Warbirds III Free for August, But ....

[715]

Correct: if you select pan views you can't get a direct 6 Linda Blair view but if you select snap mode it's still there.

I don't think WBIII really models angular inertia.  Get behind your plane in close external view and watch the ailerons in a fast roll.  The ailerons take over a second to reach full deflection, and the plane starts rolling slowly and then speeds up as the aileron slowly reaches full deflection.  Now rapidly center your stick.  The plane keeps rolling past your desired position, but that's because the aileron takes another second to return to null.  I think they just have a rate limiter on the control surfaces (including the rudder and elevators).  I don't think this is realistic.  As pointed out by others, if you look at movies of WWII fighters, their rolls are quick and crisp.  And, if you watch cockpit camera films of modern day aerobatic pilots, they don't have to input opposite aileron to cancel "roll inertia".  Aerodynamic forces apparently far outweigh the angular moments of inertia.  From what I've seen on the BBSs, it seems a lot of people really dislike this aspect of the WBIII FM and it is amazing that they keep it- they would probably get more customers if they dumped the control surface rate limit code (or at least toned it down).

715

[715]

Originally posted by Ozark:
Thank You Jihad! <S>

Hmmm....81 megs (WBIII) Vs 18 Megs (AH).

1) Who writes a tighter code?

Actually, the executable is 3.2 MByte.  All the rest is data, not code.  WBIII just has more data (more polygons, textures, etc.)  However, so far with WBIII, there has been no incremental upgrader.  Every new version you have to crank up your sorry ole' modem and spend all night downloading the whole 81 MBytes  

715

715

[Midnight]

Originally posted by 715:


Actually, the executable is 3.2 MByte.  All the rest is data, not code.  WBIII just has more data (more polygons, textures, etc.)  However, so far with WBIII, there has been no incremental upgrader.  Every new version you have to crank up your sorry ole' modem and spend all night downloading the whole 81 MBytes    

715

715

So if it is just "data" then why isn't the executeable made into a seperate download? Data only needs to be updated if there are new textures and other polygons and such, right?

So as was said, who writes tighter, more efficient code? Hmmm..  

[Jekyll]

one area where htc is definitely the best among current flight sims is the flight model. control response is exactly how it should be according to my limited flight experience, and though you might thing roll intertia would play a big role, in reality it doesnt. the damping force of the air on the wing planform is very large and causes a near instantaneous cessation of angular velocity

Try this.  Take a P47D-30 with 1000lb bombs on both wings.  Wind it up to 300 mph and then throw it into a fast roll.. let the roll continue for 180 degrees or so then release the stick.  The Jug stops rolling IMMEDIATELY.  

Immediately, with 2000lb of iron bomb hanging out there on the wings.

[Westy MOL]

Jekyll!!! So good to see you back?!?  

 I do have to say I like the way in WB III where if you are looking at your "7" view and switch to your "5" view you pan around via the front view first. But that should be a global view setting in the program and not a selectable feature per user.

 Otherwise WB III looks nice but it's not anything that knock my socks off to bother trying to learn the commands and a cod-awfull FM for a cheaper price. Even free doesn't do it. Honestly. Oh, can't forget about the distaste I'd have in flying with MG  

  Westy

[lazs1]

sybiltabria... as westy says.. the overall view in the corsair is probly slightly less good in the AH corsair than in a real one.   that linda blair 6 just gives you a view of the backrest that I could live without.

many planes like the corsair and spit have bulged canopies that allow you to get your head "outside the cockpit"... The 109 is of course way too generous in AH.... It is, like their 13mm, a consession that is made to the LW guys.
lazs

[Lephturn]

Limiting your virtual head position to "real" head positions in a medium where we have nowhere near the visual quality, field of vision, depth perception, or peripheral vision, is just silly.

When I can see as good in the game as I could in real life, THEN realistic head positions make sense.  Until we have a visual system that is close to the real thing, we have to have more flexibility to make up for the poor visual system we must deal with.

HTC does the best job I've seen so far of striking that balance.

Lephturn

[Ripsnort]

Considering I'm lacking just about all the real world peripherial abilities on a flat 2D monitor, I think the Linda Blair views is a top priority to me in a flight sim.

[2Late4U]

Originally posted by Jekyll:


Try this.  Take a P47D-30 with 1000lb bombs on both wings.  Wind it up to 300 mph and then throw it into a fast roll.. let the roll continue for 180 degrees or so then release the stick.  The Jug stops rolling IMMEDIATELY.  

Immediately, with 2000lb of iron bomb hanging out there on the wings.

Do you have any idea of the massive force of the air flowing over those wings?  There are thousands of pounds per square meter being applied, while I do think the AH flight model is a tad too sharp, especially at low speeds, the WB flight model is ridiculously soft.  


Warbirds:  The absolute finest realistic simulation of WW2 era aircraft flying through grandma's old fasion pudding ever release to the public.

[chisel1]

Since pudding is more dense than air wouldnt that be more descriptive of AH's flight model?

 

[Jase]

I downloaded it, didn't like it.  Felt "cartoonish" to me.  Tough to explain, but I just didn't bond with it.  Heck I havn't really bonded with anything since I played Air Warrior Classic Full Real Euro arena.  Polygon mountains and big blue squares for lakes.  But oh to have my old 38 back.  *sniff*

Aces High is the best out there now though.

[Zigrat]

lephturn with the icons and snap views we have, we have visual abilities in the game far above those of real life, so saying we need artificially high head movement ability is rediculous

in real life you dont get a red icon to pick out a green colored bandit (example a6m) against a green background

in real life you dont know the exact distance to target

in real life it could be easy to confuse a la5 from a fw-190 from a few thousand yards

in real life to check your six required you to actually look around. if you were pulling 4  g at the tinme, this could be difficult. not so in here.

you get the idea.

[Wotan]

guess a shoulda read this thread before I spent 2 hours trial and error with the joystick sliders in wbiii................

what piece o'shyte

what are they flying on ice in there  

[Jekyll]

One thing I hadn't noticed in WBIII until last night (which is a very nice feature) is this:

Go to pan view and pan to your back right view.  Your head not only rotates, but also moves closer to the right side cockpit sill, simulating moving both your head and shoulders to the right.

So as you check your 5 and 7 positions you have your head and upper body 'doing the walking'.

The FM's in WBIII take a LOT of getting used to, but the close in gunnery sure makes for more exciting air combat IMO.  No more "shoot once the range counter hits 500".

[Nash]

"shoot once the range counter hits 500"?

Damn yer gunnery is a heck of alot better than mine... wow.

<edit>

Erhm I better amend that... I don't know what yer saying here. If you mean go ahead and take a crack when the enemy is at 500, sure... iffin ya got the ammo to spare and are feelin' lucky, why not. Who knows, the odd time you do get a break. No question about it.

But if yer saying though that opening up at 500 out is a guarantee of anything, I applaud your gunnery. Better than most folks here. Can't see why that makes unrealistic roll, syrup air, dang nose bounce, wothaveya any more...erhm... realistic.

I'm sure the programmers can come up with a million ways of making your gunnery practically impossible if that's what yer looking for.

Granted it may make things "more exciting"... but I'm hard pressed to see where that makes it right. But hey... what you enjoy is what you enjoy. No argument here about that.

[ 08-07-2001: Message edited by: Nash ]