PDA

View Full Version : STILL NO KATE?



Krotos
10-25-2005, 05:59 AM
Ok, I bought Pacific Fighters the day it was first released and to my horror discovered the IJN Kate Torpedo Bomber was missing. I have been waiting ever since. Considering that torpedo bombers represend almost 50% of a carrier's striking power, and that this sim is supposed to be about (at least in part) carrier air battles I assumed the plane would be released quickly in a follow on patch. It has not been. As a result, the game is permenantly hobbled.

I have heard it said that there are "insufficient resources" to produce the plane accurately. To that I say "who gives a rat's ***"! Madox's obsession with hyper realism is now a burden rather than a blessing. The plane exists as an AI aircraft with a flight model so why not just put a generic cockpit in it and give it to us. Is it not logical to suggest that something (no matter how historically inacurate) is better than nothing? Of course it is.

I am not holding my breath. Far from it. I don't expect a torpedo bomber will ever be available to IJN flyers. Simply put, I am fed up. I am removing Pacific Aces from my machine for good.

I am fed up with Madox Games.

Krotos

Krotos
10-25-2005, 05:59 AM
Ok, I bought Pacific Fighters the day it was first released and to my horror discovered the IJN Kate Torpedo Bomber was missing. I have been waiting ever since. Considering that torpedo bombers represend almost 50% of a carrier's striking power, and that this sim is supposed to be about (at least in part) carrier air battles I assumed the plane would be released quickly in a follow on patch. It has not been. As a result, the game is permenantly hobbled.

I have heard it said that there are "insufficient resources" to produce the plane accurately. To that I say "who gives a rat's ***"! Madox's obsession with hyper realism is now a burden rather than a blessing. The plane exists as an AI aircraft with a flight model so why not just put a generic cockpit in it and give it to us. Is it not logical to suggest that something (no matter how historically inacurate) is better than nothing? Of course it is.

I am not holding my breath. Far from it. I don't expect a torpedo bomber will ever be available to IJN flyers. Simply put, I am fed up. I am removing Pacific Aces from my machine for good.

I am fed up with Madox Games.

Krotos

BaldieJr
10-25-2005, 06:33 AM
It would be folly to knowingly release an incorrect plane.

Enjoy your game.

nakamura_kenji
10-25-2005, 06:40 AM
no matter much cry probab get not "insert miss japanese plane" v_v. oleg seem much selctive plane acuracy depend he interest guess. see acuracy more polite way say sorry no interest and have no time money.

"It would be folly to knowingly release an incorrect plane."

incorrect many plane never be ingame but still get game somewhow (bf-109z"never exist where cockpit come form?", p-11c "most ugly cockpit see v_v" p-80"no combat" i go but no bother)

VF2_Ted
10-25-2005, 06:41 AM
yes...like the 109Z...

Nijssie_1.JaVA
10-25-2005, 06:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Krotos:
Ok, I bought Pacific Fighters the day it was first released and to my horror discovered the IJN Kate Torpedo Bomber was missing. I have been waiting ever since. Considering that torpedo bombers represend almost 50% of a carrier's striking power, and that this sim is supposed to be about (at least in part) carrier air battles I assumed the plane would be released quickly in a follow on patch. It has not been. As a result, the game is permenantly hobbled.

I have heard it said that there are "insufficient resources" to produce the plane accurately. To that I say "who gives a rat's ***"! Madox's obsession with hyper realism is now a burden rather than a blessing. The plane exists as an AI aircraft with a flight model so why not just put a generic cockpit in it and give it to us. Is it not logical to suggest that something (no matter how historically inacurate) is better than nothing? Of course it is.

I am not holding my breath. Far from it. I don't expect a torpedo bomber will ever be available to IJN flyers. Simply put, I am fed up. I am removing Pacific Aces from my machine for good.

I am fed up with Madox Games.

Krotos </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sent it to me please. I know more then 10 new happy owners. the luckyless that where too late to buy. Split the diff
Thankz

BaldieJr
10-25-2005, 07:38 AM
What is incorrect about the 109z? What are your sources?

When will you guys be finished with the Kate model?

Easier to cry than produce.

nakamura_kenji
10-25-2005, 07:48 AM
real bf-109Z that built was base bf-109F no bf-109G base version we have game. it flew for few second when bomb hit prototype. far no very little resource of exist. there probab far more on b5n consider how many b5n were produce compare mythical bf-109Z (g base), lead me think oleg just no interest just want cencentrate bob.

i 3d model know exactly how hard without resource but no impossible create something worth while it just somewhat hard with resource no much but possible.

269GA-Veltro
10-25-2005, 07:50 AM
http://www.netwings.org/dcforum/DCForumID43/1233.html

nakamura_kenji
10-25-2005, 07:59 AM
no interest then guess v_v had feel it polite excuss, other reason maybe america no moan about have b5n when no have tbf but moan way not matter.

eve few picture enough make rough cockpit fact so easy find mean most like more that v_v.

Bartolomeo_ita
10-25-2005, 08:04 AM
no,no,no; the correct question is - where are the macchis? -

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

Retrofish
10-25-2005, 10:00 AM
I'm afraid it's my fault.

I tried, I did my best and sent this to Oleg:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a127/retrofish/kate.jpg

He would not accept it however.

GazeH0und
10-25-2005, 10:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Krotos:
..discovered the IJN Kate Torpedo Bomber was missing. I have been waiting ever since...
Simply put, I am fed up. I am removing Pacific Aces from my machine for good.

I am fed up with Madox Games.

Krotos </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah I quit too because they wouldnt put all the planes in that I want to fly. Sheesh!
BTW an AI FM is different to a playable one.

msalama
10-25-2005, 10:08 AM
Still no brains?

VVaFFenPanZZeR
10-25-2005, 10:55 AM
retrofish ur funny as hell

LEXX_Luthor
10-25-2005, 12:04 PM
Thanks Veltro http://www.netwings.org/dcforum/DCForumID43/1233.html

Interesting the "excuses" they are giving for "not enough resource" to make cockpits that flight sim customers won't know the historical position of every switch on the right side of Kate cockipt. Only aircraft restoration professionals would know this, or care about it.

Same thing with SB bomber. Some other flight sim developer somewhere will have to make Flyable Russian SB, DB-3, Su-2, R-10, Tu-2, etc... for future flight sim, if "other" developers can resist making more of their same 1944 West Euro dogfight games -- not likely. Sad.

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

Funny, the professional restore people would then add modern equipment to their "Hristoical Perfect" cockpits so they can fly them safely. lol

faelas
10-25-2005, 02:44 PM
nakamura_kenji I agree with you 100%.

... and it's fun trying to decode your english. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

polak5
10-25-2005, 04:41 PM
Retrofish http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

danjama
10-25-2005, 07:06 PM
RetroFish is hell it funny! And i agree we are missing alot of Key planes from the pacific theatre, and this is the only time i will participate in a thread and admit it! I dont think this will change no matter what! If you quit because one plane is missing, then u aint worth having the game, the company put alot of effort into it u should appreciate it! Stop crying like a little girl and fly a campaign or something.

If worst comes to worst give it to a shop and they will sell it used to someone who will appreciate it! You quitting the game will not change the situation.

CRSutton
10-26-2005, 03:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Retrofish:
I'm afraid it's my fault.

I tried, I did my best and sent this to Oleg:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a127/retrofish/kate.jpg

He would not accept it however. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Battlehawks 1942? What a great game. First thing I bought to try out my new VGA monitor.

Retrofish
10-26-2005, 03:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CRSutton:
Battlehawks 1942? What a great game. First thing I bought to try out my new VGA monitor. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. Had it for my Amiga 500. I think it was only possible to control the planes with the mouse.

Their Finest Hour followed and then Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe, which unfortunately only was released for the PC...as far as I know.

I wonder if there were any flight model discussions back then.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

rugame
10-26-2005, 04:59 PM
Classic games...

