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

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by Karnak:

There's a guy who pulled an 11G Manuever in an F-16 and did not black out.

Karnak, what is your source?...

I'd like to read it because I dont know how can a F16 pull a 11G maneouver while its Fly-by-wire system prevents pulls over 9G.

[Fishu]

 

Originally posted by Karnak:
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.

You don't blackout in AH at about 4.5G, you'll just enter into tunnel vision.
Try next time look at the G gauge as you pull.. you don't get into complete blackout until 7.5G and you'll see fine till 6-6.5G through tunnel vision. (depending on that how you can maintain SA with limited sight)

I've tested this before and I did also test now for more accurate results than what I remember.

I don't think that term 'blackout' also includes tunnel vision.


Late war allied planes had G-suits, but they surely weren't as effective as today, when you have also seats made to help you from going blackout.

[flakbait]

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.

Here here! I'm all for it.


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  

ERRRRRRRR, try again. A 3 country war, aside from the obvious arguments, give you a wider range of targets. Not targets as in aircraft or structures, but other people. Keeps things interesting and if you get tired of Spatula killing you, attack the other guy.

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 ...

Sounds Ok, although I'd do some more work on it. Putting up a "Strength" or "Endurance" bar makes it seem more like Blood 2 or Rogue Spear than Aces High.

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.

Nope. I like the icon system the way it is. You want historical or limited settings? Hit the SEA or create a HA.

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.

Damn straight! If cheesy games like ATF Gold can have bomb dispersion, why can't we?

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

See answer to #4

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.

Yep. I miss watching guys flip a plane over or slam it into a hangar on takeoff. Of course, with the wind set as it is this would make things REALLY fun! Crosswind landings, with the torque of a DB-605 threatening to flip you if you gun it; nothin better!



------------------
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School
"My art is the wings of an aircraft through the skies, my music the deep hum of a prop as it slices the air, my thrill the thunder of guns tearing asunder an enemy plane."
Flakbait
19 September 2000

[SKurj]

BTW the seat position in the 109 was more reclined than typical allied counterparts, therefore the 109 pilot could withstand slightly more g's (physical health etc being equal) than an allied pilot.


SKurj

[Otso]

Sounds good in general. Don't know about the 2-side war. It might be hard to get it balanced.

------------------
Otso

[Maniac]

AMEN JEKYLL!!!!!

------------------
AH : Maniac
WB : -nr-1-

[Westy]

 Skruj, are you starting that wives tale in this topic too?

 -Westy

[CJ]

I'm just reposting something that I posted earlier in the general discussion board... it's kinda burried, so here it is again..

What about making the bombers historically accurate. This would necessitate large formations of bombers to have a chance of success. With a limited player base like in Aces High, this severely limits large formations UNLESS we had automated bombers. This could be done by allowing each bomber pilot lead say... 3 other automated bombers in a formation. The 3 otto bombers would do their best to keep up with the lead plane, and would hold a decent formation, and drop with relatively good historical accuracy. The other 3 planes would have otto gunners with accuracy that mirrors the human controlled gunnery statistics of AH. This would bring large formations of bombers to AH, and still allow the effectiveness and sense of accomplishment to bomber pilots WITHOUT having super accurate bombing computers, that somehow negate the effects of turbulence (which there would be in real life, and which would randomize the drop.
To do this, bombers with simplified flight models could be programmed to follow the leader. The leader could select different numbers of bombers for his flight depending on a) the type of airfield he flew from, b) the status of that field with respect to damage, c) relative numbers of players for his country. This would allow large stratiegic formations from rear bases, and smaller tactical strikes from front bases. Also, if a side was outnumbered, they would be allowed more bombers to help keep the balance even. Experimentation in the game could be used to determine a fair (bomber formation modifier) to compensate for being outnumbered 2 to one or 1.5 to one. Maybe it could simply be based on number of aircraft int he air at a given time for each country, so that it would balance out any formation death staring that could occur.

Anyway.. this was just a brain storm.. what do you guys think?

CJ

[sax]

Two countries, and then start building around that.
sax

[Jekyll]

I've been sitting out of this thread for a while, watching what develops.

It seems that the main sticking point is the idea of the 'two-sided' war.  As I understand it, the opponents of the idea believe that this would lead to all available aircraft converging on one sector or airfield to do battle.

And this is a bad thing?

Think about it.  Let's look at a mythical night with 90 players online.

Option 1. - The Current Situation

The 90 players are evenly split between Knights, Rooks and Bishops.  Fights are occurring all over the map, often in relatively small groups of 6 or so.  There are sporadic areas of concentrated forces, where you might find 20-30 aircraft doing battle.  But you still will probably only see 3 or 4 buffs in the larger groups, since current buff accuracy means we can level a field with only a small number of bombers.

Option 2 - the Two Sided War

There's 90 online, evenly split between Country X and Country Y.  Because buffs are less accurate at altitude, Country X (the attacker) has a formation of 10 buffs inbound to a base.  They have an escort of 15 fighters, with the remaining aircraft either furballing or driving vehicles to the base.

GROUPS OF VEHICLES!  Bloody big seething masses of armor heading for the 1 base under attack.. not split between 5 or 6 bases .. all converging on the one place!

Buff boxes.. close and long range escorts.  

Only possible if we have a single point at which to do battle.

Now I know some will say, "But you'll never get even numbers.. so one side will always be at a disadvantage".  So what's different to the current situation.  If anything, it's even worse now, since you often see the most populous countries battling against the country with the fewest online in an attempt to race each other to winning the war.

Anyway, just a thought.  I have these visions in my head of ranks of buffs or panzers performing set-piece moves in a concentrated attack on enemy fields.

And voices in my head too... but that's another story  

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

[Ghosth]

(Ghosth sits back in his chair lites his pipe )

Hmmmmm sure paints a pretty picture with them words doesn't he!

 

Keep preaching Brother Jekyll, maybe while your at it you can get HT to add a early war arena & planeset to test it in?

[Thog]

Jekyll's list is a good one.  2 sided war may be iffy for reasons outlined, though I suspect good map and strat design would mitigate that.

Just to be a putz, I'll argue that including ships in 1.05 should come as intended, then Jekyll's list should be attended to.  This simply because the ships add an extra dimension to the game as a whole (the "this is Aces HIGH!!" whine carries no wieght to me.  Aircraft of all nations are tasked principly with supporting the naval and ground branches, even when that means a-to-a combat).

One comment; it seems like -some- dispertion to bombs would be good, with an increase in blast damage, which is quite weak from my perspective.  A 500lb bomb hitting within 20-30 yards of a MG nest should shave it off at ground level. Two 500lbr's hitting within 20 yards of a hanger should have a serious chance of caving in the side from the shockwave, and perforating anything inside (planes, groundcrew).

So add mild dispertion, perhaps less than historical levels, and adjust the blast radius to something more realistic (to test, detonate a 500lb bomb outside the old iMagic offices at various distances).  

I think this would mean that a single buff couldn't take out a field all by itself, but 2-3 could.  Right now I suspect allot of the lack of heavy bomber coordination and squads is a result of the buffs being able to single-handedly do most fields in themselves.  So it should require 50 buffs, and shouldn't be doable with one.  

Just some Thog-thoughts.

Thog

[Jekyll]

Guys.. at the end of the day it all comes down to this :  what do we want Aces High to be?

If we want it to be purely escapist fun - a game - then we have hyper accurate buffs, 3 sided wars, laser ranging icon gunsights etc.

If we want it to be a simulation - .......  well, you know my thoughts  

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

[iculus]

I agree to the first point...but none of the others.

[Maniac]

After so many years i dont want the MA furball style of play.

But the real issue is what HTC wants AH to be. Do they even know themselfs?



------------------
AH : Maniac
WB : -nr-1-