Author Topic: comparing Warbirds III to current AH (Read 3815 times)

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #90 on:** July 01, 2003, 12:55:17 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
Apparently a New Zealander veteran Spitfire pilot thought the AH Spitfire was too mushy. Said something like it felt loose and worn out compared with the Spits he flew in the war.

If AH is too mushy, what does that make WBIII?

You know I can see what he means - to me the AH spit is responsive enough but it is not crisp like a 190.

Imp · « **Reply #91 on:** July 01, 2003, 05:58:02 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ike 2K#
I wish HTC would merge with iEN. If they merge, we would have the great FM model of AH and the eyecandy of WB3 in less than 8 months.

Thats not possible.

HTC and crew could never decipher WB3's code.

In fact even the WB3 team have a hard time deciphering it

Staga · « **Reply #92 on:** July 01, 2003, 07:31:15 AM »

So they're still using HT's code in WBIII ?

Hajo · « **Reply #93 on:** July 01, 2003, 12:07:15 PM »

IL2FB and AH FM very very close. As a matter of fact I can't tell much difference between the 190A8s. It appears you have to get a tad closer to register good hits in IL2FB.

All in all, IL2FB is a great sim....I like it a great deal. For a boxed Sim.........it's the best I've seen in almost 20 years.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #94 on:** July 01, 2003, 12:11:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hajo
IL2FB and AH FM very very close. As a matter of fact I can't tell much difference between the 190A8s. It appears you have to get a tad closer to register good hits in IL2FB.

All in all, IL2FB is a great sim....I like it a great deal. For a boxed Sim.........it's the best I've seen in almost 20 years.

Muzzle Flashes...