PDA

View Full Version : Oleg's request: Main difficulties in making flyable bombers



RafaelFlanker
02-27-2004, 10:47 AM
Hi,

I usually don't post here much, but I'm coming here because Oleg asked me to, after I sent him a dev update today:

tell the people on Ubi forum why so hard make flyable bombers in a topic and try to post pictures.

I'll tell you: biggest problem is to find good and vast references on specific areas.
For example, fortunately some folks like AKD has volunteered to help in this hard task, he got a copy of A-20G manual.

I'm modelling the A-20C/G/K internals and right now still trying to figure out how the A-20C top gunner's "hood" moved/positioned when the top guns are out of the gun tunnel (in firing position). Anyone out there knows? It is one of troubles we run into..

Anyway, some pictures of A-20C gunners station:

Bottom gun:
http://www.raf27.hpg.ig.com.br/imgs/Gunner_A20C_WIP_11.jpg

http://www.raf27.hpg.ig.com.br/imgs/Gunner_A20C_WIP_12.jpg

Top gun, firing position, "hood" not visible:
http://www.raf27.hpg.ig.com.br/imgs/Gunner_A20C_WIP_08.jpg

Top gun, retracted and "hood" closed:
Http://www.raf27.hpg.ig.com.br/imgs/Gunner_A20C_WIP_13.jpg

Top gunner's eye, looking downwards:
http://www.raf27.hpg.ig.com.br/imgs/Gunner_A20C_WIP_09.jpg

That's it for today... I'll try to update my site more often, hopefully this weekend if nothing exceptional occurs. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

RafaelFlanker
02-27-2004, 10:47 AM
Hi,

I usually don't post here much, but I'm coming here because Oleg asked me to, after I sent him a dev update today:

tell the people on Ubi forum why so hard make flyable bombers in a topic and try to post pictures.

I'll tell you: biggest problem is to find good and vast references on specific areas.
For example, fortunately some folks like AKD has volunteered to help in this hard task, he got a copy of A-20G manual.

I'm modelling the A-20C/G/K internals and right now still trying to figure out how the A-20C top gunner's "hood" moved/positioned when the top guns are out of the gun tunnel (in firing position). Anyone out there knows? It is one of troubles we run into..

Anyway, some pictures of A-20C gunners station:

Bottom gun:
http://www.raf27.hpg.ig.com.br/imgs/Gunner_A20C_WIP_11.jpg

http://www.raf27.hpg.ig.com.br/imgs/Gunner_A20C_WIP_12.jpg

Top gun, firing position, "hood" not visible:
http://www.raf27.hpg.ig.com.br/imgs/Gunner_A20C_WIP_08.jpg

Top gun, retracted and "hood" closed:
Http://www.raf27.hpg.ig.com.br/imgs/Gunner_A20C_WIP_13.jpg

Top gunner's eye, looking downwards:
http://www.raf27.hpg.ig.com.br/imgs/Gunner_A20C_WIP_09.jpg

That's it for today... I'll try to update my site more often, hopefully this weekend if nothing exceptional occurs. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Oleg_Maddox
02-27-2004, 10:57 AM
Yes I ask him to post. Just to show the great amount of work that need to be done for modeling of each plane and especially bombers.

So now just imagine how much should be done just for the right texturing here...

Rafael make very good job. And don't ask him when ready. He is working hard be sure!

JHAT__
02-27-2004, 11:03 AM
He sure makes a good job! Way to go Rafael!

Belo modelo! Evoluiu bastante desde o √¬ļltimo update! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JHAT

Jippo01
02-27-2004, 11:05 AM
Both Oleg and Rafael are very right. I made research for many months before I found first picture of what happens in ventral gondola.

Fighters are easy. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif AND they take enormous work. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

Oleg_Maddox
02-27-2004, 11:09 AM
Sure Jippo speaking absolutely right things!
Glad to see you here!!!

SeaFireLIV
02-27-2004, 11:23 AM
Yes, it does open the eyes. I guess a lot people just don`t realise the work put into this stuff.

Good idea, giving us a quick view.

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/P47duck.jpg

VOL_Mountain
02-27-2004, 11:25 AM
These efforts are appreciated because they will add new dimensions to this simulation.

~Salute~ and Thanks to all involved !

Mtn.

crazyivan1970
02-27-2004, 11:28 AM
Once again i say - hats off to all 3d modellers

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

XyZspineZyX
02-27-2004, 11:34 AM
Thanks for that insight. The WIP looks great.
=====================================
But I have to tell you guys: accuracy is wonderful when you can get it, but I would not think that this should be the main deciding factor as to whether a plane is modelled or not.

With all due respect, I find it ironic that you (meaning the FB team) spend so much time wringing your hands over whether you can find a photo showing the position of an oxygen valve in the turret gunner's position, and then have planes that fly like UFO's (and these *released* to the public, to boot), only to be toned down later. And then you use this as a rationale either to unreasonably delay or not to include at all a plane in your set that really should be there (the Pe-2, Me110 being the most prime examples). Meanwhile, we have totally marginal planes like the Bi-1 in the set.

It is OK if you have to make "educated guesses" or employ a little "graphic license" on multicrewed plane positions, (or even pilot cockpits) if the raw data simply doesn't exist. If for no other reason than, "who's going to know something isn't 100% accurate?; they can't find the data, either".

Use the data that's available, make reasonable educated guesses on what's not, and go on from there. You do the *exact same thing* for the flight models, which is actually FAR MORE important than the visual accuracy of the crew spaces.

I really feel you guys have reversed your priorities on graphics and flight models, to the detriment of the sim.

Korolov
02-27-2004, 11:39 AM
What, Stiglr hasn't made another advertisement for Target: Rabul? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

VW-IceFire
02-27-2004, 11:41 AM
Looks like the A-20 is making great progress. It surely takes quite a bit of time. My 3D abilities are quite rudimentary (I'm making a 4-5 minute animation in Maya and its only simple shapes and stuff and thats hard!) but I can definately appreciate the amount of time spent not only accurately modeling but ensuring that what they have created will work properly in the engine. What you can do in a 3D render does not always translate into what is possible in a 3D game engine...its definately a time intensive process.

Good luck to everyone!

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

WWMaxGunz
02-27-2004, 11:44 AM
Nope, we never see posts about minor graphics details not being perfect, nope, nope, nope....


Neal

crazyivan1970
02-27-2004, 11:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Thanks for that insight. The WIP looks great.
=====================================
But I have to tell you guys: accuracy is wonderful when you can get it, but I would not think that this should be the main deciding factor as to whether a plane is modelled or not.

With all due respect, I find it ironic that you (meaning the FB team) spend so much time wringing your hands over whether you can find a photo showing the position of an oxygen valve in the turret gunner's position, and then have planes that fly like UFO's (and these *released* to the public, to boot), only to be toned down later. And then you use this as a rationale either to unreasonably delay or not to include at all a plane in your set that really should be there (the Pe-2, Me110 being the most prime examples). Meanwhile, we have totally marginal planes like the Bi-1 in the set.

It is OK if you have to make "educated guesses" or employ a little "graphic license" on multicrewed plane positions, (or even pilot cockpits) if the raw data simply doesn't exist. If for no other reason than, "who's going to know something isn't 100% accurate?; they can't find the data, either".

Use the data that's available, make reasonable educated guesses on what's not, and go on from there. You do the *exact same thing* for the flight models, which is actually FAR MORE important than the visual accuracy of the crew spaces.

I really feel you guys have reversed your priorities on graphics and flight models, to the detriment of the sim.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stig, i don`t think you really understood the main concepts of O.M. and what`s important for FB http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

SeaFireLIV
02-27-2004, 11:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Nope, we never see posts about minor graphics details not being perfect, nope, nope, nope....


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Er... actually we have had them. Nothing escapes people here.

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/P47duck.jpg

Fillmore
02-27-2004, 12:05 PM
"Nothing escapes people here."

except maybe sarcasm http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

Oleg_Maddox
02-27-2004, 12:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Thanks for that insight. The WIP looks great.
=====================================
But I have to tell you guys: accuracy is wonderful when you can get it, but I would not think that this should be the main deciding factor as to whether a plane is modelled or not.