EJGrOst_Caspar
10-26-2005, 05:16 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:
Thanks Veltro http://www.netwings.org/dcforum/DCForumID43/1233.html

Interesting the "excuses" they are giving for "not enough resource" to make cockpits that flight sim customers won't know the historical position of every switch on the right side of Kate cockipt. Only aircraft restoration professionals would know this, or care about it.
lol </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem wasn't the cockpit, but more the gunner and/or bomber position, where are nothing or only small references available.

I know, many would like to live with non historical gunner and bomber places ... and I guess so do I, but that's just not the way cockpits get made for IL2FB/PF. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

shinden1974
10-26-2005, 09:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EJGrOst_Caspar:

The problem wasn't the cockpit, but more the gunner and/or bomber position, where are nothing or only small references available.

I know, many would like to live with non historical gunner and bomber places ... and I guess so do I, but that's just not the way cockpits get made for IL2FB/PF. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would live with no/less gunner positions at all and even only the sight view for the bomberdier. This would have brought *many* bombers into the game. Leave the gunners AI, which are much better anyway. Looking at the posts for this subject and similar on simHQ, it was possible for us (and may still be, though extremely remote) to get a TBD and Kate at least, but for these (to me at least) minor problems.

LEXX_Luthor
10-27-2005, 07:50 PM
Ya, the IL-2 Field Mod has no playable gunner, and Oleg was "okay" with that.


Caspar:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...many would like to live with non historical gunner and bomber places...and I guess so do I, but that's just not the way cockpits get made for IL2FB/PF. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
They can Field Mod the gunner cockpits if they need, and they have in the past.

I would like gunner positions available, but if that means it can't be done, then I would be more than Happy with a...Field Mod. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SeaNorris
10-28-2005, 10:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Krotos:
To that I say "who gives a rat's ***"! Madox's obsession with hyper realism is now a burden rather than a blessing. The plane exists as an AI aircraft with a flight model so why not just put a generic cockpit in it and give it to us.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because, that is not the way Maddox operates http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

Pancrazio_380
10-28-2005, 02:09 PM
I tend to agree with the author of this thread. Torpedo bombers were present in Pacific combat during WWII. Their absence in Pcaific Fighters is noticable particularly because of the effectiveness and depth torpedo bombers bring to Pacific Combat simulation. I am no proponent of releasing poor quality at the expense of time. Thus, in my mind, it matters not how long it will take the IL2 team to release torpedo bombers so long as they to be included.

Fact is if one surveys Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator II, flyable torpedo bombers were not a feature either. However, manipulation of the file structure of an AI Nakajima Kate could make it flyable. This is because Microsoft's has coded their flight simulators as open source. Thus an "AI" plane was essentially a "flyable" plane without a panel and aircraft configuration files but complete in all other respects.

I even recall the ability to load an operational torpedo onto the aircraft and deploy it in flight... what fun back then when Combat Flight Simulator II was my choice for WWII Pacific War.

Maddox's decision not to include these aircraft does not detract from the experience of Pacific confrontation but certainly the addition of such aircraft could not detract either especially considering the Nakajima Kates that released modified torpedoes into Pearl Harbor was part of the kick off to the Pacific War.

Torpedo bombing already resides in IL2. I am not sure why Maddox did not code the Pacific equivalents. It could have been time or perhaps planned for a future release.

Will we ever see these torpedo bombers in PF? Will we ever form up online in PF+FB+AE and simulate torpedo runs against the enemy? Only time and Maddox's interest will tell. Otherwise I think he has made a Pacific Campaign simulation using the all time favorite IL2 platform that in my opinion is pleasing.

