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

[-lynx-]

nr-1: I flew WB from late 1995 until Jan 2000. I still have an account with ICI/iMOL/iEN. From that point of view I'm new to AH.

I tried it again at the Con - the controls response was very slow and imprecise!

 

Funny the feel the speed thing runs in both directions

AH gives increased wind noise with speed which is very life-like and accurate IMHO.

OTOH I "feel" WB ground and think that you can judge your altitude close to the ground by sight. I can't do it in AH, have to rely on instruments which is a pain when the field elevation is not known... BTW - do you guys have airfields at diff elevations? I can't remember...

There are lots of things I like in WB and wish HTC would implement them here - after all, the bastiges designed most of them in the first place!   But overall - AH has the egde.

Graphics better in WB3? I've seen nice looking Pony that is still coming. I liked its prop blades. Radiator scoop looks like someone stuffed an old blanket in it. The rest of it looks no better than the one we've  flown in AH for a year.

SBD - very nice indeed  ... *yum*

But how right you are about it going both ways - it took me a month to get used to AH... Plus you need to change the stick buttons, plus...

(Absolutely no disrespect to SUPERFLY and the gang but having looked at WWIIOL planes I can certainly say that FT is still the God of 3D artists... It's when the planes look so that you want to touch them, to check if they were real...)

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

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

[Gadfly]

They are both good, and the inertia stuff I have no clue on.  Bottom line for me is which sim provides the experience that I desire.  That experience is a historical recreation of WWII air combat.

So far, Warbirds far exceeds AH in this aspect.  The SL's, Scenarios, terrains and plane set enable much more varied and historical possabilities.

AH is working that way and has some nice features to facilitate this in the future, but for now Warbirds has an(based on much more qualified persons than me) accurate flight model, many planes and a community that embraces historical events.

Fly an SL over there sometime, Santa, if you want to see what Warbirds is all about.

[Glunz]

Actually I have nothing meaningful to say, rather than to test my new sig.

---------
Don't give pilots with lower wingloading a fair fight !
They wouldn't notice anyway.

 

Glunz
9./JG54 "Grunherz"



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

[sky_bax]

Lots of good points in here.

Lots of bad ones too.

I would like to make a few comments to some of these issues, but there are several from different members so I will apologize in advance if I don`t mention your name along with your quote.

"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."

AH FM is not leaps and bounds over WB FM, and I can tell my speed in WB by the way the aircraft handles without a doubt. Just like you can in AH.

"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"

I find it odd that you feel that way. It`s the opposite for me. IMO there is no sensation of speed in AH, and even many of the guys I know who fly both feel the same way. That has been a major gripe on this board from many AH members in the past year who have switched from WB.

"I cannot think of anything it does better."

Like I said before StSanta, there are dozens of things I like better, I`m sorry but I really don`t want to put together a list.

"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."

That is not correct. See my explanation above. Prop sound gets MUCH louder as you increase with speed.

"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."

Yep, and I just prefer the 2D ones. I would welcome 3D cockpits, but only if they were modeled well.    

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

Yep nothing changed there in the old code, but not for long.

"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."

Trying to catch up? AH is a step above the current WB in graphics, and it should be, it`s a lot newer. Just like WWIIOL`s graphics. But WBIII is in an entirely different league, major leaps and bounds there in graphics. I wouldn`t say catching up, I would call it raising the bar big time and setting new standards.

It`s not taking ages to build models with what their using, thet are pumping out aircraft like crazy and that it even with a very small work staff.

"Does WB model into the FM the wieght of ammo, as AH does (I believe)?"

Yes Westy, and if you go to the link I gave above at the bottom of the page lists most of what WB models.

"Graphics better in WB3? I've seen nice looking Pony that is still coming. I liked its prop blades. Radiator scoop looks like someone stuffed an old blanket in it. The rest of it looks no better than the one we've flown in AH for a year."

Looks no better? Are you sure?

 http://www.iencentral.com/warbirds/wb3_wallpaper.html

"Fly an SL over there sometime, Santa, if you want to see what Warbirds is all about."

Yea the SL`s are good, they run often and they are fun if you want to jump in a organized event at the last minute solo. But the S3`s are where it`s at. S3`s are at an entirely different level. Then there are events like the upcoming Midway, months of hardwork for a single event. Hats off to these guys in our communities, they are what really make the difference in a sim.

I like AH, and I like some of it`s features better than WB. But in a overall compairison WB beats it hands down IMO.

Both are good sims, just very different.

This is all I can really help you to understand why people prefer WB over AH without getting into long feature lists.

Opinions are like a**holes, everybody got one.

PS: I am wondering why this wasn`t posted in the Off-topic Forum thinking the AH staff making it clear after that last party.


------------------
Skybax
328th Fighter Squadron
 www.352ndFighterGroup.com
Blue Nosed Bastards of Bodney



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

[Regurge]

 

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

In general i find WB planes to be more nimble than their AH counterparts. But i have no basis for claiming either to be more realistic.

I think screen resolution might have an effect on sensation of speed. Even at hi-res (1024x768) the planes in WB are just blocky groups of pixels until you get fairly close. I run AH at 1280x1024 and that seems to give me much more information on what the other planes are doing.

[LJK Raubvogel]

Gee Santa, that's some really good bait you're using, can I get a little of that?  

------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps

[funked]

Definitely OT.
It's still a nice troll though Santa.

[Westy]

 Thanks for the civil and informative reply Skybax. <S>  

 -Westy

[eddiek]

StSanta,
Don't judge the "other" sim from just a few flights offline.
I followed hblair over to AH after he insisted that I try it..........
Initial impressions were not favorable then, as I was not used to the AH flight model, and the more intense graphics combined with my video card at the time made me hate it.
Enthusiasm for either of the sims is an acquired taste........you grow to like or ou don't.  I left the "other" sim for almost 6 months, have lately gotten disenchanted with what I consider to be a stagnant state of affairs in AH, and have recently started flying the other one again, on a piecemeal basis.
Things I "miss" from the other sim?
Buffet effects when you get your plane really hauling, especially near the compressibility area.  Flew the other one the other nite, was fun as hell when I was bouncing a guy at over 400 mph, and the sight picture was vibrating like crazy.  Real life planes, especially the ones modelled in these combat sims, did not ride like 747's, all cushy and smooth.  Read any story from a pilot who actually flew combat in WW2, and almost all will talk about vibrations and the aircraft shaking at different speeds.........not like they are on a set of rails like we get currently in AH.
Til you have flown the "other" sim online for a minimum of 4-12 months, you are not in a position to judge it;  anything you say will be just an opinion of someone who is not used to the sim yet, much like those who come from WB to AH, and are not used to it yet.

[StSanta]

heheh actually not a troll guys. Fuess I've cried wolf one too many times  .

Let me restate a question that wasn't answered:

How do you guys explain the inertia modelling in rolls in WB?[/b}

I've flown a cessna (not by myself though  ) and I can tell ya; that slow, poorly maneuvering plane is a lot crisper and sharper with a good deal less inertia than the WB 190.

Which is surprising, since the 190 historically had a very good turn rate, initial and "sustained".

When that question has been adequately answered, I'll leave it up to "taste".

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

[Gadfly]

How much does a Cessna weigh?  What is the wing loading?

[jedi]

Hehehe my my, how far we've come!  

Let me turn that one around on you.  How do YOU, on the basis of "flying a Cessna, not by yourself," profess to know so much about what is "right" in terms of inertia modeling?  A typical warbird has the mass of about EIGHT Cessnas, with a lot more of that mass concentrated in the wings than what a Cessna has, about twice the wingspan, and, oh, 20 times the torque or so    

Which 190 did you fly?  The Dora in WB is suspected to have some problems, but the A4 should give you a decent perspective.  Also, where are you getting your numbers?  I'll accept that the 190 had a good "instantaneous" turn rate, and I'll bet that DocDoom or one of the ex-Warbirders around here could show you that the WB 190 DOES have a very good instantaneous turn rate.  As for "sustained," well, show me the numbers!  

