PDA

View Full Version : Oleg - Please give us Aussies the PBY



RAAFVirtSqn
04-23-2005, 08:13 PM
Dear Ubi Soft,

This is a plea - for the PBY Catalina to be made flyable in Pacific Fighters.

We aussies have been lobbying for years to get the PBY as a flyable aircraft into Forgotten Battles, Aces Expansion Pack.

When Oleg and Luthier advised it was not going to be added - us Aussies were quite agro and still are. (We of course still admire all the excellent work Oleg, Luthier and PF team
have done in FB/AEP/PF - as have raised the bar in WW2 flight sim across the world - a big acheivement - and I am sure has put lots of $$$$$ into Ubi-Soft revenue and profitability.

Whats it going to take? Do us Aussies need to go on a $$$ collection (e.g. throw the hat in) drive to pay for the PBY's development.

Is there anyway you could start selling add ons of individual planes or those specific to each region, this is how Just Flight and Abacus, aeroplane heaven etc satisfy their customers markets for CFS 2 and 3. Some products e.g. individual planes are downloadable and you pay on line.

For example:
http://www.aeroplaneheaven.com/main_frame4.html
(e.g. check the CAC CA-13 Boomerang out)

http://www.justflight.com - for flight sim addd one like B17 Memphis Bell or Mosquito Sqn.

If you can not accomodate anymore work because of insufficient room for work stations, the demands of BoB or have staff on leave due to illness, thus simply do not have the time or resources to develop the PBY and other planes used by the RAAF, why not outsource your development of planes e.g. PBY Catalina, the Bristol Beaufort(which if you made a few changes to the Blenheim and made flyable - would be pretty close), Avro Anson, Walrus and Seagul float planes, Tiger Moth, CAC Wirraway and Boomerang, the Harvard etc.

Anyway us Aussies will be lobbying Ubi Soft Headquarters Sales and Marketing - director in France and others at UbiSoft suggesting ways they can make more $$$ from Pacific Fighters in the US and Australian markets etc.

At present you have a high quality WW2 flight sim product. All it will take is for your competitors to come up with same or better product in terms of cockpit accuracy detail, wider range of pacific based plane flight models, objects, better scenery etc and engage in a differentiation strategy and look at various regional requirements and demands- and Ubi Soft's Market share in USA and Asia Pacific and perhaps some of the UK and European region this segment of the gaming community could be under threat for

Tooz_69GIAP
04-24-2005, 07:49 AM
The PBY was a victim of whatever legal wrangle Ubi got into regarding US aircraft and ships.

Gibbage was making a really sweet model, but he was told it wouldn't be put into PF, so he's modding it for MSFS I think.

IV_JG51_Razor
04-24-2005, 08:21 AM
If I recall correctly, the problem was with the 3D model/cockpit, not anything to do with the copyright BS. I believe Gibbage said he was told that he had run out of time....that was several months ago!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Aeronautico
04-24-2005, 03:06 PM
Apparently interiors way too complicated to model (open spaces would show the whole cabin), and the amphibious concept hard to model (would be the first of its kind in the game). Plus, time running out.

I personally wouldn't mind an AI Catalina, even limited either to water or land activity, if necessary. Would make the sim more complete IMO.

3.JG51_BigBear
04-24-2005, 03:37 PM
There has been a PBN AI in game for a while now. Not exactly the same but pretty close.

CAPT_COTTON
04-24-2005, 05:28 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

i shot one down last nite in a zero??????? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

the dashboard uses old 1957 chevy parts and there are no more left in junk yards he he http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
thats why could not model the coxpit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

avimimus
04-27-2005, 08:18 AM
Gibbage ran out of time and agreed with Olegs team that it wasn't a high enough priority.

I personally disagree. But I recognize that he wanted it in the sim much more than me.

He also said the interior was so detailed it would not make it into BOB. His is redoing the cockpit only for the Microsoft FS 2004.

JG53Frankyboy
04-27-2005, 09:39 AM
i would prefer to have an AI controled Hudson ore Beaufort instead of a flyable PBY http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

and sure an AI japanese Army bomber like Ki-21 ore Ki-48 too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gibbage1
04-27-2005, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by IV_JG51_Razor:
If I recall correctly, the problem was with the 3D model/cockpit, not anything to do with the copyright BS. I believe Gibbage said he was told that he had run out of time....that was several months ago!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

That is correct. I had run out of time. The project was to big for just me and I did not get it done in time.

Gibbage1
04-27-2005, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by avimimus:

He also said the interior was so detailed it would not make it into BOB. His is redoing the cockpit only for the Microsoft FS 2004.

