Serious this time: HTC needs to promote AH downunder!

[Jekyll]

Well Karnak.. turning first to the 1.03 flight model, my reasoning is this  

IN any game like Aces High, you have to simulate 3 things in order to get the end result you are looking for.  I'm assuming that the end result is an accurate representation of WW2 air combat.

1.  Flight Model
2.  Gunnery Model
3.  Pilot Model

OK.. now the pilot model we have currently in AH is laughable.  AH pilots currently have infinite endurance, laser ranging eyeballs etc.  So the pilot model is WAY OFF.

Now with one in three parts of your game incorrectly modelled, what happens if you perfectly model the other two parts?

Your outcome is wrong .. that's what.

You finish up with pilots able to consistently score kills at longer ranges than WW2 pilots ever could.  You end up with aircraft which can consistently fly high + and - G maneuvers which the real aircraft could never do in real life (not due to the limitations of the airframe, but due to the limitations of the pilot).

SO...  if you still want to have an 'accurate WW2 flight sim', you simply MUST make allowances in both the flight model and gunnery model.  IMHO, AH 1.03 had the right flight model, since aircraft could not continually do the 'high-G roly-poly' they can do at the moment.  

BUT.. all this comes at a cost.  Toning down the flight and gunnery models means that the game is harder .. and Lord knows .. HTC hates to do anything which makes it harder for people to get kills.

So we finish up with a version of aerial Quake, with an arena full of late war planes with big guns (and lots of them), able to do things their real life counterparts were never able to do.

Unless HTC ever models pilot fatigue, and real life pilot capabilities re + and - G capability, having a super accurate flight and ballistics model means that the game as a whole is LESS realistic ... not MORE.

Make sense?

[Karnak]

Jekyll,
Implimenting a pilot fatigue model is one thing, but making so that aircraft like the Spitfire and Zero, which were great turners, so that they can't turn any better than an Fw190 is BS.

If a way could be found to accurately simulate pilot muscle fatigue and pilot G fatigue, I would have no problem with it.

Now, what about the WB Gunnery Model?

Sisu
-Karnak

[Jekyll]

Who said anything about making the Spit turn like a 190?

OTOH, do you REALLY think a pilot could fly a Spitfire in the same manner as the ones we have here in AH?

Take a look at this film.

Gunnery model issues follow right on from pilot modelling.  In AH, pilots have 'auto laser ranging eyeballs' via the icon system, which allows them to shoot, and score, at ranges far beyond the capabilities of mortal men      I just happen to think that the current WB guns model is pretty right.. at least.. it FEELS right      Get in close.. you get the kill.  Shoot at ranges over about 400yds and be prepared for him to evade long enough to extend.

Of course, this helps immensely on the ACM front.  Forcing the overshoot through high G barrel rolls actually work in WB.  Try doing that in AH, where your opponent can sit 600yds back and snipe at you all day long.

Besides, reading Pyro's recent post re AH dispersion, it seems pretty obvious that at the moment dispersion is modelled on a simple random basis.. hardly true to life at all.

But my basic premise is pretty easy to understand (even for a Spit pilot    )

You cannot perfectly simulate a part of online air combat without perfectly simulating ALL of it.  You simply must 'fudge' on certain issues if the overall effect is to be realistic.

Lets look at it another way.  Say you wanted to write the definitive WW2 submarine simulation.

OK. three basic elements

1.  Vessel modelling (submerged/surfaced speed, depth limits, maneuverability etc)
2.  Detection systems (periscope, radar, ASDIC)
3.  Weapons systems (torpedo range, warhead, speed etc)

Now say you coded 1 & 2 perfectly, but your 1942-era US torpedoes NEVER failed to explode, or they ran at 300 kts.  Or say you coded 1 & 3 perfectly, but were always given exact course and speed for your targets.  Or how about coding 2 & 3 perfectly, but your targets always steamed in a straight line.. or always sank when the first torp hit.

Would it be more FUN than a perfectly realistic sim?  Well, I suppose for some it would.

But would it be a realistic simulation of WW2 submarine combat?

Heck.. there's gotta be SOME reason why during my evenings there are 20 in AH and 50 in WB    

[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 11-17-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 11-17-2000).]

[Hajo]

Read two articles recently that said the same thing about flight sim software.  Seems that flight sim software isn't a big hit with the software companies "Unless" it is capable of being played on-line.  Seems that us hard core flight sim junkies are in a minority, an exclusive one, but still a minority.  The article stated basically that the companies that produce flight sim software generally lose money on it because they don't sell that well.  This being the case, apparently there aren't great numbers of us participating in on-line flight sims compared to other games.   Somehow, someway, we have to get more flight simmers to try Aces High.  Advertising is one for sure, and getting the word out to AW, WB, etc. Once I tried AH I was hooked.  I'm sure others out there who use on-line flight sims knew about AH, and tried it, would also think it much better then the other competing on-line flight sims.  Thirty american dollars really isn't all that much for a full month for us in the US.  And I'm sure if Air Warrior participants tried AH many would come.  Web rings etc. will help, but we need a "hook" to get them to try it.  since flight sim participants are relatively few compared to other on-line gamers,the words got to get out not only down under, but everywhere.  Maybe taking a hostage or two from competitors would help <G>.  HTC needs to draw first time simmers also, AH is great, but we need people to know that.

[Karnak]

Jekyll,
A few points:

A:  I did not say that it was perfect.  In fact, I said that a pilot fatigue model, don right, would be good.

B:  In 1.03 turn fighters were at an unrealistc disadvatage.  Boom and Zoom is still better, but now turn fighters are not meat on the table.

C:  I have a 19" monitor about 2 feet in front of me.  That occupies approxmately 15 degrees of my vision.  I run AH on it at 1024x768.  HTC chose to give a 60 degree field of view in "zoom out mode" in AH.

In reality, what a pilot would see would be about at the scale that AH has when you're almost all the way zoomed in.  It would also be at a far, far greater resolution and detail level (resolution is just plain better, detail can sometimes cause problems) than what any computer can do.
Of course the range icons wouldn't be giving exact positions, but the pilots bifocal vision would somewhat make up for it.

The zoom function in AH when combined with the "wide-view" when zoomed out attempts to replicate through compromise what a real pilot would see.  Of course it will always be a pale reflection of reality, but that is the best that can be done right now.

Sisu
-Karnak

[Jekyll]

Karnak ... that's exactly my point.  We have limitations forced on us by the need for a certain view system (icons etc).

But those limitations do not extend (at least to the same extent) in the areas of flight modelling and gunnery.

Therefore, flight modelling and gunnery have to be adjusted to make up for the deficits in the view system.

P.S.  I always thought that turnfighters WERE meat on the table for the BnZ brigade in WW2.  If they weren't, the trend would have been to design lighter, more maneuverable fighters as the war progressed.

And we BOTH know that simply wasn't the case!

[Karnak]

Jekyll,
Have you tried to use an A6M5b, C.202 or Spitfire MkVb?

For me, they are all suicide, but at least I can dodge against one aircraft now.

In 1.03 the Zero would bleed all of its energy doing a single 180.  I don't think Sakai could have survived in the 1.03 Zero agianst 15 Hellcats, let alone come out without being hit.

I think, as I said, that the Boom and Zoom fighters still have the advantage, especially if you track how often they return to base, but turn fighters have to be dealt with properly now.

Sisu
-Karnak

[Jekyll]

Well, if you read Sakai's own account of that fight, its pretty clear he was of the opinion that the Hellcat drivers were dweebs.

But I agree with you:  there's no way in hell that a Zeke could survive against 15 Hellcats in Aces High.

Not in 1.03 OR 1.04

[Spatula]

 

Originally posted by Jekyll:
You gotta remember Vulcan is a New Zealander guys, and is probably still a little miffed that the only Olympic Gold Medal NZ received was for rowing.

How appropriate ... NZ wins a medal in an event where the contestants sit on their arse and go backwards  

ROFLOLOMA!!!!! hehehe - too true jek  

[Spatula]

tul

Originally posted by Extreme:
Heya Spat..

Well, I've had to weigh up my other interests (golf of all things, and others) against AH.  Unfortunately my other interests have outweighed AH and one of the main reasons is the numbers in the arenas.  One of the other reasons of course is the price.  For what we pay for it, I just couldn't justify it anymore - at our current exchange rates.

Hope you and/or others continue the rallying though and maybe one day I might be back.

Ex.

Yer, the dollar situation kinda sux   it works out pretty damned expensive - the cost of a new boxed game per month (not that i play anything other than AH). But im an AH junkie - cant quit...

[Spatula]

 

Originally posted by Torque:
Spat they should send me all expense paid to Downunda, I'd promte it until I got arrested and deported.

Sounds like a challenge - who wants to pay for Torques adventures down-under? We could give daily updates on the BB - i guess there would only be one update as they'd probably kick him out on the 1st day  

[Jekyll]

Spat, just for your information.

Sunday night, 10.30pm my time.

AH Main Arena 28 online
WB WW2 Arena  81 online

Now mind you, in the WB WW2 arena at the moment there are only about 7 different fighters you can fly (early days in the RPS).

It's gotta be something other than price  

[Westy]

 Ahh. WB's gunnery. Mmmmmhmmm.  One major factor I think is WB's gunnery. With the ever changing "playability" based lethality setting (what will it be this week folks?) and the never miss basketball sized bullets!
 That magical word "playability".  the word folks in WB's used to use when they looked down thier nose at AW and FA because they fudeged things for <cough> playability. With WB's there is no doubt. It costs five dollars less per month and it is much easier to get kills, allowing for more high kill, chest thumping sorties. Just ask MG he can confirm that. Or read AGW for that matter.

  -Westy

[Jekyll]

Hey Westy.. where can I get me them thar 'basketball sized bullets'?

WB gunnery easier than AH ?????

Geez guy, you gotta be on crack.  I remember our verbal jousts in the 'WB-v-AW' threads on alt.games.air-warrior from years ago ... seems pretty obvious you will NEVER have a good word to say about WB.

So how does that make you any different from MG ?

[Yosus]

... and WB III will have a Linux version  .

G'day Jekyll, Extreme, Spatula ... hehe ... I must say that I miss you all, you bastards!

Golf Extreme?!? Very sad  .

Cheers
Yosus