Why AH is immune to Il-2

[texace]

not in all aspects Possi, the FM is a little wired and so is the bullet hits. I got within 10 yards of a plane and had most of my bullets go right through him, even if they were spot on.

I am not a fanboy. I will probably get Il-2 cause I like flight sims in general. I like AH cause it is a MMPOG.

[leonid]

Hristo, I think for the same reason I have almost no interest in the Western Front, or the War in the Pacific.  People play what interests them.

[miko2d]

Considering that Il2 not just beta, but quite and old build (April?) that was disclosed accidentally, it is premature to compare missing features and bugs.
 No bullet drop is a missing feature (I hope so), bullet flying through is a bug.

 Neither can be faulted.

 Dirty windows, suspicious roll rates and similar implemented features are the only ones deserving discussion.

 IL2 will be sold at $40. The developers will be lucky to receive $10 per box sold. It may be a lot of money still, but it will pay for the game developed and some bug fixes within a year, not for ongoing development and maintenence of the on-line servers.
 Even discarding 32 plane limit, will anybody be able to provide good service for free or for $10/months?
 Il2 may be a great game, but it does not mean that it will be a viable on-line choice in a year or so when the novelty wears off.

 So I will buy one myself, even if it has no bullet drop and ridiculous FM - I shoot too close to matter and have no experience in real WW2 fighters loaded with armor, ammo and armament for difference to break my suspencion of disbelief.
 But it is not even advertised as on-line game - but as a boxed game with connectivity option.

 miko

[Westy MOL]

Correct on those points Miko2d but add in to the list of major pieces missing from IL2's "April version" that the "FM drag module above 170-180 km/h not being present in the demo."

 Which still just makes me chuckle at these yokels who explain in such passion just how REAL and how much it FEELS so much like flying IL2 is. And how superior the FM is too all existing sims.
 
 
 Westy

[Hristo]

Il-2 has everything I expected of a sim. AH approach was - no, we can't model this, no we can't model that.

Oleg and his team delivered what HTC made us thought to be impossible. A full historical sim with so far unseen dedication to detail.
Oleg and team showed these big boys how it is done.

Historical cockpits, improved gunnery with realistic ammo mixes, weather effects, incredible damage model and immersion AH never could even dream of having.

One should be retarded as Creamo not to recognize that Il-2 is by far better sim than AH (read the thread title).

Compalining about demo FM ? Even like this it feels great. Do not forget you were paying for a pre 1.03 FM in this sim.

I almost feel like cheated because I played AH for so long. Impossible to do better cockpits, impossible to model different rounds, no HA for almost two years, no metric system, ultra simplistic engine management. Hell, how wouldn't I come here and rub it again and again ?

And this amazinhunk Creamo dares to whine about Oleg's English ? How is your Russian, tard ?

[AKSWulfe]

Hey Hristo... I'm sure that HTC could model something above and beyond IL-2.

Why? How many planes are in IL-2 that you can _FLY_? How many planes are in AH thaty ou can _FLY_?

AH focuses on much much more of the war than IL-2.

End of story, it's easier to make something extremely detailed when you pick a small segment to work on.

What's IL-2's system requirements? What are AHs?

Sorry Hristo, but just because you LuftWaffles finally found a game where your planes perform much better than they did you believe it's so much superior.

Well whatever, you think those developers will be able to stick around well after Il-2 is done selling? They don't have a monthly income from customers like HTC.

I fail to see your logic behind how Il-2 will even nudge WB or AH in any department except eye candy.

And eye candy???? Sorry, that's like taking a rice burner and putting a body kit on it. Looks nice to some, looks like bellybutton to others.
-SW

[Hristo]

Originally posted by SWulfe:
Hey Hristo... I'm sure that HTC could model something above and beyond IL-2.

Why? How many planes are in IL-2 that you can _FLY_? How many planes are in AH thaty ou can _FLY_?

AH focuses on much much more of the war than IL-2.

End of story, it's easier to make something extremely detailed when you pick a small segment to work on.

In demo you can fly 3 planes. Just as in AH beta in October 1999. Number of flyable planes will be much higher. Il-2 covers EF from 1941-42 to 1945 in Berlin.

 

What's IL-2's system requirements? What are AHs?

Excuses. Il-2 runs great on my Duron 800 + GeForce 2MX. Don't tell me it is a high end.
My income is 10 times less than of average American and I can still aford it.
Or you like playing Tetris on 386 ? What were AH requirements in Oct 1999 ?


   

Sorry Hristo, but just because you LuftWaffles finally found a game where your planes perform much better than they did you believe it's so much superior.

How do you know how they performed ? Have you flown them ?

You are full of it. According to Oleg, 190 will not be as good as in other sims. You should see TsAGI charts on Soviet planes. Scary !

   

Well whatever, you think those developers will be able to stick around well after Il-2 is done selling? They don't have a monthly income from customers like HTC.

Good for HTC. But I hope Il-2 team will make an onloine sim.

   

I fail to see your logic behind how Il-2 will even nudge WB or AH in any department except eye candy.

And eye candy???? Sorry, that's like taking a rice burner and putting a body kit on it. Looks nice to some, looks like bellybutton to others.
-SW

Engine management ain't eye candy. Gunnery ain't eye candy. Damage model ain't eye candy.

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: Hristo ]

[AKSWulfe]

Yes, well if Il-2 builds a MMP setup you'll find out just exactly how poorly your Duron 800 will run it. You think it will run it great, but you've got another thing coming when you've got a large battle going on.

You are now comparing how many planes that thing has now to how many AH had 2 years ago. Whatever works for you, right? I meant how many flyable aircraft will they have at release? Not modifications like 109G6/R2 109G6/R6, I mean like 109G2, 109G6, 190A5, La5FN, La7 etc.

"Damage model ain't eye candy." Yes it is. Those little skin damage decals are called "eye candy".

"Gunnery ain't eye candy" No it isn't. Nor is it working properly in the beta version you are playing.

My system is a C466+ V5 5500. I get excellent frame rates in AH.

Of course, I'm not the one comparing Il-2 to AH nor am I saying "this game will rule over this game!"

Just ain't gonna happen, Il-2 will be a sideline game to AH. We heard the same thing about WWIIOl..........

I'm going to buy Il-2, but I'm not acting like a prissy little girl trying to piss everyone off who's happy playing AH that "this is better".

Why don't you just head on over to the Il-2 boards and spend your time convincing them and yourself it's superior.

I know which product is better, and it happens to be the product that this message board represents.
-SW

[Creamo]

Ah ha Bistro, hitting your tweak button is so easy. Squirt some more tears for your hero Oleg and that great demo if you can't understand why it's so pointless to start all these threads. "Hristo's take on IL2, and kissing Oleg's ass, by Hristo." You sound like Bob Dole with all that 1st person stuff.

Do I speak Russian? Good lord, what for. English, and Tardbonics to interpret most posts.

I also dabble in a little Filipino, but that's not got much to do with how well I speak it.

A teacher asks:
- Vovochka, who is your father?
- Comrade Stalin.
- Well, who is your mother?
- Our Soviet motherland.
- And what do you want to be?
- An orphan....


--

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: Creamo ]

[Fatty]

To answer the original question:

Because AH is a successful and proven online multiplayer game, with constant upgrades and improvements, while IL-2 is an early demo with all the promise of WWIIOnline.

I'll probably buy it, but it'll never get the same play time as AH on my machine.

[Thirdup]

What's IL-2's system requirements? What are AHs?

I always found the "system requirement" argument to be the weakest every time one of these debates gets fired up.

In AW, there are players who would still fly in 2-D on P100 machines with 8 megs of RAM and tell you they are satisfied. True, they are happy with what they have.  Is it anything near what could really be concidered a sim by today's standards? Of course not.

The truth of the matter is, if a sim is not pushing the limits of technology (and visversa) then you (the loyal customer) are left behind.  A dev who does not encourage current platforms will find his product  eventually outdated.

Look at it this way, in a year or two we will be seeing 4 gig PC's with great capabilities.  To tell me "oh, such-and-such sim is still the best and it runs on a P100" is beyond redicule.  It goes beyond eye candy at some point.....you start talking about immersion and realism on a new scale.

