment and Imagination. I support this request </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


+1

and ty for posting related to the thread topic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

jasonbirder
05-07-2007, 01:13 PM
I had got a little tired of the ping-pong on this thread...
But there is nothing that mrsiCkstar said that needed addressing...he merely summarised exactly the current situation with Falcon 4.0
IE:- Legacy Falcon 4.0 - modded with a combination of Superpak, Cobra and BMS, Falcon 4.0 Allied Force - the new commercial release (which drew heavly on the community created Superpak Mods) and the new Red Viper mod...
All of which have their pro's and cons...
F4AF is easy to patch, commercially available and gives rock solid online play,
Legacy Falcon 4.0 with all of the latest mods still has the edge over F4AF in graphics and one or two other areas...
Red Viper is the very first step for that particular team...its brilliant and holds even more promise for the future...
I am experimenting with Red Viper Offline currently...but still have F4AF for co-ops and to complete a couple of ongoing campaigns...
What is the problem with there being a couple of different versions available for users to choose from...
As I know your greatest fear is that unscrupulous players might use these mods to gain some advantage...thats one thing I can assure you doesn't happen...each new release has added layer upon layer of additional difficulty and complexity to an already challanging sim environment...
So if your reservation is creating an easy environment for the player...it doesn't happen...Period no matter which version you're choosing to fly with...
I guess your only objection in that case can be that you want everyone flying the same patch level/version as you...no room for choice eh http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I've seen it many times before...the countless flame wars over which is better Il2 vs BOB-WOV, Falcon4 vs LOMAC etc etc as if these things can't comfotably co-exist...
Its not as if the release of a third party or community add on means you can't play the stock out of the box version if you want to...so its release or creation doesn't take anything away from what we already have...merely adds to it...

AKA_TAGERT
05-07-2007, 01:58 PM
Gold star for effort.. but no sale

mbfRoy
05-07-2007, 03:35 PM
I would ask for (some) modding options for the upcoming SoW series rather than IL-2. Even though the game is alive and kicking, it will most likely (though I could be very wrong!) slowly fade away when BoB is released, even more so if it comes with some modding capability.

Things like custom maps created from scratch, adding new objects -even airplanes maybe- is something I would like to see, and shouldn't affect normal online gameplay as long as the server with modded stuff is properly tagged (I'm thinking of different gameplay sections under All Seeying Eye, like many other games have -Capture the flag servers, Deathmatch servers, etc ==&gt; Official servers, Custom/modded servers...- you get the idea).

The only real threat to the online community would be a lack of proper server lock for certain settings, but seeing how IL2 currently does a very good job at that, I would not be too worried.

Just don't forget that while SoW:BoB will indeed be a flight sim, it has been stated that it will also have some groundlevel content aswell, so that's a lot more room modders might have

TheGozr
05-07-2007, 04:09 PM
Emails need to be sent there:

http://www.rrgstudios.com/

LEXX_Luthor
05-07-2007, 07:41 PM
jasonbirder:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> TAGERT::<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
You will only see the ONE version!

Thus a standard!

Granted, it may not be as good as an FM & DM as the user flyable planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This says it all for me...essentially you don't mind if something is sh*te...as long as it is equally sh*te for everyone...

Seems as close a defination of gaming over simming as you can find! In that you are far more interested in some kind of artificial game balance...than realism. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Correct call jasonbirder about Online computer gaming, but fair play, or the perception and faith of such, is the most important part of at least some Online play, and not flight models -- recall the elevator trim Trim Wars here. However, the BoB And Beyond servers with Oleg mods and Oleg Approved 3rd Party mods will offer the Online gameplay "standard" that TAGERT and some others are looking for, and could be a good call by Oleg to support those wanting to be restricted to the planeset Oleg creates or approves.

...on the other hand, JG53 pointed us toward a possibility that 3rd Party FMs and animations may only be "basic," although that may just be Olegish to English translation.

Oleg:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Note for the third party developers about these features of BoB:
we don't give full access to source code. We give access just for <span class="ev_code_yellow">some basic tunings of FM and animations</span> which will be possible to use only in single play custom made special room missions and only in special online room for such planes.
If it will be not possible to make such a scheme then we will cancel the work over custom planes... and will keep just objects and maps.
And will repeat we don't give ability to create the big maps, which we will keep for ourselves that to make new sims of new theaters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I translate it as no source code, but full access to FM and animation features.

AKA_TAGERT
05-07-2007, 08:38 PM
yawn...

The good news is Oleg is already setting his self up for a way to opt out of allowing 'custom planes' when he said

"If it will be not possible to make such a scheme then we will cancel the work over custom planes"

That tells me it is not high on his list of things to do.. i.e. low priority!

Knowing that and ubi's pressure to release early, buggie or not, I can see this whole 'custom planes' (aka 3rd party add on MODS) and servers falling to the way side for more important issues.

That and the smart business man thing to do is to do what has worked in the past! Take Falcon 3.0 for example (not F4). It was very successful in making money for the maker of the sim by coming out with paid for add-ons. Much like Oleg has done with the past few add-ons. So, why allow 3rd party people to do it for free.. what with all the down sides that come with it when you can make money by selling add-ons?

LEXX_Luthor
05-08-2007, 09:01 AM
Oleg keeping aircraft closed to modding and selling them himself could be a good choice -- if Oleg is interested in modding most every aircraft as flyable, including most flyable bombers. He may not be. Oleg seems to be keeping full size maps closed to modding for much the same purpose, as this would allow enthusiastic community members to fill in the aircraft gaps. I would rather have Oleg mod all WW2 aircraft, primarily for theoretically consistent (more or less) "standardized" FM/DM reasons, but also for not having to download half the internet for 3rd Party mods and fixing them -- cleaning up gameplay-killing dirty smoked canopy "glass" for example, which seems to infect 3rd Party modders as much as the Developers. But, even more I'd love to see aircraft that Oleg may never do, such as Spanish Civil War aircraft that would be done by enthusiastic modders, such as JG_Tuckie's team. One may always tell the serious WW2 military aviation enthusiats by their webboard behavior.

Yough jasonbirder, this is too much...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
This says it all for me... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So?

Now let me get this straight..

I thought you left..

But..

As in turns out, you have been <span class="ev_code_yellow">lerking</span> here all this time..

And you choose 'my' reply to jump back in on this <span class="ev_code_yellow">thead</span> instead of addressing mrsiCkstar reply to you about F4?

Your so called perfect example of a <span class="ev_code_yellow">MODEABLE</span> sim?

Please!

You can do better than that!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
essentially you don't mind if something is sh*te... as long as it is equally sh*te for everyone... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So what part of 'standard' are you having <span class="ev_code_yellow">troulbe</span> with?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
Seems as close a defination of gaming over simming as you can find! In that you are far more interested in some kind of artificial game balance...than realism. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hardly!

Has nothing to do with <span class="ev_code_yellow">blanace</span> and everything to do with what mrsiCkstar said about F4..

You know..

That reply to you that you failed to address <span class="ev_code_yellow">becaue</span> it totally debunked everything you were trying to say F4 was. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
hehe jasonbirder, this shows some insight into the "15 year old" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif computer gamer insulting accusations we saw early in the thread.

If it takes a 3rd Party modder to create flyable He-177 or Su-2 with cockpits, I'll take them. If Oleg can do these himself, even better! Stand tall, combat flight sim community.

mrsiCkstar
05-08-2007, 09:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Are there Flyable aircraft mods in Flacon? Do the modders make unique cockpits for different planes, and can cockpits be used for any aircraft? If so, that could be an alternative to StrikeFighters for me....or does everything use the same stock F-16 cockpit? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lexx, yeah you can fly many other planes in the Falcon series... there are even cockpits made for a lot of them.

www.cockpits.nl (http://www.cockpits.nl) has a bunch of freeware pits and payware pits as well... but again I have to point out that these only work with other versions of Falcon and not Allied Force.

mbfRoy
05-08-2007, 09:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
yawn...

The good news is Oleg is already setting his self up for a way to opt out of allowing 'custom planes' when he said

"If it will be not possible to make such a scheme then we will cancel the work over custom planes"

That tells me it is not high on his list of things to do.. i.e. low priority!

Knowing that and ubi's pressure to release early, buggie or not, I can see this whole 'custom planes' (aka 3rd party add on MODS) and servers falling to the way side for more important issues.

That and the smart business man thing to do is to do what has worked in the past! Take Falcon 3.0 for example (not F4). It was very successful in making money for the maker of the sim by coming out with paid for add-ons. Much like Oleg has done with the past few add-ons. So, why allow 3rd party people to do it for free.. what with all the down sides that come with it when you can make money by selling add-ons? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed, modding should not be top priority, I'll choose stability over it any day. If they decide to go with paid add-ons that's also fine with me aswell, although some little extra modding wouldn't hurt.

I for one would not be bothered to get my hands into making new aircraft from scratch... unless I got paid. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

AKA_TAGERT
05-08-2007, 11:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
hehe jasonbirder, this shows some insight into the "15 year old" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif computer gamer insulting accusations we saw early in the thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Looks like I struck a nerve pointing out that Oleg is already positioning for backing out.

AKA_TAGERT
05-08-2007, 11:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mbfRoy:
Agreed, modding should not be top priority, I'll choose stability over it any day. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mbfRoy:
If they decide to go with paid add-ons that's also fine with me aswell, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Just good business.. In that Lexx was the one to bring up the business senario. I just presented a real example of good business, Falcon 3.0's paid add-ons method instead of the Disneyland version Lexx is dreaming of.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mbfRoy:
although some little extra modding wouldn't hurt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am all for maps and mission mods, just not mods that allow user planes to be used ONLINE.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mbfRoy:
I for one would not be bothered to get my hands into making new aircraft from scratch... unless I got paid. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
On that note, something the pro MOD crowd hardly ever brings up is that..

YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR!

In that most of the free stuff you can DL for sims is cr@p anyways! Might have a nice external, but the cockpits look like they were made by some 4th grader with some paste and cray paper! Than there is the FM and DM! Please! Don't even get me started on the P-51 flying like a F-15!

I think the current IL2 system is the way to go! (if it aint broke, don't fix it)

Oleg interviews prospective 3D artists work.. If it is good enough, Oleg pays them for their work and then Oleg does the FM and DM for that 3D art. That system worked great for IL2! So well that it has been the best sim running for 5+ years now! It worked so well that other sim makers could not compete and fell out of the market (i.e. CFS4 was canceled).

The only thing they would need to add to the current method is a little flexibility and motivation.

FLEXIBILITY:
Make these paid add-ons flexible so you can pick and choose which ones you want. That is to say if you don't want a Pe3 than you don't have to buy it just to keep current version wise. There would be a free DL that allows you to see the new 3D externals.. but to fly it you would have to pay for the DL that contains the 3D cockpit art. Basically every time Oleg comes out with a paid add-on he provides a free add-on that has all the externals so you can see other people flying the plane when online, but you wont be able to fly it unless you pay for the add-on.

MOTIVATION:
The 3D artist gets a percentage of the paid add-ons. This will motivate 3D artist to make more planes.. but the FM and DM is still in the hands of Oleg.

AKA_TAGERT
05-08-2007, 11:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mrsiCkstar:
but again I have to point out that these only work with other versions of Falcon and not Allied Force. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So even the one sim the PRO MOD folks like to hold up as proof of MODS WORKS closed it to MODDING.

If that does not tell yah something.. nothing will! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LEXX_Luthor
05-08-2007, 07:58 PM
Thanks mrsiCkstar. hehe, I gotta admit, the combat jet mods seem to be the standard "jet sim" post-modern superfighters with only one (1) Classic jet/cockpit -- the rather strangely unidentified later model MiG-21. None of the Soviet aircraft mods have any model type identification. Maybe the Russian mods are multi-model "generic." But before I whine further, I should spend 3000$ on 3DMax I guess, or look to find more Flacon mods at other websites.

This "post-modern" superHUDfighter theme ... it reminds me of the digital watch fad a decade or two ago. Today, everybody wears analogue cockpit instruments..er..watches on their wrist. This is the kind of social behavior that clued in business people and investors actively look for -- jet sim developers should wake up to this. I would love a customized tape watch like the guages on F-105, F-106...and Colonial Viper. I *think* the Viper tape instruments were copied from those two aircraft in the 1970s...before the short lived digital watch fad came and went. I would love a real jet sim with analogue cockpit instruments. No "hud" allowed, other than early primitive huds in the 1960s perhaps.

LEXX_Luthor
05-08-2007, 08:13 PM
TAGERT:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">On that note, something the pro MOD crowd hardly ever brings up is that..

YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR!

In that most of the free stuff you can DL for sims is cr@p anyways! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Large numbers of serious flight sim community members enjoy the many high quality aircraft mods, free or pay, and many members enjoy the lesser mods, especially if nothing else is made available by the other modders or developers.

Stand tall, combat flight sim community.

AKA_TAGERT
05-08-2007, 08:59 PM
The good news is Oleg is already setting his self up for a way to opt out of allowing 'custom planes' when he said

"If it will be not possible to make such a scheme then we will cancel the work over custom planes"

That tells me it is not high on his list of things to do.. i.e. low priority!

Knowing that and ubi's pressure to release early, buggie or not, I can see this whole 'custom planes' (aka 3rd party add on MODS) and servers falling to the way side for more important issues.

That and the smart business man thing to do is to do what has worked in the past! Take Falcon 3.0 for example (not F4). It was very successful in making money for the maker of the sim by coming out with paid for add-ons. Much like Oleg has done with the past few add-ons. So, why allow 3rd party people to do it for free.. what with all the down sides that come with it when you can make money by selling add-ons?

Daiichidoku
05-11-2007, 07:39 AM
penny for a pound

bump!

Daiichidoku
05-23-2007, 10:14 AM
bump

waffen-79
05-28-2007, 05:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
before there is absolutely NO more development on il2

PLEASE enable AI types to be flyable with generic cockpits, or "related" pits that are "close"

failing that, if its too much work...then how about flyable AI types that work with "wonder woman" views?

this cant be asking a lot, and would only increase the available types to players to enjoy

what say you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100,000,000,000,000,000.00%

For all the bombers and torp planes! Fighters, no. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah no fighters, but don't forget the service planes (storch, C-47, JU-52, etc)

LEXX_Luthor
05-29-2007, 08:33 AM
Why no fighters? Transfer to a flyable Me-410 squadron would be nice in an Eastern Front or a Reich Defense dynamic campaign.

LEXX_Luthor
05-29-2007, 10:11 AM
Heehe, or do we have AI Me-210? Its been that long since I played this sim.

A5M would be nice to fly from carriers in 1940 missions, and that plane came with Pe-2 right?

ELKASKONE
05-30-2007, 06:18 AM
bump,
for all fighters and bombers!

AFJ_Locust
05-31-2007, 12:33 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

xxx 999

Daiichidoku
05-31-2007, 08:34 PM
soup du jour:

bump!

DKoor
06-02-2007, 08:44 AM
I'd like to fly for example B5N even in no pit mode............... another +1 to original request.

BrotherVoodoo
06-04-2007, 07:16 AM
If it would be easy to implament, cool idea. If not let them focus on BoB.

striker-85
06-04-2007, 03:39 PM
+1 for no cockpits on the AI planes.

xTHRUDx
06-06-2007, 12:47 PM
-1 from previous post

Daiichidoku
06-11-2007, 04:59 PM
+2 for 2nd previous post

AKA_TAGERT
06-11-2007, 05:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
+2 for 2nd previous post </div></BLOCKQUOTE>what do you need that for when you can fly the BAT PLANE with the WW view in the Jets server? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Daiichidoku
06-11-2007, 08:21 PM
hey, if the shoe fits.....

alert_1
06-12-2007, 07:15 AM
Dont forget that AI planes haven't FM of the same quality as flyable ones

Daiichidoku
06-13-2007, 08:11 AM
rgrt

but does it benefit or hinder the AIs, compared to RL?

if it makes an AI type underperform, who can argue?

if it makes it overperform, then keep it enabled for bombers/utility types only, a Me 323 Gigant is not going to be a threat cuz it has an extra 50kph, is it?

besides...some of the "accurate" FMs we have for existing flyables suck anyhow, (p38/IAR/190 et al) so who cares?

mission builders and those who enjoy good missions will love this....no-one will lose or be harmed if this happened

Cloyd
06-13-2007, 07:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by alert_1:
Dont forget that AI planes haven't FM of the same quality as flyable ones </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I could get rid of the undercarriage, I think I could get this one into orbit. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://mysite.verizon.net/dtpkls/themightycasey/index_files/G11.jpg



They fixed this one, but it used to have some really exotic behavior. "OMG Oleg, the water modelling is all farted up!"

http://mysite.verizon.net/dtpkls/themightycasey/index_files/Trolling.jpg

Cloyd

AKA_TAGERT
06-14-2007, 07:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
hey, if the shoe fits..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL

Daiichidoku
06-15-2007, 11:33 AM
bump to keep from being buried under dug-up threads, and the other dross and fluff recently contaminating ORR http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Daiichidoku
06-19-2007, 10:22 AM
so i can make good use of the 75mm B 25H


bump!

Novoroso
06-19-2007, 07:04 PM
It's not a bad idea, so long as not one iota of development time is taken from SOW. Which it definitely would be.

So scratch that.

Plus, look at it from the dev's point of view: any more work on IL2 will not be rewarded; there won't be any more versions released at retail, sales will not increase. SOW, however, is worth putting the effort in as better reviews will most likely result in greater sales.

Equally, I'm sure they are all sick to absolute death of the IL2 engine and its limitations.

Look to the future my friends. Have we not already got a lot out of IL2 at this point? Must we constantly request new features? I'm still surprised there's apparently yet another patch in the works. Oleg is extremely kind, but I hope to God he stops putting any more resources into this old, old game.

Daiichidoku
06-20-2007, 06:59 AM
what is wrong with ppl?

Oleg IS pouring max effort into SoW

there is a token 2 devs left for FB issues

so your precious SoW devevelopment would NOT be affected

whether or not the task of enabling WW view pits for AIs is a large job or small, i have no idea...although i SUSPECT it is not a huge task

DKoor
06-20-2007, 07:20 AM
Another bumpage for one of the most reasonable enquires on this forum lately.

BrotherVoodoo
06-20-2007, 09:23 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

+1

Novoroso
06-20-2007, 11:18 AM
Well - as has already been pointed out - the flight models for the ai planes are significantly simpler than for the flyables. How many non-flyables are there? Hundreds?

My impression of Oleg's work thus far is that he doesn't like to do things by half or just rush stuff out. So we're probably talking about a major ammount of time investment to produce these flight models. I'm not sure how long this would take 'two token developers'. I'm also not sure how these chaps would feel being denigrated so.

And what's with the 'your precious SOW development'? Can that be read as 'Oleg, I'm not going to buy SOW, but I want more work for free on your old game please?'

Your request would be a little more reasonable if you offered to fund the development.

major_setback
06-20-2007, 03:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TooCooL34:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pollack2006:
I say no.

There are more than enough flyables and I don't want some half-arsed mongrel aircraft with either simplified FM/DM or generic cockpits polluting the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
+9

LStarosta
06-22-2007, 07:29 PM
I totally agree with the thread starter, and on top of that I petition Oleg to add invisible tailhooks to every aircraft in the game and have it enabled via a toggle switch in the difficulty settings (possibly under realistic landings or whatever).

JG54_Lukas
06-23-2007, 07:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:

whether or not the task of enabling WW view pits for AIs is a large job or small, i have no idea...although i SUSPECT it is not a huge task </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your suspicions fail you immensely.

Daiichidoku
06-24-2007, 10:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG54_Lukas:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:

whether or not the task of enabling WW view pits for AIs is a large job or small, i have no idea...although i SUSPECT it is not a huge task </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your suspicions fail you immensely. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

perhaps then Lukas, you can shed some light on this for us?

just how hard is it, how much is involved in making, for example, the B 25H flyable with WW view?

Hawgdog
06-25-2007, 05:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG54_Lukas:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:

whether or not the task of enabling WW view pits for AIs is a large job or small, i have no idea...although i SUSPECT it is not a huge task </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your suspicions fail you immensely. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

perhaps then Lukas, you can shed some light on this for us?

just how hard is it, how much is involved in making, for example, the B 25H flyable with WW view? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good Lord, this is complicated.
Look first, you would have to model something like a...a chase view, hell if F8 weren't being used for something he could use that.
Then, you know how hard it would be to make the plane vanish? You need special 3D modelers vanishing software. Then, after the hours of doing that you would then need some kind of magical 3D modelers painting device, one probably not available, one that could somehow possibly "paint" some kind of crosshairs out in the front of the AI.
Too complicated. I say bash it and put full focus on the release of Pacific Fighters and the P-47 fix, and the 50 cal fix! Thats where the money lies.

JG54_Lukas
06-25-2007, 08:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:

perhaps then Lukas, you can shed some light on this for us?

just how hard is it, how much is involved in making, for example, the B 25H flyable with WW view? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Long story short, it takes a lot of work to make a plane flyable, whether it be with a full-real cockpit for a WW view. Not to mention, a lot of these AI aircraft have simplified damage and flight models, so a lot of work would have to be done to them to bring them up to speed with the rest of the flyables. It's a lengthy process which I just don't see anyone from 1C wanting to undertake.

Daiichidoku
06-25-2007, 11:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG54_Lukas:
Long story short, it takes a lot of work to make a plane flyable, whether it be with a full-real cockpit for a WW view. Not to mention, a lot of these AI aircraft have simplified damage and flight models, so a lot of work would have to be done to them to bring them up to speed with the rest of the flyables. It's a lengthy process which I just don't see anyone from 1C wanting to undertake. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


i was waiting to see mention of FM

ok.

you have a B 25H...or Me 323 Gigant...or Henschel 129....do these types, as they can be flown on ext views now, have either an FM or DM that is so seriously out of whack as to unbalance anything?

dont BS here....

are they signifigantly harder, or easier to bring down than any flyable type due to over/undermoidelled simple DM?

do they pose any threat to any existing, equivalent flyable by way of an overly generous simple FM?

are they hopelessly outclassed by way of a pathetically undermodelled FM?

will ppl who choose to fly them as such, give a rats a s s if the FM DM is not perfect, especially in light that these are unexpected, bonus types to fly, and further that the "accurate" "complex" FM and DMs of MANY other flyable types royally suck and are not remotely accurate themselves in the first place?

will those who dont like, or wont fly enabled AI types, really have thier gaming/sim experience SO utterly ruined as to scar thier psyche, instead of see an even greater variety of flying targets for them to kill?

Lukas, you seem to talk like you know whats what....so, less any FM/DM alterations, give us a basci overview of what is involved in enabling WW vierw, please...say, to do it for a single type, to give us an idea...please



not important to 1C? maybe....but i would certainly part with a $mall $um for a WW enabled AI patch

joeap
06-26-2007, 03:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:


not important to 1C? maybe....but i would certainly part with a $mall $um for a WW enabled AI patch </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1 Plus agree with the rest of your post bud.

Novoroso
06-26-2007, 09:25 AM
Daiichidoku, your tone is really quite offensive. Lukas has worked on cockpits for Il2 and therefore might just have some idea of the length of time it takes to get an aircraft flyable, don't you think? Yet your post clearly suggests you think he's bull****ting.

Whilst I've never worked on a flight simulator, let alone a project the size of Il2, I do understand that having an AI 'fly' a plane about in a simulator is quite different to having it be flyable by a player.

We're talking about completely different routines accomplishing completely different things, all tightly interwoven into other code. You can't just chop and change this stuff. Some if it will be precisely coded to achieve certain results that aren't transferable to other items. In some/or many instances, short-cuts will have been or and 'quick' methods utilised to enable an effect that cannot be managed any other way; again, non-transferable code. There's probably stuff in there that works, but no-one is quite sure why! I'm not accusing Oleg et al of sloppy coding - this is typical of all software development. Non-programmers sometimes seem to think of code as some sort of perfectly realised truth.

Let me put it this way: if it was really simple, don't you think there would be loads of IL2 competitors out there, doing at least as good a job, and knocking out all these flyables you require?

Daiichidoku
06-26-2007, 12:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by novotny721972:
Daiichidoku, your tone is really quite offensive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

no, it wasnt.

how are these quotes offensive?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Daii:
perhaps then Lukas, you can shed some light on this for us?
just how hard is it, how much is involved in making, for example, the B 25H flyable with WW view? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Daii:
Lukas, you seem to talk like you know whats what....so, less any FM/DM alterations, give us a basci overview of what is involved in enabling WW vierw, please...say, to do it for a single type, to give us an idea...please </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

simply asked him for info...and i said please, twice!

offensive? shee-ya, ok



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by novotny721972:
Lukas has worked on cockpits for Il2 and therefore might just have some idea of the length of time it takes to get an aircraft flyable, don't you think? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes, i do think he has an idea....HENCE MY ASKING HIM FOR MORE INFO...besides, how much of his job actually had to do with ANYTHING beyond making the cockpit did he do, or was privvy to? NFM, i bet



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by novotny721972:
Yet your post clearly suggests you think he's bull****ting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

please quote this clear suggestion, ty


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by novotny721972:
I do understand that having an AI 'fly' a plane about in a simulator is quite different to having it be flyable by a player. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i do not understand your point, as you surely know that AI types may already be flown by HUMANS, via ext views, thus AI already ARE flyable by player...i merely would think it grand to fly the same thing, but from WW view


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by novotny721972:
We're talking about completely different routines accomplishing completely different things, all tightly interwoven into other code. You can't just chop and change this stuff. Some if it will be precisely coded to achieve certain results that aren't transferable to other items. In some/or many instances, short-cuts will have been or and 'quick' methods utilised to enable an effect that cannot be managed any other way; again, non-transferable code. There's probably stuff in there that works, but no-one is quite sure why! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

THIS is the (at the least, anyhow) kind of thing i wanted from Lukas, some kind of explaination as to why its it (supposedly, not PROVEN) is impractible


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by novotny721972:
Let me put it this way: if it was really simple, don't you think there would be loads of IL2 competitors out there, doing at least as good a job, and knocking out all these flyables you require? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ummmm yes....if there were any competetors that had access to the FB engine/source code...DUH!



oh, if you want, you can take THIS post as offensive http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Novoroso
06-26-2007, 01:27 PM
I'm sorry, I have better things to do than enter into point-by-point arguments over semantics. Your tone is belligerent, your understanding is minimal and your post count is high. Rotten combination.

I'm done here.

Daiichidoku
06-26-2007, 03:17 PM
hit and run, eh?

cant take it, dont dish it

FI-Skipper
06-30-2007, 06:17 AM
It's a bad idea...whats the point (and wheres the fun) in flying a load of planes with no cockpit? There is none...

It will only attract players who just want to fly the game in an arcadish manner and I think the il2 community could do without that.

Just my thoughts

MEGILE
06-30-2007, 06:57 AM
Good Idea... but I can 100% understand why oleg doesn't do it..

Imagine the complaints in his mail box..

OmFg Oleg why is teh my Kate got teh Americen Gagues.

Believe me, there are hoards of loosers ready to complain at will

Daiichidoku
06-30-2007, 02:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FI-Skipper:
It's a bad idea...whats the point (and wheres the fun) in flying a load of planes with no cockpit? There is none...

It will only attract players who just want to fly the game in an arcadish manner and I think the il2 community could do without that.

Just my thoughts </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

sorry to burst a bubble, skipper, but there is already LOTS of arcade flyers, who enjoy it very much, ty....

FR snobs are SO brain dead http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Daiichidoku
06-30-2007, 02:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
Good Idea... but I can 100% understand why oleg doesn't do it..

Imagine the complaints in his mail box..

OmFg Oleg why is teh my Kate got teh Americen Gagues.

Believe me, there are hoards of loosers ready to complain at will </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes...if they were to use a generc pit perhaps...np if they used the Val pit

if they enabled it for WW view....wouldnt be any different than any other JP flyable now, you know that, Megile


still, i cant complain your spam, it bumps the thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

FI-Skipper
06-30-2007, 03:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FI-Skipper:
It's a bad idea...whats the point (and wheres the fun) in flying a load of planes with no cockpit? There is none...

It will only attract players who just want to fly the game in an arcadish manner and I think the il2 community could do without that.

Just my thoughts </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

sorry to burst a bubble, skipper, but there is already LOTS of arcade flyers, who enjoy it very much, ty....

FR snobs are SO brain dead http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you'll find only the brain dead resort to insults and refuse to accept the other side of an argument http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Skipper

PS-Learn to play the game properly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

RAF_OldBuzzard
07-05-2007, 03:38 AM
So Skipper,just how DOES one fly this game 'properly'?

Ya know there is a quote in one of Shakespere's plays that describe people like you: "Forgive him Caeser, for he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe are the rules of the universe."

What is 'proper' for you may not be proper for someone else.

