PDA

View Full Version : Stand-Alone vs Add-On



luthier1
03-31-2004, 08:34 PM
I'm going to put this right on top of this page since it looks like I was a little unclear in my original post, and a lot of people missed my clarification below

There are no technical engine limitations preventing FB aircraft from flying in PF. However it is not yet determined whether PF will ship with all FB planes included on disk or not. We are fully aware of your desire to have everything under one roof. Please just hang on for a little while, and don't claim you won't be buying this product based on decisions that haven't even been made yet.



The forums's desire to overreact in the most dramatic fashion continues to amaze me.

First of all, I highly recommend for you NOT to take at heart everything you hear from somebody working on the project. I have never given Gibbage detailed project plans and feature lists, and very few people besides myself, Oleg and Ubi top brass are fully aware of everything that we're going to have in this project. Please, if it doesn't come directly from the people running the project, just take it with a grain of salt

Now, the project is a giant undertaking. We're doing over a dozen large maps with nearly a hundred new building types, many dozens new ground vehicles for four different countries, a very long list of ship classes with several ships often modeled in a class, and certainly way more than 10 NEW flyable aircraft, plus a very large number of applicable flyable and AI aircraft carried over from FB.

Why you guys started running around with 10 flyable aircraft is beyond me, since the official announcement clearly lists the number of flyables as "over 40".

So, anyone believing that this project should be an add-on as opposed to a stand-alone product needs a serious reality check.

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. The only thing I can say at this point that the two products will be fully compatible and there's no technical limitations in the engine that would prevent a Bf-109 from flying over Iwo Jima or an Aichi Val over Leningrad.

[This message was edited by luthier1 on Wed March 31 2004 at 07:45 PM.]

[This message was edited by luthier1 on Thu April 01 2004 at 12:48 AM.]

luthier1
03-31-2004, 08:34 PM
I'm going to put this right on top of this page since it looks like I was a little unclear in my original post, and a lot of people missed my clarification below

There are no technical engine limitations preventing FB aircraft from flying in PF. However it is not yet determined whether PF will ship with all FB planes included on disk or not. We are fully aware of your desire to have everything under one roof. Please just hang on for a little while, and don't claim you won't be buying this product based on decisions that haven't even been made yet.



The forums's desire to overreact in the most dramatic fashion continues to amaze me.

First of all, I highly recommend for you NOT to take at heart everything you hear from somebody working on the project. I have never given Gibbage detailed project plans and feature lists, and very few people besides myself, Oleg and Ubi top brass are fully aware of everything that we're going to have in this project. Please, if it doesn't come directly from the people running the project, just take it with a grain of salt

Now, the project is a giant undertaking. We're doing over a dozen large maps with nearly a hundred new building types, many dozens new ground vehicles for four different countries, a very long list of ship classes with several ships often modeled in a class, and certainly way more than 10 NEW flyable aircraft, plus a very large number of applicable flyable and AI aircraft carried over from FB.

Why you guys started running around with 10 flyable aircraft is beyond me, since the official announcement clearly lists the number of flyables as "over 40".

So, anyone believing that this project should be an add-on as opposed to a stand-alone product needs a serious reality check.

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. The only thing I can say at this point that the two products will be fully compatible and there's no technical limitations in the engine that would prevent a Bf-109 from flying over Iwo Jima or an Aichi Val over Leningrad.

[This message was edited by luthier1 on Wed March 31 2004 at 07:45 PM.]

[This message was edited by luthier1 on Thu April 01 2004 at 12:48 AM.]

JR_Greenhorn
03-31-2004, 08:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luthier1:
The only thing I can say at this point that the two products will be fully compatible and there's no technical limitations in the engine that would prevent a Bf-109 from flying over Iwo Jima or an Aichi Val over Leningrad.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thank you very much Luthier, that is exactly what I've been waiting to hear.

HH Quazi
03-31-2004, 08:43 PM
Thank you Luthier. I understand about having a reality check. It is easy for the community to get a fire up their arse when it comes to this sim. I am glad you took the time too set the record straight. In light of your post, I can see why this needs to be a stand-alone product. Thanks for yours and Olegs hard work to make this sim the greatest ever in all respects, especially support from its creators. You guys are awesome! S!

http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/nightschpanker/QuasiPOWsmall.jpg

mllaneza
03-31-2004, 08:43 PM
Ok, I'm happy. Thanks L.

Veteran - Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force. 1993-1951.

adlabs6
03-31-2004, 08:47 PM
Thanks for the fast, clear response.

http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/sigUBI.GIF
My FB/FS2004 Pages (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com) | OMEGASQUADRON (http://777avg.com/omegasquad/) | ScreenshotArt.com (http://www.screenshotart.com/)

heywooood
03-31-2004, 08:51 PM
Luthier - exactly - "hair on fire"

I knew the developers would get a laugh out of all the hairum scarum posts!

Let me tell you Luthier - this is AWESOME Bro! I cant keep from drooling alover my keyboard.. gonna need a bucket...

tenmmike
03-31-2004, 08:54 PM
thanks luthier for the answere and thanks for your work

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

Nimits
03-31-2004, 09:14 PM
Luthier,

I don't think anyone (well, least ways not myself) wants Pacific Fighter to be an Add-on along the lines of AEP. We were more just hoping for compatability and interactability between the two.

Personally, this would be one game I would be willing to pay $50-$60 for without even reading reviews.

crazyivan1970
03-31-2004, 09:18 PM
Thanks for stopping by luthier. I can`t do anything right now, no Thunak forgot to grant priveleges hehe, can`t even make this sticky LOL... But glad to see you Sir!

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
03-31-2004, 09:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nimits:
Luthier,

I don't think anyone (well, least ways not myself) wants Pacific Fighter to be an Add-on along the lines of AEP. We were more just hoping for compatability and interactability between the two.



Awright - dont jack up the price now..


Personally, this would be one game I would be willing to pay $50-$60 for without even reading reviews.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Personally - I'd like it to be free 'cause I'm gonna need a pile o' money for new 'puter.

Bearcat99
03-31-2004, 09:22 PM
Great news...... as far as I am concerned though I have spent $160 on IL2..... (IL2/FB/AEP/BoE).... it's good t6o know hat it will be compatible which is all I was really worried about. Id buy it anyway even if it werent. H@ll I might as well just leave a blank check with 1C........ as long as it's this good my $$ is yours sight unseen anyway. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

LOL... now we know why they put PF on its own forum... can you imagine all this in the GD...LMAO... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

<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/)

chris455
03-31-2004, 09:32 PM
Dear Luthier, God of the Pacific:

just name your price, I will gladly pay DOUBLE for a Pacific sim, stand alone, add-on, or whatever.

S!

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

Gibbage1
03-31-2004, 09:44 PM
Luthier is correct. He nor Oleg has never told me if this will be a full game or not. I told LS what I "guess" would happen because he asked. That guess is just that, and should not be taken as the gossiple truth. Im not very happy with LS right now for spinning my words.

Gib

SkyChimp
03-31-2004, 09:45 PM
Tell it like it is, Brutha!

You're doing up the best sim yet, so don't let the bastids get to you.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/skychimp.jpg

Old_Canuck
03-31-2004, 09:46 PM
Running around with "hair on fire" ... good phrase. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

Coop carrier ops has nice ring to it as well http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

OC

"You don't stop playing because you grow old, you grow old because you stop playing."

necrobaron
03-31-2004, 09:54 PM
Thanks for the clarification. I was beginning to think I was going crazy! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"Not all who wander are lost."

LEXX_Luthor
03-31-2004, 09:58 PM
Luthier:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>no technical limitations in the engine that would prevent a Bf-109 from flying over Iwo Jima or an Aichi Val over Leningrad.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So we can have *both* Soviet SB bomber and Japanese A5M over an FB map representing China--say, Kuban mountain map.

And early I~16 from FB against Ki~27 (assuming there is a Ki~27 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif )

Awsum! http://www.boardy.de/images/smilies/ylflower.gif



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

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

Hunger
03-31-2004, 10:39 PM
Bump, this should be kept over the waves of paranoia.

Regards
Hunger

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

Capt._Tenneal
03-31-2004, 10:43 PM
Luthier, don't take it that the entire forum is overeacting. I have left my share of praise and excitement for PF along with countless others. Don't let the few naysayers (and they always seem to be the same crowd) get you riled up. They did this with AEP and BOE too. Before those came out it was "Oh, I won't be buying that because so-and-so", now they're doing the same with PF. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

I've read the press release and that's what I go by. I never play the "I heard it from A who heard it from B who was working on project C" game. Thank you to you and Russian Rocket for producing this. Oh, and yes, the Val, Betty, Lexington and that (what I call) kamikaze on the forum title ROCK ! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Should we have a Luthier's Ready Room now ?

