Author Topic: Il2 vs AH (Read 634 times)

udet · « **on:** July 22, 2002, 05:49:25 PM »

Finally i got IL2. Not that AH is bad,but I really wanted to strafe troops and see them run around
First of all,the graphics are awesome...and that's not so good. My system is nothing to brag about,but right after I got the game I also decided to upgrade my memory(I had 192,IL2 says 256 reccomended) So now I have 256. The problem,before the upgrade, was that the frame rate was getting choppy when there were many airplanes in the sky.-For instance, a mission with 12 vs 12 was almost unplayable. After the memory upgrade-same problem. wtf?!?!?!?! the manual says reccomended system 600MHZ processor and 256 mb of ram-I have a 733MZ Celeron and that amount of RAM-conclusion,my Video Card is to blame.
Still in the graphics department, the instruments are unreadable at 640/480. Switching to 800/600, with the necessary decrease in framerate, the cockpit becomes much more crisp, but I just discovered that,if I switch to a more panoramic view-that is,so i can see all the instruments-they become quite unreadable again.
Therefore,unless I keep panning around the cockpit or I get a huge monitor and play in 1024/768 the nicely rendered detailed cockpit is not very useful
Btw-reading through the IL2 BB-some people play it wih 3d glasses.
As for realism, since I spent most of my time playing with the 109 F, that's the plane I will use for comparison with AH.
1: Engine overheats quicker when using WEP than in AH.
2: Plane is harder to stall but spins are harder to recover from-makes sense cause the 109 had leading edge slats that depolyed automatically to prevent stall.
3:No stall horn,buffet simulated well enough though so you don't find yourself spinning without any warning.
4:Gunnery-I discovered that I suck.Part of it is due to the frame rate.
5:Strafing troops-I couldn't see any from the plane even though ,after I crashed and started looking around from the crash site perspective, they appeared quite nicely,detailed and running around.
Conclusion: With much lower system requirements, AH still not far behind IL2 in graphics and realism.

IP

Pei · « **Reply #1 on:** July 22, 2002, 07:10:46 PM »

I like the whole engine management aspect of Il2: radiator/cowl flaps, overheat (even without WEP) and overheat damage. I wonder hwo that would effect AH? It would certainly put an end to running a whole sortie on full military power.

Karnak · « **Reply #2 on:** July 22, 2002, 07:14:55 PM »

An R-2800 (P-47's engine) was run at WEP for what, 96 hours straight?

Il-2 way over does engine heat. AH over does engine heat.

funkedup · « **Reply #3 on:** July 22, 2002, 07:22:25 PM »

What Karnak said.

Pei · « **Reply #4 on:** July 22, 2002, 07:31:28 PM »

So is the issue with WEP more a case of wear and tear (i.e. engine lifespan and reliability)?

Kweassa · « **Reply #5 on:** July 22, 2002, 07:32:16 PM »

Despite some flaws, IL-2 is enough to stay a classic in flight sim games. Excellent game. I only wish Aces High would someday evolve in that direction in the graphics category.

brendo · « **Reply #6 on:** July 22, 2002, 08:17:59 PM »

UDET, I feel your pain man!

My original system was 256 meg Celeron 500MHZ with a GF2MX.

I could only fly medium detail 640 resolution and it really got choppy with more than 5 aircraft.

I tested on a similar setup 850MHZ ish Athlon... minor frame rate increase even with a DDR Gforce1.

I then upgraded to a 1200MHZ Duron..... MUCH better framerate. At full detail 640 res, I could have a big dogfight at good framerates.

Now I have upgraded the video card to a GF4Ti4400 at 4600 speeds OC. Smooth as silk at 1024 res. However, if I have a LOT of other aircraft around..... still gets a bit low in the framerate. I am using an old 133MHZ motherboard with normal old PC133 RAM.

However, I built a AMD 1900+ with DDR RAM and a GF3Ti200 at Ti500 speed OC.

It runs AWESOME at 1024 res, with UNLIMITED amount of action on the screen. FAR FAR faster than an older generaltion 1200MHZ CPU with a GF4.

So I have a lot of experience with IL and framerates on different systems.

1. A high speed video card will give smooth graphics with a low amount of enemy aircraft or action.

2. You need the FASTEST CPUs to have full action on the screen at once.

Mickey1992 · « **Reply #7 on:** July 22, 2002, 08:27:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa
........I only wish Aces High would someday evolve in that direction in the graphics category.

I would vote for good graphics and good framerates (AH) over great graphics and poor framerates (IL2) anyday. I think that AH is evolving at just the right pace as it is graphics wise.

Swager · « **Reply #8 on:** July 22, 2002, 08:45:17 PM »

I bought IL2 6 months ago. Played it about 6 times and shelved it! I tried it online twice, no excitement as AH.

poopster · « **Reply #9 on:** July 22, 2002, 09:18:15 PM »

Six or eight from my old squad in WB have taken to doin the Hyperlobby thing on a regular basis.

Graphics are top notch, engine management is about as much as I would want to be concerned with ( overheats WAY too fast ) And the gunnery is tough. But that's ok, "felt" real. Change your setup to "gore" and when you get shot up, you leak bodily fluids in the cockpit

I must say it really adds to the "immersion"

Thing is, everyone was into no icons, squint birds, mission based etc. etc. We're going to take off on a course of 137 until reaching................and then.........

And I just looked out of place showing up in a Hawaiian shirt, shorts, seegar and a Budweiser ready to mix it up...

Not my kind of fun

Fariz · « **Reply #10 on:** July 22, 2002, 09:18:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Swager
I bought IL2 6 months ago. Played it about 6 times and shelved it! I tried it online twice, no excitement as AH.

Absolutly

I really loved Il2 graphix, but could not play it. I am too much used to human opponents, so AI is not any fun for me.

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #11 on:** July 22, 2002, 09:41:04 PM »

Il-2 is a lot of fun... of course, it's a totally different thing from AH.

I have a V5 5500, 1Ghz AMD Athlon, 133Mhz 768MB SDRAM (o/cled to 142Mhz), UltraATA100 UDMA 30GB Maxtor...

Basically, it runs pretty good. I figure if I upgrade my CPU to ~1.3Ghz and get a GF4 Ti4200 it'll run a whole lot faster. (more CPU speed means more AI planes/objects you can have in the game, newer/faster video card means faster play online)

Aside from all of the PROBLEMS getting the game to run at peak performance and visual quality on my PC (and I do mean PROBLEMS!!! absolutely no casual PC user would of been able to go what I went through for Il2)

I've owned the game since it first hit the shelves, literally, at first I hated it. Just recently (think when Il2 1.04 came out), I really started to like it. Out of the box, it was an okay game for me.

Now, I absolutely enjoy it. I absolutely enjoy AH too though...

One allows me historical recreation and furballing whenever I want... the other allows me an online war between 3 countries whenever I want.

Ain't no Il-2 vs AH... but if you don't mind flying the Western front for the Russians or Germany, then Il2 compliments AH real well. Kind of like beer and Hooters(the place).
-SW

funkedup · « **Reply #12 on:** July 23, 2002, 01:01:20 AM »

Pei it depends on the particular aircraft and engine and conditions. I'm sure there were some planes that had overheating problems when not using WEP but there were many that didn't.
But yeah, a lot of allowable time limits for power settings were based on reliability and overhaul intervals. There wasn't always a short-term penalty for exceeding those limits.

Wotan · « **Reply #13 on:** July 23, 2002, 03:11:45 AM »

If you dont have that ubi game portal installed (i dont I use hyperlobby or all seeing eye) the heres the ips for ubi dedicated servers.

il2 servers

205.205.27.79 all planes ez mode (no cockpit etc)

205.205.27.75 1941 full real with blue german red vvs (maybe padlock)

They are dogfight servers that hold 32 and are ok if you wanna jump in and have a quick fight. I hate the box sim / online stuff. So much waiting around for some idiot to hit "fly" to get in the game to see no cockpit mode.

I like il2 and the coop missions are fun. But mostly the good ones are like nopoop described

Quote

no icons, squint birds, mission based etc. etc. We're going to take off on a course of 137 until reaching................and then.........

The only way they work is if folks follow the waypoints. Half the time some smart arse goes out on his own by checking the map to see where the red or blue base is and flies directly there to sneak up on those who choose to follow the way points.

Or you get a bunch of noobs who hit there breaks while otr and cause a 8 plane pile up. Or he rams while your waiting inline to roll. If they do get up they get lost.

Offline ai play is boring.

Kweassa · « **Reply #14 on:** July 23, 2002, 04:35:18 AM »

Quote

I would vote for good graphics and good framerates (AH) over great graphics and poor framerates (IL2) anyday. I think that AH is evolving at just the right pace as it is graphics wise.

Right, that's what I'd choose too.

But the thing is, isn't it pretty obvious when someone wishes for "IL-2 levels of graphics in AH" he means sometime in the near future when we have commercial tech available to send humongous chunks of data on-line?