IL2FB/AEP/PF new flight model coming...

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 13:13:52 -0600, "Don Burnette"
<d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote:


>Maybe this will quiet those that would say Oleg and company have abandoned
>their current offerings...

Well, that's nice and all but with no torpedo bombers in PF's it is an
unfinished sim still.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

You want torpedos? Get Silent Hunter 3. There's lots of 'em!


"Don Burnette" <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:zKednQtkhJOOdaDfRVn-uA@giganews.com...
> Connected wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 13:13:52 -0600, "Don Burnette"
>> <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Maybe this will quiet those that would say Oleg and company have
>>> abandoned their current offerings...
>>
>> Well, that's nice and all but with no torpedo bombers in PF's it is an
>> unfinished sim still.
>
>
> LOL, only for those that must have torpedo bombers...
>
> I don't think I have ever seen a sim with this much depth and support.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Don Burnette
>
> "When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of the
> way of the man that's doing it."
>
>

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"Connected" <connected@somewhere.here> wrote in message
news:llcs31tsbcf2dasq8affksk9rk2s048jk6@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:51:38 -0500, "HockeyTownUSA"
> <magma@killspam.comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >You want torpedos? Get Silent Hunter 3. There's lots of 'em!
>
> I went to buy it and Brothers in Arms today and niether where there so
> ended up with FarCry from the bargain bin. Oh well, at least I don't
> have to worry about if those games will work on my DVD drive or not. I
> have read lots of people have had issues not getting SHIII installed
> on their computer. Might be a bad batch of disks or it's that Safedisk
> causing read errors with their DVD drives.
>
> I still want torpedo bombers in PF's, it ain't complete without them,
> IMO.

I have to agree, the game is incomplete without torpedo bombers.

Gus

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

Gonzo wrote:
> "Gus" <gus@123456.net> wrote in message
> news:gat%d.3046$MX1.632@fe08.lga...
>>
>> "Connected" <connected@somewhere.here> wrote in message
>> news:llcs31tsbcf2dasq8affksk9rk2s048jk6@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:51:38 -0500, "HockeyTownUSA"
>>> <magma@killspam.comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You want torpedos? Get Silent Hunter 3. There's lots of 'em!
>>>
>>> I went to buy it and Brothers in Arms today and niether where there
>>> so ended up with FarCry from the bargain bin. Oh well, at least I
>>> don't have to worry about if those games will work on my DVD drive
>>> or not. I have read lots of people have had issues not getting
>>> SHIII installed on their computer. Might be a bad batch of disks
>>> or it's that Safedisk causing read errors with their DVD drives.
>>>
>>> I still want torpedo bombers in PF's, it ain't complete without
>>> them, IMO.
>>
>> I have to agree, the game is incomplete without torpedo bombers.
>>
>> Gus
>
> Call me a pesimist but I got this feeling like Oleg was holding a
> carrot on a stick with this annoucement as a way of soothing things
> over because the 3.05 patch has yet (if ever) to be materialized as well
> as the
> promissed finished Betty.
>
> In his annoucement about 4.0 he said absolutely nothing in regard to
> the status of 3.05 and whether it was coming out or not and when.


The way I read the announcement, 3.05 is incorporated in 4.0, they are just
added a lot of extra into it and decided to rename it to 4.0, primarily due
to the new flight model being introduced...



--
Don Burnette

"When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of the
way of the man that's doing it."

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

Gonzo wrote:
> "Connected" <connected@somewhere.here> wrote in message
> news:a3nr3190ga307h6tat0129v3s6ng1nvuc7@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 13:13:52 -0600, "Don Burnette"
>> <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Maybe this will quiet those that would say Oleg and company have
>>> abandoned their current offerings...
>>
>> Well, that's nice and all but with no torpedo bombers in PF's it is
>> an unfinished sim still.
>
> Yes but the Oleg Fan Club types will try to convince you that you
> don't need it.
>
> Oleg's last statement about the new alleged flight model is simply him
> beating his customers over the head with carrot stick IMHO.
>
> My guess is that this is his excuse not to release the 3.05 patch and
> to buy him more time so that he wont have to explain why the alleged
> finished Betty still isn't out yet.


3.05 will be incorporated , they just renamed it to 4.0 due to all the other
stuff that will be included...
--
Don Burnette

"When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of the
way of the man that's doing it."

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

Gonzo wrote:
> "Don Burnette" <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:h9OdnWCZeL7v797fRVn-hQ@giganews.com...
>> Gonzo wrote:
>>> "Connected" <connected@somewhere.here> wrote in message
>>> news:a3nr3190ga307h6tat0129v3s6ng1nvuc7@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 13:13:52 -0600, "Don Burnette"
>>>> <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe this will quiet those that would say Oleg and company have
>>>>> abandoned their current offerings...
>>>>
>>>> Well, that's nice and all but with no torpedo bombers in PF's it is
>>>> an unfinished sim still.
>>>
>>> Yes but the Oleg Fan Club types will try to convince you that you
>>> don't need it.
>>>
>>> Oleg's last statement about the new alleged flight model is simply
>>> him beating his customers over the head with carrot stick IMHO.
>>>
>>> My guess is that this is his excuse not to release the 3.05 patch
>>> and to buy him more time so that he wont have to explain why the
>>> alleged finished Betty still isn't out yet.
>>
>>
>> 3.05 will be incorporated , they just renamed it to 4.0 due to all
>> the other stuff that will be included...
>
> I rest my case.
>
> Forum Fan Club members at the UBI forums are all excited thinking
> that 3.05 will be released any day now.
>
> Oleg AFAIK has not actually stated whether 3.05 is incorported into
> 4.0 or not so they are all speculating "this" and speculating "that"
> to the point of obsurdity.
>
> If you have evidence of him posting this, I sure would like to know
> where you read that.
>
> In any case, you are most likely correct as I have already said. 3.05 is
> vaporware and the 4.0 patch is simply a PR bandage to tide
> over the UBI forum fan club members who can't take a hint LOL.
>
> It's sad really. This is by far the best AC sim ever and I would
> hate to see it die a slow death. Just wish 1C would just come right
> out and be honest with their customers intead of playing games.


Sure he did, he stated in the announcement that 3.05 would be incorporated
in 4.0. It is in the original link I posted in this thread...

4.0 a patch?
Maybe part of it, but another part is additional maps, flight model, planes.
I don't consider those parts a patch , those are additions...






--
Don Burnette

"When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of the
way of the man that's doing it."

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 03:25:07 -0600, "Don Burnette"
<d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote:


>Sure he did, he stated in the announcement that 3.05 would be incorporated
>in 4.0. It is in the original link I posted in this thread...
>
>4.0 a patch?
>Maybe part of it, but another part is additional maps, flight model, planes.
>I don't consider those parts a patch , those are additions...

Will it include torpedo bombers? Probably not, right?

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"Connected" <connected@somewhere.here> wrote in message
news7m84199j8kf69pq4vnsmfo82nqcb72r8g@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 03:25:07 -0600, "Don Burnette"
> <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Sure he did, he stated in the announcement that 3.05 would be incorporated
>>in 4.0. It is in the original link I posted in this thread...
>>
>>4.0 a patch?
>>Maybe part of it, but another part is additional maps, flight model,
>>planes.
>>I don't consider those parts a patch , those are additions...
>
> Will it include torpedo bombers? Probably not, right?

<sigh>

The issue with the American torpedo bombers - aside from the fact that Oleg
already insinuated that they *would not be developed* - is the Grumman
issue, wherein the current owners of the name have threatened to sue in
order to stop use of their name in the game. So, once again:

YOU WON'T GET TORPEDO BOMBERS IN IL2-FB/PF! E V E R.

I'm sorry, but that's the way it is.

You've already indicated that you don't even like the game, and would rather
play CFS3. So quit beating this dead horse and go fly your preferred game
already.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

And while we are on the subject - if the game was made more open ended
(like CFS3) modders could have solved this issue themselves.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

<bobham@wingwalkers.org> wrote in message
news:1111775025.866606.294010@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Gonzo wrote:
>> "Don Burnette" <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:h9OdnWCZeL7v797fRVn-hQ@giganews.com...
>> > Gonzo wrote:
>> >> "Connected" <connected@somewhere.here> wrote in message
>> >> news:a3nr3190ga307h6tat0129v3s6ng1nvuc7@4ax.com...
>> >>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 13:13:52 -0600, "Don Burnette"
>> >>> <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> Maybe this will quiet those that would say Oleg and company have
>> >>>> abandoned their current offerings...
>> >>>
>> >>> Well, that's nice and all but with no torpedo bombers in PF's it
> is
>> >>> an unfinished sim still.
>> >>
>> >> Yes but the Oleg Fan Club types will try to convince you that you
>> >> don't need it.
>> >>
>> >> Oleg's last statement about the new alleged flight model is simply
> him
>> >> beating his customers over the head with carrot stick IMHO.
>> >>
>> >> My guess is that this is his excuse not to release the 3.05 patch
> and
>> >> to buy him more time so that he wont have to explain why the
> alleged
>> >> finished Betty still isn't out yet.
>> >
>> >
>> > 3.05 will be incorporated , they just renamed it to 4.0 due to all
> the
>> > other stuff that will be included...
>>
>> I rest my case.
>>
>> Forum Fan Club members at the UBI forums are all excited thinking
> that 3.05
>> will be released any day now.
>>
>> Oleg AFAIK has not actually stated whether 3.05 is incorported into
> 4.0 or
>> not so they are all speculating "this" and speculating "that" to the
> point
>> of obsurdity.
>>
>> If you have evidence of him posting this, I sure would like to know
> where
>> you read that.
>>
>> In any case, you are most likely correct as I have already said.
> 3.05 is
>> vaporware and the 4.0 patch is simply a PR bandage to tide over the
> UBI
>> forum fan club members who can't take a hint LOL.
>>
>> It's sad really. This is by far the best AC sim ever and I would
> hate to
>> see it die a slow death. Just wish 1C would just come right out and
> be
>> honest with their customers intead of playing games.
>
>
> Here is Oleg's quote:
>
> "Hi all.
>
> I was sick more than one week, howere the work was not stop Smile
>
> So from today (or Monday) we will begin to test 4.0 version. Yes 4.0,
> but not 3.05...
> Simply because it deserve to name as new thing...
>
> The main change - new general FM.
> The description from readme:
>
> V4.0 introduces the pre-BoB Flight Model (FM). In this add-on we are
> partially introducing FM from our next simulation (BOB) for worldwide
> test in our current engine. Flight model in the version 4.0 was already
> extensively tested by nearly 40 real pilots from around the world and
> we received very positive feedback.
> It is likely that some people may have a problem in their first
> attempts to fly with the new flight model, especially with take-offs
> and landings when FM is set to 'realistic'. However, once you
> understand the differences and get used to it, everything will fall
> into its place. We would like to point out, that the new FM will take
> more system resources to run, especially when many aircraft are in the
> air at the same time. It doesn't matter if it is human or AI, because
> our AI pilots use the same FM!
>
>
> ------------
>
>
> There will be several new positions of new Aircraft (3 of them AI),
> cockpit and new modifications of existed, many new ground objects (for
> both Pacific and Europe/Russian front), new maps for both Russian and
> Pacific theaters.
>
> New campaign(s)
>
> Also there are great number of small changes and fixes. Maybe not all,
> but most that to polis sim.
>
> The size will be ~110 Mb for a Merged install and a bit smaller for PF
> only.
>
> Thats all I like to tell for the current moment.
> Please no questions and speculations. We are testing."
>
> It is evident from his statement that renaming the version to 4.0 was
> done because more than a patch was being released. The details are in
> the README.

Translation: No matter what we call it it will not be out soon like
expected. i.e. keep waiting and waiting and waiting some more.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:43:21 +1200, Adamski <anon@nowhere.com> wrote:


>Jap planes carried torpedos, Shirley?
>
>Adamski.

Yep, they shirley did. How can you model the attack on Pearl Harbour
without Japanese torpedo bombers?

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"Connected" <connected@somewhere.here> wrote in message
news:2cq941dpvn08b2if4h6ppemoic104nbf2j@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:43:21 +1200, Adamski <anon@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Jap planes carried torpedos, Shirley?
>>
>>Adamski.
>
> Yep, they shirley did. How can you model the attack on Pearl Harbour
> without Japanese torpedo bombers?

Use an IL2 or an He111, dumbass. Same thing anyway. ;-)

Bye for now, sweetie buns.

James

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:33:01 GMT, "James Calivar"
<amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au> wrote:


>Use an IL2 or an He111, dumbass. Same thing anyway. ;-)
>
>Bye for now, sweetie buns.
>
>James
>

Um, Jamie dear, I have PF's installed standalone because I don't have
AEP. And an HE111 is just too ahistorical anyway. I've posted the
solution - make similar planes with different names. Next time make
the game more open ended. In other words, eject head out of ass.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 20:37:01 GMT, "James Calivar"
<amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au> wrote:


>You lead the way, since you're the most experienced. :-)
>
I'll need a pair of cow foceps for your's.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"Don Burnette" <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:seSdnVVAaOcZTdjfRVn-ow@giganews.com...
> Connected wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:28:48 GMT, "James Calivar"
>> <amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Bye for now, sweetie ;-)
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>> Love and kisses to you too. Now where are those damn torpedo bombers
>> we were *promised*? Oleg says he always keeps his promises.
>
>
> Hmm, I must have missed it - whre did Oleg promise torpedo bombers in PF?

Try reading your readme file that installed with your PF files. Better yet,
try reading the contents of your PF box.

Seems you missed a lot for somebody who reads the c.s.i.p.g.f newsgroup.
Where have you been these last six months or so?

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:49:44 -0800, Connected wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:43:21 +1200, Adamski <anon@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Jap planes carried torpedos, Shirley?
>>
>>Adamski.
>
>Yep, they shirley did. How can you model the attack on Pearl Harbour
>without Japanese torpedo bombers?

My point exactly :-(

Adamski.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

Gonzo wrote:
> "Don Burnette" <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:MYednVg9TdbZbNjfRVn-1Q@giganews.com...
>> Gonzo wrote:
>>> "Don Burnette" <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:seSdnVVAaOcZTdjfRVn-ow@giganews.com...
>>>> Connected wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:28:48 GMT, "James Calivar"
>>>>> <amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bye for now, sweetie ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> James
>>>>>>
>>>>> Love and kisses to you too. Now where are those damn torpedo
>>>>> bombers we were *promised*? Oleg says he always keeps his
>>>>> promises.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hmm, I must have missed it - whre did Oleg promise torpedo bombers
>>>> in PF?
>>>
>>> Try reading your readme file that installed with your PF files.
>>> Better yet, try reading the contents of your PF box.
>>>
>>> Seems you missed a lot for somebody who reads the c.s.i.p.g.f
>>> newsgroup. Where have you been these last six months or so?
>>
>> I've been right here, and enjoying the hell out of IL2FB/AEP/PF...
>>
>> Really no need to get huffy about this is there?? Not to say I have
>> not missed a lot, I do try and keep up best I can though... but I am
>> by no means perfect...
>>
>> Ok, let's see then, I found this from the readme that installed with
>> PF " Attention:
>> We simply ran out of space on our 2 CDs and had to remove some
>> cockpits for
>> several flyable aircraft. Free add-on containing these aircraft will
>> be made
>> available at www.pacific-fighters.com for a free download."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Don't see torpedo bombers mentioned in the readme...
>>
>>
>>
>> Now, on to the box. I do see, on the back of the box, it talks about
>> Over 40 flyable WWII Fighters and Bombers. This is where the major
>> issue came from. I know Oleg was not happy with the box stating
>> that. Not sure if that would include torpedo bombers, perhaps they
>> are listed there under it and I don't recognize which is which. I
>> know the Betty has been much talked about, and is supposed to be in
>> the 4.0 release...
>
> Here is a clue for you...
>
> The BETTY IS a Topedo Bomber. But I guess this is where you play
> dumb.
> It is common knowledge that the Avenger and other torpedo planes where
> planned by Oleg. All you have to do is go to the UBI forums and look
> for yourself. He has a valid excuse for the American products but
> not for the Japanese ones. There is NO excuse for not having the
> Betty as he said it was finished. Which planes so you think he was
> refering too anyway? Where have you been?
>
> Don't bother with their search engine as it does not work. Either
> because it is overloaded or turned off by design for what ever
> reason. But this is all old news.
>
> Again, for somebody who claims to be a frequent reader of this NG you
> appear to be completely out of the loop.

Did I not say the Betty was one that was much talked about, and it IS going
to be in 4.0?

I ask where it was stated they flyable torpedo bombers were promised? You
questioned where I have been, and gave me a " clue" to read the readme. I
did. Posted it here as well. Read the box also. Everyone knows the story
behind the box.
So now we go from reading the readme and the box, to " common knowledge"...

Ok, fine Gonzo. I am out of the loop.
Therefore I am done with this one.
I have no desire to see you degrade this conversation by slamming people
which is where you are heading ...

I trust you have no interest in PF or any future updates, so why even worry
yourself with it... move on.



--
Don Burnette

"When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of the
way of the man that's doing it."

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"Don Burnette" <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:TtadnTgGMe5C2NvfRVn-tA@giganews.com...
> Gonzo wrote:
>> "Don Burnette" <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:MYednVg9TdbZbNjfRVn-1Q@giganews.com...
>>> Gonzo wrote:
>>>> "Don Burnette" <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:seSdnVVAaOcZTdjfRVn-ow@giganews.com...
>>>>> Connected wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:28:48 GMT, "James Calivar"
>>>>>> <amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bye for now, sweetie ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Love and kisses to you too. Now where are those damn torpedo
>>>>>> bombers we were *promised*? Oleg says he always keeps his
>>>>>> promises.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm, I must have missed it - whre did Oleg promise torpedo bombers
>>>>> in PF?
>>>>
>>>> Try reading your readme file that installed with your PF files.
>>>> Better yet, try reading the contents of your PF box.
>>>>
>>>> Seems you missed a lot for somebody who reads the c.s.i.p.g.f
>>>> newsgroup. Where have you been these last six months or so?
>>>
>>> I've been right here, and enjoying the hell out of IL2FB/AEP/PF...
>>>
>>> Really no need to get huffy about this is there?? Not to say I have
>>> not missed a lot, I do try and keep up best I can though... but I am
>>> by no means perfect...
>>>
>>> Ok, let's see then, I found this from the readme that installed with
>>> PF " Attention:
>>> We simply ran out of space on our 2 CDs and had to remove some
>>> cockpits for
>>> several flyable aircraft. Free add-on containing these aircraft will
>>> be made
>>> available at www.pacific-fighters.com for a free download."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Don't see torpedo bombers mentioned in the readme...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Now, on to the box. I do see, on the back of the box, it talks about
>>> Over 40 flyable WWII Fighters and Bombers. This is where the major
>>> issue came from. I know Oleg was not happy with the box stating
>>> that. Not sure if that would include torpedo bombers, perhaps they
>>> are listed there under it and I don't recognize which is which. I
>>> know the Betty has been much talked about, and is supposed to be in
>>> the 4.0 release...
>>
>> Here is a clue for you...
>>
>> The BETTY IS a Topedo Bomber. But I guess this is where you play
>> dumb.
>> It is common knowledge that the Avenger and other torpedo planes where
>> planned by Oleg. All you have to do is go to the UBI forums and look
>> for yourself. He has a valid excuse for the American products but
>> not for the Japanese ones. There is NO excuse for not having the
>> Betty as he said it was finished. Which planes so you think he was
>> refering too anyway? Where have you been?
>>
>> Don't bother with their search engine as it does not work. Either
>> because it is overloaded or turned off by design for what ever
>> reason. But this is all old news.
>>
>> Again, for somebody who claims to be a frequent reader of this NG you
>> appear to be completely out of the loop.
>
> Did I not say the Betty was one that was much talked about, and it IS
> going to be in 4.0?
>
> I ask where it was stated they flyable torpedo bombers were promised? You
> questioned where I have been, and gave me a " clue" to read the readme. I
> did. Posted it here as well. Read the box also. Everyone knows the story
> behind the box.
> So now we go from reading the readme and the box, to " common
> knowledge"...
>
> Ok, fine Gonzo. I am out of the loop.
> Therefore I am done with this one.
> I have no desire to see you degrade this conversation by slamming people
> which is where you are heading ...
>
> I trust you have no interest in PF or any future updates, so why even
> worry yourself with it... move on.

The Betty was supposed to be released in the first patch. We were told it
was DONE and they LIED too us. That is our beef, if you can't see that.

You jumped in here half informed and half cocked with an attitued towards
those of us that were critical of that fact.

What did you expect?

Go back to the UBI servers if all your going to do is wave the Oleg fan club
flag and bash people who are dissapointed in the last installment.

This is the Usnet. You have no control here. Don't like our opinions?
Then deal with it or leave.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"Connected" <connected@somewhere.here> wrote in message
news:2hkc41tcvqtlcn09417qb9490vkjau5p4v@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 23:34:26 -0600, "Don Burnette"
> <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I trust you have no interest in PF or any future updates, so why even
>>worry
>>yourself with it... move on.
>
> Why would anyone be interested in a Pacific air war sim without
> torpedo bombers?

You need to ask yourself that. Fanbois.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"Gonzo" <r_murphree@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UxI1e.20718$ot.17789@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> "Don Burnette" <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:AoydnbXaGM9yetvfRVn-2Q@giganews.com...
> > Gonzo wrote:
> >> "Don Burnette" <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> news:TtadnTgGMe5C2NvfRVn-tA@giganews.com...
> >>> Gonzo wrote:
> >>>> "Don Burnette" <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>>> news:MYednVg9TdbZbNjfRVn-1Q@giganews.com...
> >>>>> Gonzo wrote:
> >>>>>> "Don Burnette" <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:seSdnVVAaOcZTdjfRVn-ow@giganews.com...
> >>>>>>> Connected wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:28:48 GMT, "James Calivar"
> >>>>>>>> <amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Bye for now, sweetie ;-)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> James
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Love and kisses to you too. Now where are those damn torpedo
> >>>>>>>> bombers we were *promised*? Oleg says he always keeps his
> >>>>>>>> promises.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hmm, I must have missed it - whre did Oleg promise torpedo
> >>>>>>> bombers in PF?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Try reading your readme file that installed with your PF files.
> >>>>>> Better yet, try reading the contents of your PF box.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Seems you missed a lot for somebody who reads the c.s.i.p.g.f
> >>>>>> newsgroup. Where have you been these last six months or so?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I've been right here, and enjoying the hell out of IL2FB/AEP/PF...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Really no need to get huffy about this is there?? Not to say I have
> >>>>> not missed a lot, I do try and keep up best I can though... but I
> >>>>> am by no means perfect...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ok, let's see then, I found this from the readme that installed
> >>>>> with PF " Attention:
> >>>>> We simply ran out of space on our 2 CDs and had to remove some
> >>>>> cockpits for
> >>>>> several flyable aircraft. Free add-on containing these aircraft
> >>>>> will be made
> >>>>> available at www.pacific-fighters.com for a free download."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Don't see torpedo bombers mentioned in the readme...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now, on to the box. I do see, on the back of the box, it talks
> >>>>> about Over 40 flyable WWII Fighters and Bombers. This is where the
> >>>>> major issue came from. I know Oleg was not happy with the box
> >>>>> stating that. Not sure if that would include torpedo bombers,
> >>>>> perhaps they are listed there under it and I don't recognize which
> >>>>> is which. I know the Betty has been much talked about, and is
> >>>>> supposed to be in the 4.0 release...
> >>>>
> >>>> Here is a clue for you...
> >>>>
> >>>> The BETTY IS a Topedo Bomber. But I guess this is where you play
> >>>> dumb.
> >>>> It is common knowledge that the Avenger and other torpedo planes
> >>>> where planned by Oleg. All you have to do is go to the UBI forums
> >>>> and look for yourself. He has a valid excuse for the American
> >>>> products but not for the Japanese ones. There is NO excuse for not
> >>>> having the Betty as he said it was finished. Which planes so you
> >>>> think he was refering too anyway? Where have you been?
> >>>>
> >>>> Don't bother with their search engine as it does not work. Either
> >>>> because it is overloaded or turned off by design for what ever
> >>>> reason. But this is all old news.
> >>>>
> >>>> Again, for somebody who claims to be a frequent reader of this NG
> >>>> you appear to be completely out of the loop.
> >>>
> >>> Did I not say the Betty was one that was much talked about, and it IS
> >>> going to be in 4.0?
> >>>
> >>> I ask where it was stated they flyable torpedo bombers were
> >>> promised? You questioned where I have been, and gave me a " clue" to
> >>> read the readme. I did. Posted it here as well. Read the box also.
> >>> Everyone knows the story behind the box.
> >>> So now we go from reading the readme and the box, to " common
> >>> knowledge"...
> >>>
> >>> Ok, fine Gonzo. I am out of the loop.
> >>> Therefore I am done with this one.
> >>> I have no desire to see you degrade this conversation by slamming
> >>> people which is where you are heading ...
> >>>
> >>> I trust you have no interest in PF or any future updates, so why even
> >>> worry yourself with it... move on.
> >
> >>
> >> The Betty was supposed to be released in the first patch. We were
> >> told it was DONE and they LIED too us. That is our beef, if you
> >> can't see that.
> >
> >
> > I have already stated twice, the Betty was a big issue from the getgo.
> >
> >>
> >> You jumped in here half informed and half cocked with an attitued
> >> towards those of us that were critical of that fact.
> >
> > I did not jump in with an attitude, I asked some legitimate questions
out
> > of my curiousity. Your the one jumping in with the attitude, I have
> > already stated I have no desire to see this get degenerated into what it
> > already is being degenerated too.
> >
> >>
> >> What did you expect?
> >
> > An intellegent mature response.
> >
> >>
> >> Go back to the UBI servers if all your going to do is wave the Oleg
> >> fan club flag and bash people who are dissapointed in the last
> >> installment.
> >
> > You ain't seen bashing from me yet, trust me you'll know it should I do
> > so...
> >
> >
> >>
> >> This is the Usnet. You have no control here. Don't like our
> >> opinions? Then deal with it or leave.
> >
> >
> > Ummm, seems to me, you didn't like MINE, along with this thread
announcing
> > the new patch and flight model coming.
>
> Feel free to killfile me then Troll. Im not wasting any more time with
your
> obviouse attempt at drawing attention to yourself. Don't like my opinion
> then fine, ignore it. You could at least get your facts straight before
you
> start a flame war though.
>
> Good riddance.
>
>
>

LOL - Gognzo calling Don a troll! Ever look in a mirror, Gongzo?

Your "good riddance" epithet looks an awful lot like throwing in the towel
to me.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

<bobham@wingwalkers.org> wrote in message
news:1112020846.772318.186100@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Gonzo wrote:
>
> >
> > Translation: No matter what we call it it will not be out soon like
> > expected. i.e. keep waiting and waiting and waiting some more.
>
> Well, considering it's free and the game is certainly enjoyable so it's
> not like it's unplayable. Oh, and to those claiming there are NO
> torpedo bombers the Kate and Avenger are in the game just not flyable.
> You can certainly re-enact Pearl Harbor and participate in any role as
> a pilot except that of torp bomber. I agree it would be nice to have
> them flyable but there is a misperception they aren't in the game at
> all and that isn't true.
>

Try telling that to the PF Doomsayers.

Personally, I'm tired of hearing all the PF-whiners. If you don't like the
game, don't play it. Sell it back if you bought it. Move on to something
less advanced, like CFS2 - you should have all the Pacific Theater fun you
could ever ask for there.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"James Calivar" <amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news292gs$ild$1@home.itg.ti.com...
> "Gonzo" <r_murphree@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:UxI1e.20718$ot.17789@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>> "Don Burnette" <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:AoydnbXaGM9yetvfRVn-2Q@giganews.com...
>> > Gonzo wrote:
>> >> "Don Burnette" <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:TtadnTgGMe5C2NvfRVn-tA@giganews.com...
>> >>> Gonzo wrote:
>> >>>> "Don Burnette" <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote in message
>> >>>> news:MYednVg9TdbZbNjfRVn-1Q@giganews.com...
>> >>>>> Gonzo wrote:
>> >>>>>> "Don Burnette" <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote in message
>> >>>>>> news:seSdnVVAaOcZTdjfRVn-ow@giganews.com...
>> >>>>>>> Connected wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:28:48 GMT, "James Calivar"
>> >>>>>>>> <amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Bye for now, sweetie ;-)
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> James
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Love and kisses to you too. Now where are those damn torpedo
>> >>>>>>>> bombers we were *promised*? Oleg says he always keeps his
>> >>>>>>>> promises.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Hmm, I must have missed it - whre did Oleg promise torpedo
>> >>>>>>> bombers in PF?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Try reading your readme file that installed with your PF files.
>> >>>>>> Better yet, try reading the contents of your PF box.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Seems you missed a lot for somebody who reads the c.s.i.p.g.f
>> >>>>>> newsgroup. Where have you been these last six months or so?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I've been right here, and enjoying the hell out of IL2FB/AEP/PF...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Really no need to get huffy about this is there?? Not to say I have
>> >>>>> not missed a lot, I do try and keep up best I can though... but I
>> >>>>> am by no means perfect...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Ok, let's see then, I found this from the readme that installed
>> >>>>> with PF " Attention:
>> >>>>> We simply ran out of space on our 2 CDs and had to remove some
>> >>>>> cockpits for
>> >>>>> several flyable aircraft. Free add-on containing these aircraft
>> >>>>> will be made
>> >>>>> available at www.pacific-fighters.com for a free download."
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Don't see torpedo bombers mentioned in the readme...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Now, on to the box. I do see, on the back of the box, it talks
>> >>>>> about Over 40 flyable WWII Fighters and Bombers. This is where the
>> >>>>> major issue came from. I know Oleg was not happy with the box
>> >>>>> stating that. Not sure if that would include torpedo bombers,
>> >>>>> perhaps they are listed there under it and I don't recognize which
>> >>>>> is which. I know the Betty has been much talked about, and is
>> >>>>> supposed to be in the 4.0 release...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Here is a clue for you...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The BETTY IS a Topedo Bomber. But I guess this is where you play
>> >>>> dumb.
>> >>>> It is common knowledge that the Avenger and other torpedo planes
>> >>>> where planned by Oleg. All you have to do is go to the UBI forums
>> >>>> and look for yourself. He has a valid excuse for the American
>> >>>> products but not for the Japanese ones. There is NO excuse for not
>> >>>> having the Betty as he said it was finished. Which planes so you
>> >>>> think he was refering too anyway? Where have you been?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Don't bother with their search engine as it does not work. Either
>> >>>> because it is overloaded or turned off by design for what ever
>> >>>> reason. But this is all old news.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Again, for somebody who claims to be a frequent reader of this NG
>> >>>> you appear to be completely out of the loop.
>> >>>
>> >>> Did I not say the Betty was one that was much talked about, and it IS
>> >>> going to be in 4.0?
>> >>>
>> >>> I ask where it was stated they flyable torpedo bombers were
>> >>> promised? You questioned where I have been, and gave me a " clue" to
>> >>> read the readme. I did. Posted it here as well. Read the box also.
>> >>> Everyone knows the story behind the box.
>> >>> So now we go from reading the readme and the box, to " common
>> >>> knowledge"...
>> >>>
>> >>> Ok, fine Gonzo. I am out of the loop.
>> >>> Therefore I am done with this one.
>> >>> I have no desire to see you degrade this conversation by slamming
>> >>> people which is where you are heading ...
>> >>>
>> >>> I trust you have no interest in PF or any future updates, so why even
>> >>> worry yourself with it... move on.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> The Betty was supposed to be released in the first patch. We were
>> >> told it was DONE and they LIED too us. That is our beef, if you
>> >> can't see that.
>> >
>> >
>> > I have already stated twice, the Betty was a big issue from the getgo.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> You jumped in here half informed and half cocked with an attitued
>> >> towards those of us that were critical of that fact.
>> >
>> > I did not jump in with an attitude, I asked some legitimate questions
> out
>> > of my curiousity. Your the one jumping in with the attitude, I have
>> > already stated I have no desire to see this get degenerated into what
>> > it
>> > already is being degenerated too.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> What did you expect?
>> >
>> > An intellegent mature response.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Go back to the UBI servers if all your going to do is wave the Oleg
>> >> fan club flag and bash people who are dissapointed in the last
>> >> installment.
>> >
>> > You ain't seen bashing from me yet, trust me you'll know it should I do
>> > so...
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> This is the Usnet. You have no control here. Don't like our
>> >> opinions? Then deal with it or leave.
>> >
>> >
>> > Ummm, seems to me, you didn't like MINE, along with this thread
> announcing
>> > the new patch and flight model coming.
>>
>> Feel free to killfile me then Troll. Im not wasting any more time with
> your
>> obviouse attempt at drawing attention to yourself. Don't like my opinion
>> then fine, ignore it. You could at least get your facts straight before
> you
>> start a flame war though.
>>
>> Good riddance.
>>
>>
>>
>
> LOL - Gognzo calling Don a troll! Ever look in a mirror, Gongzo?

Apparently you either can't read or you jumped into the ass end of this
thread without putting your brain in gear.

> Your "good riddance" epithet looks an awful lot like throwing in the towel
> to me.

He has already done that. I'm done with this stupidity. Nothing left to
argue about.

And your me-2 posting isn't even worth responding too. You have no point.
Troll elsewhere.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

Gonzo wrote:
> "James Calivar" <amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news292gs$ild$1@home.itg.ti.com...
>> "Gonzo" <r_murphree@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:UxI1e.20718$ot.17789@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>>> "Don Burnette" <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:AoydnbXaGM9yetvfRVn-2Q@giganews.com...
>>>> Gonzo wrote:
>>>>> "Don Burnette" <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:TtadnTgGMe5C2NvfRVn-tA@giganews.com...
>>>>>> Gonzo wrote:
>>>>>>> "Don Burnette" <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:MYednVg9TdbZbNjfRVn-1Q@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>> Gonzo wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Don Burnette" <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> message news:seSdnVVAaOcZTdjfRVn-ow@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>>> Connected wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:28:48 GMT, "James Calivar"
>>>>>>>>>>> <amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bye for now, sweetie ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Love and kisses to you too. Now where are those damn torpedo
>>>>>>>>>>> bombers we were *promised*? Oleg says he always keeps his
>>>>>>>>>>> promises.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hmm, I must have missed it - whre did Oleg promise torpedo
>>>>>>>>>> bombers in PF?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Try reading your readme file that installed with your PF
>>>>>>>>> files. Better yet, try reading the contents of your PF box.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Seems you missed a lot for somebody who reads the c.s.i.p.g.f
>>>>>>>>> newsgroup. Where have you been these last six months or so?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've been right here, and enjoying the hell out of
>>>>>>>> IL2FB/AEP/PF... Really no need to get huffy about this is there??
>>>>>>>> Not to say I
>>>>>>>> have not missed a lot, I do try and keep up best I can
>>>>>>>> though... but I am by no means perfect...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ok, let's see then, I found this from the readme that installed
>>>>>>>> with PF " Attention:
>>>>>>>> We simply ran out of space on our 2 CDs and had to remove some
>>>>>>>> cockpits for
>>>>>>>> several flyable aircraft. Free add-on containing these aircraft
>>>>>>>> will be made
>>>>>>>> available at www.pacific-fighters.com for a free download."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don't see torpedo bombers mentioned in the readme...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now, on to the box. I do see, on the back of the box, it talks
>>>>>>>> about Over 40 flyable WWII Fighters and Bombers. This is where
>>>>>>>> the major issue came from. I know Oleg was not happy with the
>>>>>>>> box stating that. Not sure if that would include torpedo
>>>>>>>> bombers, perhaps they are listed there under it and I don't
>>>>>>>> recognize which is which. I know the Betty has been much
>>>>>>>> talked about, and is supposed to be in the 4.0 release...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here is a clue for you...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The BETTY IS a Topedo Bomber. But I guess this is where you
>>>>>>> play dumb.
>>>>>>> It is common knowledge that the Avenger and other torpedo planes
>>>>>>> where planned by Oleg. All you have to do is go to the UBI
>>>>>>> forums and look for yourself. He has a valid excuse for the
>>>>>>> American products but not for the Japanese ones. There is NO
>>>>>>> excuse for not having the Betty as he said it was finished. Which
>>>>>>> planes so you think he was refering too anyway? Where
>>>>>>> have you been? Don't bother with their search engine as it does not
>>>>>>> work. Either because it is overloaded or turned off by design for
>>>>>>> what ever reason. But this is all old news.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, for somebody who claims to be a frequent reader of this
>>>>>>> NG you appear to be completely out of the loop.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did I not say the Betty was one that was much talked about, and
>>>>>> it IS going to be in 4.0?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I ask where it was stated they flyable torpedo bombers were
>>>>>> promised? You questioned where I have been, and gave me a "
>>>>>> clue" to read the readme. I did. Posted it here as well. Read
>>>>>> the box also. Everyone knows the story behind the box.
>>>>>> So now we go from reading the readme and the box, to " common
>>>>>> knowledge"...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok, fine Gonzo. I am out of the loop.
>>>>>> Therefore I am done with this one.
>>>>>> I have no desire to see you degrade this conversation by slamming
>>>>>> people which is where you are heading ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I trust you have no interest in PF or any future updates, so why
>>>>>> even worry yourself with it... move on.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Betty was supposed to be released in the first patch. We were
>>>>> told it was DONE and they LIED too us. That is our beef, if you
>>>>> can't see that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have already stated twice, the Betty was a big issue from the
>>>> getgo.
>>>>>
>>>>> You jumped in here half informed and half cocked with an attitued
>>>>> towards those of us that were critical of that fact.
>>>>
>>>> I did not jump in with an attitude, I asked some legitimate
>>>> questions out of my curiousity. Your the one jumping in with the
>>>> attitude, I have already stated I have no desire to see this get
>>>> degenerated into what it
>>>> already is being degenerated too.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What did you expect?
>>>>
>>>> An intellegent mature response.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Go back to the UBI servers if all your going to do is wave the
>>>>> Oleg fan club flag and bash people who are dissapointed in the
>>>>> last installment.
>>>>
>>>> You ain't seen bashing from me yet, trust me you'll know it should
>>>> I do so...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the Usnet. You have no control here. Don't like our
>>>>> opinions? Then deal with it or leave.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ummm, seems to me, you didn't like MINE, along with this thread
>>>> announcing the new patch and flight model coming.
>>>
>>> Feel free to killfile me then Troll. Im not wasting any more time
>>> with your obviouse attempt at drawing attention to yourself. Don't
>>> like my opinion then fine, ignore it. You could at least get your
>>> facts straight before you start a flame war though.
>>>
>>> Good riddance.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> LOL - Gognzo calling Don a troll! Ever look in a mirror, Gongzo?
>
> Apparently you either can't read or you jumped into the ass end of
> this thread without putting your brain in gear.
>
>> Your "good riddance" epithet looks an awful lot like throwing in the
>> towel to me.
>
> He has already done that. I'm done with this stupidity. Nothing
> left to argue about.
>
> And your me-2 posting isn't even worth responding too. You have no
> point. Troll elsewhere.


Aha, another one to plonk.




--
Don Burnette

"When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of the
way of the man that's doing it."

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

> Agreed, but with the realitites of a small developer with a new
product on
> the horizon, you can only ask for so much. I think that 1C has done
a
> trememndous job with upkeep on IL2.

Well said.

Regardless of the bitterness and anger I hear from folks in this
thread, Il2 merged install is by far the best wwII prop sim ever made.
I think that folks here that hate Il2 so much are just bitter have some
other motives for being so hostile. Not sure what it is but it doesn't
matter in the big picture. Il2 is perhaps the best supported game
around. The revisions to FMs/DMs, add-ons, patches, etc.. are a
testament to their desire to enhance and correct issues in the game and
keep customers happy. Other products like the CFS series don't have
patches. They have to rely on 3rd parties to fix their games. That's
not the way to go in my opinion. Opening up the source code just begs
for cheating and exploits. Anyway, Il2 is an awesome game even with a
few planes missiong. There's so much content and plane for everybody's
flying style that folks bitching about a few planes missing just have a
personal issue. Which is strange considering that Il2 is a flight sim
made for a niche market. It's not like some huge developer like
Microsoft out to squeeze the little man. Bottom line, folks bashing
Il2 with such hatred and bitterness have an obvious bias that goes well
beyond the missing Betty. They know it but because they opened their
big mouths and backed themselfs in a corner, they feel they must keep
face by lashing out. All it shows is their bitterness with life and
hatred of living. They should just put a gun to their heads and spare
the rest of their agony.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

Gonzo wrote:
> "James Calivar" <amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news29671$kvi$1@home.itg.ti.com...
> > <bobham@wingwalkers.org> wrote in message
> > news:1112020846.772318.186100@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> Gonzo wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Translation: No matter what we call it it will not be out soon
like
> >> > expected. i.e. keep waiting and waiting and waiting some more.
> >>
> >> Well, considering it's free and the game is certainly enjoyable so
it's
> >> not like it's unplayable. Oh, and to those claiming there are NO
> >> torpedo bombers the Kate and Avenger are in the game just not
flyable.
> >> You can certainly re-enact Pearl Harbor and participate in any
role as
> >> a pilot except that of torp bomber. I agree it would be nice to
have
> >> them flyable but there is a misperception they aren't in the game
at
> >> all and that isn't true.
> >>
> >
> > Try telling that to the PF Doomsayers.
> >
> > Personally, I'm tired of hearing all the PF-whiners. If you don't
like
> > the
> > game, don't play it. Sell it back if you bought it. Move on to
something
> > less advanced, like CFS2 - you should have all the Pacific Theater
fun you
> > could ever ask for there.
>
> And I'm tired of the of the Oleg Fan Club whiners who refuse to let
people
> air their legitimate grievences and dissapointments in public without

> feeling the need to bash them.
>
> PF could have been so much better and it is a half-ass attempt at
making a
> Pacific Sim. Some of us long time customers and players have a
legitimate
> beef about that and about Oleg lying too us.
>
> As I posted before, don't like our posts then don't read them.
Tired of
> what you call whining then leave this thread or killfile it. Nobody
is
> puting a gun to your head.


I'm tired of being called an Oleg Fanboi just because I point where
someone whining is just wrong. There are problems with the game. I
don't dispute that. But just as there are "fanbois" there are those
who are just "anti-Oleg" and will bitch no matter what the issue is.

As I've said before, if you don't like my posts saying I'm tired of
people telling me how I'm not supposed to enjoy the game. Tired that
someone doesn't adopt your pessimistic point of view then leave the
thread or killfile it. Nobody is putting a gun to your head to buy the
game, play it, patch it or bitch about it.