PDA

View Full Version : Someone tried that great Pacific Sim?



BLUE_Illu
02-18-2004, 03:38 PM
http://web.targetrabaul.com/

Tried it and I think its great. FM much more demmanding than IL FM. Its a community based project and its open beta. In a config flie you could even decide with wich type of ammo you feed your ammo belts. Of course the graphics are not as nice as ILs. You need really take care of your mixture, RPM`s, throttle input. Not such a pseudo CEM like in IL. Its a purely online sim but you could practice offline.

BLUE_Illu
02-18-2004, 03:38 PM
http://web.targetrabaul.com/

Tried it and I think its great. FM much more demmanding than IL FM. Its a community based project and its open beta. In a config flie you could even decide with wich type of ammo you feed your ammo belts. Of course the graphics are not as nice as ILs. You need really take care of your mixture, RPM`s, throttle input. Not such a pseudo CEM like in IL. Its a purely online sim but you could practice offline.

p1ngu666
02-18-2004, 03:46 PM
i tried it, didnt like it tbh :|

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

XyZspineZyX
02-18-2004, 03:58 PM
For my money, it beats hell out of this sim. The FMs seem more accurate, the matchups are right out of the history books, you can SEE better (actually, too well, but that's in discussion to be toned down somewhat), it's based on 1:1 scale terrain of the entire New Guinea Solomons chain from Wewak to Guadalcanal, and, the BIG THING:

It's set up to be historical and mission based, rather than "create your own silly server". But the beauty is, CYOSS is entirely possible. But, because the historically-based system creates its own interest, nobody's tripping over themselves to create the silly servers.

Not only that, you get in addition to the Pacific... Korea, WWI, and just under development Vietnam and the Mediteranean.

Capt_Haddock
02-18-2004, 04:54 PM
But they don't have a Gladiator J8A http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Silly comments apart... Is it pay-per-play?

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/haddock/sig/F19bannerh.jpg
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/haddock/sig/F19banner.jpg

Maj_Death
02-18-2004, 04:57 PM
Its flight models seem pretty good but its impossibly difficult interface kills it for me. I will play with it a little more I think but I doubt I will keep playing it long. Maybe in a year when it is a more refined beta it will be worth playing. It is definatly something to keep an eye on though.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The F7F Tigercat in Aces Over the Pacific is overmodeled.

XyZspineZyX
02-18-2004, 05:01 PM
Difficult interface? In what way?

You launch the program, pick your module, log in to the metaserver (and upgrade software *automatically*, if your version is dated), and select via menu side, plane, and mission. Then, hit Fly. That's "impossibly hard"? I know you're not referring to actually having to read briefings before flight, are you? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

There were many teething pains with setting up joysticks in earlier versions, but now all that is done through the interface *without* having to log off or quit the app to do it. All the editable parameters (and there are MANY) can be easily navigated to within the interface.

As for the Gladiator, there soon will be one; soon as I fix some computer issues and get it skinned, the Med will resound with the whine of Glads and Fiats (among others).

Pentallion
02-18-2004, 05:08 PM
But it is pay-for-play.

That alone makes it useless.

http://www.simops.com/249th/sigs/Wildcard.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
02-18-2004, 05:18 PM
9700 Pro / 12 months = 20$ per month.

Pay for Play is what we all do.

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

XyZspineZyX
02-18-2004, 05:21 PM
Very true.

And if you think $10/month (once they actually start charging, beta is free) for all you can eat for WWI, Pacific WWII, Med WWII, Korea, Vietnam and whatever-else surfaces is too much....

then your problem is you never have ANY money.

That's cheaper than a trip for one to the movies.

Maj_Death
02-18-2004, 05:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Difficult interface? In what way?

You launch the program, pick your module, log in to the metaserver (and upgrade software *automatically*, if your version is dated), and select via menu side, plane, and mission. Then, hit Fly. That's "impossibly hard"? I _know _you're not referring to actually having to read briefings before flight, are you? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

There were many teething pains with setting up joysticks in earlier versions, but now all that is done through the interface *without* having to log off or quit the app to do it. All the editable parameters (and there are MANY) can be easily navigated to within the interface.

As for the Gladiator, there soon will be one; soon as I fix some computer issues and get it skinned, the Med will resound with the whine of Glads and Fiats (among others).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't enjoy having to type 1's and 0's in order to change my graphics settings. I also don't like having to type in my screen resolution. Sorry but I was born after the drop down menu was invented so I don't particularly care for having to type it all in as if it is a *.ini file. But I do know how. Another problem I have with it is the lack of a mission builder and a quick mission builder for testing purposes. And BTW its graphics and sound suck *ss.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The F7F Tigercat in Aces Over the Pacific is overmodeled.

XyZspineZyX
02-18-2004, 05:31 PM
Which version do YOU have?

It hasn't been necessary to edit .txt files for a couple of versions now. Screen res, joysticks, etc.: it's all easily done through the graphic "point and click" interface. (And even if you still *did* have to type a "1" or a "0", is that such a major imposition? You make it sound like getting into the postgraduate program at Yale. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif )

The Mission Builder is also in beta, and widely available if you just look for it, or ask for it on the forums. It's easier to use than IL-2's by the way.

Sound is still embryonic, I'll admit. But it's not *that* bad. At least you never could hear battleships firing 50km away (and sounding like they were 2m away), and you never heard an engine behind you warning you of an approaching enemy either.

Graphics are not as advanced as IL-2, but I rather like the "used, banged up" look of most of them. There are still a couple of really ugly placeholders (2D artists being busy and at a premium!), but for every one of those "eyesores", there's a really nicely fleshed out one....I love the Ki45 pit, for example. Still, if you choose your flight sims chiefly by graphics, you're not really a sim-head. The FM accuracy and overall feel of flight HAVE to be more important.

lesio109
02-18-2004, 05:43 PM
those games are not comparable...Il2 and TR..."arcadish" massive multiplayer vs. simulator...

