Definition of Flight Simming

[RASTER]

Well Ack Ack a CH stick is a nice stick but I have never used one because I like the digitals. My stick however is at the end I think. Been trying to fix it and as such been flying my mouth like the rest of you guys. Its currently working but...when they went UBS I could not find a converter for my peddles so they are in bits and as luck would have it, when I did find a UBS converter I needed a part I now don't have so I am using a twist rudder and that is the part that is currently not working in my stick. But, unlike you Ack Ack, I don't like getting shot down repeatedly. So ask why I pilot the Mosquito and not the P38. You seem to think that I fit into your mold and maybe I sometimes do but I don't pilot hot planes when I am playing against seal pups. I am piloting the Mosquito and think I will stick with it most of the time. I don't mind getting shot down all the time but I do get a shot in often. Unlike you I don't mind it that much as I still can keep my score fairly high without having to pilot the P38 to pad my score the way you claim to need to. The point here is everyone like you Ack Ack talks a big fare fight but you never fly the lesser planes according to your last confession if that is to be believed. You probably don't pilot the lesser planes for two reasons. Perhaps one is you're not that good and the other is, that you see yourself in others, you don't like being shot down.

so Did you used to have a different handle?

You find a lot of things laughable Hitech. You and Santa got anything in common. Real pilots. Are you a real pilot, if you were you would correct the turn ball. No Hitech my handle has always been Raster. I have used Raster50 and those type of variations because others have been using my handle. Why do you ask? BTW this is my wish list not yours.

[RASTER]

Bronk...do you know Stiglr!!!!!!!!!!!!


EDIT...Joystick working again...end of communication. Thanks for the poke in the ribs. Maybe post later. TW restarting new in Feb and although I don't get along with Stiglr, I do want to see what they got.

[Ack-Ack]

Well Ack Ack a CH stick is a nice stick but I have never used one because I like the digitals. My stick however is at the end I think. Been trying to fix it and as such been flying my mouth like the rest of you guys. Its currently working but...when they went UBS I could not find a converter for my peddles so they are in bits and as luck would have it, when I did find a UBS converter I needed a part I now don't have so I am using a twist rudder and that is the part that is currently not working in my stick. But, unlike you Ack Ack, I don't like getting shot down repeatedly. So ask why I pilot the Mosquito and not the P38. You seem to think that I fit into your mold and maybe I sometimes do but I don't pilot hot planes when I am playing against seal pups. I am piloting the Mosquito and think I will stick with it most of the time. I don't mind getting shot down all the time but I do get a shot in often. Unlike you I don't mind it that much as I still can keep my score fairly high without having to pilot the P38 to pad my score the way you claim to need to. The point here is everyone like you Ack Ack talks a big fare fight but you never fly the lesser planes according to your last confession if that is to be believed. You probably don't pilot the lesser planes for two reasons. Perhaps one is you're not that good and the other is, that you see yourself in others, you don't like being shot down.

You find a lot of things laughable Hitech. You and Santa got anything in common. Real pilots. Are you a real pilot, if you were you would correct the turn ball. No Hitech my handle has always been Raster. I have used Raster50 and those type of variations because others have been using my handle. Why do you ask? BTW this is my wish list not yours.

I don't think anyone that plays this game likes to be shot down repeatedly.  I know I don't, that's why in the MW arena (where I spend most of my time) I only have 13 deaths from being shot down in the 60+ sorties I've flown and less in the LW arena (though I've only spent around 2 hours in that arena this tour).  However, I do like shooting planes down and I'd rather know that I shot the other guy down because I was able to out fly and out fight them due to my skill and experience instead of trying change the game to give me an advantage.  That's the difference between me and you I guess.

P-38J a hot plane?  I guess with me in the controls or the other dedicated Lightning pilots it is, but generally it's a mediocre plane when flown by the average player.  If you look at my score, it will be clearly evident that I don't play for score/rank and whatever rank/score I get is just a natural by product of my flying, nothing more or less.  The reason why I have a pretty good record flying the Lightning is that I took the time over the years to learn ACM and whatever else I could read to improve without having to resort to using gamey tactics or trying to change the game so I can get some sort of advantage.  Can you say the same?  You can't since you're the one that started this thread wishing to change the game to give you an advantage.

Also, where do I claim in any thread that I have to fly the P-38J to pad my score?  Please show the post.  If I wanted to pad my score I'd fly a late war bird or a Spitfire.

I've stated the reasons why I fly the P-38 many times over the years.  There is no ulterior motive, I fly the P-38 exclusively in the main arenas for the simple reason it's the only WW2 plane that has captivated me since childhood like no other plane has and I have no desire to fly any other plane.  This doesn't mean anything other than I enjoy the Lightning and the challenge is poses in flying it successfully.  I've also stated the reason why I only fly the J varient is due to historical reasons based on the squadron I am in.  The 479th FG in WW2 flew the P-38J and as a member of the virtual 479th squadron, I keep that tradition.  In fact, when I joined the Riddle's Raiders back in AW, it was because it was a P-38 squadron and I knew by accepting the invite to join, I'd have an opportunity to learn from some of the best P-38 sticks in that game.

You are also kidding yourself that if you think just because I fly one fighter in the main arenas that means I can't fly any other plane.  In case someone hasn't told you yet, ACM isn't plane dependent.  

I'll state it again since you just admitted it once again in your post.  You want to change the game to give you some sort of advantage because you don't like getting your arse handed to you on a regular basis.  So, I make this suggestion to you.  If you don't like to get shot down, learn some ACM by either reading some books or seek the services of our excellent trainers that can help you improve.  Maybe then you'll find more enjoyment of winning due to your skill rather than winning because you had to change the game to give you an advantage to make up for your lack of skill.

Enjoy.

ack-ack

[Guppy35]

I think what happens is folks want to equate 'realism' to 'immersion.  There is nothing a game designer can program into the game that will give you that feeling if you don't have it in you already.

I keep flying cartoon airplanes to try and find that feeling of 'being there' that happens now and again when my 40+ years of being a WW2 junkie mix with a moment in the game and it feels as  real as it's going to get in a cartoon flight sim.  No extra button, or procedure I have to follow would make it happen.

What makes it happen are the people you fly with, mixed with your own interest.  I can name those moments going back 15 years to the Airwarrior days.  Most times it happened in scenarios, but it can happen in the MA.  Maybe it's B25C strafers, or P39Ds with Soulyss.  Going back to Airwarrior Delirium and I seemed to find those moments during scenarios where flying wing, we did something that sucked me into the cockpit and it felt like I was there.  Flying with like minded folks in the DGS scenario was the ultimate immersion for me as what the game offered in eye candy, mixed with lots of history junkies in the cockpits around me made it seem 'real'.  The efforts of the guys who made the correct plane skins for our birds, the scenario designer and CMs, the terrain guys, the guys in charge, the GLs , FLs etc all took what AH offered up and made it as good as it could have been.

You can't force folks to do that however.  You will always have gamers who want to 'win' and count their points.  The history/immersion guys will find their place too as will the dogfighters, the bomber pilots and the war winners.

None of these planes are real and we aren't ever going to go back and fight WW2 in the sky for real.  Odds are most of us would fail our flight physicals if we did

Bottom line is I tend to feel like the guys looking for more 'realisim' are missing the point.  Nothing that HTC could do would help them find what they are missing.

[Krusty]

Targetware shut down because it's been left to rot so long the servers no longer work. We get these folks looking for other avenues.

Gyrene: Re-read your last post re: wep... After "50 hours" -- yes, so running WEP after 5 minutes would kill your engine if "50 hours" was the tear-down time... Think about it.

Failures:

What is a failure? It's an abnormality. You cannot predict what will fail and what will not. Usually the result of faulty construction, assembly, bad parts, or human error. A machine properly assembled and properly lubed/balanced/loaded/whatever won't fail. It's the human errors that cause it to fail. Take a look at TW... They "randomly" make the guns jam (all guns, every type) after 5 seconds of steady fire, no matter HOW reliable the weapons were in real life. Even the guns with cocking handles in the cockpits, or jam-clearing mechanisms in the war, all jam instantly in TW. That's bullcrap pure and simple.

So what's failure? It's an abnomality brought on by human error. Does it happen? Sure. Can you predict what human is going to make what error? Hell no. The only way you can pretend to approximate a "failure rate" is to introduce a random dice-throw with a % variable "10% of engines will explode on startup" (or whatever criteria you have).

That's DnD shyte. You want that, go play and RPG with random hits and number generators. Frankly there's a lot I'd like to see (such as G-loading affecting guns' jamming), but "random generated crap" isn't on the list at all. Tying it all back in to the top of my thread, engines exploding/failing after 5 mins of WEP also fall under "random" -- they just up it to 100% chance when in reality it was more like 0%.

[hitech]

Ahem...I know this is going to open me up to a barrage but, failure can be predicted...to a point...especially in electrical and or mechanical systems. You would have to have some known factors and it can be done using a statistical analysis program...and it's done all the time in many industries...translating that to a programmable equation to be used in a software application could be more complicated...making it a random failure within a cyber environment is slightly more complex.

The only reason I know it is because I know a few of PhD's in statics, physics and engineering where I work...  They're doing some grant research and predictable failure is one of the issues they are addressing. I watched a demo a while back and it was pretty interesting...actually predicted an electro-mechanical failure based on heat.

Gyrene: I assume they produce a % chance of failure over time curve? I.E. I assume they can not 100% predict the  exact failure time  If so it would still come down to a randomize based on the calculated curve.

HiTech

[hitech]

You find a lot of things laughable Hitech. You and Santa got anything in common. Real pilots. Are you a real pilot, if you were you would correct the turn ball. No Hitech my handle has always been Raster. I have used Raster50 and those type of variations because others have been using my handle. Why do you ask? BTW this is my wish list not yours.

Yes I am a pilot,only have around 1k hours, in fact you can fly my personal plane in the game. Tail number N346AK. And there is nothing wrong with the ball programing, but it is possible a plane has the gauge set up incorrectly, which one are you referring to.

HiTech

[Masherbrum]

Yes I am a pilot,only have around 1k hours, in fact you can fly my personal plane in the game. Tail number N346AK. And there is nothing wrong with the ball programing, but it is possible a plane has the gauge set up incorrectly, which one are you referring to.

HiTech

Zing!

[gyrene81]

Gyrene: I assume they produce a % chance of failure over time curve? I.E. I assume they can not 100% predict the  exact failure time  If so it would still come down to a randomize based on the calculated curve.

HiTech

Yes sir, absolutely. The predictions are based on known variables for every component based on existing data, then calculated under controlled circumstances...the only thing they can say at that point is based on x and y, it can be said that if xyz conditions exist for x amount of time...this will happen x% of the time.



Sorry but anyone who doesn't think failure can be predicted with reasonable certainty using known variables needs to go back to school.

[jdbecks]

I could not imagine nothing more frustrating than flying along to the furball/buff hunting/cap and all of a sudden loss of oil pressure and engine failure after 10 minutes climbing to your desired alt.

That would be the most annoying thing that HTC could ever implement " Random Engine Failures"   having an acurate physics model/flight model is far more enjoyable than complex engine management.

[Karnak]

Yes sir, absolutely. The predictions are based on known variables for every component based on previous research, then calculated under controlled circumstances...the only thing they can say at that point is based on x and y, it can be said that if xyz conditions exist for x amount of time...this will happen x% of the time.



Sorry but anyone who doesn't think failure can be predicted with reasonable certainty using known variables needs to go back to school.

That's great.  Can you provide the research for the Pratt & Whitney, Allison, Wright, Rolls Royce, Bristol, Napier, Daimler Benz, Junkers, Kawasaki, Mitsubishi, Nakajima, Fiat, Kilmov, Mikulin, Shvetsov, Gnome-Rhone and Hispano-Suiza engines that are, or will be, in the game?

[gyrene81]

I could not imagine nothing more frustrating than flying along to the furball/buff hunting/cap and all of a sudden loss of oil pressure and engine failure after 10 minutes climbing to your desired alt.

I can think of a lot of things that I see in the arenas with the existing flight models frequently that are more frustrating...wouldn't bother me much but yes I can see where the gamers and "war winners" could get a bit pissy about such random things happening.

That's great.  Can you provide the research for the Pratt & Whitney, Allison, Wright, Rolls Royce, Bristol, Napier, Daimler Benz, Junkers, Kawasaki, Mitsubishi, Nakajima, Fiat, Kilmov, Mikulin, Shvetsov, Gnome-Rhone and Hispano-Suiza engines that are, or will be, in the game?

Sure Karnak...when you're ready to fund the research let me know.

[Bronk]

Sure Karnak...when you're ready to fund the research let me know.

 I'd rather have htc spend it's resources on new AC modeling than failure rates of every engine in game.... but I'm funny like that.

[Krusty]

Gyrene, you are a gamer. I wouldn't use the term with such elitist disdain.

The problem is you've been indoctrinated to think "your" game is right, and AH is wrong. Then you come to AH and "everything is all wrong!!" -- when you've just learned things the wrong way to begin with.

(fill in whatever "game" you want, I'm not pointing fingers or anything)

Re: failures... so what are the criteria of a part failing? Over-stressing past the tolerances it was designed for? Fractures/wear from being used long after its life? Wear-down of metals, rubber seals, gaskets?

Well, if you look at maintenance in WW2 and in fact even up to today, you'll find parts are made with a tolerance greater than that which they'll be used, and are inspected every sortie for cracks, wear, tear, and changed out with brand new parts on a very frequent basis.

So if the "failure" is from some random (yes, I said it) flaw, you should consider the odds of an engine properly maintained, and properly used. You're talking failures as if running an Allison engine at 3000 hp in the Reno races, rather than the 1150hp war-time use it was actually designed and built for.

There's "failures" because people did something risky (i.e. push something well past a breaking point, as in Reno races), then there's "failures" because the parts randomly are bad. The latter just doesn't happen much.

So if these predictable failures are all outstanding circumstances that NEVER happen and situations that NEVER come up in aces high, why should we have them modeled?

it's like saying "Okay, we should model atmosphere out to 100,000,000,000 miles, model the pull of the moon's gravity on the gas in your tanks, and make is so that landing on Mars is much easier due to the lighter gravity" -- all well and good, but the problem is you don't need to model any of that because in the scope of this game it's a non-issue.

[Krusty]

Let me put it this way: Gyrene, by what criteria should AH engines fail? Spell it out for me.