Three things that could really improve the AH experience

[DipStick]

What flit said...

[AKIron]

I'd just like to have smoke pour from the cowl on startup, feel the plane bounce around a bit as the engine roars to life and the prop washes me with a strong wind. Keeping her on the runway means dancing with the rudder and working the stick to keep the upwind wing down. Once you get a taste of this in Il2 it's hard not to want it in AH.

[NoBaddy]

Originally posted by dracon
You missed the point!  I'll explain......To some It is a COMBAT SIM that you fly in.  To others, such as myself, it is a FLIGHT SIM that you do combat in.  It's to each ones personal taste.  One should not tell the other what is right or wrong.  One should not tell the other what to WISH FOR.
 

You were trying to make some other point besides telling someone else that he was "WRONG!"? No...wait..."One should not tell the other what is right or wrong."


The point is that the game is about combat. If the realism requested is to have a positive impact on combat...by all means, do it. If not...what is the point?

[Regurge]

I think you're fooling yourself banana. There's not as much difference as you think.

Originally posted by banana


WW2OL

1. Start engine
2. Lock tail wheel
3. Lower flaps-i never use flaps for take off
4. Set max RPM's-You can do this in AH too
5. Close canopy to reduce drag-its already closed when you spawn
6. Gradually engage throttle until plane starts to move slowly-I just firewall it like in AH
7. Continue to increase throttle in a gradual manner until at full military power
8. Apply rudder inputs to correct for torque effects
9. When nose comes up, hold stick back to prevent ground looping-I never do this
 

I'll grant you points 2 and 8, and sort of 4 because AH defaults to max rpm when you spawn. For me the only difference in T/O sequence 3 extra keystrokes (takes less than a second) and a little more concentratoin on rudder input. And I think the latter is due to planes being far less stable in yaw than in AH rather than superior torque/p-factor modelling.

Engine Management:

WW2OL

Three RPM settings: Economy RPM's, Continuous RPM's, Max RPM's. Max RPM's is typically only used during take off and during a fight. One must be careful not to use Max RPM's too much, or engine damage will result, caused by overheating.

Depends on the plane, in H-75s and 81s I just leave it at max rpm/max throttle with occasional use of WEP. But in Brit planes I agree you cant do that and need to watch the temp gauge. There can be just as much need for engine management in AH if fuel economy is important in your particular mission. Do planes ever run out of fuel in WW2OL? I dont even know where the fuel gauge is on WW2OL planes.

WW2OL definitely has some some aspects better than AH, but I wouldnt say FM or engine management is one of them. The ones that stick out for me are canopy glare, more dynamic engine noise, and the constant little head movements. All that makes flying much more immersive. I think the short range, fade-in icons make fighting more fun and unpredictable.

[dracon]

Ummm.......Ahhhh...... NoBaddy

Have you ever walked out of the bathroom with your zipper down?

LOL CYA 'round bud

Drac's OUT

[DrDea]

Originally posted by nopoop
Can't argue with that banana. Alittle either way goes along way. A balancing act any way you look at it.

Too much weight on either side and gravity takes over.

   Thats just profound.

[NoBaddy]

Originally posted by dracon
Ummm.......Ahhhh...... NoBaddy

Have you ever walked out of the bathroom with your zipper down?

LOL CYA 'round bud

Drac's OUT

No...but obviously you just did

CYA up there

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Flossy
I would prefer something in between.... I don't want to be bothered with all that checking, but at the same time I don't want the 'gameyness' of using auto-takeoff!  As it is right now is about right for me.  

I am of exactly the same opinion.  I enjoy the basic take off as it is in AH, but a 15 step pre-flight check will only result in me having to write a complex macro for my joystick to do it all in one button click.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by scJazz
Reasons why gunnery in AH or sims is better...

1) Single biggest reason... we can ZOOM in! Think about it at 1500' (D500) a 109 is a pretty damn small target. Being able to ZOOM and see what the plane is doing in terms of roll, climb, and yaw makes setting up the shot darn easy. Try flying a sortie in which you never touch ZOOM and see how good you do.

Your other reasons may be valid, but this is false.

Zooming in, as you put it, is not actually giving an unrealisticly large view of the target.  It is, in fact, give a realisticly sized target instead of the artificially small target provided by the wide angle view that is an attempt to compensate for the narrow field of view that a computer monitor occupies.