I'm not saying IL-2 will set any new standards or even in itself raise the bar.....but that bar will be raised. Do you really think AH will be able to compete w/o ever raising it's reqs?

[AKSWulfe]

ThirdUp, what you described is the key ingredient for failure in a massively multi-player market.

You think it's a fluke that iEN will keep WB2.xx running alongside WBIII when WBIII is in full production? No, hardly.

Fact of the matter is, as systems become faster and the 'average' expected system becomes better AH's technology will too.

Unless of course you haven't been paying attention to the AH DX8 betas they have been pushing out, then you would understand that AH isn't stagnant with it's graphics or audio. Both will be upgraded as the 'standards' bar is raised with faster processors.

I'm not using the system requirements as any kind of argument. I'm using it to show you what the average computer user could play with. The average computer user (and neophyte computer users who bought 500mhz machines in the past year) can still play AH... they would be suffering with Il-2.

This equates to more customers. They will be educated and buy faster systems as is required.

And to top it all off: the WinterWolf engine that is driving those pretty graphics of Il-2 isn't even Il-2's engine. It's being licensed to them. HTC wrote their own graphics engine, and I'm willing to bet that they added the ability for expandability. In case no one has seen the latest models from HTC, they are fantastic and on par with Il-2.
-SW

[Thirdup]

Well, I agree in theory. In mass multi-play, you want as many people as you can get (hense the name).  I may have taken your coment out of context. I have heard the "so-and-so game works just fine with my old computer" so many times these days...."why can't stupid-new-game-xxxx play on my system?"

My point was that you reach a time that upgrades do have to take place (ie: the 2-D boys in AW) if you want to keep up in the industry.  AW could have catered to the masses (who at the time the majority owned only 2-D cards) but decided to press on the the next generation.  There were crys and whines about it, but it was needed to compete with the technology trends.

I recognize that AH is going to maintain a current status (DirX8).  And at some point, HTC will decide to push it up a notch.  There are always people who have not made a computer purchase in 5 years...who won't want to....and those are the people who will complain. I think you and I are on the same page here, so it's mute.

But even comparing IL-2 to AH reqs is still unfair (again, I see we are on the same page here I think).  One is a 30 meg online game, the other is much larger...designed to be played against AI.  Certainly the specs are going to be higher.  Add in the graphics (be they for immersion or just eye candy) and of course IL-2 will require more.  By nature, any box game is designed to depend on things within to generate it's appeal.  Where a game like AH depends more on the interaction of other players to be entertaining.

I agree that bigger is not always better.  But the problem still falls with the push between software and hardware advances.  The sad thing is that we could reach a point where you simply can't play a new game on a machine that is more than six months old. The kicker is, when some new technology (like 3-D, etc) brings gaming into a new generation.  I sure as hell don't want to buy a new machine every six months, but I do recognize that I might have to if I wanted  to play certain games as they release (hey, I can't really afford to build every six monts...just making the point).   But to tell the truth, I *want* to see something so new and amazing come out that so inspires me to upgrade every so often.    

It still boils down to the fact that a year from now 4 gig cpu's will be out.  How can a 500 PIII compete with that if the games take advantage of of the new technologies?

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: Thirdup ]

[highflyer]

In case no one has seen the latest models from HTC, they are fantastic and on par with Il-2.

Any one else find this funny?  

[Russian]

Originally posted by Creamo:
A teacher asks:
- Vovochka, who is your father?
- Comrade Stalin.
- Well, who is your mother?
- Our Soviet motherland.
- And what do you want to be?
- An orphan....


--

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: Creamo ]

LOL

Stop comparing those games. Give it time, then cry and wieennnee.
For boxed sim, it will have no contendors. For online sim, Oleg will not be abile to produce same quality for a long time. It took 2 years to build it. How long did it took HTC to produce this sim. HTC is constant evolving process unlike IL-2. Once bugges worked out and no one buys it, it will die.

Lets just make best of this, ask Oleg and his team to work for HTC