With all due respect, I find it ironic that you (meaning the FB team) spend so much time wringing your hands over whether you can find a photo showing the position of an oxygen valve in the turret gunner's position, and then have planes that fly like UFO's (and these *released* to the public, to boot), only to be toned down later. And then you use this as a rationale either to unreasonably delay or not to include at all a plane in your set that really should be there (the Pe-2, Me110 being the most prime examples). Meanwhile, we have totally marginal planes like the Bi-1 in the set.

It is OK if you have to make "educated guesses" or employ a little "graphic license" on multicrewed plane positions, (or even pilot cockpits) if the raw data simply doesn't exist. If for no other reason than, "who's going to know something isn't 100% accurate?; they can't find the data, either".

Use the data that's available, make reasonable educated guesses on what's not, and go on from there. You do the *exact same thing* for the flight models, which is actually FAR MORE important than the visual accuracy of the crew spaces.

I really feel you guys have reversed your priorities on graphics and flight models, to the detriment of the sim.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sad, but you are _almost_ completely wrong. You even don't imagine how is hard work around FM tunings and coding.... Ask beta testers from which half are real pilots...
Its you personal opinion... And Bf110 listed in AEP if you don't know yet http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

I know which plane at the moment are like UFO in FB (not in AEP already, and someone will be crying I'm sure), But probably it isn't your favorite aircraft http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And you tell all the time the same.... Bi-1, etc....
Hey! I did BI-1? or third party? Did you see the difference? However I'm glad that BI-1 was born. At least a lot of people know now about this historical plane that was the first in the world battle ready rocket powered aircraft....
Now many people will know about YP-80 much more... And hope that British Meteor will meet the air some time! At least I dream about it. This one saw the service even earlier than Me-262... Bad Aircraft? I don't think so like many authors like to describe it on different musical notes... it was good for its time and in some ways better than Me-262!

Pe-2.... Pe-2 was started 3 times. If I would only know this of course probably we would make it ourselves, like planned... But there is no the fate...
Now too late personally for us to start it from zero...We have other prioritets... Hope that 4th modeller will make it finally...

Maybe it is s**t that I spend here so much time to read the users' needs?

Maybe for someone more easy to write something than to make something? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

From one of our testers-real pilots that flew real P-51 (and many other aircraft):

Many people some with extensive Military fighter flying backgrounds and
warbird experience have been involved with testing. Many sources are
used to determine Flight model performance. In nearly all cases at least
two data sources are used. This provides a cross check. Data sources
include USAF flight test data,RAF Aeroplane and Armament Experimental
Establishment
Boscombe Down data, NII VVS data, Luftwaffe and manufacturers data and
published flight manual data. Some flight test data is simply not
available and careful calculation and historical references are used.

Energy Bleed is often quoted as being suspect in the forums. Energy
bleed data for WWII fighters is not often found as the concept of Energy
manoeuvrability was in its infancy. Where this data is available it has
been used. If not available Energy or Ps data is calculated within the
FM.

Each aircraft has been tested many times and tuned accordingly. The
result is a FM that is very close to source data.

Sean Trestrail,
pilot and tester of AEP

Jippo01
02-27-2004, 12:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Use the data that's available, make reasonable educated guesses on what's not, and go on from there. You do the *exact same thing* for the flight models, which is actually FAR MORE important than the visual accuracy of the crew spaces.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sometimes there isn't anything to base your educated guess!

Inventing things is not solution, but a sure way into more trouble. And it is much harder to invent alternative reality than it is to first find the resources and then mimic the existing reality.



-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

p1ngu666
02-27-2004, 12:39 PM
so its mainly the complexity of the gunner stations, and lack of info..
interesting http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
thankuhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

Oleg_Maddox
02-27-2004, 12:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:

Sometimes there isn't anything to base your educated guess!

Inventing things is not solution, but a sure way into more trouble. And it is much harder to invent alternative reality than it is to first find the resources and then mimic the existing reality.



-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
http://www.ju88.de.tf<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ha-Ha http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Well said!

Oleg_Maddox
02-27-2004, 12:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
so its mainly the complexity of the gunner stations, and lack of info..
interesting http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
thankuhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not only... It is just one of samples. But I would say that just one photo of cockpit panel isn't enough that copy it in 3D...

JFC_Jetdoc31
02-27-2004, 12:53 PM
Dear Oleg I for one thank you for all the hard work you and your fellow team memenbers put into this sim. I am a huge fan of bombers and looking forward to the day that we will get to fly the A-20G and other flyable bombers sir this one great kick a@#@ sim. You have shown us how much you care about this great world of forgotten battles and how much a group can work so hard to provide us online Pilots a look into our Grand Fathers or Fathers eyes on what they flew during the War for the 250th TBAP Heavy BOmber Squardon I Saulate you Sir

Oleg_Maddox
02-27-2004, 01:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JFC_Jetdoc31:
Dear Oleg I for one thank you for all the hard work you and your fellow team memenbers put into this sim. I am a huge fan of bombers and looking forward to the day that we will get to fly the A-20G and other flyable bombers sir this one great kick a@#@ sim. You have shown us how much you care about this great world of forgotten battles and how much a group can work so hard to provide us online Pilots a look into our Grand Fathers or Fathers eyes on what they flew during the War for the 250th TBAP Heavy BOmber Squardon I Saulate you Sir<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you, I think the same way.
And some veterans say us the same...

Mave_FI
02-27-2004, 01:09 PM
Hmm, just thinking...
Oleg, now that you are working on Battle of Britain, got an idea... One of my "squadmate" in Lufthunden has some manuals for planes. Like original Blenheim repair-manuals in finnish. We might be able to scan and translate some of those if it would help.

If interested, we'll give you the complete list of manuals we have access to and scan whatever you want. I don't think that those are under any copyright or anything http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

So just trying to help this scene a bit http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Mave / Lufthunden
www.lufthunden.com (http://www.lufthunden.com)

p1ngu666
02-27-2004, 01:21 PM
oleg i have some cut away joins of some aircraft from magazines (old) they look good http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
would they be of use to u? if u could give me a list of planes u working on i could scan what i have http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
eagle may have shown u p47n profile i scanned http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
vary rare is there cockpit shots tho http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

Gunner_361st
02-27-2004, 01:24 PM
Well, since the topic is bombers, I'm curious..

What bombers will be in the Battle of Britian? Either as AI or flyable, I know it is way too early to tell which will be flyable or not, depending on how projects go etc etc. S~

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

Boandlgramer
02-27-2004, 01:30 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Stiglr:
It is OK if you have to make "educated guesses" or employ a little "graphic license" on multicrewed plane positions, (or even pilot cockpits) if the raw data simply doesn't exist. If for no other reason than, "who's going to know something isn't 100% accurate?; they can't find the data, either".

QUOTE]

sorry, but i can not agree, stiglr.
i respect and like olegs way.
not enough infos or datas about an plane = no chance for FB /AEP .
i saw too much not finished planes in many other flysims.
good to know, not in olegs sim.
he is right in his way.

Boandlgramer
http://images.google.de/images?q=tbn:10LP6FCHtuYJ:www.vhts.de/bilder/wappenbayern.jpg
http://images.google.de/images?q=tbn:negrFY2J26MJ:www.thienemann.de/img/rauber_5.jpg
Wachtmeister Dimpfelmoser in Verfolgung von R√¬§uber Hotzenplotz, der auf sch√¬§ndliche Weise Oma‚¬īs Kaffeem√ľhle in seinen Besitz brachte.
Gut, dass es Wachtmeister gibt , unbestechlich und tapfer http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

XyZspineZyX
02-27-2004, 01:38 PM
To me, Boandl, it's a question of degree.

It's one thing to insist on accuracy; that's admirable. But to let a lack of information on small graphic detail totally disqualify the inclusion of a plane that can be *reasonably* accurately modelled, when similar inaccuracies are tolerated in the flight model... no, that seems wrong to me. As I said, misplaced priorities.

Boandlgramer
02-27-2004, 01:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
To me, Boandl, it's a question of degree.

It's one thing to insist on accuracy; that's admirable. But to let a lack of information on small graphic detail totally disqualify the inclusion of a plane that can be *reasonably* accurately modelled, when similar inaccuracies are tolerated in the flight model... no, that seems wrong to me. As I said, misplaced priorities.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


stigl, but what is a "Small" graphic detail ?
where to start , where to stop ?


i can speak just for myself. flying hard setting , sometimes i just look around the cockpit and i am looking for the smallest details.
ok, to be honest, if something is not 100 % correct, i would not know that.
but i trust oleg, and i believe, better ‚¬īto say i am sure, he does his best .

