HTC must get down and dirty (IMO)

[SnakeEyes]

Toad:

I agree... I've heard comments that go both ways and it's kind of one of those "six of one, half-dozen of another" kind of situations.

Having said that, however, we're not talking about teeny-tiny differences.  We're talking about some pretty noticeable differences in the time it takes to make turns.  I don't have the numbers right in front of me, but we're talking about deviations of 50% in some cases.

I just can't help but wonder why the difference is soooooo great in some cases.  If it's a situation where one sim currently has a more sophisticated FM, but isn't hitting the numbers very well, whereas another has a simpler flight model (alternatively called old or mature depending on your feeling) but hits the numbers better... well, heck, I'd like to know where we stand.  And I *know* that I'm not the only one.  

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

[Toad]

Snake,

I'd love to see a true WW2 flight "simulator" that hit all the numbers exactly and had the right "feel" as well.

It isn't going to happen for a large number of well-documented reasons. Lack of certified, reliable data, near total absence of actual WW2 fighters in historical combat configuration available to test in actual flight, the horror and shock of an owner of such a plane when you asked him to loan it to you for "testing"    , the fact that the vets that actually flew them are in their late 70's now and memory plays tricks. On and on and on.

I totally support trying to get it "as close as possible". Totally. But that is never going to be an "absolute". The data just isn't there.

So, all these programmers do their best. It's some fact, some educated prognositcation, some intuition, some black magic and some wild-ass guessing.

I'm just damn glad we have two such difficult choices!

I'm sure as time goes on, refinements are going to be made. That new FW-190 that they are building over in Germany may help the data base (but it's not a true combat loaded FW either). More data will turn up. Research will continue.

For now, I'm going to play and enjoy myself. I think the key is to not get tooooo awfully concerned if you're having a good time. These games will continue to evolve. It's a good time to be a fight sim guy!

[SnakeEyes]

Again, I don't necessarily disagree, but I'd be interested in seeing an explanation for why the difference exists.  Is it simply a result of what putting the data into the flight models has produced, is it a conscious rethink that needed to be tweaked-in, is it unintended or potentially accentuated by a bug or something not yet more fully modeled, etc?

I don't think it's totally unreasonable to ask about this, since I'm certain that I'm not the only one with this question.  To some extent HTC and IEN are asking their potential clienteles to "choose" between them (as not everyone can afford or wants to split time between both).  From my perspective, I'm not entirely certain thta it is "worth it" to flip-flop for a more sophisticated FM that perhaps actually produces less accurate results (granted, "accurate" becomes a tenuous term at this point).  

Maybe I'm hung-up on a minor issue... but I can't get over the nagging incongruity of both being produced by the same team (at least originally) and the vast difference with regard to feel, responsiveness, "numbers", etc.  Despite the fact that some might think that I've got a beef with HTC, I'm honestly just puzzled by this issue.

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

[funked]

Did you get my email SnakeEyes?

[SnakeEyes]

Naw, something is apparently busted on the forwarder for the ffgroup email... I've changed the profile for ya to send again.

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

[Sharky]

Ok Snake fair enough,

 

Again, I don't necessarily disagree, but I'd be interested in seeing an explanation for why the difference exists. Is it simply a result of what putting the data into the flight models has produced, is it a conscious rethink that needed to be tweaked-in, is it unintended or potentially accentuated by a bug or something not yet more fully modeled, etc?

Who knows, why did planes not fly the way the engineers thought they would on paper?  

So if your not dead set against Aces High come on in and play with us.  Forget why there is a differance in the two flight models, just stop in now and again have some fun with us.  I for one would be glad to fly with ya.

Come on now admit it.  No one spends this much time looking through the store window without wanting to go inside    Come On!!  It only hurts for a little while.

Sharky

[Toad]

I see your point Snake, and i'm curious too. Maybe it's just the data.

I had a Kawasaki Mach III in 1970...fastest production bike in the 1/4 mile at the time.

Suppose in 2030 somebody wanted to make a motorcycle drag racing sim. I remember that three different magazines gave 3 different 1/4 times for the bike. Like 10.5 sec, 11.2 sec and 12.5 sec. I ran mine through a few times and never got under 13.6.

So whose data would they use IF they found all three copies of the mag? Or would they believe an 80 year old antique like me?  

I don't know why there is a difference. I'd like to know but doubt we ever will.

The real questions are: Does it make a difference inside each respective game if all aircraft are treated the same? Would this be the sole determining factor in which game you chose to play?

[SnakeEyes]

Yuppers, there are lots of reasons, not the least of which is simply that there is a lot of info that doesn't exist, and so they've got to make educated guesses at the data.

I'm more interested for the sake of curiosity than for my making a decision on which to play.  Personally, I'm likely to remain in WB for the near future for two reasons:

1) I honestly prefer the faster play.  Sure I prize realism, and what goes on under the hood in AH certainly appears to be more sophisticated, but I'm not ashamed to admit that "how" a game plays is just as important to me.

2) My squad is there and I only have the time to play one of the two.

Ultimately, like a lot of others, I'm simply curious as to why the difference is so noticeable.  Of course, it's probably as mundane as that they looked at a preponderance of the data and made the judgement call that this was simply more representative.  

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

[Kats]

 

it's probably
                          as mundane as that they looked at a preponderance of the data and made the judgement call that this was simply
                          more representative.

It is definatley a question that interests all of us. I wonder if HTC would be willing to comment on their feelings....(PS did this thread get hi-jacked?  )

[rfa]

OK, MY TURN.

First of all, I played Warbirds for a good 4-5 years now.

When I tried the first AH release (open beta), I hated it.  The FM did not seem right.

I was finally tempted to try it again since I saw new versions and patches coming out.

After 2 days of learning "offline", I entered the arena.  I LOVED IT!  I must say that after flying AH for almost 2 weeks now, the planes in WB seem "childish".

Being a real pilot, I have some idea how planes should act in the air.  IMVHO, Aces High is more realistic then WB.

Man, I never thought I'd say this.

------------------------
S/L Skalski
No. 308 (Polish) Sqn
Royal Air Force

[SKurj]

Originally posted by popeye:
I don't think HTC should get into a "mine is bigger than yours" fight over flight models.  Why should a prospective player believe HTC?

I agree, I've always discounted any product which says "theirs is worse than ours because.."  I personally think Aces just needs more exposure, but to the right places!!  Seen waay too many adolescent quakers appear and dissappear over the past few weeks.  I really don't know how or where to expose Aces better, but something needs to be done.

SKurj

[Graywolf]

 

Originally posted by Toad:
I see your point Snake, and i'm curious too. Maybe it's just the data.

I had a Kawasaki Mach III in 1970...fastest production bike in the 1/4 mile at the time.

Suppose in 2030 somebody wanted to make a motorcycle drag racing sim. I remember that three different magazines gave 3 different 1/4 times for the bike. Like 10.5 sec, 11.2 sec and 12.5 sec. I ran mine through a few times and never got under 13.6.

So whose data would they use IF they found all three copies of the mag? Or would they believe an 80 year old antique like me?    

Damn good post.

Taking this one step further I drive an old Porsche 928 GT and on the 928UK mailing list you would not beleive the debates that go on as the to performance of the different 928 models (928, S, S2, S4, CS, SE, GT, GTS manual/auto) and this is from people that own the things, in some cases more than one...

Time and again the validity of the the magazine test data is questioned because it's all different. And doesn't always seem to fit people's real world experience.

And this is mostly data of about 10-12 years ago collected using acurate testing gear.

Lord knows who'll know the truth in 50 years time when there's only a handful of cosseted and hardly used examples left.

I can only imagine the nightmare it must be to try and sort out the data on WWII aircraft...

------------------
Graywolfe <tim@flibble.org>

[daddog]

This was quite a long thread. I just wanted to mention something that was not really pressed home by anyone.

I am here for one reason and will continue to stay for one reason.  It is the same reason I still go to Ricks Chevron and pay .08
cents more for gas. The same reason I still shop at Twain Harte grocery story near our home and not the big Safeway in town.  
The same reason I went to a particular family owned computer store over the Comp USA's.

Customer service.

Yes flight model is a factor. Yes gunnery is a factor. Yes graphics are a factor.  Yes historical terrain's/plane sets are a factor.  
Yes plane selection is a factor.  Ultimately though, what turned me off to Warbirds and turned me on to Aces High is the glue to
all those items listed above, customer service.  I flew Warbirds for 3 years.  When I closed my account no one called me to ask
why.  Even the gal that I talked to when I closed my account did not ask.  My guess is I was one of a dozen she must have
been doing every day. Nevertheless you would think that after 3 years someone with some business sense would call and
inquire why someone would close their account. Not a peep.

Don't tell me that as soon as I come to dislike the flight model or some other aspect of the game I will leave. Truth is I still prefer
the Warbirds flight model and terribly miss the historical arena.  Of course that could be due to over 3 years of Warbirds and
only a few months of Aces High, I don't know.

I would wager their are a few out their who are willing to pay more for a comparable product due to customer service alone.  
The moment I feel someone at HTC would not return my call, answer my e-mails, ignore my postings, but continue to take my
money I would be gone.
------------------------
daddog
332nd Flying Mongrels
Snapshots
   
Where men become friends and friends become brothers.

[Ripsnort]

Excellent point (as usual) Daddog, but according to Macboy(MG) that will disappear in the near future!    

[Macboy]

Give it time, give it time.  

Thanks for the headsup Ripsnort/Nosoup4u/dinkywinky/?

[This message has been edited by Macboy (edited 06-29-2000).]