I dont remember saying that. I do think I said that I could not do the interior to the quality of BoB since the cockpit is so complex. The time it takes to do a single seat fighter to the BoB standard (I-185 and J8A for example) takes a LOT more time. Time that I no longer have. I wish I could. But yes, I will be converting my PBY into FS2004 so I dont waist the hundreds of hours I spent modeling it. Yes, hundreds. Its a VERY complex cockpit.

|CoB|_Spectre
04-27-2005, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:

The time it takes to do a single seat fighter to the BoB standard (I-185 and J8A for example) takes a LOT more time.

Which begs the question, considering how good some of the FB cockpits look already (i.e., Bf-110), is there going to be sufficient benefit from the increased complexity of the BoB standard to warrant sacrificing the numbers of aircraft from third party modelers? Personally, I'd rather see a diversity of aircraft, including crewed models, at the standard we have rather than stifling the creative process by making modeling too complex and time consuming.

Gibbage1
04-27-2005, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by |CoB|_Spectre:
Which begs the question, considering how good some of the FB cockpits look already (i.e., Bf-110), is there going to be sufficient benefit from the increased complexity of the BoB standard to warrant sacrificing the numbers of aircraft from third party modelers? Personally, I'd rather see a diversity of aircraft, including crewed models, at the standard we have rather than stifling the creative process by making modeling too complex and time consuming.

There is also a large portion of the IL2 fans that would rather have quality over quantity. Its a tough choice. Quality or quantity. Because you simply cant have both. BoB is going for Quality over quantity. That apperant from the screenshots and the plans to release limited theaters at a time, not time frames. Like BoB has a limited number of aircraft and time frame compaired to just doing Europ.

We will see how it goes. In a way, I agree with quality. Doing a few things right, as we have had the quantity in IL2 and its only made people want and demand more and more.

|CoB|_Spectre
04-28-2005, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
There is also a large portion of the IL2 fans that would rather have quality over quantity.

Could be, but most of the posts I see where people express their "I would like to see..." call for flyable aircraft models rather than things like ambulances with highly detailed innards.


We will see how it goes. In a way, I agree with quality. Doing a few things right, as we have had the quantity in IL2 and its only made people want and demand more and more.

Is that not the mark of a successful product, for people to want more? If the customer demands more, they may well be willing to pay for it. There is, IMHO, a considerable marketing opportunity being missed here. By increasing the build time, development costs rise. Don't get me wrong, I'm hoping BoB is a resounding success, but if you think the fan's have been a bit impatient thusfar, imagine how it will be when the time between releases increases considerably due to BoB's complexity.

Gibbage1
04-28-2005, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by |CoB|_Spectre:
There is, IMHO, a considerable marketing opportunity being missed here. By increasing the build time, development costs rise. Don't get me wrong, I'm hoping BoB is a resounding success, but if you think the fan's have been a bit impatient thusfar, imagine how it will be when the time between releases increases considerably due to BoB's complexity.

I think Oleg is hitting a bery big marketing oppertunity by engineering BoB to be more expandable then IL2, and to cover small area's of the vast WWII history, and not large portions. That way they can sell more add-ons.

|CoB|_Spectre
04-28-2005, 06:59 PM
I can only guess at what form BoB will assume during its development and most of us don't have much to go on. I'm not sure what you mean by "small areas of the vast WWII history". I thought that's pretty much what we've had up 'til this point, very limited bits of map areas. I can't imagine it getting much smaller, but maybe I'm taking what you're saying too literally. We shall see.

Gibbage1
04-28-2005, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by |CoB|_Spectre:
I can only guess at what form BoB will assume during its development and most of us don't have much to go on. I'm not sure what you mean by "small areas of the vast WWII history". I thought that's pretty much what we've had up 'til this point, very limited bits of map areas. I can't imagine it getting much smaller, but maybe I'm taking what you're saying too literally. We shall see.

What I mean is, in the past, flight sims concentrate in theaters of war. Pacific, Europ, Ostfront and so on over large expanses of time from 1939-1945. BoB is a small but important battle. In that, you have a limited ammount of aircraft and land you need to work with. This way, you can put more effort into making everything so much better, then making EVERYTHING.

Flight sims are a nitch market. That means you dont have a lot of resources to tap into like say a shooter. That alone dictates how you must approach a flight sim in the future. Graphics are getting a lot more intense and realistic, but that takes time. In the past, its taken me 1 month to build an external model for IL2 from start to finish. With all the detail Oleg is putting into BoB's aircraft, it would take me 2-3 months. That means 2-3x the time, and 2-3x the money. On a limited budget, you cant support building a vast and varried fleet of aircraft, so the industry is DICTATING Oleg must go for Quality, not quantity.

If BoB's aircraft had no more detail then IL2's, there would be a revolt. "Why am I paying full price for an IL2 add-on?". You got that with FB from many people (LeadSpitter http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif). The people expect progress, and visuals is one of the most ovious signs of progress. People CANT see new FM or DM. You can only feel if after you buy the game. Visuals will sell it on the shelf.

LEXX_Luthor
04-28-2005, 09:40 PM
|CoB|::
Is that not the mark of a successful product, for people to want more? If the customer demands more, they may well be willing to pay for it.
Well said!

I read Oleg as posting that BoB will be expanded not only in number of theaters but in new planes for old theaters as well (indicating Merged theater installs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif). Over this period of 7 years, many planes can be added even with brutally high modding standards--standards that must last 7 years. However, I do have concerns that high modding standards will make the BoB series a Dogfighter game, much like the FB/PF series over most of its history, since Dogfight cockpits are easier to make than bomber cockpits. Here we go again?

If Oleg can make every BoB+ plane Flyable by the end of 7 years given the high modding standards, then we are fine--No "AI Only" planes at the end of 7 years.

Gibbage::
There is also a large portion of the IL2 fans that would rather have quality over quantity.
A large and loud "old timer" internet webboard minority. This portion of fans may bring us the same old Pop Dogfight fighter planes every flight sim has. Nothing new--and we wonder why flight sims are niche?

This large minority of old timers are best ignored. The people Oleg needs to attract are people who never bothered with Silly products like PC flight sims--people like me...until I heard of FB being made in Russia (as was my only other flight sim I ever played -- Su~27 Flanker 1.0).


Gibbage::
Visuals will sell it on the shelf.
Visuals are quickly left on the shelves if all they offer is Visuals. A few Visual Dogfight cockpits do not make content. Not to worry, Oleg said we will get FMB with new Features. This is good for offline players as well as online players. All benefit here as long as Oleg makes possible 3rd Party Dynamic Campaign development.

Shockwave is making their sim 3rd Party mod friendly for offline play, and they certainly won't match Oleg's modding standards. But if Tupolev's SB bomber is "too complex" or "not enough resources" for Oleg to make SB cockpit, we may have to play Shockwave (or somebody) who can do it. They indicate that they will have an "approval" process for 3rd Party mods and FMs that will aid the downloader--a possible working compromise between the Open Slop sims and Oleg's tight control for online play.

You know, highest Quality cockpit in the entire FB series is MiG~3 cockpit -- because its my Fave WW2 plane (like me, it never fit in http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ).

Gibbage::
If BoB's aircraft had no more detail then IL2's, there would be a revolt. "Why am I paying full price for an IL2 add-on?". You got that with FB from many people (LeadSpitter :winkhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.
Classic Mistake. Let the few old timers Squeal like stuck pigs (same with those claiming they won't Pay~Play Oleg's BoB online war but can never give a reason). The Old Timer Squealing will soon be Silenced by new customers attracted to the flight sim market.

Leadspitter is part of Old Timer minority and not a New Customer. You don't need to attract Leadspitter to the product. Lead always Whines about MiG~3 cockpit...but MiG~3 has the *best* made cockpit in the entire FB series...its my Fave WW2 plane (it never fit in, just like me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif).

New Customers to flight sim genre won't see any "progress" because they are ~~> <span class="ev_code_yellow">New Customers</span>. They will see Content, and Content includes simming SB bomber cockpit and not just Dogfight shooter cockpits.

Gibbage, you are assuming the flight sim market can never grow, is static in size, and limited to the crusty bitter Old Timers. I challenge that assumption. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Good Example:: We don't care how "bad" a Ki~44 cockpit is modded, we need one over the PF. Ki~44 was the Japanese "MiG~3" and it did not exactly fit in with Japanese pilots...until the B~29s came.

Gibbage1
04-29-2005, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:

Good Example:: We don't care how "bad" a Ki~44 cockpit is modded, we need one over the PF. Ki~44 was the Japanese "MiG~3" and it did not exactly fit in with Japanese pilots...until the B~29s came.

You represent 1/2 of 1% of the market. You cant possibly say that you know everything. I have marketing experance. I have been in the game industry. A good example of what I mean about visuals is the P-47 cockpit. I contantly get request's to re-model it. That and I see a lot of request's to re-model IL2 and 109 pits.

