Author Topic: some Flight Model questions .... (Read 1027 times)

Gwalker99 · « **on:** March 22, 2006, 06:47:21 PM »

hi,, I am interested in this sim to play something different for a change other than Pacific Fighters..... I have a few FM questions.... I know that graphics in Aces is subpar to Pacific fighters, but I am not really looking for graphics.. I am mainly worried about FM. here are my questions about this game...

1. are the climb rates historical? for example will.. a 109 K 4 outclimb a P 51 ect..

2. is acceleration modeled at all... for example.. will a 190 Dora out accelerate a P 40 ect.

3. is roll rate a factor .. for example will a 190 A8 outroll a 109.

4. are dive rates historical,,, for example.. will a P47 out dive a Zero in this game?

5. are turn rates modeled at all... for example, will a Zero outturn a P51

6. are top speeds modeled accurately,,, will a 109 K 4 out run a P 40

7. is gravity and stall modeled .. like one cannot just turn and turn.. will nose over and stall out? and also according to each specific plane.. for example a Spitfire will handle low speed stall situation better than a 190A8

8. are the guns modeled correctly? in damage, gravity and trajectory? like for example 20 MM being more flat shooting and accurate than german 30mm .. but 30 mm having a bigger damage model.

thanks

Widewing · « **Reply #1 on:** March 22, 2006, 06:55:10 PM »

Yes to everything.

My regards,

Widewing

Karnak · « **Reply #2 on:** March 22, 2006, 07:05:17 PM »

Also it is a free download so you can try it yourself. There is 8 player head to head for free, and a two week free trial for the "for pay" arenas.

Make sure to turn off the Stall Limiter as that reduces the turning capabilities of your aircraft by preventing you from exceeding a certain angle of attack (varies depending on the aircraft).

You'll also find that the graphics on some of the aircraft, those newly updated, are better than Pacific Fighters. The B-17, Spitfires, Bf109s and P-38s in particular look better in my opinion.

Gwalker99 · « **Reply #3 on:** March 22, 2006, 07:07:35 PM »

oh I forgot.. is there altitude dynamics for performance? like will a TA 152 and P47 outrun a LA7 at 7000 meters and will a LA7 outrun those at sealevel?

MOSQ · « **Reply #4 on:** March 22, 2006, 07:11:06 PM »

This has to be a troll. He registered on this board in 2004.

Gwalker99 · « **Reply #5 on:** March 22, 2006, 07:16:54 PM »

how the *fkk* am I a troll ? you need to come out of the forums and grab some air if you are this paranoid.. I asked a few questions a long time ago but stuck with pacific fighters ... if moderator or admin would like to make a thread in private let me know via private messege so I can continue to ask questions about the FM while remaining unraped here... thanks

Brooke · « **Reply #6 on:** March 22, 2006, 07:52:08 PM »

My opinion is "yes" to all the questions, too.

I suspect that Aces High has the most-realistic flight models of any sim. This is based on my own reading and study of physics and math of flight modelling and flight dynamics, having flown some real aircraft including in simulated dogfights (Air Combat USA), and having seen numerous posts by HiTech about flight modelling that indicate the depth of knowledge and care that go into the process.

One thing that I see happen occasionally, though, is a person finding some aspect of an Aces High flight model, usually for a particular aircraft, to be at odds with an account he has read and thereby concluding that the Aces High model is flawed. Aces High (or any other sim) will never be perfect, but HTC does seem to model the aircraft based on real flight-test data, gathered from numerous verifiable sources. They do not build the math of the aircraft models based on anecdotal and nonquantitative statements from, say, a particular pilot. So, even when Aces High models differ from such anecdotal statements, if I had to place money on which is correct, I'd still put my money on the Aces High model.

g00b · « **Reply #7 on:** March 22, 2006, 08:07:07 PM »

Aces High physics and flight models kick the snot out of any other flight sim, ever... and I've played 'em all.

Ghosth · « **Reply #8 on:** March 22, 2006, 09:35:25 PM »

I recently got Pacific Fighters.

While I'm faily impressed with it, mostly for the graphics.

It doesn't hold a candle to AH.

It doesn't even come close to the same "feel" of flying.

Feels like the plane is perched on a big ball, will do all the moves but with no
feedback at all. Like the planes just tipping this way & that on the ball.

AH has a totally different feel to it.

Come on in, the waters fine.

Yell if you need a hand learning to fight real people.
Its a whole nother ball game entirely.

Citabria · « **Reply #9 on:** March 22, 2006, 09:50:05 PM »

aces high has superior everything under the hood. fm balistics physics etc online net coding you name it.

il2 looks prettier its openGL and I think openGL kicks DirectX all over the block any day of the week.

il2 looks about like AH if you run il2 in directX.

I bought IL2 Aces expansion and Pacific fighters and keep it up to date for one reason. its pretty to look at and very detailed graphics and I bought it simply to look at it. its playable but not really much fun and pretty repetitive.

as far as flight model aces high is superior in every way to il2 or any others and also gameplay is superior and much more fun.

as for graphics the planes in aces high are eclipsing the current il2 pac fighters graphics though il2 retains superior openGL lighting and shading. and lighting and shading is everything.

JAWS2003 · « **Reply #10 on:** March 23, 2006, 01:21:39 AM »

I won't say nothing. I got banned once for that.

Gwalker99 · « **Reply #11 on:** March 23, 2006, 03:20:53 AM »

well.. ill give it a try

is there mouse look for viewing in the cockpit?

Schatzi · « **Reply #12 on:** March 23, 2006, 03:32:44 AM »

SHIFT M for mouse pan view.

And yes, altitude IS modelled. If you are used to the TnB game at treetop level and suddely have to fight up at 25K, youll be *nastily* surprised

. Same goes for eng performance. Air is *thin* up there

.

Got to http://www.netaces.org, theres a one-page printout sheet for KB commands. Also help/info on how to set up stick, views etc etc.

eilif · « **Reply #13 on:** March 23, 2006, 03:44:41 AM »

AH has 3d cockpits too, i hate il2s pits which are largely 2d, You cant even move around in your cockpit!

TexMurphy · « **Reply #14 on:** March 23, 2006, 03:58:17 AM »

@Gwalker99

The flightmodel is truely fantastic in AH2. All the question you have asked could be answered with one simple "duuuh wtf do you think that this is some sort of Arcade sim???". I dont mean that as arrogance in anyway just as how natural and obvious these are in AH.

Just wana point one thing out... climb rate is in fact accelleration... not just in AH but in real physics as well.. a plane that out climbs another plane will also out accellerate it..

Just a few days ago there was a new patch which further improved the physics adding amongst others Stall Buffet effects to all planes. That means that when you are on the verge of stalling and stalled your plane is shaking and you loose manouverability.

In the area of the flight model this game is second to none.

Though Il2 as said has better graphics (the reworked AH2 planes are better looking then any Il2 planes though, these are P51s, P47s, 109s, 190s, Spits, Ki84, B17) and also more detailed plane mechanics controls. For example you cant control fuel mixtures and dont have cowl flaps in AH2.

Another aspect that AH2 kicks almost every other sims butt is the view system. You have 6DOF meaning no more head on stick views as your used to in IL2. You move the head and body of the pilot. You can customize each view for each plane. Use your arrows and pgup/pgdwn buttons to alter the view then F10 to save it. You really dont wana use mouse pan view in AH because the view system I described above is far more supperior.

Welcome and good luck.
Tex