What they say about AH

[Karnak]

Yanksfan,

The manuals (I have the Mossie 6's) aren't telling you the engine's limits.  They are saying what you're supposed to do....for the maintainance schedule.

We know of, for example, a Spitfire pilot who panicked and ran on WEP for more than 30 minutes with no adverse effect on his Spit's Merlin.  If the Spitfire's manual's listed limits (5 minutes, as in AH) had been near the hardline, don't you think if it had by some miracle not siezed it would at least had shown some signs of damage?

FYI, I think the limits in AH are a good thing.  But they have nothing to do with real life engine failure.

Originally posted by CAP1
ooo.......almost forgot...you ever see anyone in here fighting with bombs or a belly tank still slung underneath? i think most fighters(including the pony) were not able to fight with any of this still hanging..i think the pony was actually supposed to be flown straight and level with bombs hanging..or tanks........

Weapon limits were a lot different in reality.  For example, rockets had a very specific speed and angle they were to be fired at.

As to bombs and fighting, I imagine it happened on accident a few times, but I am sure it was not desirable.  If a mount is rated for 1000lbs and you pull a 3 G turn, that mount is going to fail.

Droptankwise, Spitfires were tested for combat ability with the slipper tanks attached.  You can see that in varios documents.  I don't know about any fighters other than Spitfires.

[toonces3]

I think the best point has been playability (read: fun) vs. reality (read: work).

Both games scratch a certain itch.

If I feel like immersing myself in 'hardcore realism' (whatever that is) and I want to micromanage my engine, I boot up Il-2.  If I want to go up and worry about ACM and not have to micromanage things in my plane that would likely be far easier to manage in real life, I boot up AH2.

I have both games and I enjoy both games for what they are.

People hold up and tout 'realism' like it's some goal that is SUPPOSED to be attained.  I disagree.  For some that IS the fun part, and for them there are games where that can be the focus.  What can be equally fun is having a sim where the principles that needed to be adhered to are in place, where historical strengths and weaknesses can be exploited, and where real life tactics can translate into game successes.

Or, in other words, sometimes I feel like doing a ramp start in Falcon 4, and sometimes I just want to hit E and get on with it.

I don't think one thing necessarily makes one game better than the other.

Having said that, my K/D is much, much higher in Il-2 than it will ever be in AH2, and that is at ace level!  

[toonces3]

One other thing re: what the others say:

I was browsing SimHQ in the IL-2 forum, and there was this guy who is some sort of online 'legend'- and he went on a whole post about his technique for flying around in a 190 and then picking lower guys when they weren't looking.  The thread went on quite a while with folks basically agreeing with the tactic and talking about other tactics equally 'dweeby' in AH2.

What struck me about the discussion was the perception of the players who were posting.  What would get you laughed off this board was not only bragged about, but encouraged on the Il-2 boards.  The difference in mindsets was very interesting.

[toonces3]

I found it, here's a taste of what 'the other guys' are saying:

guy 1: i can watch a furball below me.. pick out a manuevering victim and time it so that when i get to within spitting distance he'll be directly in my crosshairs. that imo, is more usefull than being able to hit a target at insane angles.


guy 2: Rewarding isn't it? That's one of may favorite things to do, especially when flying a 190. Flying along up high, then you see that bright white/blue underside of a maneuvering Yak or an La...wait, watch, then roll in and dive when the time is right, level off just behind him at 890kph, give him a half second burst and annihilate him.

I love that.

Here's another I enjoyed; This is from their version of 'trainers' from what I gathered....:

When reversing you typically have the choice of five manoeuvers.

In order of altitude gain (and therefore airspeed/energy loss)

1 - Immelman - high energy loss
2 - Chandelle - moderate energy loss
3 - Horizontal turn - no energy loss
4 - Slice - moderate energy gain
5 - Split-s - high energy gain

The Immelman is only good when you are looking to gain as much altitude as possible during the reversal and the energy loss doesn't matter as you are 'in the clear'

Chandelle is good for unclear circumstances where you keep your airspeed high yet gain some altitude.

Horizontal turn is good for aircraft that are at high speed and in their 'rate turning' range - it allows them to maintain their altitude and airspeed while turning at their best rate.

Slice is good for when you find yourself low on energy and need to reverse while speeding up.

The Split-S is is good when you need to maximize acceleration and the altitude loss is irrelevant.

Before you make the choice of what reversal method to use, you need to take the tactical situation into account and in particular your current energy state. If you are under threat you do not want to use a method that results in energy loss.

This is from their version of 'trainers' from what I gathered....

[BluKitty]

HT or Pyro once said something like: HTC won't introduce random failures.  Modeling some things is extremely complex, requiring significant computer resources.  Randomizing the unstimulated points is not an approach HTC takes.

That makes alot of sense to me.  I see this approach in AH when I compare it with other sims.

The AH damage model certainly needs work, but I think HTC knows this...and I hope they are working on it.  

While more complex engine management, and other such things may be enjoyable at times, this is the type of thing I'd enjoy in FSO or something-not some random occasion when I have limited time to play.  I think most people don't have the time, equipment, etc for such things.

