AH and WB compared

[Heater]

All,

I try to stay out of these discussion as much as possible,
But I have just a few question's for our "Flight Model" & "Damage Experts"
How many of you have actually flown any of the aircraft that you are
complaining about or for that matter flown any aircraft?
And secondly how many of you have flown a damaged aircraft?

Just wondering...


------------------
!!! Heater !!!
   
Shit Happens All The Time

"If you have any trouble sounding condescending, find a Unix user to show you how it's done."

[This message has been edited by Heater (edited 06-14-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Heater (edited 06-14-2000).]

[Daff]

Dunno, Bloom..try the La-5 and climb inverted...also stall speed is the same inverted, meaning that inverted lift and drag is the same as "normal".

Daff

------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group

[-lazs-]

Yep... In the end it comes down to fun.   WB and AH ech promote a style of fighting.   Like snake, I find AH much too slow a game with more chat than action.   I also agree/think that most hobby ac "historians" have a pretty good idea of how planes should compare.   Besides being "slow", Turn rates in AH do not match what i think they should be comparitively.  this makes it less fun/immersive for me.  WB has the same flaws but with climb and acceleration IMO.
lazs

[Yeager]

WB has the same flaws but with climb and acceleration IMO.
=================
I recall a comment a few years back made by hitech me thinks, when answering a complaint  about unrealistically high accell and turn rates in WBs.  This particular response  basically concluded that realistic FMs must sometimes be compromised for the sake of *playability*.

Although I find the observation that AH is somehow *slower* to be very interesting indeed, I say and believe completely that if what we have now promotes a more realistic behavior based on a more realistic and comprehensive flight model , be it slower or faster, then count me in.

In the end, I know that when I complete a difficult task for the first time, I usually screw up some portion of the job.  When given an opportunity to do it better a second time, I usually ace the dam thing.  My thinking follows that hitech has done a better job the second time around.  My own personal observations of AH support this.

Yeager

[Badger]

 

Originally posted by Yeager:
......My thinking follows that hitech has done a better job the second time around.  My own personal observations of AH support this.

Yeager

Excellent point yeager...

I feel the same way....

Regards,
Badger

[Ghosth]

Mistakes are ok as long as you learn something positive from them.

In other words I'm with yeager & badger on this one.  

I actually enjoy the sometimes (and only sometimes) slower pace of AH. Time to light a pipe, pet a kitten, chat with friends and arrive high at the fight.

[easymo]

 All this"My G.I. joe has kung fu grip, and yours dont" stuff is pointless. There just isnt that much difference between these games. A top 10 guy from one could switch to the other and be right back on top in no time. The only meaningfull difference is the money. AH has all you can eat for 30bucks. WB trys to bleed you to death. If you can only play a few hours a month. Id say play WB. Otherwise the choice is obvious.

[SnakeEyes]

I think they made a better simulation of reality, but whether they made a better game would be subject to individual interpretation.

------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=

[Yeager]

I think they made a better simulation of reality,

but whether they made a better game would be subject to individual interpretation.
====
Well yes, if by better game you mean *easy fun game* vs *real difficult game* then of course we all make our individual choices based on what we want to accomplish.

This actually sums matters up quite nicely dont you think!  Realizing that AH still lacks prop drag, ground compressibility and dive flaps coded into the FMs and yet rates superior to Warbirds as a simulation (by your own statement), then I am well and excited about the impending release of v1.03 where these elements will finally be added.

It is ironic that Warbirds has recently been labeled as *faster and funner* when less then a year ago it was the *most realistic experience* available.  

Perhaps this is all part of some wierd scheme.

Yeager


[This message has been edited by Yeager (edited 06-14-2000).]

[wizzer]

lazs

Now I'm even more confused than before. If thats possible.  

What are you looking for in a sim/game? You don't like the strat, you don't like the Historical aspect (could care less myself), and realism is so so according to your idea of a perfect FM. If I have concluded correctly.

Soooo, My guess is that you want a fast, fun, semi-accurate, no thought to strat but ACM, and kill all that surround you. Hate to ask but, is that close?

My gut tells me that if thats' all your after,............thats all you'll get.

Hehe tanks must be like UFOs' to you.  

wizzer

[Pyro]

 

Originally posted by Yeager:
It is ironic that Warbirds has recently been labeled as *faster and funner* when less then a year ago it was the *most realistic experience* available.  
[This message has been edited by Yeager (edited 06-14-2000).]

Actually the one that cracks me up is WB players complaining about our gunnery being so lethal while claiming that they want nothing more than an accurate gunnery model.  

That and the fact they can score more hits.  Ya think it might be due to the fact that we model every bullet individually?  Nah.



------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations

Most plans are just inaccurate predictions.

[Daff]

"Actually the one that cracks me up is WB players complaining about our gunnery being so lethal while claiming that they want nothing more than an accurate gunnery model.

That and the fact they can score more hits. Ya think it might be due to the fact that we model every bullet individually? Nah.
"

I'm probably one of them, although what I've said is that it's too lethal compared to how easy it is to hit things...Just take a look at the thread about what range people shoot at...kinda says it all.

Daff

------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group

[-lazs-]

wizz... think i made myself clear in another post.   I don't think the slower pace of AH is any more "realistic" than WB both are off by a bout the same % but in different directions IMO... Ah also has worse comparitive (to each other) turn rates IMO.  

I like to fight other humans in a situation where there is some parity and a lot of action.   I want the FM's to be very close to what we would expect from "real" fighters so far as they are compared to each other in the sim.... A Spit v should turn better than a 109f and be slower than a P51 etc...  Neither sim is perfect in that regard and I can't see that one is even better than another so, for the most part, I go for the one with the most action.   I can pet the cat or chat some other time.

When I log onto AH I look for a lot of dots... If I don't see anything I log off.   If I do I work my way over to em using the tools, and working with the limitations, that AH offers.   I find someone who blew it and kill em or I get bored and don't care about my egress and die... I ask myself.... "Do I want to do this again?"   Mostly, unless I have a squadie on, I say "no".  

When I left the old Dos AW for dos WB I KNEW i was in a far superior sim... With AH and WB... It's a tossup based on how ya wanna play.  time and size of player base will tell if people like the slower or the faster pace.
lazs  


W

[funked]

"Just take a look at the thread about what range people shoot at...kinda says it all."

I dunno, looks a lot like the ranges I've read about real pilots shooting at during the war.

[-lazs-]

I don't have any/many problems with AH gunnery.

 I think every sim out there has had the problem of what to do with the LW planes.... They were an important part of the WWII era and a great many people have read the romantic accounts of em and their pilots.   Unfortunately, for the most part, they make lousy arena planes... They either  dominate by sheer speed advantage for their time period (190 and 262) or they are hoplessly outclassed in dogfiting/arena type play (exception being early 109's in an early setting).  The way AH has addressed this problem IMO, is to pick a mid/late war time period that is LW friendly for arena use and then slow down  the turn rates and "adjust" the turn rates of all the planes so that there is more parity.   This works for a lot of people.   It doesn't for me.  I also believe that this approch is going to make it more difficult to introduce new planes.  I believe that some adjustment will have to take place to keep/increase player base.  Just my opinion.
lazs