PDA

View Full Version : Why IL2 is 1000x better than FB



XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 12:42 AM
Originally posted on 06/24/03 05:49PM (server time: GMT 0)

seriously, I aint a troll (or online ace) like RBJ, but here are my concerns:

-)IL2 had fabulous FM: I remember practising an entire week before I could somewhat take off and land in a P39-N-1. still one of my fav planes. but look at FM now in FB. it's almost a joke. the same P39 acts asif it's unstallable (yes, and I do play almost full real (no cockpit)). Not talking about the FM of the P47 which is REALLY a joke.

-)FB has identical background music, identical training missions (where you cannot even TAKE CONTROL of! hello? why not creating a small itsy-bitsy patch to fix this bug? how long has FB been out?) and worst of all, identical QMB! so, what did I pay actually for? 50 some odd dollars for some new planes with questionable FM at best? it must be those barrage balloons that made Oleg think this should be a stand alone product. Just calculate the time (and money) needed for all those bags to be weaven/woven whatever.

-)Why is that, eventhough I set AI planes and boats to be 'rookies', they still fire with a precision of a cyborg-assisted einstein-brain? As I said, I am by no means an ace like RBJ, and I take roughly 70-85% of the userbase is like that. so why in the heck make that AI pseudo-invincible. (even in storms and almost zero visability why in godsname do I still get shot down by a boat 1km away). I simply don't want to think about what an 'ace' boat or plane will accomplish.

-)this may look a bit nitpickish, but still. why in the world would you inplement an option which is used by less than 5% of the userbase instead of putting that energy in something that makes sense! (better FM, other training missions, other background music, ANYTHING!) ofcourse I am talking about the 'perfect' quality option. please, give me a break. I really don't think that all of us has the money or the will to spend thousands of dollars on a P4-3G w/ R9700 or R9800Pro.


In conclusion I know that not all of these things can be fixed, but I am expecting the following to be implemented with the patches that will come along:

-) FM's of ALL planes (including 'bonus-added'-patch-planes) AT LEAST have the quality of the ones in IL2. cmon, FB is supposed to be a successor, not a predecessor.

-) That silly overlooked (shame on you and your army of testers) TAKE CONTROL option in the training missions.

-) seriously dumbed down the AI. instead of giving them advantageous FM, try creating good AI. please don't give me bollocks about it being to 'CPU-intensive'. oh please, and what is that 'perfect' quality option then? (GPU intensity yeye, stfu!)

I am not frustrated only somewhat disgruntled because I was tricked into buying FB; a game in most ways inferior to it's predecessor.

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 12:42 AM
Originally posted on 06/24/03 05:49PM (server time: GMT 0)

seriously, I aint a troll (or online ace) like RBJ, but here are my concerns:

-)IL2 had fabulous FM: I remember practising an entire week before I could somewhat take off and land in a P39-N-1. still one of my fav planes. but look at FM now in FB. it's almost a joke. the same P39 acts asif it's unstallable (yes, and I do play almost full real (no cockpit)). Not talking about the FM of the P47 which is REALLY a joke.

-)FB has identical background music, identical training missions (where you cannot even TAKE CONTROL of! hello? why not creating a small itsy-bitsy patch to fix this bug? how long has FB been out?) and worst of all, identical QMB! so, what did I pay actually for? 50 some odd dollars for some new planes with questionable FM at best? it must be those barrage balloons that made Oleg think this should be a stand alone product. Just calculate the time (and money) needed for all those bags to be weaven/woven whatever.

-)Why is that, eventhough I set AI planes and boats to be 'rookies', they still fire with a precision of a cyborg-assisted einstein-brain? As I said, I am by no means an ace like RBJ, and I take roughly 70-85% of the userbase is like that. so why in the heck make that AI pseudo-invincible. (even in storms and almost zero visability why in godsname do I still get shot down by a boat 1km away). I simply don't want to think about what an 'ace' boat or plane will accomplish.

-)this may look a bit nitpickish, but still. why in the world would you inplement an option which is used by less than 5% of the userbase instead of putting that energy in something that makes sense! (better FM, other training missions, other background music, ANYTHING!) ofcourse I am talking about the 'perfect' quality option. please, give me a break. I really don't think that all of us has the money or the will to spend thousands of dollars on a P4-3G w/ R9700 or R9800Pro.


In conclusion I know that not all of these things can be fixed, but I am expecting the following to be implemented with the patches that will come along:

-) FM's of ALL planes (including 'bonus-added'-patch-planes) AT LEAST have the quality of the ones in IL2. cmon, FB is supposed to be a successor, not a predecessor.

-) That silly overlooked (shame on you and your army of testers) TAKE CONTROL option in the training missions.

-) seriously dumbed down the AI. instead of giving them advantageous FM, try creating good AI. please don't give me bollocks about it being to 'CPU-intensive'. oh please, and what is that 'perfect' quality option then? (GPU intensity yeye, stfu!)

I am not frustrated only somewhat disgruntled because I was tricked into buying FB; a game in most ways inferior to it's predecessor.