Don't get me wrong.  I think that AH has a (very) slightly "more realistic" feeling FM than WB, but they're certainly both "close enough" to the real thing that the FM isn't the deciding factor for me.

What some of the other guys said is key: you've got to fly the other sim long enough to adjust to its FM.  NO FM is more than about 80% "accurate" IMO.  You'll find that in that 20% that is lacking are various little things that you can either live with or make it unlivable for your PREFERENCE, but the fact that that 20% exists makes it very hard to claim overall "superiority" for one FM over the other.  Neither comes anywhere close to simulating landings and takeoffs accurately, for example, although both are "convincing enough" and offer some challenge there.

Any judgement of "crispness" or "mushiness" is pure opinion IMO, without flying the actual real aircraft.  Get a 12000-pound Corsair (one of the best rolling planes historically) rolling at 90 degrees/sec, and see how "crisp" it is    Don't compare it to one flight in a 1500-pound Cessna.

It's also worth noting that the current AH FM is CLOSER to the WB model now, because it was found to be somewhat inaccurate in matching historical turn rates.  You don't get to say, "Oh, it's much more realistic in inertia modeling," and then gloss over the fact that it doesn't do as good a job at replicating turn performance.  (Although, like I said, I do think AH is slightly better, and it even felt more "realistic" to me before they changed the FM).

If I came in here, compared the too-easy takeoffs and landings to the real thing, compared the simple spin recovery of an "easy" plane here to the impossible spin recovery of a "hard" plane in WB, left the auto-takeoffs and combat-trim thingie on, and judged the gunnery by what it does to the drones, would anyone give my opinion any weight?

Oops, dumb question.  None of you give my opinion any weight anyway  

--jedi

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

[juzz]

 

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.

The Warbirds test is at 50% fuel, the AH charts are for 100% fuel. Plus several WarBirds planes have somewhat overmodelled climbrates, especially at low speed.

[eddiek]

Both sims have things that turn people off, that 20% factor that jedi mentioned.
Personally, I like the number of planes the other sim has.  HT gave a ME-109G10, which, according to all the online info I have ever found, had a max speed of around 435 mph.  Look at the HT performance page, and you will see that HT has the G-10 setup to perform at the level of a 109K.  Just as I was about to make comment, I seem to recall Pyro telling us that the engines in the G-10 and the K were the same, and that is why the similiar performances.  Not being a LW/109 fan, I do not know all the nuances involved in the ME designation system.  But I do think that there were more differences between the G10 and the K than that.  Sharing the same engine should not mean that a G10 is the same as a K.  At least in the other sim, you know what you are supposed to be flying, not a later model represented as an earlier one just for convenience sake.

[StSanta]

Uhm, with not by myself I mean that I ain't a qualified pilot. I jump outta planes, I don't fly um. I've tried my hands at flying though.
The basic principles of physics apply to both though.

That being said, it's interesting how defensive you got all of a sudden  . Gone from "we're damned sure this is right" to "ok it might be wrong prove it".

Even used the old and tried "have you flown a 190" argument. Nope. I haven't been shot in the head either, but can tell it's a bad idea.

None of the sources I've looked up suggest that the Spit should have a near equal instantaneous turn rate (dunno the English term for it, sorry) to the 190.

About the inertia, as far as I can see, you're essentially rolling along a centre of gravity going through roughly the middle of the plane. With the big ailerons of the 190 and the very way it is constructed, I don't see it as unrealistic in any way that it has an instantaneous roll rate that's quite good.

It doesn't in WB. All planes feel the same in that way. Am told HotSeat implemented this "lag" in roll after HiTech and the gang left, possibly for correcting some kind of stick stirring problem.

Have to go to classes now  .



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