Author Topic: iEN in tRouBLE (Read 3361 times)

jedi · « **Reply #45 on:** January 08, 2001, 02:30:00 PM »

Hehe Yeager, it all depends on your frame of reference, and what you expect, I suppose

How has the current WB team "treated me?"

Well, they haven't provided a lot of updated versions, that's for sure. They spent a lot of time "fixing" a TERRIBLE update produced by the previous team (2.6), made one significant FM update (love it, hate it, you choose, but I'm used to it now), and produced one "legitimate" update (2.7x). So, no, they haven't given me any new toys to play with.

OTOH, they DID show themselves to be open to changing the way the game itself was played, (something the previous team would never consider) in their willingness to allow the World War II Arena, their continued support for the HA and "experimental" arenas like the (cough) "Expert Arena."

In the meantime, they took a fairly risky (considering the financial health of the company) step in basically starting over from the ground up with the WB3 "modular" concept. Maybe that will fail, but given that there really isn't anything "wrong" with WB 2.7x (other than a few "forgivable" bugs), I lean toward giving them a chance to build their new sim, rather than pissing away their future maintaining the old one.

Should I turn the critical eye you reserve ONLY for WB on the oh-so-wonderful Aces High "concept?" Oh, what the heck!

Two years on, and still lacking even ONE of the planes to do a Battle of Britain or Midway scenario. The "meat-and-potatoes" Hellcat only provided in the last three weeks. Half the planeset consists of varients. Only one Axis bomber. Arena play that centers primarily on the overuse of ONE unbalancing plane, which was at best a MINOR player in the real conflict. Arena play that can be totally "subverted" by the "abuse" of poorly-modeled ground/sea units by "clever" game-the-game types. Claims of "vastly superior" flight modeling touted by both players and developers for MONTHS, only to have that flight model made (ahem) MORE like Warbirds (OOPS!)

To give the "benefit of the doubt," let's say I agree that EVERY individual aspect of Aces High is slightly superior to its counterpart in Warbirds. The GAMEPLAY is still no better, has made NO advancement over what you could do in Air Warrior 10 years ago, and, due to the limited focus of the plane set, can't even match the VARIETY of either Warbirds OR Air Warrior. After two years.

Not saying any of that is "bad," or that it's not understandable for a "start-up" company, or that I think AH isn't a great sim, because it clearly IS "leading edge" in many areas.

But you ask me how I can put up with the way iEN has "treated me?" In terms of sticking with the community through "tough times" and remaining committed to the sim, I think I can make an argument that the current WB team has "treated me" a heckuva lot better than EITHER of the two previous teams did, despite the fact that the previous guys were "cooler" and "smarter" and "more fun."

Aside from taking two years to produce a slightly better "technical" simulation incorporating essentially the same gameplay and "vision" provided by Air Warrior in 1991, how has HTC "treated" you?

--jedi

Mighty1 · « **Reply #46 on:** January 08, 2001, 02:53:00 PM »

Torgo I was one of the so-called beta testers and the only thing I can tell you about Voss is that he sure can tell stories.

It got very ugly and nothing came of it but alot of wasted time.

Udie · « **Reply #47 on:** January 08, 2001, 02:57:00 PM »

This is not posted to bash any company or person....

1. HTC and CRS companies - Both have coded succesful ww2 online combat sims (WB and DOA)

2. IEN - no original ww2 online combat software ever.

3. AH - been here for over a year and keeps getting better, I personaly think that it will pass WB in planes and features in the next 6 months or so.

4. WW2 Online - Can't say much, but I've seen the films, and I've been to their offices and seen the program with my own eyes, it's not vaporware and it will do most if not all of what they are saying it will do.

I am putting my money on tangable success and experience. I don't think WB3 will ever see the light of day. WW2 OL is behind schedule but it will make it out of the box at least. HTC and CRS have a 2 HUGE passions, WW2 aviation and online gaming. Combine that will technical skill, savy and a great work ethic and you have a winning combination. I saw none of those before I left "free" WB as a trainer, though that's not why I left, HS tops that list

Hell I almost took a job there....

I fully expect the competition to be between CRS and HTC. I'll be playing both though

Udie

AKSeaWulfe · « **Reply #48 on:** January 08, 2001, 03:09:00 PM »

When are you gonna get yourself a joystick that works Udie and come join us in the virtual skies of AH? :-)
Unless you're back already, dunno since I fly wierd times.
-SW
ps: This thread was done since it first started, no point in dropping a nuke on a dead horse now is there? :-)

Dos Equis · « **Reply #49 on:** January 08, 2001, 03:33:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKSeaWulfe:
When are you gonna get yourself a joystick that works Udie and come join us in the virtual skies of AH? :-)
Unless you're back already, dunno since I fly wierd times.
-SW
ps: This thread was done since it first started, no point in dropping a nuke on a dead horse now is there? :-)

Udie is in AH, I've seen him in the skies.