RichardI
06-25-2003, 12:48 AM
freshness:-
I agree with everything you said, except I must disagree with the flight model part of your post. IMO, the flight models in IL-2 were off by a mile. If WWII planes were actually that difficult to control, the only kills that would have been made by anybody would have been drunken birds unlucky enough to stagger into a spinning propeller.
I've read a lot of books by WWII pilots and NONE of the planes I read about were difficult to fly. Quite the opposite. All the pilots talk about how easy to fly and to land their planes were. The flight models in FB are much closer to reality, they just need a little "tweaking" in some areas. My 2 cents.

Rich /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<Center>http://www.ghosts.com/images/postimages/THUNDERBOLT.jpg <Center>I've got 140 109's cornered over Berlin!

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 12:49 AM
Yes, I think so too. THe dynamic campaign in FB has too many problems. Sometimes, its make the same exact mission 3 times consecutively. Always, you are outnumbered 2 or 3 to 1. When escort bombers, flight leader AI often refuses to wait for bombers and flies to target instead.

Stupid, stupid errors.

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 01:12 AM
RichardI wrote:
(extract)
- I've read a lot of books by WWII pilots and NONE of
- the planes I read about were difficult to fly. Quite
- the opposite. All the pilots talk about how easy to
- fly and to land their planes were.

I'm keeping in mind the original topic starter as I reply, especially how the author describes practicing with the P-39.
Read about Lend Lease P-39s delivered via the Alaska-Siberia route during the war. Several thousand US planes, mostly P-39s, were flown from Montana to Alaska through the Yukon and then transferred to Russian pilots. Several American pilots crashed en route or on take off/landing partially because the Airacobra could stall unexpectedly. Of course these planes were also carrying large belly tanks underneath to allow them to travel between refueling camps positioned throughout the Yukon and Alaska. Some ferry pilots enjoyed the challenge of the P-39 and knew it was simply a plane that needed to be respected; others were deathly afraid of it if only because of its reputation. Ferry pilots sometimes flew in extreme weather but generally didn't have to run the planes through combat manouvers, so in general they tended to have a better opinion of that plane than the American combat pilots who flew Airacobras in the Pacific.

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 01:14 AM
Reason while FB will always be 1000x better than orignal, regardless of bugs or inaccuracies:

Player online

IL2:FB: 156

IL2: 16

end of discussion.

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 01:29 AM
Harder is not more realistic....I like the FB FMs better. I think the graphics in FB alone make it better. The fact that you can get better frames with the same system in FB is good enough for me. Add to it the Jug,262,La-7,He-111 and the Hurri and the onset tof the Pony and to me it's a no brainer..... As far as the AI goes....again ....a no brainer... I used to routinely fly against vereran and Ace AI in IL2....in FB for now anyway I can keep it on average and still have a blast offline.

&lt;script>color="#B22222";a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor=color;</script>

&lt;script>color="#004477";a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-4].bgColor=color;a[a.length-5].bgColor=co
lor;a[a.length-8].bgColor=color</script>

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];};var YourPicName='http://www.p51.mustangsmustangs.com/survivors/images/T42-103831.jpg'; var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

Message Edited on 06/24/0308:32PM by Bearcat99

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 01:36 AM
IL2 was definitely a true classic. Broke new ground, did everything right.

FB still has yet to earn any respect from me.
-The FM has been greased.
-The trim is too slow
-Flaps don't lift
-more online lag than IL2

Unless this game really get's it's act together, when we look back FB could just be another CFS2.

<img src=http://lafayettefederation.com/screenshots/repository/turo/tn-Numbaone.jpg>
"The Force is strong with this one." -What an ace said of RayBanJockey during a fight when he was still a newbie.
<a href=http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612109283>news update</a>

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 01:39 AM
FB is going to be at it`s full potential after several patches I think.The patch fixed MK108.Enough for me!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

"degustibus non disputandum"


Message Edited on 06/25/0301:43AM by carguy_

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 01:44 AM
i thought the fm's of il2 had to be fixed in a patch as well

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 01:49 AM
Timmothias wrote:
- i thought the fm's of il2 had to be fixed in a patch
- as well


The FM of IL2 was always crisp for me. In FB, it's like I am gliding through 10W40.

Remember this isn't a new game they are making here. It's just IL2 with a twist. Kind of like a warp if you ask me.

<img src=http://lafayettefederation.com/screenshots/repository/turo/tn-Numbaone.jpg>
"The Force is strong with this one." -What an ace said of RayBanJockey during a fight when he was still a newbie.
<a href=http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612109283>news update</a>

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 01:51 AM
Most of the FM issues won't be noticed by new purchasers with little *current* knowledge of air combat history. Dogfight FM (or dogfight trim) won't hurt anybody but the ace arcade online internet dogfighters.

What will cripple FB from the consumer perspective is the way boring FB campaigns completely fail to simulate hellish Eastern Front air warfare. 3rd Party campaigns/missions can alleviate this, and so could the FB Mission Editor, but that is crippling to new flight simmers (I am a Ace Flanker Mission Editor hacker).

RBJ try trim in P11c, one keyboard tap and you are pointed straight up.

Now that RBJ knows P11c has uber~trim, when you see a P11c in a 1944 server, you found your online RBJ, and you all will be shot down.

(forgive me but its fun to play RayBanWhiner sometimes) veryhappysmileyface.rbj

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 01:58 AM
It seems as thought they went and gave much less bleed from turns in FB.They havent changed anything in climb.Do the test yourself.But the fact that they went and made speed loss from turning so slow is why you can do a head-on and when you look back the plane is gaining on you?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 02:08 AM
The P11c in IL2 was a really good trim plane (all WW1 planes in all combat flight sims are the ultimate trim planes) I uses to fly it but I feel too much like. mosquito (or Chensehu)

I never even tried it in FB. Too many planes.

In FB they need to work on solidifying the FM. Either speed up the trim, or make it so the RBJ shift doesn't give one an advantage. Fix the Force Feedback bugs, some of which have just carried right over into FB. Get the netcode going so it isn't more laggy than IL2. Host option to turn off the skin download is a must. Refine padlock so host can set distances and also so padlock will only specify if a dot is friend or foe if the MP_Dotrange COLOR value is in range. The air in FB doesn't feel like air. It feels like grease. The flaps, they provide no lift. The zoom climbs, they are too long.

As you can tell I am an ace. Just like a pro golfer who is being forced to swing with a different swingweight. I pick up on these things. I know whats good and what's bad. The best soccer game ever made? It was Goal! on Nintendo. You see, when people look back at games they look at playability. I wouldn't say IL2 is 1000x better than FB. Probably more like 25-30% better. It's still the same game just dumbed down.

<img src=http://lafayettefederation.com/screenshots/repository/turo/tn-Numbaone.jpg>
"The Force is strong with this one." -What an ace said of RayBanJockey during a fight when he was still a newbie.
<a href=http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612109283>news update</a>

Message Edited on 06/24/0309:09PM by RayBanJockey

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 02:22 AM
I'd like to see someone attempt to take off in the P-47 with a full weapon loading in IL-2's flight model. I'm betting it wouldn't even be possible.

Those weren't fighters in IL-2, no fighter takes 5 Km's to get enough speed to do a barrel roll.

In FB you need an excellent understanding of energy manouver, you forget the AI are doing absolutely perfect lead turns. The AI programming knows your exact angle and speed at all times, something a human pilot can only take a guess at. Knowing they are lead turning, you can burn them every time in the energy game. Than they're meat on the table.

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 02:46 AM
i have no idea whether the FM is more correct in FB than IL2

but IL2 was far more fun .. FB is like Wing Commander IV in comparison, even my 10 year old nephew could take off first go.



I must say I find comments about how "easy" WWII planes were to fly rather amusing. When an experienced pilot who has 100's of hours in old biplanes that are absolute dogs says a plane is "easy" he doesnt necessarily mean a totally inexperienced person with no flying training (like most flight simmers) should find it simple http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If WWII planes are "easy" why don't we train in them now instead of needing 40 hours in a Cessna for a pilots licence ??

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 02:57 AM
I cannot and will not comment on FB. I do not have it, but I do enjoy IL2 and the campaigns that where made for it: IL2 Gen and the other addons created for it. I do hope that these will be avaiable...in the future...particularily the JG. 53 series (both 1 and 2). I cannot and will not judge the new offings...I am content with the orginial and how it works...with those addons made by those who cared enough and, were interested enough, to create the tools to make it even better. May those efforts continue and their history be preserved/available to all who enter this wonderful realm of history. I do not wish to alienate the true gammers, but I do enjoy the history of this.

With respect,
peine27

A sedentary Offliner!

http://mypage.uniserve.ca/~peine27

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 03:13 AM
A pilot who says that his steed was not too difficult to fly is not saying that everyone with a joystick should be able to master it on the edge of the envelope. I fly in the real world, and I have flown warbirds, and they are less docile than the majority of aircraft I have flown, and probably the most docile would be the C-150, the most stable and forgiving and known to be pretty much the easiest plane on the planet to fly, . . .and the FACT is that even it is much less forgiving than any of the planes in either sim. I started flying IL-2 because of the flight model, I was not a gamer or a combat simmer until I found IL-2. . .and it is my opinion that FB is a few giant leaps backwards when compared to ver 1.04 of IL-2 as far as FM reealism goes.

S!
TX-EcoDragon
Black 1
TX Squadron XO
http://www.txsquadron.com

Reserve Pilot Aircraft #2 of Gruppo 313
Pattuglia Acrobatica Virtuale
http://www.pav-amvi.it

http://www.calaggieflyers.com/



http://www.txsquadron.com/images/txsquadron_main.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 03:17 AM
Aflak wrote:

"Reason while FB will always be 1000x better than orignal, regardless of bugs or inaccuracies:

Player online

IL2:FB: 156

IL2: 16

end of discussion. "


End of discussion if you only play online. I never play online. I tried few time, but for me, it become too repetaive and boring.

Offline campaign in FB is terrible. I hope Oleg will fix this. I think there are more offline player than online player, but this board is dominated by online player who mock and ridicule anyone with different opinion, so maybe others not get heard.

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 03:27 AM
---Offline campaign in FB is terrible.
---I hope Oleg will fix this.
---I think there are more offline player than online player,
---but this board is dominated by online player who mock and ridicule anyone
---with different opinion, so maybe others not get heard.

I hear you.