LEXX_Luthor
10-28-2005, 07:55 PM
The name pacific FIGHTERs was chosen for this very reason, and I can respect that, but someday all developers/publishers everywhere realize taking their combat sims out of Niche Status will require as much attention to bombers as dogfighters, among other things needed in combat flight sims....for example: historical Flyable Trainer for each major side and ability to Choose an immersive trainer "campaign" with much traffic on the airfield and nearby airspace, with the possibility of surprise enemy air attack near the end of the player's training. That's just an example of the thinking required to get more people immersed in their combat flight sim product instead of shelving it, and they will tell their friends, etc...

ashley2005
10-29-2005, 12:49 PM
there no kate because
http://www.warbirdphotos.net/aviapix/DiveBomb/Kate/kate.jpg

all those people in the picture stole it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

neural_dream
10-29-2005, 12:55 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:
...for example: historical Flyable Trainer for each major side and ability to Choose an immersive trainer "campaign" with much traffic on the airfield and nearby airspace, with the possibility of surprise enemy air attack near the end of the player's training. That's just an example of the thinking required to get more people immersed in their combat flight sim product instead of shelving it, and they will tell their friends, etc... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
undoubtedly

CHDT
10-29-2005, 01:01 PM
nt

Nimits
10-29-2005, 04:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaldieJr:
It would be folly to knowingly release an incorrect plane.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would be folly to knowingly an incorrect plane when sources to confirm your mistakes are available. In the case of the B5N and TBD, on the other hand, the folly is to completely ignore to possible torpedo bombers because not every nook and cranny of the cockpit can be modelled. If 1C where to model as a TBD/B5N cockpit as accurately as possible from existing photgraphs, production drawnings, etc, and "interpolate" the rest from extant cockpits of other planes of that type and manufacture, as well as common sense, no one would care, nor would anyone be the wiser. Oleg's standard is admirable, as long as information is available, but his unwillingness to model an important aircraft because of "insufficient information" is regretful and depressing; since its unlikely any new info on the Kate or Devestator is going to present itself, unless Oleg's standards change in this area, we may never see a flyable Kate or Devestator in any 1C sim, which would be a horrible shame.

This insistance on 100% technical accuracy in the viewable cockpit, yet simultaneous willingness to completely abandon historical fidelity by adding in random X-planes while leaving out critical ships and planes that actually saw service, is a coninuous reminder that a Maddox has forgotten (or failed to learn) that realism involves the historical as well as the technical.

LEXX_Luthor
10-29-2005, 08:45 PM
Nimits:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...since its unlikely any new info on the Kate or Devestator is going to present itself,... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
New sources still becoming available, but cockpits could be updated in a Patch or paid addon.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This insistance on 100% technical accuracy in the viewable cockpit, yet simultaneous willingness to completely abandon historical fidelity by adding in random X-planes while leaving out critical ships and planes that actually saw service, is a coninuous reminder that a Maddox has forgotten (or failed to learn) that realism involves the historical as well as the technical. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes and No. You are mixing AEP X-planes with Pacific Fighters lack of ships which was not really Oleg's creation. You need to think of Oleg's original FB instead as it was a rather complete sim. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

heywooood
10-29-2005, 09:17 PM
From recent postings by a couple of principal players in PFdome - albeit rather "cloudy" postings without much real solid substance to them, work is continuing WRT PF and some more cockpits and maps.

Ships will not be added but more planes whatever they are (Ki-27...etc) and maps (China/Burma etc..) would be more than welcome.

So dont lament the much needed torp. planes ...all is not yet lost.

Nimits
10-29-2005, 10:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ships will not be added. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I still hope we can convince Luthier to change his mind on that. Even if all the US ships are tied up in copyrights (and I doubt the more important MIAs, such as the Colorada and South Dakota BBs, Independence CVLs, and Atlanta CLAAs would be restricted), there are plenty of crucial IJN and RN light carrier, battleships, battlecruisers, heavy cruisers, seaplane cruises, light cruisers, destroyers, destoyer escorts, submarines, seaplane tenders, tankers, merhcants, and transports that saw important, often even critical, action in the Pacific that could be modeled without any fear of a lawsuit. The Hermes and Shoho CVLs; Kongo, Ise, and Yamato BBs; Repulse BC; Kent, Takao, Mogami, and Tone CAs, Naka and Yubari CLs, Kamikawa Maru AV, Type KD6 SS, E- and T- class DDs, are all examples off ships that played important roles in the naval-air battles in the PTO that could be modeled without any fear of legal retribution. Shoot, if they won't add any new ships, at least repaint some of the likely candidates already in the game such as Marat, Kirov, Aurora, M-Boat in USN, RN, and IJN schemes and colors (as appropriate) so we can have "generic" BBs, CAs, CLs, DEs, PGs, etc. respectively (it just doesn't feel right attacking a Japanese fleet only to see big bright red stars painted on their bows or black crosses on their flags . . .)

heywooood
10-29-2005, 11:40 PM
Its not about copyrights at this point - its about the amount of work in both manpower and man hours and thats about $$$ too.