Boandlgramer
http://images.google.de/images?q=tbn:10LP6FCHtuYJ:www.vhts.de/bilder/wappenbayern.jpg
http://images.google.de/images?q=tbn:negrFY2J26MJ:www.thienemann.de/img/rauber_5.jpg
Wachtmeister Dimpfelmoser in Verfolgung von R√¬§uber Hotzenplotz, der auf sch√¬§ndliche Weise Oma‚¬īs Kaffeem√ľhle in seinen Besitz brachte.
Gut, dass es Wachtmeister gibt , unbestechlich und tapfer http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

BaldieJr
02-27-2004, 01:57 PM
Olegs Ready Room is turning into Olegs Ready Room.

Cool.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
______ _____
(, / ) /) /) , (, /
/---( _ // _(/ _ / __ ,""""]
+----/ ____)(_(_(/_(_(__(__(/____/__/ (__--------,' /---+
| / ( / ,' NR / |
|(_/ ..-""``"'-._ (_/ __,' 42 _/ |
+-.-"" "-..,____________/7,.--"" __]-----+

</pre>

crazyivan1970
02-27-2004, 02:06 PM
Oleg, i thought you said you going home... it`s like 10pm in Moscow http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

Bearcat99
02-27-2004, 02:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
To me, Boandl, it's a question of degree.
It's one thing to insist on accuracy; that's admirable. But to let a lack of information on small graphic detail totally disqualify the inclusion of a plane that can be *reasonably* accurately modelled, when similar inaccuracies are tolerated in the flight model... no, that seems wrong to me. As I said, misplaced priorities.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then you have to also look at whos interpretation of reasonable you are using. This sim is totally impressive to me on every front, modeling,FMs,DMs,scalability you name it this sim has it and does it better than anything else.... I dont know about you Stig... but I have no choice but to trust Oleg & 1Cs judgement on some things... I havent done the research on the FMs like 1C has and wouldnt know how to implement it into the sim if I did..... but I have lots of pics in my library of all kinds of planes...cockpits and all.. and I like the fact that I can go to a book and say....hey..theres that knob..otr that gauge.... or whatever... to me it adds to the immersion and realism..and immersion is half the battle to me. So I can wait for the modeler to get all the details right. I for one wouldnt want to buy a product that the designer(s) were not satisfied with themselves. The fact that Oleg & 1C are so picky is a big plus to me..... but hey..thats me..

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

necrobaron
02-27-2004, 02:10 PM
I've never been one to take the work it takes to make bombers flyable lightly and I am very grateful for all we get. The Ju-88 interior as shown by Jippo via PANVIEWER really shows how complex and complicated it truely is. The Ju-88,A-20,and B-25 are three that I'm really looking forward to. With that said,I guess it'll be quite a while(if ever) before we get a flyable B-17 or even B-24. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif Anyway,the guys who make these things possible have my respect! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

"Not all who wander are lost."

Strange_361st
02-27-2004, 02:34 PM
WTG!! Oleg & Crew.

I rather have detail and it look great then have it look like crap to tell you the truth!!

"Strange"
XO of the 376th vFS, 361st vFG
http://www.361stvfg.com

Renegade_50
02-27-2004, 03:01 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Salute on the work and i can help with some internals and externals. Here is a great source for B-25 Mitchell The movie 30 Seconds over Tokyo with Spencer Tracy has great B-25 externals and internalslots and lots of shots. Also Battle of Britain 1969 with Robert Shaw and Micheal Caine has great internals and externals or Spits, Hawkers, He-111's etc. I truelly hope this helps you out.

Hell's Angel 50 ‚ô
303rd BG (H) 358th BS
"Might in Flight"

Cold_Gambler
02-27-2004, 03:03 PM
FlankerRafael wrote:

I'm modelling the A-20C/G/K internals and right now still trying to figure out how the A-20C top gunner's "hood" moved/positioned when the top guns are out of the gun tunnel (in firing position). Anyone out there knows? It is one of troubles we run into..

I'm not sure if this will help you but at this Australian museum
http://www.raafmuseum.com.au/raaf2/html/douglas_boston.htm

there appears to be a A-20 ("One of 22 aircraft ordered by the French, the order was then transferred to the RAF after the fall of France in 1940") that was modified quite a bit but still seems to have the "hood" (not the enclosed turret).

Maybe an Australian community member could follow up on this?

Great work, Oleg, 1C team and 3rd party modelers!
I can hardly wait for the Bf-110 and Ju-88!

p1ngu666
02-27-2004, 03:24 PM
i remmber some aussi/new zealand ppl seemed tobe very good chaps, lets hope one can do that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
02-27-2004, 03:29 PM
Oleg said Stiglr was "almost completely wrong"

Gunner station on SB bomber. No SB gunner pics, No Flyable SB bomber. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif Sad cos this was most advanced bomber in world in 1930s...and with that Vee windscreen simming it would be like simming B~58 Hustler.

Granted the Flyable IL~2 Field Mod without Flyable gunner comes to mind.



__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.
:
you will still have FB , you will lose nothing ~WUAF_Badsight
I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait... ~Bearcat99
Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age ~ElAurens

BM357_Raven
02-27-2004, 03:40 PM
Dear Oleg,

Please stop the madness!

This sim is straining my marriage, keeping me up until all hours of the night, slipping into my dreams when my head hits the pillow and floating around in my head all day long making me lose focus on what I am supposed to be doing.

I am always asking people "uh, what was that you said?..I'm sorry, my mind was elsewhere, please repeat yourself,"...

..."uh-huh, yeah, really? well, umm, I'm sorry, I wasn't listening. Try talking business to the guy at the next desk..."

Can you see the problem? So, I am going to ask you once, please DO NOT MAKE BoB! Spare me.. Take pitty on me.. Forget the greater good, all the others, the profits, the adventure, the fun of the creative process, etc.

Instead, for the moment, realize that you have a golden opportunity to really make a difference in one man's life; me.

I really dont think I could handle it if you make another combat flight sim..

Hey! I got a neat idea! Couldn't you make a race car game, or a game where a fuzzy little monkey runs around jumping through rings and collecting coins an running from the wumpuss?

Anything, but another flight sim.....

Yours truly,

-Raven

Blazing Magnums 357th VFG
bm357.com (http://www.bm357.com/NEW_BM357/flash_intro.html) | Roster (http://bm357.com/NEW_BM357/bm357_rosters.asp) | Flash Cartoon (http://bm357.com/NEW_BM357/raven_in_plane9p.html) | BroDawg (http://www.bm357.com/NEW_BM357/flash-intro/tinman3.html) | QuickTime Video (http://www.bm357.com/NEW_BM357/Downloads_Public/bm357_transmission.zip)
Blazing_Magnums Server (http://bm357.com/NEW_BM357/server.htm)

http://www.bm357.com/bm357_radio.jpg (http://bm357.com)

clint-ruin
02-27-2004, 03:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
i remmber some aussi/new zealand ppl seemed tobe very good chaps, lets hope one can do that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From the map it certainly doesn't seem too far from the centre of melbourne. I'd offer but I'm at the opposite end of the country :&gt;

Many thanks to Oleg, Jippo, Gibbage, Rafaelflanker et al for all of your hard work. Most people who have worked a day in their life know how hard it is to get things 'perfectly' correct, and it's an admirable goal :&gt;

In cases where there is literally no obtainable data [TB7/Pe8 internals] there might be some case for 'faking' the guts of the plane up, but I think if it's at all possible to get things right, then the plane should wait til then.

The only bad thing about this thread is that being personally told "you is wrong" by Oleg is likely to send Stiglr into the sulk of all sulks .. :&gt;

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

XyZspineZyX
02-27-2004, 04:15 PM
Boandl wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>stigl, but what is a "Small" graphic detail ?
where to start , where to stop ?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's a concrete example.

If you lack detailed drawings, schematics, etc. for a gunner or bombardier station, such that you couldn't duplicate every knob, switch, radio face, panel, etc., how does that affect the gameplay usability of that gunner station? Answer is, it doesn't. What's *important* is that you have the proper gun and the turret area modelled properly for vision and combat purposes, you get the gun traverse right, turret speed right, etc. It is completely unimportant if you have to "make up" or "intelligently guess" the structure and composition of pieces of gear on the side walls, because they do not affect gameplay one way or the other. You use whatever info you have at the time.

