Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gixer on December 21, 2003, 04:39:12 PM
-
Been having a blast in WW2 Online, especially with the aircraft. It's just one big turkey shoot compared to AH. My Co in that game is amazed that I can come home with constant 5 kill bags when he's never been able to do so with over 2 years experience.
Very few have any ACM skills and most just try flat turns and loops. FM is very porked though, but they don't seem to think so. And think it's the most accurately modeled FM of any sim. Not sure how they can come to that conclusion when even fuel burn isn't modeled.
Though the ground war is tough, lot's of campers with too many machine guns. LOL
...-Gixer
~Hells Angels~
-
GS basically it goes like this:
Early on CRS decided to use a 'physics' base model as opposed to tables. The idea was simple, build a 3D model and let the 'physics' engine calculate the flight modelling based on the airflow over the surfaces.
Now we all know no home PC on earth has the computational power to run a true physics flight model. So there are shortcuts. For example the infamous Tri-09 - for a long time they modelled the 109 with THREE wings (something about the fusalage), and the thing flew better than a Spit.
What they've ended up doing is no end of 'tweaking' and 'patching'.
CRS are also cagey as to what and what is not included. For example, landing gear and flap drag was only added a few patches ago. But before this was added the fanboys were out telling us how great and complete the thing was.
There is also no structural damage model. The way the DM works on wings is everytime you shoot a wing the lift component loses a bit. ie hit the wing with 1 20mm HE and the wing loses 5% lift. You can smack your wings on objects, put your prop in the ground, nada, zero damage.
Or sometimes you fly just a little to low and smack the ground. No problem (as long as you don't hit a tree at speed - which gives you a sort of G death), just drop your gear and take off again.
There is some stuff I'd like to see in AH, like more engine management (gotta watch that temp gauge in WW2OL). And the fade in icon system is nice.
If you look past the fact that the FMs and DMs are only about 60% done you can still have a lot of fun.
-
i hate the LW wonder 1 ping cannon. And stuka is BS, unloaded entire ammo from a hurricane into one from about 100 yards and he just flew off burning quite happily. Only got a damaged on him.
But yes, the majority of pilots there cant comprehend ACM i find. Dont think that many of them even have joysticks!
-
Furball it appears (although CRS deny) it there is a bug with the HE rounds (hence cannons). If aircraft have vastly different speeds (ie, a fighter makes a high speed pass on a bomber) the HE rounds are exploding well within the airframe. If the aircraft have similar speeds (ie a 109 is chasing a spit and firing from his 6) the it appears the HE rounds are exploding outside or even behind the airframe.
This leads to the one ping flames a plane for one guy, an entire belt of ammo doesn't even scratch the paint for another guy issues.
This is also what appears to be the cause of the infamous 20mm HE flaming tanks bug.
Its less noticeable on the Allied side because they have less cannons to play with.
Ammo also has no compounded damage. Such that if you unloaded an entire belt of ammo into an aircraft you may not do any damage. For example, in AH if you pound a guys tail with 303s eventually that component fails - AH counts and keeps adding each hit as damage til the total damage value exceeds a value that component fails at (correct me if I'm wrong HT). In WW2OL there is no 'fail value', nor compounding damage counter. For example, in WW2OL if shot A penetrates the armour, the shot will do internal damage BUT the armour does not fail, such that a second shot B with not quite enough kinetic energy - but hitting the same spot as shot A - does not penetrate.
CRS kind of addressed it by scoring each hit on a wing surface as a) reducing lift b) inducing drag. ie, 1 303 bullet passes thru wing A, wing A losses 1% lift, increases 1% drag. Likewise for the control surfaces.
IMHO this non-compounding damage model and the lack of a structural damage model are two of the most glaring problems with WW2OL and the source of the 'its fubar' complaints.
-
It is fun, though.
-
Vulcan, the way you describe it makes it sound like they were not in command of all their faculties when they designed that system. Or not up to the task maybe.
-
From what I understand the programming teams been through a few changes (to the point one one of the CRS guys posted how they removed a bit of code they though was superfluous, then some wierd bug appeared elsewhere that *seemed* unrelated but when they put the code back in the bug went away).
I'd say the game is due fo a complete rewrite. Considering the crowd they pull with such ahhh ummm whats a nice way of putting it... smelly code... its suprising they can't get someone big to invest some real $$$.
-
Well, I just had to jump in to say couple things..
WWIIOL sure isn't perfect, but Vulcan isn't either right in all of his claims.. in other words is exagerating more than fair enough.
Vulcan, if you're going to complain of the coding, please, do not exagerate or put up suspicions as facts.
That isn't giving any better view of yourself.
Don't try to refer to me as a fanboi either, since I possibly couldn't be rated as one and it'd be only a poor excuse to deflect personal criticism.
So don't be a looser and pull out the fanboi card, since it won't work... can you guess why?
CRS seemingly has been steadily improving, like seen here at HTC based forums, from threads not started by people referred to as 'wwiiol fanbois'. So I suggest you give them a chance and drop out exagerating and the things you don't really know about.
I can agree with the FM being quite off at the moment.
but damage model issues are something you really, really don't know a thing about.
-
OK Fishu, u have the soapbox, explain where I went wrong.
(remembering that I am an active subscriber and have been playing for about 1 year, excluding the on off periods before then)
-
yes and I have been since the begining with some breaks lately.
I'll see what I get done... with only 2 hours of sleep, blah.
1. I've only heard of 109's three wings from the whiners (however FM's werent exactly correct back then either, just the tri-wing thing is something I haven't seen by said by dev's, so to me thats been whiner rumours)
Currently probably most 'funnest' FM's are on spitfire, 109s and havoc: before 109 engine tweak (the famous Penttiku vs. Hatch match), it did perhaps 3 loops starting from NOE, which after it was about to crash.
Havoc with full bombload did far better in loops.. spitfires even better - climbing altitude, whereas every other plane eventually were to crash when looping (starting from NOE, again)
This got bit better with 109, but to by the last check a _somewhile_ ago, spit and havoc were still too amazing loopers.
Some people who I think are more reliable than whiners at PS forum, have said that spitfire was able to catch climbing 109 by doing steep climbs, then going shallow dive, steep climb, shallow dive.. rinse & repeat (see what I said about loops above.. I haven't tested this one, but seems highly possible to me, matching with the looping results and these other people say they've tested to some extent)
This is even further magnified effect when it seems that 109 is performing under the historical rates and spitfire defying some physics for it's setup
Other planes are doing tad better by the last time I tested...
(except every other test than US one, reports Hawk 75 slower than it is in the game - which is said to use US data but ignores all the other tests, like for example french and finnish)
2. HE damage / airplane speeds thing you talk about, I'd say you're too confident of the theory.
3. about the wingtips.. I've noticed that only a very little scrape does only shake the plane, but the object going about 30cm into the wingtip and you'll blow
How do I know? tried it when I were curious why and when the plane can survive touch with an object
Propellers however does not get any negative effect from touching the ground or plane itself, thats true. (as long as nothing comes in the way)
4. I _hear_ the HE bug is back again and tanks are getting killed too often by HE rounds.
However, there has been times before when HE has not been screwed up too badly.
A13, Vickers, Panhard and Daimler could be killed by airplane guns, however anything bigger would be asking too much.
Proving to Downtown that for example S35 and Char B1 does not get easily dispatched by an airplane, I conducted several tests with a friend, who got bored in his tank when nothing happened.. only time was when a leak was found in S35, very small and very hard place to hit with an airplane (and in the process trying avoid EA's who insisted to interrupt testing once in a while)
Anyway, once again complaints of airplanes killing S35/Char with ease were found to be just a stupid whine (if it's a tank is claimed to be easily killed by an airplane, then one must wonder why such frequently killable tank cannot be killed with several BF110 loads of 20mm and 7.92mm, with several different angles and hit places)
but well, the very latest versions, I don't know..
5. when you get hit and the hit causes loss of lift, you will notice where you were hit... at least I've noticed if the plane has been hit in elevator or right wing a tad too much, up to a point where it's about impossible to fly straight.
Even though you don't see your wing ripping off, it doesn't mean there isn't same kind of effects as AH when wing visibly rips off..
(in fact AH has a system i dont quite like - wing lift is 100% until it is finally ripped off due to extensive damage)
Problem with WWIIOL wing damage has been too little negative effect towards lift by damage.
(and the other problem too easily lit up planes... not sure how it's now though, after some tweaks to fuel tanks according to readme since FM renewal IIRC)
and by the time 'armour' fails, the plane would be going down already..
unless you want to model tennis ball sized holes, which again would fall to lack of processing power.
Although this is an issue for debate, since two can think differently of how armour on plane should be handled.
Ground pounding however is in better shape than planes
-
No compounded damage is a feature.
Think of it this way, if you empty your smg again and again on the frontal armour of a tank do you expect it to penetrate if you keep at it for a couple days ? No.
