WarBirds III, they seem to be catching up fast.

[Vulcan]

fokr from WBs? (Vlcn/Vlkn) from WBs  

 

Originally posted by Fokker:
LtData *in case you dont know Fokker, old handle *  

[LtHans]

I'm only going to switch back to WarBirds if they can get the virtual battlefield of thiers working right.  Of course I still need to see how they intend their final version of the ground war to to look like.

It is surely better than the aircombat of WW2 Online.  Sure, in that game you can fly, but not very well.  Its mostly a ground combat game.  Maybe after they implement a panning view system or stick sets It will improve, but right now I hate flying WW2OL because I can't configure my veiw keys the way I like it to.

Aces High is still going to be mostly aircombat, and probably won't ever add a fully fleshed out ground war.  It wouldn't take too much if you ask me, just treelines, roads, bridges, and farm buildings.

Hans.

[lazs1]

So long as WB has allied vs axis and no 6 view and puny undermodeled machine guns I will have no interest in it.  I don't really care about ground wars but would like things to strafe.
lazs

[Weave]

IEN is offering free online play of WB, WB3, and DOA from the 6th through the 9th of July.

I got the downloads and have only flown them offline for now.

My take: The terrains are not as nice as AH. AH terrains have a more realistic appearance. About the only area enviroment wise in which WB3 has an edge on AH is the water. It's alive and undulating. However their shorelines are not as well done as AH.

The planes in WB3 are nicely rendered, but the cockpits seem dead and lifeless. Cockpit art is nice, but your head seems frozen in space. Some folks complain of the undue head movement in AH when manouvering the plane, but I think it adds life to the cockpit.

One thing I did really like, and would like to see in AH. When you put the plane into a dive, the engine rpm sound would wind up, and in a climb, would slow down as the prop was loaded. This gives you a pretty good seat of the pants feel on your energy state without having to look at your guages. A nice feature that I hope gets incorperated into AH.

I won't go into great depth on the flight model cause it's been beated to death here already, but to me it seems overly mushy, and unresponsive. I don't get the feeling of flight as in AH.

The stall horn is about as annoying a sound as could be found. And does it really have to go off on the take off roll?

Haven't had the chance to try the gunnery yet, or witness the damage graphics from gun strikes, but the tracer effects are weak as compared to AH.

In conclusion, for my money AH is still the best value out there for a good WW2 combat flight sim. I'll be here a while yet.  

It's just my opinion, I could be wrong.    

[Wlfgng]

Yeah WBIII has the eye-candy but it's the same ol' game as 2.7.  Same FM, same balistics, etc...

nothing has changed except the graphics IMO.

Show me some real improvements and maybe I'll be impressed.

[bowser]

Well I thought I would give it a spin, it's free this weekend.  I suppose it's what you're used to, but it feels like you're flying in molasses.  No sensation of speed, poor response, mushy, bouncy.  These are supposed to be high performance aircraft and I felt like I was flying a Cessna.  It may look nice, but the selling feature still has to the FM.  No thanks.

bowser

[Creamo]

Tried it, yuk.

[ra]

<<<About the only area enviroment wise in which WB3 has an edge on AH is the water. It's alive and undulating.>>>

Weave, have you ever flown over water?  It doesn't look anything like WB3 effects.  WB3 ocean looks like a gigantic jacuzzi. AH's unmoving textures are much more like what you see from the air.

I like the WB3 haze layers, they would be nice additions to the AH clouds.

ra

[Gunslayer]

I think the WB3 guys should check out X-plane
  Now where is Deez ?

[Skybax]

My problem with Wb is the horrible inertia which does not correspond to my RL experience. When the pilots at the club can throw around Cessna 182's or even some twin engine SE A II's faster in a roll than WB 190's, I know a)reality is modelled wrong or b) WB is modelled wrong

Rip tested & compared the AH & WB 190s roll.

Oddly they were nearly identical, dispite how they might feel.

 

Yeah WBIII has the eye-candy but it's the same ol' game as 2.7. Same FM, same balistics, etc...
nothing has changed except the graphics IMO
 

Same FM = wrong
Same balistics = wrong
Nothing changed except graphics = wrong

You need to really get out more    

PS: Far as the original title of "catching up" that is a matter of opinion.

With all due respect to HTC and the fine sim that AH is, there are many areas that AH has never caught up to WB. And the AH current engine is just not capable of doing what the WBIII Winter Wolf can do.

[ 07-07-2001: Message edited by: Skybax ]

[bowser]

"...Rip tested & compared the AH & WB 190s roll.  Oddly they were nearly identical, dispite how they might feel..."

Does that include the 10 seconds it takes the aircraft to respond and start to roll?  

bowser

[MrRiplEy]

Skybax: variety in aircraft aside, name one.

[StSanta]

Rip tested & compared the AH & WB 190s roll.

Oddly they were nearly identical, dispite how they might feel.

Heh, here's a little math question for ya.

Aunt Anne has a cross motorcycle and Uncle Bill has a big BMW.

They both accelerate at full throttle and go on for x meters.

In the beginning, Aunt Anne's superior acceleration puts her in the lead, but they end up arriving at the goal line at the same time. Why?

Perhaps because while the BMW does not accelerate as well, it has a much higher top speed?

According to you, the two "drive models" would be identical. I hope the fallacy of this line of argument is obvious.

WB has a code that makes the initial roll rate of all fighters WAY too slow - and this ain't just a touchy feely thing. I'll ask our pilot to roll the Cessna 182 and I'll time every 45 degrees - the Cessna is much faster than the WB 190 for the first 45 degrees.

I haven't had much real life stick time, but spent some time riding planes. And it was amazing to me how crisp even these private planes like a Cessna 182 are when flown by a capable pilot. Or the SE A II's rudder authority - KICK MOVE RELEASE STOP. All like a snap.

The inertia modelled in WB is ridiculous. It really is. Fix that, and I'll be very happy to fly WB but as it is, that inertia is just too much.

[715]

I think it's important to reiterate that it is not true physics inertia that is being modeled in WB3.  They actually limit the rate of movement of the control surfaces.  Use the external rear view zoomed close and do a hard over of the stick (roll).  You will see that the plane responds immediately to the visible aileron position but that the aileron itself moves very slowly.  It isn't ten seconds   but it is a full 2 seconds from one extreme to the other.  This is what gives the mushy bouncy feel.  If you want to rapidly roll 45 degrees left you have to push the stick full left until you reach something less than 45 degrees and then move the stick all the way right to hasten the slew of the aileron back to neutral to prevent an overshoot in roll angle.  I doubt any real aircraft responds that way: even monster sized transport aircraft have almost immediate response of the control surfaces to stick input, you can see that when they check them on the ramp.  A fighter would obviously need instant response.  And, in fact, I don't think WWII fighters could have a delayed response since the control surfaces were connected to the stick directly by wires (and I doubt very much they used bungie cords    )

715

[Zigrat]

yes the mushy feeling of wbs is teh #1 reason why i wont subscribe

its rediculous i agree with santa 100%