Author Topic: WW2OL, Take a Look at the New Textures (Read 969 times)

Jekyll · « **Reply #30 on:** July 20, 2002, 07:37:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by KG45
sim vs. arcade?

AH's view system models the more real fact that pilots could lean left and right and foward, and look back over their shoulders.

It even models the pilots ability to loosen his harness.. lean all the way forward in his seat, crank his head around 180 degrees and pull a 6 G turn without being forced back into said seat

Guys.. WW2OL still has problems, sure. But puhleeze don't treat the view system as one of them. If ya wanna talk arcade view/icon systems... AH leads the way in that regard

But then again, even HT has never described AH as a 'sim'.

SKurj · « **Reply #31 on:** July 20, 2002, 09:36:16 PM »

il2's view system sux the most!!!

if il2 had even ww2ol's view system i'd fly it more...

I don't have a prob with the ww2ol view system but to be able to adjust yer head position for obstructions is the best method imo
with or without the linda blair view

SKurj

Kieran · « **Reply #32 on:** July 20, 2002, 10:40:04 PM »

Fishu-

Do you or do you not think there is a prob with the damage model?

I am not complaining about the flight models- those are fine. I am talking about either a bullet modeling system that is seriously flawed and biased toward cannon armament (that is, mgs aren't likely to accumulate) or a damage model that is broken. You know as well as I do the 109 can only be shot down with a fool in the cockpit. Part of this has to do with the fact engines won't seize and the skin of the aircraft deflects .303s for the most part. This I contend is not accurate.

Don't tell me stories about how AAA damaged your 109 (standard LW argument)- the question is whether .303s should. If a guy unloads a five-second burst at close range, something should pop off or the engine should quit. Once again, you and I both know this seldom happens.

If I am wrong (not likely) then it still comes down to the fact the game is not fun in the air at the moment. If this is real, it isn't real fun.

Kieran · « **Reply #33 on:** July 20, 2002, 10:48:50 PM »

...oh, and respond to the question and issue, not some dodge on what you think is wrong with AH...

Blank · « **Reply #34 on:** July 20, 2002, 10:55:00 PM »

I think I remember reading somewhere that the ability to turn your head 180 in AH is a concession to not having a rear view mirror in the planes.
They couldn't get it to work properly or it had to big framerate hit,
something like that.

hardcase · « **Reply #35 on:** July 20, 2002, 11:57:27 PM »

until rats model debris falling off when hitting an ac, I dont have a clue as to how many of my shots are hitting or just missing. The ac skin is modeled to take damage and reflect it in poorer handling. How many holes and how badly slowed the ac is if you hit it is tough to see right now. I think the damage model is better that you think it is, but that is just an opinion, since I am not privy to the code.

hardcase

Udie · « **Reply #36 on:** July 21, 2002, 09:51:50 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
Fishu-

Do you or do you not think there is a prob with the damage model?

I am not complaining about the flight models- those are fine. I am talking about either a bullet modeling system that is seriously flawed and biased toward cannon armament (that is, mgs aren't likely to accumulate) or a damage model that is broken. You know as well as I do the 109 can only be shot down with a fool in the cockpit. Part of this has to do with the fact engines won't seize and the skin of the aircraft deflects .303s for the most part. This I contend is not accurate.

Don't tell me stories about how AAA damaged your 109 (standard LW argument)- the question is whether .303s should. If a guy unloads a five-second burst at close range, something should pop off or the engine should quit. Once again, you and I both know this seldom happens.

If I am wrong (not likely) then it still comes down to the fact the game is not fun in the air at the moment. If this is real, it isn't real fun.

hey Keiren,

I know when I'm in a 110 on a mud moving mission my biggest fear other than allied aaa guns is a Hurr getting behind me. it only takes a 2 second burst in one of the engines to catch that thing on fire! I know I've flamed a bunch when Im in a hurr, just aim at the engine. Pilot kills/wounds are what bring me down most times though.

Also when I'm in the 109 I've noticed that if I hit with 20mm usually they just go flopping or spinning down because I knocked off a wing. I hardly ever see fire with the 20mm, but when I kill with the MG they always catch fire. So now I shoot with both MG and 20mm and they catch fire after a good short burst

Fishu · « **Reply #37 on:** July 21, 2002, 11:01:39 AM »

Kieran,

Reflects?
Same could be said of hurri and hawk vs. 20mm, if you say that .303 reflects from 109.
Yesterday I shot down 109 with 1-2 rifle hits..

Damage model could be better for the planes, but no, definately not 'reflecting' bullets.
Even HE111 gets shot up with handful of bullets.

Maybe you should just learn to *hit* the plane, so those bullets wouldn't just 'reflect' off

Besides that, 109s 2x7.92mm is perfectly fine for shooting down the planes.
In matter of fact, I prefer 8x.303 over 2x20mm/2x7.92mm when it's about killing planes.
More accurate with better volume of fire, gets much easier critical shots. (and seems to penetrate better through the plane, instead of exploding on contact)

KG45 · « **Reply #38 on:** July 21, 2002, 11:47:24 AM »

>>jekyll --even models the pilots ability to loosen his harness.. lean all the way forward in his seat, crank his head around 180 degrees and pull a 6 G turn without being forced back into said seat<<

agreed it's unrealistic at 6 G's, but i (and i'm sure most pilots) only spend a tiniest fraction of any flight at 6 g's. the AH view system allows for better SA and target search when cruising to and from target, which is 90% of any sortie. and in tandem seat planes, they could lean over and look straight behind them, like in a mossie or ju-88.

this is where the realism factor kicks in. pilots moved their upper bodies around and craned their neck to maximize their vision. they didn't sit with backs glue to the seat 100% of the flight.

(unless they were pulling 6 g's, in which case they were probably blacking out anyway)

Kieran · « **Reply #39 on:** July 21, 2002, 12:01:04 PM »

Quote

Maybe you should just learn to *hit* the plane, so those bullets wouldn't just 'reflect' off

Typical condescending reply. I expected that from you, unfortunately.

I *hit* the plane just fine, especially when it fills the recticle. It's just, unless you *hit* the pilot of a 109, it probably won't go down. When I fly LW I can use MG only and kill stuff in the same situation. Seems *hitting* isn't the problem. *Hitting* a/c in that game is no more difficult than it is here, I hate to break the news to you. You may have to be closer, but that is not difficult. What is difficult is to *hit* the relatively small kill zone of one particular plane.

BTW, you didn't address the hit accumulation issue.

I call BS on your ascertation you prefer 8x.303s. Seems unlikely that a LW-oriented pilot such as yourself would spend an equivalent amount of time in Allied rides. Further, suggesting the .303s in that game have greater killing power than the cannon is ludicrous. One *hit* of 20mm and any Allied plane is crippled.

Any schmoe can run a string of 4-6 kills in a 109 or 110 and survive. Not just any schmoe can do it in the Allied a/c. Speed and hitting power are decisively Axis biased (as they should be), but the question remains whether or not .303s do a realistic amount of damage. Having seen many 109s continue to fight for 15-20 trailing black smoke, I also question other aspects of the damage model. You don't see any Allied a/c do this, and truthfully, no other LW a/c.

To give you the DoA analogy, the 109 is the Camel of WWIIOL. It's getting to the point where people are sick of getting smacked, and are turning LW. Funny thing, the second they go LW their IQ seemingly increases tenfold, and they become tactical and ACM geniuses, offering such sage advice as, well...

Quote

Maybe you should just learn to *hit* the plane, so those bullets wouldn't just 'reflect' off

Fishu · « **Reply #40 on:** July 21, 2002, 12:24:25 PM »

Kieran,

What I know of WWIIOL fighters, it isn't much use to try hit the wings.
You shoot 3 things on these planes; engine, fuel tank and the pilot.

In 109 fuel tank is behind the pilot, while in hurri it is in front.

News flash; I've actually spent more time in allied fighters than in 109 in last few months.
I've mostly flown Bf110.
That isn't exactly any super plane.. at least in Hurri's I enjoy when I see one of those big targets, which gets hurt even in wings, unlike other fighters. (fuel tank & engines)

When I shoot allied fighters, I hardly see smoke.. they just veer down after while.
Only thing that I see often actually smoking in allied arsenal, is Blenheim. (for some reasons bombers in WWIIOL feels even weaker than fighters.. blen and he111 goes down in instant)

I prefer 20mm more for killing tanks, than killing airplanes.
With 8x.303, all you need to do is to get one good snap shot and thats it.. it's easier to take snap shots with .303's at critical spots, since you're almost guaranteed to hit and with good aim large volume of fire hits critical spots and very likely pilot is in the way of these bullets, which doesn't care is it 20mm or .303, both kills.
With those 'laser guns' (so much tracers) I feel more accurate as well.

My DoA analogy; DVa kills Camel with ease.
Have you already forgot me from DoA? I killed bunch of Camels in DoA, without a single problem.
Pranha & his wingyman being downed few times by my DVa.

Otherwise I could say same about allied IQ, so doesn't that mean we are even?
Just look at yourself, you're not discussing any better here...
So whats the difference?

Wotan · « **Reply #41 on:** July 21, 2002, 12:44:40 PM »

20mm mgff for killing tanks ????

thats a about roadkill dont ya think?

I thought 50cals killing tanks was bad.

The fm there is arcade. You may like it for what ever reason but the air games is weak.

I just uninstalled right after I retried the "welcome back sucker" freebe they ran.

I do however agree that shooting planes down is way easier with .303 planes. 110s and 109s burn easy. The he 111 burns easier. It was supposed to have been one of the "toughest" bombers the lw had. Not it wwiiol.

The terrain looks good from the air but the pee soup haze layer is stupid.

The hole capture the flag thing is no different there then any other fps shooter or ah or wbs. They could have came up with a better way to advance the fronts.

I will give it another go after the next big release (1.67?) after that if it still sux then fug it.

Kieran · « **Reply #42 on:** July 21, 2002, 12:45:50 PM »

The difference is, I wanted to discuss specific issues with the damage model. You suggested I was merely missing. I have been around sims a while, you know this, you surely must assume I know when I am close enough to shoot? I have about six months of WWIIOL under my belt, I have a pretty fair idea what a good shot is and isn't there.

Yes, you are a good shot and pilot, I have never said otherwise. That, however, is not germaine to the topic. The issue is whether or not there is a problem with one specific caliber of weapons WRT damage on one particular plane. Mo himself has posted about seeing a discrepancy, but didn't have time to look into it. This would seem to suggest there is a problem.

The "there's nothing wrong, just learn to blah, blah, blah" approach is always used, then later an adjustment is made reflecting what the people had been saying all along. That one flips back and forth between sides, and shouldn't be taken as bias. It does however indicate the "circling of the wagons" mentality prevalent. The Axis was right to complain of 20mm rounds doing relatively little damage to Allied a/c. There is nothing wrong with the lethality of those rounds presently IMHO, but it took complaining and many denials before something was finally done. We are now witnessing the same process, except it is now the other side. Something is clearly wrong; the issue of whether something gets done is probably more "when" than "if".

Telling anyone to "learn where to shoot"... you're not paying attention. I *know* where to shoot- the cockpit. I can get kills, and did (you must be assuming I didn't). That does not negate that pouring ammo into control surfaces should cause degradation of performance. It does not negate that engines should seize. It does not negate fuel should run out. These are disjarring attributes of the game for me personally.

Defenders of the status quo will always sidestep these issues and say "well, I can get kills, it must be you", or "learn your planes weaknesses, adapt", "you just want it handed to you". Wrong, wrong, wrong. Even the rifle caliber weapons should shred components on a/c in a way that destroys their ability to maneuver. This works against Allied and most Axis a/c, save one. It doesn't matter they CAN be killed, we all know they can. The question is whether or not conditions exist in the game that make it relatively ahistorically difficult to do so.

Fishu · « **Reply #43 on:** July 21, 2002, 01:07:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wotan
20mm mgff for killing tanks ????

thats a about roadkill dont ya think?

I thought 50cals killing tanks was bad.

A13 has only 6mm armour, that is penetrable even by MG

Thats the tank I kill with cannons.

Kieran,

If you failed to notice, that was a joke.. sarcasm.
Even equipped with smiley

Those rifles are fearsome.. I learned that yesterday in test.
Stuka doesn't like getting pilot hit at all.. even slight wound, which causes red screen and that somewhat stupid 'loss of control' due to small scratch, added with total lack of up trim in stuka - causes stuka to crash.
Stuka below 250kph - trims can't keep it level, lacks.
and it took rifle hits into pilot surprisingly easy..

Revvin · « **Reply #44 on:** July 21, 2002, 01:15:14 PM »

The latest promo video is very good, very informative. I play WW2OL occassionaly as something a little different to Aces High which is the main sim I play. One of my problems with WW2OL is they don't model any debry from planes that are getting the snot blown out of them all you get is a cheesy puff of smoke that occasionally changes colour. This problem can be further seen in the promo video where a Stuka (and later on a He111 I believe) takes critical hits and moves violently as if to lose a wing or wing tip that has totally taken away all stability and yet in both instances the airframe is intact and stays that way even after hitting the ground. It's a fun sim to play and the tank warfare is rather good but there are just the small little niggles that annoy, dropping undercarriage at any speed (some have even used it to help them turn) I hope as well as the new terrain artwork they go back over the planes and add visible damage to the airframe such as broken wings.