X2

Dos Equis · « **Reply #50 on:** January 08, 2001, 03:45:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by jedi:
Two years on, and still lacking even ONE of the planes to do a Battle of Britain or Midway scenario. The "meat-and-potatoes" Hellcat only provided in the last three weeks. Half the planeset consists of varients. Only one Axis bomber. Arena play that centers primarily on the overuse of ONE unbalancing plane, which was at best a MINOR player in the real conflict. Arena play that can be totally "subverted" by the "abuse" of poorly-modeled ground/sea units by "clever" game-the-game types. Claims of "vastly superior" flight modeling touted by both players and developers for MONTHS, only to have that flight model made (ahem) MORE like Warbirds (OOPS!)

The GAMEPLAY is still no better, has made NO advancement over what you could do in Air Warrior 10 years ago, and, due to the limited focus of the plane set, can't even match the VARIETY of either Warbirds OR Air Warrior. After two years.

Not saying any of that is "bad," or that it's not understandable for a "start-up" company, or that I think AH isn't a great sim, because it clearly IS "leading edge" in many areas.

Aside from taking two years to produce a slightly better "technical" simulation incorporating essentially the same gameplay and "vision" provided by Air Warrior in 1991, how has HTC "treated" you?

--jedi

Wow. That took guts. You do have your flamesuit on, right?

I will go through the points, since I have been accused of being a rabble rouser and
a HTC Cheerleader:

1. The planeset was late war focused from the start. No shock about BoB planes or Midway planes for that matter. It can't even be considered a valid criticism, just a preference.

2. Variants don't require 3D models, but change the flight model. The game is about flight modelling in a larger online war context. Again, is this really a criticism? BTW, AH is really only slightly over one year old (not two), so I'm sure they are quite competitive with other games that have more planes timeline wise.

3. The abuse of the Chawg is being looked into. Personally, I think you take it off the CV and that solves half of it.

4. Abusing the system to "game" it. I don't know what you mean, other than beating down one side to 2 fields and then not finishing them off.

5. The last and most harsh criticism, that HT has essentially reverted to his WB flight model. I think that's wrong. I'll let others chime in with all the flight dynamics that are modelled that are not in the WB model. I will concentrate on a simple point. In AH, everything is a 3D model. It's not a scaled bitmap. The cockpit is 3D. You can move your head around in it. The scaling is much better. Depth perception is no contest.

I also think AH feels alot different. Is it better? Well, energy fighting is harder, it is alot harder to fly and fight well in AH, but that's my take.

I don't think you will get many takers now that 1.05 is out that gameplay is the same as Air Warrior.

X2

Dos Equis · « **Reply #51 on:** January 08, 2001, 03:47:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ram1:
Yeah Voss its me. Can I get my confidentiality paperwork back now?

X2, just so there is no confusion, this is Ram1 from Warbirds, not RAM from AH who you guys are so fond of. Not sure which RAM you were referring to in your message.

Ram1
31st Fighter Group
CO 309th Fighter Squad
Historical Arena CM
Warbirds Trainer
Formerly 901st Immortals (The best virtual squadron that ever flew

No, I meant RAM, not RAM1.

Speaking of the 901st, what happened to 6gun?

X2

flakbait · « **Reply #52 on:** January 08, 2001, 04:47:00 PM »

Been here since BETA, seen guys come and go over trivial matters and over very serious things. Here's my take on it.

I left WBs due to a severe lack of support. When 2.76 was released people were screaming (literally) about many very bad bugs. I got flamed more than once for reporting bugs that were happening offline. Drones killing me when I shoot them, failure to fix the skip bombs, etc... When that mess happened, I took off. I simply couldn't take it anymore; a company that refused to fix major problems does not deserve my attention.

I came here looking for something better to do, and found it. None of the planes, guns, vehicles, bombs, rockets, or spitwads are porked for game play purposes. WBs flight modeling has yet to learn the word "subtle". Each plane is a lesson in extremes; the Hurricane can turn within the width of a quarter. While the Fw-190s can barely make a hammerhead without stalling. Gunnery was porked for gameplay (beachball-sized bullets) and damage was turned WAY down. On top of this, they still don't know how the 30mm Mk 108 is supposed to work.

As I see it, WBs is highly dated. This is the first release in nearly 8 months, and all they're doing is fixing bugs that should have been fixed in 2.76. Heel-dragging of this nature I can't stand. Probably has to do with my method of thinking; if you can fix it now, then fix it. A few times I've posted a real simple idea here; spend one entire version fixing bugs and revamping things. When we get to 5.441 they'll probably do just that, but right now most of the problems are minor.

Community in WBs, and my interaction therein, was limitd to their boards and the occasional e-mail I got. I spent all of 4 hours online during the Great Arena Bug Hunt. Interacted with a dozen people at most, shot a few guys down, and swore to myself about the FMs. Dale knows the word "subtle" all too well. Granted it took him a while to fix FMs, gun recoil (good laugh there), and some other things. But he got it done in a month or two, not a year.

Cockpits are as real as you can get without blowing 1.3 billion dollars on a Super-Computer or buying your own Fw-190.

They've got a full-time Bug Report board here. iEN has their little "BETA board" which is only open during a new release.

Pyro will actually correct people, HiTech will joke with you, and Natedog has sent me wailing out of my chair laughing a few times. Iceman is the only guy there who gives anything for anyone.

If you've got better data and proof something is wrong, Pyro will jump-to and get it fixed. After what, two years, they're just getting around to fixing the 30mm.

We've got vehicles you can drive, ships you can man, and boats you can run. WBs has none.

We've got a limited plane-set that HiTech and Pyro are fixing right now by working on 1.06. Hell the first plane of 1.06 is nearly complete. WBs has 56 planes, and of that only 20 are used to much of an extent.

In short: I'm staying here. I like the people (most of the time

), enjoy the friendly banter with the Admin, and don't have to worry about getting my bellybutton roasted over some sarcastic comment. Updates are hot and heavy, show up about once every month or three. Bugs are fixed promptly when they're found. I can't ask for more from a company that has my undevided attention.

-----------------------
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School
"With all due respect Chaplian, I don't think God wants to hear from me right now.
I'm gonna go out there and remove one of His creations from this universe.
And when I get back I'm gonna drink a bottle of Scotch like it was Chiggy von Richthofen's blood and celebrate his death."
Col. McQueen, Space: Above and Beyond

Westy · « **Reply #53 on:** January 08, 2001, 04:57:00 PM »

Jedi. WB's 2.6 was a product of the team in place after HiTech and Pyro left. Don't lump that crap on these folks. HiTech and Pyro subcontracted AFTER Killer/Mo et al, the 2.76 folks, left to over seas the transition. They maintained the servers and hosts for that brief time. HiTech and Pyro did not set the direction of nor produced WB's for that very brief period. iEN could have moved back to WB 2.5 at anytime they wished till they'd had it fixed. But iEN did not.

Also. AH took 2 years? where do you get your math from? At the AW 1999 Con (in September)HiTech had an early alpha of AH. I also heard iEN had one of WB III at the WB's con a couple minths prior. I've been using AH now for a year. How's WB3?

One more question? If you feel that iEN treats it's community and customers well then please tell me why they ostracised Argo's place as reagrds ot anything about WB3? They didn't prior to the layoffs.

I've been treated with respect and supported beyond my greatest expectations by HTC. HTC and crew have delivered a superior product to anything out there. Features such as clouds, terrain builder, mission planner, drop-tanks, guncam utility, mannable fleets, ground vehicles (that are far beyond what you may recall from AW) and much more. Yes, WB's folks did get a nice "skin" utility ut Aw has had that for 3 years. So nothing new there either.
iEN had three to four times the crew working on WB's and in the same time could not deliver.....well...anything but screen shots.

-Westy

[This message has been edited by Westy (edited 01-08-2001).]

Ram1 · « **Reply #54 on:** January 08, 2001, 05:33:00 PM »

Dos Equis:

Last word I had was that 6gun was doing some of the legal begal stuff for Playnet. Haven't heard much since.

Ram1

Udie · « **Reply #55 on:** January 08, 2001, 07:25:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ram1:
Dos Equis:

Last word I had was that 6gun was doing some of the legal begal stuff for Playnet. Haven't heard much since.

Ram1

I got to meet 6gun about this time last year ram1

Was nice to meet him after so many years of flying with him.

udie

Ripsnort · « **Reply #56 on:** January 09, 2001, 08:02:00 AM »

Speaking of old vets, whatever became of Garn, the best Warbirds pilot ever?

Ram1 · « **Reply #57 on:** January 09, 2001, 10:37:00 AM »

Rip1:

Garn was a Japanese college student and the last I heard still flies WBs but not that often.

I have his last email address if you want to
contact him. Not sure if its still good or not. Send me private email and I will forward it to you.

He is very good

Ram1

fats · « **Reply #58 on:** January 09, 2001, 11:17:00 AM »

How long will it take for Scop to come in claim that he is 'the best pilot ever'?

Drex and Garn ever duel seriously?

// fats

Ripsnort · « **Reply #59 on:** January 09, 2001, 11:24:00 AM »

I watched Garn in a P38F take on Drex and Jagr waaaay back when...Garn was 500 feet off the deck, Jagr and Drex (May have been Disco Fever)jumped Garn in their P38L's from alt, Garn shot both down after a 5 min furball, I witnessed this from my bomber position and orbited the scene. I could not believe it, Garn is indeed one of the best I've ever witnessed.