Do you use FB Mission Editor? I am still hacking it. It takes months to learn how to make missions with 50 aircraft in the air at one time with suitable ground targets. It can be done though...eventually.

There is a *reason* the original Flanker 1.0 start-up screen was the Mission Editor. I still can't figure out why that old DOS-Extended interface works better than FB's 2003 Windows interface. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 03:29 AM
TX-EcoDragon wrote:
- A pilot who says that his steed was not too
- difficult to fly is not saying that everyone with a
- joystick should be able to master it on the edge of
- the envelope. I fly in the real world, and I have
- flown warbirds, and they are less docile than the
- majority of aircraft I have flown, and probably the
- most docile would be the C-150, the most stable and
- forgiving and known to be pretty much the easiest
- plane on the planet to fly, . . .and the FACT is
- that even it is much less forgiving than any of the
- planes in either sim. I started flying IL-2 because
- of the flight model, I was not a gamer or a combat
- simmer until I found IL-2. . .and it is my opinion
- that FB is a few giant leaps backwards when compared
- to ver 1.04 of IL-2 as far as FM reealism goes.
-
- S!
- TX-EcoDragon
- Black 1
- TX Squadron XO


It certianly appears that the FM's in Forgotten Battles were toned down for a wider market appeal.

If that fact bruises the ego's of people who want to daydream they could jump in a a Corsair or a Mustang with no real time pilot traing and survive well it is too bad.

Just as a simple example of the forgiving nature of FB.. you can get a 109 up to 300 kmh before rotation by holding the stick forward .. the real 109 specified flaps on takeoff to avoid possible undercarriage damage at speeds not much more than half that.



NOW .. it may be a good thing that the FM is toned down to make FB more appealing to the mass market ... that does not make it a BETTER sim but possibly a better mass market game.

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 03:34 AM
The problem here, is one of chosen venue. Online does not count, or have any relavance to my comment. I wish you luck in that format/venue, but it has no...NO...relavance to me -and it will not now, or in the future. If you read my sig, you will realize that I fly only...OFFLINE...that is my "chosen format". That is my choice and to those who ONLY fly ONLINE, I say go for it, but do not push your bias down my throat, because I have a gag reflex that rivials the first test of the Atom bomb. The key word of importance is derived from the source "choice". Please...remember that in any future respones to my posts. To make it perfectly clear...in dumb language...I do not now, nor ever will, fly on line. As an aside, flying on line has no relavance to me in any way, shape, or form.

With respect,
peine27

A sedentary Offliner!

http://mypage.uniserve.ca/~peine27

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 03:57 AM
Fresshness wrote:
IL2 had fabulous FM: I remember practising an entire week before I could somewhat take off and land in a P39-N-1. still one of my fav planes. but look at FM now in FB. it's almost a joke. the same P39 acts asif it's unstallable (yes, and I do play almost full real (no cockpit)).


are you kidding me? P-39 unstallable?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif you must be joking. i can't hardly keep the P-39 in the air and i'm not even talking about DF. in IL2 i could do this easely.


<Center>Wouter
flying online as Buster82, you better watch your six/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<Center>
<Center>http://www.km011a0004.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/fokkerg.jpg <CENTER>

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 04:12 AM
Holy uber-whiner batman! As I perused this post, I felt my anger level rising, and it grew the more and more I read this junk. Let's go through it, shall we?


Fresshness wrote:
--)IL2 had fabulous FM: I remember practising an entire week before I could somewhat take off and land in a P39-N-1. still one of my fav planes. but look at FM now in FB. it's almost a joke. the same P39 acts asif it's unstallable (yes, and I do play almost full real (no cockpit)). Not talking about the FM of the P47 which is REALLY a joke.


Firstly, this is the "harder is better" argument, and it simply doesn't fly (no pun intended). Why do people constantly say that IL2 was better because the P39 was an unflyable bee-yatch? Secondly, have you EVER flown a P39 or a P47? How do you know how it was supposed to fly. Stop whining.



--)FB has identical background music, identical training missions (where you cannot even TAKE CONTROL of! hello? why not creating a small itsy-bitsy patch to fix this bug? how long has FB been out?) and worst of all, identical QMB! so, what did I pay actually for? 50 some odd dollars for some new planes with questionable FM at best? it must be those barrage balloons that made Oleg think this should be a stand alone product. Just calculate the time (and money) needed for all those bags to be weaven/woven whatever.

Oh no, not identical background music???!!! You hear the music less than a minute, and your whining about it? Sheesh.


-
--)Why is that, eventhough I set AI planes and boats to be 'rookies', they still fire with a precision of a cyborg-assisted einstein-brain? As I said, I am by no means an ace like RBJ, and I take roughly 70-85% of the userbase is like that. so why in the heck make that AI pseudo-invincible. (even in storms and almost zero visability why in godsname do I still get shot down by a boat 1km away). I simply don't want to think about what an 'ace' boat or plane will accomplish.
-

I don't find the AI to be "cyborg-assisted Einstein-brain."... only on head-ons. Here's a though - AVOID THEM.

--)this may look a bit nitpickish, but still. why in the world would you inplement an option which is used by less than 5% of the userbase instead of putting that energy in something that makes sense! (better FM, other training missions, other background music, ANYTHING!) ofcourse I am talking about the 'perfect' quality option. please, give me a break. I really don't think that all of us has the money or the will to spend thousands of dollars on a P4-3G w/ R9700 or R9800Pro.
-

Yawn.

-
-
--) FM's of ALL planes (including 'bonus-added'-patch-planes) AT LEAST have the quality of the ones in IL2. cmon, FB is supposed to be a successor, not a predecessor.
-

Again, have you flown WW2 planes? Didn't think so.

--) seriously dumbed down the AI. instead of giving them advantageous FM, try creating good AI. please don't give me bollocks about it being to 'CPU-intensive'. oh please, and what is that 'perfect' quality option then? (GPU intensity yeye, stfu!)
-

Do some reasearch on creating AI. Very intense stuff. Research before you rant. Any game on the planet gives AI enemies cheats, as programming AI is nasty-hard.


- I am not frustrated only somewhat disgruntled
- because I was tricked into buying FB; a game in most
- ways inferior to it's predecessor.
-

How were you tricked? Did Oleg lie to you? I don't think so.

Ronnie

<center>http://www3.sympatico.ca/corporon2001/First_Kill.jpg </center>
<center>Woot! First online Kill!</center>

"The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win."
-Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, "The Communist Manifesto"

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage."
-John Steinbeck, "The Grapes of Wrath"

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 04:18 AM
because FB supposed to be IL2 add-on!!



The Sun is Gone
But I Have a Light

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 04:48 AM
RayBanJockey wrote:
-
- As you can tell I am an ace.


Could have fooled me.

Online blowhard is more like it.




<center><FONT color="red">[b]BlitzPig_EL</FONT>[B]<CENTER> http://old.jccc.net/~droberts/p40/images/p40home.gif
</img>.
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds, wake in the day that it was vanity:
but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible. "
--T.E. Lawrence

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 04:48 AM
Thank you, rcorporon.

You proved my argument perfectly. You and other like you attack anyone who doesn't worship FB.

I liked IL2. I want to like FB, but now, I never play it. I hope patch will fix things for offline play, but I afraid that all you online whiners who constantly belittle and attack anyone with oppose view cause most offline or reasonable players to leave this board.

Good job you insane FB zealot.

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 04:52 AM
Very true Dayak.

IL2 is definately better than FB but we should give it a chance.I remember when IL2 first came out and it wasn`t the finished product it is now.

IL2 wins on sound alone but i am patient and am anxious about,and believe the first patch will fix it and some FMs too.

RBJ, i agree with you not a 1000x better but let me submit to you ISS `98 by Konami.. best soccer game ever.It takes all predecessors and EA Fifa games and bicycle kicks them in the back of the net.Huge cult following.Why?Playability.

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 04:58 AM
I think the most constructive thing to say here is

"Wait for the patch"

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 05:08 AM
I don't agree that Il-2 was all that much better than FB. I certainly wouldn't say "100X" or even twice as good.

There are a lot of things I like in FB, that I used to wish for in Il-2. The front line markers, for example, that's something that was really needed and makes the missions much more interesting. The ability to assign individual skill levels to pilots in a flight. The choice of pilot faces (good God, it's nearly worth the forty bucks just to not have to look at that dumb mustache any more.)

Then there's the extra ground objects, though I could wish for a better selection (shell holes, gun emplacements etc. like in the otherwise loathsome CFS-2 mission builder). The engine management is a good idea, even if they did make a pretty poor job of it - maybe they'll improve it in the patch, I hope so - and they finally made the track-saver work properly; I'd given up on that.

And the new content is very much worth having. Some of the new planes are potentially good ones to fly, if they can get the bugs out, and they certainly added some very useful AIs: the Bf-110 (that it was not in Il-2 was inexcusable) and a better selection of VVS bombers, all of which allows much more variety in missions.

As for the new maps, the Finland/Baltic one is pretty badly done, but no worse than the original Il-2 terrain, and between it and the FAF planes it's finally possible to fly for the good guys instead of a choice between two evil empires. And the Lvov map was a splendid surprise, and the Hungarian map is good to have too.

So there are a lot of things in FB that I think are better than in Il-2. But at the same time you've got a point about the flight models. They really did dumb some of them down. I used to enjoy flying early-war missions with the LaGG-3 because it was such an adventure just getting home alive, you were so outclassed. Now it's just a slower version of the Yak; anybody can fly it and even fight the 109s on fairly even terms. The P-39 has been made easier too, and some of the others (though I think none quite as much as the LaGG.) Even the I-16, which used to be Mr. Toad's Wild Ride, is easy to fly now. I wish they hadn't done that.

And FB is so BUGGY. Il-2 had its share of bugs (about half of them introduced by patches) but if you compare the two games straight out of the box, Il-2 didn't have any planes that exploded on their own, or whose wings turned blue when hit, or that you could see the sun shining through....

It's going to come down to what the patch does. If they can fix at least the most blatant bugs, and if they can at least get the FMs as good as they were in the final-patch version of IL-2, then there'll be no comparison. If not, then FB is going to go down as a brilliant but flawed disappointment.

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 07:22 AM
somewanker wrote: Why do people constantly say that IL2 was better because the P39 was an unflyable bee-yatch?

That statement alone discredits you. "unflyable"? I know several guys, myself included, who completed many successful missions in the "unflyable" P-39 in IL-2.


----------------------------------------
<font size="+1">

S!</p>
How do I want my eggs?? Scrambled!</font>

http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/rafaq_zveno2.jpg

fluke39
06-25-2003, 10:04 AM
rcorporon wrote:
-Something about AI not being that accurate

you did see the fact he was on about boats and ships?

try making a torpedo run in a He111-6 against the boats in the quick mission builder (in say, crimea map) this is something i have never actually managed to do (while trying to be semi-realistic as i suppose i could drop the torpedo from 4,000 feet if i wanted too) without being made very rapidly into scrap metal.


MIG7 wrote:
- somewanker wrote: Why do people constantly say that
- IL2 was better because the P39 was an unflyable
- bee-yatch?
-
- That statement alone discredits you. "unflyable"?
- I know several guys, myself included, who completed
- many successful missions in the "unflyable" P-39 in
- IL-2.

i don't think he meant literally, he'd have to be pretty blind to miss the fact the p39 did fly - also i must agree with him as i have seen several posts which are basically what he describes - also i really didn't think the name-calling was at all neccesary

WTE Galway wrote:

-best thing to do
-is wait for the patch

Sagely wisdom in my opinion


<center><img src=http://mysite.freeserve.com/Angel_one_five/ffluke.jpg>

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 10:11 AM
"Harder is not more realistic....I like the FB FMs better"


The FM's of the last beta available to the external beta testers were said to be very realistic.

Two months before issuing the game, the beta-work was restricted to internal beta testers.

And the result, the FM's of FB seem less realistic to some beta testers than the beta they tested.

So, we have to wait for the patch.

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 10:18 AM
"It certianly appears that the FM's in Forgotten Battles were toned down for a wider market appeal.

If that fact bruises the ego's of people who want to daydream they could jump in a a Corsair or a Mustang with no real time pilot traing and survive well it is too bad.

Just as a simple example of the forgiving nature of FB.. you can get a 109 up to 300 kmh before rotation by holding the stick forward .. the real 109 specified flaps on takeoff to avoid possible undercarriage damage at speeds not much more than half that.



NOW .. it may be a good thing that the FM is toned down to make FB more appealing to the mass market ... that does not make it a BETTER sim but possibly a better mass market game. "



I fully agree with these remarks.

The very first time I played FB, I was extremely surprised on how easy it was to fly the aircrafts compared to the last patch of IL-2!

I don't understand it. There are in the setup the "easy" settings for the people who think it's so easy to fly a 2000PS warbird!!!

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 10:25 AM
I'm no ace,but there is alot that made IL2 a fun time
that is missing in FB.
However, the patches & addons
are the things that made it so.
I am quite happy to wait for The patch.
We'll see what happens then.
.........~S~........

Cpt.LoneRanger
06-25-2003, 10:41 AM
I think FB is evolution, not revolition, so most of your comments are pointless.

1. So you had more problems taking off and handling the aircrafts in IL2? - Well, that's kind of logical, if you don't have the same problems in FB, except you had an amnesia and forgot how to handle aircrafts in IL2.

2.Where did you pay 50 dollars? It's for 35$ in the US, for 38euros in Germany (got mine from the US, because my girlfriend was there, so I know)

3.The accuracity is a bug that is know for FB, but when you played IL2 so much and so enthousiastic you should remember, that IL2 had the same problem until the first patch came out.

4.The perfect quality option depends on the drivers you're using and if the dither option is enabled. So anybody can use the option, but it runs slower on some machines.


Infact these points are not only whining, but stupid. I can't understand why there are still ppl out there, who post before thinking. Besides that, if you really don't like FB, why don't you just go on playing IL2 and be happy with it!?

I want that patch, too, but it's not as bad as you describe it here, since most of the problems described by you, are simply CAUSED by YOU.


greets
Cpt.LoneRanger

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 10:48 AM
"Infact these points are not only whining, but stupid."

Before saying "stupid things", you should talk to some beta-testers much more experienced than you are, guys who fly this game since more than two years /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 11:59 AM
People, please, do not eat my alive because I uttered my opinion on this forum (probably the sole purpose why this forum is created).

The points that I raised (not all of em ofcourse) have some merrit to it. face it and accept it. (or don't).

It is merely another point of view to look at this game. like many others it is not the only correct view nor is it a incorrect view.

Some persons in here acted as if I was stating that I was afferming my allegiance to a group like Al-Qaida or something. Cmon people, we are discussing a GAME! and by discussing it, we, in fact, try to make it a better game.

I was merely providing Oleg with some incense (as if he needs it) to do his utmost best at fixing the most irritable sides of FB. no more no less.

No, some people in here act is if a Nobel Price were attached to it.

Cpt.LoneRanger
06-25-2003, 12:20 PM
Sure.

Everybody has a right for his own free opinion, but that should also be true for those responding to your post and some things just are a bit superficial.

It has flaws, yes, no doubt, but it's not 1000x worse than IL2 and, again, you should remember that they had plenty of time to fix the flaws of the initial IL2 and there were many bugs!