As Ilya said more or less...there are enough ships and carriers to get by on but you can never have enough flyable planes in a FLIGHT sim...

..and something about maps too.

Sharkey888
10-30-2005, 12:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by heywooood:

As Ilya said more or less...there are enough ships and carriers to get by on but you can never have enough flyable planes in a FLIGHT sim...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WRONG! Maybe an online flight sim, where Hellcats battle FW's (shiver) but remember 90% of us play offline.

Maps can also be overrated w/o the correct hardware to use them! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

csThor
10-30-2005, 01:37 AM
I'd say this mindset (planes are important, "the stuff around" [ships, tanks, artillery, vehicles etc] not) is a sure sign of way too much "Air Quake Online" and too little immersive offline campaign http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Ilya if you read this:

A good Flightsim keeps a balance between planes, maps and additional objects. If one gets too much attention and others not the sim turns into a "Quake Bang-Bang" type of online shooter in the 3rd dimension.

Nimits
10-30-2005, 02:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by heywooood:
Its not about copyrights at this point - its about the amount of work in both manpower and man hours and thats about $$$ too.

As Ilya said more or less...there are enough ships and carriers to get by on but you can never have enough flyable planes in a FLIGHT sim...

..and something about maps too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong! We already have enough bloody fighters to last us a life time. A few more key variants (especially early and mid war stuff such the A5M4 or the P-38H) would be fine, but who the heck needs another version of the Bf-109. Pacific Fighters is a air sim covering a navy-heavy environment. Ships may not be as important as planes in the sense that you can get by with a less detailed ship set than a plane set (most flight simmers, for example, aren't going to have time to notice whether a US battleship is the North Carolina or South Dakota class), but to do a Pacific sim, you need to have a ship set that is at least representative. At this point, adding planes might be more important if we were talking about flyable torpedo bombers and models of the missing carrier bomber. But new ships should take precedance over anything else, especially the early and late war rarities we seem to be getting more and more of. A Shoho CVL, Kongo BB, and Mogomi CA would do alot more for this sim than a CW-21 or Fokker XXI (or an armored train).

And like I said before, if they won't give us new ships, at least repaint the ETO ships we have so they are usable in the Pacific. Considering the state of PF, filling in the missing ships should be secondary only to filling in the missing carrier-based bobmers, taking predominance before everything else.

This sim has so much more potential than to be just a nicer looking version of Aces High, yet that is what we seem to keep getting.

nakamura_kenji
10-30-2005, 05:58 AM
from knowledge plane get still work on

j2m3(flyable)
b6n5(ai only)

*russia addon if ever get*
ki-27(flyable)
n1k2(prob flyable)
ki-21(ai)
j2m5(ai)

possble A5m stiill work show dev update long time ai though most like guess

Koenig_343KKT
10-30-2005, 07:38 AM
Funny how according to their standards the cockpits have to be 100% accurate to be modeled, then they put a Heinkel 111 bombsight on the B-25 and on the G4M http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

I'm not sure if we'd all be all so much happier with Kates and Jills and Avengers, considering how primitive the ships' damage model is, and how you can't have anything resembling a real battle since the game becomes unplayable in coops with more than two capital ships moving about.

ElAurens
10-30-2005, 07:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ashley2005:
there no kate because
http://www.warbirdphotos.net/aviapix/DiveBomb/Kate/kate.jpg

all those people in the picture stole it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is not a real Kate. It is a modified T-6 Texan (Or was it a Vultee?, can't remember.) that was built in America.

