Aces High vs Targetware

[Westy]

"soon Stiglr will be along"

lol.  My thought too.  He'll berate you for liking brand xxxxx over Target:Where? because
the P-fifteen_ooopety_doop in Target:Where? has the exact number of rivets modelle in
the wing filet where as the P-fifteen_ooopety_doop in brand xxxxx does not.

Anyway. The five people who "fly"  Target:Where? are fine where they are and kudos for
them in prefering it over AH or WBs or whatever.  TRUST me. Leave them be!

[moot]

I have and...what? Honk the all the way back in AHII, shudder and drop a wing, honk the stick all the way back in Il2, shudder and drop a wing...

Are you saying that a comprehensive assessment of comparative envelopes boils down to honking the stick like that?

[BnZs]

Are you saying that a comprehensive assessment of comparative envelopes boils down to honking the stick like that?

I thought we had already established in both games you run into different rates and radii of turn, different control forces at high speeds, different roll rates, etc...and in both games planes seem to do what you'd expect out of single-engine prop planes with very powerful powerplants when you stall them.

I think in Il2 F-22-esque post-stall maneuvers aren't nearly as do-able. This is one of the few favorable things I have to say about Il2.

[blshar]

The five people who "fly"  Target:Where? are fine where they are and kudos for
them in prefering it over AH or WBs or whatever.  TRUST me. Leave them be!

No truer words have ever been spoken.  A few would love nothing more than to make our lives as miserable as theirs.

[Anaxogoras]

No way do the planes in Il2 not feel worse than AH.  They're all the same.  And there's the oddities (tac maneuvering without a vstab) and clues that the FM is just many flight envelopes stitched together.   This isn't my acclimatization to AH.. It's my conclusion after almost a year playing only Il2.

Kind of like being able to fly just fine with half a wing in AH?  I don't know what you mean by "feel worse."  Each plane has a unique roll rate, a unique turn rate, elevator response, AoA limit, etc.  To me the main difference between the two fm's is at the onset of a stall.  In AH you can perceive the oncoming stall well in advance.  There's also the stall horn, or whatever sound you use, to give you warning.  In Il-2, many aircraft buffet a little bit and then stall without warning.  Some are much more predictable, like the Bf 109, but others can be a real pain, e.g. P-51D.

I think in Il2 F-22-esque post-stall maneuvers aren't nearly as do-able. This is one of the few favorable things I have to say about Il2.

Very true.  It's much more difficult to get fancy at departure speeds in Il-2.  Things get mushy, and then you drop a wing if you don't get your airspeed up.

-------------------

P.S. My biggest criticism of the Il-2 FM is the TAS of many planes at high altitude.  When you get to 9km, some of the TAS are just wacky.  6km and below things seem much more accurate.

[moot]

Bnz we were saying Il2 feels vague, literally and in terms of differences between planes.  At departure they're almost no different.

I actually forgot what post departure was like, in terms of usefulness, so I can't comment..

Anax - Damaged is a different story.  We don't have gradual damage, so the comparison isn't there.  Feel worse?  Well, they feel like vague poop. Like you said yourself, mushy.  There's performance differences but again, I was and am talking about near departure.  In a knife fight near departure they barely feel different. I'm not talking about departure predictability or depth, but their behavior at the stall.  Just different amplitudes of the same character.

And then you add those oddities like altitude flight and flying with no vstab, and everything else..  The rock&rollin of planes firing 50cal..

[Anaxogoras]

Bnz we were saying Il2 feels vague, literally and in terms of differences between planes.  At departure they're almost no different.

I actually forgot what post departure was like, in terms of usefulness, so I can't comment..

Anax - Damaged is a different story.  We don't have gradual damage, so the comparison isn't there.  Feel worse?  Well, they feel like vague poop. Like you said yourself, mushy.  There's performance differences but again, I was and am talking about near departure.  In a knife fight near departure they barely feel different. I'm not talking about departure predictability or depth, but their behavior at the stall.  Just different amplitudes of the same character.

And then you add those oddities like altitude flight and flying with no vstab, and everything else..  The rock&rollin of planes firing 50cal..

Yeah, I agree the FM gets very mushy at stall speed.  The .50 cal rockin' thing has been fixed, I don't know when, but it's no longer an issue in 4.08m.

[BnZs]

Bnz we were saying Il2 feels vague, literally and in terms of differences between planes.  At departure they're almost no different.

Well, that is where we disagree. Il2's P-51D will flip over on its back in a heartbeat. You almost can't make a 109 do the same thing without try hard.

[moot]

Agree to disagree.. One exception doesnt change the rule.

Anax - What kinda physics modeling are they doing to have such a flaw in the first place?

[Anaxogoras]

Anax - What kinda physics modeling are they doing to have such a flaw in the first place?

You mean the .50 cal rocking thing?  From what I understand, it was a flaw in how the guns fired from each wing.  Left wing guns fire, right wing guns fire, left wing guns fire, etc.  You could create the same effect in AH if the guns fired that way.

[Saxman]

I think it was less a synch issue than it was they overmodeled the recoil. It happened (albeit to a lesser extent) with aircraft mounting Brownings in the center.

And I agree with moot. Maybe not all, but many aircraft are modeled in such a way as I really don't feel much difference in handling. A LARGE number of aircraft even have the exact same flap positions: Up, "combat," takeoff and landing, regardless of what the historical aircraft actually had (the F4U is missing about half its flap positions, and some aircraft that only had full up or full down now have too many). And of course, there's the overmodeled engine overheats (irrespective over how long in the game you have to run at full power before the thing fails, the point is that it WOULDN'T in a single sortie to begin with).

[eagl]

It's a dumb comparison to begin with.  Completely different development models, different starting points, different goals, etc.

As for my own opinion, I found that the "target: Korea" aircraft feel was nearly spot-on for reproducing the performance and handling of a Korean war era jet.  For flying combat in jets with guns, TK was superb.  I didnt' fly the WWII targetware planes very much but frankly they didn't "suck" and grumpy comparisons between two flight models is kind of silly.  Every sim will have its own character and development goals, period.

As for the quality of the terrain and other eye candy in targetware...  The business model is if you don't like the way it looks, get off your fat donut and generate some content yourself.  If you just complain and don't contribute, then STFU/GTFO.  That's the main reason why I tried to be really active in the alpha and beta testing when AH first started...  I had some preferences and wanted to contribute instead of just whining about things I didn't like or didn't think were realistic.  It's pretty clear when the whine/contribution ratio gets below 1, and both targetware and HTC have ways for people to contribute if they don't like something.

[mike254]

sounds kinda like my little field trip to Fighter Ace one day.

I did that, and it was crap. blah 

[moot]

Eagl the comparison started (tho I'll agree the OP isn't thoroughly impartial) with "Stiglr" in the AC forum.  Apparently he's been at it for 10 years.

[5PointOh]

It's a dumb comparison to begin with.  Completely different development models, different starting points, different goals, etc.

As for my own opinion, I found that the "target: Korea" aircraft feel was nearly spot-on for reproducing the performance and handling of a Korean war era jet.  For flying combat in jets with guns, TK was superb.  I didnt' fly the WWII targetware planes very much but frankly they didn't "suck" and grumpy comparisons between two flight models is kind of silly.  Every sim will have its own character and development goals, period.

As for the quality of the terrain and other eye candy in targetware...  The business model is if you don't like the way it looks, get off your fat donut and generate some content yourself.  If you just complain and don't contribute, then STFU/GTFO.  That's the main reason why I tried to be really active in the alpha and beta testing when AH first started...  I had some preferences and wanted to contribute instead of just whining about things I didn't like or didn't think were realistic.  It's pretty clear when the whine/contribution ratio gets below 1, and both targetware and HTC have ways for people to contribute if they don't like something.

Eagl, It was my opinion. Nothing more. If you dont agree with it fine. Perhaps I think your opinion is off.  I didnt request you to like it, and by no means was I grumpy, like your are sir.  But thanks for your input. Have a great day.