Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Wanker on January 02, 2004, 11:52:22 AM
-
Based on some comparison I've done between flying in AH and WW2OL:
Ground handling: WW2OL has AH beat, hands down. Let's look at the differences in procedures for takeoff, and by that I mean what is realistically required for an average takeoff by an average fighter at a land base:
Aces High
1. Start engine
2. Firewall throttle
3. Apply small rudder inputs to correct for negligable torque effects
WW2OL
1. Start engine
2. Lock tail wheel
3. Lower flaps
4. Set max RPM's
5. Close canopy to reduce drag
6. Gradually engage throttle until plane starts to move slowly
7. Continue to increase throttle in a gradual manner until at full military power
8. Apply rudder inputs to correct for torque effects
9. When nose comes up, hold stick back to prevent ground looping
No question in my mind that HTC should invest the time in making the time spent on the ground before takeoff more realistic.
Icon/in-flight radar Systems:
AH
In-cockpit radar combined with bright, unmistakable neon icons that can be seen from a great distance away. Makes it easy to find a fight. Unfortunately, makes it nearly impossible to disengage from one.
WW2OL
No in-cockpit radar combined with a vague, fading icon system that doesn't indicate cons as enemy or friend until close at hand makes it challenging to find a fight. Also makes it difficult to maintain vis on enemy during fight. Makes it possible, however, to safely disengage from a fight if damaged, wounded or just outnumbered.
This topic is more subjective, no doubt. After spending time on both, I am leaning more toward the WW2OL system. Something about how you can be in the fight one moment, then completely out of it the next, is an interesting and IMO, exciting experience.
Engine Management:
AH
Upon starting engine, ram the throttle to full military power and forget about it. When extra power is needed, engage WEP(if available). No need to worry about overheating your engine, even with WEP engaged.
WW2OL
Three RPM settings: Economy RPM's, Continuous RPM's, Max RPM's. Max RPM's is typically only used during take off and during a fight. One must be careful not to use Max RPM's too much, or engine damage will result, caused by overheating.
In this dept, again, WW2OL has AH licked. Before you all accuse me of being an anal-retentive engine management freak, let me assure you I am not. That being said, however, the simple fact of having to adjust the RPM's depending upon what you're doing, is very immersive. It can lead to interesting situations where you can get the edge on an opponent because you have been more careful with your engine temp before you entered battle.
I have flown AH since the first day of open beta, and I have been one of HTC's biggest fans for many years. I have spent years as a CM, and one year as head CM. I have done my share to promote AH and to spread the gospel about AH to try to help HTC make a profit.
But after spending some time checking out WW2OL, it's apparent to me that there are some aspects of flight that HTC is satisfied with in its current, dumbed-down approach.
Don't get me wrong, I am aware of many faults in WW2OL's flight modelling, so I'm not here to say that AH sucks and WW2OL has it all right.
What I am saying, is that AH is so good that it deserves to be improved upon in those three areas listed above. I think that if HTC would decide to lean toward more realism, they would have the ultimate flight sim on the market.
Agree? Disagree?
-
Agree 100%.
-
Have you flown the Beta? Outside of Engine Management, flight model and ground handling have improved.
-
3 things:-
1) Beer
2) Women
3) Naked Women Carrying Beer
-
Originally posted by banana
No question in my mind that HTC should invest the time in making the time spent on the ground before takeoff more realistic.
[/b]
Why? Do you get many kills during the T/O sequence in WW2OL? Or are you just seeking ever-more "realistic immersion"? If so, that checklist is WAY too short. Do you want to start in the briefing room or maybe at the exterior walk around?
This topic is more subjective, no doubt. After spending time on both, I am leaning more toward the WW2OL system. Something about how you can be in the fight one moment, then completely out of it the next, is an interesting and IMO, exciting experience.
[/b]
Yes, and I hear of folks that drive their tanks on to a freighter and five hours later debark in France or whatever in WW2OL. It's OK, I guess if that's what you're looking for in a game. IIRC, AH radar is set up the way it is pretty much to ensure that folks CAN find the fight quickly. The icon thing can and should be adjusted in both games, IMO. AH is too strong and (the last time I played) WW2OL was too weak.
That being said, however, the simple fact of having to adjust the RPM's depending upon what you're doing, is very immersive.
[/b]
AH could probably use some engine management techniques. It's in the same vein though, when does immersive become pointlessly annoying in a game? You could say the same about fuel tank switching; does WW2OL mandate that?
it's apparent to me that there are some aspects of flight that HTC is satisfied with in its current, dumbed-down approach.[/b]
Yep. He doesn't even make you go to Primary and Advanced training before you go to school to qualify in ONE particular fighter before you deploy to the warzone. ;) See what I mean? I think he has his vision and he's pursuing it.
I think that if HTC would decide to lean toward more realism, they would have the ultimate flight sim on the market.
[/B]
Lots of things in the pipeline and still more rest unmentioned in the designer's/owner's brain. I'll be around a while longer, waiting to see where he takes AH.
-
It's been a while since I tried WWIIOnline but I don't think it beats IL2 for immersion so far as the takeoff is concerned. I don't fly IL2 much but every now and then I'll boot it up just to take off a few times. :)
-
Why? Do you get many kills during the T/O sequence in WW2OL? Or are you just seeking ever-more "realistic immersion"? If so, that checklist is WAY too short. Do you want to start in the briefing room or maybe at the exterior walk around?
I am seeking ever more "realistic immersion". That being said, If WW2OL had me starting with the pre-flight checking of the surface movements and the fuel check, I'd be saying that they've gone way overboard in the realism dept.
But, as you'll notice I kept to what both sims offer today and I tried to present a fair appraisal of both without resorting to witty rhetorical questions.
Seriously, Toad, I do enjoy taxiing and takeoff, as well as landing. Ask any of my squaddies. My goal during squad nights is to bring my bird back in one piece and land that sucker. I am not in it "just for the kills". I'm in for the whole experience.
Yes, the realism can be taken to extremes. But WW2OL has not taken it to that point yet, and AH is woefully short in the realism dept. in some areas.
-
Well, then let's simply say I disagree.
I'm glad you have WW2OL and glad it "immerses" you.
I'm glad I have AH; there might be a few minor things I think would improve the "feel" or "theme" of the game but for me the "immersion" in any of these games starts when I see the enemy and lasts until that particular fight ends. Then it's just droning around looking to "immerse" myself in another round of WW2 style air combat.
THAT'S the part I crave.
I'm never going to be one of the ones that feels a sim should include the complaining about the horrible taste of powdered eggs and bad coffee in the mess hall before the briefing for the sake of "immersion". Sorry. ;)
-
Originally posted by banana
I think that if HTC would decide to lean toward more realism, they would have the ultimate flight sim on the market.
Wrong way to go banana. You left WB too soon. The realism nazis are in full flower over there now. Just did a short stint with all 60 of them.
I don't want to recreate flying a WWII aircraft down to seeing 8 blades before I hit the mags.
The more "realistic" you make it, the smaller the nich becomes. Proven anywhere you look.
The "no icon" arena, the "short icon" arena, restrictions of available a/c in WB. The CT. Squad Ops, The scenarios here.
Lizkng said once and I quote:
"10% of the population likes full realism 100% of the time. 90% of the population likes full realism 10% of the time"
It has been proven over and over again.
The sandbox has the people.
Make it ANYTHING different then a sandbox and you have WB with sixty guys.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, then let's simply say I disagree.
I'm glad you have WW2OL and glad it "immerses" you.
I'm glad I have AH; there might be a few minor things I think would improve the "feel" or "theme" of the game but for me the "immersion" in any of these games starts when I see the enemy and lasts until that particular fight ends. Then it's just droning around looking to "immerse" myself in another round of WW2 style air combat.
THAT'S the part I crave.
I'm never going to be one of the ones that feels a sim should include the complaining about the horrible taste of powdered eggs and bad coffee in the mess hall before the briefing for the sake of "immersion". Sorry. ;)
You're being entirely unreasonable.
-
Make it ANYTHING different then a sandbox and you have WB with sixty guys.
Nopoop, I'm not a realism Nazi, I'm more of a realism neo-fascist. :D
How, then, do you explain the thousands of people playing WW2OL? And if your hypothesis were correct, we'd all still be flying AW or Flying Circus or FA, wouldn't we?
-
i agree with toad (though FM should still be as realistic as possible...it adds something to the fight...otherwise i might as well just play FA3...)
-
banana, not to pick on ya, but I think folks moved from AW to WB and then to AH primarily for improvements in the FM's; that's what directly improves the immersion of the fight itself.
I know I followed Dale to WB because the airplanes acted more like airplanes when performing BFM, not because there was more "realistic immersion" in the engine start procedure. (I don't think there was.)
I followed Dale to AH because the airplanes acted more like airplanes when performing BFM, not because there was more "realistic immersion" in the engine start procedure. (I don't think there was.)
You might throw gunnery and damage modeling in there too, I guess.
I think WW2OL has a large player base because it offers FPS opportunities, be it with a rifle, an AT gun or even a tank. There can be NO difference of opinion that FPS is a much larger genre with a much larger potential player base than straight up Air Combat. (Also, it's pretty clear that folks aren't swarming to WW2OL for the "improved" FM's. Not yet, anyway.)
Now, for me personally, that's a sad situation. Because I think we can all see the drift towards FPS ground ops that AH has taken since Beta. I don't blame HT a bit; the "purist Air Combat" player base is tiny compared to the market for evolution from Doom/Quake/MOH/DOD/COD/AA/WW2OL amongst players. Why do the work for a potential clientele of 10,000 when you can do the same amount of work for a potential clientele of 1,000,000?
He's a smart man, but if it goes that way, it'll be my loss and I'll understand completely.
-
Ah, I get it. So you admit to being a "realism immersionist", too.
Thanks. :)
What I don't understand is why I get called a "realism nazi" just because I like my airplanes to feel like airplanes when I'm on the ground and in the air.
It would seem that everyone has their own comfort zone for realism. AKIron has a point about IL-2, too. IL-2 is even more complex than WW2OL in the flight dept. I suppose there's only 60 people flying IL2 at the moment, though.
Or maybe not? ;)
-
Absolutely, when it comes to the fighting part.
All else.. the coffee in the mess hall, the walkaround inspection, the 27 step interior cockpit check, tightening your shoulder harness just before you put the power in........... is useless dross.
IMO.
-
95 percent of the people playing WW2ol are there for the ground game( myself included)
you want realism, how about the planes that bounce off the ground ?
or the fact that spits and hawks can take 6-10 rounds of 20mm?
and outturn a 109
damage model, what damage model, the only damage I see is either smoke or fire
Nope, WW2ol does'nt even come close enough to compare to AH in the flight model department.
then there's the attrition factor-I rarely play because of it.
while it did stop the 100 quake/tank attacks, there's something discourageing about goin to the "front" and there's nothing but riflemen left because some dweeb went out and lost 5 tanks in a row to a at gun
as for the numbers, I have never seen "thousands" on at the same time.couple of hundred, Maybe.LOL the server would take a huge dump, lag would be 5 minutes, and you'd never see the guy that got ya (or vice versa)
Keep in mind that 99 percent of the people don't want to have to do a "walk around", or follow control tower directions.
they want to get in the plane and Go !
Now, if you want to do the ground thing, WW2ol is pretty good,except for that daggone 64 limit thing,
if ya want to do the air thing, AH has it hands down
O , and go fly the Beta, get on runway and jam 100 percent throttle on and see what happens
-
Originally posted by Toad
Absolutely, when it comes to the fighting part.
All else.. the coffee in the mess hall, the walkaround inspection, the 27 step interior cockpit check, tightening your shoulder harness just before you put the power in........... is useless dross.
IMO.
Ya have to admit, all that would add to the tension and excitement when trying to get up to defend a base under attack. Ya might hafta skip the coffee though. ;)
-
Originally posted by banana
What I don't understand is why I get called a "realism nazi" just because I like my airplanes to feel like airplanes when I'm on the ground and in the air
banana it's a slippery slope, the realism thing..
Think of it as tough love :O)
Next thing is pages upon pages of discussions of AoA, P factor, not to mention ballistics, weapons availibility, aircraft damage models, cockpit intrumentation placement, cowl flap operation, numbers coralation vs. actual reports and on and on and on..
When these things start to become "important" to your enjoyment, the fire is waning. From what I've seen in this disease, noodling the numbers and worrying the graphs replaces the fire that somehow left.
And no matter how much it's noodled, configured and worried, it is never "quite" right.
I suggest a HEAVY dose of hair on fire..
Then grab an available plane in beta without flaps for a couple of touch n' goes.
It will pass.
-
Iron, isn't there already someway to skip the short engine start procedure in AH? Seems I heard about it, but never bothered. Someway to get in the air faster than the default way?
Remember too, if you're seeking "realistic immersion" that while you have 38 step checklists, you can also jump in a plane, wind up the inertia starter, flip on the mags and engage the starter and roll... if you HAD too.
Also remember what usually "realistically" happened to WW2 pilots that tried to takeoff at fields under active enemy air attack by fighters.
Hint: that pretty much happens here too.. we call it "vultching" I think. ;)
-
I guess a slower start might discourage the ever hopeful vulchees. I don't really wanna simulate the actual startup, would be fun a few times but would as you suggest get old quick.
It's not that about Il2 that I find fun in the takeoff. It just feels real, hard to understand if ya haven't tried it. Maybe you have Toad?
-
This isn't about AH vs WWIIOL. banana raises some good points and I'm sure some of these would be good for the CT/scenarios but perhaps not the MA. Maybe with the mission setup in TOD (AH2) would better suit some of these changes?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
It just feels real, hard to understand if ya haven't tried it. Maybe you have Toad?
The sound of the engine when you run it up to full power, the "on the edge" feeling when it's been firewalled. It IS a takeoff roll with horsepower, I agree.
-
Iron, nope, never tried IL-2 other than a few moments at a Con when Milo had it up.
I'll say this.. the new AH2 takeoff is the best in a game I've experienced so far. (Some of the planes are still buggy, but HT knows that and they'll get tweaked.)
In the last beta or two, I fired up a few different planes and rolled. I was quite suprised to realize (about halfway through the roll) that I had been looking inside/outside/inside/outside/stay outside in the exact same places with the same durations I looked at when flying actual WW2 taildraggers like the BT-13.
I was doing the exact same things with my hands and feet and my eyes were getting their confirmation and scanning in the same places and patterns.
I was impressed.
Is IL-2 better than that? Heck, I don't know. But AH2 impressed me as far as the takeoff roll "experience".
But man....... did I ever miss that 37 step checklist, including "battery switch - on".
-
Takeoff in AH2 is a definite improvement over AH1, not as good as Il2, Il2FB anyhow. Wish Hitech could get together with Oleg and merge the two.
-
Now to bust your bubble.
About the only time I DON'T use autotakeoff is when the CV is turning. Then I use manual and go straight down the deck using rudders.
Why? For me..... and maybe me alone....... takeoff doesn't offer anything that excites me or "immerses" me or whatever. It's just a prelude to the action on the order of logging into the arena. :)
It's a good time to get a beer, hit the head, run do some small favor for the wife.
I can manually takeoff any plane in the game. The only one that gives me trouble is a max loaded F4U from the CV and those are doable you just have to be a bit more careful.
Perspective I guess. I don't know how many actual takeoffs I've logged but it's gotta be way past 10,000. After learning how, the only exciting ones were the ones where a motor quit, the hdyraulics quit and the gear didn't come up, there was a humongous gusty crosswind near the limitation or a bird hit the windscreen right in front of my face. Routine takeoffs are, by definition, pretty routine.
YMMV.
-
banana it's a slippery slope, the realism thing..
I see your point, nopoop, but the slippery slope can go both ways. Some people might not want to deal with the current AH1 three-step check list for take off. Why can't they just air spawn?
Would you prefer air spawns? If not, then I argue that we are all "realism nazi's" to a certain extent. Each person has their own comfort zone.
you want realism, how about the planes that bounce off the ground ?
or the fact that spits and hawks can take 6-10 rounds of 20mm?
and outturn a 109
damage model, what damage model, the only damage I see is either smoke or fire
Nope, WW2ol does'nt even come close enough to compare to AH in the flight model department.
Flit, while I haven't personally experienced any of that, I'll take your word for it. I have already personally witnessed the uber Stuka armor, though. But that is why I still enjoy AH, because it does have an outstanding FM in so many ways.
That being said, there are some pretty neat parts of the flight experience in WW2OL that, if added to AH, would only increase my enjoyment of AH.
-
Originally posted by banana
but the slippery slope can go both ways. .
Can't argue with that banana. Alittle either way goes along way. A balancing act any way you look at it.
Too much weight on either side and gravity takes over.
-
Originally posted by Furball
3 things:-
1) Beer
2) Women
3) Naked Women Carrying Beer
Scantily clad is sometimes a lot better than naked....
-
Harder != More Realistic
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Harder != More Realistic
No, but sometimes Realistic==Harder
-
More realistic does not always = More fun.
-
A very subjective issue. I can see where Mr. Toad is coming from.
He's done the whole realism bit, and who needs it in a game? I've only flown small civil types in RL, but for that reason I couldn't give a stuff about immersion with rudder pedals in a game, and have only ever used a twisty stick in these games.
-
Shame on you NB!
This is a game. It should have nothing to do with fun.
Say you're sorry.
-
I sowwy.
Old habits die hard. Used to have a blast takin' shots at the realism nazis on the Genie boards :D.
BTW, HT has done an excellent job of balancing realism/gameplay with AH.
-
May hats in the ring with banana. I did stay in WBs too long. Glad to be gone in most respects. I will, however, take a bit shallower dive than banana :)
I have said this before....TOO MUCH RADAR in the MA. That NON-Realizm detracts from the fun. There is something very cool about taking off with a few wingies on a Fighter Sweep mission. Kinda like Fishin' sometimes you catch something sometimes you come home empty handed. Ya just can't SNEAK up on anything in the MA and really the CT ain't much better.
AH has more engine management then WBs. Auto-Takeoff is for...Toads UGH! Go play Quake.
It's odd how some of you smack away at realizm?? If you join a NASCAR League those ol' Boys can't get enough. Right up to the Duct Tape on the grills, Baby! You'd think the Fight gang and the Car gang would be a lot alike. Or at least I would!
Anyway, if I leave anything on the table it's....."TOO MUCH RADAR". Make it go away!
Happy New Year Gents,
-
FWIW banana I feel the same way you do. But it's been a couple of years since anyone would have found people more apt to discuss this rather post a slam. The AH boards remind me of AW circa 1998 now.
Westy
-
Originally posted by Furball
3 things:-
1) Beer
2) Women
3) Naked Women Carrying Beer
I'm voting Furball for President.
-
Originally posted by banana
No in-cockpit radar combined with a vague, fading icon system that doesn't indicate cons as enemy or friend until close at hand makes it challenging to find a fight.
Agree? Disagree?
Disagree. The challenge I want is in the fight...not in finding it (one of the major reasons I didn't stay in WB for more than a week). While I don't really care about dot radar one way or another, the sector bars I do care about.
-
Couldn't have said it better NB.
I remember before I gave up and threw in the towel at WB logging into Main with their "realistic" radar settings.
There were sixty guys in the arena and not_one_dot...
Text buffer got no answers after repeated attempts but finally saw a very small cluster of enemy dots a ways away.
Fueled up, flew for 10 or 15 minutes to get there and found 4 GV's..
The towel shortly followed.
Mess with Dar and the door will be opened as the place empties..
-
Originally posted by dracon
Auto-Takeoff is for...Toads UGH! Go play Quake.
I challenge you to a take-off duel!
Pitts S2B's in a 15 knot gusty crosswind.
Your choice of airfields.
Bet I win.
:D
Manual takeoff in games is for those who have too much time on their hands and an ego that needs constant stroking. I sure hope you start in the Hangars and carefully taxi to the departure end for takeoff in AH too..... otherwise, you should go play Quake.
-
Originally posted by NoBaddy
More realistic does not always = More fun.
... and Less realistic does not always = More fun either.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
... and Less realistic does not always = More fun either.
fun = what you consider to be fun, no more and no less.
-
It's important to realize that everything you are asking for was tried long, long ago and discarded. For example, the original Confirmed Kill (which turned into Warbirds, which turned into Aces High) had very high torque making takeoffs very difficult. There is no question whatsoever that the current AH torque on takeoff is weak. Comments by real pilots indicated full rudder was needed on Spits on takeoff, while AH requires only a tiny bit of rudder. But the difficult high torque takeoff in CK was removed because it was unpopular.
Engine management is the same thing: more than ten years ago Air Warrior had what you wanted. Run at full power too long and the engine overheated and quit. They even programmed rare random failures under normal engine operation. More realistic, indeed, but the player base emphatically hated it and it was removed.
Same thing can be said about icons.
In all these cases the programmers actually listened to their customers and modified their game to please the majority. It is always a balancing act and since online flight sims have had a very long time (about 15 years) to get it right, then what we have now is close to right for the majority.
-
Hehehehe welpers have it your way. That's what paying your fee is all about. You got about 4 or more different games going on in here all at the same time. I never try to tell anyone how to spend their dollars or play their games. I guarentee that the door flies open the second it gets too much like QuakeBirds as fast as it would for Too Real.
The EGO stroking lies with the Furballers that must constantly prove their Prowess , not with guys that taxi their craft. I have been in SIMMs for so long I do it all. Bomb, Jabo, CV, GV, FurBall. I never said that I'd want Radar to go completely away, just less of it. Smaller rings if you will. The flashing bases is the most Bogus BS in this SIMM. THAT needs to go away...yesterday.
Toadie...In that kinda crosswind I'm sittin at the barbie with a Scotch and a Great Cigar :) No contesto
-
Well, I haven't played flight sims all that long. Started with AW DOS on GEnie around '89 or '90, went to WB when it was in Beta, came to AH day one of beta. So I haven't really "done it all" I guess.
15kts ain't no biggie. Landed the PT-19 in a 22 Gust 28 70 degree cross... went on like a new coat of paint. (Wife in the backseat: "is it like this all the time?" :D) The wet grass was kinda fun on a 50 foot wide runway though. It's those AH takeoffs that really get my heart thumpin' and stroke my ego though! Hoooah! Computer Game TAKEOFFS! ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
-
imho, it's the guys who *can't* handle the dogfighting aspect very well who want all this realism in other areas to make up for that lack.
:rolleyes:
-
I can't say I'd like any of the ideas put forth by Wanky, but I do enjoy taking off myself.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
... and Less realistic does not always = More fun either.
In the immortal words of Homer Simpson....."DOH!" :D. Thas why I put the word "always" in the statement.
-
Maybe real life pilots just don't understand that the 'steps and procedures' which they make a part of their career life, and feel nothing special about it, is in fact a source of lot of immersion for those who don't get a chance to sit in real planes. :)
I can understand some of you here with a lot of piloting experiences feeling indifferent, and even tedious towards to such things - hey, you do it all the time. It's nothing but a part of safety measures you have to always take, in the act of flying a plane which you always do. You'd rather lean towards the part of flying fun which you cannot do in your real lives - namely, exotic and sensational air combat. I understand that.
But please bear in mind that to the rest of us who are all simularly engaged and fascinated by WW2 vintage aircraft, can only just imagine what it would be like :) How would it feel to be seated in your own craft.. knocking switches, pulling levers.. locking tail wheels, starting the plane in careful procedures.. engaging fuel switches, magnetos.. starting the engines and here we go~ woohoo! ;) I have a feeling a lot of real pilots would have felt that sort of feeling in your first solo flight. Recollect on that experience when you didn't know how to fly so well, and you'd understand.
Immersion starts with imagination. Sometimes that imagination does run wild, like the many famous debates on 'over-realism' issues where people start to think 'hard=real'.. but sometimes, taking heed to what people like to imagine does increase the experience forthe majority - while unfortunately, the people who have experience in real aircraft would think of it as more tedious than interesting.
I don't think the difference in what people want cannot be amended. There's always a middle path that can be chosen, and always room for improvements. It's just that we all have to understand that staying where we are may not be the best for fun, nor moving to somewhere else would always necessary mean advancement of fun.
* * *
In that sense, I think some parts of 'realistic' categories can be adopted and integrated very naturally to AH. The increased difficulty in take-off sequences as shown in AH2 beta seems to be one example that shows amendments aren't impossible.
When it comes to formal landings on runways, or ditching on rough ground, it became even harder than Forgotten Battles.. I don't think I've ever survived a ditch with damaged/no gears in AH2B.. maybe it's a beta-issue and would be looked into in the real game, but as it is, landing things in AH2B would be just enough to satisfy both parties without major gripes.
* * *
The radar and icon issues, even if I consider myself one of those 'realism junkies', I support what current AH has to offer - especially since AH2Beta also brought some positive changes to the icon system.
Also, I've experienced first-hand what 'over-realism' in fiddling around with icons can do in Forgotten Battles multiplayer rooms. No-icon games, or 'tampered' icon games with almost sadistic settings, makes the game literally 'realistic' - 5~6 sorties with no enemy contact. And then boom! in the 7th sortie, you're dead.
Realistic? Yup.
Fun? Well, it's fun in it's own way, but nothing that you may expect to become the norm in a MA style game.
We have to realize the fact that in dealing with icons and radar settings, if you want realism to work out, then you have to expect the people to work together in realistically organized manner - they report everything to the HQ, the HQ confirms each organized flight's positions and relays the info to you, and each enemy contact must be immediately transmit so that people can be directed to fight. (<- hey, isn't this what our radar does?)
In a free-style multiplayer game with people looking for some action(which, could be viewed as a sort of a H2H game with a really large map), the setting of no-icons and no-dar, just absolutely killed the gameplay in FB.
Short icon distances of 3.0 in Combat Theater works well, and is a reasonable compromise. Will it ever make it in the MA? I don't think so, though.
* * *
Engine management is also a part of the game that can be looked into - people requesting for it aren't necessarily saying that they want to flick every switch in the cockpit. Just a few basic things would be enough.
In my opinion, FB has done that - people refer to the system as 'complex engine management', but I dare say it's neither complex nor realistic.
All it has done, is categorize the engine system into two different types requiring a little bit of different handling. One system works in a typical CSU style that is identical to AH, and the other is just a RPM/throttle interlinked system. Besides that, all you have to do is just put the right supercharger according to altitudes. Is that something that utterly complicates the game for people that it can be called 'over-realism'? I don't think so. It's just a dumbed-down version of reality that just needs one or two more key inputs. I for one, think the price of one or two extra key inputs for more immersion, is a fair tradeoff.
* * *
I'm sure something can also be worked out with overheat issues, too... although I hardly think it would mean anything anyway, as long as the concept of engine life expectancy isn't present in the game.
Maybe just tinker with the system a bit? Get rid of the automatic WEP ON/OFF feature, and implant some gameplay devices to make it work better. Is it realistic? I don't think so. But the funny thing is, a small tinkering in unrealistic departments can sometimes bring the same level of satisfaction as seeing a complex, real system.
You can blow the engine if you want to, but once the needle passes the 'red zone', it will heat up at an accelerated rate, almost equal to when you have radiator damage. If the needle passes into the 'red zone', it will take what, 1.5 times more time to cool up than normal?
Ofcourse, running at 100% power without WEP, will keep the needle under the yellow zone at all times.
There, that's it. A system that gets rid of the 'auto', and yet, prevents people from abusing the ability to go to the red zone on their will. They may use WEP for an elongated duration(all the way from start of 'yellow zone' to nearly the end of the 'red zone') once, but once they do something like that, they'll probably never be able to reuse WEP effectively for the rest of the engagement.
..
There could be room for improvements that are satisfactory to both sides. Let's just keep ourselves open minded. I mean, if HTC ever chooses to suddenly implement more realistic stuff, where will all you guys go? To WB? :D
-
Originally posted by Toad
15kts ain't no biggie. Landed the PT-19 in a 22 Gust 28 70 degree cross... went on like a new coat of paint.
Is the PT19 a TD? And for crosswind landings, do you let the aircraft "weathercock" into the wind on the approach and then use rudder to line up for touch down, or do you use that wanky American one wing down technique? I never really understood that. :D
-
does ww2ol still have the equivelant of PONG for a damage model?
does the sky there still look like vomit?
-
Originally posted by Replicant
This isn't about AH vs WWIIOL. banana raises some good points and I'm sure some of these would be good for the CT/scenarios but perhaps not the MA. Maybe with the mission setup in TOD (AH2) would better suit some of these changes?
Agree 100%
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Is the PT19 a TD? And for crosswind landings,
(http://kenlibbey.home.mindspring.com/Images/pt19.jpg)
I can and do use both. Depends on my mood, sometimes depends on the wind.
In the really high crosswinds, at or near airplane limitation, I use the wanky American method on TD's. If you've heard the phrase "rapid rising of the upwind wing" in connection with the phrase "touched down in a crab" you would know why.
Someday you can buy me a MacAllan and I'll tell you about the time I used the wanky UK method on an L-1011. :)
Oh, yeah, T-P. I'm off to collect some fresh tailfeathers.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Maybe real life pilots just don't understand that the 'steps and procedures' which they make a part of their career life, and feel nothing special about it, is in fact a source of lot of immersion for those who don't get a chance to sit in real planes. :)
Oh, I understand it. And, like my sig has said literally for years, if YOU wanna do a 37 step checklist to takeoff, that's FINE with me. Just give me the Autotakeoff feature so I can go get a beer.
I mean, your side of this argument is fine with all that, right? No one would disparage me for feeling that's a fair compromise, would they?
Dracon: Auto-Takeoff is for...Toads UGH! Go play Quake.
Oh.......
-
Originally posted by banana
Nopoop, I'm not a realism Nazi, I'm more of a realism neo-fascist. :D
How, then, do you explain the thousands of people playing WW2OL? And if your hypothesis were correct, we'd all still be flying AW or Flying Circus or FA, wouldn't we?
Hi- banana ,
IMHO, Nopoop is correct ! , his hypothesis is correct too, and if AirWarrior RR PAC was still online I would be flying in it !!!
I had more fun, just plain fun in that game than any other ....
Regards
CHKRS
-
Originally posted by beet1e
or do you use that wanky American one wing down technique? I never really understood that. :D
Hey! some of us consider that technique the only way to go. Ask the ground crew why. Over here people are bullied into mastering it, being told that crab-rudder 'till touchdown are for the skill-less greenhorns ;)
-
"imho, it's the guys who *can't* handle the dogfighting aspect very well who want all this realism in other areas to make up for that lack. "
I can't and wouldn't tell you that you're not entitled to that opinion but I can add mine to say that I think you're wrong.
-
Originally posted by dracon
That's what paying your fee is all about. You got about 4 or more different games going on in here all at the same time. I never try to tell anyone how to spend their dollars or play their games.
I may "poke" a bit of fun though. I have never flown nuthin' 'cept models, paper and virtual. This is as good as it gets for me. Kweassa made the point.
WOW! Toad SIMMs since '90 and flown everything including a Broomstick! By Gawd you're my new hero, Sir
:aok
-
Toad :lol
I'll look forward to hearing about that L1011 landing. :D That American method is almost unheard of over here - at least amongst flying club circles. The TB10 I used to fly had a 25 knot x-wind limit and I never had a problem with x-winds. The Cherokee Warrior PA28-151 I used to have had a x-wind limit of 20 knots, and I did once land that on R22 at Lydd in Kent when the wind was 310/20. It was fine, and I managed to hold the centre line. Admittedly, the tyres squeaked a bit. ;)
-
Originally posted by Shane
imho, it's the guys who *can't* handle the dogfighting aspect very well who want all this realism in other areas to make up for that lack.
:rolleyes:
But by the same token, the guys who want the gaminess (and don't want the realism) want the game modelled in their own image so they can succeed in it, and then think of themselves as the computerised reincarnation of guys like Erich Hartmann. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
-
You know, somehow I knew this would sink into a mud-slinging contest between sims and various immature name-calling between us, but I still went ahead and posted this thread in the knowledge that there are some out here who are capable of having an adult conversation and debate.
I don't know why Toad and Shane had to throw in personal insults regarding ego and lack of skill, etc. What can comments like that possibly add to the discussion? Answer: nothing.
My intention was to provoke discussion about how AH, already the best flight sim on the market, could be made better. I didn't claim that I had all the answers, but I certainly do have strong opinions.
I'm well aware that extremism either way is probably not the best idea, because it will result in one side leaving the sim, which is never a good thing. Personally, I believe the flight sim market is so small, that there must always be a balancing act to keep both camps happy.
What would the harm be in coding the extra engine management systems into the game so that those of us who, how did Toad put it, "Need to have our ego's stroked", can experience a slightly more immersive take off experience? As far as I know, it would still be possible to leave the auto-take off availble for those whose ego's need no stroking. After all, it's just code.
I now hold accounts in AH, WB and WW2OL, so I've been spending some time in both WB and WW2OL to see how the flight experience differs from AH.
Last night, I spent two hours during prime time flying in WB, and I noticed that there is radar when you're in the tower, but there is no radar when in the cockpit. You know how the 85 guys in the arena handled that? They used the radio buffer to communicate the location of cons for each other. Yes, imagine that. Instead of spending their time talking smack on the open radio buffer, they were using the country channel to inform each other of cons. What a refreshing change that was!
Look, I still think that AH is the current king of flight sims, but I believe there is room for improvement. I don't see anything wrong with borrowing the good ideas found in other games and utilizing them for AH. That's all I'm saying.
If you don't agree, fine. State your reasons why. But can we please discuss this like adults and leave the personal insults out of it?
P.S. Nice post, Kweassa.
-
i didn't single any one person out. i made a blanket statement. i don't think AH would be enhanced by adding annoyances in the name of "realism." and that's exactly what this type of thing would be for the very reasons already stated.
this is a combat sim, not a flight sim. there are plenty of box sims out there to give you all the realism satisfaction you could ever want. what does adding these errata do for the human interaction? nothing.
-
If HTC felt like spending the time on it then I would say OK but... make it optional.
Otherwise... I am afraid that it is just another feature designed to give the timid with a lot of time an advantage... and.... to slow down the gameplay.
If you had to do all that you would probly have to take off 5 fields back to avoid the vultch.. the fights would of course, be spred out and furballs would be even more rare. It would take away the fun and add chores.
lazs
-
Originally posted by banana
Last night, I spent two hours during prime time flying in WB
banana I'd be interested what you think of the FM's, the gunnery.
Flying over there I felt like I was flying in a historical arena without any pilots. That and aircraft have a fuel burn that would make the EPA proud.
Less mush than two years ago and all the planes "feel" the same, homoginised. The ability to manual trim is changed in a way that's not 'right'.
Personal preferance, their terrain sucks.
If I had the gunnery here, that I had flying over there even after a 2 year absence I'd be a GOD.
That and they sure have their share of channel 100 whiners.
I looked, I flew, I cleaned my hard drive.
Good post KW.
-
Originally posted by Shane
i don't think AH would be enhanced by adding annoyances in the name of "realism." and that's exactly what this type of thing would be for the very reasons already stated.
this is a combat sim, not a flight sim. there are plenty of box sims out there to give you all the realism satisfaction you could ever want. what does adding these errata do for the human interaction? nothing.
WRONG! Your "Easy Mode" would still be available.
WRONG! This is a Flight Sim that we do combat in. Who are You to define the parameters of this game? I'm sure you won't like the fact that I just defined it either! And your so-called "errata" does a lot for human interaction. It certainly doesn't hurt anything or anyone. Please, I know your ego is huge but....don't preceive to tell us what to want and what to ask for.
Dude, again if all you want is to stand nose-to-nose and toes-to-toes in all out in your face combat 24/7 then......Quake really is a good choice. Actually, Halo is better because they have stuff you can fly in! No strat, no "errata" just pure combat!! http://www.microsoft.com/games/halo/screenshots.asp
For me it's all about FUN. The more realistic it is, the more fun I have. Doesn't mean I wanna remove the Easy Mode. It definitely should be there for those that want it! Heck, lets put in Auto-Landing. A guy shouldn't lose his kills just cuz he screws up a little thing like landing, now should he?
I would like, MORE sneak and LESS radar.
banana Good points and nice post.
All
Dracon
-
So why bother with all the other "annoyances?" Trivial chores such as throttle, flaps, stalls, compression, torque, blackout/redouts or spins?? All of those, along with landing and/or taking off, most certainly don't ADD to combat at all.
And FWIW there are far more ARCADEs in boxes than there are sims.
For the longest time my opinion was AH was "THE" WWII aircombat sim featuring the most reasonable fascimile of WWII fighters available. Anything less was Air Warrior and Fighter Ace.
But IMO AH never had an online atmosphere conducive to WWII era aircombat - beyond your "BFM" and ACM. With the icons and radar it was more akin to "Spitfires over Iraq: 1991". I'd always hoped HTC would progress AH and add features to promote a WWII environment and also model more "nuances" which players could choose to master. Or not. Things that would permit players to feel more like a real pilot flying actual aircraft battling it out in a hostile a sky reminiscent of WWII.
IMO AH is now the one that's been left behind by other games/sims such as WWIIO, IL2 and Target-Rabaul. And it's saddened me, and others I can see, that AH has fallen into the vacant slot left by AW. A joust-a-bout, fantasy melee arcade rife with pork'n'auger land-grab dorks.
-
Nopoop - you criticise WB as though AH were the holy grail of flight sims. It is not. Certainly, it beats WB 2.77, but the gunnery is not real. Those 800 yard shots are BS, and smack of a dumbing down of the skill element to accommodate the noobs/dweebs. In my view, one of the reasons we see such dweebery in this game (HO, spray & pray, 4 plane subset (P51/La7/Spit ix/N1K)) is because the skill element has been dumbed down and therefore folks don't need to learn much ACM or gunnery or early war plane types. Don't denounce the characteristics of one game, only to replace it with how you think things "should" be modelled based on nothing more than your own utopian vision of a how a flight sim should look.
-
Originally posted by Westy
So why bother with all the other "annoyances?" Trivial chores such as throttle, flaps, stalls, compression, torque, blackout/redouts or spins?? All of those, along with landing and/or taking off, most certainly don't ADD to combat at all.
And FWIW there are far more ARCADEs in boxes than there are sims.
For the longest time my opinion was AH was "THE" WWII aircombat sim featuring the most reasonable fascimile of WWII fighters available. Anything less was Air Warrior and Fighter Ace.
But IMO AH never had an online atmosphere conducive to WWII era aircombat - beyond your "BFM" and ACM. With the icons and radar it was more akin to "Spitfires over Iraq: 1991". I'd always hoped HTC would progress AH and add features to promote a WWII environment and also model more "nuances" which players could choose to master. Or not. Things that would permit players to feel more like a real pilot flying actual aircraft battling it out in a hostile a sky reminiscent of WWII.
IMO AH is now the one that's been left behind by other games/sims such as WWIIO, IL2 and Target-Rabaul. And it's saddened me, and others I can see, that AH has fallen into the vacant slot left by AW. A joust-a-bout, fantasy melee arcade rife with pork'n'auger land-grab dorks.
SHACK!!
-
i think what your looking for is a combat flight simulator 3 online with 500+
sorry to burst your bubble but most aces high players dont like having to check everthing before takeoff
when aces high 2 goes online you well hear huge whines about the tail wheel and take off:rofl
i love realism heck i play flight simulator 2002
but when im in aces high im looking for my next target and not my ENG lights all the time
-
The "ego stroked" comment was in direct response to this:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by dracon
Auto-Takeoff is for...Toads UGH! Go play Quake.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasn't in response to anything you said, nor was it directed at you. Review my posts up to that point; I think they are very civil.
However, this comment invited a similar reply, IMO. Someone slings mud, yeah, I'll return the mud. It's called "mirroring".
Beet, crabbing a swept-wing airplane down to the deck in high/gusty crosswinds can get exciting real fast if you land in a crab (ie: you don't get it all out). That's where the "rapid rising of the upwind wing" comment comes from. Emphasis on the "rapid rising".
Most light trainers are straight wing and therefore it's not as critical. However, should you land a trainer in this situation and bounce it, particularly if you're "on speed" for the touchdown, that can add excitement to your life and a stain to your shorts very quickly. That's probably why the wing low method got more emphasis. There's a greater margin of error, IMO.
BTW, there's reams of stuff written on the merits of wing-low vs crab. I just figured I'd get good at both and use the one that seemed appropriate for the situation. I really have no preconceived preference at this point. In fact, I generally don't decide until about the time I turn final (in light aircraft). Swept wing transports is wing low, for a lot of reasons. BTW, it was one of my best in that 1011 example. But the Captain pointed out when you kick out the crab in the flare in a big airplane the folks sitting in the very back move through a large arc in short order. ;)
-
"sorry to burst your bubble but most aces high players dont like having to check everthing before takeoff...but when im in aces high im looking for my next target and not my ENG lights all the time"
Well one big PLUS for HTC is they've added an automatic option for the "chores" and "irritations" that they have modelled. So why would anyone want any other features to be any different?
-
Originally posted by dracon
WRONG! This is a Flight Sim that we do combat in.
To quote you "WRONG!". The basis of this game is an AIR COMBAT SIM and NOT a flight sim. Don't believe me? Ask the creator :).
-
but when im in aces high im looking for my next target and not my ENG lights all the time
Agreed, the main focus when fighting should be(and is) all about keeping your eyes on the enemy. But, don't you think it would add to the pucker factor and make combat more challenging to be aware in the back of your mind that you know you can't run around on WEP for too long, lest you damage your engine?
