Author Topic: Request for "improvements" to AH... (Read 988 times)

streakeagle · « **on:** March 16, 2002, 12:49:41 PM »

A lot of people seem interested in better damage modeling. A few people are chasing gripes about specific aircraft flight models and graphics, but I think there are a couple of features in other games that would probably be fairly easy to implement and make the game both more realistic and more challenging.

Xtreme Air Racing has done a nice job with air turbulence. It would be cool if getting too close to another aircraft in AH would risk encountering turbulence. Having some turbulence throughout the arena due to weather patterns would be cool as well. I have enough stick time with Cessnas and Pipers to know smooth flying is not always the norm. Maybe the appropriate updrafts/downdrafts for weatherfronts marked by clouds passing by?

Falcon 4.0 does a good job of modeling what happens when you fire guns on a target at point blank ranges: collisions with chunks of airplane.

Between turbulence and collision damage, there very much is a practical limit to how close you can be while firing. It would be cool to see these problems addressed in AH.

jbroey3 · « **Reply #1 on:** March 16, 2002, 01:50:34 PM »

Tottaly Agree.... much needed improvment in the Damage department.

Shooting planes down in aces high is very very easy.

Not to bring it up.. but IL2, seems to have what interaction between aircraft skin, ie structure and the results as to that skin/structure being damaged/hit by weapon caliber should be.

In aces high, 1000 yard + shots are easy sure fired kills.

Either the weapons are too effective, the planes have some sort of hit bubble with on/off damage, or the plane damage is made in such a way that after X amount of hits = wing chopped in half.

Turbulence would be nice as well, and yes il2 has that also when flying through clouds.

I hate to sound like an il2 cheerleader, but i think that these are valid points as to show where aces could definatly improve upon.

texace · « **Reply #2 on:** March 16, 2002, 03:39:25 PM »

It really depends on a matter of realism vs. game. I definatly would like to see better DM, perhaps something to the effect of CFS2, where hits render control surfaces less effective, up to the point where they're shot off. I'd also like to get rid of the "hit sprites" and replace them with things like puffs of smoke, sparks, and little pieces of the airplane falling off. Does anyone thing a DM like CFS2 is a good thing?

Then, perhaps some less important graphical things. I'd like to see a tailhook added eventually.

Perhaps better A/C textures, even reflections and glint from the sun. Proper guages according to nationality in the cockpit (or make it a selectible feature). Rolling wheels aren't neccessary, but would be neat. I'd also like to see a selectable feature to see spent shell casings and reflections in the cockpit. Actually, I'd like to see the canopies either shaded a bit of added reflections so it looks like you're actually sitting in one.

But again...that's just me...

:D:D

streakeagle · « **Reply #3 on:** March 16, 2002, 03:52:36 PM »

ooooohhhh... spent shell casings always look cool, especially in Jane's WWII fighters.

Besides looking good, cockpit reflections would make pan and scan view easier to use in bubble canopy fighters instead of just seeing lots of clear blue sky with no reference to which direction you are looking compared to your airplane.

I am not sure why AH gunnery is so deadly accurate at ranges of 1,000+ yards. I have seen the argument that we get way more practice than real pilots ever did, but even the best and most practiced real pilots could never consistently get hits (much less kills) at those ranges. Something is still being modeled wrong. However, arbitrarily changing the ballistics model until if "feels right" is the wrong approach. Figuring out what has not been accounted for in the otherwise technically correct AH model is a much better approach.

bloom25 · « **Reply #4 on:** March 16, 2002, 04:49:34 PM »

Although I agree with some of what you said above, I can't recall hitting anything at 1000 yards in the more recent AH versions. Try typing .target 1000 offline and see if the bullets even go that far. (I did this the other day when 1.09 first came out, and 950 yds seemed the limit on the spit1.) Only rear bomber guns have the ability to get reliable hits at that range in AH.

JoeDirt · « **Reply #5 on:** March 16, 2002, 04:56:25 PM »

what he said-

Quote

Originally posted by bloom25
Although I agree with some of what you said above, I can't recall hitting anything at 1000 yards in the more recent AH versions. Try typing .target 1000 offline and see if the bullets even go that far. (I did this the other day when 1.09 first came out, and 950 yds seemed the limit on the spit1.) Only rear bomber guns have the ability to get reliable hits at that range in AH.

streakeagle · « **Reply #6 on:** March 16, 2002, 06:46:06 PM »

Maybe it is because I specialize in using 50 cals set to 650 yards convergence, but using any American aircraft so equipped, I can get good hits and even kills at that range when a target levels out to extend because it thinks it is safe. I don't recall ever reading about any real WWII pilots even firing at that range against airborne targets, much less hitting or getting kills. I suspect that the spread of rounds with range in AH is still too tight, though I have absolutely no hard numbers to back me up

Hamish · « **Reply #7 on:** March 16, 2002, 07:18:54 PM »

I think the problem is not so much that the "spread" is off, but merely the ability to set convergence out so far. How many aircraft in ww2 could, or even would set thier convergence to 650 yards. I don't know if people are just not realizing it, but if you fly and shoot with convergence out to 650, your bullets will still be at an "acceptable" convergence out to 1.3k (using the age-old x2 multiplier) I usually set my convergence to 200-250, mainly because my aim sucks, but in Buffs, i use 650. By setting the convergence of a buffs guns out that far, i can be much more lethal, at a much longer range than "historically" possible.

mrsid2 · « **Reply #8 on:** March 16, 2002, 07:31:41 PM »

They say one picture says more than a thousand words..

Well here goes:

Wilbus · « **Reply #9 on:** March 16, 2002, 08:02:11 PM »

ROFLMAO MrSid, and that's not a single hit either, pretty many there

Yeah, BETTER DM!! BETTER DM!!!

streakeagle · « **Reply #10 on:** March 16, 2002, 09:49:15 PM »

And there in lies another problem:

In real life, Buffs didn't have convergence, at least never with more than 2 guns per gunner. Another concession for the MA "gamers" for play balance

Quote

I think the problem is not so much that the "spread" is off, but merely the ability to set convergence out so far. How many aircraft in ww2 could, or even would set thier convergence to 650 yards.

You make it sound as if the pilots could have hit at longer ranges if they had just set their guns for longer convergence ranges. In real-life, pilots set their convergence based on what they could hit accurately not the other way around. For the record, you can achieve convergence at infinity simply by pointing the guns straight ahead, so 650 yards could easily have been set in almost any plane that made provisions for adjustments. The elevation angle is the setting I am not sure about, but I am guessing that this could have been done as well. At the beginning of WW2, the British pointed their 8 x 0.303s every which way hoping to fill the sky with lead until they realized the only way that a 0.303 round would take any modern aircraft down was to concentrate fire.

There were always a few pilots that could snipe at long ranges compared to the others, but by far the majority fired at ranges of 300 yards or less. 500 yards is still considered a long range for air-to-air gunshots even with our modern day uber vulcan cannons and computer sights.

J_A_B · « **Reply #11 on:** March 16, 2002, 09:53:24 PM »

"In aces high, 1000 yard + shots are easy sure fired kills. "

Wow, I want whatever guns your plane has! Silly me, thinking 1K shots were chance shots at best from even 0 deflection that 9 out of 10 times do nothing more than waste ammo. Little did I know that everyone flies around routinely shooting each other at any angle at 1000 yards and never missing. Man, all those guys who almost never hit me at more than 400 yards or so, man they must all suck compared to your 1337 sn1p3r skillz.

Silliness aside, there's a big difference between "easy sure fire kills" and "occasional chance shot from a guy spraying away at near 0 deflection". Real combat pilots don't want to waste ammo; in a game it doesn't really matter. As a result we're more willing to take shots that combat pilots are trained not to attempt.

If the rare 1K shots are really such a pain just make the bullets disappear at 850 yards or so...wait, can't do that either because it's not "realistic" enough. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

J_A_B

BenDover · « **Reply #12 on:** March 16, 2002, 09:53:33 PM »

it may have something to do with the fact you can zoom in so far

and sid, wasn't thats lanc black??

streakeagle · « **Reply #13 on:** March 16, 2002, 11:14:11 PM »

The "zoom" is not the problem. Zoom simulates what you would actually see in terms of size at the cost of field of view, where as the "normal" view is made smaller so you can see a more normal field of view.

Pilots may want to conserve ammo, but they also want to live longer. If they could fire on, hit, and kill unsuspecting targets from their 6 at 1000+ yards, they would have done so. Getting in close enough to hit risks getting spotted, which means having to shoot at a maneuvering target, which means a chance of dying in a dogfight. The whole goal of BVR missiles is to achieve this result.

I know HTC incorporates every bit of documented data they can. But real world engagement limitations (whatever their cause) prevent 1000 yard hits and kills or make them extremely rare. Whereas in AH, they are common. I presently can win several dogfights per 2 or 3 hour session using long range firing tactics. I have only flown about once a week or less for the past several months, so I am very rusty. It is not that I have any skill, it is that the ballistics are that easy.

I have fired a lot of rounds at rifle ranges. I have fired on targets at 500 yards with M-16 and M-14 rifles. To consistently hit a target at that range at all using single shots, you have to lay down prone, control your breathing, and pull the trigger very carefully. Even with a tripod, fully automatic fire will not even come close to this accuracy. An aircraft does not have anywhere near the stability and precision of a rifleman laying prone firing single shots.

Curiously enough, IL-2 has a much more difficult gunnery model despite being based on pretty much the same physical data as AH. I am curious as to what they did differently to make it harder to hit. Did they just throw in some random fudge factor to enhance gameplay? Or have they modeled something more realistically? Who knows?

sling322 · « **Reply #14 on:** March 16, 2002, 11:30:14 PM »

I can hit at ranges of 1000k in a P47....I dont ever do any real damage, but it sure makes the bad guy turn instead of just run. Eventually if he stays straight enough you can snipe away at that range to maybe knock something off.

I think the problem you guys are having has something to do with impotent guns....but dont worry, its a common occurrence among those of the LW persuasion.