Battle of Malta or Mediterranean - why not?

Originally Posted by JG53Frankyboy

i guess that have to be said about every theatre of operation. The amount of work that this engine needs ( maps, cockpits, planes, ships) , means that every adon can be 'only' about a special battle ( read limited time frame) IMO.

The nice thing about the pacific is that you can stretch the aircraft over a long timeframe as they didn't advance model wise nearly as fast as the European Theater, but you need new terrain and tree models, buildings, vehicles, and the biggest obstacle (manpower wise) are all of those ships. Having 2 types of generic freighters (US/JPN) doesn't cut it any more, and the warships (especially the Japanese) are incredibly complex looking with their insane superstructures which I can only describe as cluttered.

THIS IS WHERE YOU TURN TO THE COMMUNITY!

You need buildings, vehicles and ships? Release the tools necessary for them to make them. No matter how good your modeling staff is, there is always some hardcore fan who is better, can make them faster, and even more detailed than your guys have the time to. Have a submission contest where the fans who make models that are good enough for the game get their names mentioned in the credits and maybe 1/2 off the game when it is released. Those fans that can and do make models aren't interested in copy-writing their work and getting big bucks, they want a game that is full of content. Naturally the aircraft will have to be made in-house, but it would free the people who are modeling the other stuff to help out on the new aircraft. More vehicles, and more aircraft, with less money. . . where is the downside? Obviously they will have to do some quality control and make sure the models are appropriate, but that's a heck of a lot less time than making a new carrier or truck from scratch.

These people are out there and want to help, might as well use them! If nothing else you get some more publicity for the game when the word is out that people can actually have their work published. There are people who are dying to get into the industry, and having some of the content make it into a real game would be payment enough.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by cheesehawk

Will they even do a Pacific theatre? I think that USSR never actively engaged in that theatre, so probably not much interest from the RU guys.

same question and line of reasoning was presented years ago in the IL-2 forums.. Just prior to the IL-2 Pacific Fighters release

[csThor]

Originally Posted by speculum jockey

You need buildings, vehicles and ships? Release the tools necessary for them to make them. No matter how good your modeling staff is, there is always some hardcore fan who is better, can make them faster, and even more detailed than your guys have the time to.

The blind faith in "release the tools and topnotch models will appear" is getting old, people. In the 1946 world there were a handful of people (as in - 10 at the max) who could and did produce models which did fit the technical specifications and which did not have to be corrected. In the new engine model detail has gone up another few notches and I severely doubt anyone could do such a model on his own within a reasonable timeframe ... Making a 3D model for a game is not so much about looks (and getting Oooh!s and Aaah!s in some message board) but about sticking to technical specifications and adhering to them like superglue. That, coupled with the enormous detail and the interior structures, makes modelling for the CloD engine very laborious.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by csThor

The blind faith in "release the tools and topnotch models will appear" is getting old, people. In the 1946 world there were a handful of people (as in - 10 at the max) who could and did produce models which did fit the technical specifications and which did not have to be corrected. In the new engine model detail has gone up another few notches and I severely doubt anyone could do such a model on his own within a reasonable timeframe ... Making a 3D model for a game is not so much about looks (and getting Oooh!s and Aaah!s in some message board) but about sticking to technical specifications and adhering to them like superglue. That, coupled with the enormous detail and the interior structures, makes modelling for the CloD engine very laborious.

Give me the SDK and I'll have a go

[Ataros]

Originally Posted by robtek

I think that thinking of a single pacific scenario is very unrealistic.
It should get separated in single battles, i.e.
1. Pearl harbor, wake island and philippines when the japanese took it.
2. Later indonesia, new guinea, sumatra, battle of the Java sea and Java, naval battle of midway.
3. Next Marines at guadalcanal, eastern solomones, santa cruz burma.
4. Followed by tarawa, kwajalein, truk, saipan and philippines.
5. And finally to the end.

Just as a idea, to be plucked by the experts.

Didn't UBI made any Pacific expansion impossible by this http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...49&postcount=9 ?

I enjoyed flying aircraft-carrier scenarios in Warbirds BTW. It is fun.

Originally Posted by csThor

The blind faith in "release the tools and topnotch models will appear" is getting old, people. In the 1946 world there were a handful of people (as in - 10 at the max) who could and did produce models which did fit the technical specifications and which did not have to be corrected. In the new engine model detail has gone up another few notches and I severely doubt anyone could do such a model on his own within a reasonable timeframe ... Making a 3D model for a game is not so much about looks (and getting Oooh!s and Aaah!s in some message board) but about sticking to technical specifications and adhering to them like superglue. That, coupled with the enormous detail and the interior structures, makes modelling for the CloD engine very laborious.

If you read my post again, I said that things like buildings, trees, and vehicles the player would never drive could be modeled by the community so the devs could focus on the aircraft so we get more flyable content. Creating a Russian peasant's house would be easy, so would creating a hundred other buildings. Static vehicles as well could be fine. I imagine that AI controlled land vehicles would be more difficult, but they would be a million times easier than aircraft.

[bongodriver]

Quite agree.

and to say the 'release the tools' argument is getting old? I can only think of 1 flight sim series where tools were available to the wider public and the add ons for that series are flooding in.

[csThor]

Quite honestly after reading countless times that this or that object (3rd Party, remember) in 1946 fails to meet the specifications or goes far beyond the specifications I no longer believe that even buildings are easy to model. Or maybe it's just not easy to overcome the laziness of one's weaker self and adhere to specifications. I don't know.
Tanks, vehicles and ships (especially them) are even worse since they're technically intricate and - in CloD - need a high level of details to match what is already there in the game.

I am not arguing against people trying their luck, I am arguing against people thinking that creating any objects for CloD will be an easy undertaking.

[bongodriver]

That's fair enough, not sure anybody said it would be easy though, would just be nice to have a crack.

[Ploughman]

Quality objects will require a professional approach and Maddox Games themselves will provide the benchmark for content, hopefully some of the software houses that provide pay ware content for sims like FSX will be inclined to do so for the CloD series. It doesn't all have to have DMs either, if the sim ever lives up to its promise then the FMs and recreation of physics of flight should allow it to become attractive to simmers who are not interested in combat such as sport or aerobatic fliers, imagine a 'Reno: Air Racer' add-on? Be a while though, given the current state of the sim it's hardly a 'market' to invest in.