In summary, it isn't zooming, it is correcting to realistic sizes.


As to other reasons why gunnery is artificially high.  Think about the physical enviornment.  You aren't straining to maximize manuverablity while in a cramped, noisy and freezing environment.

You also aren't trying to do fine adjustments to your aim while in fear for your life with adrenaline pumping through you.

You also must do a lot more moving around to keep up your SA, whereas in AH it is all on a hat or two.

[AKcurly]

I believe for most of us (including the shed battlers), time to the fight is very important.  Therefore, any changes which increase the amount of time spent doing non-productive screwing around is bound to be unpopular with most of the MA inhabitants.

OTOH, changes to the flight model (including increasing take off / landing difficulties, realistic engine performance hits due to heat damage and so on) would be warmly received by the general population.  At least that's my take on the MA attitude.

Just don't give me a check list.

curly

[Tilt]

Re take off.......... I use auto take off.. I dont have to its just convenient and any thing else seesm superfluous..........to me.

AH2 adds some extra challenges during manual take off...... I suppose auto take off could be locked and combined with anti stall to create a beginners set up.

I think if beginners were forced to use the AH2 manual take off then AH2 would struggle for newbies.

Icons......... I like the idea of "fade in" icons

Re engine manage ment............. We have rpm control and yet we have a magic WEP button also with auto switch off. I would agree that rpm based wep should be via the rpm control with a mind to the temp guage to avoid engine damage.

Same with auto retracting flaps...............

[Wanker]

I'll grant you points 2 and 8, and sort of 4 because AH defaults to max rpm when you spawn. For me the only difference in T/O sequence 3 extra keystrokes (takes less than a second) and a little more concentratoin on rudder input. And I think the latter is due to planes being far less stable in yaw than in AH rather than superior torque/p-factor modelling.

Thank you, regurge! You just proved my point. I'm not asking for a 37 step checklist like some people have assumed. Adding a few more features that would permit an optional slightly more immersive take off procedure would add an additional 2 seconds of things to check, which wouldn't inconvenience anyone, except for the extremely attention challenged.

What could it hurt if it's optional?

[Wanker]

Icons......... I like the idea of "fade in" icons

The fading icons in WW2OL make bounces possible again. When's the last time you were ever caught unawares in AH? If ever, it happens very rarely.

Yesterday in WW2OL, I was patrolling the front in a Hurricane I and found a 109. I started a fight, and after about 30 seconds of jousting, I lost vis on him. As I desparately looked for him, I was starting to sweat. After not seeing him for about a minute, I assumed he must've broke off and went home, so I did the same.

About 10 seconds later, I hear "Taka-taka-taka-taka!" and see tracers whizzing by my canaopy. Shortly thereafter, I took a bullet to the head and am KIA.

It was just like the movie "Battle of Britain". I loved it.

[Karnak]

banana,

The problem with WWIIOL's fade in icons is that they take way, way too long to give you the data on that dot that in reality would not be a dot.

What fade in icons should prevent is getting IFF info while rapidly panning your head.  Once you stop panning and look at a dot the IFF info should come up very rapidly.  In WWIIOL you have to stare at the dot for what feels like multiple seconds, and in a dog fight that functionally means you'll never get icons as your movenment and his movement constantly reset the icon fade in.


I'm all for fade in icons if they have a realistic fade in time, but fade in icons that combine with the low data limits of a computer monitor to make visual IFF a near imposibility are just making it unrealistically hard.

[Tilt]

Originally posted by Karnak
banana,

I'm all for fade in icons if they have a realistic fade in time,
 

I think this says it........ although realism and playability may be two different things.

Seems to me that presently we "shoot by numbers" AH2 has jumped forward by reducing enemy icon range data to the nearest 200 yards.

If the whole icon data set were more/less easily readable as a fuinction of distance then this would be more realistic. The debate remaining would be  related to what distance.

I believe that icons could be simplified significantly...........

Use three colours
lose the chess symbol
identify generic plane types not sub types.
make freind and foe range  to nearest 200 yards.

Indeed I would eliminate freind range data completely (but it could be that its selectable as name or type/range much as it is now)

Freind would just be a green name. The closer the clearer.

Foe would be red or blue (or what ever) with a 4 alpha for the plane type and 3 numerical for the range.  (LLLL N.N) Again the closer the clearer.