Time for a new arena

[Creamo]

I did a RTS on a MD80 for a AT/SC disco last night TOAD, and let me tell ya, them controls were possessed movin around and all by themselves! You got 28 years watching them do that?!   (Thats a inside joke btw...)

Piss off R4metzasst. WWIIOL needs the "General" back.

--

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

[Toad]

Nah, Creamo, I've spent 28 years with my feet up on the dash dreaming about the day X-Plane would be available to the masses on a $600 PC. I always fly with my eyes closed so realism won't intrude.

 

[DeeZCamp]

The feel of the B-2 simulator is... whatever the engineers wanted you to feel.

I guess then, if you are right funked up, we are putting UNTRAINED pilots into the REAL DEAL.

You See funked, I was in the Air Force, and At Whiteman, The pilots would goto what is called FTD. "Field Training Detachment." THIS is where the PILOTS of the B-2 Were trained on ALL system functions of the B-2 Oprations.
 They were then Taken to the Avionics sections, where we have the Multimillion $ simulators for their HANDS ON TRAINING.  This TRAINING is what they would do PRIOR to even stepping into the plane. Untill they became Proficent with their assigned mission commander,the plane,and the Technical orders that describes everything down to wiping your oscar, the pilot would not fly the real deal.

THE simulation is About as real as it gets.
IT is the actual crew compartment,every display,dial,knob,button,safty switch, everything down to even the ejection seats (obviously explosives removed). when you look out of the windows, you see the world, a complete SGI wonder. NO split screens. IT is a single wrapped view of the world. Complete periphal vision, with full motion hydraulic actuation.

You know what Simulation replicates this almost to the tee?  If you dont know by know its most likely because you havnt tried it.


 

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

 Wulf  YOU ARE REDICULOUS. YOU MUST BE THE MOST THICK HEADED INDIVIDUAL IN THE ENTIRE WORLD. YOU SEEM TO BE SUB-IDIOT.

IF YOU ARE SO WILLING TO TRY AND PROVE YOUR POINT WITH THIS FLIGHT MODEL CRAP. WHY ARE YOU SO UNWILLING TO TRY X THEN??  IF YOU ARE SO RIGHT (AND SURE OF IT) then.........DISPROVE ME.

WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO LOSE??????????
YOU HAVE NOTHING TO STAND ON. TRY SOMEHTING BEFORE YOU JUDGE IT... IF YOU DO NOT TRY IT, YOU ARE THEN A HYPOCRITE THEN TALKING of only WHAT YOU "FEEL"


IT IS SIMPLE.

YOUR POINT IS ABOUT AS VALID AS DIRT.

here is an  example of your thought.


"person a asks person B.. "do you like pepsi?"  Person B says "NO"
Person A says.. "Have you tried it"
Person B says.. "NO"

WHERE IS PERSON B'S REASONING?? THErE IS NONE... THERE is ALSO NO FACTOR OF WILLINGNESS TO PUT ANY SUBSTANCE INTO YOUR DEFENSE.

WALK THE WALK DONT JUST TALK YOUR TALK.

[DeeZCamp]

Toad you know what .. I HAVE NEVER ONCE  said that I know everything about flight.

So dont put words in my mouth.

I could care less if you have been flying for 150 years. Through all of your years what have you learned? Something new each day right?

But guess what... ARE YOU SEEING NOW that FLIGHT PHYSICS or the FEEL OF FLIGHT HAS CHANGED?

NO....

SITUATIONS as well as  new expericences BUT THE UNDERSTANDING of HOW FLIGHT FEELS is the same.

Maybe in your case you have been actually desensitized to it becuase it is almost habit to you. TO YOU it may seem no more special than getting into your car and heading to the nearest WALMART.  

Sorry BUT your TIME THEORY doesnt hold up as to what ONE can and is capable of feeling.

Heres a simple anology for you.

Thats almost like saying you know more about how eating a peice of apple pie tastes/feels just because you have been doing it longer.

Gimme break,... You may know more about the apple pie, and ways to eat it, but Feeling, and taste is still the same.

 

This CAN be applied to anything... Want to try Bicycles?

[Toad]

Won't wash, Deez, but nice try.

You think or know or assume that you are now totally familiar with flight physics and flight feel after 10 hours of instruction and 20 hours of riding along?

Talk to me again when you have 200 minimum. That's a generally accepted milestone where pilots are assumed to have a beginning understanding of what they are doing.

As our old UPT instructors told us when we left with our shiny new wings... "You've got 225 hours... just enough to go kill yourselves with style."

If I think back to all the things I "knew" about "flying physics and feel" when I had 10 hours of stick time and 20 hours of riding along, I laugh out loud at how misinformed I was.

Enjoy your pie! I'm outta here.

[Karnak]

DeeZCamp,

Back off man.  You're only antagonizing people.

As far as having done it more, meaning that you are more familiar with it, that is the general way that things work.

If it isn't, then go grab a bicycle and win some competitions against stunt bike riders, mountain bike races and street races.

What you setup with your pie and bicycle suggestion is a strawman argument.  It had no bearing on the discussion at hand.

You are, in fact, quite clueless as to what realistic is.  You may, or may not have a good idea of what a realistic flight model is, I don't know.  But other than that you, and most of these other "realism" nuts, are staggeringly clueless.

1.  You assume that crude graphics and a 19" monitor provide as much information as SA as reality provides to a pilot.  You do this by repeatedly demanding that icons be turned off.

2.  You assume that radar in WWII had very poor control and accuracy.  The fact is that radar was very accurate in WWII.  In fact, it provided more information than we are now privided.  True, I would love for a true simulation to be modeled.  That would remove the dot-dar and replace it with audible information being given to you by the program.  Information provided would be : Range to target, altitude of target, heading of target, speed of target and bearing of target. I have no idea how many wave files that would take, but it would be an impressive ammount.  That is a system that I would like.

3.  You seem to arrogantly assume that AH is set to easy mode and there is a realistic mode hidden in the software somewhere.  I've seen no evidence of HTC intentionally dumbing down the FM in AH.

About X-Plane:  I will try it when it models a WWII aircraft that I have spent enough time in other simulators to tell the difference.  Last I saw it modeled many civilian aircraft, the P-51D, Bf109 and then weird bellybutton German aircraft like the Do335 that no game models.  As the P-51 and Bf109 are not high on my flight list, the differences would be transparent.

About the WWIIonline range indicator: A friend of mine, who does not play flight sim games, bought WWIIonline and after tanking for awhile, took a Spit up.  After downing a 109 his take on the bar was that it was the "hit point" bar of the 109 and as he had progressivly damage it, the bar had shrunk.  Newbies find that system confusing at least some of the time.

[funkedup]

Deezcamp you missed my point.  What I'm saying is that the control feel in the REAL B-2 is completely artificial.  It's generated by a computer.  It's got nothing to do with the control feel on a WWII prop job.  

Saying that Sim A's WWII prop jobs feel more like the B-2 simulator than Sim B's WWII prop jobs is about as meaningful as saying, "My cat's breath smells like cat food."

 

THE simulation is About as real as it gets.
IT is the actual crew compartment,every display,dial,knob,button,safty switch, everything down to even the ejection seats (obviously explosives removed). when you look out of the windows, you see the world, a complete SGI wonder. NO split screens. IT is a single wrapped view of the world. Complete periphal vision, with full motion hydraulic actuation.

You know what Simulation replicates this almost to the tee? If you dont know by know its most likely because you havnt tried it.

Please tell me, because I really want to try it.  I will eat my hat if there is a PC simulator which has ANY of the features you listed.

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

[Zigrat]

a b2 is a flying wing with fly by wire control. its flight characteristics won't even closely resemble a ww2 fighter.

[DeeZCamp]

Toad.. I am not disputing with you that you have more EXPERIENCE in flight with me. You have been flying for 29 years thats a long time. YOU have had all the time in the world plus some to understand how each of the aircraft you have either controlled, or sat in feels when in flight.

What I am saying is this.. IT does not take much time at all in order for a person to be FAMILIAR and have a knowledgeable undstanding of what is occuring around them.

I agree with your Instructor, And I agree with what you are saying about THE EXPERIENCE PART.. this is only applicable as to what/how you have to do in order to fully understand your Plane and how IT REACTS so in that you are going to survive.

BEING a passanger, operator or otherwise, will give anyone an EXCELLENT IDEA of how things are occuring around them. IF YOU DISPUTE THIS, then it may be that you do not feel(interpret environmental forces/factors apllied to yourself) a self anylization.

 

Please tell me, because I really want to try it. I will eat my hat if there is a PC simulator which has ANY of the features you listed

Funked, As far as flight model goes... X-plane has the most realistic feel/reaction/and as well visual indication of how an aircraft reacts in flight.(not the graphics) for PC

It was a 99.999999999999 representation of the aircraft I have flown in RL, as well as the Multimillion B-2 simulation

Flat out simple.. bottom line.         (people are going to debate this) Most likey people who have never even tried X-plane.


I have mentioned this a quintillion times, but you can download and even create the aircraft that are in aces and do comparison.
 www.x-plane.org  www.x-plane.com

Now the graphix are only as good as you want to make it.  so don be turned off from that.

If you want to see how the graphix are good and even better than this in some aspects look here  

xplane and aces pics

this is just a me262.

I am looking to put a video together that will reflect upon the aerodynamic forces applied to x-planes surfaces while in flight, as well as when a departure from controlled flight occurs.

[SirLoin]

Back to original topic..I would lovr to see another arena..It's most fun when numbers are around 50-100 anyway.

[715]

I think this thread was about a historical arena so I'll address that (not that I think anyone wants to listen mind you    

Warbirds had (and I assume still has) a historical arena.  Why not discuss how it played?  My recollections were that I really liked the WB HA BoB arena.  The 200 ft tall neon billboards of the MA turn me off.  The lack of icons in the HA greatly uppped the "pucker" factor and good SA was necessary to prevent being jumped without ever seeing your enemy (like RL).  That being said there are lots of disadvantages of the HA:

1) The number of players in the HA was often low (or even zero).

2) It has to be historical Axis vs Allies so that you know what planes are enemy.  But that means someone has to fly Axis.  I never would- and I recall that occasionally there was a scarcity of Axis players.

3) No radar worked OK in the BoB terrain.  But in that terrain, it is almost obvious where the fight would be: Axis would come from Calais, Allies from Dover.  It wasn't hard to find a fight.  The HA sometimes used a more spread out terrain to simulate Russia.  In that terrain it was quite a pain to find a fight.

I found that the WB HA was a lot of fun.  SA was important.  Much more of the radio traffic was "historical"- ie reporting on enemy sightings, and less was whining.  Wingman tactics were more critical.  It "felt" more like what one would imagine air combat to be.   I would certainly try an AH HA (thats Aces High Historical Arena, not Ah Ha!)... that is, if I still had an AH account.  I doubt that it would be difficult to create such an arena- its just another arena with some different settings that are already implemented.  I don't think it would seriously impact the MA so why not try it?  But the drawbacks might mean that it would be a failure in that only a few people would chose to fly there.

715

[ 08-03-2001: Message edited by: 715 ]

[lazs1]

715... that is the way I recall the WB Hope for Action arena to have been.   You were rarely surprised at wether a con was friend or foe and usually everyone would warn u anyhow.   The times it was harder was at the bases when you knew some of each were around but it was still pretty easy.  

I actually did about the same or better in the HA environment and enjoyed myself when everyone was taking off from two or three fields that were close together..  Just like the MA... people went where the people were.

When it got bad was when the faster planes came out and everyone hid from everyone else or the fields were many and spread out,  those setups were, not coincidentaly, soon deserted.   alt monkeys.   No action.  missions that nobody but the mission guys cared about.   Tanks of fuel burned (WB tanks at that) without firing a shot.

I would probly go into the HA once every couple of weeks for an hour or so during early war periods.   I would have fun or leave.   I certainly never felt elite and I certainly never fought anyone who seemed better than the best in the MA.   Most were worse.   The lack of numbers did make for a more "polite" arena tho but that is not a big deal to me.   I never felt anymore of a sense of realism or "history" in the arena it was still as gamey as any other just with less plane choice.   It was nice that planes had to come down to see what I was tho.

There were still guys who fought and guys who only fought when they thought they had every tiny little advantage covered.   the guys over or defending the fields were still the most fun and the weiners still complained about the HA being too much fun for those guys... "HA was nothing but a big furball last night... boo hoo".

that's what I recall.
lazs

[Gadfly]

Here is an interesting fact, tested and true about Radar in an online flight sim environment:

With no radar, or very short range radar, the fight actually becomes tighter!  Laz's optimal furball arena would actually work better with no radar!

Strange but true.

[Hooligan]

Gadfly:

That would be a very interesting point if you were not completely wrong.

However you state it as if it were fact.  Please present your proof so that I may be corrected.

Hooligan

[Hooligan]

Why should HTC make an HA?

Well I can think of some reasons.

Pros
1)  A number of current customers may become more satisfied.
2)  It may attract some new (possibly re-attract prior) customers
3)  Cut down annoying whining on the BBS

Cons
1)  It takes work away from other projects (i.e. new planes) which might have higher payoffs for HTC

My observations of the WB HA experience is that the pros simply do not come to pass.  Instead of current customers who would prefer an HA becoming satisfied, in actuality they become less satisfied.  The HA is usually very poorly populated and its fans complain loudly and endlessly about it.  Furthermore, the loud ones do not stop trying to force HA-style changes on the MA.  In fact some of the will additionally try to force MA closure so that the HA becomes more populated.

Maybe there is an HA configuration that will satisfy these customers.  But frankly I really doubt it.  All that is likely to happen is that HTC will go to some effort (which could be spent profitably elsewhere) trying to please a relatively small subset of their customers, and the end result will be that the customers become more displeased, more whiny and more demanding.

Funked:  I need to know, do you honestly disagree with what I just said?

Hooligan