Korolov
02-18-2004, 05:54 PM
Overall I think it's a pretty good start for a Beta, but it still has a long way to go.

They just need to throw in some AI planes and make a quick dogfight option availible.

And a P-38. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

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

stelr
02-18-2004, 07:18 PM
I downloaded it but could never log on to the metaserver to download the modules. I tried everything including disabling all firewalls and virus protection, but no dice. I finally gave up.

v/r
Stel

v/r
Stel
AKA "Machek"

http://home.nc.rr.com/stel/LTCSTEL11.jpg

Maj_Death
02-18-2004, 07:58 PM
Well let's see, I gave it another hour worth of testing and my oppinion of it hasn't changed any. It has potential but the program itself is a little too crude for my taste at the moment. One of the single most annoying parts is your hat is useless. I fiddled with the control settings for 10 minutes but was never able to set it to slew instead of snap to some worthless view (ie cockpit floor). Appearently it has the option for you to pan around like in FB, but it doesn't give you the option to disable snap views. Kinda pointless then don't ya think? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

The graphics and sound are reminiscent of the greatist Pacific theatre sim ever created, Pacific Air War by Microprose. For those who don't remember that one, it came out in 1995. Actually I think the graphics maybe a little worse http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif. It does have some redeeming qualities though such as decent flight models. With alot of work it could turn out pretty good but right now it isn't worth playing IMHO. I'll give it another chance tomarrow but it likely won't be on my HD by Friday. BTW I am using Beta .6, latest version I think.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The F7F Tigercat in Aces Over the Pacific is overmodeled.

Showtime_100
02-18-2004, 08:25 PM
I'm actually unable to get my coolie hat to slew around in FB like the mouse view can do. So you mean it's actually possible? All I can get it to do is either snap to a certain spot or slew to it, but I can't just slew around to wherever I want to look.

Maj_Death
02-18-2004, 10:09 PM
I guess I wasn't too clear in my previous post (I don't even understand ithttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif ).FB has two modes that I know of, snap and panning. Snap takes you to one predefined position for each hat position. Panning takes you a certain number of degrees in the specified direction. Slewing like in TW works like a mouse. Or atleast it should and that is my problem with it. I can't disable the snap views so pressing right hat results in looking at my right wing instantly but if I hold it then it keeps going to the right until I'm looking at my seat cushin. So basically I can't use my hat unless I use snap views only which is extremely limiting. Poor design on their part IMHO. But it is an early beta so you can't really slam them for it yet. The only good thing about that game at this time is I get something like 150 fps average in cockpit. But I would expect that as those graphics are obsolete by about a decade. The planes are a little harder to fly than they are in FB but that doesn't mean they are more realistic. About the only place they seem more realistic to me is in torque effects. Torque effects are one of FB's confirmed and undeniable short-commings. Oleg himself has said the torque effects in FB are not very good. Hopefully Oleg's BoB sim will correct this.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The F7F Tigercat in Aces Over the Pacific is overmodeled.

XyZspineZyX
02-18-2004, 10:10 PM
all I can say to you two is, "User error".

I don't know if you're even interested, but a post in the Targetware forums usually brings lots of help (from those who have stood in your shoes), and quick answers. Maybe they can help you sort your hat problems. It's sure a lot better than just logging off not knowing if your problem is even solvable. I can guarantee you it is. YOUR hat may be "useless", but there are many whose hats aren't. Make of that what you will. I will tell you also that you can create any number of views and angles that are possible from planes; it's amazingly customizable.

I never had any problems to begin with and get excellent SA when I fly.

Maj_Death
02-18-2004, 10:19 PM
I can fly with a mouse instead so that in of itself isn't a killer. It is the truely ancient graphics, sound, damage models, poor interface, and generally low quality of it that turns me away. However it is an early beta so I will keep an eye on how it turns out. It maybe good at some point but right now it sucks IMHO.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The F7F Tigercat in Aces Over the Pacific is overmodeled.

LEXX_Luthor
02-18-2004, 11:06 PM
Grafix. Does the game have a dynamic onwhine campaign? If so that would be the core of the sim and the grafix can come later (it better).

Here, FB is a total disaster in frontline warfare. That's why all the ubicom threads are about FM only, and everybody is Whining. There is nothing else to talk about except FM, certainly not the progress of a onwhine WAR.


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

Pentallion
02-18-2004, 11:37 PM
Let's see, if it's $10 per month, that's $120 just to play this game ONE YEAR. If it is $20 per month, that's $240.

I could buy a lot of games and play each of them for years and years for the money I'd spend to play one pay-to-pay game for ONE YEAR.

Not to mention the initial cost of the game itself.

Sorry, but I've been playing Red Baron for many, many years and with the money I saved by not paying to play I pretty much bought my last two computers.

Now IL-2 for the last 3 years has cost me what? $100 for the two games.

Targetware would have cost me MUCH MUCH more to play for the same length of time.

Sorry, pay-to-play is worthless.

http://www.simops.com/249th/sigs/Wildcard.jpg

Maj_Death
02-19-2004, 12:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:

Here, FB is a total disaster in frontline warfare. That's why all the ubicom threads are about FM only, and everybody is Whining. There is nothing else to talk about except FM, certainly not the progress of a onwhine WAR.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are nearly a dozen different online wars for FB and they have plenty of whining. But the whining about them is in the proper forums instead of here http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The F7F Tigercat in Aces Over the Pacific is overmodeled.

IIIJG53_Crinius
02-19-2004, 02:54 AM
Stiglr I totaly agree with you. Soem people dont seem to understand that this sim is still beta. I dont think that $10 is too much. This is a community based project which means from sim enthusiasts for sim enthusiasts. I think the realsim in plane handling is too high for the average simmer. I regard myself as a hardcore simmer and I think its great. I will still play FB but i think in the light of TW FB isnt the most realistic sim. FB does a great job, but sorry the CEM is a joke compared to TW.
I will continue to play FB but I will surely spend much time with TW.
BTW I jsut came over from the TW forum and I just read a post that announced Target Tobruk so we finaly will get an North Africa sim, though its still a way to go.

LEXX_Luthor
02-19-2004, 03:38 AM
I was (choke) wrong....

Maj_Death:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>There are nearly a dozen different online wars for FB and they have plenty of whining. But the whining about them is in the proper forums instead of here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Okay, sounds good. I guess I am Whining about the Devs never caring about this, leaving few tools for onwhine WAR designers...or so I heard I dunno.

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

XyZspineZyX
02-19-2004, 09:17 AM
Well, Pentallion, I don't pay your bills, so I won't presume to tell you what is "too much"...

but in terms of value, $10/month is a SOLID one. Compare it to a month of cable TV, a family night to a pro sports event (!!), a dinner, a night out at a club to see a band, even a book or a new game title (especially a game title that's not nearly as involving as a flight sim, and hence won't stand up to more than a few months of play).

Of course, I'm really desensitized to this issue, since I come from Warbirds, which, back in the day was priced at the astounding rate of $2 per HOUR: and it was *worth* it (then).

mike_espo
02-19-2004, 10:49 AM
I love the FMs in targetware. Also, CEM is much more realistic in TW. It does have some bugs though. DM is lousy and I keep getting game freezes and get booted occasionally. Don't know if I would pay though....

SeaFireLIV
02-19-2004, 11:08 AM
Well, I was a great fan of Pacific Air War, but...

I will not pay to play something I`ve already paid for (or for that matter paying every month to just fly online). Perhaps it`s just me, but all I see are people being slowly `brainwashed` into thinking it`s good to pay to play online. This is EXACTLY what a lot of these online companies WANT you to think.

A few years earlier I used to be a member of a good MechWarrior Clan (in many ways they treated that game as seriously as a WWII Squad in FB), but a new online program came along, a living Dynamic universe, but you had to pay for it. It totally destroyed the Squad- half wanted to join it, the other half did not. I left.

In many ways it`s similar to how mobile phones were almost FORCED on everyone until they now would die of a heart attack without them- Yet we don`t all actually need them. We just think we do.

Eventually, I suspect all games will only be online but with a cost. When that happens it`s all over me. I`ll either stop playing sims all together or just stick with the old FB`s offline Campaign. It will be a sad day if this happens.

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

[This message was edited by SeaFireLIV on Thu February 19 2004 at 10:24 AM.]

jeroen_R90S
02-19-2004, 11:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Well, I was a great fan of Pacific Air War, but...
{snippetysnap}
In many ways it`s similar to how mobile phones were almost FORCED on everyone until they now would die of a heart attack without them- Yet we don`t all actually need them. We just think we do.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I liked PAW as well! Especially the Dauntless, but I still wondered why the @#$ they put the SB2C-1 in, instead of a -3/-4...

I don't have a cell phone and indeed that seems to be rather unique these days. I hate those things. I-DO-NOT-WANT-TO-BE-REACHED-ANYTIME-OF-THE-DAY!
Sorry, getting OT... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Don't like pay-to-play either. Now I can just put the game away for a month or so when short on time, but @ $10 a month there is some sort of commitment to play that I don't like. If I wouln't play for a month I'd feel like I flushed $10 down the toilet. Just my €0.02.

Jeroen

Cossack_UA
02-19-2004, 11:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
9700 Pro / 12 months = 20$ per month.

Pay for Play is what we all do.

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

No we do not! You paid for my Radeon 9800 $240. It's a fixed cost. The more I play, the cheaper one gaming session gets. With pay-for-play, you gotta pay a certain ammount every time you play, so the more you play, the more expansive it gets. It is a variable cost.

How many years are you going to use your R9700Pro? Two-three years i imagine. How many times are you going to use it for your gaming sessions? Hundreds if not thousands. So you gaming session in terms of the video card expences is going to be a fraction of a penny per one gaming session.

LEXX_Luthor
02-19-2004, 12:06 PM
Wrong again. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif The more you Play your FB, the more you run your Power Supply and the higher your bill. You are Paying for Posting right now, here, at the ubicom.

A "fixed cost" for video card usage assumes no upgrades forever. We may safely assume you do not have fixed costs for your video card usage.



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

SeaFireLIV
02-19-2004, 12:08 PM
No, Lexx. That is not Pay per Play. I see the brainwashing has taken hold on you though...

XyZspineZyX
02-19-2004, 12:14 PM
SeaFire LIV wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I will not pay to play something I`ve already paid for. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fine; Targetware costs nothing, so you're NOT "double paying".

The anti-pay-to-play argument is amazingly selfish, not to mention short-sighted. For reasons posted above, many would agree that it's not that "expensive". Also, for reasons of economics, you can argue that it's FAIR, too.

We can all see the effects of economics on our hobby. We're a very small niche market, not a mass arcade market like Quake/Doom. The "move 250,000 units" economics don't work for a detailed, realistic flight sim, because the numbers of people who want a sim of such complexity (not to mention of this level of *involvement*) are much lower than the numbers of adolescents who want to fire plasma rifles and move their avatars over health replenishment units. And we all know that, paradoxically, the amount of time, money and resources to do a good job of producing such a reasonably accurate historical title (as opposed to a fun fantasy title that only requires imagination to create the content, which doesn't have to stand up against history or real specs) is EXHORBITANT; especially when you consider that the payoff might be only $40 a box. You can recoup your dev costs at $40 a box with Doom. With IL-2? No, not unless you employ a band of Russian (or maybe Indian?) developers, and get lucky to get a GOOD group of them. Don't expect that the IL-2 development story will repeat itself very often. We all got real lucky when Oleg appeared on the scene.

