Most unrealistic aspect of Aces High.

[jbroey3]

Also, consider the graphics cards. Did you know that until NVidia released the GF3 (non-MX), they only had support for 2 texture stages? What does this mean? Well, for graphics to look realistic, it requires at least 4 texture stages. One for the base texture, one for bump mapping, one for light mapping, and one for specular mapping. Oh, let's not talk about projected shadows, which requires more stages.

IL2 looks just fine in multiplayer, and by far better then aces without the use of advanced pixel shaders etc...  Forgive me, but Whats your point again?

If you are a box game with limited network play, you do not have to be so concerned with this as you know you will have a limited number of objects in view at any given time.

IL2 currently supports up to 32 plane dogfights. This is exactly the same amount of VIEWABLE objects that the Aces High graphics engine draws. The other 32 players (in aces high are shown as dots).

I have no doubt that when the mean CPU is above 1Ghz, AH will look appropriately improved in the graphics area.

I would like to point out that (1.0 and ABOVE Ghz is the Standard Now)

When was the last time that you saw Best Buy/Comp USA/Radio Shack/ selling a Pentium 3 500 mhz?   (exactly)....


I get 85 FRAMES a SECOND(refresh rate limitation) running aces high on a 1.4ghz althlon(not XP+)

THere is obviously PLENTY of room for improvement that can knock the frame rate down to a reasonable 40 fps.



Todays Standard PC is at least 1.0Ghz+ 256megs ram (more likey 512megs)

A Geforce 2 (or higher) 64 meg video card.  with a 13+ Gig harddrive.


Toad in response to your question, I am not saying that ballistically it is impossible for the weapons to travel that far/inflict damage.  

However what I am saying is that The simplicty of hitting a MOVING target with at those distances is more then UNLIKELY, it is almost near im possible. But yet in Aces High, It is as simple as the landings/takeoffs .. cake

[AKSWulfe]

IL2 looks just fine in multiplayer, and by far better then aces without the use of advanced pixel shaders etc... Forgive me, but Whats your point again?

Il-2 also displays objects at less than half the distance as Aces High displays them. This allows them leeway in other areas, oh and the LOD models are less than steller at ranges in Aces High where I can make out the definitive shape of a P38.. in Il-2 they look like washed out crayon drawings.

IL2 currently supports up to 32 plane dogfights. This is exactly the same amount of VIEWABLE objects that the Aces High graphics engine draws. The other 32 players (in aces high are shown as dots).

Supports and does are two different things. Currently the highest # of online players in servers while still achieving good framerates, very little net lag and little to no warping are 8 players... the host being a very high speed connection.

I would like to point out that (1.0 and ABOVE Ghz is the Standard Now)

When was the last time that you saw Best Buy/Comp USA/Radio Shack/ selling a Pentium 3 500 mhz? (exactly)....

Ah, well the standard on the shelves and on people's computer desks are two different things.

Businesses, if they do well, have funds to buy the top of the line PC to sell to the end user at a substantial increase. This in turn means the end user (consumer) must purchase a very expensive product...

I get 85 FRAMES a SECOND(refresh rate limitation) running aces high on a 1.4ghz althlon(not XP+)

THere is obviously PLENTY of room for improvement that can knock the frame rate down to a reasonable 40 fps.

And what about all those people still flying with 600-1.0Ghz PCs? THere isn't plenty of room for improvement for those people. Most of them only get 40fps as their high end framerate.

Todays Standard PC is at least 1.0Ghz+ 256megs ram (more likey 512megs)

A Geforce 2 (or higher) 64 meg video card. with a 13+ Gig harddrive.

Again, maybe on the shelf... but not in people's homes.

However what I am saying is that The simplicty of hitting a MOVING target with at those distances is more then UNLIKELY, it is almost near im possible. But yet in Aces High, It is as simple as the landings/takeoffs

I assume you believe takeoffs/landings are some sort of a complex sequence? Have you ever flown any kind of a plane before? Real life landings and take offs are no harder than flying, you just have to maintain the right rate of descent, speed, flaps down, gear down and you'll be down softer than a babies butt. Of course, if you are using Il-2 as your basis for this assumption I'll tell you right now... that is far from how it works. The flaps aren't even modelled within a lick of correct, and they act as air brakes deploying at any speed.
-SW

[jbroey3]

Il-2 also displays objects at less than half the distance as Aces High displays them. This allows them leeway in other areas, oh and the LOD models are less than steller at ranges in Aces High where I can make out the definitive shape of a P38.. in Il-2 they look like washed out crayon drawings.

Actually this is a far better way, its called creative thinking no? Why require the Graphics engine to draw everything down to a rivet at 5 miles away?  NO point to do so, therefore make stair steps of what is visually identifiable.

And you are far off from saying that the planes are not identifiable, you must be running in 640x480 resolution. Try a higher (standard 1024x768).

Supports and does are two different things. Currently the highest # of online players in servers while still achieving good framerates, very little net lag and little to no warping are 8 players... the host being a very high speed connection.

lol, This is the biggest crock of crap I've heard.
 

Try hyperlobby bud, up to 300 people there nightly, oh and on servers (ACCEPTING up to 32) players with minimal lag issues.

Btw, I have hosted 32 player missions with average pings around 120.   Not an issue is it?...


AKSwulfe As a quick summerization of your previous responses.

I guess you feel that because certain people are using computers that are over 5+ years old (VERY old in computer technology/progression) The advances should not be pressed forth?

Well, I guess with that approach, Aces High will only advance as fast as its SLOWEST customers.

Upgrading when wanting to play an advanced piece of software is surely viable.

If those of you who proclaim support advancment for that of Aces High, why not jump up and upgrade that old 5+ year Cpu so the rest can enjoy an already good game become even greater.

[Skuzzy]

Wulfe pretty much covered the points.

No need to get defensive jbroey.

The information about the NVidia cards was just information.  Most people do not know much about the hardware that drives all this.  It all has limitations.

1.0Ghz is not the mean average computer speed of the typical users desktop today.  I never said a thing about the average of what is being sold today.  It may be another 9 months to a year before 1.0Ghz is the mean average of the desktop and I might be optimistic.
I would also say the mean average video card, in terms of performance, is in the GF2 area.

32 planes viewable still does not take into account that everyone of those dots past 32 planes, is still being processed.  Network packets for those 'dots' are still being sent and received.  Collision detection is still being done.  That is a hefty bit of work for the CPU, which low participation box games do not have to deal with.
Oh, I did not mention IL2, as I have not played it online.  I was talking in general terms about the tradeoffs one makes for higher end graphics versus higher player numbers in an online game.  If those tradeoffs did not exist today IL2 would be a massive online sim, but they do exist.
Hmmm, the reason AH planes look like planes at a distance is called LOD modeling.  Pretty much an accepted way to express a 3D object at a distance.  By using different detail models you can accurately display a plane with only a few polys, but still look like a plane at a far distance.

Sudz:  sorry for bursting your bubble.  BUT you better have that brew ready for the CON, or these guys are going to hang yours truly for creating the problem.

[AKSWulfe]

Actually this is a far better way, its called creative thinking no? Why require the Graphics engine to draw everything down to a rivet at 5 miles away? NO point to do so, therefore make stair steps of what is visually identifiable.

Actually, Aces High uses LOD models too. But they display the actual shape of the aircraft to a T at greater distances. The LOD models in Il-2 draw a larger less refined model at closer distances, thus this makes gunnery a little harder. The part you were aiming for is actually half the size and the DM is no where near it.

The LOD models in Il-2 are reminiscent of Aces Over Europe.

And you are far off from saying that the planes are not identifiable, you must be running in 640x480 resolution. Try a higher (standard 1024x768).

I never said they weren't unidentifiable, but they are very far from resembling their true plane form at distances where I can easily tell the paint scheme of a 109 in Aces High.

Try hyperlobby bud, up to 300 people there nightly, oh and on servers (ACCEPTING up to 32) players with minimal lag issues.

I have. 300 people there nightly huh? Sorry, but not like it is in Aces High. They aren't all in one arena all going at it. They are off in seperate servers. Hyperlobby is simply a 3rd party interface, you think it does any work in the network area? No, it just hooks up for games. I've played games with 13+ players on there, it was simply awful.

Btw, I have hosted 32 player missions with average pings around 120. Not an issue is it?...

I have a 56K modem, I can play Aces High just fine. Il-2 is less than acceptable when the players on that server go over 8.

