Author Topic: Realism versus gameplay  (Read 833 times)

Offline Obear1971

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 131
Realism versus gameplay
« Reply #45 on: April 15, 2002, 04:13:30 AM »
Personally, i think the gunnery is about as good as it should be.

It still makes you work for that kill, its not exactly hitting a barn door with a banjo, but at the same time its not so unforgiving to make air combat in AH less rewarding.

I understand there are many hard core flyers out there that want a real chalange and want EVERYTHING to be %100 acurate.

But as with any bussness, you need to cater for the masses, not just the elite few. AH is a steap learning curve as it is, we loose alot of flyers in there first 2 week trial, but if you start making the whole ablility of getting kills harder than ever, we would have even more fresh blood leave after 2 weeks and maybe quite a few of the exsisting ones who are not so HOT with their aiming.

I concider myself to be fairly good, but if i found i wansent hitting anything it would really spoilt the game for me.(prob would never happen cos im an ACE :)  )

As will all online games, the balance has to be between what is realistic and what works for the masses.

Some may well want a more REALISTING gunnary, but is it going to be practicle.?

Offline beet1e

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7848
Realism versus gameplay
« Reply #46 on: April 15, 2002, 04:32:25 AM »
What happened in WW2 is academic. AH needs to be playable on a PC platform. We have different monitors with different resolutions. And as a recent poll has shown, the AH membership spans all ages. It’s OK for some young whipper-snappers to say that no icons is the only way to go. But old gits like me cannot see the planes without some sort of external guidance. One of the reasons I left WB3 alone was that planes didn’t begin to look like planes till 200 yards. Even in AH I still miss shots on a bogie who is flying against a grey background (rock, for example), simply because I can’t see the actual plane.

Colour differentiation is difficult for some of us. I really appreciate the way AH makes all enemy icons RED, and not some other colour. This makes the numbers easier to read. I have no trouble seeing red on green.

No icons may be more realistic to some, but unplayable to others. I am in the second group. So for me, I’m afraid that No Icons = Account Cancellation, regardless of perceived realism or any other ideals.

Offline Don

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 898
Realism versus gameplay
« Reply #47 on: April 15, 2002, 02:52:23 PM »
>>.50 caliber AP or incendiary rounds make visible hit flashes at 800+ yards? <<


Not for me ...ever.

Offline Hristo

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1150
Realism versus gameplay
« Reply #48 on: April 15, 2002, 03:08:52 PM »
If you wanna see what it is like to be fired at from d2.0, grab a 262. Guaranteed every dweeb and his brother will spray from those distances. Personal record was a P47 firing from d2.5 my 6 ;)

Offline Higgins

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 62
Realism versus gameplay
« Reply #49 on: April 15, 2002, 03:22:04 PM »
Hi guys.  I've been on FA1.5 and AH for some time now and I've had a complete blast with a lot of you folks.  I usually spend my time (short now) in the CT because I prefer the historical matchups to the open planeset.  I ran AH for the longest time with a PII233 at around 12-15 FPS under normal circumstances to 4 in a fight or smoke but it still been the most rewarding game out there.  Anyhow...I upgraded recently to a PIII733 and can fly at 50+ FPS most times.....the gunnery got a whole lot easier and I could turn up the resolution a bit....I went ahead and bought IL2 recently and I have to admit...man the graphics are great...the FM im not sure about but I just run the game in Quickmission mode and film it just to re-run the film from all the planes.....its just plain awsome.  Im not not supporting one or the other since they are 2 seperate program styles ect. but I can't really think of one bad thing about IL2 except its too damn hard to hit anything.  Im not sure about actual gunnery in WWII in real life, but if it was as hard as IL2 I wouldn't have gotten any kills before I eventually augered at some point.  Im taking a break from AH for a bit but its been a hell of a good time with you all.  Cya another time.

Higgins_Mskt

Offline Don

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 898
Realism versus gameplay
« Reply #50 on: April 15, 2002, 03:24:12 PM »
>>Don, go ahead and turn off the icons when you're chasing a con and you get inside d1.0 <<

Tac:
Once I'm within in guns range I focus on the nme a/c and not on the icon. If I'm doing things right, he will eventually fill my windscreen and I will blast him. A long range shot is desperation; kinda like marking him just in case he augers so I can get the kill or assist ; a waste IMO.

I use deflection a lot cuz, I know nme is there but under my nose somewhere. I use view keys til I acquire nme and can anticipate where he will move; then I take my shot. Like most deflection shots, it's a best guess kinda deal. In these cases, range icons don't mean anything, which is the point I was making.
Hehe, call me crazy but, that what I learned about acm a long time ago. ;)

Offline MrLars

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1447
Realism versus gameplay
« Reply #51 on: April 15, 2002, 05:02:35 PM »
Baaaaaa, just perk ALL the planes w/ .50's and Hispanos...perking anything will fix it!  :rolleyes:

Offline -ammo-

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5124
Realism versus gameplay
« Reply #52 on: April 15, 2002, 05:42:17 PM »
I will some of those great fights we had Higgins.
Commanding Officer, 56 Fighter Group
Retired USAF - 1988 - 2011

Offline smack

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 20
      • http://www.airwarrioronline.com
Realism versus gameplay
« Reply #53 on: May 05, 2002, 01:29:22 AM »
My 2 Cents.

Well if you ask me you want realism first thing is when you take off In real life you had Air Traffic Controlers. You had to make sure you knew where you was going In a tail drager. Pilots had to keep an eye on Engine tempeture all the time. The P51D fuel management was a must. You had to make sure your rear seat fuel tank was run down before you even got into a fight.  You want realism well take that stupid map off that shows where the enemy is coming and you got more realism. And yes 1,200 yard hits are possible but getting the pilot wounded at that range was 1,000,000,000 to 1.

Navagation <--- We have a stupid map!

Where is the enemy <--- We have a stupid map with icons!

Realism:

No stupid map with icons, No range counters, manual fuel managment, manual temp management. The sun in your eyes, rain more clouds.

9G's will knock you out for a period of time not just one second. I flew a P51D upsidedown for 15 minutes.

Is there more realism fetures that need to be look at?

Offline beet1e

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7848
Realism versus gameplay
« Reply #54 on: May 05, 2002, 01:43:33 AM »
Quote
I flew a P51D upsidedown for 15 minutes.
In real life, I would have thought that there was a limit to how long a plane could be flown inverted before oil starvation entered the equation. Can you comment on this?

Offline smack

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 20
      • http://www.airwarrioronline.com
Realism versus gameplay
« Reply #55 on: May 05, 2002, 03:10:28 AM »
Well I have seen in many articles that you could not fly a WWII fighter inverted for to long. Now I don’t know if this is true or not I have done it on AH I was just wondering if there is a fix for this in the future or any talk about it. It would be a good option for future upgrades to the game that is if it is true.

Also I have seen that when you flying a bomber and you are your own tail gunner and you get hit and go to pilot position you are wounded. Even in the pilot position.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2002, 03:14:32 AM by smack »

Offline Wutz

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 107
Realism versus gameplay
« Reply #56 on: May 05, 2002, 07:01:38 AM »
I have played IL2, AH and WB2.xx and WB3. IL2 I must say is ruined by some (smal) things.

*The mussel flash is like looking into the sun.. I am blinded when fireing my 109's cowl Mg.

*The 20mm tracer is Blue/or purpel looks like a klingon bird of prey when i push the trigger.

*There dont seem too be bullets except when the tracer is represented. I mean every bullet u fire is NOT a tracer. I have fired at planes seeing the first tracer going abowe the wing, and the second going under, and no damage. When pushing the trigger for 3 seconds it would be like a beam of bullets.

Eks fiering MG ----------------------------------------------------
Mg in IL2 ---    ----    ----      ----     ----     ----     ----    -----

I have tested it online, and on Lan with some friends,,, and we all draw the same conclusion. IL2 seems too fire Laser balls not bullets.

AH is probably the closet thing too real u can get in a flight sim. Also the damage model in AH is extremly close too what pilots, and guncams in ww2 tells.

In WB and IL2 I have fired 5 seconds burst into figthers with 2 cowl 13mm in 109G6. And the target did not go down.

Reinmetall-Borsig Mg 131.. 13mm.
Prosjectile weight: 1.5 oz
Mussel Velocity: 2700 ft/sec
Rof: 850 RPM

That is 14 rounds per second x 2 mg = 28 rounds per second.
Information I have read, and seen. shows that a average figther is seriously dammaged on an average of 20-25 hits of 13mm. That mean a 1 second burst of dual 13mm should bring down a figther on an average.

Price. Alfred. Figther aircraft-combat development in ww2. London, arms and armoure press. 1985.

So what du u guys think abouth AH damgd system and gun range???

Offline Mino

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 161
Realism versus gameplay
« Reply #57 on: May 05, 2002, 10:23:18 AM »
It might be fun to try, this iconless MA.  I have been thinking about this concept for almost 10 years.

But.....

Lets face the idea that this is a game to have fun, and that there is nothing real  about simulated air combat on a PC.

IMO try what Tac says to do.  Turn off icons for one game session (3-4 hours at least) and report on the results.  The learning curve would be enormous and the CT as it is now would not even come close.

Offline smack

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 20
      • http://www.airwarrioronline.com
Realism versus gameplay
« Reply #58 on: May 05, 2002, 11:31:50 AM »
Most people complain about the game not been realistic but how can you make it so that it seems realistic I think it will be a loop people will just complain about something else. Another thing I have seen that will never make a game as realistic as it can be is routing to game to other player.
Smaller arenas 250 Player can help on that 450 to 500 players online in one arena will always be a lag fest.  I have seen NIKI pull a U turn on my six they say it was a merge but how did he do that if we went head on.
Me I rather turn off all visual help and maps and turn on ground collisions. Also the AAA on each airfield I know where they all are before I even get there. Real pilots did not have all this luxury that AH has.
The entire game would have to change so it can be as close as possible to real life. I have been looking for a game that would take it to the limits but I don’t think that will ever happen because most people will just not like the realism in a flight sim.
No visual help what so ever would be nice and a few other options that will bring the situation awareness to the game.