Time for a new arena

[lazs1]

the real problem of an HA is basic and has been ignored by all the "historic" crowd.

In A real HA, the only way to have an HA is to have one person in charge and he will order the "missions".   If you don't have missions and finger fours and such then nothing you do from then on will be anything like historic.   These things are step one and allways ignored except in scenarios.
lazs

[Toad]

Originally posted by funkedup:
100% accurate flight models are a pipe dream.[ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]

WHAT?  

Say it ain't so, Shoeless Joe!

What about WW2OL?

Why, I read right here on these boards that WW2OL was going to be the absolute final word in flight models! You mean it didn't turn out that way?

I'd wager next month's paycheck that most of the folks yammering about "reality" have few if any hours actually flying an aircraft.

It's a GAME, not a SIMULATION. Once you can get your mind around that and be at peace with it, you can have a really, really outstanding time playing it. (...and for those of you whose fingers are even now twitching while waiting to type a reply, please start your post with how many hours you have in an actual FAA or Military accredited flight SIMULATOR... thx)

[R4M]

Originally posted by lazs1:
the real problem of an HA is basic and has been ignored by all the "historic" crowd.

In A real HA, the only way to have an HA is to have one person in charge and he will order the "missions".   If you don't have missions and finger fours and such then nothing you do from then on will be anything like historic.   These things are step one and allways ignored except in scenarios.
lazs

Well, most of us have our squad to wing with, and is easy to coordinate with other squads. noone needs to tbe the boss in such an arena.

HA with bar dar extending 1 sector away from the most near field, no dot dar, and no bar dar for cons under 500 feet.

HA with accurate FMs and GMs. No gameplay concessions whatsoever.

HA with enemy icons under 4K, with "bar" rangefinder (not numeric laser rangefinders). The icons in WWIIOL are the best for an HA IMO.

HA with RPS, historical matchups, no perk system.

HA with NO comat trim, NO auto-fuel tank selector, NO engine EZ-mode, etc

HA with REALISTIC head movement limits.

HA with DECENT AAA IA, not the fortune teller gunners in MA.

etc etc etc.


BTW some people use the events as an excusse and ignore the basic fact: Not everyone can make it to the events, NOT all the events are of the same interest for hte people...and over all events take a very small time of the total paytime of AH.

He who pays for AH, pays 30$/month, no 30$/12 official special event sessions. There are 30 days a month, with 24 hours each day. Not 12 days with 12 events of 2-3 hours each, with a schedule that for some people is hard to attend.

Its an easy case of difference between what some people want and what does AH offer.

Toad, you say this is a GAME not a SIMULATOR. if both are so different things why the oposition to a HA where it is a SIMULATION, and not so much of a GAME?.

[ 08-03-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]

[Nifty]

first of all, and most important...  fix the semantics of what you're asking for.  Lazs is right, you're not asking for a "Historic" arena.  You're asking for a Axis vs Allied arena (only two sides I'm assuming, and not breaking the Axis and Allied into their component countries) with different radar and icon settings.  Lazs is not saying anything against having a separate arena with different settings (well, in the post a few above mine anyways.)  All he is saying is you're asking for a "Historic" arena without it actually being historic, save for it being axis vs allied.  Don't even start bringing that other horrible word in either, i.e. "realism."  The problem is that both words seem to be used almost interchangeably when it comes to arena setups.  Also, both words are objective, yet they tend to be very subjective when it comes to this game (mostly due to game limitations and mechanics.)  You are looking for "immersion," which has so many levels, and is completely subjective.

Anyways, get what you REALLY want (such as what Beegerite did) specifically, and go from there.  Just saying we want a "historic arena" isn't gonna cut it.    

[ 08-03-2001: Message edited by: Nifty ]

[DeeZCamp]

please start your post with how many hours you have in an actual FAA or Military accredited flight SIMULATOR... thx)

Well I have about 5 in an OFFICAL FAA approved miltimillion$$ Full virtual reality,Hydraulic sim. THE B-2A STEALTH BOMBER Whiteman AFB.

You know what the funny thing is, A little sim called X-plane does the same that flight propogation as that one.

 

If it would ever be possible to model anything per particle (hmm maybe more on an element level.. YIKES!), it simply wouldn't be worth it

I know of a program.. and so do you that does this on an element level.  You willing to try it yet?

 

Yep, start up an "ultra-realistic" arena designed by some guys that have no ratings at all and 10 hours in the backseat of somebody else's airplane.

wow toad you are truely amazing on your elitist, narrow focused, and ignorant comments.

I guess someone like my self with a measly 30 hrs of flight time, has no idea of what flight is about, nor any understanding of what Feels realistic, or gives a good impression of realism.  

According to your ignorant, snot-ass, remark, I guess you feel that because of all your o0o0o experince you feel you must suddenly know more about what IS more realistic.

I guess you just know more toad, With your logic I guess anyone who has in some form or way an ACCREDITED form of acceptance they are obviously better versed in the subject at hand.  

So in short that is like saying someone who has a college degree is more intelligent than someone who doesn't.  

give me a break...

[AKSWulfe]

DeeZ, what elements?
-SW

[AKSWulfe]

I sure hope you are not referring to these elements:
"1: Element Break-Down
Done only once during initialization, X-Plane breaks the wing(s), horizontal stabilizer, vertical stabilizer(s), and propeller(s) (if equipped) down into a finite number of elements. The number of elements is decided by the user in Plane-Maker. Eight elements is the maximum, and studies have shown that this provides roll rates and accelerations that are very close to the values that would be found with a much larger number of elements."

Maybe you are using their definition of elements.

I am referring to the true definition, you know the table of elements.
. The basic thing you learn in science class.

I clearly stated elements in the atmospheric model. THat does not include plane parts, and calling them "elements". I mean the atoms that make up the atmosphere.

Please stop plugging this software when you don't even understand what it's doing, except for what you read on the website.
-SW

[ 08-03-2001: Message edited by: SWulfe ]

[DeeZCamp]

The problem with your post Wulf is you have not the ground to stand on to hold up your words. You have yet to try te program,... and untill you do... well you talk of defense for HTC.. thats great.

THE FACT IS X-PLANE HAS A MORE REALISTIC FLIGHT MODEL... try it and FIND out..

then TALK... DO not TALK about IT UNTIL YOU TRY IT and MAKE a COMPARISON.

That is the bottom line.

I have compared the two... Version X is more realistic flight wise.

What have you compared?

[Serapis]

In a truly historical Axis vs Allied arena, of course, people would have to adjust to flying many different aircraft for different countries. I assume that everyone supporting this type of arena would have no problem with that -- trading the FW for a Yak when numbers balance dictates for example. And, of course, there is the Pacific air war which will be in place 50 percent of the time.

Personally, I have no problem with this. I can even role play the Axis side a bit, regardless of the strong revulsion I feel for the banal evil these countries projected on the world. People who are ture fans of history, and not overly fixated on one side of the conflict or even one particular plane, will have no problem with this concept. Of course, sim history suggests (AW for example) that most people will stay in the MA doing what they have become accustomed to, leaving a HA empty. I suspect that this will be true even with many of this board's "history buffs," when the history gets beyond the narrow scope of their interests. Too bad, but giving it a try for a tour or two would certainly put an end to the speculation.

For my part, after flying primarily the Spit in the last tour as I got used to AH (It suits my impatient fighting style, even with its many disadvantages),  my goal this tour is to try to become an Ace in each aircraft in the MA, and take part in the historical events (as often as I can as my wedding approaches), flying wherever my presence would do the most good for the historical recreation.

Charon

[AKSWulfe]

Originally posted by DeeZCamp:
I have compared the two... Version X is more realistic flight wise.

What have you compared?

Compared what? Feel? Give me a break.

The only thing you compared is what is written on the website. It sounded better, therefore you thought it was better. Oh, yeah and you thought it "felt" better.

Whatever, I'm done with you in this thread. This is about an HA, not your silly idea of what is better despite your lack of checking the data versus real world performance.
-SW

[AKcurly]

As several have pointed, historians can't agree, so why do we expect the sim participants to agree?

Funked just posted an old interview with HTC and HTC mentioned 'rolling planesets' as a possible addition.  That would be fun, but we really don't have the planeset do we? Aren't most  of the birds late war models?  Sure would be fun though!

Concerning DAR and icons, guys, they're gameplay concessions and while HTC may fine tune them, they are not going away.  Login some morning around 4 A.M. CST and you'll find 25 Aussies/Asians in the arena.  Can you imagine them trying to find a fight w/o DAR?

Getting rid of DAR (the dots) works great in scenarios.  You have specific objectives, the bad guys know your objective and position themselves to prevent your success.

After thinking about all of this (including Fester's poll), I am convinced of the following:

1) An arena w/o dot-dar would be a disaster in times of low player density.

2) Rolling planesets require a substantial enhancement to our current planeset.

3) Icons could be tuned ... but think about this.  Many of the current participants are first-time participants.  You can tell a new guy "shoot your guns around 300 yards" and he/she can follow those instructions, but anything else would be unworkable for the newbies.  I guess we could try to talk HTC into the following: Give all participants with less than 20 hours of flight time icons out to 6k with distance attached.  After 20 hours of flight time, change the icons in some way (maybe reduced size w/o distance markers.)

I dunno guys -- from my very limited perspective, HTC is a well-tuned engine humming along.  Why attempt to repair something that isn't broken?  Many of the suggestions in this thread would make AH completely unplayable for large segments of the globe (time -- population) and unreasonably difficult for new guys.

I have an idea!  Take out your pocket knife and cut your left arm in 4 different places.
Spend 95% of your free time picking scabs off the healing wounds.  Spend the other 5% of your free time in SEA w/o icons or DAR.

Hell, we'll all be a lot happier and if you're really faithful, the wounds will never heal and you'll have constant entertainment!

AKcurly

[funkedup]

I don't want to start another "Dogpile on Deezcamp" but I can't resist.  He hijacked my thread, so he deserves it.  

B-2 flying wing is not at all comparable to WW2 piston jobs.  Furthermore it's completely fly-by-wire with artificial feel on all controls.  The feel of the B-2 simulator is... whatever the engineers wanted you to feel.    

[ 08-03-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]

[AKSWulfe]

Oh geez, I just noticed Deez going off on Toad.

You are a fool for that Deez, Toad has much MUCH MUCH more experience than you do.

I WOULD digress to Toad's comments Deez, Toad is a very smart man.
-SW

[Toad]

Ram,

Find a post where I ever said I was opposed to a HA.

Want to wager on whether or not you can find one?

Check my signature... it applies to arenas as well.

You may remember from some of the earlier threads... I'm the guy the DOESN'T try to make everyone fly the way I think they should.

 

[Toad]

Well, Deez, then how does your 5 hours in the B-2 sim compare to any $2000 desktop PC running a flight game? How's the keyboard compare to the actual cockpit switch layout mockup in a time/motion way? How does the 19" monitor compare to every window actually showing what you could see from the plane? How does the desk chair compare to six-axis motion?

...and you are right Deez. After reading some of the garbage you've posted, I've come to the conclusion that your massive 30 hours of flight time, some of it just riding along with a rated pilot, has left you with little idea of what flight is about, nor any but a minimalist understanding of what Feels realistic, or even gives you a good impression of realism.

I'm not too impressed by 30 hours, most of it just along for the ride. IIRC, your logged dual time is under 10 hours?

So another 30 dual/solo logged and you'd be eligible for a private license so you could actually BEGIN to learn about flying.

Because getting a private ticket IS just the beginning.  Ask around... you'll find that's a pretty universally held view.

Not elitist enough for ya?

I'd rather be elitist in this sense than be a smug "know-it-all about flying" after my massive 10 hours of instruction and 20 hours of joyriding with others.

No, Deez, here's the difference between you and me. After flying professionally and recreationally for the last 29 years I realize that I DON'T "know it all about flying".

This one cracked me up though...

According to your ignorant, snot-ass, remark, I guess you feel that because of all your o0o0o experince you feel you must suddenly know more about what IS more realistic.

Why would I think that flying airplanes for 28 years would give me ANY idea at all about what it really feels like to fly airplanes?

At least you finally wrote a line that really made me laugh!