I guess you feel that because certain people are using computers that are over 5+ years old (VERY old in computer technology/progression) The advances should not be pressed forth?

Well, I guess with that approach, Aces High will only advance as fast as its SLOWEST customers.

Upgrading when wanting to play an advanced piece of software is surely viable.

If those of you who proclaim support advancment for that of Aces High, why not jump up and upgrade that old 5+ year Cpu so the rest can enjoy an already good game become even greater.

Easy for you to say, you got enough cash in that fat wallet of yours to pay for everyone else to upgrade?

No? Aw, too bad. Well how about this, you got enough cash in that wallet to pay for the subscriptions HTC loses from customers who can not afford to upgrade? No? Hmmmm...

Aces High has advanced this far, I'm guessing you weren't here in the beginning so of course you are basing your opinions on your own ignorance.

You take a look at the screenshots from version 1.00, then you'll realise how far they've come in 3 years.

Oh, and Il-2 is far from MMP... it's about as massively multiplayer is as the X-Box is. There's a point at which eye candy needs to be sacrificed for the sake of network coding and speed.
-SW

[Puck]

Ohh...screen shots from 1.0.  Got any?  I'd be interested to see them.  I downloaded AH back when only two or three planes were modeled in Beta, but like an igit I didn't realize I'd be addicted several years later and didn't keep it.

The only think I have to compare this version to is the one I played last december (or so) when I first joined and before I ran out of time to play.

[mudder]

In following these threads in the Aces High BB ( why, dont' I have anything better to do? ) I often find myself in complete agreement with Yeager. What a strange mind he seems to have.
We have dog nose prints on our glass, but i know who put them there. Once, however, she (the dog) skidded across the kitchen  on her nose and left a permanent black mark on the floor

[AKSWulfe]

Puck, the screenshots page that showed the actual development shots (updated every couple of months) is now gone... but when we did have it, you could see what it was like early on.

Of course, if you want to picture AH as it was then... all you have to do is strap yourself in a C.202. The cockpit is relatively simple verse the new ones. Compare the cockpits and models of the P51B and P51D, should be pretty easy to tell which one is newer.

Here's a Typhoon flying over a beta terrain...

Notice how barren it is? When you get down low, there's only low res shrubs and bushes... can't see 'em in this screenshot, but the trees we have now are much higher res and detailed.

No clouds(introduced 1.03), no cloud layers either (the ones that blanket an entire sector), no sunrise/sunset (introduced 1.03), no explosions with debri, no fire!, .303 muzzle flashes were the same size as the .50 muzzle flashes, no high res texture when you get close to the ground, See that field in the background? That's what large fields use to look like.

If you really wanna get an idea of how far they've come, get ready to read. Go to the News & Announcements forum, on the pull down option select show threads from the beginning and go to the last page. Start there and work your way to present.

It was so simple in the beginning, and it's gotten so much more complex since then while staying as a relatively small download.
-SW

[Roscoroo]

I have no idea where jbroey3 is basing his info from except for perhaps latest pc sales of the last month , but from my recent experience of the transition of a 70 player online squadron from Fighter ace 2.5 a 19 mb sim w/the same reqirements as AH  to a 260 mb monster Fighter ace 3 with requirements of a super pc to play .

I have seen about 10 players go over to that game out of the 70 .and out of those 10 i know 4 of them had to add hardware to play it .I believe about all of us tried it .

so around 85% of this group has pc's that are slower then 600 mhz and cant play that game . so what does this say about the average pc in the sim world ??  my evaluation is based on the last 2 months for as fighter ace 2.5 is in its last month , and FA3 is a sub now w/ no free rooms (who wants to pay for a game that u cant play) now this is the reality of online sims and the average pc user is still under 800mhz  (says alot doesn't it )
 
P.s I'm an XO in this squadron and ive addicted about 20 players to this game from there . muhahahahaa  (I need to bribe the others with flight lessons to i guess )

[Toad]

Well, I guess you did confuse me then. Because in your FIRST post you said:

Originally posted by jbroey3
3. Just to RE-Itterate, the OVER SIMPLIFIED AMMO damage/Ability to damage another plane from SUCH RANGES with specific types of ammo. (It is not realistic, nor is it even remotely accurate from a ballistics standpoint).

I took the comment about ballistics to mean that you thought it wasn't even remotely accurate from a BALLISTICS standpoint, which, as you now admit, is quite ludicrous as a generalization.

("ballistics" as defined by Webster primarily with respect to definition "b""

"A: the science of the motion of projectiles in flight
B : the flight characteristics of a projectile")


Of course, then you said:
 

Originally posted by jbroey3
Toad in response to your question, I am not saying that ballistically it is impossible for the weapons to travel that far/inflict damage.  

However what I am saying is that The simplicty of hitting a MOVING target with at those distances is more then UNLIKELY, it is almost near im possible. But yet in Aces High, It is as simple as the landings/takeoffs .. cake

... which sort of indicates to me NOW that you DO agree that BALLISTICALLY the guns modeled in AH do indeed have the capability to send projectiles 1000+ yards and to inflict damage, including major damage, on WW2 type aircraft when they hit, thus correcting your previous mis-spoken generalization.

Now, however, you've changed your generalization to say that "it's too easy to hit a moving target at that range in AH", because it should be "near impossible".

Do I understand your new position correctly? That it should be "near impossible" to hit a moving target (an aircraft) at 1000 yards using the the MG's and Cannon modeled in AH?


 If so, I'd like to continue to discuss it with you. If I am misunderstanding you again, please let me know.

Thanks.

[jbroey3]

Hello Toad,

 You are partially correct on what you have understood on what i said initially. I do see that the way I worded my statement left open many possiblities for interpretation.

here is a Clarification that the user "Tac" has already previously mentioned.

It sums up quite nicely (although not all of what I was speaking about)

please read...

Its not the guns, its the laser range finder icon.

IMO, there should be no rangefinder below 2k distance. It should be replaced by a "+" or "-" to signify you are gaining on it (+) or losing ground (-).

Try turning your enemy icons off when you are about to attack a buff. You will notice your aim will be waay off when you guess range. Also, when deflection shooting a con, even if he's inside d1.0, if you have no icons, chances are you will miss constantly. Why? Because people dont WATCH the plane, they watch the icon and glance at the plane to see where its manouvering towards. The major and only image used to decide how much lead to put is the rangefinder.

Without the laser range finder you have to get in CLOSE, inside d200 and at a good firing position or you will miss completely. I find THAT to be very realistic. I LOVE iconless fights, there's no sniping, very little HO's, ACM is intense as you lose sight of your opponent and he of you.. and you end up in a series of engage/disengage to reacquire visual... and of course, the BOUNCE is there!

In Addition to this, my ballistics standpoint holds firm, with the understanding that at Such ranges, and the limited planform of the target that is being attacked, I see in aces high, NO EVIDENCE of rochocheting of projectiles occurs.

However in IL2 I do see this. The combination of mass/inertial energy of the round reaching the target does hold substantial load, however, the Forces, and the angles at which the rounds "hit" the plane (aces high) I see no differential effect of point blank compared to D1.2K yards away.

I hope that this clears this up.  If not, then.. well perhaps im wording it wrong again.

[Nath[BDP]]

You'll not accomplish anything this way Nath. My advice is to wait until HiTech is on-line and assault him with a barrage of insults, accusations and total lack of respect. Then and only then can we enjoy the relative peace that the last 6 months has brought us.

I had no idea I was that instrumental in ruining the game for you; I shall continue.

[AKSWulfe]

In Il-2 there is only a single plane which I've seen rounds richochet off- and that is the Il-2 due to it's armor. It's also limited to the 7.7mm rounds on the German side.

I've fired .303s from a LaGG-3 into Bf-109s at ranges very far out. Instead of richochets, I saw the hit debri falling away from the aircraft.

I wouldn't say that just because Il-2 has richochets the way it models weapons is better or realistic... especially since they seem to only come off of one of the planes in Il-2.
-SW

[jbroey3]

In Il-2 there is only a single plane which I've seen rounds richochet off- and that is the Il-2 due to it's armor. It's also limited to the 7.7mm rounds on the German side.

At least your trying to AKWulfe.

Are you in some form of denial by any chance? Just wondering.

[tofri at work]

Originally posted by SUPERFLY
Yeah, this game sucks.  Why are we all playing it?

Just for these cool squad icons, we could add to our planes.