Greetings aces
First I'd like to state that AH is still the best of not only massive multiplayer flight sim out there. But as a true simulation fanatic it lacks in many ways. Most of these are due to gameplay concessions others maybe due to lack of importance to the developing crew. With the daily MA airquake routine AH has lost its appeal to me. CT has been/is a failure which does not promise good success for ToD, unless enforced which is highly improbable IMO.
1. Planes
1.1. Complex engine management
Not until the coming of the IL2 series I noticed the importance of complex/realistic engine management for a realistic representation of aircombat in the WWII era. It's like the avionics of the modern sims. Hard to learn but very satisfying when mastered. How can you compare the performance of the different planes online when they cannot be flown as in RL. The difference between constant speed props and variable or fixed pitch props was important back then. It is neglected here. E.g. early spitfires with two stage pitch (as read on account on a German ace) were overreving in dives or not getting full power. The Fw-190 with its advanced Kommando-Geraet was taking work-load off the pilot which was vital in a dogfight situation. The proper use of mixture and supercharger settings was mandatory on earlier planes. Misuse meant less performance or other disadvantages like pourring black smoke. In AH the method of throttle control is firewalling it all the time. In RL certain engines wouldn't tolerate such mistreatment. But more important AH features a very generic WEP system which is the same on all planes (equipped with any kind of WEP/overboost/injection system). Again the IL2 series demonstrates how different the systems were on the various planes and how wrong operation can lead to engine failure. An injection system can run out of supply; not so in AH where it is treated like overboost. And in AH engines are either running full performance or have stopped. There is no transition from full power over losing power to not being able to generate enough lift to keep the plane flying. It's on or off - which leads me to DM later.
1.2. Historical flight controls
Again every plane in AH features the same generic controls even if its counterpart didnt have them in RL - e.g. inflight rudder trim in the 109s. So how can you re-create a realistic dogfight if the planes are handeld differently than in RL. In a game players will exploit every opportunity you give em which leads to the unrealistic, but sometimes very sucessfull, use of certain planes in MA. If I play a simulation I want to control the plane like it was controled in RL. If it has no trim or combat flaps I don't want em! For compensation we got combat trim which is neither realistic nor a good substitute. I know there have been several discussion on how trim works in a real plane and how that cannot be simulated here but that does not explain the generic trim system in AH.
1.3. Historical cockpits/gauges
AH has come a long way from the ugly generic cockpits in the beginning to the more appealing half-realistic ones in the latest installement. I am very pleased with the overall looks and usability but two things put me off. First why we have to bear those unrealistic, modern ammo counters, trim tabs and beacon light. None of these gauges are vital. I wish for ammo-counters in the planes who had them. There is absolutely NO reason a simulation should feature ammo counters if the plane its simulating didnt have em. For once there is no difference between RL and a computer sim concerning the knowledge of how much ammo you have left. Same with trim tabs. Include them historically when appropriate and leave away those wandering red lines. Beacon should be along with netstatus somewhere on the clipboard. Second why are there still no metric gauges in the planes that used em? Imperial and metric measures are a simple linear conversion. I pops the immersion if I fly by knots in a 190 when every document I read on it is about kmh. Any flight sim enthusiast with interest in WWII history should be able to convert meters to feet if cannot free himself of the imperial world he lives in. Oh and yes, why are we shown TAS? Come on let us calculate or use tables as the real pilots had to.
1.4. Damage model
Back in 99 AHs damage model was state of the art. But with the time passing by other sims with more refined dm appeared. As shown in the damage list AH has a number (20 or so) or parts that are either fully working or broken down. You can plaster a plane all over, as long as the part does not go red you would't notice any effect. In IL2 for example if you receive hits on the wing it starts dropping - from very gently to same effect a missing wingtip has in AH. Same with the engine in AH either running full power or seizing. And as far as I experienced AH does not model self-sealing tanks. But it's mostly the binary nature of the DM which throws me off. And why do we need the damage list at all? You can judge the damage by the gauges or the response of the plane. CTL D is unrealistic and gamey.
2. General gameplay
2.1. Icons/View system
No doubt AHs view system is state of the art. With the track IR support (which I advocated for months) and now the great 6DOF it leaves all other sims behind. Which is neglected by the icon system again. Many discussion have been held on this subject. True, a monitor cannot never substitute the real world view. But the easy-mode icon system we have now does not represent the struggle friend/foe identification meant in RL. I read countless accounts of pilots who could not ID their enemy or who IDed wrong. Losing sight is not possible in AH - it was back then and a good tactic to get away. Friendly fire was a fact in WWII. Things that faciliate FF ID should be historical plane set, historical missions and better long range plane shapes. Know what direction and altitude you expect the enemy to come from
. Know the planes shape and camo; learn the tracer color (another short coming of AH). After playing IL2 full real for a while you develop such skill and it becomes a big part of the fun/challenge. A compromise are the icon settings as seen in most AH scenarios.
2.2. Inflight radar
Goes along with the icon situation. It's true we need "some" kind of radar but now pointing out every single contact in realtime. Same goes for the player position. In AH navigational skills are neglected. But they were/are a good part of being a fighter pilot. With good ground gfx navigation is a challenge to master and highly satisfactory.
2.3. MA
Many of the shortcomings of AH are gameplay concession necessary when using a setting we have in MA. As already said if we had a historical plane set along with historical missions icons could be reduced and inflight radar could be made more historical. Don't want to go into every detail I don't like about the MainArcade but as shown on the donought map the strategic part feels synthetically put on top while 80% enjoy the FT furball mayhem. Seeing the whole planeset to be reduced to like 3 planes is a real shame.
---
So, getting tired of the typing... Haven't said all I had on my mind. Don't get me wrong AH is still the best and most succesfull massive multiplayer sim . I'd like to compare AH to CounterStrike: Highly sucessfull, addictive, easy to get into, hard to master. But far from the more realistic games (FPS in that case) on the market. Unrealistic tactics lead to sucess under the given setting while trying to apply RL tactics lead to failure.
It's a pitty that a game has to appeal to masses to be sucessful while those who go the hard way can't survive.
I spent years and hundreds of dollars here but its getting old quicklier after every break I take. I will keep my account running but you won't see me in MA for while at least. My hopes lie on ToD. But I doubt its success. Either ToD light along with the masses or it will fail to get people from the MA.
