Author Topic: Was the brewster ever carrier based???  (Read 6611 times)

Offline Nemisis

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4086
      • Fightin 49'ers
Re: Was the brewster ever carrier based???
« Reply #75 on: January 15, 2010, 06:17:13 PM »
Don't be taking knocks on Air Warrior...it was the game that started it all and where a great deal of us first cut our teeth on playing online flight sims, including HiTech and Pyro.  If it wasn't for Air Warrior, there probably wouldn't have been Warbirds and Aces High let alone that piece of crap TW with the craptastic flight and damage model.


ack-ack


OK ack ack. I'm sorry sir.
All man needs to be happy is a home, his wife, and a place in the world

Col. 49Nem, Armor commander of the 49th

Offline Stiglr

  • Persona non grata
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 112
Re: Was the brewster ever carrier based???
« Reply #76 on: January 15, 2010, 08:48:51 PM »
See Rule #4
« Last Edit: January 16, 2010, 06:03:28 AM by Skuzzy »

Offline 5PointOh

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2842
Re: Was the brewster ever carrier based???
« Reply #77 on: January 15, 2010, 09:10:39 PM »
Whats a "superior" damage model with no one to shoot or shot at you?  Those trees are pesky little guys aren't they.  :joystick:

Stigl, I really wish you would go back to trolling the boards at TW.
Coprhead
Wings of Terror
Mossie Student Driver

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Was the brewster ever carrier based???
« Reply #78 on: January 16, 2010, 01:25:44 AM »
Without actually fueling the anti-TW fire here, I have to say Stiglr's looking a bit hypocritical here...

TW is so flawed that the individual damage points are given weights, and the durability is tied to that weight. It's hard to explain, but there've been countless issues with tweaking settings because people trying to add planes can't do what they want (or what is historically correct). On top of that, custom ammo belting, almost all folks were loading the best rounds all the time (not overly historical, eh?).. it would be like loading mgechoss for every round, or HEI for every round, when historically these were dispersed every 5th round or less.

On top of that, the underlying flight model is so buggy that ALL planes suffer the same radiator cooling drag (it's coded in) despite the actual drag from actual cooling flaps -- and we all know different planes have different drag.

Then there's the black box style of programming.. Creators set parameters and the game engine "creates" the plane out of those... Half the folks putting the planes in coulnd't even tell me what the proper cruise, WEP, max continuous, etc, settings were for the very engines they had "programmed" in... They had no idea whether their creation was accurate or not, they just plugged in horsepower and a few other variables and left it up to a generic model to make it fly properly.

Frankly, there's almost nothing historically accurate about TargetWare. There's more interest in player-created content, for sure, but there is no quality control, no vetting of information or historical authenticity. It looks nice, but frankly so does IL2 (and that isn't very historically accurate either).

So when he comes in here harping about how inaccurate AH is I have to wonder: Why doesn't he turn a critical eye to these very glaring flaws in TW?

I wish TW had been better, but frankly it wasn't. As far as flight sims go it's a failure. Even the game code is so obsolete (The TargetWare itself, not the sub-divided game packs Tobruk, Poland, etc) that they've stopped working on it. The game coders disappeared last I read, or moved on to other things. Heck, I even seem to recall Target Tobruk shut down indefinitely until the new code was released because folks were hacking it (yes, with a player base of 5, they were hacking).

IMO, where TW went wrong was trying to promote itself as an online game. Might have worked out really nicely as an offline (AI-based) campaign type game.

I really don't want to add to the flaming of TW here because I wanted it to succeed (competition breeds technological improvements!), but I did want to point out to Stiglr that he's throwing a lot of stones while living in a house full of broken glass.

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Re: Was the brewster ever carrier based???
« Reply #79 on: January 16, 2010, 05:15:20 AM »
Stiglr knows the flight and damage models is porked in TW, that's why he keeps on changing subjects whenever the flight or damage model are brought up.


ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: Was the brewster ever carrier based???
« Reply #80 on: January 16, 2010, 07:06:04 AM »
He seems to have a rather flawed understanding of WWII engines as well.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline 5PointOh

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2842
Re: Was the brewster ever carrier based???
« Reply #81 on: January 16, 2010, 07:11:19 AM »
But our gauges are all in imperial measurements! :rolleyes:
Coprhead
Wings of Terror
Mossie Student Driver

Offline MrRiplEy[H]

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11633
Re: Was the brewster ever carrier based???
« Reply #82 on: January 16, 2010, 08:17:03 AM »
Well, the question is still apropos, when you relate the earlier story of how P-40 WEP DOESN'T work as it ought to... yet somehow, the plane still hits its historical numbers. It was also rhetorical: I didn't ever say the hurri in AH had one or the other type of flaps; I wondered aloud how it was handled.

But, yes, you are right that I don't play the game. Had enough of it when it was new to know it wasn't for me.

It was most likely too demanding and you had to quit, am I correct?
Definiteness of purpose is the starting point of all achievement. –W. Clement Stone

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Re: Was the brewster ever carrier based???
« Reply #83 on: January 16, 2010, 02:12:00 PM »
Oh dear, Stiglr has found a new board to post on. :x

Offline Nemisis

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4086
      • Fightin 49'ers
Re: Was the brewster ever carrier based???
« Reply #84 on: January 16, 2010, 05:01:59 PM »
Ripley, more likely he started mouthing off, pissing off all the other players, and couldn't find anyone to fly with. And lets face it, having a buddy to fly with is half the fun.
All man needs to be happy is a home, his wife, and a place in the world

Col. 49Nem, Armor commander of the 49th