90% of the people who buy IL2 never even log into these forums. 70% dont even play online. Who do you think Oleg should cater too? The 90% or us 10%? The 90% have much differant openions on how they want there sim. It shows from the sales of FS-2004 that reaches millions, and IL2/FB/PF all combined hit a few hundred thousand. Look what happened to CFS3. They spread what little money they had to cover a braud spectrum of Europ. The aircraft visuals sucked, the ground sucked, no rivers, no FM, no read DM and the game tanked. Only the hard effort of 3rd party groups was able to make it even half the game IL2 is.

Im saying we simply cant dilute the sim. There will be many aircraft, but over time. All good things come to those who wait. The flight sim market can NOT afford to give us both quality and quantity and all other games are raising the quality bar every day. Something must give.

LEXX_Luthor
04-29-2005, 01:09 AM
Gibbage::
You represent 1/2 of 1% of the market.
Nobody at this webboard knows what you mean by this, or where you find your numbers.

Gibbage::
I have marketing experance.
Well I can do better -- I *don't* have Marketing experience, but I do know how to create things others enjoy.

If you want to talk, you are invited to respond to my post above about attracting New Customers with Content and expanding the small flight sim market beyond Fancy Dogfight Cockpits. Or I could copy~n~paste my post until we are able to Talk with each other. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

If Oleg can make most if not all BoB+ (combat**) aircraft Flyable over 7 years, even with high modding standards, then we don't have a problem here.

** Historically relevant training aircraft are a non~combat type that need to be Flyable, and the game menu made to invite flight sim Newbies to immersive training missions using the trainers.



CFS3 had No Rivers? Now, that is an idea for PF Jungle Island maps.

LEXX_Luthor
04-29-2005, 01:46 AM
Gibbage::
I have been in the game industry. A good example of what I mean about visuals is the P-47 cockpit. I contantly get request's to re-model it. That and I see a lot of request's to re-model IL2 and 109 pits.

Yes, I have seen those Requests (109) here. Yak~9 on very rare occasion too. They are best ignored. Trust me, these gamers don't care. Have any left the sim? No. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif I have noticed at this webboard that those asking the most for *specific* cockpit re~mods often do not want other aircraft Flyable for anybody--just their own fave Dogfight planes. This is where you have to think independent from the old timer gamers, and focus on attracting the New Customer.

We shall return to something important...

Gibbage::
Visuals will sell it on the shelf.
Visuals are quickly left on the shelves if all they offer is Visuals. A few Visual Dogfight Cockpits do not make content. A good Visual exception may be DOOM~III, but then DOOM has been for over a decade an inherent part of the PC gaming culture, unlike combat flight sims.

Gibbage::
Im saying we simply cant dilute the sim. There will be many aircraft, but over time. All good things come to those who wait. The flight sim market can NOT afford to give us both quality and quantity and all other games are raising the quality bar every day. Something must give.
This may work. Its probably too late now, but I suggest finding a modding standard that allows all aircraft the possibility of being modded as Flyable, and then increase the modding standards from that point forward. You as Artist should be able to appreciate increasing modding standards.

btw...Diluting the sim can equally mean fewer Flyable aircraft in relation to AI Only aircraft.

All I'm saying is if Oleg's next Eastern Front sim has no Flyable Tu~2 or Do~17 because of modding standards too high, then we really are not advancing flight sims any.

RAAFVirtSqn
04-29-2005, 09:58 PM
Some very interesting posts gentlemen.

Undoubtably standards would assist - further development of add on aircraft - also instead of only 1 person doing the modelling cockpits etc - if you have a standardised design - why can development not be shared across several programmers/experts - each work on an aspect of the aircaft - just like in real aircraft production - which I dare say is a wee tad more complex.


This approach also being common in some software development shops. - Why? because it reduces the risk of a single point of failure in the process which can mean many costly delays to production - thus benefit realisation for Ubi Soft with delayed sales sales - particularly with fluctuating global exchange rates. It would be foolish for Ubi Soft not to cotemplate competitors - perhaps some not even on their radar.

New customers and old customers like choice and quality.hope Ubi - Soft can deliver for Pacific fighters in the near future and any leverage that can be made from BoB.

p1ngu666
04-29-2005, 11:02 PM
wonder if BOB will have the other BOB
battle of the barges, bomber commands despirate attempts to sink as many barges as possible, so the germans wouldnt be able to paddle across the channel, if fighter command fails.

personaly, i dont care for spit vs 109 that much http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif