Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Erik

      2019 Drive   05/31/2019

      Can you lend a hand?  GET STARTED TODAY

buddye

JUNIOR MEMBER
  • Content count

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About buddye

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    South East Texas
  • Interests
    Sims, programming, Golf, dancing

Networking

  • Website
    http://
  1. I thought you guys might be interested in a PC Gamer review of BOBII. You might try contacting the author (Ron Stone) at PC Gamer and ask him to do a review of the new OFF3 release. The BOBII review is in Dec 2009 UK edition (Issue 208, Christmas 2009) of PC Gamer which carries a double page feature/review of v2.10, and very complimentary it is too. Tim Stone reviewed the original BoB II (giving it 68%) and revisits it since 2.10 in the Extra Life/Update section. Some excerpts: " (Bob II)......has gone from disappointing lame duck to breathtaking bird of paradise. The main architects of this transformation are an improbably dedicated, incredibly knowledgeable band of officially-sanctioned modders called BDG." " ...Fans call Battle of Britain II 'The Time Machine' and new features such as the 'multiskin' bombers show how passionate the team are about authenticity...." "...AI expert Buddye has, over the years, helped hone one of the finest AIs in all Simulatia..." "...Always striving, the team have also worked out a way to wring yet more truth from the authoritative flight models..." "...3D instruments such as the Spitfire's compass and fuel gauge, faulty since Rowan times, are now fully functional..." He concludes: " Even with direct competition from Oleg Maddox's Storm of War just around the corner, BoB II is going to keep winning new devotees with it's potent atmosphere, extraordinary dynamic campaign engine, classy AI and constant stream of BDG-engineered improvements. Forget what I said in 2005, this is one bally marvellous sim." Obviously lots more in the article, thoughts on MP, ground update, mixed skills etc. Well worth buying a copy. ( Not sure if the US version carries the same piece though.) A pleasant surprise to see it in a 'mainstream' gaming magazine and nice to see the BDG receiving some 'more public' recognition. A super Christmas Present for the BDG........................
  2. OT What Job do you do?

    I a software programmer and later a software manager on the FAA software and later the Space Shuttle software. I am now a C++ application programmer on BOBII freeware for the last 5 years.
  3. I am from the South (if Texas is still considered the South). I have no problem being called a "yank" as during the wars it was a term referring to all Americans from all parts of the USA. However, if you call me a "yankee" then those are fighting words. I always try to avoid the use of a "label" for people/groups/nation/race.
  4. We tried our best to get BOBII version 2.10 releasd on BOB day but we had some RL issues. Here are some new BOBII 2.10 video's to get you in the mood for BOB day: Convoy attack Low level raid Spitfires at sunset Massed air attack I hope that all our BOBII friends/players will give 2.10 a try, if interested and have any spare time from playing OFF3.
  5. Hi Roger, you will need/want the OFF3 super patch. It is about 200 MB.
  6. I voted yes because of its possible impact on new players trying for perfection before they learn that the key is "not" a number but what is fun for them personally. Let the play shoot for his personal fun factor and not a number others may enjoy. The number is not required or needed in OFF3, IMHO.
  7. Single A/C and Squads disengaged in WWI (damage, ammo, fuel, out numbered, number in the squad killed, etc.). The leader was the one who was responsible to signal a disengage so the Squad had to keep an eye on the leader. Leaders did not want their Squads losses to be excessive. It must have been difficult to get the Squad to "all" RTB, however. My opinion for QC Mode is that players want a good fight and not a disengage but for the campaign the disengege seems more historicly accurate.
  8. Another option for players personal taste. Thanks.
  9. I can understand where Winder is coming from. I have been working on BOBII since 2003 and the BDG's support of BOBII uses the same approach as the OFF development team (hands on and timely player support with both forum support and software updates). All I ever ask is to "first" try the options and workarounds, do your homework, testing, and analysis before complaining. I hear Winder saying the same thing. If after all the testing and analysis, a player just can not accept the change or fix, then make a post with specific information about the issue and state everything you have tried. I tend to respond to positive post from players who have truly done the testing and analysis. I tend to not respond in a positive manner to post that state, "it is different and it stinks" with no data on their testing, analysis, options and workarounds tried. Full function flight sims are massive in their "workload" (design, code, testing, analysis, file management, forum support, etc.) for a small and focused development team. Most players have little idea of the time and work involved (which is fine as players). I also like to use a "vote" when looking at an option or fix. It is valid to get a group opinion as to if a change is needed but of course each individual's opinion is important (if it comes from a experienced player). It is very hard for a hard working developer to not become disappointed when a player complains in a rude and disrespectful manner with little (or none) supporting data. It will have a negative affect on the developer’s morale and attitude.
  10. Everyone has a different concept and idea for what is fun. What is fun to one person is bad for another. I have seen this for years now. The key is to offer the best options (options for everything is just not reasonable) so players can select what is fun for their personal taste. I do not like DID and messing about with pilots , I do not like paper work (claims form), and I do not like flying for 20 minutes to get to the action but some people like all these things. The developers have added options for both (so cool) and many more options as well. Planning and designing options for different taste is the way to go , IMHO, for a full function combat flight sim. It is more work for the developer but more people can enjoy the sim and have fun.
  11. open letter to OBD

    A Flight Sim either gets supported or it dies. Bugs must be fixed and improvement must be made. Many new features and fixes included in the super patch, IMHO. The "Start in the Air" feature is just perfect for me with limited time so I can enjoy a fast Campaign Mission. If a feature is not your cup of tea just ask for a option. If many want a option then you just might get it implemented depending on the number of players who support your position. Why throw a wet blanket over the total patch and improvement concept. It takes the total community to help the developers improve and fix your OFF3 flight sim.
  12. Claim realism %

    As long as I have options for my personal taste, I am OK with what ever players like/enjoy. For me I do not like paper work, never did like it and never will like it. Paper work is not fun so I do not do claim forms. I want the PC to do all the paper work for me. Fun for me is always priority #1 in my game play. OFF3 seems to offer me the key options for my personal taste which I thank the OFF3 developers for.
  13. BHAH torrent!

    The bottom line to me is all flight sim delelopers must aggressively look at ways to protect the software from thieves. What ever way selected will have some impact which is unfortunate. Some people will not agree with whatever method is selected which is unfortunate. The problem is real, IMHO. Protection from thieves must be a high priority for all developers. Time will tell if ROF's method worked or failed by how long they stay in business. Everyone votes with their pocket books.
  14. BHAH torrent!

    Delelopers should take bold action (almost do anything possible) and take strong risk to prevent the steeling of our flight sim software. It is past time for bold action even if it is not the best solution for our players. IMHO, nothing cost us more than theives.
  15. Hi BigJim, you sound a bit frustrated with the OFF3 AI. AI development is a large tradeoff. I have been working on BOBII AI since 2003 and I am no way near finished and I will never get finished. In BOBII we have an objective to: (1) have the AI and player A/C subject to the "exact same" laws of physics and data and use the exact same code. In BOBII the players A/C and the AI A/C go through "different" code paths by design which I bet most fight sims do the same (sorry I do not know about OFF3). I now have BOBII using the exact same code and data with respect to physics, FM, and data except for player blackout which is an option (you can turn on or off). The AI still fly better than the player as the software makes small changes every 40 MS and it is a bit more efficient. I have decided not to try and simulate the slowness/jerkness of the player (at least compared to the PC) or the AI black out with g-forces as I have not been able to think of a good solution (except an user option (user control) ). Without the source code (which to me is a big issue for the OFF3 developer), the OFF developers have developed realistic AI, IMHO, although I have not compared to the spec's. Yes, the AI are a challenge and problems (inconsistencies) do happen between specific A/C. I have worked on these kind of problems for years one at a time. Here again we have super spec's, flight data, and pilot reports to use that the OFF3 guys may not have (not sure about WWI data). Our strategy is to always simulate using the specific A/C spec's, flight data, and pilot reports for each A/C. We do not let player A/C comparisons influence us unless the player provides referrences to the spec's, flight data, or pilot reports. The key is we simulate against a A/C spec. I think the good OFF3 players (which are really testers, IMHO) should just report the AI problems one at a time with as much supporting information as possible and maybe a good test case and permit the OFF3 developers a chance to look into the reported problem. This approach will get both debate and results, I bet.
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..