I hate to make a post like this, but am bewildered...

[easymo]

 Unfortunately you wont be able to turn off the ezmode gunnery.

[discod]

 

Originally posted by -towd_:
anyone try combat flight sim 2 yet how is the model there ?

Yeah I bought Combat Flight Sim 2 Pacific.  Of course the controls and cockpit designs are more realistic (Things like mixing your fuel, manually pumping landing gear, cowl flaps, etc.)  And the Flight Model seems pretty good if you put it in the most difficult mode. However it still seems a little on the arcade style.

The graphics are amazing and your plane will actually show bullet holes where it was hit and a few other cool things.

Overall I'd say it is worth buying.  It won't replace massive multiplayer online games like AH though.  

[StSanta]

Guys, thanks for your responses

That ez mode thingy definitely made a difference. *Now* at least I can understand why people like the game. There are still major issues with it though, I think.

So, removing all the ez mode issues (which explains the LSD trip adequately.

What is especially unnerving is the inertia modelling - it is just dead wrong. Nope, haven't flown a FW190 in real life, but it ought to be more responsive than a cessna, which I have tried flying.

The feeling of relative speed really isn't there - in Aces High after a fast HO merge, you'll find yer opponent d6.0 away in an instant. Youll also have an excellent idea about your e state.

Skybax - thanks for a civil response. DInnae mean to flame your sim so hard, but yo gotta understand my chock when I found how it was with ez mode, thinking "this is it".

About engine revving up, and using prop pitch to simulate louder engine sound:

Sounds like a (compared to what we can do today) poor choice of implementation - there are numerous things you can do instead. One would be to actually increase the engine sound. Another (that we have here) is to add wind sound to give speed indication. A third is to make the FM's so advanced that you can tell your speed simply by how your plane handles. I can do that in AH for the LW birds.

But, I want the flight test department of Warbirds to try a Cessna. Then imagine that the cessna could go much faster and had a much increased roll rate. After that, justify the inertia modelling in WB.

This is really my biggest gripe with WB. I can live with the cheezy graphics, the lack of "speed" in the game (everything seems to happen in a relatively small amount of space), the too-big planes that sort of hang around instead of swooshing by at 400mph - but the inertia modelling is just terrible.

I *wanna* like this sim/game - it's just like  having one more GOOD thing to spend money on. But I feel, for said reasons, that it is inferior to AH - at the moment beyond planeset sizze and HA, I cannot think of anything it does better.

------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
while(!bishRookQueue.isEmpty() && loggedOn()){
30mmDeathDIEDIEDIE(bishRookQueue.removeFront());
System.out.println("LW pilots are superior");
myPlane.performVictoryRoll();
}

[-lynx-]

"+"
1. You would just love WW2 arena - Axis vs Allies no-nonsense plane sets.
2. There's waaaay more planes to fly.
3. Off-line flying is a very good practice tool for both gunnery and ACM, on higher setting is very challenging, variety of opponent planes including buffs and buff formations.
4. Force Feedback (written by the HTC guys btw...)

"-"
1. View system is the same (basic setup) - of course, AH developed it and added to it ("save head position" is a real beaut!)

2. "Mushiness of FM" - easy mode or no easymode response of a small or high performance plane to control inputs should be instant, there's no other way about it. It is not the case in WB. The rest is "as it was when HT and Pyro wrote it all those years ago albeit dumbed down a little".

3. Engine shouldn't change pitch with constant speed props. Change in tone when you look at planes from the ground is largely due to Doppler effect but sitting in a plane, you are the source of the sound so no changes in pitch.

4. WB's tracers - enough said.

5. Bombing accuracy - you whine about AH? Try WB with Norden done way better on the eye-candy department/info available. Time to "center the sight" before bombing is a neat feature though - if you make wild manoeuvers before the drop you won't hit anything. AH needs something similar.

6. Couldn't figure out why with my V5 I saw all those jagged edges in the cockpit - then it hit me, it's a 2D overlay! That's why it's so easy to create "historic" cockpits - they're just pictures, no 3D modelling required.

7. Nothing on the ground/water is player controlled. No tanks, trucks or anything like that.

From what I've seen in WBIII (see latest really good looking screenshots of SBD and P51) - they're just trying to catch up with AH in graphics department: moving control surfaces, good looking terrain. Complete rework of a plane set would prolly take ages... No advances announced in FM/gunnery.

The other sim... Errr... Umm... There's nothing there that AH doesn't have at the moment other than an option to be a single rifleman and hide behind trees. Oh yeah - and more eye candy in the cockpit. I was not very impressed although it's very early days yet (I still don't see how the whole thing is going to work).

------------------
lynx
13 Sqn RAF

[This message has been edited by -lynx- (edited 11-22-2000).]

[Ripsnort]

Santa, you need to post your opinion on AGW to get non-partisan feedback on your opinion.   http://agw.dogfighter.com/

[Westy]

LOL! Santa,

"About engine revving up, and using prop pitch to simulate louder engine sound: Sounds like a (compared to what we can do today) poor choice of implementation - there are numerous things you can do instead. One would be to actually increase the engine sound. Another (that we have here) is to add wind sound to give speed indication. A third is to make the FM's so advanced that you can tell your speed simply by how your plane handles"

This is too funny. Po' Skybax has been getting it left and right about this on the WWII Online boards about just this subject.  

 -Westy

(new law firm noted   )

[Ram1]

Well there's one thing about opinions, everyone has them.

If you want to debate the issues about Warbirds then by all means bring it over to ARGO's forum for discussion. You will get similar passionate responses that you have read here, except in the opposite direction.

For me there is no comparison, I find WBs superior in game play, plane choices, arena choices, scenarios, flight models and gunnery. I find AH superior in graphics, view system, damage model and map editor.

But that is my opinion.

Miss some of you guys, we should fly both sims and have the best of both worlds.

Ram1
31st Fighter Group


[This message has been edited by Ram1 (edited 11-22-2000).]

[Macchi]

Catch up in graphics system?

You are kidding, or? The models in AH still have a low number of polygons and some planes look like they are modelled without having time. (See wing root of MC202 and 205 as example)
The later modelled planes look very good, I really like the JU88. You can clearly see how modelling improoved here over time.

 www.lemsko.de/3d/Hurri1/1.jpg

not a ingame shot, only in 3D Studio and still not completely finished, btw.

This is 1 model for the game. Comparing them to models which are limited to a much lower number of faces is not fair, i know. WB2.x is an old game, made by the guys from HTC. They made a new game, so it is complete normal that it has a big advantage in all graphical things. Now AH is a little bit older than 1 year and it will be behind WB3.0 in the graphical department. Totally normal because of the fast changes in the computer area. Come on, when you buy a computer you have to run home, else its old when you put it together, eh  

All the other things are a matter of taste.
Funny the feel the speed thing runs in both directions  
How planes move and react depends much on what yopu are used to from your favourite game. So planes in other Sims feel weired.
For me the lack of FF in AH is the most missing feature. I only have a FF stick and it is simply no fun to fly any game without effects with that stick then.
"wrong" things like rpm changes in engine i always found they were used to make it easier for you to judge speed without looking always at numbers in your gauges.

If i should judge the games because of graphics and models i would place IL2 models at the top, following by WW2Online models (because both have very nice 3d cockpits, whick look historical), then WB3 (pity 3d cockpits are not done yet) and at last AH (like i mentioned before the 3 other games can use higher detailed models, so it is like comparing apples and oranges)

Lem
P.S.: Cya guys at the next Euro Con <S>

[Maniac]

If you have played AH for almost an year wich i guess you have have Santa, its not fair to djudge another sim by simply flyin an couple of sorties in it...

You still got to much AH in your system to give it an fair chance, IMHO you have to give it atleast 1-2 weeks of flying...

And that goes vice verca too ofcourse...



------------------
AH : Maniac
WB : -nr-1-

[StSanta]

Eye candy sure is an individual thing. Me, I think WB looks old and tired.

But , you guys flying WB, how do you explain the very poor inertia modelling and the lack of a sensation of speed at merges?

Not a flame, jsut curious.

------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
while(!bishRookQueue.isEmpty() && loggedOn()){
30mmDeathDIEDIEDIE(bishRookQueue.removeFront());
System.out.println("LW pilots are superior");
myPlane.performVictoryRoll();
}

[Macchi]

Hmmmm,
i always have the sensation of speed in merges in Warbirds. Sorry, i don't know what you mean Santa.
Arn't you a little bit off here. first you tell your graphics are superior, then when sopmeone steps in and shows you superior art then it is only eye candy?
Ok, you don't want to discuss really, i am off. Cya

Lem

[Lephturn]

For starters I would stick to comparing graphics and models to games that are actually released to the public.

Nevermind comparing actual games to 3D Studio models.  Sheesh.

AH is obviously graphically superior to WB as it stands now.  When WB3 is actually available then you can compare it to whatever AH has available at the time.

To be sure, both games have positives and negatives.  I have moved to AH.  'nuff said.

------------------
Lephturn - Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs  http://www.flyingpigs.com


"My P-47 is a pretty good ship, she took a round coming 'cross the Channel last trip.
Just thinking 'bout my baby and lettin' her rip, always got me through so far."
 - Steve Earl

[MANDOBLE]

 

Originally posted by sky_bax:
...But if it`s Data & Specs you seek then I suggest this link:
Warbirds Flight Test Department

I didn't know that page, but after visiting it I noticed a very big difference between AH flight data and WB flight data. For example, the 109F max climb rate in WB is 4688 fps,
while it never exceeds 3900 fps in AH acording to the aircraft charts.

[danish]

Each to his own.

IMO AH now (1.04) has a small but clear advantage in FM, damage, gunnery, viewsystem and "features": ie icons dissapearing when plane not seen, mission planner, build in RW, clouds, ect.Overall strategy is also better - allthough still a joke.

WB's major strength for some is the impressing row of well planned and run scenarioes + the ability to fly in historic settings 24\7.

Difference isnt that big if you can abstract from the eyecandy really.When you get used to one of the sims it will feel "right" - took me some 8-12 weeks so transform to AH.What drove me away was the painfully long-drawn gunnery\damage debate culminating in several "Emperors New Clothes" adjustements presented by HS.

Each to his own.

danish

[This message has been edited by danish (edited 11-22-2000).]

[Westy]

"For example, the 109F max climb rate in WB is 4688 fps, while it never exceeds 3900 fps in AH acording to the aircraft charts."

 So how did the real aircraft perform? Please don't use another sims charts as the benchmark for how it should be modelled elsewhere. Compare a game/sim to real life. THEN say that this one or the other is more accurate. For instance, how much ammo did a real 109-F have? In WB's it has about 300% too much and odlly enough even with all that extra ammo it still climbs like a bat out of hades? Does WB model into the FM the wieght of ammo, as AH does (I believe)?

   -Westy