Bottom line: "You get what you pay for", and that explains why most of the garbage on the net is FREE. You want targeted, high quality content that flips your *particular* wig? Be prepared to "subscribe" to it and support it.

It's like cable TV: you can get the basic package of junk, or if you want to see the quality stuff, the Sopranos, The Wire, Six Feet Under, you pony up extra. I think that extra is worth it, and I only wish I could pare away about 50 junk channels and get a lower basic cable rate!!!

LEXX_Luthor
02-19-2004, 12:16 PM
SeaFire:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>No, Lexx. That is not Pay per Play. I see the brainwashing has taken hold on you though...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It is Pay to Play, by definition. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Well, I agree that basic economics are not found in the economics textbooks:: If its worth it, then people will pay, if not they won't, unless tbey are forced to by threat of arrest.

I will say our FEARs of paying onwhine is unfounded, as most flight sim Devs...the ones like Oleg who code for offwhine AI as well as onwhine, don't put the time into making onwhine WARs that peeps would bother to pay for. I am sure Stiglr is filling a niche ignored by Oleg.

--...and no I don't fly Stig's game


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

XyZspineZyX
02-19-2004, 12:20 PM
Just so you guys know, although I am a Targetware "fanboi", I am not the person behind it, nor am I even on the core dev team.

I am a contributor to Targetware, and a vocal one at that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif but I'm (sadly) not one who stands to profit from that $10/month.

My zeal comes from the fact that TW is about the only sim I see out there that truly values history, and "getting it right". Plus, I love the open idea of it: you can have any war you want, and you can play any way you want.

LEXX_Luthor
02-19-2004, 12:24 PM
StiglrWare

Yeah, you trade some grafix for a frontline world of immersion--at least that is what I understand. What screen res does it allow?

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

SeaFireLIV
02-19-2004, 12:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
The anti-pay-to-play argument is amazingly selfish, not to mention short-sighted. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I of course disagree with you. But I think you miss my point entirely. If programmers have spent and are prepared to spend time and energy on a dynamic campaign online why not initially charge a big fat fee? If the sim was good enough(better than FB, say) I would be quite happy to pay twice, three or even four times the cost of purchasing the game in a shop first, then go online. Ongoing costs could be perhaps helped with further six-monthly or annual add-ons.

Also, it`s the principle, once you start paying monthly, they then have a HOLD on you. After a little while, the prices start to increase, "We need to increase prices marginally to bring an even better gaming environment".
Just leave, you say - but too late! You`re hooked! They`ve got you, you pay that little extra bit, it goes on and on... It all adds up.

Then you realise that in truth you do not have control- they do.

One last point. The money, I have always said that the net is rather unfair in many ways to many people, because of the need to own some kind of credit card to do anything. It can and does omit a whole part of society. `No credit Card- No dice`. Fair enough for actual purchases of items, but it`s cutting a lot of people away from the enjoyment of games online.... In this regard, it is you thinking in a short-sighted and selfish fashion.

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

Lawn_Dart
02-19-2004, 12:41 PM
&gt;&gt;"My zeal comes from the fact that TW is about the only sim I see out there that truly values history, and "getting it right". Plus, I love the open idea of it: you can have any war you want, and you can play any way you want."&lt;&lt; (stiglr)

Ummm, ...don't you see any contradiction in that statement? You cannot possibly be serious that playing any war any way you want is "historical". It's a GAME. In real life, real "history", pilots did not respawn when dead. Pilots did NOT pick their own targets or fly off to fight their own war or to strafe random airfields for fun. They did not get to pick their own planes from one mission to the next.

You can fool yourself into thinking that TR is more historical than FB, but the only one you are kidding is yourself.

Add to that the fact that the current planeset modeled in TR is primarily fantasy (incorrect numbers of planes, no consideration for regional supply allottment, only the "coolest" planes modeled), and you have yet another Warbirds/Aces High/WWII Online wannabe.

TR may be a fun game for now, but the moment it goes Pay to Play I am gone...just like I did for all the above listed titles. If you want to charge a one-time subscription fee similar to purchasing the game, fine...but NO game is worth a monthly fee to play it.

Buying a Radeon (or any hardware) is "just like pay to play"? A year from now I will still have my Radeon 9800 Pro and the computer I put it in...and you will have...nothing but memories and the same hardware you had a year ago.

FB is far more historical. Limited planesets, careers where you cannot pick and choose your rides, units and targets that actually appeared in the theatre, offline AND online campaigns, actual AI, and full time backing by one of the best game developers ever (Oleg, not UBI). All for under $40. And NO monthly fees...

Thank you but no...I'll keep my FB/IL2.

Pay to play is nothing more than a money-grab by someone who doesn't have the confidence in thier own talents to ask a fair price for thier software on the open market.

LEXX_Luthor
02-19-2004, 12:50 PM
Lawn_Dart:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It's a GAME. In real life, real "history", pilots did not respawn when dead. Pilots did NOT pick their own targets or fly off to fight their own war or to strafe random airfields for fun. They did not get to pick their own planes from one mission to the next.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Is that FB onwhine dogfight servers you are Whining about? That does not sound like what they are trying to do at StiglrWare. Although as I don't really know I digress.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A year from now I will still have my Radeon 9800 Pro and the computer I put it in...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You will have to upgrade for BoB. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Now, I don't have Credit Card so that means I can't play StiglrWare? That must be fixed. I agree with SeaFire, one should be able to Pre~Pay for at least a year with Postal Money Order. But at least StiglrWare does not force you to sign a year or two contract like NexTel or Verizon, or do they?. If that happened, then there should be Whining and Pulling of Teeth.

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

XyZspineZyX
02-19-2004, 12:51 PM
Lawn Dart wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...don't you see any contradiction in that statement? You cannot possibly be serious that playing any war any way you want is "historical". It's a GAME. In real life, real "history", pilots did not respawn when dead. Pilots did NOT pick their own targets or fly off to fight their own war or to strafe random airfields for fun. They did not get to pick their own planes from one mission to the next.

You can fool yourself into thinking that TR is more historical than FB, but the only one you are kidding is yourself.

Add to that the fact that the current planeset modeled in TR is primarily fantasy (incorrect numbers of planes, no consideration for regional supply allottment, only the "coolest" planes modeled), and you have yet another Warbirds/Aces High/WWII Online wannabe.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The statement I made about "whatever war you (meaning the community, actually) want" is on the game module level, not the gamePLAY level. There most certainly IS limited plane choice by mission/time period built into the TargetWare scenario structure, as well as defined targets which define victory conditions. Perhaps if you spent any time looking into it, you'd see that.

This is one of the things I feel TW blows FB away on: both give you the tools to create historical scenarios/servers, but TW actually structures that into the "normal gameplay". FB leaves it open, thus it's easier to create a silly ueberplane server than it is to come up with a good historical situation.
TW is attempting to build the history into the standard game play, so it takes additional effort to create the silly setups. Subtle difference but a BIG one as far as I'm concerned.

LEXX_Luthor
02-19-2004, 12:57 PM
Awsum. So in your campaigns you often have to fly planes that are not your first Choice? If that is true then this is a realistic start. Most dogfight simmers/simmerettes don't want that, so the few who do could be willing to PAY.

Now, about that credit card thing?

Showtime_100
02-19-2004, 02:16 PM
Seems a silly thing to argue about. To each his own, really. I can only speak for myself and luckily I have a credit card and can affored pay-for-play. In my mind, it's a world of difference though. I've been playing Aces High for two-years now (though the past six-months I've become really burnt out on it.) I pay my $14.95/month and I get a hugely immense arena (upwards of 700-people at a time) on a server that so far evidences superior connect to the few hyperlobby FB games I've joined in so far. The few times I've tried FB, when I get close to my adversary, I'm seeing some small warping that is enough to make it difficult for me to aim or be comfortable enough pursuing. But also, until recently when the makers started working on Aces High II, updates came out every few months. You don't pay for the program and you don't pay for any upgrades that come out..be it the introduction of new aircraft, maps or what have you. The release of IL2, FB and the new Aces cost you something each time and you aren't provided any server with massive pipes to provide smooth gameplay in a massive environment. But the biggest difference is the environment. I doubt in FB Hyperlobby I'll ever see the great variety of fights going on like I do in Aces High and which I suspect occur in most pay-for-play massive online flight simulations. One minute I can be with a group of aircraft outnumbering the enemy and then all of a sudden stumble into a flight of enemy bombers and escorts and run for home calling on radio for anyone to save me. It's so much more dynamic. FB, so far from what I've seen, is small potatoes in that regard and is generally a very small group against another small group and most often continually breaks down into 1v1's. I do suspect that some are only against pay-for-play because they've not tried it and/or cannot affored so may as well be against it. To each his own.

ucanfly
02-19-2004, 02:19 PM
I d/l aand checked it out , and am glad targetware exists. THis is as close as I've seen to a serious WWII sim regarding flight models and CEM, and authenticity . WHy FB doesn't model Fuel tank CG or switching is beyond me (Aces high among others already had this).

OF course the graphics have a long way to go to make me want to pay to play online. But this is something to watch out for and has tremendous potential.

I think we all see the limitations of closed architecture as far as FMs in a huge plane set. TW has Certified flight models in an open architecture! I hope it works as advertised.

Maybe the targetware concept has some legs. Time will tell.

XyZspineZyX
02-19-2004, 02:23 PM
Luthor wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So in your campaigns you often have to fly planes that are not your first Choice?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, that's the case. It's a scenario structure. So, you pick from among the planes that are in that scenario. And, if it's designed that way, if everyone's jumping into one plane, you as a latecomer may be "forced" for a time into another type of plane, so that proper ratios are achieved. There are other design devices, like multiple flight waves, that might allow you to fly your choice later during the same scenario.

True, this might be an inconvenience in the short run, but in the long run, you gain experience in other planes you may be unfamiliar with, and that's not all bad.

Example: I had no interest in the Ki-45 (the Japanese Me110), but once I "had to" fly it in Target:Rabaul I became a quick convert. I now love that bird...although it doesn't give me the same thrill as my standard stock-in-trade Zero. I can still change my mindset for a mission or two and do some divebombing runs,and then go back to pursuing "the twisting way of the Zero."

The way I see it, my own momentary preferences should take a back seat to the good of the entire server. It's not like I HAVE TO fly nothing but Ki-45s for the rest of my life, y'know? And I truly feel that each player on a server has a responsibility to the other pilots, both as hunter and hunted, to provide a fun experience for EVERYONE, not just himself.

I like this system, warts and all, much more than the FB "always fly an ueberplane, even where it doesn't belong" system that results from "full choice".

ucanfly
02-19-2004, 02:34 PM
I don't understand Stiglr. There are servers on hyperlobby that are semi historical with a limited plane set. Maybe you go to the wrong servers. Try greatergreen.

Aww wait, reread posts. Limited slots OK now I get it. Color me red.

IIIJG26_Assi
02-19-2004, 03:31 PM
I d/l it and I think its great. It surely has its flaws but, hey, this is beta and I read something about Target Tobruk. I`d always preferre FM accuracy over nice graphics and I think TW does a great job. BTW have you noticed that if you trim your plane even the sliders and knobs etc. move in the pit?

XyZspineZyX
02-19-2004, 03:37 PM
You're right, ucanfly. But not nearly enough of them. Most are not scripted, offer too broad a "selection" of planes (which nets out to, 3 or 4 ueberplanes and the rest sit in mothballs), don't have a real mission or point to them...and then there's the difficulty/realism issue.

75% of the FB community flies, IMHO, below the acceptable realism/simulation range, and they might as well not be there as far as my impression as to how large and viable the community is.

If the community is to be divided at Targetware, I'd rather it be because 1/3 are flying in Korea, and 1/3 in the Pacific and 1/3 in WWI ... but all are flying historical and realistic. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Recon_609IAP
02-19-2004, 03:42 PM
$10 a month is good if it's a true war senario in a massive online war experience.

But, that is silly argument, Stiglr is right imo anyway because I spend $10 for a good lunch at least once a month - guess I just pack for a day http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"Yeah, you trade some grafix for a frontline world of immersion"

I would. What good is great graphics when the online play is mediocre at best.

S!
609IAP_Recon

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

Recon_609IAP
02-19-2004, 03:43 PM
Does it support Trackir?

S!
609IAP_Recon

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

Recon_609IAP
02-19-2004, 03:44 PM
Another question:

bombers: does it have bombers with multi-crew and bombsights, etc...?

If that was good, that is a big plus for me

S!
609IAP_Recon

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

IIIJG53_Crinius
02-19-2004, 03:47 PM
Stiglr Iam with you. I think TW has the much better immersion factor and the better realism than FB. And to the other guys about he money issue. Hey you get 5 Sims for $ 10 a month (Target Flanders, Rabaul, Korea, Hanoi and Tobruk) Thats a fair price for such a high quality product. Just my 2 Cents and now burn me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Recon_609IAP
02-19-2004, 03:50 PM
I read that .60 was out - but there is no download link that I see - just a link to .57?

S!
609IAP_Recon

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

ucanfly
02-19-2004, 03:56 PM
MIne auto updated from 0.57 to 0.6 when I tried it yesterday.

XyZspineZyX
02-19-2004, 04:05 PM
Yeah, the new auto upgrade thing is a bit confusing...but they did it that way so that people wouldn't try to circumvent the auto-upgrade by going to the dev server and downloading the upgrade.

It was a trial by fire sort of thing...and for the most part, it's worked. My folder still says "057" abut the app's at 060.

XyZspineZyX
02-19-2004, 04:08 PM
Recon, in answer to your questions:

1) I don't believe it has TrackIR support, but I don't know if that means "no" or "not yet".

2) Bombers: we're all still anxiously awaiting bombsights (!!!), and I hear they're "close"; but they never give dates there (for obvious reasons, like not running afoul of us, the pack of wolves at the door http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ). As for multicrew, they've decided (thus far) not to go that route; they'd rather have more people flying planes. That being said, their otto code (when it's worked during fits and starts) is the "fairest" I've seen...and they haven't really devoted a lot of time to it yet. I have full confidence that when they really dial down into it, they'll "get it right" right off the bat.

Korolov
02-19-2004, 04:12 PM
Wait a minute here - TargetWare has the capability to accept modules to add new scenarios to the game all over. Yet FB can't have add-ons in a similar fashion to add new theatres and planes in addition to the old east front the game was based upon?

Is this the same Stiglr we all know? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

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

Zen--
02-19-2004, 04:18 PM
Interest is peaked.

Whats the word on Axis fighters, in particular (drum roll.................) the FW190?

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen


(and what do you mean by 'see too well'...gunsight view too generous? Cockpit framing not accurate enough?)

XyZspineZyX
02-19-2004, 04:46 PM
Even Korolov should be able to see the difference between...

a module for WWII Pacific and a module for the Mediteranean, each with relevant planesets and campaigns...

and a game which allows so little structure that fans of particular aircraft can shoehorn in "the planes they think are kewl" even without well-fleshed out maps, campaigns or theatres for them to fight in.

As I wrote earlier, the difference is subtle. You actually CAN host a Targetware server that's just as stupid as the dogfights that are the majority in FB. The difference is, there is enough structure in Targetware's system that it becomes extra, not to mention pointless work to create something that's "stupid"; the historical setup holds more than enough interest.

Eventually, some doofus will want to set up a TW server where you can fly a WWI Fokker DVII against a MiG-15.... but hopefully most people will look at it and say, "now why the hell would I want to waste time exploring that??"

XyZspineZyX
02-19-2004, 04:48 PM
@Zen,

Right now, there's no plans for, or room for, the FW190. Closest to it is Target:Tobruk, but Wuergers were most definitely in the minority in the Med until later on, with the Italian campaign.

However, that's not to say it can't or shouldn't be modelled. You yourself can start on a Target:Moscow if you wanted to...

Zen--
02-19-2004, 04:50 PM
Thanks for the information...disappointing for me personally but the project has my respect. It's a fresh idea and one that looks like it's being pursued with vigor...I can't really imagine anymore, is there a world and a truth outside FB? wow...what a concept http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


As for Target:Moscow, you flatter me. I have no talent, I basically sponge off everyone else.

hehe

ty for the info

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

XyZspineZyX
02-19-2004, 05:04 PM
I don't know how deep you got into it, Zen, but if you really want to see the HUGE difference, get your gear set up right so that you can fly effectively, and explore the Zero vs. P-40 matchup both in FB and in TW, and compare the two. Better yet, read up on the dynamics of that matchup. Then see if your experience in TW is not eerily similar to what history tells you, and FB, uh, fails to get it right.

In TW you can see clearly how a P-40's only chance is to exploit the Zeke's poor high speed performance. You'll see how the "dive and roll" defense works wonders. You'll see how Thach Weave tactics can turn a F4F into a competitive plane, where 1-on-1, it's just an easy kill for a Zero pilot.

mike_espo
02-19-2004, 05:35 PM
I agree with you stig. However, they got to do something about online play. I can't get through a scenario without it locking up or studdering so much I can't continue. they got a lot of work to do.

Korolov
02-19-2004, 05:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Even Korolov should be able to see the difference between...

a module for WWII Pacific and a module for the Mediteranean, each with relevant planesets and campaigns...

and a game which allows so little structure that fans of particular aircraft can shoehorn in "the planes they think are kewl" even without well-fleshed out maps, campaigns or theatres for them to fight in.

As I wrote earlier, the difference is __subtle__. You actually CAN host a Targetware server that's just as stupid as the dogfights that are the majority in FB. The difference is, there is enough structure in Targetware's system that it becomes extra, not to mention pointless work to create something that's "stupid"; the historical setup holds more than enough interest.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I don't see whats wrong with it. Whats wrong with imagining the Crimea as southern england and playing out a few BoB scenarios with hurries and 109s?

Or using the Ardennes map with P-47s, P-38s, and P-51s facing off against the Me-262s, 109s and 190s?

TW and FB are in essence doing the same thing, just that TW has a different approach to scenario design.

I know you'd cry bloody murder if they put Spitfires into Target Rabul, despite the fact that they did serve in the pacific. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

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

XyZspineZyX
02-19-2004, 06:53 PM
I wouldn't mind seeing Spits there at all, so long as they were in historical quantities and frequency. There's the BIG difference: it's CONTEXT. You don't shoehorn in Spits because they're a great plane; you put them where they belong because that's what history says. Or, you can do some interesting what-ifs and add them in more frequently, sure. But you don't offer them IN LIEU of the Corsairs, F6Fs, etc. that did the real heavy lifting. Because that's *exactly* what happens in the "free choice" DF servers. It's a (historically) ignorant mob rule in there, and FB does little to offer any alternative to it. That, I feel, is the design team's fault.

By the way, it's likely to be the module *I* got started, Target:Tobruk that will likely introduce the Spit to Targetware, just to show my "money's where my mouth is". Of course, they're a ways down the list, so we can get the Gladiator, Hurri I and II, and other planes in there first.

@espo: not sure what your connection problem might be, but I rarely have trouble. Most likely culprit is when my wireless card just "decides" to drop the signal (which of course is on my end). I hardly even see warping on Targetware. I suggest getting help on the forums; they're usually pretty good at sniffing problems out quick; post a few logs (get the contents after you have problems) and the problem's likely shown in there.

[This message was edited by Stiglr on Thu February 19 2004 at 06:01 PM.]

RepublicofTexas
02-19-2004, 06:55 PM
Well oleg can take a page outta the TW playbook and implement the belted ammo loads and guncam. Nothing worse than running off a 190 with every other .50 cal round a tracer.

Korolov
02-19-2004, 07:00 PM
The way you sound Stiglr, I'm surprised you're still into FB at all.

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

Zen--
02-19-2004, 07:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I don't know how deep you got into it, Zen, but if you really want to see the HUGE difference, get your gear set up right so that you can fly effectively, and explore the Zero vs. P-40 matchup both in FB and in TW, and compare the two. Better yet, read up on the dynamics of that matchup. Then see if your experience in TW is not eerily similar to what history tells you, and FB, uh, fails to get it right.

In TW you can see clearly how a P-40's only chance is to exploit the Zeke's poor high speed performance. You'll see how the "dive and roll" defense works wonders. You'll see how Thach Weave tactics can turn a F4F into a competitive plane, where 1-on-1, it's just an easy kill for a Zero pilot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Haven't downloaded anything or played even a minute on it, just intrigued by their website and what you as a first hand user have to say about it. Lotta people talk a lotta smack and so do you, but that doesn't mean I don't pay attention to what you say or that I don't give any credit to it either, because I do on both counts. What you have said so far has interested me, because I suspect that you know what you are talking about in regards to TW, to me anyway. (Others obviously disagree)

I can't say much about the P40/Zero matchup in FB or from general reading, other than I am very familar with the history, just have had no real interest in the pacific campaign. Historically my interest in war was based on tanks and the major tank combats came in Africa, Europe and the Soviet Union, my interest in planes developed from that. Less tank combat in the pacific = less overall interest in air to air for me, though that is changing in part because of a renewed interest in history thanks to FB.


What it sounds like TW has is better energy modelling for one and more realistic roll and turn performance. Imho, FB suffers from a physics engine that is too friendly to all planes in some aspects and is off the mark with energy retention in general. All planes feel as though they don't bleed enough speed, zoom too well and don't dive fast enough, (and the blackout/high G modelling is something that makes absolutely no sense to me) but thats just my opinion.

It sounds like TW has done something different with energy, but that may just be me reading into your posts. I continue to be interested to hear more and your thoughts on roll rate and energy in particular are what I'd like to hear about.

Since 1.21 I have felt somewhat disappointed with FB in general on the FM angle. While I actually find the game more fun now than ever before for lots of personal reasons, the overdone roll rates on all planes and the tendancy for planes to fly as though they all have an aerobatic twitchy-ness to them has begun to stand out like a sore thumb.

Anyway, thanks for your comments so far, I'll be looking forward to your thoughts on this.

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

XyZspineZyX
02-19-2004, 07:05 PM
I used to be. Actually, there are things in it STILL that I really like. But an equal amount of things that grate. I actually used to fly IL-2/FB at the expense of contributing to TW; eventually, the things in FB that bug the heck out of me got to the point that my time was better spent 3D modeling or playing with a flawed beta product and working out bugs for something that, in the end, will be better than FB.

I still hop into FB for a couple quick sorties, though; it still has much to recommend it.

BLUE_Illu
02-20-2004, 01:46 AM
I played it now a couple of times and I think Iam going to invest more time in it as I think at the moment it cant beat FB though in some points it is right now better (FM, Energy). But if its finished Iam sure it will beat FB by far and i will willingly pay. But then there may be BoB. Hmmm we will see then.

LEXX_Luthor
02-20-2004, 02:02 AM
Does the software allow the possibility of a Target Berlin with a strategic bombing campaign?

I noticed they already have campaign possibilities of Japanese changing their code in early 1943, and that makes me wanna do a Target Moscow with historical possibility of Luftwaffe He~177 and MiG~3U--if they get those planes in TW. That would be Awsum to have a German strategic bombing campaign against PVO.

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

LEXX_Luthor
02-20-2004, 02:11 AM
Mostly pilot positions are available in TW? That is interesting because the diffieculty of modding or even finding pics of *all* crew positions means many planes will never be in FB (except IL~2 Field Mod of course http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ).

I am wondering if the reason nobody is interested in modding Ju~52 or C~47 over the FB is because Oleg requires all seat positions to be modded, including all paratrooper seats--all of which the Player can take over. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif


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

Recon_609IAP
02-20-2004, 05:50 AM
I agree Luthor.

There is no reason a heavy bomber, etc... needs to have every single position modelled in FB.

Certainly there are few positions which would be required - but not all.

And as you mention the IL2 with the rear gunner - that is a good example - and I think that is more practical.

S!
609IAP_Recon

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

XyZspineZyX
02-20-2004, 10:59 AM
Lexx, you could absolutely do Target:Berlin. Or any other war you want. Today, the limit is that radar/missile code is not written, but that's going to change, since Target:Hanoi keeps developing.

Oddly enough, Targetware *started* as Target:Berlin, but the "guy in charge" decided that field was too overdone and decided to take on Korea as the first project.

AaronGT
02-20-2004, 03:32 PM
Some comments on TW:

In FB you can create fairly historical
scenarios as well as with TW. For
coops you can limit numbers of
each type as well. FB doesn't allow
you to do this in an open-ended
constantly running server, but
then these tend to suffer from the
penny packet problem unless it
has an additional mission system
like AH. I've noticed that TW has
time limited scenarios so seems
like a half-way house. It's almost
impossible to get this 'right'.

FB has quite an advantage in that
it can support AI in coops to
make up numbers.

The TW servers seem lightly
loaded so it is hard to tell for
certain, but it seems very much
smoother online than FB, on a par
with WB3 and AH. I haven't
hosted a TW game myself with
FB coop numbers so I am not
sure if it is the servers/load
or the net code.

TW FMs are much tougher to fly
than FB, and are reminiscent of
the torque of the original IL2
demo. Whether this is accurate or
not I don't know. The planes can
be tough to get off the ground.

The CEM seems better in TW, but
engines still seem reluctant to
overheat.

I find that at the moment
immersion is better for me in FB.

TW seems to implement pan-and-
lean, but the 6 views seem a
little too generous.

The TW game interface is not
very pretty and is a little counter
intuitive in a couple of places,but
is functional. It also needs to be
cross platform. I think before a
final release a new interface (java,
Qt, Gtk - something based on a
cross-platform GUI layer) would be
good. Writing and debugging a
GUI can be time consuming
relative to the benefit you get.
Better to concentrate on the
game first.

TW is fun and worth keeping an
eye on.

XyZspineZyX
02-20-2004, 04:02 PM
Fair criticisms, for the most part.

One I highly disagree with is the idea that FB is more immersive. One of the key things that fueled my decision to concentrate on Targetware and stop flying so much from HyperLobby was the realization that, even when flying carefully and using historical tactics, 85% of my hops in FB ended with what I call b**sh** results. Collisions, can't miss shots that somehow did (usually causing the aforementioned collision), visual anamolies contributing to the outcome of fights, ubergunners ruining good gunpasses with first-burst golden BBs to the head or the oil pan, and of course, the inaccuracies of flight modeling also contributing.

I've been at this a while, and I know when I screw up in a fight, and can readily admit it. I can also admit when the other guy was simply better (or in a better position which I couldn't extricate myself from). But the way I tend to "lose" in FB (not to say there weren't any victories, of course) is unpalatable most of the time. TOO much of the time.

On the other side of the coin, I feel I get what I deserve on TW a large majority of the time. If I fly carefully (and this in a fragile Zero), I can at least manage to stay alive (even at the cost of a few kills here and there). When I'm facing inferior planes, and I don't fly carelessly, I tend to kick butt. When I fly against planes that overmatch the Zero, I do "OK", but tend to get frustrted (historical) more than I tend to dominate.

TW results simply fit history, in my experience. I get VERY few, "Oh, bullsh**!!" moments.

My idea of "immersion" is if my latest sortie could neatly replace a chapter in a well-written first person account of real battle, and not seem out of place. If I gain some insight into the conditions of the battles. To me, it's far more than just pretty graphics. Don't get me wrong, I don't wanna go back to 256 colors (!!) but I don't want the game to be more "pretty" than it is "realistic seeming". If that makes any sense.

Aaron_GT
02-20-2004, 05:41 PM
"One I highly disagree with is the idea that FB is more immersive. One of the key things that fueled my decision to concentrate on Targetware and stop flying so much from HyperLobby was the realization that, even when flying carefully and using historical tactics, 85% of my hops in FB ended with what I call b**sh** results. Collisions, can't miss shots that somehow did (usually causing the aforementioned collision), visual anamolies contributing to the outcome of fights, ubergunners ruining good gunpasses with first-burst golden BBs to the head or the oil pan, and of course, the inaccuracies of flight modeling also contributing."

What I was really talking about was
the sense of sitting in the cockpit. At the
moment the TW cockpit and landscape and
weather graphics are a little lacking and
there isn't quite the same in-cockpit feel
as in FB. Maybe if I tweak the TW settings,
and wait for TW to get closer to a 1.0 release
this difference will lessen. The quality of
the actual aircraft external models in TW
is very good, although I need to see if it is
possible to change the point at which they
change from dots to recognisable models.

Also a lot of the online flying experience is
about flying with a good squad by your side.
That counts for a huge amount.