I am waiting for the patch, too, since I'm P47 and P40 fan, but the first thing I said, when I got IL2FB and tried a head on in QMB and got wrecked up completely, was "Oh, my god. They made the same mistake as in IL2"

I think you just gotta see the whole picture, don't you think so?



@ CHDT

IF the beta-testers ARE indeed complaining about the flaws in FB, they should be fired. The only job they have is finding the flaws, to the developers can fix them.
Besides that I don't think you know what experience I have.

greets
Cpt.LoneRanger

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 12:25 PM
CHDT wrote:
- "Infact these points are not only whining, but
- stupid."
-
- Before saying "stupid things", you should talk to
- some beta-testers much more experienced than you
- are, guys who fly this game since more than two
- years /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-
- Cheers,
-
-

Yea.. this whining isn't going to lead anywhere...

and i agree anything what CHDT wrote...

FB's FM should be tweaked in some planes i agree to that but i think that Oleg knows that allready.. so be patient /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center>[i]1mg to me and ur down /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif [i]</center>

<center>-=‚'EverdarK<|>Tracer‚'=-</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 01:05 PM
It was really really stupid to "tone down" the flight models,SIMPLY BECAUSE THAT FEATURE IS AVAILABLE AS AN OPTION ALREADY IN GAME.

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 01:13 PM
WalterMitty wrote:
- It was really really stupid to "tone down" the
- flight models,SIMPLY BECAUSE THAT FEATURE IS
- AVAILABLE AS AN OPTION ALREADY IN GAME.
-
-

Unfortunateley your average punter sets difficulty to maximum, graphics to maximum and then complains about it running to slow and being too hard http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif((

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 01:27 PM
Freshness,

I could swear you posted a while back that "this is my last post on this forum"

What gives?

Friends don't let friends use MSSQL

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 02:04 PM
Monguise wrote:
- Freshness,
-
- I could swear you posted a while back that "this
- is my last post on this forum"
-
-
- What gives?
-

Be that as it may, a person has a right to change his/her opinion, doesn't (s)he? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

at that time I didn't yet play FB to the extent I have now. and because I do now, I felt compelled to express my opinion. after all, that is what this forum is about.

RichardI
06-25-2003, 02:05 PM
I'd like to carify my position on flight model.
A "harder" flight model is not a better flight model.
An "easier" flight model is also not a better flight model.
A realistic flight model is a better flight model.
IMO, FB is closer than IL-2 was. Not perfect, closer to perfect.

Since the 1% models started coming out for CFS3, I've been flying that exclusively. They're "harder" than FB's flight models.
According to some of the people in this discussion that makes CFS3 "better" than FB. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Rich

<Center>http://www.ghosts.com/images/postimages/THUNDERBOLT.jpg <Center>I've got 140 109's cornered over Berlin!

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 02:15 PM
RichardI, I agree with the idea you are conveying. but, as in many things, it's also about perception.

I had the perception (100% subjective, I agree) that IL2's FM was far more 'authentic' than FB's. Because I am by no means an avial or auronatical expert, it's just about the way I feel things.

Btw: ever experienced the FM of the Dodo in GTA3? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif now that is what I call challenging. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

In my opinion, it cannot be denied that the OVERALL FM of FB (all planes included) is worse/less fun than that of IL2.
If you don't believe that to be true than maybe this 1 designation may change your opinion: ME262.

While I respect that there must be 'some' programming limitations in imitating Mother Nature; I think this has got to be one of the worst FM's in recent Flightsim history.
I don't think I must retell the story of how you get into a dive going lets say 700kph, putting both engines out, and having the same effect as if I deployed several parachutes.

My intention is no way bashing of Oleg (and his crew)'s work. I respect the HUGE contribution they have made to the world of leisure flightsims. However, one must be carefull not to enter blind faith.

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 02:47 PM
Thanks for your opinion Freshness.

This thread has helped me to see the light. I have decided to stop playing FB. Give yourself a hand.



Friends don't let friends use MSSQL

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 02:50 PM
i was very anxious about the dynamic campaign ,it sounded so great butt it was a dissapointment when i finally got fb
i find il2 better overal then fb
i find static campaings with an interesting storyline to be the most entertaining to play , 3rd party addons kept il2 alive for me , butt in Fb there are few new 3rd party addon campaings -- it seems to be all about the skins nowadays
i hope the patch will give the game a second breath


<center>http://www.comedyarchive.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/alig/images/aligclose.jpg</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 03:12 PM
Fm on Il2 before patch 1.4 was almost as Fb now.
As some already pointed, Il2 improved with patches. Let's keep faith in Oleg and His team and wait.
On a personnal remark. Forget about comparing Il2 with Fb, cause Il2 is dead.


http://resev.freewebspace.com/images/metal-2.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 03:18 PM
Yeah,I was moaning about IL2 being better too.

Blah blah blah....

Then I tried IL2 v1.2 and uninstalled it after 10mins.