RicknZ
03-31-2004, 11:04 PM
I think anyone who thinks this should be a stand alone over a add-on needs a serious reality check.
I for one wont be buying it, i want to be able to load up il2 and fly ALL of il2 planes!!! ALl a stand alone offers is damn limitations!!!

Not have to piss around with deciding one game over the other, especially since if i play this new sim i miss out on flying them vs il2 planes etc.

Stoopid decision and as a consumer ill speak with my wallet.

If its about money just charge stand alone price!

luthier1
03-31-2004, 11:07 PM
Please read the final paragraph of the 1st post in this thread Rick.

UCLANUPE
03-31-2004, 11:29 PM
Hey L thanks for stopping in and setting the record straight. Wow this is going to be the sim of all sims!

http://mars.walagata.com/w/uclanupe/1lomacsig1.jpg
http://www.sunstarentertainmentinc.com/index.html
-----------------------------
"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power"
Franklin Delano Roosevelt

WUAF_Badsight
03-31-2004, 11:40 PM
what id like is for "Pacific Battles" to be a completely stand alone game

but

with everything that is in FB included

but for it to be its own game

then we all could step up to it like we did with "IL2:Forgotten Battles" when it came out

that instead of installing another expansion over this installation on my H/D now

jeanba2
03-31-2004, 11:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The only thing I can say at this point that the two products will be fully compatible and there's no technical limitations in the engine that would prevent a Bf-109 from flying over Iwo Jima or an Aichi Val over Leningrad.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's good news : I would really love to try fights between Vichyst H75 and US wildcat (Morocco), or Vichyst Morane vs Fleet Air Arm Martlets (Madagascar)

BM357_ZoD
03-31-2004, 11:55 PM
ok so will PF be like FB was to IL2? with all pervious content included along with whatever upgrades? and also luthier(hope i spelled that right)how and do u plan on adressing the limitations of FB's FM above 10000M? and will PF be switched over to DX9 or remian DX8? any grapical improvements?some on thei fourm think they will nedd a new PC to run PF. but any how thanks for the hard work im sure the first shot off a carrier will have me grinning from ear to ear(and the first landing crying all the way home)

All kneel to ZoD
http://bm357.com/

BM357_ZoD
03-31-2004, 11:58 PM
also will it be possable to have multiple user (not AI)planes on a carrier at one time? this would be cool you could have a few squad mates waiting and listing on comms and take off if u nedded helphttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifala Top gun with mav on Cat 5http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

All kneel to ZoD
http://bm357.com/

luthier1
03-31-2004, 11:59 PM
Like I said, there are no technical limitations in the game engine that would prevent us from including any FB content with PF. However what will actually ship included on the game CDs is still being determined. Please just rest easy for now, I'm very well aware of people's concerns since the question of "splitting the community" came up on the first day we've discussed the concept of a Pacific theater sequel to Il-2 a loong loong time ago.

There will be quite a few graphical improvements to the engine, but you shouldn't need a new PC unless yours is on the lowest end of the spectrum.

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
04-01-2004, 12:11 AM
when FB was coming out they all went

"whaa whaaa whaa"

why worry ?

when Pacific battles comes out THEY WILL BUY IT

if they say they wont they will be LYING !

BM357_ZoD
04-01-2004, 12:19 AM
im not saying i wont buy it normn am i worried about it,just dont want to "losse" anything from FB (especially the 38)i have put a lot of time in to FB and want to see this sim through to its end,for me anyway and as i see it im a long ways off from being done with FB and as such I will be forced to split my time between FB and PF. ill buy it make no mistake and probably enjoy evey second of it,and turthfully am dying to play it already(if anyone read my reply to fuser's post disregard any negitive comments as this sim's(PF) concepts have now just sunk in)

All kneel to ZoD
http://bm357.com/

nsu
04-01-2004, 12:35 AM
.


Compatible = IL2FB live http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

STAND ALONE = IL2FB is dead http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif
..............for Oleg and his Service



STAND ALONE for BoB is OK !a new Time for the Flight Sim !

Gruß NSU http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

crazyivan1970
04-01-2004, 12:40 AM
Ya all behave now, i got the keys 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.

LuckyBoy1
04-01-2004, 12:42 AM
First I'd like to know what "fully compatible" means. Does it mean we can use the Pacific game as a stand alone or as an add-on depending on our how we want to set it up? If not, what are the limits here?

Oleg and UBISoft needs to see passed the smoke people are blowing about buying whatever game at whatever price UBI wants to charge. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular in this or any other post. However, if you broke down the groups into two groups...

1) This group says they have some concerns about the game before they'll buy it.

2) This group will buy whatever game at whatever price UBI dictates.

I think you'll find group 2 has a whole lot more people who don't care exactly how they get the game because they're going to pirate it in the first place! I hope UBISoft is smart enough to figure this much out.

For those of you with the smoke and wind to say it was never said to be an add-on, well, see this from Oleg himself...

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=693107852

Yes, I know you can find a thread where he says it's a stand alone thing, but I can match you at least 4 threads to 1 on that subject! We have at the very least a misunderstanding here to put it mildly.

To say that 40 planes makes it impossible to keep it all in 1 game is rediculous! What, you can't add a 3rd CD to the game for installation purposes. As far as load time goes, well it might add another 10 seconds to my PC and I can live with that.

For you realism people, nobody says you have to host a game with KI's on a Normandy map, but that's what we've got now. So the whole seperate game thing seems so much bull to me. If I'm wrong, please explain if you would be so kind.

So you're going to add more eye candy and it won't impact PC performance much? Fine, I guess, but then again, I challenge anyone to join me at HyperLobby for a 1 on 1 dogfight. You get to use whatever uber FW or KI as long as it's a prop plane and I'll take like a P-40 or Hurricaine. The only catch here is you get to use only the computer UBI says makes the bare bones minimum specs to play this game. I get to use my very average PC. Any takers? It's this sort of nonsense that will keep flight simulation games in an obscure corner of the market instead of the leading position this game so richly deserves.

All this goes down just as I talk a few of my old "real, licensed" pilots to buy PC's capable of doing the game justice just so they can play this game with me (yes, I know, just 4 sales, not very impressive) and they won't put up with this degree of deception or poor quality lies. When you tell a poor lie, you imply that the person hearing it is stupid enough to believe it! Whatever happened to quality is job 1?! Maybe I am stupid for ever believing in this game. After all, it is just a game. UBIFolks, try to remember in your corporate games that people like me actually like, buy the game. The choice is yours.

So the question remains... what exactly does "fully compatible" mean?

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.

LEXX_Luthor
04-01-2004, 12:45 AM
If PF can handle Oleg's I~16, I~153, DB, and SB, and the new I~15 being made @ netwings that's all I care about nothing else except, big CHINA map with mountains and rivers but NO buildings. I can place my own buildings and the Map Makers can ignore buildings and take a rest.

And there should be A5M and Ki~27 (http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif)
and maybe even Ki~10 but I could probably sneak in J8A as Ki~10 substitute so no Whining there its not too important.


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


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

PE_Tigar
04-01-2004, 01:24 AM
Well, what comes to mind here is Enemy Engaged series from Razorworks: their Comanche vs. Hokum was a separate product, however, if you had previous product installed (Apache vs. Havoc) you could import maps and aircraft from the old one into the new one. I would prefer this solution, since it would make the PF separately sellable, yet keep the add-on crowd satisfied too.

RAAF_Furball
04-01-2004, 01:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luthier1:
(snip)
.... a very large number of applicable flyable and AI aircraft carried over from FB ....

(snip)
Nothing has been decided (as to Stand-alone or Addon) yet to the best of my knowledge. The only thing I can say at this point (is) that the two products will be fully compatible and there's no technical limitations in the engine that would prevent a Bf-109 from flying over Iwo Jima or an Aichi Val over Leningrad.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Noting "fully compatible" .......

If I'm understanding posts by our PTO Crew Chief/PF Head Mechanic (luthier1) correctly, some FB aircraft and "things" will be transferred (copied) into PF if PF is released as Standalone.

(Is this correct?)


Why not simply release PF as an addon to FB?

Then there is no need to "re-create" parts of FB by adding "things" into PF - they are already in FB/AEP.

To ensure adequate reward for the excellent hard work, can I suggest that PF be a purchased addon, as was AEP.

Could I also suggest (dons fire-******ant pants) that BoB be a pay-for addon to FB also?

We would all then only need to launch one great game, rather than 3.

Thank you for taking the time to try to clarify things for us, luthier1

Whatever happens, we Aussies are REALLY looking forward to seeing Pacific Fighters released !!

_RAAF_Furball, CO

click below for _RAAF_ website

http://members.optusnet.com.au/raafgames/crest.jpg (http://www.raafsquad.cjb.net)

click below for Fur's website

http://members.optusnet.com.au/nfurball/Images/plane_md_wht.gif (http://www.fur.cjb.net)

luthier1
04-01-2004, 02:10 AM
Furball,

That'd be one long development process http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif There's so much stuff in PF - I'm not even talking about BoB - that it'd be simply impossible to call it an add-on. The amount of effort that goes into PF is completely above and beyond anything any developer has ever done for an add-on.

Besides, we do hope to attract new people to our line of sims - and requiring them to buy both PF and FB would be a bit too much, if all they want to do is fly Pacific planes and don't care for the Eastern Front (and while unpopular on these boards such people do exist http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg

RAAF_Furball
04-01-2004, 02:31 AM
OK - forget about BoB being an addon then http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

I think there's still a case for PF to an (albeit big) pay-for addon, rather than re-creating the FB bits into PF.

But this should not be a problem for we PTO lovers - we may have just wasted our money on AEP. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

Come OOOOOON, PF !!

Not forgetting to mention, it'll be GREAT to fly over New Guinea, etc., instead of places we can't pronounce.

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

_RAAF_Furball, CO

click below for _RAAF_ website

http://members.optusnet.com.au/raafgames/crest.jpg (http://www.raafsquad.cjb.net)

click below for Fur's website

http://members.optusnet.com.au/nfurball/Images/plane_md_wht.gif (http://www.fur.cjb.net)

SJG1_Therr
04-01-2004, 02:39 AM
S! allhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Luthier thanks for PFhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I am smiling to myself when I think what we will do with this simhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif))))

but from my point of view the best solution would be flying on the same game in two fronts.... eastern and PF from HL... even if I have to pay again for this game http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

but I will stay and observe what will do bu You and Ubihttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

again thanks Luthierhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif we will waiting for PF and dreams about attack Pearl Harbour http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)))

Fly or die !!!!!

Commanding Officer
Sonderkomando Jagdgeschwader 1

MR.Reah
04-01-2004, 02:59 AM
Although I am 'low end of spectrum' and will not be running about updating gear I realise that nothing stands still- I hope you can find a
balance between cutting edge graphics and game engine capabilities- I take it this will be Il2/FB taken to the next level- but same game engine at heart?

Glazier
04-01-2004, 03:07 AM
It's a shame the Med theatre has been Forgotten http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif. But I will still be buying it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif.

Aeronautico
04-01-2004, 03:57 AM
Luthier, would you state clearly that FB content WILL make into PF, one way or another, sooner or later?

Either:

1. Everything from FB also included in PF

2. Something from FB included in PF and the rest "ported" from FB installation (as per Enemy Engaged by Razorworks) or added via patches

3. Very little from FB included in PF and the rest "ported" from FB installation (as per Enemy Engaged by Razorworks) or added via patches


Thank you both for PF and for your reply (hopefully).

Aero out

--------------------
Airplanes are now built to carry a pilot and a dog in the cockpit: the pilot's job is
to feed the dog, and the dog's job is to bite the pilot if he touches anything...

- Arlen Rens, Lockheed Martin test pilot

04-01-2004, 05:13 AM
I am really going to enjoy creating Historical Missions for the Pacific, in a Pacific Sim created in association with 1C.

It will be a lot easier to accomplish in Pacific fighters than it is in AEP, not that there is anything wrong with AEP.

You bloody Ripper Luthier !!


Cheers

buz13
04-01-2004, 05:31 AM
Ah yes! The more information that offical sources put out the much lower will be the rumor rate and unoffical misinformation. So great thread luthier. Keeping the loyal informed at the highest level possible is golden. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

buz13
04-01-2004, 05:41 AM
"Why you guys started running around with 10 flyable aircraft is beyond me, since the official announcement clearly lists the number of flyables as "over 40". luthier's quote.
So what I don't understand is why we can't just get a list of at least 40. In order to know there are over 40 someone must have counted them and they must have names. If the list of 40 is posted with a note saying "more information on other aircraft will be released in the future" we could all stop standing on our heads for at least a few seconds and relax. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif

michapma
04-01-2004, 05:45 AM
It sure would be cool to have one big combat flight simulator that would allow us to fight in every aircraft and in every battle in and around WWII. This is a flight simmer's dream.

Meanwhile I think we can be thankful that we are getting a Pacific sim of the caliber of FB. As nice as it would be to have everything (and more) under one roof, the arguments for a standalone make a lot of sense.

Given some of the limitations of FB, Pacific Fighters simply cannot become my conception of the ultimate Pacific sim. Even though Oleg and crew are adjusting the engine for carrier operations, there are too many other hindrances for it to be "perfect". It is only natural for us to want to hastily project all of our wishes onto a new project, but we shouldn't be bitter if they aren't fulfilled. The developers want to make the sim as good as possible, but they have to work within constraints.

I am very excited indeed at the prospect of the new maps, planesets, tons of new ships (no pun http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif) and and and!

I'd also be willing to wait two more years to get that "perfect" sim. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_chap.jpg (http://giap.webhop.info)

The ongoing IL-2 User's Guide (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/) | Forgotten Skies (http://www.forgottenskies.com/)
But we are all that way: when we know a thing we have only scorn for other people who don't happen to know it. - Mark Twain, Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc

CybrSlydr
04-01-2004, 05:54 AM
I don't see what the big deal is over add-on/stand alone.

Why do you want to fly a Yak-1 in PF?? Why do you want to fly a Go-229 in PF??

It is Pacific Fighters, not World Fighters.

Stand Alone makes alot more sense to me.

HH Quazi
04-01-2004, 06:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RicknZ:
I think anyone who thinks this should be a stand alone over a add-on needs a serious reality check.
I for one wont be buying it, i want to be able to load up il2 and fly ALL of il2 planes!!! ALl a stand alone offers is damn limitations!!!

Not have to piss around with deciding one game over the other, especially since if i play this new sim i miss out on flying them vs il2 planes etc.

Stoopid decision and as a consumer ill speak with my wallet.

If its about money just charge stand alone price!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Come on Rick. Whether it is a "stand alone" or an "add-on", you're like the rest of us. You'll be buying it. And you'll be liking it. lol S!

http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/nightschpanker/QuasiPOWsmall.jpg

musickna
04-01-2004, 06:26 AM
I have no problem whatsoever with this game being a stand-alone that runs independently of FB. I would like to see aircraft that are currently in FB that were actually present historically in the Pacific Area imported into PF - with the exception of the P-40 which needs to be remodelled (that over-acute dihedral makes me queasy).

Obviously it would be nice to have the complete FB plane set available for maximum, non-historical, fun but it isn't essential, especially for off-line players like myself.

I am very happy with this announcement and the prospect of seeing a top-quality flight simulation engine applied to this arena. Thank you, Luthier & co.

javierlopez1
04-01-2004, 06:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
what id like is for "Pacific Battles" to be a completely stand alone game

but

with everything that is in FB&AEP included

but for it to be its own game

then we all could step up to it like we did with "IL2:Forgotten Battles" when it came out

that instead of installing another expansion over this installation on my H/D now<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

completely agree with you. and for cybrslydr...: people who wants FB stuff in PF don't wan't it to fly over pacific maps but over eastern/western europe maps. The problem is that if PF doesn't support FB&AEp stuff FB theatres will lose popularity. I'd like to fly every plane where it is supposed that he flew in real life, but I want all the planes in one game. I think that lots of people, like me, enjoy all theaters and the best option for us is to have all of them packed in the same game

[This message was edited by javierlopez1 on Thu April 01 2004 at 05:52 AM.]

Rab03
04-01-2004, 06:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luthier1:
So, anyone believing that this project should be an add-on as opposed to a stand-alone product needs a serious reality check.

The only thing I can say at this point that the two products will be fully compatible and there's no technical limitations in the engine that would prevent a Bf-109 from flying over Iwo Jima or an Aichi Val over Leningrad.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
First time to post about PF, but in this clarified post, I still don't get it. If this is to be a stand alone product, how would FB and PF be compatible? I mean, if you start PF you would be running PF, and those planes not included in it (but included in FB) wouldn't be available. If it's an add-on, then you will have everything in one place.

My personal opinion/preference follows:
I would like to have everything included into one product. This means, to be "modest", the World and all airplanes of the 30s and 40s (flyable). I am aware that this remains a dream, as am aware that this is a kind of downgrade for developer/producer compared to stand alone product.

To be frank, I don't know what is the best solution. Maybe you could do the same as for AEP was done. Offer Diamond pack FB/AEP/PF all inclusive and an add-on PF for those already having FB/AEP.

javierlopez1
04-01-2004, 07:01 AM
The correct poll should be:
Would you like to see all FB&AEP included in PF?
Yes, The more theatres&planes the better
No, I only like pathific theatre
Don't care

Bewolf
04-01-2004, 07:17 AM
I'd simply like to see both games compatible. That means, starting hyperlobby, i want to be able to join every server there, regardless of the front, full maps and planesets available.

That said, as long this is possible, i am fully willing to pay the prize for a stand alone product, even if it is a bit higher. As a matter of fact, i'd prefer it this way, as this brings more money to the makers, which they rightly deserve for their effort and which is good for us as it keeps motivation up for developing more stuff.

Bewolf

Never discuss with stupid people.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Art-J
04-01-2004, 07:36 AM
Quality, not quantity. If forcing PF engine to be compatible with all FB restrictions and under-overmodelled issues causes PF to be worse game that it might be, than I'll rather prefer PF to be completely stand-alone, better product. But that's just my opinion.
Ufff...I don't envy Luthier's team their situation, solving this problem to make everybody happy will be hard task indeed.

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/Haribo-Zeke_small_3_txt.jpg

Bearcat99
04-01-2004, 07:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAAF_Furball:
OK - forget about BoB being an addon then http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
BoB will be a totally seperate sim.. new game engine..totally... from what I understand.



PF will be a stand alone product... thats what the man said....WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT???? Fully compatible: fly your 109 to Hawaii if you like or use your Val to bomb Olegovo..... Some of us are like the tails trying to wag the dog. We have no clue most of us anyway into what is going into this project yet we can make demands about what, how and when.... brass balls..... We cant dictate to the developer how to make the sim.. all we can do is suggest..and once the developer makes his plans thats it.. we either buy it and fly it, steal it and fly it (pirating is such a BS term..it is stealing plain and simple) or we dont fly it. the man explained why it is going to be a stand alone product... makes sense to me from a business standpoint.... what is the problem? This community sometimes amazes me..... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

I dont see where it would be so hard to implement patches where the FB stuff that was not on the PF CD could be added if the engine is the same. It would be good if the patches for PF were done differently though.... say in a way where the added plane patches for PF would not be a different version... if you didnt have the patches then you just wouldnt see the plane in the server... unless of course there are FM tweaks with each patch.

<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/)

Wolkenbeisser
04-01-2004, 08:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
what id like is for "Pacific Battles" to be a completely stand alone game

but

with everything that is in FB included

but for it to be its own game

then we all could step up to it like we did with "IL2:Forgotten Battles" when it came out

that instead of installing another expansion over this installation on my H/D now<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's exactly the way it should be. Keep it simple please!!

Thanks

Fliegergrüsse

http://home.tiscalinet.ch/meyera/Bilder/Wolkenbeisser1a.jpg

RAAF_Furball
04-01-2004, 08:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
BoB will be a totally seperate sim.. new game engine..totally... from what I understand.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>OK - np - new engine = new game - np


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
PF will be a stand alone product... thats what the man said....WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT????
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I beg your pardon?
Where did the man say that ?????
I suggest you re-read the MAN's first post in this Thread !


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
(snip)
..... Some of us are like the tails trying to wag the dog. We have no clue most of us anyway into what is going into this project yet we can make demands about what, how and when.... brass balls..... We cant dictate to the developer how to make the sim.. all we can do is suggest..and once the developer makes his plans thats it.. we either buy it and fly it ......
(snip)
or we dont fly it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Where did I dictate?????


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
the man explained why it is going to be a stand alone product... makes sense to me from a business standpoint.... what is the problem? This community sometimes amazes me..... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, where did Luthier say that ?????
I don't much care for your tone either, fella. Not enuf drama in your own life? Don't make it here.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I dont see where it would be so hard to implement patches where the FB stuff that was not on the PF CD could be added if the engine is the same. It would be good if the patches for PF were done differently though.... say in a way where the added plane patches for PF would not be a different version... if you didnt have the patches then you just wouldnt see the plane in the server... unless of course there are FM tweaks with each patch.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree with you on this point


_RAAF_Furball, CO

click below for _RAAF_ website

http://members.optusnet.com.au/raafgames/crest.jpg (http://www.raafsquad.cjb.net)

click below for Fur's website

http://members.optusnet.com.au/nfurball/Images/plane_md_wht.gif (http://www.fur.cjb.net)

[This message was edited by RAAF_Furball on Thu April 01 2004 at 07:34 AM.]

[This message was edited by RAAF_Furball on Thu April 01 2004 at 07:35 AM.]

[This message was edited by RAAF_Furball on Thu April 01 2004 at 07:35 AM.]

BigBoy01
04-01-2004, 08:31 AM
Anyone have any idea how many ME109's and LA 5s were involved in the Battle of Midway?

P4C800 3.2EE/2048Corsair Twin X/2 X 80GB Raid 0 HDs/9800XT/CH HOTAS & Rudders.
AMD-(due for upgrade) 1.6/1024Ram/80GB HD/GeF3 500Ti/Evenstrained Hall Sensored Cougar#0047 with CH Rudders. Backup Cougar #11103.
XP Home /SP1a with most updates.

Baltar
04-01-2004, 08:33 AM
Luthier's post just confuses me. No decision has been made about add-on vs stand-alone, yet 'there's no technical limitations'....I don't understand. Either PF is an add-on or it includes the IL-2 planes, OR it's not compatible.

michapma
04-01-2004, 08:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rab03:
First time to post about PF, but in this clarified post, I still don't get it. If this is to be a stand alone product, how would FB and PF be compatible? I mean, if you start PF you would be running PF, and those planes not included in it (but included in FB) wouldn't be available. If it's an add-on, then you will have everything in one place.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What Luthier means as I understand it is that he presently sees no technical incompatibility standing in the way of implementing aircraft in FB into PF. Keep in mind though that Pacific Fighters is by no means a finished project, it is still in the development and testing phase. Release isn't until autumn. There are still decisions to be made, and what will be included in PF from FB is obviously still to be finally decided. Luthier has said that most of the decisions have essentially been made, but they are not yet final. So as I understand, when he says compatible, he is talking about possibilities and not the released products.

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_chap.jpg (http://giap.webhop.info)

The ongoing IL-2 User's Guide (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/) | Forgotten Skies (http://www.forgottenskies.com/)
But we are all that way: when we know a thing we have only scorn for other people who don't happen to know it. - Mark Twain, Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc

HarryVoyager
04-01-2004, 08:39 AM
To be bluntly honest, I flat out do not care if it will be stand alone or compatable; this game will be the first game I've preordered in nearly three years.

This is a theater I want to fly. It would be nice to be able to take the aircraft up against their European counterparts, but it does not matter to me, beyond that.

I'm really excited about this. Must we complain about it so much before the game is even released?

Harry Voyager

javierlopez1
04-01-2004, 08:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigBoy01:
Anyone have any idea how many ME109's and LA 5s were involved in the Battle of Midway?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point is to have those planes&maps&other stuff in an improved game ( PF )

Bearcat99
04-01-2004, 08:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAAF_Furball:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bearcat99:
PF will be a stand alone product... thats what the man said....WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT????
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I beg your pardon?
Where did the man say that ?????
I suggest you re-read the MAN's first post in this Thread !

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luthier1:
Now, the project is a giant undertaking. We're doing over a dozen large maps with nearly a hundred new building types, many dozens new ground vehicles for four different countries, a very long list of ship classes with several ships often modeled in a class, and certainly way more than 10 NEW flyable aircraft, plus a very large number of applicable flyable and AI aircraft carried over from FB.
So, anyone believing that this project should be an add-on as opposed to a stand-alone product needs a serious reality check.

The only thing I can say at this point that the two products will be fully compatible and there's no technical limitations in the engine that would prevent a Bf-109 from flying over Iwo Jima or an Aichi Val over Leningrad.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
(snip)
..... Some of us are like the tails trying to wag the dog. We have no clue most of us anyway into what is going into this project yet we can make demands about what, how and when.... brass balls..... We cant dictate to the developer how to make the sim.. all we can do is suggest..and once the developer makes his plans thats it.. we either buy it and fly it ......
or we dont fly it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Where did I dictate?????

Not you.......


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
the man explained why it is going to be a stand alone product... makes sense to me from a business standpoint.... what is the problem? This community sometimes amazes me..... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, where did Luthier say that ?????
I don't much care for your tone either, fella. Not enuf drama in your own life? Don't make it here.

See the above post...... I need mo more drama in my life thanks..... and frankly I could give a fek about your caring for my tone or not... fella.... My comments to your comment were only on the BoB issue....which you had no problems with.... everything else was just a part of the post and the thread and not directed at you. I seperated it in the hopes that you would pick that up.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I dont see where it would be so hard to implement patches where the FB stuff that was not on the PF CD could be added if the engine is the same. It would be good if the patches for PF were done differently though.... say in a way where the added plane patches for PF would not be a different version... if you didnt have the patches then you just wouldnt see the plane in the server... unless of course there are FM tweaks with each patch.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree with you on this point

Well that just makes me all giddy......

<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/)

Aeronautico
04-01-2004, 08:58 AM
No, really, can't you guys have more imagination?

Stand alone (and it will be), but might (might) be able to retreive all FB content from FB installation (as per Enemy Engaged CH with EEAH), or via patches (as per FB 1.21 for example - although this has not been stated), or within the PF installation itself (as per FB with original IL-2).

I'd prefer the former, and keep all my ongoing campaigns and settings... well, going. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


Aero

--------------------
Airplanes are now built to carry a pilot and a dog in the cockpit: the pilot's job is
to feed the dog, and the dog's job is to bite the pilot if he touches anything...

- Arlen Rens, Lockheed Martin test pilot

[This message was edited by Aeronautico on Thu April 01 2004 at 08:07 AM.]

Jetbuff
04-01-2004, 09:04 AM
Luthier, correct me if I'm wrong, but what I'm hearing is this:

PF development team: "We don't want to call it an add-on coz it's much more than that..."

Community: "We'll pay full price, but we'd like to have it install over AEP so we don't have to split our time between two games."

What's the problem? The naming scheme? Call it whatever you like, Compatible Standalone, Standalone with option to be installed as an add-on, or whatever. Just please, please, don't break up this great community. Time is limited, and sure we'd LOVE to fly FB/PF all day long but chances are we'll end having only enough time for one or the other.

So, if at all possible, can you make the game a standalone (demanding full standalone price) but with the option to "incorporate" it into an existing copy of FB?

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

RAAF_Furball
04-01-2004, 09:11 AM
I've just thought of a GREAT reason to make PF stand-alone !

I'd much rather tell people I'm flying "Pacific Fighters" than "IL-2 Sturmovik Forgotten Battles Aces Expansion Pack"



http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

_RAAF_Furball, CO

click below for _RAAF_ website

http://members.optusnet.com.au/raafgames/crest.jpg (http://www.raafsquad.cjb.net)

click below for Fur's website

http://members.optusnet.com.au/nfurball/Images/plane_md_wht.gif (http://www.fur.cjb.net)

Extreme_One
04-01-2004, 09:30 AM
Sounds good to me.

I'll buy it anyway!

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

DONB3397
04-01-2004, 09:45 AM
In defense of posters who worried about compatibility:

1) You asked exactly the right question! Backward compatibility is always an issue when users have significant time and investment in an earlier version.

2) You provided instant "market feedback," something most marketers would pay (a lot) to have.

The good news is that this group of developers seems to be part of this community. They read and they're willing to get in and mix it up with their core users. How many faceless team leaders at MS would take the time to respond as Luthier did?

To Luthier: Thanks for the clarification. And, in all fairness, the question of compatibility should have been addressed in the release.

http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BC6hOaABCyZcLZQo
There is no 'way' of winning;
There is only Winning!

BlitzPig_Ritter
04-01-2004, 09:48 AM
I think stand alone would be foolish. An add-on makes so much more sense. Alot of the USN aircraft like the Hellcat and Wildcat served in both the Pacific and Atlantic. It also opens the door to a flood of what if scenarios. I'm sure there will be other aircraft in the game not in FB that also flew in both theatres.

______________________________
Formerly Known as: Die_Ritterkreuz
http://img41.photobucket.com/albums/v126/Ritterkreuz/Sig.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=Ritterkreuz&ts=1067024271&comefrom=credits)
Now with 40+ skins and counting!

ZG77_Nagual
04-01-2004, 09:53 AM
So, it is sounding like this will be a stand-alone AND an addon - maybe - That is you can just buy this thing and run it by it's lonesome. OR you can buy it and it will have the capacity to merge with FB? Does this sound about right? Sure would be ideal

luthier1
04-01-2004, 11:33 AM
Oh man, I still didn't explain this clearly? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Let me try again

PF planes are built to the same technical requirements as FB planes. Thus, any FB plane (or ship, ground vehicle or map) will work in PF.

However PF will be installed in a separate folder and have a separate executable. That's not open for discussion.

Shipping PF with all FB features will mean a set of 4-5 CDs in the box, a 5+ GB footprint on your hard drive, plus a huge extra amount of testing when releasing the product.

Will PF ship with all FB features included on CDs? We just don't know yet

Will PF allow you to import your FB planes in if you already own FB? We just don't know yet

Will PF ship as PF-Standard (PTO only) and PF Gold (PF+FB)? We just don't know yet

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg

TAGERT.
04-01-2004, 12:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luthier1:
So, anyone believing that this project should be an add-on as opposed to a stand-alone product needs a serious reality check.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not really.. It is actually a very logical assumption for someone to make.. Someone that is ignorant of programing!!

I personally don't have ANY problem paying extra for the work.. I had NO problem with IL2FB being a separate game that cost $40.00 instead of being an add on for $30.00. For what we got I would have gladly paid $50.00+!

I actually think it is a great idea to take an existing engine and expand on it... if you can!! It is smart business! And only benefits the users like me.

I personably hope that PACIFIC FIGHTERS will be just like IL2 FORGOTTEN BATTLES was to IL2.. Where we have everything we HAD plus MORE! In that splinting the community would be bad for the users.. And I have allways wanted a sim that would allow us to pit a F4u against a Fw190.. Just like the Brit's actually did in WWII!

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

TAGERT.
04-01-2004, 12:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luthier1:
Shipping PF with all FB features will mean a set of 4-5 CDs in the box, a 5+ GB footprint on your hard drive<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I find that hard to belive.. unless your trying to imply that *contents* of PACIFIC FIGHTERS will make up 3 of the 5 GB! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luthier1:
plus a huge extra amount of testing when releasing the product.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Emmmmmmm maybe.. but once the *link* between the two is established.. it should only req you to test the NEW PF Features.. Something that will have to be done *link* or *no-link* to IL2-FB

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

Capt._Tenneal
04-01-2004, 01:05 PM
Is all this talk of "splitting the community" refer to online players and HL ? Because I don't really see the stand-alone or add-on debate making much of a difference to an offline player.

RobertNighthawk
04-01-2004, 01:24 PM
Oleg has not let me down yet. If his name is on it I will buy it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

This will be even more fun.

http://robertnighthawk.homestead.com/files/surrenderdorothy.jpg

ARSNL
04-01-2004, 01:35 PM
Yes the comments of 'splitting the community' refer to online play, and the forums as well I am sure. (this will again reduce the children playing and make it more enjoyable)

Here is my 2 cents.

"Splitting the community" troubles me. In this reguard I would like to see it as an add on.

We also have to consider that this is a product that needs to create revenue. Consider for a moment a person who thinks "Pacific Fighters, that I am into... but wait.. I have to buy FB, then AEP, then PF when all I want is the PF!?!... forget it."

My personal opinion is that a completely new product, with all previous FB/AEP material would be best. As for the whining of 109's etc in the Pacific, we have A6M's over Berlin now!! Just set a server, or your 1 player game not to allow it... simple. Sure this would be a 3 - 4 disc game, and be more expensive. But personally I prefer not to play with the kids who can't afford it. (My apologies to any youths who are not rude and profane).