 I think HTC understands this, you can't have a good business on a game that people only play twice a month because the complexity requires such a time investment.

Another point.  We have 'equipment' not cockpits.  Is it realistic to try to remember your mixture, rpm, throttle, trim, etc buttons?  Not many people have a simulation 'cockpit' with such levers, and knobs and things.  If your lucky you have a stick and pedals ... most don't even have pedals.

Is it realistic to be restricted to a keyboard interface?   So much BS that isn't even discussed here...  But I'll bet HTC has considered most of this stuff, and it's why they have a successful business, and not a dream.

[CAP1]

Originally posted by Karnak
Yanksfan,

The manuals (I have the Mossie 6's) aren't telling you the engine's limits.  They are saying what you're supposed to do....for the maintainance schedule.

We know of, for example, a Spitfire pilot who panicked and ran on WEP for more than 30 minutes with no adverse effect on his Spit's Merlin.  If the Spitfire's manual's listed limits (5 minutes, as in AH) had been near the hardline, don't you think if it had by some miracle not siezed it would at least had shown some signs of damage?

FYI, I think the limits in AH are a good thing.  But they have nothing to do with real life engine failure.


 
Weapon limits were a lot different in reality.  For example, rockets had a very specific speed and angle they were to be fired at.

As to bombs and fighting, I imagine it happened on accident a few times, but I am sure it was not desirable.  If a mount is rated for 1000lbs and you pull a 3 G turn, that mount is going to fail.

Droptankwise, Spitfires were tested for combat ability with the slipper tanks attached.  You can see that in varios documents.  I don't know about any fighters other than Spitfires.

well.....that was my point.......and it doesn't take too much of a turn to go past 3G's.....helllll..in a cessna 172, if you bank 50degres and fly a 360 circle, you're pulling around 2G's....and that's only doing about 100ktias.......imagine the pony..or any other fighter doing 400mph, and banking over 50 or 60 degrees, and pulling........
even with the drop tanks...how much did they hold? 100LL avgas weighs 6lbs/gallon......back then they used(i think)130 octane.....but i think it's about the same in weight........but i don't know how big the drops were......

i also do agree with the limits, although i keep forgetting to use wep in  the ponyB and the f6f......probably because i was flying the zeke a lot, and it doesn't have it.....

<>

[CAP1]

Originally posted by toonces3
One other thing re: what the others say:

I was browsing SimHQ in the IL-2 forum, and there was this guy who is some sort of online 'legend'- and he went on a whole post about his technique for flying around in a 190 and then picking lower guys when they weren't looking.  The thread went on quite a while with folks basically agreeing with the tactic and talking about other tactics equally 'dweeby' in AH2.

What struck me about the discussion was the perception of the players who were posting.  What would get you laughed off this board was not only bragged about, but encouraged on the Il-2 boards.  The difference in mindsets was very interesting.

sounds like storch is over there now:D

[BluKitty]

Also...
How unrealistic is it if a 'dweeb' player never even thinks of landing because of 'engine management', and exploits an engine they replace in a moment?

I like to land my sorties.  The incentive to land now is already limited.  Extreme complexity of engine management would make this 'dweeb' problem even worse.  

If your playing against a player who doesn't want to land/live, is that 'realistic'?  It's all a matter of where your priorities are I guess.

[Krusty]

Comparing AH models to IL2 models and saying IL2 is clearly better is false.

Look at the original IL2 models. Boxy, flat, uninteresting, often poorly shaped with low poly counts (did you even LOOK at the gun troughs on the 109 cowling??) Even on maxed graphics they were stick-figure planes outside a certain range, then when they got into range they "popped" into 3D.

I was seriously UNimpressed by the state of IL2 graphics, straight from the box. Compare THOSE original graphics to the original Ah graphics, and they're a toss-up. AH more crisper, clearer, IL2 a bit more detailed (wires, etc)

Folks like to compare the latest graphics model of IL2 to the oldest graphic model of AH1. Instead they ought to compare it to the P-51s, B-25s, and so forth, of recent AH graphical updates.

Compared to THESE graphics, IL2 isn't such a clear victor anymore. They both look pretty good, only IL2 requires a monster computer to get its good looks.


I was never impressed with the "top-down only" ground in IL2. It showed up one way as a low-res model than "popped" into view as something else. You could see the break where the detail level shifted, and rivers didn't line up or anything. When you got below 5000 feet it started looking bad, and on the deck it's pure crap. You're looking at a texture of something that's supposed to be far away, only you're right next to it, and the illusion totally fails. AH1/AH2 terrain has always been better. Lately, I dislike the broken horizon AH2 has, but that's only been around since the tiles recode. Once they fix it, it'll go back to looking pretty sweet.


So,

Terrain: AH win

Graphics: Compare like generations and it's a toss up
But AH requires a sh** load less of a computer to pull off the highest levels of detail.



The ONLY thing IL2 has is a super-inflated use of colored light. It's a big part of their eye candy and rendering, but I think folks misunderstand WHAT they like about it. It's not the terrain, nor the planes, but the light that is bouncing off of either! (my opinion, take it as you will)

[Stoney]

I think its interesting that there are IL-2 fans that revel in the "accuracy" of the IL-2 flight model.  I'm reminded of my first few sorties in Pacific Fighters, when, using auto land, on short final in my F4F, I was indicating 65 km/h.  

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Stoney
I think its interesting that there are IL-2 fans that revel in the "accuracy" of the IL-2 flight model.  I'm reminded of my first few sorties in Pacific Fighters, when, using auto land, on short final in my F4F, I was indicating 65 km/h.  

Our B5N2 might still be flying at that speed with full flaps and a gentle decent.  Maybe.

Any of our fighters?  Long since in the drink.

[moot]

Lot of completely wrong stuff along with the few accurate and impartial comparisons.. Anyone who's been around long enough, or knows the game well enough could have a field day stripping out most of the "facts" from those quotes, but these are the worse:

The game is just too arcadish. many planes in WW2 were hard to fly, some were complicated, some were temperamental, some pulled hard to right other to left. Some needed a lot of trimming to make them fly good.

This guy never tried combat trim off.  He also rags on AH about something that's actualy worse in Il2.  This is the single worst thing about Il2 for me.  The planes don't have anywhere near the personality in Il2 as they do in AH.  Flying near the limit in Il2, all the planes (in comparison with AH's) feel pretty much the same.. The stall is completely mushy and generic and doesn't really highlight the different planes' designs.  All the different areas of Il2's flight envelope, across all models, seem like they're tacked together to match reality, rather than naturaly emergent from a single physics engine.

All this is almost nonexistent in AH. that's what keeps me away from it. There's no penality for bad flying and no reward for good flying.

Sounds like he couldn't fly for crap, nor saw anyone who could fly worth a damn in his brief stay.

I played aces high for years, since 2001. I just stopped paying for it last year, but I still have a current copy.
In aces high the game does everything for you. If you run the engine hard for a while it will cut the boost for you. It pulls the flaps back in if you go too fast with any plane,trims the plane for you, does most of the bombsight calibration for you. Got the idea?

Here if you don't know and watch how you run the engine you'll cook it rather quick. You can blow your engine in so many ways in this game. and in every plane for a different reason. You'll over rev it in 109 if you play with the manual prop pitch and you don't know how. in other 109's you can blow it on the ground if you engage the water methanol boost at over 100% throttle. You can blow the engine on the 109E-7Z if you engage the GM1 boost at lower then 6500m. Of course, you can over heat it, can get your prop pitch shot up, your throttle cables shotup and so on.

So Aces High should become a hardware failure simulator?  Certainly not in the Main Arenas... Much more proper to CT.

- I downloaded ACES to try it out. Fantastic viewing. But what I don't get is how can anybody fly that sim? Tell me I'm doing something wrong -- it doesn't feel natural. The nose of the ac bounces all over the place. I don't get it.

This guy had his setup totaly crooked.  The planes in Il2 are far more bouncy, there's no comparison (nevermind if we don't look past the really user unfriendly input setup)  The only place AH wobbles more than Il2 is with combat trim at low speed (foolproofing aimed at noobs who can't keep things in the air, e.g. taking off/landing), or in hammerhead reversals.  Everything else is rock solid in comparison to Il2.

- Last time I was in AH was before they shutdown H2H (which makes me laugh btw) But anyway, I was in a f6f5 at 25,000 feet, had been for a while going back to my base with 1/4 tank of gas, and no ammo, when up from the base below me comes a spitfire mk16 straight up i the air shoots me down and then called me a dweeb. that was the last time I ever darkened AH's site, games or anything else.

"iI got shot down" whine, nothing to do with the physics...

- LOL, i had a bad night in AH, chasing a Spit in my F4F, my plane engine's RPM just drops like a rock. the manifold pressure was still up, i thought i somehow did my "blow up teh engine" stunt in TW in AH.

Another guy who doesn't know wtf is going on (he dropped his RPMs somehow, or his RPM axis went out of calib.) and blames the game..

[Bruv119]

Numbers don't lie.

Login US prime time and you can see that on average 600-800 players a night midweek!

I often go back and check the forum at my old haunt and there are more people logged into this forum, debating and discussing worthwhile topics, than there are on all of their servers actually playing.

Thats the main reason I switched and the fact that I have come to learn that this game is superior in many areas.  Plus there are quite a few decent sticks who can match anyone on their day.

These guys are all gaming with there eyes wide shut.  This is where it is at and we are the lucky ones to be able to experience such dweebery on a mass scale.


Bruv
~S~

[Guppy35]

If for a minute now and then, the game can suck me in where my imagination, my love of the history and the computer makes me feel like I'm 'in the cockpit' then the game has done it's job.

Only Airwarrior and now Aces High have done that consistantly.

Can't ask for more then that.

[SD67]

Ahhh yes, there is nothing that compares to dweebery on a mass scale