The reason I keep comparing this with the flight models is, they are the things to INSIST on being accurate...yet as we saw with numerous planes, they have been released with pretty large errors...and that when the design team had access to a lot of information.

So, my point is, why would you say, "Plane X can't be modelled because we don't have an accurate cockpit shot" (but you DO have accurate info on visibility, and basic layout enough to make it flyable in the game), but Plane Y can be released with big FM errors? Perhaps plane Y should be the one not in the set until it can be flight modelled correctly, because this DOES affect gameplay, whereas the position of an air bottle or even a speedometer gauge in Plane X is not so big a deal; the air bottle is irrelevant (except for possibly damage), and a pilot will still be able to get speed data, even if the dial might be a slightly different one than was actually used and is offset a couple of inches on the control panel.

DONB3397
02-27-2004, 04:27 PM
Is the company's attention to detail and testing worth it? In this simulation program, yes.

What's happening here must be unique. Every decision the 1C team makes seems to have a MULTIPLIER EFFECT. The decision to allow modelers and painters to add value with their work, for example, has generated several thousand paint schemes. It's as though the various WWII air forces are being recreated, one plane at a time.

The 1C team seems to have made dozens of these decisions right during development and updating. The reason... is reading and listening to this group of core users and believers...and working (the team's) tails off.

So, keep focusing on the detail and testing the FMs. In the meantime, a few folks will keep writing (easier than doing the actual work), and all of us will keep showing up every time 1C offers a new product. BTW, part of the multiplier effect is that the group gets bigger every time a new offering comes out. But then you knew that already.

UncleVanya2001
02-27-2004, 04:31 PM
Oleg & Co.,

You guys have done & are doing an excellent job. You got the best flight sim available anywhere in the world & what these whiners fail to realize is that you are just as concerned with historical accuracy as they are, and in most cases have more comphrehensive information.

Furthermore, you do a great job of correcting inacuracies & improving the game. And also offer TONS of free flyables.

Appreciate it & I am a big fan & will definitely buy Battle of Britain when it's available. (Although I'll feel slightly ill-at-ease since I am so devoted to FB...like a guy trading in his long-time love for an easy lay...http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif)

Keep it up, and don't take any guff from these swine!

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

UV

Aaron_GT
02-27-2004, 04:45 PM
I get the impression that the requirement
that all the positions be modelled is sort
of a badge of honour or a mark of quality
that Oleg wants to keep up. Since it is Oleg's
product, and he wants to do this and not
release aircraft with too many guesses or
unfinished positions I think we have to
respect that. If compromises are made now
it might be hard to retain that air of
quality. Admittedly it might not be the
decision I would make, but it's Oleg product.

It's nice to see Oleg confirm that FM tuning
is complex. The changes from patch to patch
look like me to be evidence of a system on
the edge of chaos (in the mathematical sense
rather than meaning disorganised) and often
systems that are complex can be chaotic. So
I think we are seeing evidence of a the
sensitivity of the interactions of a complex
set of equations to small changes in tuning
rather than deliberate doing down of the planes
of country X. What we could do is be
constructive and help by posting test data
(like the 6-8000m speed tests I suggested) that
might help take the pressure of Oleg and team
with regards to testing. (Oleg and team will
still need to check, but an error that they
didn't spot due to pressure of work could
be quickly checked if everyone on here pitched
in and tested one aspect of one or two planes)

necrobaron
02-27-2004, 04:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I get the impression that the requirement
that all the positions be modelled is sort
of a badge of honour or a mark of quality
that Oleg wants to keep up. Since it is Oleg's
product, and he wants to do this and not
release aircraft with too many guesses or
unfinished positions I think we have to
respect that. If compromises are made now
it might be hard to retain that air of
quality.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree.

"Not all who wander are lost."

LEXX_Luthor
02-27-2004, 04:58 PM
Aaron_GT:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I get the impression that the requirement that all the positions be modelled is sort of a badge of honour or a mark of quality that Oleg wants to keep up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Fly the IL~2 Field Mod, then post a "new" impression. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.
:
you will still have FB , you will lose nothing ~WUAF_Badsight
I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait... ~Bearcat99
Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age ~ElAurens

VR_C_TheRR
02-27-2004, 05:10 PM
I read this all...

Well, Oleg and his team made a graet job! Right!
Exccelent job! If anybody disagree we can fight evenhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

but....

I read carefilly Stilgr posts.... and .. well...

yes, he is right, we do not need all stands of crew made perfectly, especially gunners stands, am I right?
We wanna fly this planes, we wanna attack our targets, and how many times we use guner position and think if it is really perfect? how many times? no one! that's true!

We need good made pilot position and co-pilot, maybe navigator stand but not all, am I right?

Of course, Oleg should do everything as perfect as he can, but... we can wait for pe-2 next 3 years.....

so, maybe better for all of us, forget about all perfect stands?

_VR_C_Therr
Vultures Row Squadron
Polish IL2 & FB forum member

PS Oleg: as I said, it is really pretty job!!!

Zdarova http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

E_Temperament
02-27-2004, 05:39 PM
My opinion is rather simple, If a group of people can concentrate on making the small details accurate they will be more focused on getting the bigger details accurate as well. If we can trust Oleg and crew to be fanatical about small graphical details then we can be sure to trust him with the rest of the Sim. If Oleg chose to be sloppy with the small details then I wouldn't trust him with anything else full stop. I'm all for the infintesimally small little things anyway, it gives me a buzz http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif and if we have to wait for a plane to come out because data is scant for a long period of time, I for one don't mind waiting, waiting ,waiting and more waiting. Salute's

BaldieJr
02-27-2004, 06:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Boandl wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>stigl, but what is a "Small" graphic detail ?
where to start , where to stop ?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's a concrete example.

If you lack detailed drawings, schematics, etc. for a gunner or bombardier station, such that you couldn't duplicate every knob, switch, radio face, panel, etc., how does that affect the gameplay usability of that gunner station? Answer is, it doesn't. What's *important* is that you have the proper gun and the turret area modelled properly for vision and combat purposes, you get the gun traverse right, turret speed right, etc. It is completely unimportant if you have to "make up" or "intelligently guess" the structure and composition of pieces of gear on the side walls, because they do not affect gameplay one way or the other. You use whatever info you have at the time.

The reason I keep comparing this with the flight models is, they are the things to INSIST on being accurate...yet as we saw with numerous planes, they have been released with pretty large errors...and that when the design team had access to a lot of information.

So, my point is, why would you say, "Plane X can't be modelled because we don't have an accurate cockpit shot" (but you DO have accurate info on visibility, and basic layout enough to make it flyable in the game), but Plane Y can be released with big FM errors? Perhaps plane Y should be the one not in the set until it can be flight modelled correctly, because this DOES affect gameplay, whereas the position of an air bottle or even a speedometer gauge in Plane X is not so big a deal; the air bottle is irrelevant (except for possibly damage), and a pilot will still be able to get speed data, even if the dial might be a slightly different one than was actually used and is offset a couple of inches on the control panel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, and then every moron and his brother with a warez 3d software builds and submits a half-finished model.

Oleg and his artisans spend the rest of thier days trying to sort them all out.

No thanks. Its Olegs baby, let him raise it as he sees fit... he's done a heck of a job so far.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
______ _____
(, / ) /) /) , (, /
/---( _ // _(/ _ / __ ,""""]
+----/ ____)(_(_(/_(_(__(__(/____/__/ (__--------,' /---+
| / ( / ,' NR / |
|(_/ ..-""``"'-._ (_/ __,' 42 _/ |
+-.-"" "-..,____________/7,.--"" __]-----+

</pre>

Xenomorphine
02-27-2004, 06:21 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cold_Gambler:
FlankerRafael wrote:

I'm modelling the A-20C/G/K internals and right now still trying to figure out how the A-20C top gunner's "hood" moved/positioned when the top guns are out of the gun tunnel (in firing position). Anyone out there knows? It is one of troubles we run into..

I'm not sure if this will help you but at this Australian museum
http://www.raafmuseum.com.au/raaf2/html/douglas_boston.htm

there appears to be a A-20 ("One of 22 aircraft ordered by the French, the order was then transferred to the RAF after the fall of France in 1940") that was modified quite a bit but still seems to have the "hood" (not the enclosed turret).

Maybe an Australian community member could follow up on this?



That museum is only 30 mins drive from me. I might be able to help out if you give me exact details of what you need and the museum allows visitors to get close enough...http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

RafaelFlanker
02-27-2004, 06:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cold_Gambler:

I'm not sure if this will help you but at this Australian museum
http://www.raafmuseum.com.au/raaf2/html/douglas_boston.htm <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Cold_Gambler,

I have e-mailed them some months ago asking for internal references, didn't get any reply. :/



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xenomorphine:

That museum is only 30 mins drive from me. I might be able to help out if you give me exact details of what you need and the museum allows visitors to get close enough...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Xenomorphine,
What I need is simple: detailed internal shots, especially gunners' and bombardier stations. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:

Here's a concrete example.

If you lack detailed drawings, schematics, etc. for a gunner or bombardier station, such that you couldn't duplicate every knob, switch, radio face, panel, etc., how does that affect the gameplay usability of that gunner station? Answer is, it doesn't.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stiglr, not to flame you, but I'm sorry to say... it actually DOES affect the gameplay. Simply because on this model, "hood" closed, no top machine gun to fire from. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Now, playing again, please, show me a good use of your "educated guess" and tell me... where would that "hood" go when top machine gun is deployed...? How it was deployed and moved? Interesting to guess heh? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Just wanted to show you that "educated guesses" mostly are certain trouble later on. Better wait for true references, they may arrive late, but they DO arrive, believe me it happened already sometimes. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

SeaFireLIV
02-27-2004, 06:54 PM
I cringed when Oleg responded to Stiglr, because all Oleg`s going to get back is, " I know better. My point view is best and Oleg should change FB according to my rules".
And of course he won`t budge and if Oleg keeps trying to convince him he`ll probably get so annoyed with Stiglr he`ll abandon Fb, BOB forever out of frustration. Unlikely of course.... but...

Stiglr will not agree, he will not consider maybe Oleg`s right with all the experience and resources he`s got- he will never give in! Or apologise. I think he`s just playing some kinda of anti-praise thing, so he stands out in the crowd.... He knows he`ll get a lot of flak and probably welcomes it.

Also, if anyone`s watched Stiglr`s general attitude to Fb, it seems to be a pain for him to fly FB at all. It`s like he flies the sim grudgingly... Why doesn`t he just fly that other `online sim` he`s been praising over the past few weeks?

I pray Oleg doesn`t get into a talking match with him.

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/P47duck.jpg

ScrubbyMonkey
02-27-2004, 07:09 PM
I'm a scale modeler, so in a sense I can understand where Oleg is coming from. I can't tell you guys how many times I've spent hours detailing an area on an aircraft that is only marginally visible. In the end, I'm satisfied because the detail on that area is correct, and as complete as possible.

When it comes right down to it, people have an eye for detail because they're working on their pet project. This isn't just a job for some people, they have something personal invested in this, and so anything less than near perfect is unacceptable.

As for the comparison to flight models: cockpit graphics are something that can be seen -they're visually tactile, and therefore it's much easier to know if it's off or not. Whereas a FM is something that just "feels" wrong, so it's much harder to pick out if it's off or not.

JG77Hawk_9
02-27-2004, 07:13 PM
Well Seafire, when you consider the accuracies in modeling and effects like for instance the FW gunsights, the daytime muzzle flashes, the afterburner effects on jets then you can forgive Stiglr for posting what he has. I agree to a certain extent with him. If the gunners stations are going to get say 1% usage is it worth modeling them to the detail of say the cockpits and bombsights which will get used 99% of the time. It has to do with balancing resources and managing time scales with regards to model development. What is the point in bogging down a bomber addition in 2 to 3 years research when by that time you have a simulation that is being replaced with more current technology. Sure some folks will stay with FB like people have done with EAW but most tend to move on to the more compelling experience.

Anyway, despite it's faults, this sim is great but it would be greater still with more bombers and tactical aircraft so it stops from turning into air quake.

MandMs
02-27-2004, 08:57 PM
Oleg once said that he would allow discrepency from real, the interior of a/c if sufficent data was not available. Iirc this was in responce to queeries on modelling the IS-2 and IS-4 that had no cockpit data.



I eat the red ones last.

Copperhead310th
02-28-2004, 01:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Aaron_GT:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I get the impression that the requirement that all the positions be modelled is sort of a badge of honour or a mark of quality that Oleg wants to keep up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Fly the IL~2 Field Mod, then post a "new" impression. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Strangley i would have to agree with you lexx. i thought the IL-2 feild mod gunner station should have been flyable as well. it's basically the same guns as the TB-3.
I wonder why the Oleg & team chose to leave that gunner station out?

__________________
_RUSSIAN_ lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
_Stanly is a _moron_, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex._
:
_you will still have FB , you will lose _nothing__ ~WUAF_Badsight
_I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..._ ~Bearcat99
_Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age_ ~ElAurens<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron)

LEXX_Luthor
02-28-2004, 02:12 AM
Yeah, like they could someday Patch a gunner position for the IL~2 Field Mod. SB bomber could have only pilot position, and if gunner/bombadier position pics become available, they can Patch it in. There are a few SB and DB cockpit pics at netwings.


__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.
:
you will still have FB , you will lose nothing ~WUAF_Badsight
I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait... ~Bearcat99
Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age ~ElAurens

Aaron_GT
02-28-2004, 02:12 AM
It might have been a compromise to allow
the full series of IL2 aircraft to be modelled
and then it might have been forgotten about.
Certainly I'd forgotten about it - it is rare
that the field mod is enabled online without
any proper 2 seat IL2s, and I tend to skip it
offline.

Personally I'd be happy to see, say, the A20
series (one of my favourite aircraft) with
just the pilot and bomb aimers postions modelled
if it could make it flyable. Oleg might feel
it is a slippery slope, though. One question
about the A20 - are we going to get the
Soviet field mod with the flexible guns replaced
by the Soviet design turret (Li-2 turret?) as
well? I would imagine documentation would be
extremely hard to come by, though.

The muzzle flashes are a strange one. Not
knowing OpenGL very well, or DirectX at all,
I don't know what the difficulties are there
that would require a single type of flash for
all conditions. A colleague has extensive
OpenGL knowledge from several years work (he
teaches courses on it) so I could ask him.

Bearcat99
02-28-2004, 07:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BM357_Raven:
Dear Oleg,

Please stop the madness!

This sim is straining my marriage, keeping me up until all hours of the night, slipping into my dreams when my head hits the pillow and floating around in my head all day long making me lose focus on what I am supposed to be doing.

I am always asking people "uh, what was that you said?..I'm sorry, my mind was elsewhere, please repeat yourself,"...

..."uh-huh, yeah, really? well, umm, I'm sorry, I wasn't listening. Try talking business to the guy at the next desk..."

Can you see the problem? So, I am going to ask you once, please DO NOT MAKE BoB! Spare me.. Take pitty on me.. Forget the greater good, all the others, the profits, the adventure, the fun of the creative process, etc.

Instead, for the moment, realize that you have a golden opportunity to really make a difference in one man's life; me.

I really dont think I could handle it if you make another combat flight sim..

Hey! I got a neat idea! Couldn't you make a race car game, or a game where a fuzzy little monkey runs around jumping through rings and collecting coins an running from the wumpuss?

Anything, but another flight sim.....

Yours truly,

-Raven

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I agree..... no ...wait....dont stop....... but it is getting harder to NOT think in aeronautical terms...... I told my wife the other day.. I was giving her directions.... "The store should appear on your low 2:Oclock as you round the turn... You will have to go down the hill and turn into the mall...once in the mall look at your 1200 dead ahead..... thats it....." She looked at me like... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif LMAO

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

VW-IceFire
02-28-2004, 07:23 AM
You know...its good to see Oleg back on the forums and participating in active discussion. I learn alot and I hope everyone else is paying attention...he's very realistic when it comes to simulating these things...its not a perfect science (which is why its always good to question - never good to complain outright) and everything takes alot of time.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Recon_609IAP
02-28-2004, 08:03 AM
I saw a bit of a cross argument.

Stiglrs post was really about the details involved - in some regards, I think this is true - I mean, do we need a pencil rolling in the tb3? Do we need every single gunner spot to get a good B17. As mentioned, the IL2 version without a gunner spot - that is ok - why not do that with these complex bombers?

I don't really think Stiglr's post was about FM - and yet, the response back was almost 100% about FM.

Now, the other way: Stiglr, Oleg wants accuracy of the aircraft - not some cheesy crafted aircraft. Funny thing though - 85% percent of the people in this game fly arcade, crimson sky settings and don't even use the cockpit. THAT is the sad part in my opinion. Oleg needs to keep to being a sim - the models are a sim, now the game play (not FM) need to be like a sim.

The point of this thread was to show the hard work and time - and for once, I get a good explanation of why we don't have the pe2. This reason is much different than the last reason, Oleg used to say its because he didn't have enough cockpit information, now it's because the modellers quit.

I applaud the people doing these bombers - keep up the good work - and we will pray that Oleg will not nit pick too much http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

S!
609IAP_Recon

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg
Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem
http://www.jarsofclay.com/

p1ngu666
02-28-2004, 08:28 AM
someone is makin good progress wid pe2 pit.
but having bomber without some positions would be ok by me. better than no bomber..

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

KG26_Oranje
02-28-2004, 09:15 AM
Well after reading some postings.
I say , Sorry if i hurt some one , Fact is that in all the years that il2 and FB are here and we get new plane`s, there is a lack of ahter plane`s than fighters.
U 3 party bilders and 3c bild faster a unknow plane like the 109z than a cockpit for the most famos plane like the me110 or pe2.
There is simply a lack of flyable bombers , sea , transport , ground atack plane`s in this game.
Dont get me rong žm a big fan for il2 buht i mist variation in plane setup , it like to see candy in a store (A.I.) buht u me not grap it and most wait years for it.
I/KG26_Oranje

BerkshireHunt
02-28-2004, 09:18 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RafaelFlanker:
.What I need is simple: detailed internal shots, especially gunners' and bombardier stations. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rafael,
I have a book: 'Cockpit: An Illustrated History of World war II Aircraft Interiors' (published 1998). It's a thick book full of colour interior shots of all the main bombers and fighters of WW2- as well as some rarer machines. Crystal clear close- ups. It was a labour of love for the authors, Don Nijboer and Dan Patterson. Patterson, in case you don't know, is the photographer and he has definitely been inside an A20- there is a great colour close- up of the pilot's pit together with a lot of written information on this bird.
(He is a real enthusiast for what he does- he describes his work as 'a dream come true').
Anyway, it occurs to me that he may have other shots of the interior of the A20. I can't imagine he took just the one of the cockpit which was published- it was quite difficult to get permission to enter some of these aircraft in the first place and I'll bet he made the most of it.
He invites people to get in touch (primarily to order copies of the original photographs which make up the book) but he might be able to help you with your problem regarding other crew stations.
If you explain who you are and what you're about- and enclose a screenshot of an FB cockpit- it might just catch his imagination.

Worth a shot I reckon:

D Patterson
6825 Peters Pike
Dayton
Ohio 45414
USA

[This message was edited by BerkshireHunt on Sat February 28 2004 at 04:59 PM.]

Boandlgramer
02-28-2004, 12:19 PM
Dan Patterson is not only a Photographer.
he is also a graphic-designer and a privat pilot.
have a book from patterson ( and some coworkers).
"Classic Fighters" , with fantastic pictures:
Bf 109 , Focke Wulf , Spitfire and the Mustang .

Boandlgramer
http://images.google.de/images?q=tbn:10LP6FCHtuYJ:www.vhts.de/bilder/wappenbayern.jpg
http://images.google.de/images?q=tbn:negrFY2J26MJ:www.thienemann.de/img/rauber_5.jpg
Wachtmeister Dimpfelmoser in Verfolgung von R√¬§uber Hotzenplotz, der auf sch√¬§ndliche Weise Oma‚¬īs Kaffeem√ľhle in seinen Besitz brachte.
Gut, dass es Wachtmeister gibt , unbestechlich und tapfer http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

Philipscdrw
02-28-2004, 02:28 PM
Am I the only one to notice?...

The modeller need to know where the hood moves when the gun is brought to the firing position. This involves the external model as well surely? So this cannot be solved by not modelling that station.

PhilipsCDRW

Playing LO-MAC on Win98 with stability.

Cold_Gambler
02-29-2004, 01:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RafaelFlanker:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cold_Gambler:

I'm not sure if this will help you but at this Australian museum
http://www.raafmuseum.com.au/raaf2/html/douglas_boston.htm <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Cold_Gambler,

I have e-mailed them some months ago asking for internal references, didn't get any reply. :/



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xenomorphine:

That museum is only 30 mins drive from me. I might be able to help out if you give me exact details of what you need and the museum allows visitors to get close enough...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Xenomorphine,
What I need is simple: detailed internal shots, especially gunners' and bombardier stations. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:

Here's a concrete example.

If you lack detailed drawings, schematics, etc. for a gunner or bombardier station, such that you couldn't duplicate every knob, switch, radio face, panel, etc., how does that affect the gameplay usability of that gunner station? Answer is, it doesn't.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stiglr, not to flame you, but I'm sorry to say... it actually DOES affect the gameplay. Simply because on this model, "hood" closed, no top machine gun to fire from. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Now, playing again, please, show me a good use of your "educated guess" and tell me... where would that "hood" go when top machine gun is deployed...? How it was deployed and moved? Interesting to guess heh? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Just wanted to show you that "educated guesses" mostly are certain trouble later on. Better wait for true references, they may arrive late, but they DO arrive, believe me it happened already sometimes. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And if Xenomorphine can get some good pictures (maybe wheedle his way for inside shots or photocopies of tech manuals) we'll get a sim copy of the real deal...

I think Stiglr has a certain point with respect to "generic" cockpits for planes' whose complete information may not EVER be available. On the other hand one has to respect Oleg's vision of what level of realism is best for the sim.

Cheers, Cold

KG26_Oranje
03-05-2004, 03:38 AM
Hi RafaelFlanker.

Great work bro , so far so good , i hope its ready soon , looking for it to fly it and bring it safe home.
And Oleg keep up this great accuracy , dont let ure baby kill by poor accuracy.
And please oleg think about it one more time , please please make the PE2 flyable , pleaseeeeeeeeeeee.
Its nice we learn about the YP80 or ahter plane`s buht like my Friend say yesterday to me we play il2 for the russian stuff and how the war was over there in the air.
So please give us more Russian bombers , recon , transports flyable.
Nr 1 on my list is and was the PE2/3 serie and Tu2.

S! I/KG26_Oranje

LEXX_Luthor
03-05-2004, 03:47 AM
Fb109Z cockpit mostly already done for other Fb109s. Quick addon.

Bombers take modders long time. Great long term investment--a scary thing for those who Choose to do it. Maybe with sales of Fb/AEP they can pay modders...and pay them double for twin engine planes....

...and pay modders double for Biplanes (or monoplanes with no retractable gear like Ki~27 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

And, when the LuftWhiners show interest in Fb109 B, C, or D then they will have reason to Whine. Funny they only enjoy simming the DEFEAT of the Luftwaffe and not when it Ruled the Sky.


__________________
"You will still have FB , you will lose NOTHING" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
"I don't have the V2 or B25s, so I'm going to reinstall" ~Bearcat99
"If sky chimp is satisfied [P38], then I'm convinced its ok" ~Menthol_moose

buz13
03-05-2004, 09:30 AM
I never had in doubt about the level of work that went into any of these aircraft...but especially bombers. I do think a bomber pay-addon would sell like hotcakes to this sim community.

Franzen
03-05-2004, 11:15 AM
Worthy of being bumped, but I won't do it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

Fritz

Buster_Dee
03-05-2004, 11:59 AM
Well, I'm a new modeller, and I've been hung up on modelling a German Type VII Uboat. It took 4 months of digging to get enough details to figure out what version to do. Now, I'm stuck again. You think you have enough, then something doesn't add up. Where is the disparity: did this drafter or that drafter get it slightly wrong on the blueprints? After a while, the educated guesses don't come together either. I like knowing I can trust Oleg. What amazes me even more is that he continues to consider new planes as soon as a missing bit of data falls into place.

Thanks Oleg.

