poll: what do real-life pilots think of Aces High

[Saurdaukar]

Excellent post Fester

[Maverick]

I think it's a game, played by people who play it as a game. It has only a passing resemblance to real flying, tactics and weapons.

[Dux]

It feels close enough to me... I understand the limitations of a simulation, and accept that as such.

What I do find to be an interesting issue is the fact that R/L pilots will noticably fly within the game as they would in R/L... smoothly, and with minimal neg Gs, etc. Sim-only pilots will slam the controls all over during maneuvering, which in R/L would give them multiple contusions all over their skull from slamming into the canopy.  

I've noticed that R/L pilots usually fly much better formations, also.

AKWarp, don't go spreadin' no lies about the Robbie! Seriously though, it looks like you had a lot of fixed-wing time before trying rotorcraft. I know many high-time fixed-wingers that fought with it, most gave up. My very first rating was Rotorcraft in the Robbie, and everything since then has been easy!

[Turbot]

Originally posted by Maverick
I think it's a game, played by people who play it as a game.

I dunno - sometimes I wonder if some don't take it a great deal more serious than that!   (Kind of scarey actually)

[gatso]

Balsa wood too....

For extra enjoyment, get the exploding bottle rockets...
-SW

SW, ever hear of Jet-X? Totally cool tiny little reusable rocket motors perfect for strapping to balsa models.  I used to have great fun of an afternoon making a no thrills balsa thing, strapping a rocket on and launching it. 4 out of 5 ended up in bits but that was half the fun. The motor usually survived unscathed.

http://www.samsmodels.demon.co.uk/jetx.html



Picking up on what people have said, 2 things I totally agree with and thats FEAR and winds. The wind and air in general inside AH is far more predictable and easy compared to what you get in RL, air isn't smooth, in a small aircraft on a warm day you bounce all over the place, turbulence, gusty winds, crosswind landings all make life interesting.

I have never been scared while playing AH. Sitting in a real aircraft with someone who knows what they're doing going through an aerobatic routine tops the list as the most scared I have ever been in my entire life. I can't say I've ever been at all fearful whilst playing AH.

Gatso

[mauser]

gatso:  thanks for the explanation, that's what i remember from my readings long ago (high school).  

Thanks for relating your experiences folks,

mauser

[Duckwing6]

Comercial pilot roughly 850H TT + some 150h on gliders
i fly multi engine turbo-prop and i have quite a bit of taildragger experience from glider towing but as many have never flown and prolly never will fly a WW2 warbird.

My oppinion is that yes AH has very good flight modelling and it's coming close to what you should see .. but that's it.. unfortunately seeing is only about 1/3 of flying as fester said... a lot of input can not be provided unless you're in a full flight simulator which then can only give you realsitic feel when you stay within the confines of straight and level flying.

i do however think it gives you a great tool for learning basic ACM and Energy management in it's purest form, undisturbed by fatigue and real stress. kind of like a labratory environement what we have here.

The only really really realistic part is dropping drunks ! Real skydiver will also jump regardless when you open the door and put the green light on

Cheers
Phil

[Bluefish]

I've got about 550 hrs (IFR/Pvt tickets only), with about half of that in acro/taildraggers.  I think AH does an excellent job of modelling what you think/see/do from the neck up but of course doesn't (and short of a full motion simulator couldn't) provide any of the tactile feedback that occurs from the neck down and that's vital in RL acro (you need to know what a 3G pull FEELS like w/o having to look at the g-meter).

There is one aspect of AH regarding which I've love to hear input from those whose planes fly faster than my stringbag biplane. In AH above a certain speed the planes seem a bit reluctant to descend- for example, if you fly inverted in AH and pull into a split S, it seems to initiate at the same rate as if you were flying upright and pulling into an immelman (although of course once the maneuver starts you'll pick up speed).  It's almost like gravity isn't always pulling at them the way it feels like in RL.  

I've never handled the controls of a plane going faster than 250 knots, and I was wondering if that's an accurate model of how RL planes feel at higher speeds.

[eagl]

By dihedral effect I mean not only any self-righting tendencies, but also the tendency for the aircraft to roll if there is any yaw input.  I have flown a real life cessna 152 with throttle and rudder only, after reading about someone actually landing a cessna that had a near-complete control cable failure.  Rudder input *should* cause an initial yaw followed by a rolling motion in the direction of the yaw.  That rolling tendency should increase as angle of attack increases or speed decreases.  AH models the ailerons losing effectiveness as AOA increases and speed decreases, but the effect rudder has on yaw/roll seems somewhat downplayed.

An aircraft with a swept leading edge will also exhibit this behavior, as yawing one wing into the wind will increase it's lift just like you see with dihedral effect.  The T-37 is quite flyable with rudder and throttle only if it's even approximately trimmed in pitch and roll, and most other non-fly-by-wire aircraft also have this rolling tendency with any yaw present.

That said, the effects seem to be in AH, just understated.  If the planes were fully "realistic" at high angles of attack with respect to torque, thrust-line, p-factor, slipstream effects, adverse yaw, dihedral effect, swept wing effects, and rudder effectiveness, many people would find the planes excessively difficult to fly at the "edge" of the flight envelope.

Which IMHO wouldn't be a bad thing since in RL the ability to consistently fly "on the edge of the envelope" is the mark of a superior pilot and not everyone can do it, but it's a game and you'd see hundreds of complaints about how the plane "always spins when I turn!"

[AKWarp]

Dux, I was only half kidding about the r-22 (primarily for your benefit as I know you fly them ).

Actually, I did the time in the r-22 after I had about 100 hours of fixed wing time.  I just thought being a rotorhead would be way cool, and to a great extent, it is...being able to hover and all is a lot of fun.  I just didnt like the r-22.  Maybe it's a phobia, maybe it's an unfounded bias, but I just have an aversion to piston powered verti-birds.

Since my r-22 time, over the years, I have managed to grab a few hours here and there in a UH-1 and even a bit at the controls of a blackhawk (auto-throttle is the neatest invention since tits and beer!).  Now THAT'S heli flying...I could live with those birds.

When I was stationed in California back in the mid 80's, a bunch of us skydived every weekend at Fort Ord.  The normal lift bird was a UH-1 and occasionally, some blackhawk jockey needed some stick time and the Army would allow them to come out and lift jumpers.  Since I was one of the jump masters for the MWR program, I got to know the pilots pretty well...and of course, managed to sneak in some time at the controls.

A good friend of mine is a pilot for the Maryland State Highway Patrol.  His bird is a Dauphin...never got the chance to fly it though.  He loves it.  I admit, it's a slick looking egg beater.

As far as I am concerned the best flying in the world is aerobatics.  Well, ok, being a fighter jock would rank right up there too.  I had high hopes in my younger days of being an f-16 jock and ultimately being a Thunderbird.  I had a full-ride scholership to Embry Riddle Aeronautical University, was going to go ROTC and grab an engineering degree.  Since part of my ROTC and course curriculum included a flight program, I underwent the Air Force flight physical.  I have 20-10 vision, 100% depth perception....but.....I also have a "color deficiency".  At that point I had taken, and passed, a 1st class FAA physical every two years for the previous 4 years (started flying in CAP when I was 14).  Needless to say, I was immediately disqualified for anything aviation related in the military.  I lost my scholership too.

[mauser]

Ahh.. I get it.  Thanks for the info eagl .

mauser

[Creamo]

That said, the effects seem to be in AH, just understated. If the planes were fully "realistic" at high angles of attack with respect to torque, thrust-line, p-factor, slipstream effects, adverse yaw, dihedral effect, swept wing effects, and rudder effectiveness, many people would find the planes excessively difficult to fly at the "edge" of the flight envelope.

Which IMHO wouldn't be a bad thing since in RL the ability to consistently fly "on the edge of the envelope" is the mark of a superior pilot and not everyone can do it, but it's a game and you'd see hundreds of complaints about how the plane "always spins when I turn!"

Interesting. Guys tend to lose the longer drawn out fights in our IL-2 LAN matches due to just that. Either departure into fatal low alt spins, or just departure to where the other guy then gains the edge, and the advantage, then wins. The description really sums up alot which I couldn't put my finger on.

[fffreeze220]

Hey Eagle its really impressive that u keep the faith with all of us "wannabees" lol

I bet 90% of us would toejam in the panties if we would face any real combat situation.
I would look for the eject button lol

[jbroey3]

Interesting. Guys tend to lose the longer drawn out fights in our IL-2 LAN matches due to just that. Either departure into fatal low alt spins, or just departure to where the other guy then gains the edge, and the advantage, then wins. The description really sums up alot which I couldn't put my finger on.

Yes creamo.. Il2 is more realistic.