Author Topic: Aces High vs Targetware  (Read 4580 times)

Offline boomerlu

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1163
Re: Aces High vs Targetware
« Reply #45 on: September 07, 2009, 09:42:33 PM »
From what I understand, the air war in WW2OL is like the ground war in Aces High.
Care to elaborate? I haven't been around the ground war in AH much - all I know is that it's not the emphasis.
boomerlu
JG11

Air Power rests at the apex of the first triad of victory, for it combines mobility, flexibility, and initiative.

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Re: Aces High vs Targetware
« Reply #46 on: September 07, 2009, 09:52:20 PM »
all I know is that it's not the emphasis.

The pretty much says it right there.
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline Reschke

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7724
      • VF-17 "The Jolly Rogers"
Re: Aces High vs Targetware
« Reply #47 on: September 07, 2009, 10:00:03 PM »
Care to elaborate? I haven't been around the ground war in AH much - all I know is that it's not the emphasis.

Posted a comparison about this in a recent thread here for WW2OL or whatever it is called these days. In almost the entire beta testing for the game the air war was great. Then about the time it went live/retail they patched the aircraft and made them ridiculous to try and fly/fight in. It became very arcadish when compared to other flight simulation games. The ground war in WW2OL is where they make their money and the air war is where they hope that someone flys a bomber mission occasionally. Unlike AH which is the polar opposite of WW2OL with the air war versus the ground.
Buckshot
Reschke from March 2001 till tour 146
Founder and CO VF-17 Jolly Rogers September 2002 - December 2006
"I'm baaaaccccckkk!"

Offline BnZs

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4207
Re: Aces High vs Targetware
« Reply #48 on: September 07, 2009, 10:20:41 PM »
Vert stabs and yaw stability:
I have seen a single-engine prop driven flying wing. Guy brought one to Reklaw one year. Flew, landed, and took off without uncontrollable spinning. How this should be applied to WWII birds is something I frankly can't say.

I will tell you one thing though: The fact that players can get a ditch or landing after their airplane has been set on fire and is spouting gouts of flaming avgas is *alot* seems alot more annoying and gamey than someone landing with a shot-away stab would be.  :devil
"Crikey, sir. I'm looking forward to today. Up diddly up, down diddly down, whoops, poop, twiddly dee - decent scrap with the fiendish Red Baron - bit of a jolly old crash landing behind enemy lines - capture, torture, escape, and then back home in time for tea and medals."

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: Aces High vs Targetware
« Reply #49 on: September 07, 2009, 10:27:26 PM »
This guy made it, so why shouldn't we? ;)

It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

-Gandhi

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: Aces High vs Targetware
« Reply #50 on: September 07, 2009, 10:37:25 PM »
Btw. incredible display of bravery from catapult officer Lt. Walter Chewning. Should have won him a medal or two.
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

-Gandhi

Offline 5PointOh

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2842
Re: Aces High vs Targetware
« Reply #51 on: September 07, 2009, 10:41:12 PM »
What did you expect, starting a thread trashing a player-created game that isn't making anyone any money?
If you had a real opinion in there, other than just talking crap about a game you haven't contributed to, it's well hidden.  Your post was in pretty poor taste.  If you wanted to do a real comparison, you could have easily done so.  But you acted the boor and now you're complaining that someone called you on your poor behavior.  At least you're consistent.

I am far from complaining.  Wouldn't you say that AH has player created features? Yes I may have been harsh, so in light of that I have made an all out honest opinion based comparison.  <<S>> Take care Eagl

-User Interface-

AH seems to be more user friendly compared to TW.  In TW you must download many different mods to play in a certain area or fly a particular plane.  Some of these may be a quite lengthy download.  On my internet connection (20mps) it took approximately 2hrs to download one mod. Other mods were quicker, but the wait time was not what I had hoped for. 
Inside the TW mod there are many different mini scenarios to choose from. Some had descriptions others did not. This made it a troublesome time to decide where I’d like to participate at.  As I was wanting to fly the P-51 it took some time to find a mini mod that had the P-51 in it.
 In my attempts to set up my X52P, I found it very difficult to map the controller buttons (as there are numerous on an X52P).   TW does have nice info with the press of the ESC on flight tips, or key strokes to operate specific controls.
While in the “seat” of the aircraft, the panel layout is close to accurate, but the view around the cockpit was control by my mouse.  I was not very comfortable with this as I typically have my mouse pushed off to the side while I’m in flight.  If I bumped the mouse my “eyes on position” move causing me to have to adjust.
Overall, I feel that AH is much more user friendly as far as starting a sortie and getting your personal controls setup.

-Graphics-

On my PC the graphics looked to be a bit blurred and fuzzy. Even without the AH hi res pack I feel that the AH graphics are more crisp and clear. I did enjoy the vapor streams off the wing tips from a hard maneuver.  I cannot comment on the effect of having multiple people in the same area and the effects on the graphics due to a lack of other players.
The water in TW is medium blue with little white specks, and I assume it to give you the impression of real water.  Even with the advanced water of AH V2.14 off or the previous V2.13 of AH (prior to the new reflective water), AH’s water seemed to have a real presence.
In the TW cockpits, the gauges seemed difficult to read, as they were slightly blurred. The gauge needles also seem slightly blurred, and difficult to read exact airspeeds.
TW does have somewhat realist flaps graphics compared to AH, although this is minor. But you could seem that the flaps have a rounded inner wing edge to them as compared to AHs squared design.
Ground clutter in AH is far superior verse TW in my eyes.  AH has a more lifelike appearance when at altitude. The TW ground textures seemed to be rather bland, and for me this took away from the flying experience.
I did enjoy the fact that the runways looked like dirt strips, verse the AH community airport, a sense of “being on the front” in my eyes. Also when starting the big Merlin engine there was a cloud of dust from the prop blast, another nice little touch.
Overall, the base graphics of TW verse AH base graphics is debatable. In my opinion though the AH graphics have a more crisp and clear look to them right out of the “box”.

-Flight-

Once in flight I felt that the TW planes felt the same.  Between the P-51 and a P-47 they felt equal in terms of pitch, roll, and yaw.  Meaning I expected to the P-47 to feel heavy when compare to the smaller P-51.  And in my opinion they didn’t.
I felt it was difficult to judge speed while in flight in TW.  In AH the controls of the plane become lighter and heavier depending on the plane and speed. I could not acquire this same sense of feeling in the TW product, and had to constantly check my gauges to determine my speed.
I cannot comment on feel during combat verse other players, as I could not find any logged into the servers.
The lack of ammo counters would take a little time to get accustom to, as I do not have the precise duration of fire verse ammo left on plane tucked away in my head.
Engine management controls are used in TW, which is somewhat of a neat feature. Although, not having my 51 flight manual in front of me made it difficult to gauge when to engage different levels of blower speeds.  Cowl flaps, oil cooler shutters, prop pitch, mixture are controllable features in TW. But for me it’s not something that would pull me to TW vs. AH .  Although lifelike, without the mutli levered and switch setup for control, it was not as fancy as I would have thought. Perhaps with actual levers to control these features, I would have been able to emerge myself into this feature.
Flaps on the 51 were also different compared to AH.  There were no set degree points. I compare it to the power window function of my car. Depending on the position of the flaps when you let off is where the flap stops.  So you basically have anywhere to 1o  to full flaps.
Overall, I wish there had been some players on to engage in combat with. I do feel that AH does portray a better “perceived feeling of flight” than TW.
-Community-
Although there was no one on when I made my attempt to play, I did take a gander at their forums.  There seemed to be a few core players. Most of them spoke about many of the same issues that we discuss on our forums.  I did notice that the lack of players does come up often.   This leads me to believe that the overall fan base and player core is rather small. For me this is a direct turn off to TW. I enjoy the fact that AH allows one to log in anytime, anywhere around the world and find a battle.
Much of TW is player created, and I give them “props” for what they have done, but at the same time AH is also player driven.  Perhaps not in the types and models of planes in the game, but with skins, maps, scenarios, snaps shots, and other event content. 
Overall, the communities are much the same, there just happens to be many more AHers than TWers.

In closing, I feel that AH is a better structured environment, and has a large player base that will keep AH going and growing long into the future. As for the player base at TW, I offer them to come join us in the skies of AH, enjoy a scenario, or snapshot.  But if you enjoy being able to “control” the functions of the aircraft, check out TW.  As for me, I’m quite happy where I’m at, and plan on staying with the AH community. 


Coprhead
Wings of Terror
Mossie Student Driver

Offline BnZs

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4207
Re: Aces High vs Targetware
« Reply #52 on: September 07, 2009, 10:46:06 PM »
This guy made it, so why shouldn't we? ;)

(Image removed from quote.)

The plane is probably still a write-off though. Anyone showing hits followed by the kind of flames you see in AHII on their gun footage would be awarded a kill.
"Crikey, sir. I'm looking forward to today. Up diddly up, down diddly down, whoops, poop, twiddly dee - decent scrap with the fiendish Red Baron - bit of a jolly old crash landing behind enemy lines - capture, torture, escape, and then back home in time for tea and medals."

Offline eagl

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6769
Re: Aces High vs Targetware
« Reply #53 on: September 07, 2009, 11:05:02 PM »
I am far from complaining.  Wouldn't you say that AH has player created features? Yes I may have been harsh, so in light of that I have made an all out honest opinion based comparison.  <<S>> Take care Eagl

snip


Good feature comparison. <<S>>

The only thing you left out, and in all fairness you might have to do a little research, was a comparison of the people who are doing the design work behind the games.  Targetware started out with one guy doing almost everything :)

Also, when I quit playing Target Korea, you could fairly easily change the control configuration to almost exactly mirror AH.  You could map views to your joystick hat for example.   I seem to recall some sort of easy engine mode that automated the engine controls at a slight power and fuel efficiency handicap.  I dunno if they have something like that now, plus I spent most of my time flying the F-86 or Mig-15...

Finally, if the flight models are still made by the user community, you might find some variance in quality.  One thing that makes AH good is that Pyro rules the flight modeling with an iron fist - He is dedicated to ensuring consistency across all flight models based wherever possible on actual flight test data, not anecdotal evidence about what one plane should be able to do compared to another.

Everyone I know, goes away, in the end.

Offline Scherf

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
Re: Aces High vs Targetware
« Reply #54 on: September 07, 2009, 11:35:40 PM »
This guy made it, so why shouldn't we? ;)

(Image removed from quote.)

There's film of that incident, or one very similar. Guy hops on to burning gas tank like it's a matter of course.

Sweet cheezus,  :salute
... missions were to be met by the commitment of alerted swarms of fighters, composed of Me 109's and Fw 190's, that were strategically based to protect industrial installations. The inferior capabilities of these fighters against the Mosquitoes made this a hopeless and uneconomical effort. 1.JD KTB

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: Aces High vs Targetware
« Reply #55 on: September 08, 2009, 02:14:12 AM »
I don't think you did "take off" the vert stab since I don't think Il-2 models the vert stab as completely gone, just some of it (reducing stability). You have to shoot the entire tail section off to get all of the vert stab. AH is very uncompromising in their damage model; it's there or it's gone. Il2, not so much.
Combat barrel rolls and scissors with two structural stubs for a vstab.  Even the guy in the P63 said it wasnt right, after it happened.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2009, 02:19:38 AM by moot »
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline gatt

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2441
Re: Aces High vs Targetware
« Reply #56 on: September 08, 2009, 03:07:52 AM »
Wow.  AH must have all the talented skinners and “coadrs”. This is poo!

You need a good pair of glasses.
Take a ride in the AH2' C.202/C.205 and tell me if the graphics and the cockpits are better than those of TW.
Some AH2 aircraft are good. Some, like the Macchi's, are butt ugly even with 6-8 years old standards.
Generally speaking, they all need a restyling.
I hate to say it after 7-8 years of AH2 flying .... Heck, even aircraft from BoB2 are better (how old is it?):



« Last Edit: September 08, 2009, 03:21:37 AM by gatt »
"And one of the finest aircraft I ever flew was the Macchi C.205. Oh, beautiful. And here you had the perfect combination of italian styling and german engineering .... it really was a delight to fly ... and we did tests on it and were most impressed." - Captain Eric Brown

Offline zack1234

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13197
Re: Aces High vs Targetware
« Reply #57 on: September 08, 2009, 03:59:16 AM »
In regards to pro' and con's of these game's one essential element missing from all of them is the scratch and sniff element. This I believe is a valid element to incorporate into all of these games.
I must make it known that I am testing various models at present. :x 
There are no pies stored in this plane overnight

                          
The GFC
Pipz lived in the Wilderness near Ontario

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: Aces High vs Targetware
« Reply #58 on: September 08, 2009, 03:59:25 AM »
BoB2 was released mid '05.  1 year before FSX.  Not a really good comparison.
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline dhyran

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1931
      • ~<<~Loose Deuce~>>~
Re: Aces High vs Targetware
« Reply #59 on: September 08, 2009, 05:07:19 AM »
whatever stiggler says, i think to myself:

"never argue with idiots, they drag you down on their level and beat you with experience"

so let these 10 guy fly their super simulator, let them follow their mission crap, let them stay happy with 5 guys online. Believe me, i flown 7 year WB, 2 years IL2, and i tried TW too, there was no other like tw i went away from it after some hours.......


dhyran  - retired  CO  ~<<~Loose Deuce~>>~        www.loose-deuce.net/