If it makes sense as development progresses to make it a standalone, without the FB/AEP content then I am just glad it is including the Seafire. That will guarantee my $$

One note to luthier, please do your best to ensure two things that will prevent copies if it is standalone. A better copy protection then the simple rts.dll file. Many games have been sucessful at blocking online play on copies, or at least making it very inconvienent. Also, do what you can to push for a worldwide release date. I'll guarantee you most downloaded copies of AEP and FB itself were from people who thought it unfair to have to wait.

So to sum up I would prefer this is the next step in the game as FB was. New game, all the old content. If this is not possible then I will still buy and I am sure enjoy this product, but cannot guess as to which I would end up playing more.

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

TAGERT.
04-01-2004, 02:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ARSNL:
We also have to consider that this is a product that needs to create revenue. Consider for a moment a person who thinks "Pacific Fighters, that I am into... but wait.. I have to buy FB, then AEP, then PF when all I want is the PF!?!... forget it."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Very Good Point!!

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

Hmmmm... you know.. on 2nd thought.. that might not be such a bad thing? In that most of the problems I have with pepole online tend to be of the Luftwhinner types... Thus.. they are not as likly to goto the PF arenas.... Hmmmmm stand alone is sounding better and 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.. So, I hope they can include IL2FB into PF.. And thus far there has been NO GOOD reason presnted here 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

Renegade_50
04-01-2004, 02:52 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/smileys-gun2.gif Shoots Ivan. Well i sure hope it works out. We have alot of CFS2 experience with the islands and map layouts so i hope it's 1000 times better than CFS2. Just thinking about slamming my Corsair onto the deck then going down the elevator into parking makes me Horney http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif Also im hoping Maddox games will not bow to the morons that want each and every plane that was ever thought of in this game how about if we get all the ones that actually were in the basic inventory and have them all work great. Another first would be to have placed objects that work together like camo nets that dont stop guns from firing and a static human object would really be good to to put behind those sandbag bunkers http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif Lastly a few of us in the Hell's Angels including myself have experience in testing and retesting and retesting programs and we enjoy it, we would welcome being asked to Beta test any part or all of the game for your team and believe me if we are asked we will torture test it for you and give accurate results back to you promptly.
Please feel free to drop me a line if you have any questions
rbigbore@comcast.netThe Hell's Angels (http://www.geocities.com/HA303rd/)

Hell's Angel 50
303rd BG (H) 358th BS
"Might in Flight"

Zentaurus
04-01-2004, 03:36 PM
i prefer by far to have a big WW2 sim where you can fly all planes under one roof. Would be cool !!

I just want to tell something wonderous to our little UBI nerds: We got DVDs now !!!! Really !
I have even seen games on DVD already ! Can you believe it ? I even dont know anyone with a computer able to fly FB that hasnt got a DVD drive installed...
So it shouldnt be a problem to pack all on one Disc. Now dont tell the production cost difference ...blablah...actually the 1 $ or so a DVD might cost more then a CD (on industrial production scale) we would happily pay, or ?
AND: It would make the new PF game even much more attractive to new Users !!! Hey !! A pacific sim with also the rest of WW2 !!! Tons of planes and maps and an existing community.
Two different games will split the community, squadrons, HL game rooms etc. .SAD !!

You guys at UBI and 1:C should really make me your marketing director...those doing it right now definitively have no talent at all...i could cry sometimes when i see the shelves loaded with MS dirt sim and one lonely little FB copy somewhere in the last corner....

II/JG54_Zent

http://www.martinvonelm.de/BilderIL2FB/bannerherzII.jpeg (http://groups.msn.com/IIGruppeJagdgeschwader54)

Gato-Loco
04-01-2004, 06:07 PM
I do not have a DVD... and I fly FB in perfect mode and at the highest resolution.

Il2pongo
04-02-2004, 11:15 AM
wow
The game will include the latest version of the IL2 executable and a set of pacific planes, maps and campaigns. Some we will allready have..some we will get only from Pacific Fighters.
The planes will normal il2 format planes, the maps will be normal il2 format maps.
In FMB if you only have pacific fighters you will only see the pacific planes and maps...
If you have all the products you will see all the objects and maps.
Why would Ubi do anything but that? What are all you people talking about? Why would you think that the game would take off on some totaly different tangent makeing objects and maps not work with each other..what possible advantage is that to Ubi?
This way if people buy PF and want to see how a hellcat would do against a 109g6 they will buy FB gold to find out...no company is going to throw away those extra sales that come about by having the whole product line work together..

BigBoy01
04-02-2004, 12:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gato-Loco:
I do not have a DVD... and I fly FB in perfect mode and at the highest resolution.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And, your system specs and video card driver version, please. (LOL - damn eye-candy perve that I am.)

P4C800 3.2EE/2048Corsair Twin X/2 X 80GB Raid 0 HDs/9800XT/CH HOTAS & Rudders.
AMD-(due for upgrade) 1.6/1024Ram/80GB HD/GeF3 500Ti/Evenstrained Hall Sensored Cougar#0047 with CH Rudders. Backup Cougar #11103.
XP Home /SP1a with most updates.

Luftkillier
04-02-2004, 12:47 PM
Since Luthier has come out and said it will work together wit FB that should be the end of "that" discussion. Yeah, I agree doing it any other way would not make any sense. UBI maybe some things, but they are not stupid when it comes to making the most out of a buck. I suspect that you will see a large push towards marketing the "compatible" aspects of the games as time for release draws closer. I mean why in the world would they turn their backs on the main buying audience?

Bearcat99
04-02-2004, 01:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luthier1:
Shipping PF with all FB features will mean a set of 4-5 CDs in the box, a 5+ GB footprint on your hard drive<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I find that hard to belive.. unless your trying to imply that *contents* of PACIFIC FIGHTERS will make up 3 of the 5 GB! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luthier1:
plus a huge extra amount of testing when releasing the product.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Emmmmmmm maybe.. but once the *link* between the two is established.. it should only req you to test the NEW PF Features.. Something that will have to be done *link* or *no-link* to IL2-FB

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
__TAGERT__<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FB is 2 CDs, AEP is one CD, I think he is implying that PF may be 2 CDs. So PF+FB=4CDs.

<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/)

Zentaurus
04-02-2004, 02:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gato-Loco:
I do not have a DVD... and I fly FB in perfect mode and at the highest resolution.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

if you have the money to afford hardware which can run the settings which you describe then you could probably spent the few bucks for a DVD-drive....
actually your PC is an oddity...i dont believe many guys are out there without DVD...the occasional exception may exist..

I am convinced it would be a much nicer thing to pack everything on one DVD instead of 4-5 CDs or making a PF standalone without integration into FB...

at least i am really dreaming of THE WW2 flightsim which allows all planes and scenarios of WW2(or at least the major ones) under one roof !

II/JG54_Zent

http://www.martinvonelm.de/BilderIL2FB/bannerherzII.jpeg (http://groups.msn.com/IIGruppeJagdgeschwader54)

TAGERT.
04-02-2004, 05:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
FB is 2 CDs, AEP is one CD, I think he is implying that PF may be 2 CDs. So PF+FB=4CDs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nah... there is redudent stuff on the FB CD that is on the ACE CD that would not be req when it is all in one package.. But even if that is not the case, the scare tatics of 4 to 5 CD's and 5 Gig footprints is still lame.. By lame I mean NOT a good excuse/reason

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

LEXX_Luthor
04-03-2004, 01:47 AM
If PF can get all of Oleg's....

I~16 (with air-air rockets)
I~153
TB~3~M34
DB
SB
I~15 (being made at netwings)

...and Luthier is making Ki~27 and/or A5M, I will be Happy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Although I'd love to experiment with 1941 Japan invades USSR historic "what if" possibility.

SJG1_Therr
04-03-2004, 08:18 AM
Dear Bearcathttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)))))

ok, if PF will include FB/AEP and it will be one product, and all of us will be able to play this such a one community it will be great product http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
we still could be have VEF/VOW fronts http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif and maybe (Lex especially for youhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) Russian-Japan Online War and Pacyfic Online Front it will be GREAT
tell me why we should lost Eastern Front?
we will lost this when BoB will ready.... but earlier most of us want to play both front Pacific and Eastern, Kill Russian on East and American on Far East http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I wanna use my Bf-110G2 to attack Il-2 over Sevastopol and try to attack Pearl Harbour with Zeke http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Only two theaters in ONE game will great... if not, we will divide .... part of us will still killing Rusiians on Eastern Front and part of us will kill Americans over Guadalcanal http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
You said it will be 4 CD and what?
I have Diablo II (still http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) which included 3 CD oryginally and 1 CD as a LOD and now 2 patches.... it is great ! Great because I did not lost nothing from Diablo II playing LOD.
Sure, you right, we all will buy this game, but I see no sense to divide our group of sim enhusiast for two similar war theaters.... aircariers were too in convoys to Murmansk, right?
we can use them too.... maybe we can use them on (maybe) map of Mediterrean Theatre? if anybody from 1C will make a new big map for this...

this will be great not a alnoe new producthttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Best Regards

Sorry for my English but it is not my first language and I try to type what I think in a simplest way..

Fly or die !!!!!

Commanding Officer
Sonderkomando Jagdgeschwader 1

LEXX_Luthor
04-03-2004, 10:42 AM
SJG1_Therr:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> (Lex especially for youhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) Russian-Japan Online War and Pacyfic Online Front it will be GREAT <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Offline War would be even better http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

In fact, if you can't find historical accuracy onwhine, you make it yourself in offwhine FMB. That is the hidden Secret to finding exact historical accuracy in FB and FP.

RAAF_Furball
04-03-2004, 10:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SJG1_Therr:
Dear Bearcathttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)))))

ok, if PF will include FB/AEP and it will be one product, and all of us will be able to play this such a one community it will be great product http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
we still could be have VEF/VOW fronts http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif and maybe (Lex especially for youhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) Russian-Japan Online War and Pacyfic Online Front it will be GREAT
tell me why we should lost Eastern Front?
we will lost this when BoB will ready.... but earlier most of us want to play both front Pacific and Eastern, Kill Russian on East and American on Far East http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I wanna use my Bf-110G2 to attack Il-2 over Sevastopol and try to attack Pearl Harbour with Zeke http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Only two theaters in ONE game will great... if not, we will divide .... part of us will still killing Rusiians on Eastern Front and part of us will kill Americans over Guadalcanal http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
You said it will be 4 CD and what?
I have Diablo II (still http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) which included 3 CD oryginally and 1 CD as a LOD and now 2 patches.... it is great ! Great because I did not lost nothing from Diablo II playing LOD.
Sure, you right, we all will buy this game, but I see no sense to divide our group of sim enhusiast for two similar war theaters.... aircariers were too in convoys to Murmansk, right?
we can use them too.... maybe we can use them on (maybe) map of Mediterrean Theatre? if anybody from 1C will make a new big map for this...

this will be great not a alnoe new producthttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Best Regards

Sorry for my English but it is not my first language and I try to type what I think in a simplest way..

Fly or die !!!!!

Commanding Officer
Sonderkomando Jagdgeschwader 1
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Makes a lot of sense to me

_RAAF_Furball, CO

click below for _RAAF_ website

http://members.optusnet.com.au/raafgames/crest.jpg (http://www.raafsquad.cjb.net)

click below for Fur's website

http://members.optusnet.com.au/nfurball/Images/plane_md_wht.gif (http://www.fur.cjb.net)

RAAF_Furball
04-03-2004, 10:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Luftkillier:
I suspect that you will see a large push towards marketing the "compatible" aspects of the games as time for release draws closer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yep - "buy PF and pull in FB maps and aircraft."

_RAAF_Furball, CO

click below for _RAAF_ website

http://members.optusnet.com.au/raafgames/crest.jpg (http://www.raafsquad.cjb.net)

click below for Fur's website

http://members.optusnet.com.au/nfurball/Images/plane_md_wht.gif (http://www.fur.cjb.net)

LuckyBoy1
04-03-2004, 01:35 PM
I'm happy to pay for Pacific if you keep it inclusive. I'm even happy to pay the full, stand alone price. When BoB comes out, I think I would still feel the same way. However, Oleg stated from jump that BoB would use a different type of coding not compatible with IL-2 FB and I stood in the minority at that time wanting it not to be so. I couldn't imagine this game in any theatre without the Russian planes at least included in the total package. again, then everyone would get to decide just how they wanted to set it up for their own pleasure. The "what if" crowd could do their thing and the "historically accurate" crowd could go their own way as well and we'd have as many slices of the two pieces of this pie s anyone would ever want.

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, 02:36 PM
Plz do not include the fb aircrafts in PF or you can release it assss a new expansione for fb

DuxCorvan
04-03-2004, 05:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pzyber:
Plz do not include the fb aircrafts in PF or you can release it assss a new expansione for fb<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...release it a$$... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

You better keep it a$$ well tied.

And the argument to say so is... none. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Obi_Kwiet
04-03-2004, 07:53 PM
I under stand why this needs to be stand alone. But this should be the next FB though. We need to have all the planes up to date. Charge 60$ I don't care. But mabey a customer loyality rebate! :-D!

nsu
04-04-2004, 01:13 AM
!!BoB do not come out before 2006!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

??Maybe Luthier make another Add-on to Pacific Fighters?? !!!!

West Europe or Mediterran perhaps http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

something means you Luthier it is possible ??????????? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gruß NSU http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Jabo22
04-04-2004, 05:19 AM
Add-on for Pacific fighters? Could only be the Korean war, a direct result of the pacific war

Mig15 vs Sabre with the Fb engine, THIS would be a great Add-on http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

SimHq Tom Cofield
04-04-2004, 11:30 AM
Come on guys, give Luthier a break here with some of this stuff.

Add on or stand alone would be fine with me. It would be nice to import some of the aircraft into the game. I-16s vs Claudes would be fun to play but if they want to keep the focus strictly on the Pacific campaign then a stand alone game probably would be the best bet.

For years now we have whined because only one real Pacific War flight sim has been released in the last 10 years, and it was marginal in many respects. Now we see a game released on the IL2:FB engine and some of us are whining about the fact we may not be able to fly all of the IL2 aircraft in it. Luth hasn't even said that you won't be able to do it.

Give the guy some time OK?

RAAF_Furball
04-04-2004, 07:54 PM
Luthier (our hard-working PTO Crew Chief) posted this Thread to test the waters and receive feedback to assist decisions yet to be made by him, Oleg and Ubi top brass.

He has received that feedback:
- some ppl don't care whether PF is released as an FB Addon or a Standalone game
- some ppl do care (very strongly)
- some ppl would like the ability to import elements of FB into FP (the best option IMHO)
- the community will be split - at least to some degree - if PF is Standalone - the PTO lovers probably won't bother to import FB elements
- some believe that it would be great to have all theatres under the one roof (BoB is a new engine, so can't be anyway)

The community was split when FB was released - some still play IL2.

Does it really matter?

Luthier has said:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luthier1: (snip)..... we do hope to attract new people to our line of sims - and requiring them to buy both PF and FB would be a bit too much, if all they want to do is fly Pacific planes and don't care for the Eastern Front (and while unpopular on these boards such people do exist http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

~~~~~~~~~

As I've said before .....

Addon or Standalone is fine with me (and all Aussies?). We PTO lovers would not mind losing the Eastern Front.

It'll be GREAT to fly over New Guinea, etc., instead of places we've never heard of and can't pronounce.

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

I'll be buying FP in whatever format it is released - can't wait!

_RAAF_Furball, CO

click below for _RAAF_ website

http://members.optusnet.com.au/raafgames/crest.jpg (http://www.raafsquad.cjb.net)

click below for Fur's website

http://members.optusnet.com.au/nfurball/Images/plane_md_wht.gif (http://www.fur.cjb.net)

MornJW
04-04-2004, 08:39 PM
People lacking DVD-ROM should not be an issue, you can buy a DVD-ROM for the same price as most computer games.

SJG1_Therr
04-05-2004, 02:48 AM
he he he I will again say what I think coz I think you do not understand me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I would like to fly over the Berlin and over the Midway in one game...
it will be better for al of us
if you wanna play PF you will lokking for host with this maps http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
if you still play on eastern front you simly will choice a host with maps and planesets from eastern front
some of us will fly me-262 over Japan and kill B-17http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif if they will have host .. why not
but still al of us will a one community
we wil can play from one HL such as now we chose VEF VOW or any other missions

I am sure that Luthier can do this, maybe with no all planes in eastern front but with a god plane sets

I do not know what Luthier will do http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)) but I am sure that for me will be easier have one game or have two and play with both from time to time
for me it will be simply lost of full fun if I awill not be able to fly with A6M2 over Iwo-Jima from my FB however it will be named http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Luthier I think you know what you want to do.... so do that ASAPhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif most of us will play in it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Fly or die !!!!!

Commanding Officer
Sonderkomando Jagdgeschwader 1

starfighter1
04-05-2004, 09:07 AM
hi,
can we expect a new camera view system in the game engine for this 'new' sim ?
remember to the old 'corrupt gnomish view system + some overframed strut design mistakes at IL2/FB plane cockpits' to the virtual combat pilot.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by luthier1:
[Edit]I'm going to put this right on top of this page since it looks like I was a little unclear in my original post, and a lot of people missed my clarification below

_There are no technical engine limitations preventing FB aircraft from flying in PF. However it is not yet determined whether PF will ship with all FB planes included on disk or not. We are fully aware of your desire to have everything under one roof. Please just hang on for a little while, and don't claim you won't be buying this product based on decisions that haven't even been made yet._
etc....

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

Ketalar
04-05-2004, 12:03 PM
Luthier and team:

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.

zoomar2
04-06-2004, 11:51 AM
In many ways I prefer the stand alone concept for "Pacific Fighters", but if what everybody really wants is a basic encyclopedic WW2 sim, lets just call the thing "WW2 Fighters" (sound familiar!)

In "WW2 Fighters" you'd have the full plane sets, but very specific campaign areas for the ETO and PTO featuring unique AI, objectives, and non player objects. That way I could start my campaign from the deck of the Akagi and play till I died a Midway and then crank up a QMB to take out some overrated Germans in my Ki-84. If we are going to have a one-size-fits-all game, then I hope the QMB and FMB setup ditches the IL2/FB/AEP axis vs allies defaults. Even in AEP I hate it when my zero defaults to German insignia if I forget to specify it's Japanese and my P-38 defaults to Russian stars. Under the current default insigina options, it is very difficult to have Germans fight Japanese or American fight Russians in offline missions without downloading skins - which is a pain.

Somehow though, I still believe the off-line Pacific theatre fan will get a more immersive and realistic campaign from a campaign generator which focuses only on the Pacific theatre - as Il2 and FB did for the eastern front. I do not want PF to be like FB/AEP: a eastern front simulator with a few western front planes and maps added to pacify western front fans until third party campaigns are developed.

Gibbage1
04-06-2004, 06:41 PM
Personally, and professionally I dont care. To be honest, its no more then a 10$ differant eather way. add-on for 29 to 39$ or full for 39-49.

The only thing I can see is the problems if scrolling down a huge list of aircraft. Plus, being an add-on, Luthier will be tied into a few things like interface and multi-player structure. If its a full stand-alone game it could open a few options. I myself would like to see better orginization of the aircraft listings and loadouts. Like a tree system. Select 109, and then select K4. Then load out your pylons. Instead of scrolling down a huge list of 200+ aircraft (IL2, FB, Aces and Pacific!).

I would also like to see a re-vamped interface http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But thats just me. If its just an add-on, then most likley they will stick with the same interface and aircraft selection.

Plus this is this hole stigmata of IL2 bring "VVS vs Luftwaffa only" BS I get a lot of. Like "The P-38 was never flown by the VVS" crap I had to deal with. Such narrow mindedness. I cant wait for the "Ya Lexington was never near Moscow!" or "F4U's were never flown in Russia" BS.

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

noshens
04-06-2004, 07:21 PM
I agree with Gibbage and especially with the scrolling the aircraft list. I would also like to see sorting of those planes, ie by nation, year, type (bomber/fighter), and so on.

zoomar2
04-07-2004, 11:37 AM
I also agree with Gibbage and Yay about the interface. If we first chose the nationality and year of our flights in QMB/FMB and then the plane types (maybe with the planes REALLY available to that nation and year highlighted for those wanting to stay with "historical" truth)it would give the gamer much greater flexibility.

The present interface HAS to change in PF even if only cosmetically. At least make the default "allied" side something other than Russians and the "axis" Germans. I'd prefer just "side 1" vs "side 2" with all nationalities listed for both.

I DO NOT want to click on a cross to chose the Japanese!

To me this still argues for a stand alone, strictly Pacific product (perhaps with the whole FB/AEP plane set intact and options for applying German, etc insignia...but NO ETO maps or missions.

evey999
04-07-2004, 01:02 PM
All I want is a decent printed manual like the LOMAC-manual one.

I'd pay extra for a box with one in.

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

Killjoy2k2
04-08-2004, 02:58 AM
This post is so far back in this thread it probibly will not be read.

I don't mind if it is an addon or Standalone.

If it is standalone then it should be fully netcode compatable with ILFB, so people with PF can join FB/ACE servers but not use the extra PF aircraft, But FB/ACE users cannot join PF.

I think that idea is a very good one,
Concider it!

jimmyboy99
04-08-2004, 01:11 PM
dont wry i read urs, i cheeted, i went and just read the first and last page. im so smart. u see they are all talking about the same stuff so y bother reading all of it.

DuxCorvan
04-09-2004, 07:21 AM
I'm with Gibbage:

All Il-2/FB/AEP/PF stuff, only with a new, easier and nicer interface. In fact, this should have been done before in a patch or in AEP. The interface was great for Il-2, but the game has grown ans it needs something better to manage all its options.

ampadgog
04-15-2004, 03:52 AM
ubi has a good thing going on here with IL2...in my mind they would mess it up if they try to devide the community. people will be drawn away from IL2...and this means that the tytle will sell less when the next add on arives. People just include all in one gorgeuse super game that IL2FB is. We have it all, good AI, FM, community, everything. dont turn this from a dream ,into a nightmare.


P.S. everybody and i mean everybody will pay full new product money for PO even if its an add on, but not everyone will buy it if its stand alone.

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

Cpt_MiB
04-16-2004, 05:34 PM
will the team release a dvd version or will it be on cd?

Flakwalker
04-22-2004, 09:59 PM
Either way is good for me as long it keep conection with Il-2/FB/AEP in terms of aircraft and maps, so if it is an add-on with better and friendly user options like Gibbage wrote (*) or an stand alone wich modific the previous game will be fine for me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

(*) Also we need more big scroll and buttons on the FMB, the current ones are very little, specially when scrolling on US squadrons!

Maks25
04-25-2004, 08:27 AM
may be could to and Add-On and Stand -alon Two Versions

Thanks for GREAT Work http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Maico_249th
04-28-2004, 11:36 PM
IL2 $39.00, FB $40.00, AEP $30.00. Three years of entretainment for 109 dollars.... Priceless.
Nothing irritates me more than people who cant understand that entretainment costs money. This is the cheapest deal I have seen next to television witch btw is NOT interactive. I will be buying PF whether it is an add on, a stand alone, or a whole different engine. Lets not fool ourselves... Noone here is going to play CFS 2...

WereSnowleopard
05-01-2004, 07:54 AM
I guess that will do same thing with North Africa/Med campaign in same example as PF?

Beirut
05-04-2004, 06:54 PM
I want it to go along with AEP. I don't care if it's a ten CD install. I have my gaming rig, this sim gets top priority, and I want the whole enchilda. I want the mother of all sims in one piece.

"Official Lancaster whiner"

JG666_ZeroPilot
05-07-2004, 01:51 PM
Hello, I'm in for a Stand-Alone Pacfic Fighters. Because of that historical nature of the time i.e. Pacific planes for the South Sea area.

Forgotten Battles covers the air war in Europe and Eastren Front.

If not a Stand-Alone them its own folder within the Ubi Soft folder! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

Wolf_96th
05-08-2004, 04:19 PM
I agree ZeroPilot it def. needs to be stand alone.

Henry_Shrapnel
05-09-2004, 11:45 PM
I'm glad it's a stand alone and don't care about backward compatibility. The people who have been waiting all these years for a real PTO sim won't care if it's an add on either imop.

Mogster1
05-10-2004, 11:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PE_Tigar:
Well, what comes to mind here is Enemy Engaged series from Razorworks: their Comanche vs. Hokum was a separate product, however, if you had previous product installed (Apache vs. Havoc) you could import maps and aircraft from the old one into the new one. I would prefer this solution, since it would make the PF separately sellable, yet keep the add-on crowd satisfied too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Razorworks style merge-on is the only sensible option IMO.

PF sounds like its got way too much content for a cut price title. Full price has always been fine by me.

MOG