PDA

View Full Version : Amount of AC/ detail simulation



Flygflottilj16_Sulan
07-29-2004, 08:20 AM
Hello! I´m gonna try to express something I feel about IL2FB/AEP very strongly, plz dont take this a whine or anything... Game is the best in the world!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I would really like to see the planes modelled more into detail, lesser planes modelled "better". I´m not really talking about flightmodels, I´m talking about gauges missing and LOADS of functions missing...
I mean really this game has the best ever flightmodels, and the best ever feel to it, and the most planes.
But with more detailed modeling of cockpit procedures, ADF all these little things even flying a DC-3 transport would be great...

I can understand if the combat-flight-sim community is not really interested though http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

plz comment on this

Flygflottilj16_Sulan
07-29-2004, 08:20 AM
Hello! I´m gonna try to express something I feel about IL2FB/AEP very strongly, plz dont take this a whine or anything... Game is the best in the world!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I would really like to see the planes modelled more into detail, lesser planes modelled "better". I´m not really talking about flightmodels, I´m talking about gauges missing and LOADS of functions missing...
I mean really this game has the best ever flightmodels, and the best ever feel to it, and the most planes.
But with more detailed modeling of cockpit procedures, ADF all these little things even flying a DC-3 transport would be great...

I can understand if the combat-flight-sim community is not really interested though http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

plz comment on this

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2004, 08:26 AM
No m8, you would be surprised, most would be very interested. Well at least the serious 'simmers.
I agree...less planes more accurate modelling and dynamics.

A manual start for take off would be high on the list.
Correctly functioning guages would be just as high on the list.

Some talk about realism, only things seem to stop short of the full immersion.

Flygflottilj16_Sulan
07-29-2004, 09:22 AM
EXACTLY!!! you said it much better than me, would be soooo much more fun to fly those 1h+ long coops... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
07-29-2004, 09:24 AM
That is the direction that Oleg has decided for the next sim,
Battle of Britain.


Neal

Flygflottilj16_Sulan
07-29-2004, 09:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
That is the direction that Oleg has decided for the next sim,
Battle of Britain.


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really!?!? I have not been in the loop on news of BoB lately, this is wonderful news to me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Can´t wait!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

JG7_Rall
07-29-2004, 04:08 PM
This is a great idea, if it's done in BoB, can't wait!

"Son, never ask a man if he is a fighter pilot. If he is, he'll let you know. If he isn't, don't embarrass him."
Badges!? We don't needs no stinkin' badges!

crazyivan1970
07-29-2004, 05:43 PM
http://www.il2sturmovik.com/forgotten_battles/devupdate/040604/grab0004.jpg

http://www.il2sturmovik.com/forgotten_battles/devupdate/040604/grab0000.jpg

http://www.il2sturmovik.com/forgotten_battles/devupdate/040604/grab0005.jpg

Pictures speak foe themselfs http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

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

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/band.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

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

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

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

LEXX_Luthor
07-29-2004, 07:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>lesser planes modelled "better".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We count.
P~51, Bf~109, Fw~190, and that's about it.

What they need to do is model all planes, and then begin the process of making them all "better." http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Granted, many many lol "serious simmers" are Happy and Content with...P~51, Bf~109, and Fw~190.
Hence the Call for restricting Flyable types to only these movie planes shown on teh USA Dogfighter Channel.


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

WWMaxGunz
07-29-2004, 07:55 PM
Better to have the REAL planes of the BoB and not what somebody from somewhere stereotypes
US players to want.

Spitfire I, Hurricane I, Bf-109E, Bf-110.

Sorry if a bunch of players want some planes and others don't get
their way. Maybe those people can set their own servers. Only so much a month and with
a few friends kicking in, it is not that much unless you only get allowance from parents.
There are commercial servers that will rent out the time and run the software, on of my
squad members does this just from his own pocket and playable through Hyperlobby.

People who feel their interests or needs are not represented well enough on the net should
create and support their own content, not b!+@# about it.

Oleg had announced the basis of the BoB sim as few planes modelled much better, I think
it was a year or so ago. There may be a sticky thread of it or you may have to dig.

Great pics Ivan. Those are from the Development Updates?


Neal

LEXX_Luthor
07-29-2004, 08:01 PM
Oleg had announced the basis of the FB sim as one IL~2 plane modelled much better, I think
it was 3 years or so ago. There may be a sticky thread of it or you may have to dig.


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

WWMaxGunz
07-29-2004, 08:28 PM
That was the original IL2 sim and very long before the demo.
FB was always a much improved IL2. It got to far to be a patch.
FB was announced late or end of summer 2002.

You can't dig that far. Was this forum even around back then? I doubt it.

This forum records were lost not all that far back. Lots of discussions lost.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2004, 11:03 PM
["lesser planes modelled "better".

We count.
P~51, Bf~109, Fw~190, and that's about it.

Granted, many _many_ lol "serious simmers" are Happy and Content with...P~51, Bf~109, and Fw~190.
*Hence the Call for restricting Flyable types to only these movie planes shown on teh USA Dogfighter Channel."]

*Are not my thoughts at all, my thoughts were to have the more well known and commonly available planes as accurate as possible, then move move on to other aircraft...having those planes modelled as realistic as possible and so forth.

"Not all "serious 'simmers" are content with only 1 allied and 2 Axis planes."

My thinking as to serious 'simmers was more to "'realistic' realism" and "immersion into the game"

What is the point of "Full Real" attitude with an arcade plane ?

Mr Gunz,

True about the real planes from The Battle for Brittain and agree totally.

as for:
"Sorry if a bunch of players want some planes and others don't get
their way. Maybe those people can set their own servers. Only so much a month and with
a few friends kicking in, it is not that much unless you only get allowance from parents.
There are commercial servers that will rent out the time and run the software, on of my
squad members does this just from his own pocket and playable through Hyperlobby.

People who feel their interests or needs are not represented well enough on the net should
create and support their own content, not b!+@# about it."

regardless of your above comment, the planes are still not be modelled as realistic as possible and will not be so, until the work is done.
People who want to run their own particular plane set do so already, whether that be on a dedicated server or by hosting their own missions on their own connection.
In particular when the Ki-84c is available..that is the one most will choose, even though it appeared only in very small numbers and right at the end of the war&gt;

Does this mean, as far as BoB goes, we wait for the release - have planes and dynamics and damage that are modelled as accurately as possible, with any further add in planes being as accurate as possible, toss AEP and PF in the bin and move on ? Well why buy PF ? just save the bucks and wait for BoB.

Any further very helpful comments ?

[This message was edited by Vagueout on Thu July 29 2004 at 10:12 PM.]

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2004, 11:17 PM
Oh by the way....
The screenshots are absolutely gorgeous, the detail is incredible

LeadSpitter_
07-30-2004, 04:30 AM
BOB spitfire trottle quadrant from the sukoi.ru forums they have alot of stuff there we havent seen here in the us/uk forums.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v97/acespace/TC_1.jpg

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

WWMaxGunz
07-30-2004, 05:20 AM
The draw for PF will be a large planeset and... Carriers!

BoB is IIRC slated for next year. That is as planned only.

And yes, the IL2 engine as expanded by FB and improved through numerous patches is not
up to what BoB will be.

Will my hardware handle BoB? As it is I run reduced vis range with FB, still get some
pauses here and there. Not real good. But I dunno that BoB will be slower if the system
resources aren't tied up with so many flyables nor do I know what the load from those is.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2004, 08:08 AM
rereading this thread, I feel I should be clearer... (common affliction of mine, not being clear).

By "modelled as accurately as possible", I mean aerodynamically - Flight Modelling, Flight Envelope, Damage Modelling, Thrust effects, (maybe even thermals), accurate stalling characteristcs taking into account the nuances of each different plane/ variation, G-Force effects on the airframe etc.

(Would really hate to have a car with a $6000 paint job, a $100grand under the bonnet, to have it running on stock rims and suspension)

The Throttle Quadrant pictured above is a work of art.

Cmte. Carvalho
07-31-2004, 02:15 PM
Well... Let's wait for BoB... Few planes but much more realistic... I just hope be able to use every button in the cockpit and see all gauges working properly..

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v364/cmte_carvalho/Avatar_Small.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
07-31-2004, 06:36 PM
Don't get your Hopes up, FB started out as a single-plane "study" sim with Flyable IL~2 only.
BoB+ will have hundreds of new Flyable Planes over the years. I can't wait. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

Well lets get rid of some planes...start with P~51 and Fw~190 first http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

p1ngu666
07-31-2004, 06:51 PM
lets have a p51A http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
ppl will always say that this or that fm is ****, personally i like more varied planes than some that are "correct", i mean how do U know they are or arent?

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

WWMaxGunz
07-31-2004, 08:37 PM
More detailed planes will take up more resources at once. Memory can be swapped to and
from the "golden 640k" only so fast and so much at once so fewer highly detailed models
will be able to fly in the same mission/map/arena. Perhaps in time there will be many
planes but only so many different types together, fewer than now. EAW works that way,
only 4 flyable types in a mission.


Neal

DarthBane_
07-31-2004, 09:20 PM
BOB add on disc shall increase number of flyables but few planes with details like that spit throtle shall be quite enough for start. I will be leaning all over the cockpit, with soft zoom in and out (hopes).

XyZspineZyX
08-01-2004, 04:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
lets have a p51A http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
ppl will always say that this or that fm is ****, personally i like more varied planes than some that are "correct", i mean how do U know they are or arent?

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When exceeding dive speed more than the port aileron should pop off.
When pulling overG, way overG the airframe can twist.
Planes shouldn't normally take 2,500+ metres to pull out of a flat spin.
Not all stalls end in a flat spin.
Stalls can be controlled going in and coming out.

We've also had the limitations of the current game engine explained to us.

p1ngu666
08-01-2004, 06:15 AM
yeah the stalls do suck abit http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Sturm_Williger
08-01-2004, 09:32 AM
Yeah, funny that - the stalls in EAW seem way more realistic to me ( perhaps in my ignorance ) than the FB "flip-over" - although that said, I seem to recall the P39's flat spin as killing me a few times in FB.

So what is it ? Am I ignorantly calling FB stalls "unreal" because I've been conditioned by EAW into thinking that that is the correct model ?

Better pilots, please comment ! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

WWMaxGunz
08-01-2004, 10:51 AM
You have spins turned off in EAW?

609IAP_Recon
08-01-2004, 01:02 PM
I'd rather have more flyables than less.

Unless they are going to make the best AI ever done.

S!
609IAP_Recon
http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg


Full Real Virtual Online War: Forgotten Skies (http://www.forgottenskies.com)