PDA

View Full Version : New poll, very important.



crazyivan1970
04-01-2004, 10:32 AM

crazyivan1970
04-01-2004, 10:32 AM

faustnik
04-01-2004, 10:36 AM
I'd like to see the current system of addons containing all previous versions. This means one community with a LOT of options! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

BaldieJr
04-01-2004, 10:48 AM
I want to see a new engine. Othewise, I don't care.

Lomacs engine would be very nice for a WWII sim.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
______ _____
(, / ) /) /) , (, /
/---( _ // _(/ _ / __ ,""""]
+----/ ____)(_(_(/_(_(__(__(/____/__/ (__--------,' /---+
| / ( / ,' NR / |
|(_/ ..-""``"'-._ (_/ __,' 42 _/ |
+-.-"" "-..,____________/7,.--"" __]-----+

</pre>

crazyivan1970
04-01-2004, 10:53 AM
Baldie needs a hug... what engine? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

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

DuxCorvan
04-01-2004, 10:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
I want to see a new engine. Othewise, I don't care.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here it is:

http://images.google.es/images?q=tbn:j_RRwvxowhsJ:www.asahi-net.or.jp/~rt6k-okn/mustang/engine.jpg

Now, please, give us the most complete WW2 air sim ever made! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

Capt._Tenneal
04-01-2004, 11:06 AM
I voted "don't care", only because I'd buy it if it came either as the first choice or the second. I'm easy to please. Like I mentioned in one thread before, I'll buy an empty PF box if it would continue the development of these fine sims. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

crazyivan1970
04-01-2004, 11:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Capt._Tenneal:
I voted "don't care", only because I'd buy it if it came either as the first choice or the second. I'm easy to please. Like I mentioned in one thread before, I'll buy an empty PF box if it would continue the development of these fine sims. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I`m in the same position as you...to some extent... meaning.. 2 different games, twice as much headaches, especially for hosts. This is about those servers with rotating maps...or COOPs...etc. Having 2 in 1 would be just brilliant IMO. Instead of redirecting HL every time and doing all kinds of stuff on line...rather uncomfortable. And most importantly...if it goes pure Pacific, it will split community..

V!
Regards,

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

Capt._Tenneal
04-01-2004, 11:26 AM
From your reply Ivan, I think I now see a clearer picture of this debate. You see, I'm an offline player so I didn't realize the problems that could come up for onliners. I always thought "why would it split the community ? You'll get to play both eventually right ?" But now I see what you mean. So is this firestorm because of the effect it will have on the online community ?

zoomar2
04-01-2004, 11:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Capt._Tenneal:
From your reply Ivan, I think I now see a clearer picture of this debate. You see, I'm an offline player so I didn't realize the problems that could come up for onliners. I always thought "why would it split the community ? You'll get to play both eventually right ?" But now I see what you mean. So is this firestorm because of the effect it will have on the online community ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I understand the concerns of the online community, but I suspect that's fewer than 20% of the people who play IL2 and its children. I want a game called "Pacific Fighters" to be about the Pacific Theatre, period. To merge it with FB/AEP means it's just another add-on to a game basically about the European Ttheatre - and also a huge CD-hogging game to boot. To properly model the kind of AI decisions inherent in a game which outh to include kamakazi pilot mentality and "surprise attack AA" it needs to have its own rules. Also, while having "red" be allies and "blue" axis in FB/AEP makes some sense, it really ought to be reversed in the Pacific (just compare those big red Nipponese meatballs with US, UK, and ANZAC insignias with all red removed). Hey, I even get confused on the Pacific QMB map in AEP and try to shoot down by brother zeros!

Seriously, as an OFF-LINE experience, the games should be completely distinct.

Weather_Man
04-01-2004, 12:08 PM
The more I think about it, the more I don't want to be BnZ'd by a friggin Gotha or 262 when I'm flying my Betty.

Unless there is a built-in limit of plane-sets for the Pacific theater for online play, I want a separate game.

Spectre_USA
04-01-2004, 12:11 PM
As it is based on the same engine, and is probably the last to do so, it would be a total waste to
make them incompatible.

What if scenerios, on or off-line, would be killer cool. If one decides to exclude Euro's then fine,
but there should be the option, as some flew in both...

http://www.blitzpigs.com/images/BP_Spectre_A-10_sig.jpg
CombatSim.com Forums Moderator (http://WWW.CombatSim.com)
BlitzPigs Co-WebMaster/Moderator (http://www.BlitzPigs.com)

Vortex_uk
04-01-2004, 01:20 PM
Voted for it to be a Pure pacific,b'cos,we've already got enough russian and german a/c,or is it going to be a stand-alone game,i'm not to sure on this

}-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-{

~S~
from =97th=Vortex

http://www.gamefileworld.com/upimages/newbanner.jpg
www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas (http://www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas)

[This message was edited by Vortex_uk on Thu April 01 2004 at 12:31 PM.]

crazyivan1970
04-01-2004, 01:40 PM
I believe there is a huge misunderstading going on.
Let me make it clear.

Regardless...Pacific is STAND ALONE product and separate title. Nothing could be done about it. It`s not addon, patch or whatever, it`s a separate product. But! I believe it is in OUR HANDS to have Pacific Fighters with all AEP features INCORPORATED in it, meaning planes, ships, objects, maps...etc...etc. That is belong to #1

Yes, this is critical for not only for on-liners, for offliners as well. Think about hundreds of objects from FB/AEP that COULD be used in PF. Think about SIM that could cover almost every single theater of operations. What else there to say?

If you don`t need any incorporation...your choice, vote number 2.

What is it going to be?

V!
Regards,

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

ARSNL
04-01-2004, 01:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I believe there is a huge misunderstading going on.
Let me make it clear.

Regardless...Pacific is STAND ALONE product and separate title. Nothing could be done about it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But in a post by luthier, edited today without this line changed, he states:

"And before you begin to run around with your hair on fire and worry about splitting the community, whoever said that we're going to do such a thing? Nothing has been decided yet to the best of my knowledge."

So not to sound confontational, but where has he posted that this has been decided? This is just a snippet but the post itself clearly states that standalone is not set in stone.

http://www.digitalmelee.com/arsenal/Arse242.gif

crazyivan1970
04-01-2004, 02:04 PM
By stand alone he meant Pure pacific...and yes, it is not set in stone. You are correct http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Needless to say, that main purpose of this post is to INFLUENCE that decision. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif

V!
Regards,

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

Cossack13
04-01-2004, 02:13 PM
Abandoning everything that has been built into FB up to this time will also mean abandoning some players and some new buyers as well.

I want a game system that builds upon itself towards a better and better end, not a game that leaves a trail of abandoned precursors in its wake.

Put it all in one and keep moving forward!

http://www.tolwyn.com/~cossack/White13.gif

ARSNL
04-01-2004, 02:17 PM
Thanks for the quick response.

I would of course like it all to be contained in one HyperLobby, which is really the main issue of the controversy. Either way I will be very grateful for realistic carrier landings in WW2 planes. Especially the Seafire.

Sad to think that this theater has been so neglected in sims. Sure there is CFS2, but please..... Aces of the Pacific was better lol

http://www.digitalmelee.com/arsenal/Arse242.gif

TAGERT.
04-01-2004, 02:40 PM
I hope that IL2FB will just be a sub-set of PF.. Like IL-2 was a sub-set of IL-2 FORGOTEN BATELES..

But, if for some reason they just can not do it.. I will still buy PF!! The only real down side is it will split the online comunity... That is to say out of the pool of current IL2FB players.. some will stay in FB and some will goto PF.

Hmmmm... On 2nd thought.. spliting the comunity might not be such a bad thing? In that most of the problems I have with pepole online tend to be of the Luftwhinner type... They are not as likly to goto the PF arenas... Hmmmmm stand alone is sounding better! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But seriosly.. I still want to be able to pit a F4u againts a Fw190.. Just like the Brits did in WWII!

I dont mind paying full price for an add on either!! But as someone pointed out, for sales of PF.. as an addon.. what about the people to date who dont have IL2FB yet... they in theory would have to buty IL2FB, then ACE EP, then PF just to play PF! That would be close to $120.00

So, I think the best thing to DO is what they DID once before.. Make it stand alone.. like IL-2FB was stand alone from IL-2.. BUT include EVERYTHING from IL-2 into IL-2FB.. That way you only have to buy ONE product at $40.00 to play PF!! Granted, it is $10.00 more then a typical addon.. but consider what your getting!!!! On top of that it wont split the online comunity!!

And to all you whinners complaining about it not being an add on.. and thus having to pay $40.00 instead of $30.00.. Jezzzzzz! Do you realise how lame that sounds? I mean when you consider you paid around $2000.00+ for a PC game rig... And now your going to complain about a $10.00 difference between a stand alone and an addon? P L E A S E!!!

So, in summary, I hope they can include IL-2-FB-ACE_EP into PF.. And if anyone can do it, it would be Oleg and his team.. And thus far there has been NO GOOD reason presnted by ANYONE as to WHY that could/should not be done.. Scare tatics of 5+ CD's or 5+ Gigs footprints are just lame excuses IMHO!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

[This message was edited by TAGERT. on Thu April 01 2004 at 01:48 PM.]

JaVAZeehond
04-01-2004, 03:28 PM
In my opion it should be made compatible with IL2 FB/AE so we could enjoy pacific scenario's at VOW and VEF but if its possible it should also be playable as a standalone product to please the pacific addicts among us. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD PLEASE EVERYBODY ISN'T IT?
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

JG27_BLACKHART
04-01-2004, 03:40 PM
The reason I would love to see PF as a stand alone is the fact alone FB has so much contraversy over it's historical value in different plane era's mixed up in one game.

I would like to see this as a stand alone and I as well I would like to see the same planes in PF in FB seperately.

http://home.earthlink.net/~eaglz/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/bh.jpg

bonesonfire
04-01-2004, 03:50 PM
voted for pure sim but dont really care.as long as it gets a new engine.i just want to fly some heavys for nippon.

crazyivan1970
04-01-2004, 04:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bonesonfire:
voted for pure sim but dont really care.as long as it gets a new engine.i just want to fly some heavys for nippon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who said it gets a new engine... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

V!
Regards,

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

bonesonfire
04-01-2004, 04:01 PM
i have read more replys to the ???.i would like all the aep stuff in it as well now i think about it.i have wanted a good sim for the pacific for a long time.not worried about complete historical accuracy all the time.it does need to be set with locks so those who want the most realistic sim can have it.othewise i cant wait to play it.its all good

609IAP_Recon
04-01-2004, 04:09 PM
I will buy this regardless.

However, I voted the top selection, primarily because I like the way FB was done by including everything from IL2.

Salute!

JG50_Recon

----
http://www.thepassionofthechrist.com

Bearcat99
04-01-2004, 04:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
I want to see a new engine. Othewise, I don't care.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought we wouldnt be getting a new engine till BoB.. Id like to see them compatible... a standalone but compatible.. so that way if someone didnt want to have to buy FB they wouldnt have to. After they bough PF they would anyway...LMAO.. but to fly PF they wouldnt have to shell out $39 for the AEP GOLD if they werent already onboard. To make it as a standalone would most likely make them want to go out and get whatever 1C sim stuff they can find anyway. They would have the luxury of having stuff already available. We had to wait and drool and dream and wait and drool.. for this kind of flexibilit. Plus as a standalone/add on it would keep the community in tact. Of course Jiri might have to close down a few rooms in HL to accomadate the mad rush....
As far as mixed plane sets go getting B7Zd by a Gotha in your Betty.. cant you limit the planes of a DF server? Just limit your server to what you like and see who comes.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

crazyivan1970
04-01-2004, 04:20 PM
Ok guys... i still think some misunderstood me.. i`ll give it one more try.

Remember Original IL-2 Sturmovik? It was around...we all had fun...yey!

Then Oleg and Co anounced Fogotter Battles with engine improvements (not new engine), bunch of new AC, objects...etc etc...brand new game so to speak.

Remember that? Now, Remember back in the day before FB was released...Oleg said that we going to receive all the features and planes that IL-2 Sturmovik had and all that will be incorporated into FB? And that is exactly what happened.

FB Came out, yey! 99% got it. All happy, well ..some not..

This could be the same concept with Pacific Fighters.... Sounds Good?

V!
Regards,

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

bonesonfire
04-01-2004, 04:31 PM
new improvements is what i was thinking but didnt write.all i can say is it will be a great game like il2,fb,aep.best ww2 sim i ever played.will be buying it what ever the case.

NegativeGee
04-01-2004, 05:57 PM
Carrying the content over would create an all encompassing uber-sim, but I would only agree on the proviso that doing so does not detract from the development resources available to PF.

I would much rather have 1 extra new player flyable type than all the current FB planes being included in. We can already play them in FB http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

If they were included, provide the player with some filters for the QMB and FMB and online hosting to make setting up Pacific Threatre only battles easy- things like "Pacific Fighters only plane set" and "Full plane set".

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

JG27_BLACKHART
04-01-2004, 08:30 PM
Uhhhhhh yeah what he said http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/351.gif

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.earthlink.net/~eaglz/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/bh.jpg

javierlopez1
04-01-2004, 08:52 PM
I want all AEP(&FB) features in it

Lol, I've made the same poll some hours ago, crazyivan I think that you can delete my poll

rick_475
04-02-2004, 10:29 AM
If you want to make Pacific a stand alone here is some conditions you have to consider :

1. Improve the AI

2. Improve the graphic engine : get rid of "45.23 as recommended driver". We want the latest Nvidia and ATI driver as recommended driver. (I think this is a very important request)

3. We want long campaigns and make sure to cover everything during the Pacific war, I don't want to pay for a second Pacific add-on.

4. Take that opportunity to change the interface of the game. Make the menus more user friendly ; that means more options in the menus so we don't have to change everything in conf.ini.

If those ideas aren't consider, I don't see why we should have a stand alone, because the final product is going to be a copy & paste of IL2 : FB & AEP, only with new maps, ships and planes.

Il2pongo
04-02-2004, 11:20 AM
Make it a self contained spin off of IL2 that only comes with the pacific stuff but works fine with all the other content if the user has it.

owlwatcher
04-02-2004, 12:52 PM
To many single engine aircraft for me to care ether way.

RAAFAkita
04-02-2004, 01:08 PM
It was one war with two theatres.........it would be sensible to make them one big inclusive battle..as the real world was and is.

RAAFAkita
04-02-2004, 01:15 PM
Excuse me, but also....a lot of us came over from CFS2 and loved our pacific theatre but recognized the far superior nature of IL2 FB and only the lack of high powered motherboards,chips, and graphics cards delayed us. We can hardly wait, but if you split the games you will have people deserting one for the other and the community will be split as it was in CFS2 when everyone bailed and went to FB. THink about it,, it happened havent been back to CFS2 since.

RAAFAkita
04-02-2004, 01:15 PM
Exceuse me, but also....a lot of us came over from CFS2 and loved our pacific theatre but recognized the far superior nature of IL2 FB and only the lack of high powered motherboards,chips, and graphics cards delayed us. We can hardly wait, but if you split the games you will have people deserting one for the other and the community will be split as it was in CFS2 when everyone bailed and went to FB. THink about it,, it happened havent been back to CFS2 since.

RAAFAkita
04-02-2004, 01:33 PM
Oh, yes. Thanks you for the Spitfire...very nice plane...make those vicious 109s think twice http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ARSNL
04-02-2004, 01:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Ok guys... i still think some misunderstood me.. i`ll give it one more try.

Remember Original IL-2 Sturmovik? It was around...we all had fun...yey!

Then Oleg and Co anounced Fogotter Battles with engine improvements (not new engine), bunch of new AC, objects...etc etc...brand new game so to speak.

Remember that? Now, Remember back in the day before FB was released...Oleg said that we going to receive all the features and planes that IL-2 Sturmovik had and all that will be incorporated into FB? And that is exactly what happened.

FB Came out, yey! 99% got it. All happy, well ..some not..

This could be the same concept with Pacific Fighters.... Sounds Good?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No.... it sounds wonderful!! That is exactly how I would like it. Any complaints of having to buy it all again fall on deaf ears with me. I will gladly buy one box at full game price, even if 3/4 of the content is stuff I already have in FB/AEP. Oleg, 1C and now luthier1 have proven themselves worth it. $$ come and go, I would just spend it on something else.... food... whatever..

http://www.digitalmelee.com/arsenal/Arse242.gif

Voraptor
04-02-2004, 03:41 PM
The poll's wording is biased.

I DONT WANT PACIFIC FIGHTERS TO BE A STANDALONE PRODUCT. PERIOD.

wether it's FB/AEP compatible or not, it's clear by the poll it's going to be a seperate title.

Frankly, if it's not part of FB/AEP then dont bother. I mean seriously, we were getting Development updates months and months ago about the B25 and the Ki61 and other such "Pacific" aircraft, these updates were posted on the IL2/FB site.

These aircraft should therefore be added to FB not some new sim. Thats what we were led to believe. These development updates were FB development updates after all.

If the aircraft modelled by 3rd party developers for FB goes into PF and not FB well I for one wont be impressed.

All those months and months of dev updates on the FB website for FB, now we know why they didnt get into AEP hey?

Copperhead310th
04-02-2004, 04:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG27_BLACKHART:
The reason I would love to see PF as a stand alone is the fact alone FB has so much contraversy over it's historical value in different plane era's mixed up in one game.

I would like to see this as a stand alone and I as well I would like to see the same planes in PF in FB seperately.

http://home.earthlink.net/~eaglz/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/bh.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to agree with Blackheart here.
this needs to be a PTO ONLY Sim.
After 3 years of fighing these uber german planes i'm tired of the same old same old. let's get some thing better. besides the idea of virtual nazis running around in the pto in bermuda shorts & Lierdhozn is quite a scarry thing to think about. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.310thVFS.com)

Zen--
04-02-2004, 04:13 PM
(posted here at Ivan's request)

One of my favorite things about IL2/FB/AEP is variety and possibility. Generally speaking I prefer historical planesets and things of that nature, but one thing I have always really enjoyed about this sim is that it has tremendous possibilities.

It means that if I am in the mood, or more importantly if YOU are, we can host whatever kind of scenario we want at the moment. We have that freedom. Within a single game, we can host historical missions with correct planesets without having to change games either, we have the luxury of a single focus for whatever kind of mission we want to use, whenever we feel like it.

To me thats called simplicity. I like it when things are simple and easy to use and that is something that I really like about AEP...it's simple in concept, everthing you need is all right there, from Barbarossa in 1941 to the defense of the Reich in 45, all easily accessible within a single game.

Simple. I like that.

With the coming of Pacific Fighters we have a whole new generation of maps and planes on the way...but we don't automatically have them all included with AEP. This concerns me, because I like things simple and I assume that most of us do.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regardless...Pacific is STAND ALONE product and separate title. Nothing could be done about it. It`s not addon, patch or whatever, it`s a separate product. But! I believe it is in OUR HANDS to have Pacific Fighters with all AEP features INCORPORATED in it, meaning planes, ships, objects, maps...etc...etc. That is belong to #1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What Ivan is saying here is that PF is already going to be released as a seperate title, nothing can be changed there.

What is up in the air and possibly open to change is whether PF will incorporate the same planes, objects and maps from AEP, in addition to everything related to the pacific theatre. From what Ivan is saying, we might have a chance to get everything from AEP included with Pacific Fighters.

In other words, AEP+ PF together in a single new release.



Stop and think about what this means to all of us if Pacific Fighters is released WITHOUT all of the things we have in AEP right now.


It means two seperate games. It means no sharing maps. It means limited plane sets for both games...you'll never see a BF109 vs a Corsair, you'll never see a FW190 chasing down a Betty. You won't see it because it will not be possible...the games will be different. Now this is not historical and you could argue that its better that way, but I see a different side of that argument perhaps.

If the games are split and cannot be used together, it means that I lose that simplicity that is so great with AEP. It means that the long line of a steadily improved IL2 is now broken...it ends with AEP and PF ends up being a game on its own, a seperate thing. I will not have the amazing flexibility that I currently do with AEP, the ability to recreate any time period that AEP simulates...I will have to quit AEP and start PF if I ever want to do anything in the pacific arena.

To me that would be a shame. A real shame.


What I like about AEP is that it has been an evolutionary process...I have watched the game grow from a mere 30 something flyables to over a hundred, have seen so many new things added and expanded upon from the original IL2. With PF coming, I'd like to see it grow to over 140 flyables...talk about amazing. I can't think of a sim that will be able to challenge that anytime soon.

Think also of all the new players coming into the game. At their fingertips they will have the ability to create missions from any point in time without having to buy two seperate games or having to install two different games either.


For me, things like those are factors...it's one of the reasons I never bothered with the CFS series...too many games to purchase and no continuity either...each one is different and seperate. For me, I don't like that idea.



It seems to me that we really have a chance to do something about Pacific fighters though...we can possibly get it to include AEP as well, at least if I read Ivan's post right. Imho, thats worth trying to get the community together to tell UBI we want Pacific Fighters to include everything from the past versions of the game, just as FB included IL2 and AEP included FB.

We have the ability to try and make this happen, and I feel that its very important to do so. Simplicity is a good thing, so is variety. When a game has possibilities, when it is simple, flexible and can recreate any period of the war...it will be a classic and will probably stand on it's own long after technology passes it up by sheer power of versatility.


I think we as a community ought to rally together and tell UBI that we want Pacific Fighters to include AEP and not let the two games be seperated.

What do you think?

-Zen-
Tracks (http://209.163.146.67/tracks)

JG27_BLACKHART
04-02-2004, 04:22 PM
Wow you must really feel passionate about it Voraptor.

I still think it should be stand alone aside from FB but I also feel the same planes should be in FB as well.

I guess if it were introduced to FB you select only those aircraft in a single map. That wouldn't be to bad if you could find a host willing to set up a DF instead of coop that way.

Pretty good point though bro http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://home.earthlink.net/~eaglz/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/bh.jpg

crazyivan1970
04-02-2004, 04:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Voraptor:
The poll's wording is biased.

I DONT WANT PACIFIC FIGHTERS TO BE A STANDALONE PRODUCT. PERIOD.

wether it's FB/AEP compatible or not, it's clear by the poll it's going to be a seperate title.

Frankly, if it's not part of FB/AEP then dont bother. I mean seriously, we were getting Development updates months and months ago about the B25 and the Ki61 and other such "Pacific" aircraft, these updates were posted on the IL2/FB site.

These aircraft should therefore be added to FB not some new sim. Thats what we were led to believe. These development updates were FB development updates after all.

If the aircraft modelled by 3rd party developers for FB goes into PF and not FB well I for one wont be impressed.

All those months and months of dev updates on the FB website for FB, now we know why they didnt get into AEP hey?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahemmm can you explain yourself partner? What is so biased in my wording? There is not much to chose from..it is a SEPARATE TITLE!

But...it is either pure pacific, or Pacific with FB features. Please enlighten me about bias part of it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif

V!
Regards,

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

JG27_BLACKHART
04-02-2004, 04:58 PM
Aw Ivan don't take it personal bro I love you lol http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

http://home.earthlink.net/~eaglz/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/bh.jpg

LuckyBoy1
04-02-2004, 06:33 PM
Don't like Nazi's in bermuda shorts? Well, nobody's gonna put a gun to your head and force you to host or participate in a game that includes that option. You can build your own coops and dogfights and others will do the same to suit them. Those that wish to play a "what if" scenario can and the purists can have their fun as well. Why didn't we get this argument about the U.S. jet that never saw any real WWII action or KI's over Normandy? It is not a valid argument for a seperate game! Keep the games together. They are worth three times the money together than they are as stand alones and UBI will be missing a golden opportunity to have the truly complete WWII flight simulation game. I know many real world pilots who will happily wait until a truly complete game comes out before buying it. Let's bring this fine game into the mainstream and to the leadership potition it so richly deserves and not go for half baked efforts.

Also, a Pacific game without a flyable B-29 is a complete joke! I've heard nothing except the whining about how hard it is to do. Well, I've investigated and you can order books with complete schematic diagrams and how to photos of every step on the assembly line for the B-29, so the "lack of documentation" thing don't make it! Fighters are nice, but bombers won or lost the "air war".

Solutions for internet security & spyware problems... http://www.geocities.com/callingelvis911/s_s.html

Luckyboy = Senior hydraulic landing gear designer for the P-11 & Contributing Editor to Complete Users magazine.

crazyivan1970
04-02-2004, 06:39 PM
As far as B-29 goes LuckyBoy... there is no need to buy books http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .. there is a russian version of it ...bolt by bolt http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

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

heywooood
04-02-2004, 06:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I believe there is a huge misunderstading going on.
Let me make it clear.

Regardless...Pacific is STAND ALONE product and separate title. Nothing could be done about it. It`s not addon, patch or whatever, it`s a separate product. But! I believe it is in OUR HANDS to have Pacific Fighters with all AEP features INCORPORATED in it, meaning planes, ships, objects, maps...etc...etc. That is belong to #1

Yes, this is critical for not only for on-liners, for offliners as well. Think about hundreds of objects from FB/AEP that COULD be used in PF. Think about SIM that could cover almost every single theater of operations. What else there to say?

If you don`t need any incorporation...your choice, vote number 2.

What is it going to be?

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.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.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

if it can be done without compromise to the quality of either product - then yes please make them compatible - if there is any risk of downgrading Pac.Fighters - dont do it.. keep it separate - thats just my personal view.

Thank you Ivan for trying to "moderate" the fear factor 'round here.

ironthunder
04-02-2004, 09:47 PM
put it all together. it would give us a better and larger game.

LEXX_Luthor
04-02-2004, 11:09 PM
Okay crazyivan, I Voted for Standalone with AEP Features, but mostly because I need the following planes in PF...

Flyable
I~16
I~153
J8A (if Luthier doesn't make Ki~10)
I~15 (being made at Netwings)


AI

SB bomber
DB bomber


Also consider some are interested in a historical "what if" conflict between USSR and Japan after June 1941. For example, what if Hitler got what he wanted and Japan helped attack USSR. That would be a very interesting new world to explore. Compatible FB and PF would allow this.

LEXX_Luthor
04-02-2004, 11:25 PM
Oh, and Flyable TB~3 too, of course they were given to the Chinese very early (although possibly later versions not sure), and the Chinese used TB~3 only as transports, but still... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LuckyBoy1
04-03-2004, 12:57 AM
Yes crazyivan, they did it that way. But I've seen a thread where Oleg and the gang used lack of documentation as their reasoning to not have B-17's or B-29's and that's just so much bull with no (censored) well, you know... where I come from we call 'em steers! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Again, I'm happy to pay for another good flight simulation, but it has to be more inclusive, not just a different set of planes and blah, deh, blah! This is why I'm with you on the whole idea of rolling up the games together. Man, I've already spent over $1200.00 getting my PC to a point where it runs this game fairly well. $50-60 bucks more ain't gonna break the deal so long as it's an expansion and not just another fractured, fragmented flight simulation game out there and trust me, there's plenty in the discount rack without buying a new one. UBI will miss a sure bet if they don't roll it all together. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

Solutions for internet security & spyware problems... http://www.geocities.com/callingelvis911/s_s.html

Luckyboy = Senior hydraulic landing gear designer for the P-11 & Contributing Editor to Complete Users magazine.

crazyivan1970
04-03-2004, 01:12 AM
Well, maybe we, i mean this community can provide such documentation and make it happen? Big questions is...who`s going to model it?

V!
Regards,

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

BSS_Vidar
04-03-2004, 01:25 AM
By all means a stand alone sim with NO super guns. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif Things have been getting a bit funky with these strong cannon lately.

Vidar

Extreme_One
04-03-2004, 03:32 AM
Nice one CrazyIvan - you have phrased it so much better than I did!

S! Simon
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''
Download the USAAF & RAF campaign folders here (http://www.netwings.org/library/Forgotten_Battles/Missions/index-10.html).

Download "North and South" including the Japanese speech-pack here (http://www.netwings.org/library/Forgotten_Battles/Missions/index-12.html). *NEW*

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/simplysimon-raf_sig.jpg

LuckyBoy1
04-03-2004, 04:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Well, maybe we, i mean this community can provide such documentation and make it happen? Big questions is...who`s going to model it?

V!
Regards,


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'll be happy to ask a couple of people who are well qualified if I can get a serious response from the development folks as to what they would do with the efforts put out by the modeller. Let me know!

Solutions for internet security & spyware problems... http://www.geocities.com/callingelvis911/s_s.html

Luckyboy = Senior hydraulic landing gear designer for the P-11 & Contributing Editor to Complete Users magazine.

Tully__
04-03-2004, 06:01 AM
I'm getting it either way, and voted accordingly, but it would be nice to have ALL the options available when building missions http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

=================================================


http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/sig.jpg

IL2 Forums Moderator
Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm)

Salut
Tully

CW3SF
04-03-2004, 08:46 AM
I will only buy another UBI product after reading the forums for several weeks. One wonders who is working on patch 1.01 for PF? That said --- if it is as good and WORKABLE as we all wish it will be ( like a super improved Microsoft 1942 ) I would lay down a $100 bill for it damm quick.Most of us spend LOTS of $$$ on hardware and hate to wait up to almost a year to get what we think we paid for. Why dosn't UBI understand this?? NEUBYS ,like myself , who love flight sims but are not computer geeks get lost in all the " I think this will work " help offered by well meaning people--- BUT NOT THE MAKERS WHO SHOULD BE TAKING CARE OF THIER PRODUCT!!!! My spleen is thourghly vented now---- CW3SF

LuckyBoy1
04-03-2004, 01:02 PM
CWDude, while I share your frustration, please consider that flight simulations (with any kind of realism) only 10 years ago could only be run on liquid cooled mainframe computers. At least Oleg and the gang care enough to make more than one stab at fixing problems and getting this very demanding game to run on the litterally millions of possible hardware/software combinations possible. You can't say that of resource hogs like Cousin Billy's Combat Flight Simulation 3.0!! This lack of understanding on our part leads companies like UBI to get a little punchy over the idea of promoting another flight simulation game. It is so much easier to just come out with another fantasy based game that doesn't need anything to try and tie itself to anything real at all. Yes, the beta testers seem to play a few dogfights, compliment each other on the new skins and cockpits and report back based on less than totally scientific analysis. However, they do test it for more than just making sure it complies with some basic MicroSoft rules and actually fix problems as they are discovered. Therefore, this is no reason not to have confidence in UBISoft, Oleg and 1C Maddox Games or the beta testers. Maybe they should include you as a beta tester so I can come bust your hump when something doesn't work to my satisfaction on my particular lil 'puter? Relax and try to keep this all in context. Let's help UBI do the things necessary to show once and for all, the brilliance of Oleg and the gang and the dull, unimaginative efforts of MicroSoft and other "mainline" video game promoters!

Solutions for internet security & spyware problems... http://www.geocities.com/callingelvis911/s_s.html

Luckyboy = Senior hydraulic landing gear designer for the P-11 & Contributing Editor to Complete Users magazine.

Pzyber
04-03-2004, 02:34 PM
Plz only pacific aircrafts!

LW_August
04-03-2004, 03:05 PM
I'd like to see everything done to date included in the new game. I feel that excluding the many planes and objects made to date would be a wasted opportunity.

Regards,
August

Jetbuff
04-03-2004, 03:35 PM
Yes Please, Please, PLEASE keep the planeset/maps across both sims. It would be freakin' awesome (and a lot less headache) to seamlessly transition between flying for the Reich on the Eastern Front to catapulting off a carrier deck in a Corsair.

Oleg, Luthier, Ubi, anyone who's listening, keep the community under one roof and you'll have a winner!

http://members.rogers.com/teemaz/sig.jpg

Jetbuff
04-03-2004, 03:35 PM
Yes Please, Please, PLEASE keep the planeset/maps across both sims. It would be freakin' awesome (and a lot less headache) to seamlessly transition between flying for the Reich on the Eastern Front to catapulting off a carrier deck in a Corsair.

Oleg, Luthier, Ubi, anyone who's listening, keep the community under one roof and you'll have a winner!

http://members.rogers.com/teemaz/sig.jpg

DuxCorvan
04-03-2004, 05:16 PM
I wonder if FB/AEP DGen Campaigns would be also included... to be able to play them w/o quitting PF... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

- Dux Corvan -
http://www.uploadit.org/DuxCorvan/Altamira2.jpg
Ten thousand years of Cantabrian skinning.

IV|JG51Flatspin
04-03-2004, 05:20 PM
What do you mean by inclusion of AEP features? I voted "pure" 'cuz I don't want to see no friggin' MiG's or 109's flying around Luzon.

If by features you mean, flight model, etc...sure why not.

S!

=Elite=Flatspin
The Wings of Freedom (http://www.elitepx.com)

crazyivan1970
04-03-2004, 05:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elite_Flatspin:
What do you mean by inclusion of AEP features? I voted "pure" 'cuz I don't want to see no friggin' MiG's or 109's flying around Luzon.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

V!
Regards,

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

tenmmike
04-03-2004, 05:35 PM
lets just do it simple if you buy PF then that's what you get, PF and nothing else ....if you have FB and AEP and PF, OR you just have FB and PF then when you buy and load PF then you have them AS ONE , im sure it will be that simple, it would be ridicules to buy PF only to find most of the planes included were not in the PTO ! (thats for you guys who want it all in one) so here are the cominations
1.PF all by itself =1
2.FB and PF =1
3.FB and AEP and PF =1
no mater how its done you have just to enter 1 game

http://www.2-60inf.com/2-60_crest.gif U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991

HerrGraf
04-03-2004, 05:49 PM
A lot of folks seem to forget that Russia fought Japan in 1939 and 1945. (Even if it was only for two weeks.) Although an island map would be out of the question for such encounters, it would be nice to be able to reenact some of these combats. That is my personal reason for opting for the first choice.

FBLover
04-03-2004, 06:25 PM
Well it seems to me that a Pacific sim is grand as long as it stays Pacific ! If AEP has the ability to stray from the "all Pacific" theme, then the interface should provide the players with a choice of either FB/AEP or PF/AEP. If AEP(which I'm now playing under) can use the Pacific theater(and it seems that it can since I'm playing with the RAF and US campaigns from Netwings) then AEP can be of tremendous value as long as ONLY PACIFIC AIRCRAFT are used.

Obi_Kwiet
04-03-2004, 07:50 PM
Man, I want both plane sets. That is a must!

Voraptor
04-03-2004, 10:18 PM
The reason I feel the Poll is biased is simply because it lacks the most important question.

Do we want PF as a Expansion for the Existing FB/AEP

The poll reflects that this opption, sint on offer to us. Hence I felt it was bias in that it didnt offer this opption.

Not nessisarily your fault, if it's not an opption, I mearly wish to state my dissapointment with Ubi that this isnt a opption. And that as a result the FB community will in real terms be split in two. That to get the full Experiance that started with IL2 we now have to consider playing two games as no longer will a single game offer everything.

I hope that explains my statment.

S!

Voraptor.

crazyivan1970
04-03-2004, 10:48 PM
Voraptor.
Somewhere in the middle of this thread i mentioned that PF as addon is Not and option. It is a Separate title, regardless.
That`s why i didn`t give that option. Still don`t know what biased has to do with anything hehe http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

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

WUAF_Badsight
04-04-2004, 02:45 AM
CrazyIvan .......

will this poll actually make a difference ?

having all of FB : AEP in the FMB would be so awesome

when ppl load PF & IF it had FB inside they woulndt see any of FB in the campaigns

or single missions

or , at least they wouldnt need too

but all of FB would be there to set things up with in the FMB

that would be Awesome !!!!!!

so will this poll ACTUALLY make any kind of difference in that decision ?

would the poll need to be a landslide ?

LuckyBoy1
04-04-2004, 04:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
CrazyIvan .......

will this poll actually make a difference ?

having all of FB : AEP in the FMB would be so awesome

when ppl load PF & IF it had FB inside they woulndt see any of FB in the campaigns

or single missions

or , at least they wouldnt need too

but all of FB would be there to set things up with in the FMB

that would be Awesome !!!!!!

so will this poll _ACTUALLY_ make any kind of difference in that decision ?

would the poll need to be a landslide ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Actually BadDude, if you try, you might fail... if you don't try, you guarranty failure.

Solutions for internet security & spyware problems... http://www.geocities.com/callingelvis911/s_s.html

Luckyboy = Senior hydraulic landing gear designer for the P-11 & Contributing Editor to Complete Users magazine.

|CoB|_Spectre
04-04-2004, 06:14 AM
I couldn't help but chuckle at the one poster who said that the online players were "...fewer than 20% of the people who play IL2 and its children". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif While he may be in the ballpark on the percentage of those who play online IL-2/FB/AEP, I believe he's confusing the combat flight sim community with the FPS group, judging by the people I've known and have been flying with online for the last 5 years. If you don't want to play online, don't connect. For those who do like flying online against, and with, other humans, making PF incorporating all the previous FB features and plane sets would be very wise. It gives the players more options. Many of us play in Hyperlobby and the way H/L locates the file you intend to use is important. By that I mean it would be nice to be able to play a PF scenario and then play an ETO scenario without having to exit H/L, redesignate the file location and reconnect everytime you wanted to fly in a different theater. The issue of keeping the Luftwaffe away from the Pacific should be simple by allowing only the selection of aircraft for those maps that were applicable. We're lucky this isn't in-place currently. Because we only have one map depicting Pacific-type topography, being a mission builder I have to use other maps (and a bit of imagination) like the Crimea to simulate the mountainous terrain of places like New Guinea. Of course I wouldn't have to do that if the PF maps had adequate variety to represent the wide range of locales in that conflict. To me, it's all about giving the customer options. When you limit his options, he's not being properly served and it will be reflected in sales. In the end, that's what makes people build sims, isn't it! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

crazyivan1970
04-04-2004, 09:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
CrazyIvan .......

will this poll actually make a difference ?

having all of FB : AEP in the FMB would be so awesome

when ppl load PF & IF it had FB inside they woulndt see any of FB in the campaigns

or single missions

or , at least they wouldnt need too

but all of FB would be there to set things up with in the FMB

that would be Awesome !!!!!!

so will this poll _ACTUALLY_ make any kind of difference in that decision ?

would the poll need to be a landslide ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it might make a difference and i am not the "only one" who thinks that way http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif

Good question tho, i just hope it works out in our favor http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

V!
Regards,

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

Mud_Danger
04-04-2004, 11:10 AM
Standalone! The Pacific Theatre needs to be free of all those silly jets and oddball prop planes (I fly the BF109Z all the time). To be able to land and takeoff from carriers is fantastic and that was the best part of CFS2 along with the South Pacific mentality. Bring your sunblock and prepare for the Hula Girls!

SimHq Tom Cofield
04-04-2004, 11:37 AM
Personally, if it flew over the Pacific area then it should be available in the game. If LA5s and 7s flew over the East (and we know they did) then it should be there. Bf 109's and Fw 190's didn't.

Online I would like to see all available. If you want to fly a free for all arena with all a/c from IL2 or PF then it should be available. Right now we have Zekes and Ki 84's dueling online, how many of those flew over the East Front? Personally I think it should intertwine with IL2FB, no one has really said it won't, just like EE:CH.

Jaras
04-04-2004, 04:56 PM
What is very important to me!

Don't forget to make P-38 campaigns!

Sorry, I had to tell this twice or more http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


http://unique.3c.pl/media/pics/jaras/Jaras-beware.gif

II_JG1Hartmann
04-04-2004, 11:05 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Lomacs engine would be very nice for a WWII sim.

QUOTE]

LOMACS sucked eggs dude! laggiest POS I have ever seen. People still fly that thing?

ausmondo
04-05-2004, 03:53 AM
For what its worth,I voted that PF is..
A stand alone product with all of AEP.
Just seems to be the way to go for offline as well as online.
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The most terrifying words in human language are become....
"Insert CD and follow on screen instructions,"

Pzyber
04-05-2004, 08:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
I want to see a new engine. Othewise, I don't care.

Lomacs engine would be very nice for a WWII sim.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No Lomac engine, it sux.

Ketalar
04-05-2004, 12:07 PM
This is how I feel about this issue:
I would like to see PF as a standalone sim that ships with FB and ACE included. Why?

1) All new buyers would get FB (and the Eastern Front) too.
2) We'd be able to fly over the Eastern Front and the PTO all in one sim.
3) We'd all be able to fly together on Hyperlobby (don't want to buy PF? Fine, play on FB/ACE-specific servers and we can still fly with you).
4) It'd be a shame not use all the wonderful planes that are already in FB (some(/most?) of which actually flew in the PTO).
5) We would still be able to recreate historical battles online like we do now, it's all up to the serverhosts/mission builders.
6) We would be able to make up hypothetical scenarios using a mix of planes (Japan vs Germany in a battle over Soviet, anyone?).
7) We'd make the greatest WW2-sim even better!

I for one wouldn't mind paying full price to buy FB again to get PF. I don't think anyone has to worry about the planesets in use online. There's a mix-and-match going on right now ("Tally ho! Wait...is that...it is! Chaps! Tally 4 Zeros over Caen!") and I for one would love to pit a Corsair against a Fw-190 (even though I actually prefer historically correct planes regarding time and place). Like I said, it's all up to the mission builders and server hosts to bring history to life.

Also, the argument concerning number of discs and installation size is non-valid. Look at UT2004. Six CD's and 5 GB installation size. Lots of people are buying it, and noone's complaining. MS FS2004 is pretty hefty too. (Another thing regarding UT2004, they added vehicles and modified it, but it still plays on UT2003-servers. If they can do it, so can we!)


So please include FB/ACE in PF and give us the best of both worlds under one roof.

Obi_Kwiet
04-05-2004, 05:28 PM
Yup yup yup. That would be good.

ampadgog
04-06-2004, 02:32 AM
imagine if instead of makind FB with IL2 included....what if they made 2 diferent titles....i am pretty sure the community wouldnt be where it is right now. all i am trying to say are 3 things:
a) the resipie works.....so dont do anything that will burn the food in the end.
b) if hystorical acurasy is the point then the server can make it so.....but i personaly love the "what if" senarios.
c) yes all of us will pay full price, not to mention that you will bring even more people here.
Please keep in mind that by makinf PO stand alone only will most probaby hurt the community, causing people to lose interest, causing people to draw away from IL2...making YOU LOSE MONEY.

&lt;SRC="http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr/pilotsforum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif"&gt;

RiesenSchnauzer
04-06-2004, 02:48 AM
I only play online with a close friend against A.I. so I am not necessarily the best person to judge the merits of this debate. It does seem that the upcoming B.O.B. release did not cause any of this concern over it being a stand alone product.

Personally I don't mind seeing PF turn out a stand-alone product so long as it has all the same features of FB and AEP.

starfighter1
04-06-2004, 04:20 AM
hi,
a new game engine ..even with a better 'camera view system' to the virtual pilot views, even as in combat fight ..
of course not as in that 'gnomish' way of view as we have now at IL2/FB on base of the 'old corrupt IL2 view engine' far away compare to real pilot views..

other new features and progress in 3D/FM/DM/KI is self evident and a normal progress.

A new sim on 64 bit systems (compatible to 32 bit )running on WIN/Linux would be welcome.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I am aware about Extreme_One`s poll...but i have to refrase the main question... And trust me, it is important for all of us. Want to make a difference? The time is now http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif

starfighter1
04-06-2004, 05:22 AM
hi,
sorry ..here the answer to gibbage1(problem refraction..) + the luthier1..
as the thread was canceled before + nor found by 'search' ?

one point more..to think about..
that's one of the problem the old camera view system is not able to simulate as You Gibbage1 know quite well.
what we need is a flexible and dynamic view system even with a way to adjust pilots seat in hight and parallel to the hight of gunsight/gyroscope view compare more to real things as we had before in IL2/FB.

But maybe PF is a short station on the way to BoB..and of course to make a 'quick' dollar.. anyway:we all wish this to all programmers and designers if they work for more progress ..but please give up this old 'corrupt camera view system of IL2/FB'..to virtual combat pilots..





<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
a new game engine ..even with a better 'camera view system' to the virtual pilot views, even as in combat fight ..
of course not as in that 'gnomish' way of view as we have now at IL2/FB on base of the 'old corrupt IL2 view engine' far away compare to real pilot views..

other new features and progress in 3D/FM/DM/KI is self evident and a normal progress.

A new sim on 64 bit systems (compatible to 32 bit )running on WIN/Linux would be welcome.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I am aware about Extreme_One`s poll...but i have to refrase the main question... And trust me, it is important for all of us. Want to make a difference? The time is now http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif

thorchan
04-07-2004, 02:13 AM
I oppose to make PF as a Stand Alone of AEP.

Besides Modern Combat Flight Sim,I like WW II Pacific Combat Flight Sim.I have got a copy of IL2-FB before but I just try it for few days and then remove it from my Hard Disk......

Why I like Pacific Wars?Because I also a Naval Sim Fan.The Pacific Wars had Naval Aviation Operations.I really like the feeling of landing on a carrier.I hope PF can be a Flight Sim with new engine which can simulate realtic Carrier Ops. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I really don't interested in European Flight Sim.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

GAU-8
04-07-2004, 02:19 AM
DONT SPLIT THE COMMUNITY!

let US make the dicision if we want historical, or fantasy. sure many of us might not like german aircraft in pacific theater. but online, let us choose what we want to use! let US decide if WE want HISTORICAL.. or FANTASY.. not giving us that option is the end of this fine sim! not to mention all the other on-line headaches that have been brought up before. going this far only to be split is absurd.

Willey
04-07-2004, 03:26 PM
I vote for stand along. It should update AEP. I just imagine having PF with a newer, better FB engine than "FB itself", or having just a patch that fixes some small things in FB AEP that were fixed in PF. I'd rather have one big sim, and that's also what Olegs plan was AFAIK. Many ppl say there are quite too much planes already in FB, but I think the engine handles the mass quite well, so why not expand it to the Pacific? We have Zeroes and Ki-84s already in FB AEP! So why should PF be stand alone then? That wouldn't make much sense. Also would be fine to have some hypothetical fights; something like an escort mission, where japs escort the 190A-5 they got or something like that - or an aircraft carrier on the normandy map with some USN planes *g*, imagine Corsairs and Hellcats vs FW & Bf http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif. FB is already a sim that contains quite a lot "what if" stuff and possibilities, so why not also enlarge that part? In general, it would just be better to have one big package that (almost) everyone has online.

Vigilanty
04-07-2004, 07:19 PM
A stand alone incorporating all IL2/FB/AEP models and features. This makes the most complete game with the most options for everyone.

I believe that this was what most people who understand the issue want, and that any other course would be a huge mistake.

redcloud63
04-07-2004, 09:15 PM
i vote for a pure pacific,shorts and tee shirt
south sea vibe.

ElAurens
04-08-2004, 05:33 AM
If Pf and the IL2 universe are not integrated you will see fragmentation of the player base. Do I want to see La's and Zeros mix it up? (Oh I forgot, that did happen...)

Actually I am far less worried about the historical aspects then I am about losing contact with the many friends I have made in the last 2 years. I know for a fact that when PF is released many many players will drop FB/AEP like a hot potato and never come back.

Be sure!

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

TgD Thunderbolt56
04-08-2004, 11:54 AM
If it's using the same engine (which I understand it will) then it only makes sense to make the two compatible.

Save the new engine stuff for BoB. I'll buy them both anyway.



http://home.earthlink.net/~aclzkim1/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/il2sig2.jpg

JG27_BLACKHART
04-08-2004, 04:30 PM
WTH this was supposed to went to mine .......pls ignore it ?!?!?!?

http://home.earthlink.net/~eaglz/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/bh.jpg

crazyivan1970
04-08-2004, 10:21 PM
JG27_BLACKHART, all taken care of. PT`s are pretty missed up right now..so somehow i missed it lol

V!
Regards,

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

StG77_Stuka
04-09-2004, 12:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaVAZeehond:
In my opion it should be made compatible with IL2 FB/AE so we could enjoy pacific scenario's at VOW and VEF but if its possible it should also be playable as a standalone product to please the pacific addicts among us. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD PLEASE EVERYBODY ISN'T IT?
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm with you!, if this can be done....... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

JG27_BLACKHART
04-09-2004, 11:45 AM
Thanks Ivan again I will watch what I post from now on .. I never expected it to turn Political .. but the old saying goes .. expect the un-expected lol.


&lt;S!

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif

http://home.earthlink.net/~eaglz/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/bh.jpg

GAJIT
04-09-2004, 12:02 PM
I think your sentiments are correct.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Capt._Tenneal:
I voted "don't care", only because I'd buy it if it came either as the first choice or the second. I'm easy to please. Like I mentioned in one thread before, I'll buy an empty PF box if it would continue the development of these fine sims. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

VOL_Mountain
04-09-2004, 07:20 PM
One community, Please!

SRC="http://www.geocities.com/volofficer/mountain_sig.jpg"

aminx
04-12-2004, 02:24 PM
PF must be at least 2 cd's to start with followed by add on's etc,so it's got to be a stand alone,besides the objects,ships etc are very different .aminx

http://img25.photobucket.com/albums/v76/aminx/006.jpg

Locust_
04-13-2004, 02:18 AM
PF needs a new Engine and not lomacs & not FB's lag-O-matic engine

http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v61/AFJ_Locust/161sig.jpg

Fighter Sweeps is here come join the fun.....
http://alloutwar.com/IL2FS/

Blackdog5555
04-13-2004, 03:53 AM
If you want the new engine you need to go standalone. I want the water textures from LOMAC not FB. The new engine will take the game to a new WWII level. I want the new textures. And if you build it, they will come. I will still play FB on Hyperlobby. but I want the water textures from LOMAC.!!! Helldivers, Avengers, P40, F4U, F6F and the Lexington. Ya!

Curious142
04-15-2004, 01:54 AM
Wildcats and Hellcats and Corsairs, Oh My!

(couldn't resist).

CB

HomeFries94
04-16-2004, 07:31 AM
I voted for all of the above, but at the very least, I would like to have backward compatibility with the PF engine; i.e. if you own the original IL2FB/AEP you can import the planes, maps, missions, and campaigns into PF. I wouldn't mind a revamped medal system (decorations for individual achievements and/or wounds rather than the sequential awards in IL2FB) and a persistent pilot across campaigns (like Falcon4), but with the "old style" as an option for people who prefer the way things are done now.

GK.
04-16-2004, 11:36 PM
Id rather have PF be completely separate. I think more people will buy PF so the online community getting split up wont really matter. I want the option to fly in only the pacific theatre, I dont like the idea of servers rotating maps between theatres.

http://data.photodump.com/gk/shidensig.jpg
*Proud Chute Shooter*

Benhur
04-17-2004, 05:39 AM
For me it depends of what will be add in PF

If you add some stuff that is not compatible with FB, for exemple if you add a online mode "real time war" that everybody can join and leave when they want, for me it will be a totally new product.

If you only add new planes and maps, i will consider PF more like an addon and an update of IL2.

Therefore, in all case, i will buy it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://ffw.free.fr/logoC6_forum.gif (http://www.checksix-fr.com)

LeadSpitter_
04-17-2004, 08:28 PM
A standalone b stanealone whats the point of the poll ivan?

http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/legalsig.jpg

crazyivan1970
04-18-2004, 06:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
A standalone b stanealone whats the point of the poll ivan?

http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/legalsig.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A. Standalone with all AEP features included, meaning maps, aircraft....etc

B. Standalone Just Pacific - maps and AC, Nothing from AEP.

V!
Regards,

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

Boogie_31stFG
04-19-2004, 04:22 AM
S! i voted Stand alone with all AEP included since i would hate to see anything that i love in the AEP left out in PF..The anticipation is killing me!!!!

Boogie

doug.d
04-20-2004, 01:05 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif I am just so overwhelmingly impressed with this project. Never before in the history of PC gaming has there been such a dedicated following for a game and a game producer so tapped into the communities' desires, wishes and fantasies for it's future!! The mind boggles. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Add to this the previously unheard of quality where every release/patch/addition is fully playable straight off. I feel humble.

I feel strongly that development should continue along the lines of "THE ONE ULTIMATE, ALL THEATRE, WWII COMBAT FLIGHT SIM". I will stay with it all the way (even into Korea once you run out of WWII theatres) and you can have my whole 120Gig HDD if needed, (just leave me some room for an OS please http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

Some questions:
- Where will BoB fit in to the ONE game scenario?
- Won't the name Pacific Fighters be too small for the envisaged ONE game?
- Will all the *****ers and whiners pulling the game down, please shut up and show some more appreciation.

Doug_Dread
Hawker Hunter Driver
http://myweb.absa.co.za/doug.d/hunt.jpg

doug.d
04-20-2004, 01:30 AM
PS: Due to my very poor eyesight, I am a perma-noob. Anything that can be done to help ppl like me will be highly valued. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

Doug_Dread
Hawker Hunter Driver
http://myweb.absa.co.za/doug.d/hunt.jpg

VW-IceFire
04-22-2004, 09:27 AM
I want to definately see the Pacific Fighter become a part of the AEP/FB experience. Best part of this game is having the ability to switch theaters within a single game with the same level of exacting quality.

To the argument that it pollutes the dogfight servers - refer that problem to server admins. They need to take a responsibility.

If I get the chance to run a server it will be a single theater at a time with specific aircraft settings. That will be a blast!

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

FRAGAL
04-23-2004, 03:29 PM
I want to see a seperate game as PF focuses on a completely seperate theatre of operations which is A: not forgotten and B: had nothing to do with the russian involvement in the second world war.

T-Bone_
04-27-2004, 08:06 PM
What makes World War II so epic is the fact that it spans a conflict that swept the entire planet. What better way to do this than to create one epic IL-2 Anthology type game that combines Pacific Fighters, Aces, and Forgotten Battles into one sim (Maybe Forgotten Fighters?) like Janes did with Fighters Anthology? It would give the complete WWII experience to the player and have a broad appeal to the mass market.



T-Bone

http://www.x-plane.org/users/12thiaptbone/sig3.jpg
Biohazcentral Staff
23rd VFG: Assistant Training Officer

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"
-Thomas Jefferson 1776

Wolf_96th
04-29-2004, 03:56 PM
I know that I'm coming in on the hind end of youall discution. Just my openion the PF of IL2 should be a stand along. Players flying in this theater should not be able to fly the Atlantic theater aircraft that did not take part in the Pacific theater of operations.

gombal40
04-30-2004, 05:23 AM
i would like to see the aep and the pf into one.
Think of the possibility's for th game servers
one minute uore freezing your nuts of in Stalingrad thet you cover omaha beach and to top it of u get to sink the Agaki.

Copperhead310th
05-07-2004, 09:36 PM
i think the last thing we need in PF is uber overmodeld german aircraft buzzing around Midway Island. this is the kinda thing that really bugs me. i can understand the Russains in the PTO. even the RAF & Dutch. but Nazi's in bermuda shorts with suspenders & knee high stockings bugs the living hell outa me.
that's the last thung i wanna see.

sorry but the axis side should be limited to Japan only in the PTO. leave the Germans on the Eastern front where they belong. lets stick with history here ppl. not mudy it up with falsehoods like FW190's over the Luzon. UGGGG http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.310thVFS.com)

Extreme_One
05-08-2004, 02:47 AM
So has a deceision been made yet?

Surely the Poll results are pretty conclusive as to what the community wants - but does that have any bearing on the final outcome?

S! Simon
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''
Download the USAAF & RAF campaign folders here (http://www.netwings.org/library/Forgotten_Battles/Missions/index-10.html).

Download "North and South" including the Japanese speech-pack here (http://www.netwings.org/library/Forgotten_Battles/Missions/index-12.html). *NEW*

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/simplysimon-spit_sig.jpg

crazyivan1970
05-09-2004, 09:18 AM
We about to find out mate... i sure hope that our wishes are accounted for.

V!
Regards,

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

Droopsnoot
05-10-2004, 12:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I believe there is a huge misunderstading going on.
Let me make it clear.

Regardless...Pacific is STAND ALONE product and separate title. Nothing could be done about it. It`s not addon, patch or whatever, it`s a separate product. But! I believe it is in OUR HANDS to have Pacific Fighters with all AEP features INCORPORATED in it, meaning planes, ships, objects, maps...etc...etc. That is belong to #1

Yes, this is critical for not only for on-liners, for offliners as well. Think about hundreds of objects from FB/AEP that COULD be used in PF. Think about SIM that could cover almost every single theater of operations. What else there to say?

If you don`t need any incorporation...your choice, vote number 2.

What is it going to be?

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.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.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ivan, If by "all AEP features", you include Russian aircraft or Russian ground equipment,let me point out that there was never a bit of Russian warmaking equipment in the PTO, for Russia did not fight the Japanese in that war.(Perhaps we could say that it was one of the "Forgotten Battles" that Stalin forgot to help his Allies with.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I don't even recall seeing a Russian fishing trawler.

If you make Russian (not Lend Lease) equipment compatable with the stand alone PTO game, it will show up in the PTO and be an anomaly.

Also, though Oleg broke new ground with his approach to scenery making that allowed better frame rates,thus more planes and action in Multiplayer (from medium or low altitude); from high altitude, unfortunately,more detail is required for target identification.

If PF is to be a replay of MSCFS1 with nothing but low level furballs, dive bombing, torpedo runs and strafing of simplified islands....We already have that...It's called MS CFS2, and didn't sell worth a Pfennig!... and if you have given close ground support for one beach assualt the next one is pretty much like it...even if you play as a Japanese Kamikaze., How many times is it fun to respawn and dive down a smokestack again?

It is time to consider Heavy and Very Heavy bombardment, for it has never been done in the Pacific simulations before,

The tactics are different and standard operating procedures are different than were used in any other WWII theater.

Tell Oleg I can help write the scenario for a dynamic WAR in the PTO, and let's find some Japanese sim-ers who would like to write their tactics and SOP's from the perspective of 50 years to study what they should have done?

Let's have a basic scenario that follows history but leaves room to deviate from it... So that maybe the Japanese could win if the Allies didn't also remain flexible, and open to changes of approach to match the changed situation.

You know , Ivan,that's what happens all the time in Military universities within the services. Simulations are used to set up the problem, and it is fought again with fresh approaches to avoid the blunders nmade in tha actual battles. That's how Generals and Staff officers, (including myself) are trained.

And how war gaming simulations got their start.

So don't just follow the same old rut. Throw out the old dishwater and design from a fresh viewpoint.

On the other hand, Ivan, if the Russians bring their equipment into this war, or sell it to the Japanese to use against the Brits and US troops, we do indeed have a fresh approach don't we!

Of course if the Russians fought on the side of the Japanese or provided them with equipment, you would have to delete all US Lend Lease equipment from your present sim! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

So you still couldn't re-use the old dishwater.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[This message was edited by Droopsnoot on Mon May 10 2004 at 12:04 AM.]

ElAurens
05-10-2004, 04:55 AM
Staff Officer Droopsnoot...

Go back to war college and learn a little history. The Japanese and Russians did indeed engage each other. Although by that time Japanese airpower was very weak, but they most certainly did meet each other in the air...

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

Droopsnoot
05-10-2004, 09:11 AM
Inclusive dates please?

Location of battles?

FRAGAL
05-10-2004, 09:14 AM
Yes mate they did have a battle about 1912, i've just done a search and i cannot find any mention of a russian japanese engagement during the war, there was talk about letting the US use russian airfields to launch an airborne invasion/attack upon japan, but they were rejected by stalin and as far as i can tell the russians had no interest in japan anyway, i say keep PF as a standalone as there were no russian fighters in the PTO, i wouldn't mind seeing the german naval units included in PF as there are stories of japan supplying german Q ships and transports, u-boats etc on there way in convoy to germany in the pto
&lt;s&gt;
fragal

Willey
05-10-2004, 10:32 AM
Why only 629 votes??? Aren't we more ppl in here? I expected something around 2000 or so...

crazyivan1970
05-10-2004, 11:10 AM
Droopshoot.

This has nothing to do with paticipation of contries in PTO...but has everything to do with flight sim that covers all areas of the conflict, ETO, PTO...etc. If you wanna land HE-111 on the carrier, be my guest http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

PTO is just another theater based on IL2 engine and incorporated into separated stand alone sim. But nothing really stops it from having AEP features in it.

V!
Regards,

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

ElAurens
05-10-2004, 11:13 AM
Boy am I embarassed. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/1072.gif

I was confused on the dates of the operations of the Kwangtung Army in the North. However it was the defeat of this army by the Russians, that led to Imperial Japan's persuing it's stratigy in the south.

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

Droopsnoot
05-10-2004, 03:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Droopshoot.

This has nothing to do with paticipation of contries in PTO...but has everything to do with flight sim that covers all areas of the conflict, ETO, PTO...etc. If you wanna land HE-111 on the carrier, be my guest http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.
*********************
** That's my point CrazyIvan, I not only don't want to land any He 111's on a US or Japanese Carrier, I don't want anyone else to do it either. However I have heard that the Multiplayer portion of your program would rule that out if the arena were a Pacific Fighter arena, so I withdraw my objection. What people do in single player is up to them, isn't it!

Of course it makes sense to stay with this engine if you have most of the glitches ironed out. As long as it will be able to provide a good autopilot for your bombsights, which of course presupposes a rudimentary AI capable of providing a STABLE bombing platform as well, because the auto pilot is just a simple form of AI able to be preprogrammed and reprogrammed at will by the "pilot".

Your own research may have told you that a German submnarine was carrying some German planes and a German bombsight to Japan, but it was unable to deliver them.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

If it had been, we would have had German equipment sold to Japan and thus used against the Allies.
*********************
PTO is just another theater based on IL2 engine and incorporated into separated stand alone sim. But nothing really stops it from having AEP features in it
******************
** Though I have installed AEP I have not used it enough to know what is actually in it, so I'll take your word for it.

Cordially,

Droopsnoot.
*****************************


V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.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.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Droopsnoot
05-10-2004, 03:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
Boy am I embarassed. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/1072.gif

I was confused on the dates of the operations of the Kwangtung Army in the North. However it was the defeat of this army by the Russians, that led to Imperial Japan's persuing it's stratigy in the south.
_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

__BlitzPig_EL__<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought possibly the Russians might have had a token skirmish or two after the August 15th, cease fire truce with Japan, for they did declare war on them at about that time.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LW_Icarus
05-10-2004, 04:15 PM
I believe it would be best is Pacific fighters was introduced like FB was, it contained all the features and updates of IL sturmovik, with all the extras.

there is no reason servers that didnt want eastern A/C in their mission couldnt limit the planesets, the same as if you want a purely fictional scenario.

make it stand alone, without the features of FB, and depending, I might be inclined to fly FB till BoB is released. although Id probably just get both anyway.

Spinne_3.-JG51
05-11-2004, 07:43 PM
I vote they include the entire deal, right from the original IL-2 up to AEP. Here's why I think so. Aside from the single-player fun of trying to land a He-111 on a carrier, we've already seen screens of the new 'desert' map. If someone decides to make a Desert add-on, would you wanna have three mutually incompatible sims on your HDD? Doesn't it make more sense to have one MOAS (Mother-Of-All-Sims). Depending on how accurate you want to be, you include or exclude AEP objects, ships and aircrafts from PF. Everyone gets his wish and everyone's happy.

http://www.student.richmond.edu/~vk5qa/images/forumsig.jpg

Moka.21
05-12-2004, 01:26 PM
Well, I would like to have them in one package,
just to make sure the Russians get the P-400 and
P-39D too, since they did have those in eastern front..? Just an example.

Nightbar0n
05-12-2004, 02:46 PM
I voted for PF being a Pure Pacific sims becouse...since if its possible to add much more features and capability to PF, why hamper its development by keep using IL2 engine?

Personally I also admit that It would be rather nice to have all under one roof, But things do evolve...If its for better capability, then I would have no problem if PF turn out to be a complete different sims than IL2.

Ofcourse this is all according to my personal point of view only.
Thank you,

TacticalYak3
05-13-2004, 08:10 AM
Been said, re-said and then debated.

For what's its worth I voted to have PF & AEP together. My understanding is that PF will not (can't be given time constraints) a "whole new" game, meaning it will use the core programming of IL-2FB with some tweaks (I imagine).

What will be new, and a lot of work, is all the Pacific-based aircraft, objects and maps.

Strictly from a hosting preference, it would be ideal to run scripted DF servers with all aircraft and possible maps. Same for linked coop missions/online campaigns.

As BOB will be a completely different game engine, I understand why IL-2FB integration will not be possible.

Regards,
TactS!

"Throughout the story of air fighting runs the quest for height, for the fighter on top had control of the air battle." (Air Vice-Marshal J.E. "Johnnie" Johnson, RAF)

:FI:TacticalS!

crazyivan1970
05-13-2004, 11:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nightbar0n:
I voted for PF being a Pure Pacific sims becouse...since if its possible to add much more features and capability to PF, why hamper its development by keep using IL2 engine?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whether they combined or not... it`s all the same good ole IL-2 engine http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

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

Korolov
05-13-2004, 07:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Droopsnoot:
If it had been, we would have had German equipment sold to Japan and thus used against the Allies.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ki-61 - used a copy of the DB6## engine and MG151/20 cannon, both delivered by german subs to Japan. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

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

Droopsnoot
05-13-2004, 09:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Droopsnoot:
If it had been, we would have had German equipment sold to Japan and thus used against the Allies.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ki-61 - used a copy of the DB6## engine and MG151/20 cannon, both delivered by german subs to Japan. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>\

Interesting! The sub with the bombsight didn't make it though. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

DuxCorvan
05-14-2004, 08:27 AM
Don't you forget there is a little country around there called China which was invaded in the mid 30s by Japanese forces and used lots of Soviet material -including Polikarpov fighters and Tupolev bombers- well into WW2, until massive US & allied help arrived...

- Dux Corvan -
http://www.uploadit.org/DuxCorvan/Altamira2.jpg
Ten thousand years of Cantabrian skinning.

JaVAZeehond
05-16-2004, 04:41 AM
I vote to include AeP en pacific fighters to gether. Then you would have a sim that really has it all and pleases everybody. Although I wouldn't like to fly a hellcat and then ran into a FW! but then again you can limit planesets in multiplayer! So I see no reason why AeP wouldn't be included.

Extreme_One
05-16-2004, 10:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
We about to find out mate... i sure hope that our wishes are accounted for.

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.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.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well...? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

S! Simon
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''
Download the USAAF & RAF campaign folders here (http://www.netwings.org/library/Forgotten_Battles/Missions/index-10.html).

Download "North and South" including the Japanese speech-pack here (http://www.netwings.org/library/Forgotten_Battles/Missions/index-12.html). *NEW*

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/simplysimon-Ex_1_sig.jpg

MiamiEagle
05-16-2004, 11:22 PM
I would prefer for the Pacific fighter to bee Single Game . I beleive it would degrade the game as a simple addon and decrease its potential.The Pacific theater deserves the complete creativity talent of the Ubisoft team. Iam sure they can make it compatible on the line services. Perhaps they can give us the Ace planes through a Patch. It would not make me very happy if they make FB a addon to the Pacific Fighter program either. I think the Eartern Front deserve to bee a single game also. It would be nice to have Simulator dedicated to the whole War but I do not think this is the right formula or right time to do this since this may give us the temptation to give more attention to one theater over another.To do that you would have to start it from the begining of its development. Yes I hope you give it all dedication this Theater deserve. Thank you for giving us the other important Theater of war in World War 11.

McCallaway
05-17-2004, 08:04 AM
Just include everything if there is no technical problems with it, I want to be able to fly over Russia or over the Pacific without firing another game each time.

I don't see where is the 'Historical acuracy' here, we already have Europe and Russian theaters, planes of 46... Give us everything and let everyone enjoy the game as he prefers it.

Dunhill_BKK
05-18-2004, 06:06 AM
I think from a gaming and commercial point of veiw the more open/inclusive a gaming system becomes the larger the fanbase. To include the ability to use FB/AEP planes and objects with PF planes and objects increases the variability of the gaming experience. While it might not be historically accurate to include certain planes togethor it could be good from a gaming perspective.

uberweng
05-18-2004, 07:56 AM
Please, Please, PLease include the plane set from il2 FB. If you want pure pacific you can play pacific campaigns and play on PF planeset servers, of which i am sure there will be many. I also think Dunhill_BKK made a good point.

bazzaah2
05-19-2004, 06:32 AM
Gotta be a seperate game... I get a big kick out of AEP and it's just great but would not want the capability of PF to be diluted in any way just so we can have Corsair/Go229 fight, for example.

But PF looks great from what I've seen and looking forward to it a lot. I might even have to save some cash and go for my PPL...

Good excuse for a new rig too...

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_05.gif

Crashing online as :FI:SpinyNorman

1.JaVA_Razer
05-19-2004, 06:49 AM
I didn't have time to go through the 8 pages but why not make it what was said in the beginning

A stand alone,but if installed on a system with FB you can also use those PLANES in PF??

I don't think it would be "SUCH" a big problem. Maybe just some....
Although... Maybe it WOULD be a bit problematic because tyou'd have to install 2 engines and then try and find a way to retrieve all the planes and their FM's from the FB/AEP files and then write those intoa file.... Just coding that feature would require even the amount it would take to just put everything from AEP into PF so... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But I don't care

I'll play both but it would be cool to fly IL2's of land and see Carriers with cortsairs cvomming from'm in the distance(I know it isn't realistic but I DON'T CARE) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

------------------------------
http://www.entity-project.tk
------------------------------
AMD 2500+ @3200+
Asus A7n8X-X
512MB DDR 3200 Apacer
Hercules 9200(soon to have a X800 pro)
2Coolermaster fans
Thermalright SP 97 CPU cooler
Sunbeam rheobus

LuckyBoy1
05-19-2004, 08:31 AM
From the review in GameSpy, I guess we can now say this is a dead subject. It looks like it's set in mud about Pacific Fighters being a completely stand alone game without the ability to play the maps and or planes from IL-2 FB ACE. Just what we need! Another fractured flight sim game. Can anyone here say, "Combat Flight Simulator 2.0" boys and girls? I won't buy Pacific Fighters as is. In the end, they'll have relatively dismall sales results from this effort. If they sell more than a million units, I'd be very surprised.

Solutions for internet security & spyware problems... http://www.geocities.com/callingelvis911/s_s.html

Luckyboy = Senior hydraulic landing gear designer for the P-11 & Contributing Editor to Complete Users magazine.

FRAGAL
05-19-2004, 01:50 PM
First of all, you don't speak for me, secondly if you read the review properly they were praising it, thirdly cfs 2 was rubbish anyway IL2, FB and AEP our superior games in everyway mostly down to the fact they our extremely playable and tweakable to the skill of the player a 2 year old child could play it right up to the more elderly of us, i expect no different to the quality of PF to IL2, FB and AEP after all they use the basic same graphics engine, i personally have now got to the point where i no longer care whether it's an addon or as it seems to be a standalone i will be buying it all the same whether it's 32 or 20 quid.
fragal

cow_9th
05-21-2004, 08:38 AM
ill buy this the second it hits the stores as i cannot wait for it
but i would really really like to see the whole lot under one roof so to speak.

as it is now the only things missing are the planesets and maps for a decent pacific or desert campaign
if the new game was to be an addon then we would have the ability to do everything

doing the new game as a standalone would mean choosing between FB and PF
well how many ppl are still playing il2 sturmovik? it would be a shame for FB to go the same way as the dodo
either way im buying this game S!

HK_Dom
05-21-2004, 09:54 AM
Put it all under one roof, then people can choose what they want to fly on any particular day, and the scenarios are almost unlimited! Also the development that permits the use of Aircraft Carriers in the Pacific could be used in a Mediteranian add on - now wouldn't that be great?
I'd gladly pay top price if you keep it all as one package and continue to support it in the way that you have IL2.

Maks25
05-24-2004, 03:43 AM
Must to do game - in 2 versions like Add-on to AEP and like poor Pacific.all that on one(two) disc whith game.

DuxCorvan
05-24-2004, 09:54 AM
I'll be clear: If I can't have AEP and PF resources all together, then PF loses 80% interest for me.

The assumption that putting together ETO and PTO stuff is bad for the sim is ridiculous. If you don't want to see 109s over Okinawa, just look for the proper server, or play the proper campaign.

It's equally weird to see Zeros and IARs dogfighting over Ardennes, but no one has complained about it. If you like historic accuracy, just set things wisely.

But I don't want to renounce to I-16 defending China against Nates -this is true- or Yaks attacking the Kuriles in August 1945 -also true.

Many flyable and AI aircraft are in there yet:
B-239, P-38, P-47, P-51, A6M, Ki-84, B-17, B-25, Hawk75... Add some versions for P-39, P-36, B-339 and P-40 and USAAF is there.

Why splitting and doubling all of them in our HDs? Will I have to switch from a game to another to compare P-39D with P-39Q?

Please, don't kill FB yet. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

- Dux Corvan -
http://www.uploadit.org/DuxCorvan/Altamira2.jpg
Ten thousand years of Cantabrian skinning.

lil_labbit
05-24-2004, 12:00 PM
I DO say I will not buy PF if the decision will be that none or some of the planes (and I bet it will be the Russian planes) will be left out...

Why even think about such a thing...

MAKE IT BETTER (more choise in planes) NOT WORSE (less planes).

http://members.home.nl/lil.labbit/lilseesya.jpg
Night is better than Day

King-Yama
05-24-2004, 10:06 PM
If this product isn't compatible with AEP, I'm not interested in buying it.

If it is, I don't mind paying full price.

That's free market research for you guys, I hope you benefit from it.

ZG77_Nagual
05-27-2004, 01:43 PM
I think it should be ADDON or STANDALONE - No need to include the full planeset - just have it act as an update to existing aep installs - or standalone when aep/fb is not present.

Stuntie
05-27-2004, 01:50 PM
I voted for Stand Alone.

So that PF does not have to drop any potential features or additions because they may not be backwards compatible with FB/AEP.

Cheers.
Stuntie

RAAF_Edin
05-28-2004, 08:21 PM
I would really like to see IL-2 becoming a complete WWII theatre sim! So, make PF and all nex future games/theatres/expansions stand alone products AND compatible with IL-2, IL-2FB, AEP... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

--------------------------------------
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

DuxCorvan
05-31-2004, 03:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stuntie:
I voted for Stand Alone.

So that PF does not have to drop any potential features or additions because they may not be backwards compatible with FB/AEP.

Cheers.
Stuntie<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


PF will be backwards compatible anyway. That's what Luthier has said. The question is if we will be able to include previous released stuff. No change in main code will be necessary for this.

- Dux Corvan -
http://www.uploadit.org/DuxCorvan/Altamira2.jpg
Ten thousand years of Cantabrian skinning.

_mistral
05-31-2004, 01:36 PM
Hi all

I vote of course for PF including all the previous AEP planes, maps, etc.

My humble message to history purists, that I'd like to convince:
There was an Airshow (at La Ferté Alais, in France) this week-end, with many prop planes, including BF 109, Corsair, Yak 3, and some WWI very old planes. Should I say than for 30 years
now, these marvellous planes fly the same day a the same place (100 km away from Normandy) ?
And You know what? Despite of this historical non-sense, everybody here enjoys each part of the show, of course with preferred moments but I've never seen anybody opening his eyes just for his favorite warbirds and closing for the rest...

And about the number of CDs in the Box:
Colin Mac Rae 4 comes with 4 CDs in ... so why not PF ?

Regards

Some photos of the show at the french forum:
http://ubbxforums-fr.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=32010161&f=810106812&m=165101934

DuxCorvan
06-01-2004, 05:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by _mistral:
And about the number of CDs in the Box:
Colin Mac Rae 4 comes with 4 CDs in ... so why not PF ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Codemasters's 'TOCA Pro Race Driver 2' comes in a DVD-Rom. I'm sure most of us have a DVD reader unit yet, and if not, it's the time to get one. It's not expensive now, and it's the tendency of PC development that DVDs will replace all CD players in a short time -and DVD recording units will do the same with CD ones, as soon as price is more competitive.

- Dux Corvan -
http://www.uploadit.org/DuxCorvan/Altamira2.jpg
Ten thousand years of Cantabrian skinning.

WInchester34
06-08-2004, 02:33 PM
hey found cool game traaliers at this link
http://traininggrounds.net/page.php?id=4195

FritzFrotz
06-11-2004, 07:01 PM
Oh no please don´t tell me this is already a lost cause! I was so much looking forward to PF, but without all AEP stuff included it´s not really at all that interesting. Of course I´ll buy PF, but there are SERIOUS issues to consider if teh sims are going to be separate.

1) Which sim is going to get the patches? I fear that separate sims means no PF improvements in AI and flight models, campaign structures or whatever in FB? Will this mean the end of the line in patches for FB? Or will Oleg & co continue supporting FB which means PF might end up being the outdated product even if it´s newer? At the very minimum separation will mean delays in patches for either game.

2) Pacific wasn´t the only theatre that had carriers. Separate simulators would probably result in losing all hope of having British carriers being made.

3) Pacific and carrier battles (and carrier ops in general) are VERY interesting, but they are only a part of WW2 aerial warfare. It´s of course a personal opinion but if I have to choose between carrier ops and everything else, tehre´s really nothing to choose. FB wins hands down. If PF gets all future patches that won´t appear in FB it will be a sad day for me when PF comes out. It might mean losing all hope of further improvements in the ETO sim, which is my absolute number one priority.

The huge question is WHY NOT? If you have a choice between having X amount of good stuff or X + Y (where Y &gt; X!!!) WHY NOT? Afraid of non-historical servers? Well, a couple of things come to mind. First of all, you don´t have to play on non-historical servers. You can even make your own server and use only the planes you want. Most importantly, there absolutely will be non-historical servers no matter what. I as a great seer now foretell you a great secret. Behold! Come christmas 2004 there will be PF servers around that feature 3 or more sides! There will be PF servers that allow both sides to fly any plane they want, be it US or Japanese! It can´t be avoided.

Of course if strictly pacific theatre is enforced in PF by leaving out all AEP stuff the number of non-historical PF servers will be reduced. Some of those potentially non-historical servers will be running historical PF missions. It´s understandable that people who don´t care about non-historical stuff see this as a good thing and vote accordingly even if it means that many people who wouldn´t mind non-historical fights every now and then will suffer. That´s fair, since the poll´s very idea is to find out how many potential players would like it that way. There´s another side to the issue, however.

Have you considered, that by splitting the community there will be less PF compatible servers in total? Many people (like me) like ETO better and will spend most of their time playing and hosting FB. Because of less potential hosts this all might lead to LESS historically accurate PF games available. Everyone would lose and especially people who prefer ETO (but also like pacific theatre) would really be left hanging if there weren´t any patches or new planes.

I´m pretty emotional about this but it feels like such a lost opportunity. Il2FBAEPPF would be something few simmers have had courage to dream about. Can Pacific Fighters and rename it Fighters of All Theaters. The add-on to make more money and more people happy would be called North Africa and Mediterranean Fighters. That will only be possible with AEP + FB. It will be the only way to have carriers and the proper planes for the theater.

All this can fit on one disk. Ubi already did it with Far Cry. You won´t miss the ancient CD ROM technology any more than you miss 20+ piles of small plastic disks. DVD drives don´t cost anything anymore and for the cost you can even watch high-quality movies on your computer if you like to. Don´t make the space requirement a problem when there´s already an answer available.

PLEASE consider this when making the decision. Let us have a fantastic all-in-one -solution. This is important.

Antti

PS. What PF and AEP really need is a quick and easy server settings generator that allows you to select the desired planesets in few easy clicks (for example 1942, only serial production, anything goes etc.).

MK2aw
06-12-2004, 10:43 AM
I vote for the games to be compatible. I do not mind that it's a comletely new product.
My friend (sitting next to me) also votes the same as above.
Make them compatible for the online communicty. We're actually off line players and simply can't wait for the off line Pacific campaigns.

MK2AW

kap2406
06-15-2004, 01:07 AM
It was all part of ONE war - it should be ONE simulator. I vote for PF to include ALL of AEP files!!!

pegon1
06-22-2004, 07:48 PM
i want them both to go in the same product, and please let us have a map of the north atlantic so we can go hunting for Tirpitz, or conwoys, with martlets and ju-88´s. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/93.gif

Atomic_Marten
06-23-2004, 03:03 PM
Voted without AEP features... MiG-3, G.50, M.S.'s & others over Pacific... don't think so... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

Ennosigaios
06-24-2004, 02:48 AM
OK, maybe this has been proposed before (had no time to read all replies http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif) but why don't let PF be compatible with FB so that people who have both can use resources from both sims and people who only buy PF can you it as a stand alone.
That way you keep selling FB or AEP and are able to make patches that benefit both as all planes and ships etc. can be shared between both sims. This way, you make one big community with all options open, but keep the benefits and logic of Pacific Fighters being a Pacific sim!

Mysticpuma2003
07-06-2004, 09:35 AM
Well as I see it, and maybe I have got the 'wrong end of the stick', but the suggestion is that Pacific Fighters should be a new disk with FB, AEP and PF all installable in one go. So that everyone who buys the game will now have the same version spanning the whole world theatre of war, and that we can all play together.
"Whooooooaaaaa, hold the phone". Stepping back then, does this mean tha you would expect new buyers to go out and spend 35 on PF and get all of the software that I have already purchased at full price. What I'm saying is, I bought IL2 Sturmovik. I then bought Forgotten Battles, I then bought AEP, I therefore spent 98 on software, and all I need now is an update to fly Pacific Fighters. What you really, by the way I read it, expect me to do, is buy Pacific Fighters, which will contain Forgotten Battles maps and models, and the AEP maps and models for the price of 35, and UBI can stick two fingers up to my support of their product over it's development and allow all the new users to get the previous software at a huge discount. What I'd like to see, if their is any fairness, is a return to UBI voucher system where I send back my FB and AEP disks, and get a voucher allowing me to purchase PF for 10-15m maximum. I see that as being fair for all previous buyers who have stuck by UBI through this games ups and downs. It may sound like 'sour grapes', but if this isn't the case I'd rather see it as Pacific Fighters only because I would really be p***ed off at the lack of thought for previous UBI consumers.

http://www.aqqm31.dsl.pipex.com/Mysticpuma.jpg

Willey
07-06-2004, 04:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
I think it should be ADDON or STANDALONE - No need to include the full planeset - just have it act as an update to existing aep installs - or standalone when aep/fb is not present.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's it. Install it as PF 1.0 or as FB 2.5 or something like that if you have FB + AEP. So it would be a standalone game, but it also would keep FB up at the same time. Every PF patch would then be automatically a FB patch, too. Otherwise I'd miss quite some thing which will come in PF:

- B-25
- A-20
- P-39D / 400
- P-40B
- engine tweaks
- open canopies
etc

Plus it would make the Jap stuff already in FB senseless there... Instead other planes could have been added therefore.

Dawg-of-death
07-07-2004, 04:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
I want to see a new engine. Othewise, I don't care.

Lomacs engine would be very nice for a WWII



<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A Keith Black Hemi would be nice.


Bad-MF(Mongrel Fighter) AKA .......Dawg-of-death

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
07-07-2004, 09:30 AM
in My experience when these kind of expansions/add ons come out one invariably suffers at the hands of the other i.e not every one gets hold of them at the same time and eventually the community ends up scatterd to the winds.

Mechwarrior was a good example of this so many packs came out for it that eventually the community dwindeld in numbers and squads and just disbaneded into those that did and those that didnt. It would be a shame to see all the hard work that has gone into FB ect fade away into a community of die hard loyalists to one cause or another.

My only requirment if all planetypes were integrated, would be to include compatability with both pacific AND european theaters (maybe limit aricraft availability to those theaters and maps in which they saw action). I guess the problem then would be that this would be more FB TOTAL WAR as apposed to FB Pacific?

One thing you can be assured of though (and this forum is an example in case) is that no matter what happens you will only please half of the people half of the time. Bottom line is its their (Oleg et all) call they just need to decide who they want to please? Themselves or the fickle whims of a bunch of forum dwelers ?

thats my 2 bob on the subject and thanks for reading S!

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v323/tHeBaLrOgRoCkS/planes/signiture3.jpg

ampadgog
07-13-2004, 02:36 AM
it has been a while since my last visit at the PO forum. I again have read the posts and still it doesnt sound reasonable to make it a diferent product. it will just split the comunity. for thouse who want a pasific theater they can always fly just naval maps....and the rest can have fun whith what ever they want. hystorical effects? last night we were flying 8 Go-223 against Zviligs. When did that happen through the war? never but it was fun. and about load times and disc size. most of us have pretty good machines, other games require installation on the area of 4GB, and not to mention that from the 2 diferent installations most of us will end up having both and thus consuming more HDD space. Finaly the money issue. Ask us to pay for full price. we will. but make it an add on. then we shall all be huppy.
Ubi had done it before twise and it worked. both FB and ACE even they could be promoted as diferent games, they were make add on. and thus brought more life to the community. it works.....dont mess it up. you have nothing to loose by making it an addon, but the can of worms may open by making it stand alone. the community will divide, and eventualy someone else will step in and steal your customers.

thank you for your time. i hope i make sence

There are 10 kinds of people in this world: those who can count in binary, and those who can't.
"http://www.x-plane.org/users/12thiaptbone/mirage.jpg"

alarmer
07-16-2004, 06:18 AM
Only planes that belong to Pacific!

1C are allrdy in trouble with all the planes in il2, and you want more. For what reason I must ask. More isnt allways better. In this case it would certainly be worse. First of all what would a Yak be doing in Midway? That would be just awful. Gotta stop somewhere, mind as well be here.

Lord I praise Oleg if BoB will have about 10 planes flyable http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
07-16-2004, 06:50 AM
From my post only two up from your Alamer:


My only requirment if all planetypes were integrated, would be to include compatability with both pacific AND european theaters (maybe limit aricraft availability to those theaters and maps in which they saw action). I guess the problem then would be that this would be more FB TOTAL WAR as apposed to FB Pacific?

Wouldnt that work for you ?

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v323/tHeBaLrOgRoCkS/planes/signiture3.jpg

Alexander_Seil
07-18-2004, 09:23 PM
Now, I don't have the time to read all the freaking 9 pages of this thread, but I'd say that there are pros and cons to making the sims either separate or merged.

Now, for financial reasons, it cannot be made an addon. FB is, after all, in game sales terms, an old game. Releasing another exp. pack just isn't going to make enough money for Oleg and the Maddox gang to feed themselves after Ubi sucks up most of the profits. If, alternatively, they make a great game on the engine of the now-famous FB, they certainly will have enough funds to not only feed themselves but also to continue getting contracts for new sim games. The bad part about that would be that FB patching might cease. The good part is that if it will continue, Maddox Games won't be focused any longer on cramming as many US and British aircraft into the game as possible. Il-2 is an East Front game, and being the only serious flight sim set on that front, it would be really a shame if everyone started flying in the Pacific, ignoring Russian/Finnish/Romanian/Hungarian/Slovak aircraft, campaigns and maps. Of course, if the patching ceases, it ceases...no more East Front bombers for us.

The good part about merging them and making the Pacific as an add-on would be that all the changes would instantly make it into FB. The focus on East Front could be lost, but perhaps the influx of fresh funds would keep the patches coming and at the very least amidst the torrent of new Japanese and American aircraft we could pick up a feature and an aircraft or two that would be applicable to the existing countries in the game. However, given the financial factor, I don't think they're going to do an add-on. I don't think, however, that patching of FB is going to cease, either. It's just a possibility that one can't ignore completely.

BTW, as for Il-2s over the Pacific...don't forget Khalkin Gol and Manchuria http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif Not quite in the "Pacific", but pretty darn close

crazyivan1970
07-22-2004, 11:01 AM
Well, this thread served its purpose, Thank you for your time and votes. Let`s look forward to a new AEP+PF Simulation http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Biggest WW2 Sim ever.

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.

Hoarmurath
07-22-2004, 11:20 AM
Wonderful news, now i can really think about uninstalling EAW and its addons....

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3)
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

heywooood
07-22-2004, 05:45 PM
I love this company... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/heart.gif

...and Ivans 'banned' smiley.



http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/ac_32_1.jpg
"Check your guns"

GT182
07-22-2004, 07:12 PM
As a concerned citizen, this November I will be writing in my vote for the next President and VicePresident of the good 'ol USA.

My choices will be CrazyIvan for Pres and Tully for VP. Hopefully they will appoint Oleg to the post of Secretary of Defense. Only in that Oleg is not a natural born citizen of the US. But seeing how the world is changing I'm sure that can be rectified. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

So I ask each and every one of you to vote along with me. It's time to give America back to the people and put our beloved moderators and game builder in office. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"GT182" / "Stab/JG51_vonSpinmeister"
www.bombs-away.net/forums (http://www.bombs-away.net/forums)
"Fly to Survive, Survive to Fly"

Atomic_Marten
07-22-2004, 07:48 PM
I guess after all, this poll thread isn't so important anymore. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

GT182
07-23-2004, 12:41 PM
BUMP.... just so it doesn't get lost. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

"GT182" / "Stab/JG51_vonSpinmeister"
www.bombs-away.net/forums (http://www.bombs-away.net/forums)
"Fly to Survive, Survive to Fly"

heywooood
07-23-2004, 06:14 PM
well - the reason it was un stickied is so that it WOULD get lost... and slide down and away to the nether regions of the PF board... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif...and now I've gone a bumped it up again.. its all GT182's fault http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif



http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/ac_32_1.jpg
"Check your guns"