MAyhem at 30,000 Feet (Computer Gaming World Review)

[Creamo]

3 ½ stars for HTC and AH in CGW magazine? (May 2000 Issue 190)

I thought the title of the review was funny. The reviewer must have been flying a RunStang or B17!

I have no idea who John Nolan is (the reviewer), but there was a lot of good said about Aces High. He touched on some true flaws as well, but overall it was very positive. Good reviews in a major computer gaming rag like that are good news for the HTC crew.

What’s yer callsign anyway Mr. Nolan?  :0)

The cons expressed were “This one’s business as usual.” as in AH lacked “break-though” innovations for being a new online release. I guess so, but why re-invent the wheel?

He also mentioned WBS had a better flight model. Does it? I find that hard to believe but I only have 6 total real time documented flight hours…in a Cessna 150.(1 illegal one in a Metro III :0) )Another words,  I have no clue what's these beasts should fly like. Still, AH seems pretty good though, just not sure how WBS is better?

I don’t much about marketing but he certainly he wasn’t reviewing 1.02. Well, obviously. Time limits and press are complicated, but I thought it was kinda a shame to put a review out citing nothin new in this one. I was sure I was laughing hysterically dive bombing Panzers making huge craters with 147 other people last night in V1.02. Where else can you do that? I’ll go check it out.

With so many updates, everything will be different even 1 month I know, but 1.02 was more than a weekly fix. It added so much I thought it is a better  product to review is all. See what PC Gamer down the road has to say I guess.


BTW, I also noticed Gordon Bergs Inside Gaming Simulation article on WWII online sims. Certainly he is playing Aces High. Anyone know his callsign?


Peace,

Creamo

Oh, and Mr. Nolan, I’ll trade ya jobs!


[This message has been edited by Creamo (edited 04-09-2000).]

[hblair]

 

He also mentioned WBS had a better flight model

I think all of us WB'ers felt this way to begin with, til we figured out it was us and not the flight model.  

[Alabam]

The AH B17 is just terrible, no fun to fly at all! I'm waiting for for them to improve the view, map system,a compass in nord view, with a level indicator!

Make the b17 better and more fun to fly and you'll see some real Buffing action in AH!

------------------
Alabam

[DmdBT]

Fedaykin is who I believe it is. From his first appearance he claimed to be reviewing AH to write an article. He is a Bishop last I saw. Kind of a likeable character.

just my thoughts though

T

[Kats]

 

He also mentioned WBS had a better flight model

That is the most rediculous thing I have ever read.

This begs the question, what is a flight model???????

There is a huge difference between performance points and an actual flight model. For eg, I can code for you guys right now a a 109g10 that climbs at 4200ft/m and flys 365mph on the deck in no time at all. That doesn't mean I have a good flight model.

What makes a good flight model is *HOW* they get to their performance points. What aspects of flight are being calculated, etc etc etc.

Maybe WB's performance points are more refined between the different ac (dunno that, just making a point) but AH's flight "model" or "engine" has a F**K of alot more depth than WB's and you don't need to have flown an ac before to know that. (not that I haven't  )