Aces High's authentic flight model verified by Fester doing warbird training

[FLS]

Our ability to have multiple fatal crashes is a big advantage. If we could only die once I think we'd all find AH very challenging.

[Krusty]

[EDIT: was typing when FLS was. Responding to same topic]

How hard should it be? How realistic does it have to be?

I've flown dozens of flight sims from WW1 to jet age and beyond (space, etc) and whenever it comes to carrier landings they are always hard at first. You need to learn where to look, where to aim, descent rates, flare, hooks, etc. I remember I had a lot of trouble initially with Jane's USNF '97 and landing F14s on the carrier. However, even in my untrained state with a lot of practice (which, I might add had no threat to life or limb, being only a computer game) I was able to master carrier landings in almost every game that has them.

Being computer games, these aren't the same as real life, but many of them tried to make it hard to reflect the real thing. Perhaps not 100% fidelity to the real world physics, but still hard.

Let's not discount that with a million times practicing, things start looking easier. Especially when the reset button is as easy as hitting "fly" once more.


I think it's easier than in real life, but I'd guess it's not an intentional nerfing for newbies as much as HTC focusing on air physics rather than ground interaction. We see this with GV behavior as well. We see it with pogo stick landings and such. I think their priorities just lie elsewhere.

[infowars]

Great post.... THANKS!

+1

[Yeager]

wow.  all these years and we finally have verification.  thanks fester.  you

[dtango]

Our ability to have multiple fatal crashes is a big advantage. If we could only die once I think we'd all find AH very challenging.

 

[dtango]

wow.  all these years and we finally have verification.  thanks fester.  you

   

[dtango]

However, even in my untrained state with a lot of practice (which, I might add had no threat to life or limb, being only a computer game) I was able to master carrier landings in almost every game that has them.

Being computer games, these aren't the same as real life, but many of them tried to make it hard to reflect the real thing. Perhaps not 100% fidelity to the real world physics, but still hard.

Let's not discount that with a million times practicing, things start looking easier. Especially when the reset button is as easy as hitting "fly" once more.

Practice makes perfect as they say.  But "perfection" is much easier to achieve for us cartoon pilots in a virtual world devoid of nature's unpredictability starting with the nice, predictable, uniform, virtual standard atmosphere we fly in. 

[Krusty]

I simply want to make the distinction that while we don't have all the tiny little things the real world does, that we can still learn very difficult tasks through repetition of epic proportions.

So a real pilot makes 10 traps and is good, but we can do 10,000 traps and fail miserably for half of them but still become good. The failure rate is higher, but it doesn't make us less skilled per se. We can still trap a plane on a deck safely without wrecking it because we've done it far far more times than the real world pilot needs to.

Just to make myself clear: I'm saying don't blame the game's lack of details and say "just because we can do it, it's too easy compared to the real world." There are many reasons we could be able to do it, and the game being too easy is only one of those options. Another option is "We can do it because we try way more than real world pilots and through trial and error that would kill a real person have learned how to do it."


[Edited to try to avoid confusion]

[Changeup]

I don't think that's fair, per se. They do a good job of modeling individual stall speeds, flaps stalls, power off stalls, etc. I think people in AH just don't bother to finesse a plane down as one would in real life. Heck, many/most claim that they ditch on a runway gear up to get to the tower faster. I try to land every time, personally. I notice and feel the different landings for each plane. I think they are modeled.

I think it's a matter of folks simply coming in hot because they're lazy and their lives/jobs/airframes don't depend on a textbook landing.

EDIT: P.S. You CAN land a T-6 texan hot. You CAN land a P-40 too slow... You can land any plane from WW2 at about 150mph as long as you do it right. Doesn't mean they did this in practice. I think what you see in AH is technically POSSIBLE, just wasn't done through practice/safety.

Here's what's really funny... If they were somehow modeled exactly how they performed, no one would be able to land them or fly them...lol.

I remember my first day.  F4U-1A....ground rolled it 23 times in a row.  My son said, "Dad, you aren't very good at this are you?".  It is modeled exactly enough to allow non-rated people to get up in the air...and that is all anyone can ask for...IMHO

[Krusty]

Changeup, you imply they nerf things intentionally to dumb it down. HTCs own responses on the matter in the past don't support your accusation there.

I, too, recall my first attempts to take off a fully loaded and bombed up corsair. It was pretty ugly (I did get my gear off the ground ... for a while). I remember when you could spin a P-51 in a tight level turn, but not a P-51B as much. However you imply they have specifically dumbed it down when all other indicators suggest that's not their objective.

I think they have made certain concessions (wind, CV speed, etc), but I don't think they have INTENTIONALLY pulled punches or G forces or torque on any plane in the game. I think that UNintentionally a few things have happened*, but you seem to have some strange thoughts.

Even the most complicated most realistic flight sims in the world can be landed. Even the most complicated commercial games (the ones like FSX or fill-in-the-blank) with the most details you can put in any game are still quite landable. Any plane in any game can be landed simply because they reflect the reality that any plane can land. I don't think any learning curve would be too high to stop people from getting it right in short order. This goes back to the "try it 10 million times before you figure out how it works without being killed" capabilities of any sim/game.

Keep in mind the US military and commercial airlines and even the Space Shuttle itself all have simulators that some games today rival in complexity. Before you object, I say complexity, not graphics. Obviously sitting in a full Shuttle simulator is different than sitting at a PC with 1 tiny monitor, but the code behind the scenes can be just as good.



* = (the torque kinda disappeared there around the time AH2 came out... but HTC says its still there so I don't think they realize it's different)

[dtango]

I simply want to make the distinction that while we don't have all the tiny little things the real world does, that we can still learn very difficult tasks through repetition of epic proportions.

Point taken Krusty.  I wasn't trying to debate with ya.  I was pointing out a tangent point from your point .

[Karnak]

Here's what's really funny... If they were somehow modeled exactly how they performed, no one would be able to land them or fly them...lol.

Sorry, but that is roadkill.  The guys who flew these in reality were young men, sometimes just teens, not supermen who's abilities are unmatchable for us mere mortals.

Would it be harder to do some tasks with full realism?  Of course it would.  However, hyperbole such as "no one would be able to land them or fly them" is just that, hyperbole.

[FTJR]

Sorry, but that is bulltoejam.  The guys who flew these in reality were young men, sometimes just teens, not supermen who's abilities are unmatchable for us mere mortals.

Would it be harder to do some tasks with full realism?  Of course it would.  However, hyperbole such as "no one would be able to land them or fly them" is just that, hyperbole.

While I agree with most of that Karnak, there is a difference between sitting down at a pc, having no real world connection to aviation and trying to fly a tail dragger for the first few times.

The young men that flew them in real life, started off, like all pilots, in trainers like Tiger Moths (sorry I dont know the US equivalent) operating from grass airfields that enabled them always to take off and land into wind. Gradually building up the skill to fly the combat planes, in more testing conditions.

I think that is what he meant.

[Karnak]

While I agree with most of that Karnak, there is a difference between sitting down at a pc, having no real world connection to aviation and trying to fly a tail dragger for the first few times.

The young men that flew them in real life, started off, like all pilots, in trainers like Tiger Moths (sorry I dont know the US equivalent) operating from grass airfields that enabled them always to take off and land into wind. Gradually building up the skill to fly the combat planes, in more testing conditions.

I think that is what he meant.

I agree that there would be lots of simulated dying involved, but I will bet you that if you gave me a sim that did the best my PC possibly could for full simulation of the Mossie, P-51, Spitfire or such that within a week I would be able to take off, fly and land it.  As Citabria noted in the OP there are still many things that will be missing, some of which make the computer easier and some of which make it harder than the real deal.  The "none of us could possibly be good enough to every fly these" meme is just wrong, and it is even, to my mind, harmfully self hating.

An example.  Flying them would be relatively easy, yet he hyperbolically claims none of us would be able to do so as though they required hyper fast reflexes or they'd throw you off like a bull.  Robert Stanford Tuck almost washed out of flight training because he was doing just that, only on the last flight before being washed out when he had pretty much given up did he snap to it that rigid muscles trying to force the aircraft to fly the line he wanted was actually producing the uncoordinated and choppy flight.  In pretty much giving up he was looser and let the stick jump around a bit and when he did that he said he realized flying was easy, not hard.

The only parts of the full realism sim that I think would be hard for most players of AH would be the preflight check, complex engine starting sequence, take off and landings.  I doubt any of the "flying part" would present much more challenge that AH already offers.

[SunBat]

wow.  all these years and we finally have verification.  thanks fester.  you

Lol