HTC must get down and dirty (IMO)

[milnko]

The HTC team is moving ahead with leaps and bounds. It would not surprise me to see AH pulling down awards in the near future.

That is exactly what is needed to draw customers to AH, reviews and awards in the rags that do that stuff.

As for the loyalty to sim issue, I was lurking on the AGW forum during the IMOL/IE split, and IMO some of the anomosity between WB and AH communities is tainted by that unprofessinal airing of dirty laundry.

At any rate I vote with my credit card, I've done EF2000V2.0 on TEN, then AW3, followed by WB2.5 and up, now I am TOTALLY absorbed in AH.

Is there room for improvement? HELL YES! But as the HTC team is fond of saying, this sim will NEVER be finished, it is a work in progress.

 
The Great Milenko

You can kill me can't ya?



------------------
<< MILENKO >>
<===THE ASSASSINS===>Webpage

[crabofix]

I started flying WB in 1995 and I liked it until the community there got too "nasty".
After first trying AH in november -99, WB seemed to be a cartoon, It still does.
Keep up the good work guys at HTC!!

Crabofix

[SnakeEyes]

Problems with all of this:

1) Trying to fit people into a few (e.g. - 2 or 3) nice neat categories doesn't really work.  For example, I've tried AH on more than a few occasions, for a reasonable amount of time each shot, and simply didn't find it all that gripping.  Perhaps that's because I want a few things and AH still doesn't offer me the package I'm looking for -- first, reasonably realistic FMs (AH has this); second, fun gameplay (AH fails this check IMO, I think I'd use the word "staid"... of course, WB has also been failing this one recently, tho not so greatly as AH for me personally); third, something different (both WB and AH fail this one miserably... more same old, same old).

2) Inconsistencies:  For example, if WB was the best FM of its day, and it was designed essentially by the same folks, why the striking disparities between turn rates and the general feel of the aircraft (for example)?  Is it simply that the WB FMs weren't really all that great (or were simply good relative to everything else that existed previously)... that's the only thing that could (IMO) explain  disparities of something like 50% between turn rates in WB vs AH.  And, so, IMO that raises a bit of a credibility question.... if it was supposed to be accurate in the past, and it really wasn't all that accurate, how truly accurate is it now?

------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=

[Gadfly]

The true measure of any game is how long it stays on your hardrive.

I have had Command and conquer on mine for 5 Years, with Zero updates.  It is just good, and the group I play with is still there.

I have had Warbirds on the drive for 2 years, from 2.0 to 2.76.  It is better than it ever was, and the group I play with is still there and growing.

I have had AH on the drive since whenever it started till now, but I have never flown with an online group, so I only "survey" it with each new release for now.

Which is better?  Neither.  Which has the best group of pilots? Neither.  Which will survive?  Both, I hope.

I will say that I see more "I'm bored, I'm out of here" posts here than I ever did for Warbirds, so either AH flyers are spoiled by the frequent updates or they realize what they are missing(in the way of planes and events).

I do not mean that as a slam; HTC is rapidly providing the missing elements and provided it is given time, it will be right there as a premium simulation.

Flight model comparisons are silly and useless. I know of only 2 persons who regularly fly these sims and also flew these planes in combat conditions, and they ain't saying which is better, if they know.

[Kats]

 

For example, if WB was the best FM of its day, and it was designed essentially by the same
                          folks, why the striking disparities between turn rates and the general feel of the aircraft

That is a fair question, but I think the answer is obvious.

First off, all these games are limited by the power of the computer. That is why no one slams the artwork in AOTP for eg, because in it's time, it was great.As computors get better, the limits are raised in what can be done with them.

Secondly, about FM's. I simply believe that it is an issue of experience. I think that Pyro (just using him as an example) probalby has twice the knowledge and understanding of his craft than he did 3 years ago. Not only that, the deepr these developers dig, the better  their reference material becomes. Evenso far as being able to examin flight test data and decipher what is "real" is a developed talent. It gets very complicated.

For eg, I did research on boost and injection systems used on FW's and 109's. I found a 109f with MW50, but guess what - only reconnosaince(sp?????????? hehehe). How about the FWa4, fitted for MW50 - the bottle was there - but did they actually use it? It is definately a rubics cube. Unfortunately, in those days they didn't envision a bunch of nut bags like us killing eachother on-line demanding perfect authenticity.

I am off track here really, but I see what you are asking snake. When I talk about "better" FM, that is a huge difference between the actual performance points of the aircraft like climb, speed, turn etc. The FM is how they actually make the a/c achieve those performance points. So it can be said that AW might hit the performance points right on, but missing the nuances of flight because of a cheesy FM - see what I mean?

I don't know who's hitting the performance points better - WB or AH, I just haven't been on top of those types of things lately, but I do think that the FM of AH is clearly superior.

[SnakeEyes]

I pretty much agree with your thoughts kats, but in the back of my mind I wonder about the following:

If Plane X does a 360 sustained in WB in, lets say, 20 seconds.  But that same plane does the same turn in AH in 30 seconds... well... that simply makes me wonder what the "deal" is (in general).  I can understand that the WB model is limited to lower fidelity as a result of its approach.  However, on the performance points issue, which was obtained in some degree from actual testing data (which is, to some extent, what I assume the development team is trying to match the aircraft to)... well, how the heck can the disparity be so noticeable?

I'm not an expert, so I have to listen to the "experts" and evaluate what they say and intuit some level of credibility for each.  We were assured by the very same people back in the WB days that things were "correct", and now things change drastically and we are again assured that this too is correct.  Of course, by definition, that makes what occurred in the past to be incorrect.  I can cope with all that... but it still doesn't explain why the disparities are so noticeable.

In short, what I'd been interested in is an explanation of why these disparities are so noticeable (in language that those of us who aren't quite aeronautical engineers can grasp).  If someone was wrong about X, Y, or Z, I can handle that... I would just like to "know" why things are so noticeably different at 1K as well as 25K.

Maybe its an academic distinction, and that probably won't affect my enjoyment or its converse of either game... but it would provide peace of mind, which is really what is my problem with regard to this issue.  I suspect that others have a very similar concern.

------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=

[This message has been edited by SnakeEyes (edited 06-27-2000).]

[wells]

Snake,

I think a large part of that comes from what Pyro calls 'airframe drag'.  It seems much more pronounced in AH.  For example, one plane might fly a circle at 150 mph in WB, while the same plane flies the circle at 130 mph in AH.  There's 15% of the difference right there.  Flying slower means less bank angle which means larger radius, which in turn means longer time to fly the circle.  Is AH more accurate in this regards?  Personally, I don't think so...I mean stomping on the rudder in AH creates so much drag that the plane can't maintain altitude, even at full power.  IRL, planes were tested for flat, wings level turns and were flying the circles at 170-180 mph with full rudder deflection.

[Sharky]

Snake,

If I understand you correctly, what your saying is, dispite the limitations of programing and computers, if Model A "hit the performance numbers" and Model W "hit the performace numbers" why do they feel so differant?

Well to be honest, I don't know.  I can only assume that one didn't really "hit the numbers" or at least all the numbers.  But I will say this.  Although I don't know which is correct, I've never (even when HT and Pyro had Warbirds) really felt that these planes were as manuverable as they are in Warbirds.  Just something about fliping and floping a 10,000 pound airplane around the sky like a Pitts just didn't sit right with me.

All I have to go on is anadoctal <sp> evidence, but when it comes to "feel" isn't that one of the best sources?  I've never read or heard a RL WWII pilot talk about flying a P-51 or FW-190 the way they are flown in Warbirds.  Common do you really think that WWII pilots could or would flip and flop his airplane 20' off the ground like daddy= does?  I tend to doubt it.

We all talk about realism, yet none of us has any time in real warbirds.  All we have to go on is what we read and hear from the guys that did.  That and a bunch of numbers.  If the sim we fly makes us feel what we think those guys felt, then it's the most accurate.  Everything after that is do we enjoy it or not?

I do find one thing puzzling though and perhaps you will shed some light on it for me.  It's obvious you don't like Aces High, or you feel Warbirds is better and I know there are some personal issues with you and HTC and thats fine by me, to each his own.  

What I don't understand is why you care if AH is any good or not?  You don't fly it, you don't want to fly it, so why do you care if it's correct or even if someone else thinks it is.

I know you as one of the good guys, so your not one of the -bobn- or MG types that just tries to cause hate and discontent.  Not trying to start a flame war, just curious.

Sharky



[This message has been edited by Sharky (edited 06-28-2000).]

[Kats]

Sharky, I think he's saying the opposite. He more than likely agrees that the FM of Ah is superior, but WB is hitting the performance points with respect to turn rates closer. He is asking why the disparity. I think that is a fair question. No one is saying which one is right or wrong, but I'm sure everyone is interested in the reasons why they went this direction.

I think I remember when HT went for a mock dogfight in a real P51D, he felt it flew like a truck. Maybe his flight experience gave him a new take in this regard.

[nonoht]

 

Originally posted by Kats:
Got this off agw today:

 
I believe the satisfaction of knowing that they are learning a more complex FM is the trick. Same reason why AW players came over to WB harboring the same feelings.

humm i think this "crétin" plays in Easy mode...

[Koed]

I can only tell you how I got here..
Was looking for a good online sim for ages.. tried WB for about a week.. and completly hated it. It felt like something from the early 90's. A bad arcade simulation, with almost no immersion. Actualy I was disgusted that there is still code being sold that looks and feels this dated. Kinda like when win98 came out; more gloss, same outdated engine.
Then by accident I saw something bout a sim on 3dfiles.com.
Downloaded the blasted thing, played for a couple of hours offline. Cheese, that thing was hard, couldnt get a plane in the air.
Okay, turn left WB style, maajoor stall..
shit , this is thougher then it looks on Pensicola.
This is what I want... ;-) But I couldnt use a keyboard cause of the w2k bug. Stayed with it nontheless. Even without keys and just the basic set of controls mapped to my stick, it was still the most fun I had in ages. Even just flying a bomber straight is pretty taxing.

Been happy eversince, darn, if I could only learn how to fly ;=)

[Badger]

 

Originally posted by Koed:
.......Then by accident I saw something bout a sim on 3dfiles.com.  Downloaded the blasted thing, played for a couple of hours offline. Cheese, that thing was hard, couldnt get a plane in the air. .........

Welcome koed.....<Salute>


Hmmm.....marketing, marketing, marketing.....

[SnakeEyes]

Lemme see what I can do to explain meself.  

1) I'm not certain which game best hits the performance numbers, as I don't have that data.  But with regard to the strictly measureable data, such as the time it takes to turn 360 degrees, both Sims cannot be correct.  Either WB is more accurate in "hitting the numbers" or AH is.  I'm just wondering what the disparity is, and I think that Wells perhaps has a handle on this with regard to what he says about Drag.

2) When it comes to correctly modeling flight, or at least having the *potential* model correctly model flight, I think it's pretty clear that AH has the more sophisticated flight model.  Whether it currently hits the numbers correctly is another question entirely.  I think Kats has synopsized this real well.

3) In terms of whether planes could be thrown around like they are in WB... certainly there are things that can be done in either game that aren't possible or where "holes" in technology allow the game to be gamed.  And there are plenty of things that simply don't exist... like pilot fatigue.  Perhaps if a pilot were never tired or fatigued, they really could toss the aircraft around like that...

4) As for HT's hop in the P51, I think that we have to be careful to not mistake heavy feel for munging the numbers (which is the best info we have unless HT or someone flight tests a P-51 outfitted as it would have been in a 1944 flight test).  Any aircraft is going to feel heavy compared to using a joystick connected to a computer.  The stresses on the body and control surfaces simply cannot be recreated, and even force feedback doesn't provide more than poor-man's idea of what it really feels like.

5) Finally, with regard to HTC, I don't have an issue with them per se.  Let's just say that I was Boomer's wingman back in WB, and have a somewhat tinged view on things as a result.  I really don't think it's appropriate to say more.  And, for what it's worth, if you look back in threads, I *have* complemented HTC where I think they've done a good job.  I certainly don't think AH is a bad flight sim in any sense... I guess my take is that it doesn't make sense for me to "switch" flight sims (even if AH has a more sophisiticated FM, which I think it does) because:  the gameplay really doesn't offer anything new (and, again, I've become rather bored with WB as well); I also have concerns about the accuracy of the "numbers" and IMO it doesn't make sense for me to "learn" AH for the sophistication of its FM if it doesn't get the numbers right.

Of course, if the WB numbers are wrong, well... maybe then I'd be more game... but I haven't seen anyone official make that contention yet.

------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=

[Toad]

Yah know, I think Chuck Yeager could come in here, evaluate the P-51 flight model, make a few statements and he'd get arguments.  

Same for any other ace in a particular aircraft.

I've done a significant amount of flying in craft from the Cub to the 747 with many, many stops in between. The largest, highest horsepower "warbird" I've flown is a T-6, though.

I find things I don't like in the WB FM. I find things I don't like in the AH FM. I don't think EITHER one is exactly like flying these WW2 planes. I think both are pretty damn amazingly good for a free download that runs on a $700 computer, though.

I chose my "current fav" by "feel". I think the AH "feels" _to me_ more like a piston driven prop aircraft.

I don't worry too awfully much if a particular plane or planes "hits the numbers" exactly. All the planes have different strengths and weaknesses and learning to fight your mount against these varying capabilities in differing situations is what makes the game fun.

Just my .02 and YMMV.

Play what you like, like what you play!

[Dnil]

Awww, snake gettin all soft around the edges  

I agree with snake, lets find out which ones are closest to the correct numbers.  Then we can make judgements.  Both are probably off, in some areas a lot, but lets get to the numbers on both.

Who has run tests side by side on both?  Wells? Funk? Juzz?  do that vodoo that you do so well.

------------------
Dnil
JG-2
Part time aircraft restorer. www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer