Author Topic: The Void between Machine guns and cannons. (Read 10935 times)

Toad · « **Reply #240 on:** August 16, 2003, 10:37:29 AM »

The F4U-1C? Yeah, it was whining. People made their choice of planes and other people didn't like their choice. So they cried about it.

HT did change it. But the complaints didn't cease.. oh no. They just "changed planes". Then people went on to cry about Spits, Niks and La7s. They're still crying about those. See HT do anything about that?

They are looking at damage and leathality. They've said that. The haven't said a word about changing "aiming aids" AFAIK. HT has said he isn't changing ballistics; seems like I read that in some thread recently.

hazed- · « **Reply #241 on:** August 16, 2003, 11:01:36 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
The F4U-1C? Yeah, it was whining. People made their choice of planes and other people didn't like their choice. So they cried about it.

HT did change it. But the complaints didn't cease.. oh no. They just "changed planes". Then people went on to cry about Spits, Niks and La7s. They're still crying about those. See HT do anything about that?

They are looking at damage and leathality. They've said that. The haven't said a word about changing "aiming aids" AFAIK. HT has said he isn't changing ballistics; seems like I read that in some thread recently.

well toad that all points to me that HTC are willing to 1) try things to see if they work (the f4u perking) and 2) they are currently working on all aspects of the model (due simply to the upgrading of the modelling of damage)

The fact they are not changing ballistics does not mean they are not changing they way those rounds 'impact' a target.

toad dont get me wrong here but you seem annoyed at me saying what i said above. I didnt intend to annoy anyone, but to simply point out WE dont know what HTC is doing at the moment.
for all we know they could be intending to once again listen to the 'whining' as you put it, and changing some aircraft to perk rides. I for one wouldnt mind seeing a short testing period of a few tours to see what happens when the late models are perked. Is it really going to kill us to try things out? people seem far too 'wound-up' to me in here. Like its some sort of contest to see who can guess right what HTC is up to. HTC wont change that, they wont change this, all the time coming from people who simply dont know what HTC wil do.

If ANYONE wants to say something in here, I say let them say it, sure maybe i dont agree or maybe i do, I'll let them know:D but im not about to start calling them names in order to attempt to embarrass/annoy them enough to make them leave in disgust.
HTC can make up their minds about the threads. I personally hope we do notice something improved about the gunnery/damage model. I know its sacralidge to say it but i hope we get somthing similar to 'IL2 forgotten battles'.Whether I could prove IL2 FB was more accurate or not isnt the point. IT is that the IL2FB model 'feels' more realistic and 'appears' more, only in my point of veiw admittedly!, realistic. so shoot me but it does

AH however is the place I would choose to play online. Its simply a far superior arena to play such games compared to IL2 or others. The answer is hoping AH will adopt a similar DM or even a superior one to IL2 FB. Im not sure kweassa wants exactly the same as me but asking to see a model reflect ACTUAL combat reports etc isnt an attack on AH as a game. It doesnt mean people think there are better games to play and we should all berate HTC for not doing as good. They simply take the best bits of various games,the times where they enjoy themselves and notice what it is about the game they like, bits they had enjoyed the most and hope HTC will match or better with the update. Sheesh is this a crime?

Toad · « **Reply #242 on:** August 16, 2003, 11:08:41 AM »

Namecalling? Where?

hitech · « **Reply #243 on:** August 16, 2003, 12:14:29 PM »

Yes it is a "crime" hazed. When thats the only type of post a person does.

HiTech

hazed- · « **Reply #244 on:** August 16, 2003, 02:04:24 PM »

toad i was just refering to the 'trend' of the BB's, not you in particular, I guess the quoteing made it appear i meant just you but i didnt. I meant the way some posts turn into witch hunts rather than just discussing things.most people rather than continue the thread decide to give up when things like 'whiner' or whatever other name is given to them puts them off as an adult in a discussion

Hitech I have no idea what you mean here. I suggest you re-read what i posted if you think that last paragraph was in any way an attack on AH and im beginning to think you arent reading any of my posts, just jumping in and accusing me of crap i have in no way done.
Im dumbfounded by your reply yet again. what are you saying, that all i ever do is post a 'TYPE' of thread?

I havent said anything but that i appreciate a game! How is this any diferent from saying i liked combat flight simulator or their finest hour or any other game out there which WE ALL liked and got into flight-sims because of? im sure even you guys at HTC must have favourites?? this is getting rediculous. I feel like quiting on principle only a games BB isnt worth getting worked up over. truelly amazed

MrCoffee · « **Reply #245 on:** August 16, 2003, 02:15:34 PM »

Which brings an interesting point up. Why do game makers come up with new names for new games instead of remarket old and famous games like "finest hour" battle of brittain. They should remake some of the old classic games as that would draw a good audiance of loyal game fans. If someone made a Strike Commander 03 or 04 or a Finest Hour 04 or Aces of the Pacific 04, it would sure catch my interest.

Just my opinion.

hitech · « **Reply #246 on:** August 16, 2003, 02:27:32 PM »

Hazed do us both a favor, take a 1 month sevatical from our bbs.

HiTech

MrCoffee · « **Reply #247 on:** August 16, 2003, 03:00:42 PM »

Actually thats sabbatical not sevatical.

Just a friendly pointer,

coffee

GScholz · « **Reply #248 on:** August 16, 2003, 04:12:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
Hazed do us both a favor, take a 1 month sevatical from our bbs.

HiTech

Mr. Addink, I am bewildered by your reply. Hazed actually gave you and your team high praise in those posts, saying that although you're not forthcoming with information you actually listen to the whishes of your customers and if it is found appropriate you do something about it. Yet you rebuke him and basically tell him he's not welcome on the BBS. I don't know what "whiners" have done to you in the past, but it must have been cruel and unusual for you to alienate parts of your clientele like this.

One thing I have been thinking about, and I'm going to take this opportunity to tell you about, is the reoccurring old "whines" from new players. You and other members of your team have answered a lot of questions on this BBS, but the answers get lost in the large backwater of old threads. Why not get Skuzzy to dig up all the questions and answers and put them in a sticky thread in each section of the BBS? You can call them "Read this before you whine!". It could save both you and new players a lot of aggravation. Just a suggestion.

Steve · « **Reply #249 on:** August 16, 2003, 04:15:42 PM »

I have a theory on why the gunnery model is easier in this game than it was in real life.

Here goes: If it were made as hard as RL to hit planes, many new folk who tried the game would simply give up because they would rarely meet w/ success. This includes some of the current "roster" of people who fly regularly(they may have quit as noobs). I mean, how much fun would it be for noobs if it took them a month to get their first kill? I don't want to see gunnery get any more difficult. I understand the opinions here of those that disagree w/ me, but there is a point where it goes from challenging to just plain too hard.
If the damage model changes, so be it... but I have a hard enough time hitting bad guys as it is, so I'm hoping gunnery changes not at all.

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #250 on:** August 16, 2003, 10:14:46 PM »

Steve, IMO, you are wrong, people will accomodate to difficulties with time, no more then two weeks. Or do we want a more relaxed flight model to make us "happier"?

Toad, about
"Are you prepared to deny the fact that HT has chosen fun over realism?"

Does that mean realism cant be fun? Does that mean "interest" into a high realism game cant generate fun? If so, we better ask for sidewinders and proton torpedoes to make the MA funnier.

Toad · « **Reply #251 on:** August 16, 2003, 10:52:10 PM »

Well, I don't know about that. You guys have had years to accomodate to the fact that you can be killed at ~600 yards and more in AH if you don't maneuver and it still seems to be a problem with yas.

As for HT and the complex relationship between fun and realism, I think you'd better ask him. I'm not the one making the decisions. I do think the quotes Westy put up show his overall view though.

Kweassa · « **Reply #252 on:** August 17, 2003, 03:32:58 AM »

Quote

Are you prepared to deny the fact that HT has made his intent clear regarding fun vs realism?

Are you prepared to deny the fact that HT has chosen fun over realism

I don't deny any of them. But I dare claim those two decisions, over time, is gonna prove to be the bane of AH if it keeps up.

After all, everything is now so confusing.

All this gunnery issue, and talks about long/ahistoric shooting ranges and stuff revolved around the concept of 'realism' and how it may be depicted in a 'game'.

Now, you're saying that the result of this gunnery where almost every case of shooting down is a result of guns fired over four~five football fields, is a from of a decision that chose "fun" over "realism"?

Then why in the world can't we just neuter the gunnery to match historic accounts, since practically the consideration on realism is now effectively null and void? Who needs charts or realistic performance of planes and ordnance anyway? Wouldn't a hot, ACM oriented game be more "fun", than planes armed with lasers sniping off everything they see at 400 meters?

..

Unless of course, this is a classic case of "selective realism".

Need the planes performing realistic, prop wash, torque forces, lift, G factor, all that loads of shi*... but we don't need any 'realism' concerning gunnery? Because inhibiting factors interfering with the pure ballistics displays, is gonna ruin someone's fun?

Toad, the only thing realistic about AH gunnery is that it proves the gun can hit out far as suggested by theoretical ballistics. All the other factors quoted again and again, which interact with ballistics, are missing.

And judging from your two questions I quoted above, I think you know that what happens in AH, is unrealistic.

So the ultimate question is,

Why is gunnery an exception from overall realism?

.....

Quote

You guys have had years to accomodate to the fact that you can be killed at ~600 yards and more in AH if you don't maneuver and it still seems to be a problem with yas

.. Let's quote Tony again.

Quote

As a very rough rule of thumb, typical maximum effective firing distances in RL would seem to have been around 400m against bombers, 250m against fighters flying straight and level, and 100m or less against manoeuvring targets.

Maybe we were waiting for years for AH to be changed into something like what is quoted above.

Steve · « **Reply #253 on:** August 17, 2003, 05:39:01 AM »

I'm sure having fun, the way it is now.

Kweassa · « **Reply #254 on:** August 17, 2003, 07:30:02 AM »

So am I Steve.

I'm just hoping for the better.. which of course, to some, it may not seem better.