Just so that you know, I play at VERY relaxed settings and have a damned good time doing it. I'll apologize to no one for it either.

If I want 'full real', I'll go and fly my Cessna 140. Hell, I'll bet that 90+% of the 'Full Real Snobs' have no clue as to what a real aircraft is capable of, nor had any stick time in a real airplane.

Quite being so full of yourself, and let people enjoy this game in their own way without telling them that they are somehow 'inferior' to you because they don't play it the way YOU say it should be played.

Hawgdog
07-05-2007, 04:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"Forgive him Caeser, for he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe are the rules of the universe." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


ah, an excellent quote, I like it better than "Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature." George Bernard Shaw
But the point is the same, what ruins ANY game/hobby/sport is your first exposure to it is riddled with snobs who insist on telling you what you are doing is wrong, theirs is the only way etc etc.And you wind up moving on, instead of digging in.
I prefer to use the pit I paid for, but some generic cockpit to dump a couple of 200k's out of that POS U2 would be fun non the less

FI-Skipper
07-05-2007, 06:09 AM
Look I was just making my view that this game was designed to be flown as a simulator (ie. Cockpit on etc)

If you don't fly that...I don't particularly care...it is your hoice. What I don't want to see is a load of non-cockpit aircraft being made available for a game that is supposed to be a simulator.

As usual the whole FR snob card has been played and insults thrown. For the record I have been up once or twice in a cessena and had a go at flying it. I would prefer to do it more often but I don't have the funds so I have to play this game to get as close as I can.

Personally I don;t see the point in playing this great sim at arcade settings as for me..you are not getting the full benefit from it. You may aswell go and play some console game. Once again this is just my own opinion. Clearly you feel differently. In my opinion you are wrong...in your opinion I am wrong.

But lets grow up a little and learn not trade insults next time, eh? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Daiichidoku
07-05-2007, 08:10 AM
that you said (paraphrase) "more arcade flyers is bad for community" IS an insult to arcade flyers...YOU started the insults

i respect that you dont feel a point in arcade flying..fine

why cant you return that respect to anyone who flies differently from you?

you still havent answered my question to you, Skipper; as you fly FR,, IF WW view for arcade settings to fly AIs was enabled, how would your FR playing experience be affected (ruined)?

you would NEVER seen them at all, in FR servers

why are you pissing on an idea that would give a huge boon to arcade flyers/mission builders etc?

FI-Skipper
07-05-2007, 08:53 AM
Believe it or not Daiichidoku we are allowed to discuss our opinions freely on this forum. I was expressing my opinion and if you are small minded enough to take it as an insult then that's your problem. If I was being so insulting surely a mod would have warned me about my behaviour and locked the thread.

Quite frankly I couldn't care less what you fly or how you fly. You were the one pathetic enough to come on HL and start spamming me with rants and insults.You are in no position to portray me as the aggressor.

The reason I am against this is that over half (if not more)of the community would see absolutely NO BENEFIT of this being implemented. A waste of time and resources that could be better used working on BoB.

Now perhaps you could try and mature a little and accept that not everyone is going to agree with your viewpoint and that you are not neccessarily correct.

RAF_OldBuzzard
07-05-2007, 02:29 PM
If the game was "designed to be flown as a simulator (ie. Cockpit on etc)", then why are there options to allow one to fly it in WW view? Why is there the option to turn off overheat, redout/blackout? How about unlimited fuel/ammo?

There's room for every one, and you are more than welcome to fly at at setting that you wish. Just don't try to claim that any particular setting is 'proper'.

Given the limitations of our hardware, flying locked in the pit isn't exactly 'full real' either, even with TIR. Should we ever get decently priced VR hardware and a sim designed for it, I'd be more than happy to stay in the pit all the time. As it is now, I have more SA in my 140 than in any plane in this game.

Daiichidoku
07-05-2007, 02:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FI-Skipper:
Believe it or not Daiichidoku we are allowed to discuss our opinions freely on this forum. I was expressing my opinion and if you are small minded enough to take it as an insult then that's your problem. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

correction: i must have a miniscule mind, if i take this:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FI-Skipper:
It will only attract players who just want to fly the game in an arcadish manner and I think the il2 community could do without that </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
as a compliment...was this a compliment, Skipper?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FI-Skipper:
If I was being so insulting surely a mod would have warned me about my behaviour and locked the thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

mods dont exist here...they are all in GD, keeping a wary eye on Megile :P

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FI-Skipper:
You were the one pathetic enough to come on HL and start spamming me with rants and insults.You are in no position to portray me as the aggressor. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i have NP posting or showing anyone who wants, all of my pages to you in HL, there are NO insults in there


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FI-Skipper:
The reason I am against this is that over half (if not more)of the community would see absolutely NO BENEFIT of this being implemented. A waste of time and resources that could be better used working on BoB. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

very open minded...so, unless it benefits FR players, its a waste? or should that be "unless it benefits everyone (unless they are arcade flyers, they are bad for the community, y'know), its a waste?

did you know, Skipper, that currently, 1c is working F-T, all out, with all staff to bring you SoW?
THERE IS NO WASTE OF RESOURSES/TIME in this case...1C currently has 2 devs dedicated to all FB issues...SoW will not be affected


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FI-Skipper:
Now perhaps you could try and mature a little and accept that not everyone is going to agree with your viewpoint and that you are not neccessarily correct. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i accept anyones POV, but if they disagree with mine, for no, or for partial or incorrect reasons, then i will take them to task over it

FI-Skipper
07-05-2007, 04:56 PM
I've read your reply. I don't really care about any of the points you made. We're never going to see eye to eye so why don't you happily run off believing your view to be correct and i'll do the same.

Buzzard, your point seems to basically be. "I can fly and I get more immersion when I fly a real plane." What can I say? Good for you. Shame it's a point that is neither here nor there.

RAF_OldBuzzard
07-05-2007, 05:52 PM
The difference is that I don't think that MY settings (whatever they may be), are the ONLY 'correct' settings, and that somehow all other settings are wrong and/or inferior, which is, (even if you didn't mean to) what your post seemed to imply.

As far as I'm concerned, you can fly with all switches to the left, all switches to the right, or any combination in between, and you are 'correct', since the game allows it.

Scorpion.233
07-05-2007, 07:48 PM
I strongly doubt that a cockpit is the only thing you need.

Unless you want to port the flying model over from a rougly similar plane. Which I think is a bit blunt and not very professional.

FI-Skipper
07-06-2007, 05:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RAF_OldBuzzard:
The difference is that I don't think that MY settings (whatever they may be), are the ONLY 'correct' settings, and that somehow all other settings are wrong and/or inferior, which is, (even if you didn't mean to) what your post seemed to imply.

As far as I'm concerned, you can fly with all switches to the left, all switches to the right, or any combination in between, and you are 'correct', since the game allows it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All I'm saying is this is a FLIGHT SIMULATOR. Therefore the point of it is to simulate flight as accurately as possible with the btechnology we have. In that sense...anything other than FR is "incorrect" as it does not simulate flight as you would experience it.

Daiichidoku
07-06-2007, 08:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FI-Skipper:
All I'm saying is this is a FLIGHT SIMULATOR. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

THIS is a flight sim
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/zaa.jpg

THIS, and its kin, are GAMES
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/zaaa.jpg



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skipper:
anything other than FR is "incorrect" as it does not simulate flight as you would experience it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

how cockpits of real planes have you ever seen with 2D pit bars?

did you know that the game's WW view is more natural, and more realistic than FR views, as the human eye would unfocus cockpit bars, etc? (discounting the arrows, natch!)



so...if the game was to get some kind of 6dof Track IR help, to give better visibility to FR flyers.....that would be of no benefit to arcade/WW flyers....so, following Skipper's logic, any feature to improve FR visibility issues is a waste of resources, as not everyone will benefit


i guess also, that IRL, they checked magnetos before take off for fun, as it was really not important...as reflected in this "simulator"

the list goes on....

FI-Skipper
07-06-2007, 09:26 AM
Check the first page of the site:

"1up.com just released their review of IL2 Sturmovik 1946. They awarded the game a 10/10 and called it the "holy grail of WW2 flight sims" Check it out!"

"Flight sims"...case rested.

...

And yes...of course being able to suddenly switch to an exterior view is more accurate than flying cockpit on. We all know that this was a well known tactic of the WWII fighter aces. Us FR "snobs" are just stupid because we fly with cockpit on when really all the Spitfire pilots just prssed a button which immediately tranpsorted their POV outside their aircraft.

And no...of course it wouldn't be pointless as it would ENHANCE THE SIMULATOR. Surely even you can understand that adding more planes with no cockpits, inaccurate FM's etc is not reflective of a SIMULATION of flight.

As for your last point. I never claimed that il2 was the be all and end all that gives a 100% accurate experience of flight. What I actually said is it aims to give as realistic as possible within the constriants of technology.

In short...your argument is incorrect, invalid and incoherent.

Daiichidoku
07-06-2007, 10:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FI-Skipper:
Check the first page of the site:

"1up.com just released their review of IL2 Sturmovik 1946. They awarded the game a 10/10 and called it the "holy grail of WW2 flight sims" Check it out!"