Gunner_361st
03-07-2004, 10:05 PM
This thread deserves a big BUMP http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

AnalFissure
03-08-2004, 12:45 AM
Why not release a flyable bomber with just a cockpit and no playable gunner stations (not unlike the il2 field mod)?

The stations could always be added later, and it seems like it'd save a lot of work.

Just curious.

PS. Stig, mate, I'm not going to flame you or anything, but you need to chill out sometimes.

PBNA-Boosher
03-08-2004, 07:09 AM
Stiglr, I have to say this, you are way off. Everyone here loves the historical aspect and the accuracy of the models themselves. If it's not historically accurate, i don't want it. I believe that most of the IL2 community agrees with me.

StG77_Stuka
03-09-2004, 12:33 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gifBUMP it up! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cossack13
03-09-2004, 02:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Gunner station on SB bomber. No SB gunner pics, No Flyable SB bomber...

Granted the Flyable IL~2 Field Mod without Flyable gunner comes to mind.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree completely. Having the SB without the gunner position would be no different that flying the Il-2 Field Mod. I'm glad that one made it into the game.

I hope that someone does model the SB-2.

http://www.tolwyn.com/~cossack/White13.gif
What ever you do, do
NOT buy an Alienware!

delinker
03-09-2004, 02:48 PM
I must say that both points are worthy of discussion:

A) YES the game is fantastic with regard to historics and accuracy. It would be a lesser game without this attention to detail.

However, the ability to "fly" these planes is also part of the bag and cannot be reduced to also-ran status. IF big bombers were flyable in the game it would add much depth and texture to the campaigns and missions. Therefore I agree with Stiglr and others about:

B) not letting the location of bulkhead rivets or some other minutia keeping these big birds on the ground or in AI hands only.

There does come a point, regardless of one's vision or adherence to principle, that you must break out of the mold in order to maintain progress.

I'm no coder so please don't take me wrong: there is MUCH work involved and I know this and it's clear to anyone paying attention. We all agree that IL2 is the BEST flight sim EVER http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif My point then is that the game is superb in every way and there is no disagreement about that...but we want more planes of multi-engine nature and are impatient and spoiled rotten :lol If it requires detailed blueprints of AC interior to materialize before development then so be it. But sometimes it's nice to just have fun too. IMHO....
Cheers~

Victurus te Saluto

fritzthefox
03-09-2004, 03:16 PM
I think Oleg may not be inclined to compromise realism for fear that one compromise may lead to another and another until historical authenticity goes out the window. Enough compromises and pretty soon you end up with Combat Flight Simulator 4... which nobody wants!

Any game is going to involve some compromise between realism and playability...it's up to the game creator to draw the line as to where those compromises are. Obviously, Oleg has set the standard pretty high, maybe higher than some people feel is neccessary. But that's his call, and we should respect it.

It's his game, after all.

PF_Mark
03-09-2004, 04:24 PM
I understand that this is alot of work and I would like to thank you for attempting to do this for us. If it come together and we get it Thank you very much. If after many many hours of hard work it does come come together and we do not get it then. We owe you many many MANY! thanks for trying so hard!

http://www.artjunky.com/phantomfighters/images/patch06_grey.gif

Kahvikuppi
03-09-2004, 04:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
...to show the great amount of work that need to be done for modeling of each plane and especially bombers...!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As an devotee of the IL2/FB: thank you for the update. I hope you, Oleg, read this: I simply marvel and wonder the surprisingly high artistic level of your production. I don‚¬īt know much about engineering or technology, since I am an artist, but one can tell that you have endowed great pleasure of good flight simulating for thousands and thousands of gamers. People tend to ask for more and more aeroplanes just like I do myself http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif and it is kind to show people what your work is about.

I hope the very, very best to You and Your Team. The IL2/FB is the favourite game in our family (children 7 and 10 years - and me - eh 40) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Take your time and I will wait and buy everything you create conscerning piloting in the WWII.

G13man
03-10-2004, 12:15 PM
oleg, make a bomber fleet for stiglr... should be real easy.. make it fly.. + don't show the guns , just let them fire and kill all who come near them. then he can complane all over again about how it's not real enough..answer for that , easy.. never was easy making it though a bomber group, get more experiance . just cause they say they r missing something does not mean that they have everythinge else or have stopped working on it!
ps. no , you don't have to make stilr his bomber Oleg, but you can continue to do your excellant game... THANKS Oleg for a REAL flight simulator/ game

k6-2 .5g,198m,2 megvid
[Albatron 8T800 PROII :64/3200
1G Mushkin pc3500,9800xt
reusing,case,os98se,[64?]hd,cd

LW_Icarus
03-12-2004, 07:45 PM
All I can say is thanks for doing what I can not. I can not make even a paper airplane in 3d.

if you would rather spend the time necessary to render a model of a plane you are pleased with, than try to make a plane for everyone, then I applaud it. too many people do things half in this world already.

Il2, Forgotten battles and now aces exp. have been the best software purchases I have ever made, most time spent playing/amount spent ratio. thanks again to you and the entire crew.

S~

Philipscdrw
03-16-2004, 10:29 AM
Won't the posistion of the hood in firing postions affect the external model?

PhilipsCDRW

Playing LO-MAC on Win98 with stability.

VOL_Mountain
03-16-2004, 12:33 PM
Fantastic work on this project ! I can't wait for it to come to completion but I have a question:

If its being held up due to lack of information, could the scope be simplified as suggested in this thread?

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=786108272

[This message was edited by VOL_Mountain on Thu March 18 2004 at 11:18 AM.]

RafaelFlanker
03-16-2004, 05:26 PM
Hi,

Yes, we already got a solution on the hood, don't worry. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Latest shots can be seen at Netwings forum: http://www.netwings.org/dcforum/DCForumID43/850.html

http://www.jugdepot.tk

Bogun
03-18-2004, 10:02 AM
RafaelFlanker,
Great that you found your info, but it is shame that we don't have some planes in the game now just because some references were not found for some obscure gunner position.

I say - just leave it out, let AI control this position for the plane were references are not available. Just give pilots and bombardier position for bombers and we will be happy... Even not the whole bombardier station, but just a bomb sights would have been enough...

We are lacking Russian bombers in online wars so much and we don't have them yet because references were so hard to fine...
The worst part - references for the positions we could definitely live without...

Regards,

Forgotten War Home Page (http://www.forgottenskies.com/ForgottenWars/default.aspx)
http://bogun.freeservers.com/609_bogun.jpg (http://www.takeoff.to/609IAP)

"The best fighters I met in combat were the American P-51 Mustang and Russian Yak-9U. Both of those types obviously exceeded all Bf109 variants in performance, including the 'K'. The Mustang was unmatched in altitude performance, while the Yak-9U was champion in rate of climb and maneuverability."

- Walter Wolfrum (137 victories)

adriatic
03-19-2004, 05:29 PM
Stiglr; you should apologize to Rafael and Oleg!!!!

Not because your request but for spitting at their work!!

Shame on you if you can't understand that!!!

Saturnalia2
03-19-2004, 05:42 PM
No disrespect to those going to all the trouble of modeling, but I would be perfectly happy with a bomber in which only the cockpit and bombadier stations were modeled; a similar situation to the Il-2 field modification.

EFG_Zeb
03-20-2004, 01:00 PM
Hello,
I found a picture of the upper gunners position with the hood in the midway position for the A20. I know a single picture isn't enough but I hope it will help you.

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/sebfly100/efg/bostondetail2.jpg

"See, Decide, Attack, Reverse or Coffee Break" E.H.

RafaelFlanker
03-21-2004, 12:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EFG_Zeb:
Hello,
I found a picture of the upper gunners position with the hood in the midway position for the A20. I know a single picture isn't enough but I hope it will help you.

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/sebfly100/efg/bostondetail2.jpg

"See, Decide, Attack, Reverse or Coffee Break" E.H.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hi EFG_Zeb,

Excellent picture, thanks a lot. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif That just confirms the theory that it rotated inwards then slided to the position behind gunner's seat. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Thanks!

http://www.jugdepot.tk

tomwilliams007
03-21-2004, 12:38 PM
Hi, this problem with Oleg and Rafael saying it is difficult to get accurate bomber references can easily be sorted. I go to duxford air museum at least once a month and I am going to be starting volountary work there and I will get VIP access. I canand will be able to easily take photographs to help with moddeling.

xanty
03-21-2004, 05:20 PM
Is there an A-20 on Duxford? (I think not)

http://www.silence.plus.com/xanty/stuff/fb_sig.jpg

xanty
03-21-2004, 05:52 PM
Update on http://www.netwings.org/dcforum/DCForumID43/866.html

http://www.silence.plus.com/xanty/stuff/fb_sig.jpg

tomwilliams007
03-22-2004, 11:06 AM
Your a rude git arent you Xanty. No there is not an A-20 there, I was not talking about that. Just multi-engined planes generally.
What about having a Short Sunderland "Flying Porcupine" flyable, duxford have one of those.

