WBIII Beta from a AH player perspective

[Westy]

 I must be missing a file for the FM because I can whip all the current WB III fighters around the sky like I was playing AirWarrior in a "Relaxed Realism" arena. They handle like Piper cubs on steroids. It takes a hug amount of yanking and banking to even get a touch of black out and the damn things wouldn't spin no matter what I did. They'll stall ok. But no spin.

 And yes. I was not on easymode and this was with yesterdays patch - as well as before. The old WB's fm was not like this *at all*.

  Granted it is a pretty game.

  -Westy




[This message has been edited by Westy (edited 03-20-2001).]

[Lugnut]

File this under FWIW (since I haven't flown it) but I believe HS said he modified all of the CofG info. Whether he mucked with anything else is uncertain. Word has it that torque is still under represented which probably affects spin tendencies after a stall a great deal.

lugnut

[Ram1]

Well I should know better but I have to respond a bit to Westy.

HS has stated that they updated the code for the physics model for WB3 and that it was not completed yet but should be for the release. Some of the problems they know and are working on are spins, and other FM issues. That is why we are in Beta to fix what is not working.

OK, wasted enough time on this one.

Ram1

[Ripsnort]

Kinda uncomfortable when the shoe is on the other foot, ain't it Ram1?  

[Yeager]

FMs are like sexy women, you never really quite get finished messaging them.  Theres always some curve or soft spot that needs some more work.

 

[Ram1]

Not really Rip1, its just important to me that the facts are presented.

Once WB3 is released, and if we still have those problems, then I will get in line to complain like the rest of the WB pilots.

Now if Westy really wanted to get into a debate on flight models using 2.77 as the baseline then others more knowledgeable then myself can debate him.

But we already had that debate and we all concluded that there is very little difference between the two sims since AH 1.04. So my only point is that he fails to remind everyone when he posts that what he is reporting are known bugs. Now we wait for them to be fixed so we can get back to where we were and move forward from there.

Ram1

 

Originally posted by Ripsnort:
Kinda uncomfortable when the shoe is on the other foot, ain't it Ram1?  

[Westy]

 To be honest Ram1, if things were that clear cut I wouldn't bother making any comment on a feature unfinished. However, it's pretty hard telling what is in place, what's not and what will be changed because H.S. makes one comment in one newsgroup and another in on a different board - if he's made a comment at all. ARCWING did the best damn post about the state of the beta to date. And he's not even an employee any more.

 I don't have time to keep up with what is what and I really do not have the interest nor care to help out.  So the FM isn't finished either. Noted.

 Ripsnort nailed it on the head.  Others have done what you just did but for AH in  AGW and were torn to pieces in posts by H.S, MG, Cabby, Stiglr, you and several others. I'm posting my honest thoughts and there isn't a slam on WB III in any of them. I do not have stock here nor am I linked by family ties to HTC.  I do however like them and most definately thier product.  It doesn't preclude me from checking anything else out. It's ridiculous to think I could not have an objective opinion on WB III (or WW2O, TK or any other game).

 YOU tend to color posts, or anyone who has a less than stellar impression of WB III, anyway you like it as most neo-WBIII hardcore  community members tend to.  Example:  " he fails to remind everyone when he posts that what he is reporting are known bugs "  is pure crap. I posted ny thougths about WB III an hour after it was relased. There was no bug list by iEN. I pposted this am about a release last night. There was no bug list by iEN.  If there is a bug list it sure aint on AGW and if there are posts then I haven't see em or they weren't up when I commented on something.  Where do you get off with writing this roadkill about me hiding facts?

   -Westy

 


[This message has been edited by Westy (edited 03-20-2001).]

[Ram1]

Fair enough Westy.

Its funny how thin skinned we all can be at times over these games. But I would say that you writing WB3 is more like a Nintendo game then a flight sim would be considered a slam.

But I do think many here and many over on AGW are no longer objective about the others game. So bottom line, you have fun flying AH, I'll have fun flying WBs and let's just let it rest there. Comparing the two sims just leads to trouble and probably can't be done unless by a non-aligned 3rd party.

Ram1

[Westy]

"WB3 is more like a Nintendo game then a flight sim would be considered a slam."

 Flight model. And I take it back. It wasn't objective and it was a tweak in the nose at those who claim WB's to be the uber-all when it comes to a realistic FM.  I just edited that out.

 How it feels, the comparison to AW is how it feels to me. Too light and too quick to respond - without the redout, blackout or spins one would expect. Now I know it's not done so we'll see how it fairs later.

 As for a third party to review? Seems that won't cut it with iEn as they told SimHQ to halt any criticism of WB III.

 Objectiveness isn't wanted by the folks at iEN and, IMO, it's not wanted by those who are iEN's fans. Adore WB III, praise WB III or 'shut the hell up' is the message from iEN' and even the from many of the AGW folks who eat their own who step out of line.
 That's the cold truth and it is in plain text to read on AGW and in their email to SimHQ.

  -Westy




[This message has been edited by Westy (edited 03-20-2001).]