Would anyone object to the following ......

[Jekyll]

It's great to hear the news about the ongoing development of 1.05, but I wonder if there's a need to return to basics before we get all fired up about navies, perk planes, P51Hs and Ta152s.

Is there anyone out there who doesn't think that the following list would be good for Aces High?

1.  Realistic Sun Effect - lets make that sun a blinding orb in which enemies can hide.  At the same time, bring back the 'halo effect' that HTC modelled in version 0.39 or so.

2.  Two-sided war.  Get rid of one of the countries.  I'm not talking about a strict Allied-v-Axis, where you only get to fly half the planeset.  Make all aircraft available to each side, but dump one of the countries.  In my timezone, there's often only about 20 on at night.  Usually something like 8 Bishops, 8 Rooks and 4 Knights.  Hardly enough to get a decent war going  

3.  Realistic fatigue effects for pilots.  You like to carve small circles in the sky at high G?  OK, no problem, but you'll tire more easily than the guy who flies low G BFM.  And you like flying rolling evasives in a Spitfire at 400mph?  Better not do it for too long, or you'll wear yourself out real quick   Some have suggested a 'fatigue bar' onscreen.  Personally, I don't have a problem with that idea ... its just as realistic as the current icon system we have    Which brings me to ...

4.  The Icon system.  Get rid of exact ranges.  Give the range to the nearest 200 yds, or 500 yds.  Or have a sliding bar below the aircraft icon which gives a rough idea of relative range.  Besides, with only two countries you wouldn't need that blocky Rook, Knight or Bishop icon anyway.

5.  Increase the dispersion for high-alt buff drops.  Putting a 500lb bomb on an ack from 20000 feet is slightly ridiculous.  Wanna fly high out of the range of the defending fighters?  No problem, but you'd better salvo 4 if you want to be sure to hit anything.

6.  Inflight radar.  Sector counters only .. no exact locations for enemy fighters.

7.  Bring back the torque.... no, not the pilot named Torque    But bring back some of the torque and prop-drag we had prior to version 1.04.

OK, there's my wish-list, and not a Dora in sight    Any others I missed?



------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/phoenix
Aces High Training Corps

[rust]

Amen to all of the above.  A few I might add:

1. Engine damage when run at 100% for too long

2. Broken and/or oily windscreen when hit or flown through wreckage

3. Instrument damage

4. Chance to escape if captured

5. Ability for each plane to land and rescue downed countrymen

------------------
Rust
 
The Free French Air Force

[This message has been edited by rust (edited 11-04-2000).]

[minus]

i can live without Ta but Dora is necesery to fight the mustangs athervise  agree

[StSanta]

REALISTIC GUN COUNTERS.



------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"

[Sunchaser]

WTF do you guys want, a flight sim??

OK, I will play.

Remove the ammo counters from all the planes that did not actually have them, which is most of them.

If a plane or vehicle was not used much dump it and use the space for something that was{P40 please}

Correct cockpit instrument layouts for each plane.

Rivers, roads, fewer sheep.

A Russian C47, it had a gun.



------------------
When did they put this thing in here and WTF is it for?

[qts]

Just get USB working on Windows 2000!

[Westy]

 I second or third ALL of those points Jekyl! Very good list.

 
  -Westy

[funked]

Sounds great except the 2-country part.

[Karnak]

1. Realistic Sun Effect - lets make that sun a blinding orb in which enemies can hide. At the same time, bring back the 'halo effect' that HTC modelled in version 0.39 or so.

I like this one.

2. Two-sided war. Get rid of one of the countries. I'm not talking about a strict Allied-v-Axis, where you only get to fly half the planeset. Make all aircraft available to each side, but dump one of the countries. In my timezone, there's often only about 20 on at night. Usually something like 8 Bishops, 8 Rooks and 4 Knights. Hardly enough to get a decent war going.

I don't like this one based on what I've heard of its typical results.  I have been told that this typically results in 90% of the players duking it out in one location and because it is the "hot spot" to get action, people just keep returning to it.

3. Realistic fatigue effects for pilots. You like to carve small circles in the sky at high G? OK, no problem, but you'll tire more easily than the guy who flies low G BFM. And you like flying rolling evasives in a Spitfire at 400mph? Better not do it for too long, or you'll wear yourself out real quick  Some have suggested a 'fatigue bar' onscreen. Personally, I don't have a problem with that idea ... its just as realistic as the current icon system we have  Which brings me to ...

Only if the G tolerance is raised to a realistic point.  We blackout at 4.5Gs.  There's a guy who pulled an 11G Manuever in an F-16 and did not black out.

Spitfires roll slower at high speed, but if you think the penalty needs to be larger, OK.

4. The Icon system. Get rid of exact ranges. Give the range to the nearest 200 yds, or 500 yds. Or have a sliding bar below the aircraft icon which gives a rough idea of relative range. Besides, with only two countries you wouldn't need that blocky Rook, Knight or Bishop icon anyway.

OK

5. Increase the dispersion for high-alt buff drops. Putting a 500lb bomb on an ack from 20000 feet is slightly ridiculous. Wanna fly high out of the range of the defending fighters? No problem, but you'd better salvo 4 if you want to be sure to hit anything.

No, not from 20,000ft.  I could agree to RAM's altitude list, e.g. as is up to 25,000ft, difficult at 26,000 to 30,000 and nigh impossible at 31,000+ft.

If realistc accuracy IS added, I want 50 AI controled B-17s or Lancasters to take off with me, fly in formation to the target and then carpet bomb it (500 would be more realistc).

We CAN'T get the numbers of bombers to use historcal tactics.  If historical accuracy is modeled, bombers will cease to be a factor in AH.

6. Inflight radar. Sector counters only .. no exact locations for enemy fighters.

Only if we get auto vectoring message from Ground Control.  There are numerous examples of Ground Radar guiding fighters onto a single aircraft.

7. Bring back the torque.... no, not the pilot named Torque  But bring back some of the torque and prop-drag we had prior to version 1.04.

Torque does feel a bit weak, but prop drag?  Lets see some evidence that torque and prop drag are under modeled.

Sisu
-Karnak

[Hamish]

 

Originally posted by Karnak:
[B
Only if the G tolerance is raised to a realistic point.  We blackout at 4.5Gs.  There's a guy who pulled an 11G Manuever in an F-16 and did not black out.

[/B]

Correct me if i am wrong, but present day Jet pilots wear a flight suit designed to reduce pressure from g-forces? If so, i reeeeeealy doubt the guys back in WWII had them....


Hamish

[Pongo]

Excellent karnak..I aggree with your version.
There were g pants in ww2 but even without them the typical pilot could fly better then 4.5 I think but it would be taxing.

[Westy]

Good points on the draw back for two sided arenas.

 As for G-suits? The USAAF was distributing them to P-47 and P-51 pilots in latter 44 and 1945. Not sure about other aircraft typre pilots. But of those two I am.

 -Westy

[Jekyll]

"But I figured that, while pulling four or five Gs, I was relatively safe. Hauling back on that stick for all I was worth and in a semi crouch, I was tightening my stomach muscles tightening all my muscles trying to hold my head up against the vicious, unrelenting force of magnified gravity. I no longer knew if I was in the same piece of sky as Johnson; the positive Gs were draining the blood from my head and I was sightless."

4.5g blackout unrealistic?

[AKDejaVu]

 

Only if the G tolerance is raised to a realistic point. We blackout at 4.5Gs. There's a guy who pulled an 11G Manuever in an F-16 and did not black out.

The F-16's seat is tilted back to put the pilot in more of a reclining position.  This helps fight blackout.  As Hamish pointed out, G-Suits are also an item that is standard issue today but non-existant in WW2 (at least in current effective form).

As Jekyll's original post... great ideas.  I'd like to see even more modeled.  The only one I don't like is the two sided war issue for the reasons stated above.

AKDejaVu

[Vermillion]

I got to fly an WWII era AT-6 Texan in some aerobatic manuevers, where we pulled up to 4.5-5 G's down in FL (http://www.warbirdsadventure.com)

I can definitely tell you that depending on individual physical conditioning, it is very possible to start the blackout (ie tunnel vision) at 4.5G's.

At the time, I was in very good physical conditioning (lifting weights 3 times a week, and running 3 times a week), and I had no problems not blacking out if I performed the "Grunt" anti-G manuever.

But once, I was not paying attention and watching the scenery, the instructor pulled a hard manuever, and I went to about 90% blackout in an instance.

Another virtual pilot took the same flight at a later date, and he told me he had a much more difficult time with the G forces.

So its not as unrealistic as you guys seem to think.

Trust me, 5 G's is Alot if you have never been under sustained G forces before.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure