Its pretty remarkable...

[Morpheus]

Because im not about to let you waste more time in a day than i can. Im just competitive that way

Yeah but I'm getting paid for my time wasted here.

[beet1e]

Good posts from TexM and MugZee. :aok

On the gaming/simming scale, I lean towards simming, but without wanting 8 hour sorties, mixture controls etc. But I do like to see planes flown according to accounts I have read from real WW2 pilots.

But there are those people who are dismissive of my approach (and they know who they are ) and who, for example, would pooh-pooh the idea of flying a JUG at 20K where it excelled. No, the only thing that matters to some of these guys is "mixing it up in the weeds" - turnfights in P47s at the deck, and having airfields so close together that they're practically overlapping. For me, it's hard to imagine anything further from realism than that. But I get told "AH isn't WW2/a recreation of WW2/a WW2 sim* (delete as applicable, according to the heat of the debate)...

... so it always cracks me up that when a gamer sees something he does not like, the first thing he does is to draw parallels with WW2, and begin a debate about what would or would not have happened in WW2. Selective Realism™ strikes again!!

Mugz is right - what a waste of time!

Thanks for the laugh though!

[Morpheus]

lol look at Beetle calling the kettle... Never mind its too easy with you Beetle.

I find it overwhelingly ironic that many of the ones saying I'm wrong here are also the ones who whine about incorrect flight mods in A/C and are also the ones who whine about how MA of AH is nothing more than... Well, a furballers arena.

In the end it doesnt matter what you think is a waste of time brit. Your past dozen posts have been nothing but a flaim fest cluster F...

[beet1e]

Morph,

I never whined about FM in AH2. But plenty did. I might well have whined about FM in AH1 because in some respects they were wrong. That's why they were changed for AH2, and why so many gamey whiners (or is it whiney gamers? - lol) quit on Day1 - their lame game no longer worked.

I'm flattered that you're still reading my posts, assuming your last remark was true.

[phookat]

Originally posted by beet1e
... so it always cracks me up that when a gamer sees something he does not like, the first thing he does is to draw parallels with WW2, and begin a debate about what would or would not have happened in WW2. Selective Realism™ strikes again!!

Do you understand the difference between a flight sim and a wargame?

Originally posted by beet1e
Mugz is right

Do you prefer having 110's shooting down CV's, then?

[beet1e]

Phookat - if AH was merely a flight sim, there wouldn't be GVs, PTs, CVs, FGs...  

According to the website banner, it's a WW2 combat experience.

So, with that in mind, perhaps you can tell ME the difference. :cool:

[phookat]

Originally posted by TexMurphy
The reason why this is wrong is because IF weapons are implemented as they should be (imho historicaly correct) and the players find different useage for them then they where intended for in RL then its fine.

But "player usage" is not the topic here, nor is it the goal to modify that usage.  The purpose of the RL facts is to prove (or suggest) the incorrectness of the physics, not to force player behavior.  So your righteous wrath is aimed in the wrong direction.

[phookat]

Originally posted by beet1e
Phookat - if AH was merely a flight sim, there wouldn't be GVs, PTs, CVs, FGs...  

According to the website banner, it's a WW2 combat experience.

So, with that in mind, perhaps you can tell ME the difference. :cool:

Let me rephrase that.  Do you understand the difference between a physics simulation and a wargame?

[dedalos]

Game, sim, arcade, what ever it is.  All a 110 could do is scrach the paint of a capital ship and it would not even be able to complet a single pass before getting shot by all these guns.

If it means new code needs to be writen then fine.  HT is writing code every day.  Whats the big deal.  He will get to it when ever he gets to it.  Our point is simply that this is wrong.

Morp, u r right.  Stupidity should be painfull.

As far as deffending and caping the CV, I did that the other day. Dweeb takes of in a 38 to bomb the CV.  He is flying at  2K through the ack.  I manage to put a few rounds into him but he continued on.  He hits the CV then finally the ack gets him.  Now I am waiting for him by the field as he takes of.  He thinks nothing of it.  Takes of gets shoot down, takes off gets shot down, takes off gets shot down.  Three times and he did not even try to evade once.  Finally, he takes of in a LA7 to get rid of me.  He gets shot down even faster so he takes up a 38 again.  Well, I am out of ammo.  I bet you he made as many trips as he needed to sink that CV.  I can post the film if you want to see how stupid the whole thing is.

The point is, people will be people.  They will have fun the way they like.  If he wants to die 10 times in a row in order to kill the CV let him.  However, if the ack on the CV was anything close to real life - and before you complain about real life remember that your plane does have the guns it would have in real life - a sigle 38 at 2K would not even dream of getting close to the CV group.  A single 110 would be sreaded by the ack before it even fired a single shot and if it did, it would just leave a mark on the paint.  I am not asking for people to change.  Just fix the game.