VT-51_Razor
10-30-2005, 08:18 AM
Actually, it's a combination of both. I think that the center wing section of the T-6 was mated to the fuselage of the BT-13, and the BT-13's outer wing panels were then installed on the T-6's center section. This one, and the Val, as well as the Zero were all modified from T-6s and BT-13s for the movie Tora, Tora, Tora.

heywooood
10-30-2005, 08:37 AM
Razor is correct about the faux Kate in the pic.

I am also an offline campaigner so I want the PF to be complete and accurate too, including all of the correct ships - decent maps - torpedo planse - etc...

The problem is, that might not happen.
So what I will do is use the materials that we DO get and create missions using those. There is enough content right now to fly carrier caps and recon missions and others tailored to the equipment we have.

I know its not the best - not by a long strike, but its better than nothing. I just expected (like everyone else) a lot more when Luthier (Ilya) sold it to me. However it could have been much worse if not for Oleg...PF was this close to being vaporware.

There is hope that somewhere down the line it will continue to be worked on and added to but you have to think long term...like Red Baron 3d etc..

Nimits
10-30-2005, 10:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">how you can't have anything resembling a real battle since the game becomes unplayable in coops with more than two capital ships moving about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, most people play offline, and offline, if you turn the AAA down and have good computer, you get 10-20 ships on screen (including escort) without too big a hit.

VT-51_Razor
10-30-2005, 11:24 AM
Ahmen Heywooood! I too would like to have seen more than what I got, ESPECIALLY the TBF, but it's still better than anything else out there, and what Oleg/Luthier left out, my imagination and a little creative mission building can supply. I still hold out the hope that a cockpit for the Turkey will come along some day. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Tater-SW-
10-30-2005, 11:30 AM
Of course if you turn the AAA down and tried to mount a realistic attack on warships with VTs, it would become pretty easy since the torpedo modeling is pretty sloppy, they run for infinite range, and the ships will not evade. So even offline it's somewhat pointless.

tater

Nimits
10-30-2005, 07:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
Of course if you turn the AAA down and tried to mount a realistic attack on warships with VTs, it would become pretty easy since the torpedo modeling is pretty sloppy, they run for infinite range, and the ships will not evade. So even offline it's somewhat pointless.

tater </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the default AAA is much too accurate, so turning down the ROF to help FPS also give more accurate results. Running a reenactment of one of the IJN attacks on the Hornet at Santa Cruz, I was able to achieve the historical result of approx 50% of the the bombers (that broke through the CAP) being shot when I (1) reduced the number of escort to 50% of their historical number and (2) turned AAA ROF up to 5.0 (or 5 times slower than "reality").

Anyway, unless you want to say that the lack of evasive AI makes all anti-shipping missions pointless because they won't manuvere out of the way of bombs either (a point I will not conceede; the most enjoyable missions in the old IL-2 and the original Forgotten Battles where the Ju-87 and VVS P-47 anti-shipping strikes), torpedo bombing can be just as fun, fullfilling, and realistic as dive bombing or level bombing.

Plus, whether or not torpedo run for infinte range (and I do think there is some range limit, actually) is really immaterial. The range at which you would have to drop for the torpedo's running time to come into play would be extreme enough to present an very difficult aiming problem with a very, very low probabilty of a hit even against a straight running target.

Frankly, even with tuned down AI and non-evasive ships, I still find torpedo attacks against a US CV in a Betty to be extremely difficult, both in terms of htting the CV and surviving afterwards.

Butch_F4F
11-11-2005, 05:04 PM
@CRSutton

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Battlehawks 1942? What a great game. First thing I bought to try out my new VGA monitor. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some stuff for nostalgics: http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/8932/td15gk.gif


http://img437.imageshack.us/img437/309/1550pm.gif

http://hol.abime.net/74/screenshot

http://www.lemonamiga.com/games/details.php?id=137

http://www.mobygames.com/game/battlehawks-1942/screenshots

http://www.thelegacy.de/Museum/3766/

http://www.classicgaming.com/amigareviews/battleha.htm


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif