with the new pics of WBIII out...

[tshred]

I've seen the pic's, and the film from the con. I didn't see anything spectacular myself. Didn't look any better or any worse compared to Aces, IMO. Will they model prop drag, ground effect, different weights from fuel load out and usage, just to name some of the current differences from Aces? I doubt it, not anytime soon. From what they have been saying, it's just eye candy with the same ol' FM's and gameplay to start out. YUUUUK, the same ol' WB. Not for me.........who knows, in the future maybe.....

ts

[Cabby]

It never ceases to amaze me that folks will post opinions based on so little fact.  I was at CON2K and actually saw WBIII for myself.  Of course, that makes my opinion suspect i guess.  So i will not bore you with the details here.  

In regards to WB's and AH:  can you say "same thing only different"???

Cabby

------------------
=44th FS "VAMPIRES"=
"The Jungle Air Force"
Welcome To The Jungle!!!"

[-lynx-]

It never ceases to amaze me how opinienated some people can be .

Cabby, people looked at the pictures available and said what they thought about them. Whether they had a chance to be present at the con or not is irrelevant. If they base their opinion about WBIII on incomplete infornmation - isn't that the job of iEN to provide this info? I don't think it's forthcoming though. Why don't you share what you know about WBIII?

IMHO, the only really groundbreaking graphics were the first 3D planes of WB done by FT. They looked real, they felt real. I remember actually flying off-line in o/s view mode just to see how light was reflected on the surfaces - it was really different quality 3D artwork from anything else available... Nowadays most sims look very similar.

------------------
-lynx-
13 Sqn RAF

[edog]

Gotta agree with -Lynx- on this, cabby.  People can only judge by what they see, and when they preface their opinion by stating the information its based on, such as Tshred did, I don't see the problem.....

Chisel, i assume you were referring to me, when you said "sure is a defensive bunch", since your post came right after mine.  If you werent, my apologies in advance.  If you were, I disagree with your assessment.  My posts in this thread weren't the slightest bit defensive, IMO.   Hell, I'm no iEN shill, I'll admit I was disappointed with the state of WB III, at least as judging it's status based on the demo.  I hoped it would be further along, and it would really knock my socks off.  My impression from the newsgroups and personal discussions with others is that my view is pretty reflective of the community in general.

edog  

[This message has been edited by edog (edited 06-26-2000).]

[Sharky]

Man I can't believe I'm agreeing with Cabby  

I agree that WBIII and AH will be very similar with requard to graphics.  I think the things that will set them apart is content.

Aces High has a huge leg up compared to Warbirds 3.0 at this point.  A lot of "to be added after WBIII releases" was given in answer to "does it have?"  As of now there aren't even cockpits for the new artwork let alone any of the other features mentioned.

I am now convinced that a lot of the "you can't handle it" talk from iEN was simply because things were not done and so could not be shown.  Judging from the state of development of WBIII compared to AH at the start of open beta, it is clear that most of what we saw of WBIII was a product of work done only in the last few months, or that the amount of resourses iEN is allocating to the development of WBIII is at a bare minimum.

The question remains is can WBIII catch up with Aces High and WWIIonline (assuming that sim is released with everything the builders say it will) before both of them leave WB so far behind that it will be impossible to make up the gap.  Also it remains to be seen if iEN can or will alot the necessary resourses for WBIII to fulfil it's promise.  So of the things I've heard lead me to believe that iEN may be more leaning toward things like Fighter Ops and it's internet games like bingo and advertising as it's major focus.

All in all I think that as far as "cutting edge" Aces High is producing and WBIII has the ability to produce given the opportunity.
But what do I know?

Sharky

[Ram1]

I think Edog has it right. Many of us were hoping to see WB3 further along then it was. However, what we did see was nice. You could fly the demo and the terrain has the potential to be the best in any online Sim to date. It was on both PCs and Macs so Gorfs comment is not accurate.

There was no cockpit art but the flight models were the same and you could shoot down opposing planes. Right now its all eye candy and more of a teaser but its probably enough to keep the core base of players waiting for the final product.

Ram1

[Ripsnort]

I think it looks great, as I said, competition is a good thing for end users.

WB's isn't going to roll over and die, neither is AH, there's plenty of room for 3 quality online flightsims in the market.(AH, WB3, WW2Online)  Has anyone seen the sales of PC's the last 2 years?  How many of those millions of sales  are potential victims...er, flight sim jocks looking for online enjoyment?

Looking forward to WB3, may even have duel accounts once  again once  the price goes flatrate.

------------------
Ripsnort(-rip1-)
~GeschwaderKommodore~I./JG2~Richthofen~[/i]
CLICK>> JG2 INFORMATION
Panzer Group Afrika~15th Panzer Division~[/i]
 
I spare no class or cult or  creed,
My course is endless through the year.
I bow all heads and break all hearts,
All owe homage-I am Fear.
-------------General Patton

[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 06-26-2000).]

[Fariz]

Hi all,

From what I see I might guess that they use more poligons in their models, I guess in case of f4u twice as many, so the game will not work good even with tnt2. Considering time when it will be issued I am sure tnt2 and accels of the same class will not be so popular, but thy will still be installed in about 15-25% of the total "game" PCs. I think when the situation with video accelerators will change HTC will rework their model toward more "smooth", though what I think already is ok.

Also, I am sure, that graphix do not make a game. Even fms and prop drags and etc. don't. AH was extremely interesting even in the first days of beta. There is thing people tend to forget, it is named "gameplay", and I think that HTC has very good game designers (even if I am not agree with some design decisions).

Fariz
XII Legion.

[Westy]

 This is neither praise nor a flame -  but I've not seen anything released about WB III that takes my breath away - at all.  I have had that happen to me here at AH several times since the beta was opened up.
 
 -Westy

[Gorf]

Westy,
I agree with you, WBIII I see nothiing impressive.  Plus ever since the breakup of the original WB team.. well WB went to pot. Too many disappointments and promises that fell through our took forever to show up.  

As for Cabby(fellow Mac owner) I would LOVE to know what vid card they were using.. Vodoo5?? GeForce Plus..  Ether way, I am staying with AH.  HTC team have been wonderful and I may play WBIII but will see.

Gorf

[edog]

 

From what I see I might guess that they use more poligons in their models, I guess in case of f4u twice as many, so the game will not work good even with tnt2.

I don't know how many AH uses, so I'll only speculate that you are correct about "more polygons".  However, reports from the con indicate that framerates were  smooth on the boxes running at 1920 X resolution, so perhaps previous reports of the efficiency of their graphics engine may be correct.  The mac was running with stock ATI video.........Time will tell.

edog

PS. Just saw a post from Matt "Target" Davis (not a handle I would want, BTW  , editor of Furball mag, who had this to say:

 

After a few long talks with DIVINE, and HOTSEAT, I've got a little better understanding of how this program is coming together. I must say that all the folks who keep asking about polygon count and fps are missing the point. With the new systems coming out and the programming that the Warbirds III engine is based on, those things are truly unimportant. They just don't matter.

[This message has been edited by edog (edited 06-26-2000).]

[Brazos]

Off topic material here but,

I've lost respect for iEN. First there was the fiasco of the buyout, then connection foul-ups, then a year of not a single new plane or other major change. All the while, raking in $1.50-2.00 an hour, and representing 3D renderings as ingame WB3 screenshots. I didn't believe there was a WB3 engine after all the crap they've slung.

I was wrong. Eye candy or not, guys -flew- a demo. The terrain sports a revolutionary contour style reminescent of Delta Force, but without the blurry voxels. Here's hoping they succeed without framerate problems. Less stright lines would be killer.

That said, I'm an AH fan. To see what HTC did in a year tells me all I need to know. They know and love sims. HTC never stops updating new planes, terrain and other new toys. But they also get the fun, no restrictive rolling plane set, late war hot rods, etc. Soon, terrain editors will give us historical scenario arenas that we build ourselves. Then come the carriers and trapping through a heavy wind!   I just have confidence in the HTC crew to build more fun air combat arenas.

Cya up...Braz  

[Ripsnort]

Brazo,
When AW folks went to Warbirds, not many went back, I'd guess probably .5 % did.  Most stayed.

I think you'll find that with software, once  someone finds something they like , they stick to it.

I doubt there will be many going back to WB3 from AH except to take a look, unless they come up with something AH doesn't give them.

I will go back to 'check it out', but doubt I will stay, except for the Historical or Scenario lites, but by that time, AH will have something better judging by the looks of their recent accomplishments.



[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 06-26-2000).]

[Westy]

 "When AW folks went to Warbirds, not many went back...."

 Not to go off on a tangent with AW but I think that the Kesmai crew were a herd of Ostriche with thier heads stuck in the sand.  They actually allowed themselves to believe they could remain competative without changing the core program.   Graphics and a few extra
planes (with screwed up flight models to boot) just doesn't cut it on code written in 1988 .  And with AW withering on the vine (even with a 10/mo "all you can be an idiot" price plan) they have ALOT of catching up to do. But since thier core audience is the $10/mo "all you can bleat" customer base I don't see AW(4) as being a competitor to AH, WB3 or WWII Online. FA-II yes. But a threat to sims with a learning curve and a complicated flight model, no.

 -Westy

[majikul]

A demo vs a full pay/play product? Where's the comparison? iEN will be extremely lucky to see pay/play in six months to a year.

That's a long time in the flight sim business by today's staandards. Look at what HTC has done in a year. Care to project six months, a year?

And what about cost? How WB players justify $100 or $200 a month is mystifying. For what?