Damage on plane hitting the ground isn't in yet, only G damage to the pilot.
Flight model; they have the ambition of using real physics, supplying weights, wing areas, angles etc and let the chips fall there they may without tweaking.
Well the chips do fall and I suspect they have had to tweak. About the lack of CPU power to do a full model, know little about that but it sounds credible.
The one bullet = 1% less lift, drag; I'm not at all thats a correct description.
-
Forgot, the 109 triplane.
It was a panel on the body that by mistake gave lift acting as a third wing.
The 109 was as fast as ever but turned like it had three wings.
Corrected then WWIIOL developed better tools to evaluate fm's (to visualize the effects of fm changes, or so they say)
Edit/add: Yes, a developer did say 'three wings' (docdoom I think).
-
OK Fishu:
1) tri-wing 109 issue confirmed by scout. no point going over it.
2) the HE issue is blatantly obvious. Its easy to test, take up a 109, make a high speed pass on a Havoc, watch the results. Do the same again from his 6 at the same speed. The tank numbers also don't add up, I can kill S35's with the 20mm. Two nights ago I killed 4 Stuarts leaving an FB with a 109.
3) The wingtip hitting an object is a kind of G-force death. Not airframe failure. If you hit an object slowly enough, your plane will bounce off. If you hit it harder, however the airframe never breaks.
4) but well, the very latest versions, I don't know..
doesn't leave much to argue with does it. BTW I see 2 and 4 as the same issue, HE rounds clipping inside objects. Like you said yourself, you don't know, well I do.
5) hits may cause loss of lift but never result in a structural failure. eg, landing gear (not that you need it)
Fishu: you're hinting that you've not played the game for a while (unsub'd I believe), if so lay your cards on the table.
Scout: I know what you're saying, and you are right about the SMG. But the counter point is say a 50mm AP shell is 95% short of full penetration, a second 50mm AP shell hits the same spot, shouldn't the armour then fail? I think compound damage needs to be in there, but as you point out it needs to be a comprimise. (this is also why I get so annoyed when people go "its a hit point system, its crap")
The 1 bullet = 1% lift is just a simplification of how it works (no one knows the real value except CRS, all we know is that the hit causes potential loss of lift and increased drag)
Please remember I openly admit to subscribing and enjoying the game. Many AH players would take that as reason enough to try it. So I'm not trying to turn people away (in fact I tried to help a couple of AHers I saw there as much as I could). But I will not see the AH guys LIED too. And I believe the lies often spread by the fanbois (not meaning you two) set great expectations which later lead to great disappointment.
-
There are problems with the air portion of WWIIOL. I've spent a little time flying, and it's definately different than either WB or AH. There are some areas where it feels "better" or just "right" compared to AH or WB, but there are far more areas in the FM where it doesn't feel nearly as right or correct as AH or WB.
On the other hand, the ground war is so much fun that I don't really have any desire to fly anymore in WWIIOL. If I want to fly, I log into AH.
-
I enjoy it for the most part.
Things I don't like:
1. Numbers, stinks being allied with swarms of germans all over.
2. Enormous amounts of german tanks.
3. FM is just funky. I was trying to bomb in a blen a couple days ago, I came screaming out of the sky, switched to the bomb position to drop then switched back to the pilot to late. I smacked into the ground, everything went red and i thought i was dead...wait a couple seconds and I am driving along the ground. I lower my gear and take right back off. Did the same thing in the stuka, ran right through those hard trees that tanks like to hide in, I hit it perfectly, blacked out for a second and kept right on flying.
4. Whole ammo loads into stukas, man that is frustrating. 110s, 111s they go down easy, stukas just keep on trucking.
Having said all that it still is fun. I could look past most everything if the numbers would even out.
-
I remember flipping vehicles over with my landing gear...hee hee.
Now THAT'S realism.:D
-
Scout: I know what you're saying, and you are right about the SMG. But the counter point is say a 50mm AP shell is 95% short of full penetration, a second 50mm AP shell hits the same spot, shouldn't the armour then fail? I think compound damage needs to be in there, but as you point out it needs to be a comprimise. (this is also why I get so annoyed when people go "its a hit point system, its crap")
By "same spot", do you mean directly within the previous 50mm wide dent? Because that may be how close you'd have to come, and that would be a terrific shot regardless of the range.
-
Boy I just loved when I was playing WW2OL how you could push the nose forward into a -1G dive and end up in what I called "red death" because your pilot would continually die within 2-3 seconds of red out. I was beta testing for WW2OL then (pretty much up until earlier this year) and never once was it commented on by the developers in the closed beta forums. I still think about the time I tried to take a 110 up and it went upwards like that video as a helicopter.
-
Vulcan,
Good luck hitting the exact same spot with a 50mm round...
The only way to model such compound damage, would be to remove whole armour plate after # amount of hits, which would be just silly.
Think of Char without side armour, because a bunch of 37mm hits.
That'd be just funny, not real :D
It'd be a bit too much asked to have armour divided into so small partitions that you could keep hammering those and get a small hole after it. (besides being a crack shot)
I thought you meant airplane armouring, couldn't think you'd be asking something as arcadish as all the armour being applied the same..
You can consider it sometime in the future with heavier shells, that actually could crack the armour and even crack whole pieces out of the armour just by the sheer blast.
-
Well Fishu, you discredited yourelf in your first sentence on the soapbox. I too have seen the confirmation by Killer AND Docdoom. Matter of fact, they admitted it in the middle of a post where there were trying to "dress me down". Fortunately I am not susceptible to silly jedi mind tricks. ;)
Vulcan is laying it out fairly. And, FWIW... you notice you were insulting him in your post admonishing him not to insult you in rebuttal? Funny, real funny. "Allied Whiner"? hehe
You think pointing out Havocs looping from takeoff with a full bombload shores your assertion the FM isn't FUBAR? Vulcan wasn't arguing "bias", he was arguing "F/M".
-
Kieran,
Well, I haven't, reasonable enough? although I've seen alot of crying.
Anyway.. what comes to docdoom and killer, I've seen them say alot, like things "StuG is fine" "only own near by HE shot damages"
and the list goes on... (funny, when it comes to axis stuff having bugs which makes them worse, they claim theres nothing serious wrong and when it comes to bugs which promote axis equiptment, they tell allies it's a bug X and X?)
I wouldn't trust either of them for one bit... lost it a long time ago.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Scout: I know what you're saying, and you are right about the SMG. But the counter point is say a 50mm AP shell is 95% short of full penetration, a second 50mm AP shell hits the same spot, shouldn't the armour then fail? I think compound damage needs to be in there, but as you point out it needs to be a comprimise. (this is also why I get so annoyed when people go "its a hit point system, its crap")
Wasn't trying to suggest anything about a 'compromise', compromise about what ?
Compound damage by tank versus tanks has been discussed to death for years in WWIIOL.
While not pretending to know much about shells or armor I decided I find CRS position convincing (as supported by players who seem knowledgeable).
If a shell is not powerful enough to penetrate, the armor acts elastic and the shell bounce off or disintegrate.
A tank with good armor (Matilda) can withstand shelling from a 'weak' tank gun 'indefinitely'. And thats how it really was.
As already pointed out if you hit exactly the same spot over and over again, then maybe eventually gouging out a small fraction every time.
Compound damage in the context of riddling a wing with bullets exists obviously (except I have lot of questions regarding the implementation of that in WWIIOL, 1% lift-drag per bullet seems way to simplistic if thats the truth. Then I haven't kept up with that discussion since the version implementing it was released)
I believe CRS have the right ideas about damage model, I also think damage model are incomplete in airplanes, very incomplete for destroyers). And there are errors, has been, and most likely are and will be (like HE explosion dispersing inside armor for instance, old bug)
For example if an large caliber shell pass right through the cloth body of a Hurri for instance, provided it doesn't hit anything vital it doesn't matter if a 100 shells pass the same way.
A compounded damage model dictate Hurri goes after three.
-
nm
-
Originally posted by Sox62
I remember flipping vehicles over with my landing gear...hee hee.
Now THAT'S realism.:D
Ahhh the good ol' days... :D I recall that well....
-
Ohhhh Fishu time to suck a little "I was wrong and Vulcan was right"-pie :
Oh, something few seem to understand will happen, but I may as well tell you it will, because we're working on it happening, ASAP.
The HE bug that allows aircraft 20mm to kill tanks is our public enemy number one, bug wise right now. It will be squashed.
No idea exactly when, if we could predict that, I'd go win the lottery tomorrow. We're working on it guys.
_________________
Geof Rey Evans
Producer/CRS
"We PWN PvP"
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Ohhhh Fishu time to suck a little "I was wrong and Vulcan was right"-pie :
"I _hear_ the HE bug is back again and tanks are getting killed too often by HE rounds.
However, there has been times before when HE has not been screwed up too badly."
really?