"Flight sims"...case rested. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes, i agree; they call it a flight sim, so it MUST simulate flying...so FB should suitable as a suppliment to real flight training, nes't pas?
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FI-Skipper:
And yes...of course being able to suddenly switch to an exterior view </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

there has been scarce, if any, mention of ext views to this, dont obfusicate; many ppl fly open pit with NO externals

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FI-Skipper:
of course it wouldn't be pointless as it would ENHANCE THE SIMULATOR. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

to those ppl that have already flown for years in this "simulator", flying BOTH arcade and FR-ish settings, having more, and varied planes to have fun flying, or as targets to shoot, would ENHANCE THE "SIMULATOR"...why piss on something for them, jsut cuz YOU wont benefit? bear in mind, "time and resourses" for SoW and FB are accounted for; that argument is moot

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FI-Skipper:
Surely even you can understand that adding more planes with no cockpits </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

do you have '46?

many others do...many of those fly no pit...hence, for them, the case is exactly that, more planes, with no cockpits...would you have had it that the new planes could not have pits turned off?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FI-Skipper:
inaccurate FM's etc is not reflective of a SIMULATION of flight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OMFG!!!!11!!

that Me 323 Gigant can only do 136mph top speed IRL!!! in the "simulator" it does 126/146!!! its SO porked/uber my game/"simulator" experience is ruined/uber!!!!

"the storch is porked, it could take off 30 meters sooner than this travesty!"

"dont worry, our okinawa co-op will be great using 1941 bettys, we couldnt use G5s with the Okha loadout anyways, besides, those simple FMs mean they would pwn our Corsairs and Hellcats"


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FI-Skipper:
As for your last point. I never claimed that il2 was the be all and end all that gives a 100% accurate experience of flight. What I actually said is it aims to give as realistic as possible within the constriants of technology. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok.

i hope one day you will find a "simulator" that caters only to those seekign max realism, with no appeal whatsoever to those undesirables who would even think of desecrating it with arcade settings

its no wonder there are SO many of those type of "sims" out there, they sell SO well

FI-Skipper
07-06-2007, 11:21 AM
Yes it is a flight sim. Yes it should simulate flying. No, of course it should not be used to help flight training as it is a SIMULATOR. You seem to have trouble for this word so let me define it for you:

"Imitation or representation, as of a potential situation or in experimental testing."

Therefore it is useful in giving us a FEEL for the situation but can never replace the real thing. So once again...your point is invalid.

Oh pardon me, open pit is no more realistic than externals! I bet that happend alot in WWII. Just remove the instrument pannel so you can make that difficult deflection shot. If only you'd worked with Supermarine! Oh by the way, the word you ineptly tried to use to feign intelligence is "obfuscate".

Once again you are missing the point so I will refer you to the definition:

"Imitation or representation, as of a potential situation or in experimental testing."

How exactly would the addition of planes with poor FM's and no cockpits aid in imitating the experience of flight? It wouldn't.

I bought '46 simply so I could play online and for the maps. What they were thinking when they brought out jets...they are lucky they did not destroy the sim...

You then went on to try and claim I was whining about FM's not being perfect by being slightly out which just proves your limited understand of the situation(or more likely is an example of your low intellect). If you want to fly a game with **** FM's why not buy yourself a PS2 or XBox and play some of the "great" console WWII flight games on offer there?

Finally, you tried to conclude by attacking the fact I play FR. I don't care what settings you fly. What I do care about is Oleg diluting the quality of this sim just so you can fly around with no cockpit on in some plane that is is not designed to be flyable.

RAF_OldBuzzard
07-06-2007, 07:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What I do care about is Oleg diluting the quality of this sim just so you can fly around with no cockpit on in some plane that is is not designed to be flyable </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then, if hell freezes over and we actually get them, don't fly in servers that allow their use, and let the rest of us have our fun. How hard would that be?

FI-Skipper
07-07-2007, 04:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RAF_OldBuzzard:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What I do care about is Oleg diluting the quality of this sim just so you can fly around with no cockpit on in some plane that is is not designed to be flyable </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then, if hell freezes over and we actually get them, don't fly in servers that allow their use, and let the rest of us have our fun. How hard would that be? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We already have literally HUNDREDS of flyable planes! Would it be so hard for you to do without one or two aircraft?! Christ, we all have planes we'd like to see in the sim. It ain't going to happen. Get used to it.

RAF_OldBuzzard
07-07-2007, 05:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">we all have planes we'd like to see in the sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have a mouse in your pocket? Or are you so egotistical that you presume to talk for everyone, including the the devs?

You need to get over yourself, and quit thinking that your opinion is the only one that matters. I hate to break this to you, but should the universe sudddenly collapse you WON'T find yourself in the center of it.

It's obvious that you are a self-centered twit, and also obvious that further debate with you would be useless. Good day sir, and enjoy your little corner of the world.

FI-Skipper
07-07-2007, 06:16 AM
Well I'd say that 90% of people on these forums have a plain they would like to see in the sim. Perhaps a diffrent variant of an aircraft...lots of people would like to see more heavy bombers such as the B-29 or Lancaster. Therefore i'm not presuming to talk to everyone. I read other posts, take others views into account. Perhaps you could try doing the same sometime?

Ah and then the insults. Your argument fails so you resort to flinging mood and leave in a huff. How mature http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Daiichidoku
07-07-2007, 12:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FI-Skipper:
Well I'd say that 90% of people on these forums have a plain they would like to see in the sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

a plain?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FI-Skipper:
Oh by the way, the word you ineptly tried to use to feign intelligence is "obfuscate" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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



you just keep on with all the other stuff that flows from you, Skipper, it is SO telling of you...just dont lose those blinders, y'hear?

flyingloon
07-07-2007, 12:47 PM
there are planes already in the sim/game that people want to try out, hence the no-cockpit view request.
you don't want it skipper, fine don't use it, others do want it though, and that was the initial point of the thread. pretty much petition-like... don't want em, don't sign

FI-Skipper
07-07-2007, 12:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
you just keep on with all the other stuff that flows from you, Skipper, it is SO telling of you...just dont lose those blinders, y'hear? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I won't if you don't... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Daiichidoku
07-07-2007, 03:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flyingloon:
there are planes already in the sim/game that people want to try out, hence the no-cockpit view request.
you don't want it skipper, fine don't use it, others do want it though, and that was the initial point of the thread. pretty much petition-like... don't want em, don't sign </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1

FI-Skipper
07-07-2007, 04:47 PM
I make no apology for expressing my views. This is a forum after all. Others in this thread have done so.

I didn't realise that discussion wasn't allowed...

LEXX_Luthor
07-07-2007, 05:42 PM
Hi all. I've been away from this tread so I can see without any personal emotion, and it don't make much sense now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Skipper, FB/PF is not a flight simulator. This is a combat flight simulator. There is a huge difference.

Back when I played this sim, I used the SBD for standin as flyable Su-2, then I could join other AI Su-2 formations to simulate 1941 Easter Front combat. Does this make me "arcade" to go to such lengths to sim something that I've read about in history books all my life (Su-2 -- 1941 -- Barborossa). Using SBD is the closest I've got yet to doing Su-2, and its not exactly "realistic", with no thanks to the Ussian developers and their constant recycling of "arcade" or "microsoft" game Fw-190Doras, P-51Doras and P-47Doras, etc...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


But then even Russian developers have never offered a flyable Su-2. Aw Shuck's Oleg didn't even offer the Yak-9 Double Dora, just a regular Dora.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif


Daiich:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">will ppl who choose to fly them as such, give a rats a s s if the FM DM is not perfect, especially in light that these are unexpected, bonus types to fly, and further that the "accurate" "complex" FM and DMs of MANY other flyable types royally suck and are not remotely accurate themselves in the first place? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Indeed Captain. Recall long ago how the self-advertised "hardcore" community enjoyed using the Yak-1 as a generic Spitfire Mk1. Everbody would have preferred a "real" Spit-1, but they made do.

Kapt_A
07-08-2007, 05:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Indeed Captain. Recall long ago how the self-advertised "hardcore" community enjoyed using the Yak-1 as a generic Spitfire Mk1. Everbody would have preferred a "real" Spit-1, but they made do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh ya,these bring back memories?

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e307/RAF23-Kapt/YakSpit1a.jpg
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e307/RAF23-Kapt/YakSpit2a.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
07-08-2007, 07:43 PM
Indeed Kapt! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Daiichidoku
07-09-2007, 07:43 AM
Lexx, Kapt...

the community doesnt need your kind around, flying planes with bad FMs

you guys better start taking this simulator seriously...you have such small minds


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

Kapt_A
07-09-2007, 03:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
Lexx, Kapt...

the community doesnt need your kind around, flying planes with bad FMs

you guys better start taking this simulator seriously...you have such small minds


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And this coming from someone who wants all available aircraft flyable regardless of flight model or not? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Daiichidoku
07-09-2007, 04:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kapt_A:
And this coming from someone who wants all available aircraft flyable regardless of flight model or not? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

it was a jab at Skippy there

LEXX_Luthor
07-09-2007, 06:52 PM
We're never getting off the island with bad FM. Gilligan! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif



Pyle you knucklehead what's your problem? You want the General to see my squad flying bad FM's?


Its Dr. Bellows. Bad FM get back in your bottle!

Daiichidoku
07-13-2007, 01:28 PM
bump so i can fly hawks and moraines in battle of france

Daiichidoku
07-25-2007, 12:47 PM
bump so i can blast my buddy flying a b29 with my ki46KAI's "schrage musik" 40mm oblique gun

Scorpion.233
07-25-2007, 05:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
bump so i can blast my buddy flying a b29 with my ki46KAI's "schrage musik" 40mm oblique gun </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With Lerche flight model.

xTHRUDx
08-03-2007, 01:21 AM
bump


Oleg, please do it.

or others will hack it to make it happen. i'd rather have you do it, but others are beating you to the punch. pics from the russian forum

http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=73836&d=1186088281

http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=73823&d=1186076861

Uncle_Stranger
08-03-2007, 02:26 AM
Wow!

Hang all hackers!

Shtraib
08-03-2007, 05:35 AM
its working only for 4.05 version

VVS-Manuc
08-03-2007, 06:16 AM
...and it looks terrible http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

Daiichidoku
08-03-2007, 08:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VVS-Manuc:
...and it looks terrible http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


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

i guess if anything we've learned from this game, its that nothing is more important than making sure number #3 bulkhead screw is in the right position

its VERY critical..esp in a game that is just at the very dawn of its life

Daiichidoku
08-03-2007, 08:59 AM
excellent point, THRUD, far better to have Oleg-proval, then wait for hackers to do it

AKA_TAGERT
08-03-2007, 09:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

i guess if anything we've learned from this game, its that nothing is more important than making sure number #3 bulkhead screw is in the right position

its VERY critical..esp in a game that is just at the very dawn of its life </div></BLOCKQUOTE>ROTFL

User mods that can be used online results in the death of the online play and shortens the life of the sim itself.

Anyone that has been around flight sims for as long as I have knows this to be true.

Thus I hope Oleg enabled the WW view as the default cockpit view for AI aircraft.. As you noted.. before some hacker does it.. In that if Oleg does it.. it might reduce the desire of some hackers to hack it in the first place

Daiichidoku
08-03-2007, 10:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

i guess if anything we've learned from this game, its that nothing is more important than making sure number #3 bulkhead screw is in the right position

its VERY critical..esp in a game that is just at the very dawn of its life </div></BLOCKQUOTE>ROTFL

User mods that can be used online results in the death of the online play and shortens the life of the sim itself.

Anyone that has been around flight sims for as long as I have knows this to be true.

Thus I hope Oleg enabled the WW view as the default cockpit view for AI aircraft.. As you noted.. before some hacker does it.. In that if Oleg does it.. it might reduce the desire of some hackers to hack it in the first place </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

rgrt

i was responding to the ugly comment implying that while it IS sloppy, just having AI flyable is pure gravey...eye candy can not be expected, its something u would never be able to do in first place, if it were to happen, no-one will lose; u dont like, dont fly it, dont shoot at it, dont fly in servers that have them, fly in servers that dont have em, with like-minded people, make your own server without them

personally, if i could go to a server with Pe-8 that i can fly with Frankenpit(TM), id be elated! would i get a proper bombsight? yes? great!...no? no prob, i will make do...same for gunners...AI snipes better than me all the time anyhow.....
plus i can get into a fighter and go shoot other ppl flying the pe-8s..in FR or arcade servers...sweet!

that said, for goodness sake, Oleg plz allow this to happen via 1C or approved proxy YOUR WAY...so that if the Frankenpit(TM) is unacceptable to you, perhaps the wonderwoman view flyable AIs without pits can be enabled by 1C..and all done above-board, offically

Daiichidoku
08-03-2007, 10:31 AM
i still have no idea of whether this task would be monumental, or trivial

gentlemen of UBI, is there anyone among you who is aware of how much this would take....but who can state an basic overview of what some of the actual procedures may be, and how complex?

so far no one has been able or willing to say...other than thier "feelings"...(it must be feelings, without anything even resembling fact being offered)

xTHRUDx
08-03-2007, 10:37 AM
the guy that posted those pics in the russian forum are from version 4.05

how many of you would revert to 4.05 to use this?

b-25J pit into a big gun b-25g external, or a PBY external or a b-17 external

an SBD pit into a TBF.

Daiichidoku
08-03-2007, 12:59 PM
if it was 405 only, i couldnt see it going anywhere online in a big way

but for online co-ops it could be ok

however, id have a second 405 install on my comp, and use it offline, FOR SURE


best, naturally, would be the same for 408...everyone could use it, if they so wished, without reversion to 405...and by 1C!

again....no matter the issue of a new 'pit'..whether u like or dont.......WW view for AI just make sense

avimimus
08-07-2007, 04:59 PM
I think it is time.

NeuralTech
08-15-2007, 09:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Comrade_Sasha:
Of course, all of this *could* be passed on to the gaming community IF a SDK (Software Developer's Kit) were issued for individual use. I play Red Orchestra- ground warfare, Eastern Front- and the publishers provide us with an SDK so that those interested enough can 'get into' the vehicle files and alter them to provide for different weapons variants and performance (such as tweaking the numbers to make tank 'X' run at historical speeds or give tank 'Y' a heavier gun to reflect a later model, or give tank 'Z' some armor skirts). The RO community has come up with some excellent variants based on the original models provided by the game publishers, and it hasn't hurt the retail sales of the game at all.

So, all we are really asking for is- if the developers aren't going to include all those other wonderful aircraft and variants- is to be given the tools to do it ourselves. I, for one, would love to be able to recreate the Doolittle mission to Tokyo in accurate aircraft instead of subbing a B-25J which is far too heavily armed for the period. I'd love to be able to fly a PBY, or a B-17 (models already available, bt interiors not done, nor flyable at present) or even be able to create a Bachem 'Natter' for grins and giggles.

If the IL-2 series has reached it's peak and will no longer be added to, PLEASE give us the tools to keep it going past its shelf life- we love the game and want nothing more than to make it 'our own' once ongoing development is over with. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This sounds MORE than reasonable to me.... especially knowing that the IL2 team is already working on something new - what excuse do they have for not sharing the tools with the users who are interested in heavy modding?


On one hand, I'd really like to be able to fly ALL of the planes and don't understand why the developers didn't simply take the time to make ALL of them flyable... I think it's ******ed that one can't fly a B-17 in a WWII sim... absolutely rediculous... "russian game" or not, it makes no difference, if you're going to say you've got "ALL fronts covered", then by god, you should have all fronts covered. I think the advertising for the game is misleading in that regard. (rant over)

On the other hand, I agree with the die hard fans in that I wouldn't be interested in seeing "half a**ed" looking cockpits, etc... I'd want everything modeled with the same level of quality as the already flyable planes.

Since it looks like the developers have already turned that request down several times, I would think it's time for them to share the tools with the community of modders, so the modders can continue to shape and mold the game to their liking.


If the developers end up hoarding these tools.... that would be ultra selfish of them I think.



penny
penny

Wildnoob
08-17-2007, 10:58 PM
Oleg MUST put the B5N in the game.

I know he is working in SOW now, but the B5N is NECESSARY for this game.

why ?

I need to say ? =P

I'll are just a fanboy of that plane, but he was the main offensive weapon of IJN carrier fleet.

KATE, KATE, KATE !!!

avimimus
08-27-2007, 03:40 PM
Funny isn't it?

In the old days people used to argue that adding flyability to aircraft which had been designed for AI wasn't worthwhile and it was better to wait...

Now there is only one voice left, the remenant of the other side that calls plaintively with this new rationalisation that it will somehow discourage hacking...

Has anyone here actually changed sides? Or did we just wait until everyone else has left?

FritzGryphon
08-27-2007, 07:34 PM
Has anyone here actually changed sides? Or did we just wait until everyone else has left?

More like the rational people don't feel like explaining it anymore. But I can't resist replying so I may as well.

The AI planes do not have accurate FMs like the flyable planes. The AI planes do not have a complete damage model like the flyable planes. The AI planes have no cockpits.

And again. The AI planes do not have accurate FMs like the flyable planes. The AI planes do not have a complete damage model like the flyable planes. The AI planes have no cockpits.

The paradise of opening IL-2 to mythical 'modders' is purely imagined. There is no one really qualified to fix the FMs and DMs of the AI planes. There is no one who will make cockpits.

All of the skilled artists have already been working on the countless IL-2 add-ons, and are now hard at work on SoW. We have nothing to do but look forward to even more awesome features, planes, and even other vehicles in the years to come.

The current policy of dealing with professional 3rd party groups is working smashingly compared to the open source mess in previous sims.

But some still insist on complaining about the glass half full, and make up conspiracy theories about why Oleg doesn't want you to fly your favorite plane.

Daiichidoku
08-28-2007, 06:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
The AI planes do not have accurate FMs like the flyable planes. The AI planes do not have a complete damage model like the flyable planes. The AI planes have no cockpits.

And again. The AI planes do not have accurate FMs like the flyable planes. The AI planes do not have a complete damage model like the flyable planes. The AI planes have no cockpits.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A lot of people dont give a ratsazz about "accurate" FMs (many flyables already have "incorrect" FMs anyhow)..and those that dont like, dont have to fly. A lot of people dont give a ratsazz about "accurate" DMs (many flyables already have "incorrect" DMs anyhow)..and those that dont like, dont have to fly. Its also been asked to forget about cockpits entirely, and allow AIs flyable with "WonderWoman" views only

Again: A lot of people dont give a ratsazz about "accurate" FMs (many flyables already have "incorrect" FMs anyhow)..and those that dont like, dont have to fly. A lot of people dont give a ratsazz about "accurate" DMs (many flyables already have "incorrect" DMs anyhow)..and those that dont like, dont have to fly. Its also been asked to forget about cockpits entirely, and allow AIs flyable with "WonderWoman" views only

joeap
08-28-2007, 09:56 AM
Again: A lot of people dont give a ratsazz about "accurate" FMs (many flyables already have "incorrect" FMs anyhow)..and those that dont like, dont have to fly. A lot of people dont give a ratsazz about "accurate" DMs (many flyables already have "incorrect" DMs anyhow)..and those that dont like, dont have to fly. Its also been asked to forget about cockpits entirely, and allow AIs flyable with "WonderWoman" views only

For good measure. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

As it is, I do care about accurate FM and DM but live with the ones we have for the flyables and would not be bothered too much by the AI ones. I could let the AP take off and land ... or bomb for example.

Snodrvr
09-12-2007, 03:56 PM
Personally, I don't think it would hurt anything to enable the wonderwoman view for the AI planes. At the same time though, I'd like to think if they did that they would also enable the Bombsight view for the Heavy bombers.

I'm no expert, but I don't think it would be too difficult. You can't see any of the airplane from either view so it wouldn't need any work for 3d modeling, and the bombsight controls are already in most of the heavy bombers anyway, you just can't get to the sight to see where it's aiming.

Oh well, just my two cents worth.

bigbossmalone
09-12-2007, 04:46 PM
I have to agree on the WW view option.
I mentioned this a long time back, and was shot down in flames.
I feel a bit safer climbing aboard this thread - so, yes - honestly, I reckon enabling this view for AI planes SHOULD be done, and I don't see any reason why it should take longer than a day or two to actually implement!
As for those who don't like it, don't use it!
Simple.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Wildnoob
09-12-2007, 09:37 PM
http://ww31.tiki.ne.jp/~isao-o/b5n2.jpg

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

Daiichidoku
10-02-2007, 08:25 AM
bump

johnnyB21990
10-02-2007, 05:53 PM
ok his is what i think... have any of u played flight sim? or own it? the game kinda sucks in a way but i think we should have in il2 or BOB
the 3rd party addon air plane models... because i bet poeple would go crazy on biuld awsome new ww2 planes that are "correct" in their own opinion.. i think that would be the best them oleg's team does not have to do anything really .. LOL http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif so olegs's team check this out and see if u can do that... thanks

Sqeeky/ Johnny

Platypus_1.JaVA
10-03-2007, 02:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:


The AI planes do not have accurate FMs like the flyable planes. The AI planes do not have a complete damage model like the flyable planes. The AI planes have no cockpits.

And again. The AI planes do not have accurate FMs like the flyable planes. The AI planes do not have a complete damage model like the flyable planes. The AI planes have no cockpits.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me just think ahead a bit in your fashion. You state that AI aircraft do have simplified FM and DM. In other words, AI aircraft behave diffrently then human controlled aircraft. Does AI do this to aircraft without any cockpits (non-flyable's) or all aircraft. If all AI controlled aircraft (flyable AND non flyable) does this, it means that if you press A (for autopilot) The DM and FM for your aircraft changes in an instant. THis means that Oleg has made two diffrent FM and DM for all flyable aircraft.

I find this hard to believe. I don't think Oleg would do all that work and actually makes two of everything for one flyable aircraft. I think even all non flyable aircraft have full DM and FM, so only adding a cockpit (third party perhaps) would make it a balanced aircraft wich is available to players.

Jutocsa
10-03-2007, 05:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Platypus_1.JaVA:
Let me just think ahead a bit in your fashion. You state that AI aircraft do have simplified FM and DM. In other words, AI aircraft behave diffrently then human controlled aircraft. Does AI do this to aircraft without any cockpits (non-flyable's) or all aircraft. If all AI controlled aircraft (flyable AND non flyable) does this, it means that if you press A (for autopilot) The DM and FM for your aircraft changes in an instant. THis means that Oleg has made two diffrent FM and DM for all flyable aircraft.

I find this hard to believe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Luckily you dont have to believe it, since its not how you described it. AI planes have simplified FM/DM, which means their FM and DM is not that complex. Obviously to save resources, since giving the same computer resources to calculate the FM of a human controlled or an AI only plane would be stupid or just a waste. It doesnt mean there is two FM for all planes. For example if the AI is controlling a Bf-109 it has more options than flying a FW-189, because its flight model is a lot more detailed.

Scharnhorst1943
10-05-2007, 10:09 AM
Please don't flame me, but here is what I think:

The fact that there is such a heated argument to me is ******ed. There are ALOT of people who would benefit greatly from the use of AI flyable planes with WW view. Those people are mainly the offline players. The addition of this means flyable kate, avenger, ALL heavies, ALL ground attack aircraft. The argument about the AI fighters is not taking into account the overall picture. There are SOME who want the AI fighters for Battle of France or what have you, but the MAJORITY want this for the ground attack planes and heavies. Doing this means no more IL2T skinned like a kate at Pearl Harbor. It means HISTORIC aircraft at HISTORIC locations. It means a flyable avenger at Midway. It means flyable DC3 and Ju52 to do paratrooper drops http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif (now wouldn't that be fun?)

I recognize the view of the online flyer. I am not one, but you do have a valid argument. However, the server can decide which planes to allow. Therefore, DON'T ALLOW IT IF YOU DON'T WANT IT. It can easily be added to the game for the offline flyers, and I bet hard cash that some of the AI flyables with WW view WILL be included in servers (by wich I mean G-Attack planes and heavies). And it has already been said, the FM/DM do not matter, except to a few. I honestly doubt that if this is implimented that ALL servers will allow ALL aircraft. Are you kidding me?

Adding this will benafit everybody, even the online guys. Why does it have to be all or nothing with you online guys? All you have to do is pick and choose which ones to allow and which ones not to. Christ, it only gives YOU more options, more online scenarios to work with. Think about having to paradrop in a DC3 without being shot down, and there are fighters to defend and attack? How about defending B-17's on bomb run while blue attacks? Now you could have human pilots for all of it. It makes for more fun for you. Again, you have the power to reject planes you don't want to use in a server. USE IT.

If everyone is willing to be reasonable, everyone gets what they want and EVERYONE is happy. The sad truth is that there are people who are unwilling to give. I, along with probably 98% of the other offline guys, would settle in a heartbeat if we excluded AI fighters, but all the twin, ground attack and heavies were given WW view and flyable. There is always a compramise solution, if people are willing to accept it ...

ojcar1971
10-05-2007, 11:26 AM
I'd like to have a Hawk or Morane(with generical or faux cockpit, because I don't like very much the "wonderwoman view"), better than a Lagg-3 disguised as Dewoitine. With them I can play Battle of France, Winter War, etc.
I respect all the online arguments, but offline, I'd like the Hawk (with P-40 cockpit), the Kate (with a Val cockpit), the Bf-110C (with Bf-110G-2 cockpit), the Hs-129 (Beaufighter cockpit, for example), Morane (F2-A2 cockpit), and some others. Offline it can't be so bad......

LEXX_Luthor
10-08-2007, 10:44 PM
Scharnhorst:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However, the server can decide which planes to allow. Therefore, DON'T ALLOW IT IF YOU DON'T WANT IT. It can easily be added to the game for the offline flyers, and I bet hard cash that some of the AI flyables with WW view WILL be included in servers (by wich I mean G-Attack planes and heavies). And it has already been said, the FM/DM do not matter, except to a few. I honestly doubt that if this is implimented that ALL servers will allow ALL aircraft. Are you kidding me? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Some server types require AI planes for rather obvious reasons. If any AI planes are allowed, I don't think there would be any way to restrict players from taking an allowed AI plane. But, Oleg could add the cockpit/AI plane as a "different" plane that could be banned from server...ie...

Ki-21
Ki-21_player

That would not be hard to add to the sim individually, but there's alot of AI only aircraft. I'd think focusing on BoB And Beyond now is more important. But, I'd guess this could work.

ojcar1971
10-09-2007, 06:42 AM
It's a good idea, Lexx. I don't wanna damage the online play, but offline, a OFFICIALLY accepted patch with some cockpits added to some planes can't damage nothing.
I fly other sims as Red baron 3d, SF series, and SH3, and offline, some of the mods are fantastic.
IL-2 series are better than these online, and I want to keep it as it. But I fly only offline, and offline, if you don't like an unistorical cockpit, you don't fly this plane. That's all.

LEXX_Luthor
10-09-2007, 07:00 AM
To be honest, I am not fond of using other plane's cockpits in (no...for) other planes. You lack a major feature -- the surrounding canopy and interior view advantages or limitations that help make each aircraft visually unique to operate by the pilot.

Using other planes cockpits, or panels, in...as in inside other aircraft...works great. What?

I've stumbled on something neat. I use other plane's instrument panels inside other aircraft external models. I've developed this in the SF series at the ThudWire thread below...

~&gt; http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=4410 (very long)

In the SF, I literally use other planes cockpits (ideally, panels), IN or INSIDE other aircraft models. It works. I think the concept should become standard in combat flight The Sims, as it would greatly ease the modelling required for flyable planes, although at some increase in the modelling requirements for the 3D external model -- it helps if the external model is designed for use like this. Many SF external models, both 3Wire and 3Party have problems when viewed from inside the crew compartment.

I *think* the ThudWire WW1 sim may use this method, or at least its popular among the 3Party modders. Think about it...WW1 aircraft are famous for having so much of the aircraft's outside visible from the pilot's view. Not so the 1960s jets for which the SF sim was originally designed around. Those somewhat older jets often had poor rear view and poor forward view, with no part of the plane visible from the cockpit.

ojcar1971
10-09-2007, 07:45 AM
Not all of the cockpits are suitable to all the planes, but some are. A P-36 and a P-40 cockpit can't be much different. Same for Bf-110 C and G. Beau cockpit can serve for Hs 129 (good front visibility and awful rear visibility), Buffalo cockpit can serve for Moranne (telescopic sight). Val cockpit for Kate can't be so bad.
I'm not talking about putting a Bf-109 cockpit in the Storch, or a P-51D cockpit in the Avenger...

LEXX_Luthor
10-09-2007, 08:06 AM
Now that's True!

Some cockpits are fairly close in overall design, and can functionally replace a missing cockpit very well if needed. Thanks for the reminder.

LEXX_Luthor
10-09-2007, 09:40 AM
This is one good way to think about it, and rather funny also...

ojcar @ simhq:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you don't want the cockpits, just don't use them, and if you prefere the "absolute historical fidelity", go and fly the Lerche or the Ta-183 instead the P-36 or the Bf-110C (with P-40 and Bf-110 G cockpit, horribly unnacurate, not?)

~ http://www.simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2353367&fpart=4
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

Scharnhorst1943
10-09-2007, 08:48 PM
How about making all of the B25 variants flyable? For the J and C versions, it is the same cockpit and bombadier position, as well as top turret. Just omit the waist and tail gunners and vwala! Also, all you have to do is delete the nose position to get the H version. I don't see why this is so hard to do? The Sally could also be made flyable, using the Betty cockpit and nose positions. And frankly, those are all you really need. I don't even need a gunner position for the Kate. Just give me a cockpit that is fairly close.