[debuman]

Well said TEX!  I've always thought that it felt a little strange to be shooting down (or being shot down by) B-17's while in a P-51.   But then I just tell myself what TEX has repeated - it's a GAME, dummy!  Just play the GAME and have fun!!!!

[phookat]

Originally posted by debuman
But then I just tell myself what TEX has repeated - it's a GAME, dummy!  Just play the GAME and have fun!!!!

Sure, it's all fun.  But here's a question for ya.  Suppose all the planes were modeled to have a top speed of 200 MPH, and not be able to fire their guns while airborne.  Would that be OK too?  That's probably more physically realisitic than cruisers strafed down and sunk.

Point is, the physics (as opposed to the wargame) should aim to be as real as possible.  This post covers one area in need of improvement.

I'm not sure I understand why so many folks are reluctant to acknowledge this or support a change for the better.

[Morpheus]

They'd rather be a bunch of smart tulips Phookat.

[Morpheus]

... so it always cracks me up that when a gamer sees something he does not like, the first thing he does is to draw parallels with WW2, and begin a debate about what would or would not have happened in WW2. Selective Realism™ strikes again!!

Yep, its tough to say I was wrong in my last post.

IMHO brit, you are all gamers, yes, I am included in all.

There isnt a single person that logs into AH that isnt.

Oh and by the way, that puts you in there with the gamers too Beetle. Altho I havent seen you on in ages.

I furball, I E fight, I play with bombers from time to time, both at high alt and low lvl. I vulch, I HO, I ram, I cherry pick... The list can go on and on and On. Oh yeah forgot to mention the GV thang.

I'll bet my bottom dollar that 90% or more of the players in AH play just as I do.

Lately all I've had time for is a few flights and then I'll log off. I've had the pleasure within the past few days of being able to spend a little more time in AH than I recently have.

Since I've had the pleasure of being able to do a few more things in the past few days then I have had time for, I've seen some things that are just not right. The topic of this thread being one of them.

Being a "gamer" has nothing to do with anything here Beetle. Like I said, every single person who logs into AH is a gamer. They are playing a game. A game that is based on REAL LIFE machines, planes and objects. HTC has done every thing in his power to get the FM's of each A/C as comparable as posible. Yet people over look other important things like the ammo they carry and how it is modled.

If you look back through the updated Pyro already made a fix on the german 30mm and I beleive 20mm. It is still wrong. Regardless of it being right or wrong now, they beleive there is a need to have it as close to real life as they can. If they didnt they wouldnt have writen a fix for it several months ago.

Fix or no fix, it still needs more fixing. I dont understand how or why that is so difficult for you to understand.  

Then again, you also want to see what others desktops look like.

[Zanth]

Originally posted by Zanth
Our cruiser is a wimp, sinks super easy.  There were 14 Baltimore class ships commissioned, making them the largest class of heavy cruisers in history. None of them were sunk in action.  

If I found good data for the Baltimore class,

9 8"/55 guns (3 positions x3 guns each.).
12 5"/38 DP guns (6 positions 2 guns each, one forward, one aft, two on each side ).
48 40mm AA guns (12 positions x4 guns each).
24 20mm AA guns.
4 aircraft, 2 catapults.  
Max speed 33 knots

This sure ain't the AH boat

Armor:
 
Belt 6in-4in, armor deck 2.5in, barbettes 6.3in, turrets 8in face,
3in roof, 3.75in-2in sides, 1.5in rear, CT 6in with 3in roof,
side over magazines (underwater) 3in with 2.5in deck

A 110 would be a joke against this?

Essex Class

Armament:     

12 - 5"/38cal (4ea x 2 mounts, 4ea x 1 mounts)
32 - 40mm (8ea x 4 mounts) AA
46 - 20mm AA    40mm and 20mm AA varied from ship-to-ship with up to 72 - 40mm (18ea x 4 mounts) and
60 - 20mm in later ships.

http://www.steelnavy.com/essex_data.htm for complete specs.

A few guns eh?

Protection:     

Flight Deck - None
Gallery Deck - None
Hanger Deck - 2.5" STS Armor
Protective Deck(s) - 1.5" STS Armor
Armor Belt - 4" tapered to 2.5" (508' x 10')
Bulkheads - 4"
Conning Tower 1.5" STS top 1" side of Pilot House
Steering Gear - 2.5" Deck

[Elfie]

Realism is all nice BUT game play is more important then realism. There will always be unrealisitc events in even the most realistic games. Simply because it is a game and in games realism always has to be ballanced with the fun factor.

I think it has already been stated that the realism most of us want is in flight models and damage models, we want those to be as accurate as possible.

I do agree with you that this is a GAME and as such some things will never be realistic.

I think HTC is concerned about realism to at least some extent as well. This is evidenced by a minor change they made to the angle of a planes landing gear when extended. Iirc Widewing brought this to HTC's attention and they agreed with the change and promptly fixed it.