"degustibus non disputandum"

&lt;script>c2="#000000";c3="#000000";c4="#000000";c5="#000000";a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor=c2;a[a.length-3].bgColor=c3;a[a.length-4].bgColor=c4;a[a.length-5].bgColor=c5;a[a.length-8].bgColor=c5;image="http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/table_GT2_3.jpg";oa=a[a.length-2].style;oa.backgroundImage="url("+image+")";oa.backgroundPosition="right";oa.backgroundRepeat="no-repeat";</script>&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];};var YourPicName='http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/porsche2.gif'; var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

&lt;script>a=document.all.tags("td");for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)if[a[i].innerHTML.indexOf["carguy_")!=-1) ii=i;a[ii+2].innerHTML="Willywhiner"; </script>

&lt;script>color="#9F0F0F";a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-4].bgColor=color;a[a.length-5].bgColor=color;a[a.length-8].bgColor=color</script>

&lt;script>color="#000000";a=doc.all.tags('table');a[a.length-2].bgColor=color;</script><center>http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg "Weder Tod noch Teufel!"</font></center> (http://www.jzg23.de>

<font)

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 04:55 PM
sukebeboy wrote:
- Thank you, rcorporon.
-
- You proved my argument perfectly. You and other
- like you attack anyone who doesn't worship FB.
-
- I liked IL2. I want to like FB, but now, I never
- play it. I hope patch will fix things for offline
- play, but I afraid that all you online whiners who
- constantly belittle and attack anyone with oppose
- view cause most offline or reasonable players to
- leave this board.
-
- Good job you insane FB zealot.
-

This made me laugh out loud...

Zealot? From dictionary.com "One who is zealous, especially excessively so. A fanatically committed person." I'm afraid I don't meet these qualifications. Again, research before you rant.

Secondly, I do not play online. I'm an offline only guy, so your claim that I am a "online whiner" is way off the mark.

I do not worship FB... it does have it's flaws... but to say it is inferior to IL2 is just nonsense.

Ronnie

<center>http://www3.sympatico.ca/corporon2001/First_Kill.jpg </center>
<center>Woot! First online Kill!</center>

"The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win."
-Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, "The Communist Manifesto"

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage."
-John Steinbeck, "The Grapes of Wrath"

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 04:59 PM
MIG7 wrote:
- somewanker wrote: Why do people constantly say that
- IL2 was better because the P39 was an unflyable
- bee-yatch?
-
- That statement alone discredits you. "unflyable"?
- I know several guys, myself included, who completed
- many successful missions in the "unflyable" P-39 in
- IL-2.

It's called exaggeration friend, look it up.

Ronnie

<center>http://www3.sympatico.ca/corporon2001/First_Kill.jpg </center>
<center>Woot! First online Kill!</center>

"The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win."
-Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, "The Communist Manifesto"

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage."
-John Steinbeck, "The Grapes of Wrath"

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 06:01 PM
- It's called exaggeration friend, look it up.
-
- Ronnie

It's more like embelishing. The P-39 is far from "unflyable.".

Friends don't let friends use MSSQL

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 06:23 PM
You guys could just shut up and re-organize your thoughts, get the brain in sync with itself again and only then think about posting something.

But if the brain's really working, you'll see you won't need to post at all, we all understand this thread is just a brain fart, with the exception of a few posts.


----------------------
Milo Minderbinder

Cotton for everyone!
----------------------

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 09:27 PM
Milo_Minderbndr wrote:

- You guys could just shut up and re-organize your
- thoughts, get the brain in sync with itself again
- and only then think about posting something.
-
- But if the brain's really working, you'll see you
- won't need to post at all, we all understand this
- thread is just a brain fart, with the exception of a
- few posts.



Oh yes, that must be the reason why I decided to go back to the original IL2 some weeks ago instead of wasting my time with FB...

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 10:36 PM
The FM in Forgotten Battles was made easier so that the game might have a broader appeal, like the huge-selling Microsoft games.*

Maddox has to make payments on the Carrera and the new house, so he wanted to bump the sales up a bit.


*Anyone that thinks the new flight model was an attempt to be more "realistic" is living in a dream world.

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 10:40 PM
Compare the P-47 in FB and the P-47 in CFS3.

After that see picture below:

http://users.urbi.com.br/leocosta/forums/owned0.jpg




----------------------
Milo Minderbinder

Cotton for everyone!
----------------------

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 11:09 PM
To be honest, when I first took to the skies in FB I thought "This feels like CFS3". Not trying to rag on FB it's just the truth.

People talk about "harder". FB is just "softer" feeling. In fact, FB is more difficult, not IL2 because when you take off the flaps don't provide lift, and there are all those little gizmo's we are now supposed to mess with to fine tune the engine.

In IL2: 1.03, 1.04, 1.04b2, 1.1, 1.2 .. the FM was basically the same. They just tweaked the power of the engines. They did make it a little bit softer in the end, but not nearly as soft as FB.

Gimmie flaps that lift, fast trim (or trim where I don't have to apply the RBJ shift to outfly everybody) and address the way the air feels like grease, and the zoom climbs that can take all day.

...and people are talking about new planes. whoope! Don't we already have like 100?




<img src=http://lafayettefederation.com/screenshots/repository/turo/tn-Numbaone.jpg>
"The Force is strong with this one." -What an ace said of RayBanJockey during a fight when he was still a newbie.
<a href=http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612109283>news update</a>

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 11:26 PM
RayBanJockey wrote:
- many things...


Despite the horrible sig this young fella sure knows what he's talking about.




----------------------
Milo Minderbinder

Cotton for everyone!
----------------------