TG_Gazoo
03-22-2004, 03:49 PM
Hello

I for one would first like to say that, what you and your team has done is a godsend, beautiful work.
And what seems to be "impatience" from we the pilots, should be better described as "excitement" hehe.
I don't think that whoever that was above bashing the attention to detail and realism (that has been put into this flight sim)realizes what the word SIMULATOR means.

Keep up the good work ...we're loving it!
EZ

MERLINXXX_
04-02-2004, 12:58 PM
Yes!!! Very much hard work you guys put in to all you do, people should remember that...
I mean just think how hard it is to just get your PC just right to get best frame rates etc....

Then think on the amont of work involved to make IL2, FORGOTTEN BATTLES, and then AEP!!!

Personally, I am now partially disabled and can't get out much so my PC is my lifeline...

And as I can no longer afford to fly for real, IL2, and AEP are a Godsend!!!

So Oleg, God Bless You and all the people who work hard to make our hobby so much fun...

P.S. (tongue firmly in cheek..) When can we have RAF Spitfires for AEP? Douglas Baders MKII perhaps?

Best wishes...

Tooz_69GIAP
04-20-2004, 01:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tomwilliams007:What about having a Short Sunderland "Flying Porcupine" flyable, duxford have one of those.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Man, now that is an aircraft I would love. That and an He-115, a Lysander perhaps, a Lancaster (my dream aircraft!!), a flyable FW200, flyable Ju-52, flyable DC-3, the list goes on and on and on....... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

BTW, how do you get a job working in an aircraft museum?? That isn't a job, that's getting paid to indulge yer hobby!!!

Tooz

whit ye looking at, ya big jessie?!?!

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_tooz.jpg
Za Rodinu!

brother23
05-14-2004, 08:13 AM
Is the IL2-Team currently seeking for
modelers/texturers?

I do also menu design and war paintings (digital).

Nazinette
05-24-2004, 08:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Thanks for that insight. The WIP looks great.
=====================================
But I have to tell you guys: accuracy is wonderful when you can get it, but I would not think that this should be the main deciding factor as to whether a plane is modelled or not.

With all due respect, I find it ironic that you (meaning the FB team) spend so much time wringing your hands over whether you can find a photo showing the position of an oxygen valve in the turret gunner's position, and then have planes that fly like UFO's (and these *released* to the public, to boot), only to be toned down later. And then you use this as a rationale either to unreasonably delay or not to include at all a plane in your set that really should be there (the Pe-2, Me110 being the most prime examples). Meanwhile, we have totally marginal planes like the Bi-1 in the set.

It is OK if you have to make "educated guesses" or employ a little "graphic license" on multicrewed plane positions, (or even pilot cockpits) if the raw data simply doesn't exist. If for no other reason than, "who's going to know something isn't 100% accurate?; they can't find the data, either".

Use the data that's available, make reasonable educated guesses on what's not, and go on from there. You do the *exact same thing* for the flight models, which is actually FAR MORE important than the visual accuracy of the crew spaces.

I really feel you guys have reversed your priorities on graphics and flight models, to the detriment of the sim.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stig, i don`t think you really understood the main concepts of O.M. and what`s important for FB http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ivan, how about you tell us what this main concept is rather than making a glib statement like that.

regards

Nazinette

Agamemnon22
05-24-2004, 09:12 PM
Ooooh are we raising the dead again?
Let me get my summoning hat.

BigKahuna_GS
05-25-2004, 11:27 AM
S!

Thanks to Oleg and all for their hard work and making FB/AEP a terrific flight sim.

Is there a possibility to streamline the operation and release bombers with just AI gun stations and when possible go back and complete the detailed gunners station ?


__________________________________________________ ______________________
Bogun wrote--RafaelFlanker,
Great that you found your info, but it is shame that we don't have some planes in the game now just because some references were not found for some obscure gunner position.

I say - just leave it out, let AI control this position for the plane were references are not available. Just give pilots and bombardier position for bombers and we will be happy... Even not the whole bombardier station, but just a bomb sights would have been enough...
__________________________________________________ ___________________________



I agree with Bogun. This could be a way to introduce bombers more quickly into FB. Complete the detailed gun stations at a later date or leave it to AI completely if refrence material is not available.


_

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.warplaneswarehouse.com/planes_lg/MS1AOO_LG.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

Ki_Rin
05-25-2004, 03:09 PM
Yes, FB is a great sim, no doubt....but don't be so hard on Stiglr, he does have a valid point.
Shouldnt there be accurate FMs first, with generic cocpits etc, then indroduce accurate cocpits et al in patches later?
Seems ridiculous to want to fly a type with accurate cocpit and crazy ufo FM, than fly a type with accurate FM (DM, too, for that matter!), and a sloppy cocpit....
the compromise SHOULD, in IMHO, be in favor of Fms/DMs.

BTW, Oleg, sir, has your crew ever considered the best features of other flight combat games, for incorporation into FB?
Please look at my thread in GD, "Back to Jane's WW2 Fighters?", or think back to your own experience flying that game....
scoring system
chat interface
pop up instruments
mission builder
sounds
etc, etc, etc....
to emulate many of these features that are superior to FBs will only make a great sim (FB) better!

Perhaps 1C/Maddox/Ubi can circulate a questionnaire (if it hasnt already, in the past) asking which features of any particular game other than FB is most favored, or superior than FB, and MAY warrant a consideration to be included in a patch, if possible, or a future game (BoB)
seriously, dude...Im sure 99% FB users online would prefer Jane's WW2 fighters type chat interface, amopng many other things http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

"Consequences are for lesser beings; I am Ki-Rin...that is sanction enough"

TheGozr
07-05-2004, 10:49 AM
isn't there somewhere a small team of just shearchers looking for infos?

3d modeller stay with the 3 d's but peoples incharge to look around for infos well must get busy now.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Good work even if the pictures doesn't show http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

-GOZR
http://www.french.themotorhead.com/forgotten-battles/images/IOCompetition.jpg &lt;--Competition Level IL2fb here (http://www.french.themotorhead.com/forgotten-battles/)

LeadSpitter_
07-07-2004, 06:01 PM
no need for side gunners just nose tail turrents

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

LeadSpitter_
07-07-2004, 06:01 PM
no need for side gunners just nose tail turrents

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

LeadSpitter_
07-07-2004, 06:01 PM
no need for side gunners just nose tail turrents

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
07-07-2004, 08:44 PM
err Forgoten Battles is like a box of chocolates. There all goood, http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif and you never know what your gona get !!

gnite people!

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v323/tHeBaLrOgRoCkS/planes/signiture3.jpg

Troger
07-12-2004, 09:16 AM
Hi New here,

wanting to know after all this the B-17,JU-88,PE-2 Series, B-25 are going to be modeled? I personaly am a huge bomber pilot online and offline. I am fully aware that the work you put into it is enormous. But i thing there is enough info on all those planes to be modeled. I would rather see more bombers.

Stilgr did make a good little point, that you guys put time into planes like the russian jet fighter and the YP-80. But i am not looking for a flame war, i just want to see more bombershttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Either way oleg, thank you for the game and work and its great fun.

I really enjoy being able to talk to you personaly!

joberrick
09-18-2004, 07:44 PM
Pics don't work for me.

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2004, 05:05 PM
these any good ?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4728&item=2268167472

http://www.kennedyshipyards.com/productmaster.cfm?categoryname=WWII%20Ships%20and% 20Aircraft

[This message was edited by Vagueout on Sun September 19 2004 at 04:19 PM.]

WTE_Galway
09-20-2004, 12:40 AM
if anyone is modelling a Hudson they should talk to these guys:

http://www.aviationmuseum.com.au/aircraft/Hudson.cfm

they fly pretty much the only airworthy example of a Hudson bomber left in the world