LEXX_Luthor
10-10-2007, 06:24 AM
I dunno. Swapping out entire aircraft interiors means Oleg has to disable one or more gunner or bombardier positions.

That's an interesting question though -- if you use multiple crew cockpits...well...how does this work for the Bf-110C cockpit crack?

...I'd much prefer a Playable Do-17 for BoB And Beyond sometime this winter.

Scharnhorst1943
10-10-2007, 01:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
I dunno. Swapping out entire aircraft interiors means Oleg has to disable one or more gunner or bombardier positions.

That's an interesting question though -- if you use multiple crew cockpits...well...how does this work for the Bf-110C cockpit crack? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but even STILL, it can't be that hard or too much work, could it? All you would have to do is assign allready made pits to planes already in game. Apperently this russian hacker did it, so it can't be rocket science or anything.

Besides, how is adding B-25 pits to the other B-25's we have such a bad thing? They are the same aicracft type. Whatever historical inaccuracies are small (with this example) It is not like adding a lerche pit to a kate ...

As for the 110, I don't know. However, I honestly do not need ALL the gunner positions to be happy with a plane. I will settle for just the pilot and bombadier positions. That is all one really needs. Same for the 110 or kate or avenger. I just want to fly it, I don't need every position for every plane. Besides, the AI gunners are better than I could ever hope to be anyway. I stand a better chance NOT manning the guns http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Snodrvr
10-10-2007, 02:19 PM
I agree with the above statement with one small variation. I don't even need the cockpit view to be happy, I would settle for being forced to fly the Heavy Bombers through the bombsight for the entirety of a flight.

Try it sometime with the B-25 or He-111, Sure it takes a little getting used to, but in my mind it takes nothing away from the experience as a whole. Just my two cents.

JG53Frankyboy
10-11-2007, 05:20 AM
"ask" the soundhacker for a

Bomber HACK:

B-17,B-24, B-25C/G/H with B-25J pit
Mosquito IV , Blenheim with Mosquito VI pit
Ki-21, H8K with G4M pit
B5N , B6N with D3A pit
Avengers with F6F-3 pit
SB-2, DB-3 with Pe-2 or IL2 pit

and he should not forgett to ad a srcond position for the bombsight (like in the Pe-2s)- also in the B5/6N and TBFs...................

DKoor
10-11-2007, 09:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
Bomber HACK: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+1

Scharnhorst1943
10-11-2007, 01:45 PM
If this is done on a large scale, here is a list of what I think would be good. First of all, I will start off with AI planes that are of the same type as flyables. All of these would be nice to have, since they are all so damn close to what the pitts are we have in game.

- B25C: B25J pilot, bombadier, nosegunner, topturret
- B25G: B25J pilot, topgunner
- B25H: B25J pilot, topgunner, waistgunners, tailgunner

- MC 200(1): use MC200(3) cockpit
- MC 200(7): " "
- MC 200(7FB): " "
- MC 202: use MC 202(3) cockpit

- G4M2 Betty: G4M1 pilot, bombadier, nosegunner, tailgunner, waistgunner

- Bf110C: use Bf110g2 cockpit with no reargunner
- Bf110c4B: Use Bf110g2 cockpit with no reargunner

- Mosquito IV B: use Mosquito VI FB cockpit
- N1K1: use N1K2 cockpit
- N1K1 Ja: use N1K2 cockpit
- Gladiator MkI: use J8a pitt
- Gladiator MkII: " "
- Hawk 75a3: Use Hawk 81 pitt
- Hawk 75a4: use Hawk 81 pitt

As you can see, just adding these would add ALOT to the game. Now here are some ideas for pitts to AI planes that would be close, but not exact.

-B5N2 Kate: use D3A1 pilot, but no gunner
-B6N2 Jill: use D3A1 pilot, but no gunner

-TBF1: use SBD5 or F6F pilot, but no gunner
-TBF1C: use SBD5 or F6F, but no gunner
-TBM: use SBD5 or F6F, but no gunner
-Avenger MkIII: use SBD5 or F6F, but no gunner

- Hs 129 (both versions): with beaufighter pilot
- Me210(Both versions): with pe3 pilot?
- Ki21 Sally (Both Versions): G4M1 pilot, G4M1 nosegunner, G4M1 bombadier

-IL4: use A20 pilot, G4M1 nosegunner, G4M1 Bombadier
-DB3: A20 pilot, G4M1 tailgunner for the nosegunner/bombadier position

- A5M4: use I16, I153 or P11.C pitt (whichever looks best)

- B17D: B25J pilot, A20C bombadier
- B17E: B25J pilot, B25J topgunner, B25J waistgunners, B25J tailgunner, A20CBombadier

- B17F: B25 pilot, B25 topgunner, waistgunners, tailgunner, A20c Bombadier

- B17G: B25 pilot, topgunner, waistgunners, tailgunner, A20C bombadier

- PBY: B25 pilot
- B24J: B25 pilot, waistgunners, topgunner, A20C bombadier
- B29: He111 pilot & bombadier, B25 tailgunner
- SB2: A20 pilot, G4M1 tailgunner(for bombadier)
- Tu2: Pe2 cockpit


This is a start, just my $0.02. I agree that some of these would be stretching, but some of the others are REALLY close, such as the A20 pilot for many of the russian bombers (IL4, DB3, SB2 exc...)

Anyway, thoughts, opinions?

LEXX_Luthor
10-11-2007, 05:51 PM
G4M2 ... yes! To be able to fly a Japanese heavy bomber later than G4M1 in a late war campaign. Would this work?

Scharnhorst1943
10-11-2007, 07:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
G4M2 ... yes! To be able to fly a Japanese heavy bomber later than G4M1 in a late war campaign. Would this work? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why would it not work? How cool would it be to fly an offline campaign and launch ohka's at US ships http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif. This scenario would actually work better as an online coop, cause then both the ohka and G4M2 could be piloted. Now THAT would be cool.

DKoor
10-12-2007, 08:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scharnhorst1943:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
G4M2 ... yes! To be able to fly a Japanese heavy bomber later than G4M1 in a late war campaign. Would this work? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why would it not work? How cool would it be to fly an offline campaign and launch ohka's at US ships http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif. This scenario would actually work better as an online coop, cause then both the ohka and G4M2 could be piloted. Now THAT would be cool. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Coincidentally, I have one such COOP.........one swarm of A6M5s are escorting the G4M2s/Ohka in their attempt to sink the US shipping, while P-38s are trying to stop them. Only A6Ms and P-38s are flyable, of course.

Scharnhorst1943
10-12-2007, 09:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
Coincidentally, I have one such COOP.........one swarm of A6M5s are escorting the G4M2s/Ohka in their attempt to sink the US shipping, while P-38s are trying to stop them. Only A6Ms and P-38s are flyable, of course. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought with the AI you can not combine them? Now I use DCG for offline play, and my understanding was that the offline campaign is unable to use them both? Am I mistaken? Oh please tell me I am. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif If this is so, I just became a very happy fanboi http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Scharnhorst1943
10-12-2007, 09:44 AM
Now if I can just get a flyable G4M2 and a flyable ohka http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

DKoor
10-12-2007, 10:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scharnhorst1943:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
Coincidentally, I have one such COOP.........one swarm of A6M5s are escorting the G4M2s/Ohka in their attempt to sink the US shipping, while P-38s are trying to stop them. Only A6Ms and P-38s are flyable, of course. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought with the AI you can not combine them? Now I use DCG for offline play, and my understanding was that the offline campaign is unable to use them both? Am I mistaken? Oh please tell me I am. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif If this is so, I just became a very happy fanboi http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Here is the mission, see if it fits you
http://www.speedyshare.com/535165293.html

Scharnhorst1943
10-12-2007, 10:20 AM
Thank you sir! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Got it and will try it out when I get a chance.

DKoor
10-12-2007, 12:43 PM
Not a prob.......I hosted this scenario online for a few times.....it's OK.
It's not a long mission, all action should end pretty quickly.
I tried to make those MX7s to hit the carrier and sink it.
That should work that way in mission unless P-38 doesn't intervene and stop them.

Wildnoob
10-12-2007, 02:47 PM
like I've sayed before, if Oleg finnish IL-2 series without some planes he will let big holes in the sim.

whe can clearly see this in the Pacific theater rigth now. see, whe don't have the main IJN attack aircraft, the B5N, as flyable.

the IJN had the torpedo bomber as it's primary weapon.

some people maybe think the D-3 A1 whe had in the game is enougth, but it's not, at least in history terms.

also whe need the 2 versions of the KI-21 to be able to recreat sino Japanese war. whe also need at least the I-15 by the same motive.

I gonna stay just with the Pacific theater rigth now, because in my opinion the battle of France could be easly recreated with SOW engine.

repeat, leave planes like the B5N and the KI-21 is a big mistake.

if the Microsoft could in CSF-2, why Oleg and his staff would not ?

DKoor
10-12-2007, 04:30 PM
We have done a great job with http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/smileys/deadhorse.gif ..........
Two flyable aircraft that will be missing in 1946:

-Avenger
-B5N1

Scharnhorst1943
10-16-2007, 10:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
We have done a great job with http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/smileys/deadhorse.gif ..........
Two flyable aircraft that will be missing in 1946:

-Avenger
-B5N1 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Damn shame too. We REALLY NEED them. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Wildnoob
10-17-2007, 06:58 AM
Go Mr. Oleg, show us you can do this. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

fly_zo
10-24-2007, 03:40 PM
... don't bother ... it doesn't matter anymore ...

~S~
Z