The Forgotten Battles

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 02 2003,06:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yeah, probably the one thing I'd most like to see in FB is for my kills to show up on my plane. that would kick sooo much ass<span id='postcolor'>

If you read the IL-2 forums you would know that there is a tool that does just that

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/zarodinu/pv/paintvictories0_4.zip

*edit* can't vouch for it myself though, haven't tried it

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ April 02 2003,17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 02 2003,06:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yeah, probably the one thing I'd most like to see in FB is for my kills to show up on my plane. that would kick sooo much ass<span id='postcolor'>

If you read the IL-2 forums you would know that there is a tool that does just that <!--emo&

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/zarodinu/pv/paintvictories0_4.zip

*edit* can't vouch for it myself though, haven't tried it<span id='postcolor'>

Ahh, thank you very much

For your find, I present you with this  

And I do look at the IL2 forums, only sometimes though, must of it is just complaints, and since they closed down the pilots lounge everything will be kept to IL2 and FB, so nearly all posts will be either 1). Complaining about the fact that the Pilots lounge was shut down or 2). Complaining that their favourite plane isn't good enough or that the other planes are too good. It's one of those forums that is ok to read, but I wouldn't post there. Very much like the DoD forums.

*Edit-I'll report back when I have tried this utility whether it works or not*

Right, I have tried it out. It is easy to use, but unfortunetely you have to manually add your kill and medal markings. You have to edit the skin you use and add your stars/crosses/lines/Hero of the Soviet Union yourself. Still pretty good.

Oh yeah, you can add 'for the Motherland' and 'for Stalin' (in Russian) on your plane too, so with this tool, you can make quite a historically correct paint job.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ April 02 2003,07:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 02 2003,06:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yeah, probably the one thing I'd most like to see in FB is for my kills to show up on my plane. that would kick sooo much ass<span id='postcolor'>

If you read the IL-2 forums you would know that there is a tool that does just that

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/zarodinu/pv/paintvictories0_4.zip

*edit* can't vouch for it myself though, haven't tried it<span id='postcolor'>

sweet, thank you. Can't wait to try it out

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ April 02 2003,07:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And I do look at the IL2 forums, only sometimes though, must of it is just complaints, and since they closed down the pilots lounge everything will be kept to IL2 and FB, so nearly all posts will be either 1). Complaining about the fact that the Pilots lounge was shut down or 2). Complaining that their favourite plane isn't good enough or that the other planes are too good. It's one of those forums that is ok to read, but I wouldn't post there. Very much like the DoD forums.<span id='postcolor'>

Same here, I mostly read but don't post much. You sometimes learn something about an aircraft you didn't know before, or find a useful tool such as that one, but very often you get people who bitch about flight models as if they had ever flown the real thing - even when occasionally a real life pilot jumps in and vouches for the sim's fidelity they're usually dismissed, because what do they know, they've only ever flown a Cessna. These same people often also bitch about the bug that causes the I-16's engine to die during negative G maneuvers, the bug that causes the Me-262's engines to catch fire as soon as they slam the throttle to 100%, or the bug that causes their screen to go black when they line up behind an enemy bomber.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ April 02 2003,07:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">or the bug that causes their screen to go black when they line up behind an enemy bomber.  <span id='postcolor'>

Please tell me you didn't actually read this on the forum lol

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 02 2003,07:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ April 02 2003,07:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">or the bug that causes their screen to go black when they line up behind an enemy bomber.  <span id='postcolor'>

Please tell me you didn't actually read this on the forum lol  <span id='postcolor'>

Yep

*edit* that being said there are some rather serious bugs that need to be fixed - the I-16's apparent invulnerability to MG's, the P-40 exploding as soon as it hits 500kmph, the Me-262 one-engine flight characteristics (drops like a brick, the me-262's flight manual states that one engined flight was possible but dangerous), and of course, bomber AI that thinks it's flying a Yak-3 as soon as they drop their load as Badgerboy mentioned. Oh well, end of April they said, not too long now.

[Aaron Kane 0]

And hopefully they'll fix the FW190's FM

*dodges brick from Tovarish*

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And hopefully they'll fix the FW190's FM <span id='postcolor'>

Actually try taking a Dora to 10,000m. It has no elevator authority, it just falls from the sky.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ April 02 2003,18:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And hopefully they'll fix the FW190's FM <span id='postcolor'>

Actually try taking a Dora to 10,000m. It has no elevator authority, it just falls from the sky.<span id='postcolor'>

Game engine limitation. Above 10000 meters, you're in outer space .

Incidentally, the 190's FM has already been "fixed". After much lobbying by its fans, it is now the only AC in the game to be modeled according to manufacturer's "advertising" data, as opposed to field test data.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ April 03 2003,15:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Game engine limitation. Above 10000 meters, you're in outer space .<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah, it's pretty crazy. Once I flew off the map to see what would happen. It's a bit like OFP. You don't hit an invisible barrier or anything, but the landscape becomes very blurry. It is a pitty, because the IL2 engine would be good for a Western front mod if only there wasn't such height limitations and map width limiatations. Imagine European Air War with better graphics, more realism, a mission builder and improved Dynamic campaign. And more planes.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ April 03 2003,06:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is a pitty, because the IL2 engine would be good for a Western front mod if only there wasn't such height limitations and map width limiatations. Imagine European Air War with better graphics, more realism, a mission builder and improved Dynamic campaign. And more planes.<span id='postcolor'>

You have to keep in mind the nature of the airwar on the eastern front, nothing happened at such high altitudes. 10,000 meters is about 32,000 feet...that being said you might just get your wish. Oleg has said that the height limitation will be adressed in their next sim, and rumor has it it will either feature the Mediterranean Theatre or the Battle of Britain .

PS, about wanting to increase map size...are you mad?!? The map of Leningrad/Findland takes up about 512 RAM by itself!

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ April 03 2003,17:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You have to keep in mind the nature of the airwar on the eastern front, nothing happened at such high altitudes. 10,000 meters is about 32,000 feet...that being said you might just get your wish. Oleg has said that the height limitation will be adressed in their next sim, and rumor has it it will either feature the Mediterranean Theatre or the Battle of Britain .

PS, about wanting to increase map size...are you mad?!? The map of Leningrad/Findland takes up about 512 RAM by itself! <span id='postcolor'>

I know and understand that, but still... the less limitations, the better It would be nice to see a good modern Western Front game after Micro$oft Combat Flight Simulator 3 turned out to be such a dud.

The Mediterranean Theatre could be interesting... I have never played a game set there (besides 12'oclock high, but that was a strategy game) and fighting in the Siege of Malta could be quite spectacular.

As for the map sizes, if EAW could have the whole of Western Europe running at one time, and CFS3 could have the whole of Western Europe running at one time, why not IL2? (that would be the whole of Eastern Europe). Hopefully for the next big Oleg Maddox flight sim... By that time hopefully most people will have at least 512mb of ram.

[theavonlady 2]

MY IL2FB CD just came in!

Now I just have to learn how to fly.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ April 03 2003,09:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for the map sizes, if EAW could have the whole of Western Europe running at one time, and CFS3 could have the whole of Western Europe running at one time, why not IL2? (that would be the whole of Eastern Europe). Hopefully for the next big Oleg Maddox flight sim... By that time hopefully most people will have at least 512mb of ram.<span id='postcolor'>

EAW made a lot of tradeoffs for performance, for example, a large bomber formation would share the AI of just one bomber. This would cause some funky things to happen such as a whole formation loosing altitude because one plane was crippled. IL-2 and IL-2 Forgotten Battles are infinitely more detailed, and that takes a lot of systems resources.

[Guest]

So, is it worth getting? FB I mean?

I enjoyed IL2 for a short while, but I grew quickly tired of it due to its lack of a good SP campaign with a story line.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 03 2003,18:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So, is it worth getting? FB I mean?

I enjoyed IL2 for a short while, but I grew quickly tired of it due to its lack of a good SP campaign with a story line.<span id='postcolor'>

Definitely . The dynamic campaigns add a lot to the single player, while retaining historical accuracy (you can't really change the course of the war). Trying to keep your wingmen alive and not loose aircraft does for IL-2 what Resistance did for OFP. Of course, as mentioned before there are some bugs that need to be fixed, I would say the heavy bomber campaigns are unplayable due to the faulty AI, but Maddox Games have been great at supporting IL-2, and the first patch for FB will be coming at the end of this month. (delayed right now as the head programmer is absent due to illness in the family)

[Badgerboy 0]

Try it Tovarish. Take any fighter up in QB and set the altitude high. It wallows a little but has control.

The D9 has almost no authority up high, while the other FW190's do.

(And I don't fly FW190's, I just like to point out bugs)

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ April 03 2003,19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Try it Tovarish. Take any fighter up in QB and set the altitude high. It wallows a little but has control.

The D9 has almost no authority up high, while the other FW190's do.

(And I don't fly FW190's, I just like to point out bugs)<span id='postcolor'>

How high exactly? I'll try it when I get home, but like I said, Oleg has stated that flight models don't apply beyond 10,000, so don't be surprized if you see something you don't expect <!--emo&

Don't take my word for it though:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Attention!

Sad that I forgot to write again in manual or readme.

In our engine we have a limit for altitude!

Above 10,000 meters there are not working right physicts as it should. Just bellow.

It was discussed in the past on Il-2 forums and all users accepted my explanation

For a short time we wasn't able to rewrite the whole code of the 3D wolrd modeled in il-2 and then in FB.

So basic IL-2 engine still used and some such features whent from Il-2 to FB.

So its why you may experienced wird behaviour of the planes ABOVE 10,000 meters of altitude.

You may check easy that I tell truth with Bi-1. You may fly on this plane in "space" (with no limit of fuel)  

realist physiscs switched off after 10,000 meters of altitude.

That was limit in Il-2, that is still limit in FB due to use of main basics of Il-2.

We plan to make more high alt physiscs only in the next sim on which we are working already now.

The next sim will be a basis for the cycle of the sims that will cover diferent areas of WWII.

<span id='postcolor'>

[theavonlady 2]

I'm not off the ground yet (except in Training Mission #1 ). So my first question is down to earth:

Which video mode is preferable - OpenGL or DX?

When in OGL, there a major increase in frame stuttering.

I am using max video settings in the game at 1600x1200x32.

Dell Notebook with a PIV 2Ghz, 512MB RAM NVidia Go 440 chipset with 64MB. Using 43.45 Detonators.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 03 2003,20:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm not off the ground yet (except in Training Mission #1 ). So my first question is down to earth:

Which video mode is preferable - OpenGL or DX?

When in OGL, there a major increase in frame stuttering.

I am using max video settings in the game at 1600x1200x32.

Dell Notebook with a PIV 2Ghz, 512MB RAM NVidia Go 440 chipset with 64MB. Using 43.45 Detonators.<span id='postcolor'>

Heh. You really might want to turn the resolution down, Avon! I am not sure the MX chipset in that notebook is up to 1600x1200 without a lot of stutters.

What is the native resolution for your LCD panel?

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ April 03 2003,21:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Avon!  I am not sure the MX chipset in that notebook is up to 1600x1200 without a lot of stutters.

What is the native resolution for your LCD panel?<span id='postcolor'>

Well, in DX, the stuttering is very minimal, if any.

Native resolution IS 1600x1200. 15 inch LCD.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 03 2003,20:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">5--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ April 03 2003,215)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Avon!  I am not sure the MX chipset in that notebook is up to 1600x1200 without a lot of stutters.

What is the native resolution for your LCD panel?<span id='postcolor'>

Well, in DX, the stuttering is very minimal, if any.

Native resolution IS 1600x1200. 15 inch LCD.<span id='postcolor'>

Oooooooooh

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ April 03 2003,21:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 03 2003,20:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, in DX, the stuttering is very minimal, if any.

Native resolution IS 1600x1200. 15 inch LCD.<span id='postcolor'>

Oooooooooh <!--emo&<span id='postcolor'>

What's the big difference between the DX and OGL video interfaces? Is it a question of quality, with OGL being the better?

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 03 2003,20:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ April 03 2003,21:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 03 2003,20:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, in DX, the stuttering is very minimal, if any.

Native resolution IS 1600x1200. 15 inch LCD.<span id='postcolor'>

Oooooooooh <!--emo&<span id='postcolor'>

What's the big difference between the DX and OGL video interfaces? Is it a question of quality, with OGL being the better?<span id='postcolor'>

Mainly they are just different programming API's. In some cases OGL is better than DX in image quality, but unless the renderer is specifically written for OGL, you sometimes suffer performance hits. It also depends on whether the developer optomised the OGL code. I'd check on the IL-2 forums and see what they have to say there in Tech Support.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

I think IL2 and FB were coded to be better in Open GL mode and I run Open GL mode.

About the big maps and perfomance issues Tovarish. You have to realise we are coming into a new age of technology. Soon I think it should be possible to have a detailed, good looking flight sim on a map that covers Europe (imagine if you could have both the Western and Eastern Front's with the option to change fronts if you were a German).

If Flashpoint can be a reality, so can be this flight sim I think of.

I demand that this game is built!

And who am I to ask of such a thing? A jumped up 14 year old whacked up teenager that's who, so everyone should obey my authority. Yet strangely, noone does...

Back to the drawing board...

Next plan, kidnap Oleg and the team amd force them to make me the game of my dreams. Whilst finishing their cool looking WWII RTS.