I mean, is this game supposed to be a simulation of World War II aircraft, or space ships? If it's going to be a simulation of WWII air combat, then don't you think that some of the challenges those pilots had to deal with should be replicated to a greater degree?
banana I'd be interested what you think of the FM's, the gunnery.
Well, it was an early war IJN vs. USN rps, so all I flew all night was the A6M2 and A6M3, and yes, the FM's were very similar, although the A6M2 seemed lighter and slightly more manueverable than the Hamp. I did feel a little of the "mush", but to me it felt like the early AH FM before it was "fixed" to what we have now in AH. I can't say it moved me one way or the other. It was just different.
The gunnery colors were odd, with red colored cannons and white machine gun tracers. Just about every sim does that better. I'm surprised to find that you found the gunnery so easy, nopoop, as I found it much harder to hit targets with it. And I found the lethality to be similar to AH, at least when I got hit. It didn't take much to bring down a Zeke.
The WB terrain is definately not much to look at, being very dark. I did like the coloring in the sky, however. I thought the sky color was better looking in WB than AH or WW2OL.
There were 86 people on when I was flying last night, and everyone was fighting in the same general area, so I was able to get into a couple of huge furballs. It was a lot of fun. I bet even Lazs would've enjoyed himself last night. :)
There was one guy online who twice accused the same guy of warp rolling, but other than that, there was much less smack than what you see on the AH open channel.
Overall, I think WB is probably the weakest sim out there between AH, WB and WW2OL. But it certainly wasn't a bad experience I had last night, and I think I'm going to keep my account open there and see what happens.
Nopoop - you criticise WB as though AH were the holy grail of flight sims. It is not. Certainly, it beats WB 2.77, but the gunnery is not real. Those 800 yard shots are BS, and smack of a dumbing down of the skill element to accommodate the noobs/dweebs. In my view, one of the reasons we see such dweebery in this game (HO, spray & pray, 4 plane subset (P51/La7/Spit ix/N1K)) is because the skill element has been dumbed down and therefore folks don't need to learn much ACM or gunnery or early war plane types. Don't denounce the characteristics of one game, only to replace it with how you think things "should" be modelled based on nothing more than your own utopian vision of a how a flight sim should look.
So why bother with all the other "annoyances?" Trivial chores such as throttle, flaps, stalls, compression, torque, blackout/redouts or spins?? All of those, along with landing and/or taking off, most certainly don't ADD to combat at all.
And FWIW there are far more ARCADEs in boxes than there are sims.
For the longest time my opinion was AH was "THE" WWII aircombat sim featuring the most reasonable fascimile of WWII fighters available. Anything less was Air Warrior and Fighter Ace.
But IMO AH never had an online atmosphere conducive to WWII era aircombat - beyond your "BFM" and ACM. With the icons and radar it was more akin to "Spitfires over Iraq: 1991". I'd always hoped HTC would progress AH and add features to promote a WWII environment and also model more "nuances" which players could choose to master. Or not. Things that would permit players to feel more like a real pilot flying actual aircraft battling it out in a hostile a sky reminiscent of WWII.
IMO AH is now the one that's been left behind by other games/sims such as WWIIO, IL2 and Target-Rabaul. And it's saddened me, and others I can see, that AH has fallen into the vacant slot left by AW. A joust-a-bout, fantasy melee arcade rife with pork'n'auger land-grab dorks.
I agree with a lot of what Beetle and Westy said in their above posts. Although I'm not ready to say that AH has fallen behind WW2OL or Target Rabaul yet, and I don't think IL2 is a fair comparison, I do think that AH has become the new "Air Warrior". It caters to the "yank & bank" crowd, whereas games like Target Rabaul are definately more geared to the "realism nazi's", the ex-WB crowd.
No disrespect intended to any of the AW guys, because every AW guy(and gal-Hi Flossy!) I ever met in person have been friendly and fun to be with. But I think it's a fact that the Warbirds crowd was into more realism than was the AW crowd.
I'm really looking forward to see where HiTech's vision takes him in AH2-TOD. On the other hand, I'm just as excited to see what the Targetware folks end up with whenever they can get around to releasing Target Rabaul. It might not have as pretty eye candy as AH2, but if the gameplay, features and FM are of a more realistic nature than AH, then we may be witness to yet another mass exodus that we saw when AH went live.
Competition is good, though. We all need to remember that.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Those 800 yard shots are BS, and smack of a dumbing down of the skill element to accommodate the noobs/dweebs.
Beet I've been over here close to two years. Until a week ago I NEVER heard a complaint as far as gunnery come from you.
I suspect you had a good one going and somebody took you out and your STILL pissed off about it.
Maybe had a few in the bag and that zoom to safety didn't....quite....get....you ...high...enough ??
Being that the gunnery here doesn't change bi-weekly I must conclude you made an error in judgement.
Me thinks that is the case, and I have no doubt that it will be an added mantra to your disertations of the games shortcomings.
Much easier than taking responsibility for your inflight decisions..
As far as being the holy grail ??
No. But I know from playing IL-2 online, WWIIOnline and a revisit to WB where it shouldn't go..
But that's just my opinion, not a holy grail. Everything is a personal opinion. That depends on the window to fly, what is "fun" for each individual, and a games ability to provide enjoyment over a broad spectrum choices of playing style rather than cater to a small group of like minded players ( as in WB/IL-2 )
I leave targetware out of the equation until there's more than six people on line..
Come to think of it, if the criteria is to provide "fun" to a broad spectrum of flying preferences AH IS the holy grail.
We just worry the fine points. So we debate, worry, noodle and discuss the options.
Discussion in some ways is just as enjoyable as playing the game.
But then again, I enjoy typing.
banana I think I had too many hours at WB. There gunnery there is second nature. Double what I can do here. Even after a two year layoff.
-
Nopoop. You were around when WB went from 2.5 to 2.6. Admittedly, 2.6 was a disaster. But the change in gunnery was a step forward. ie. those 800 yard S&P shots became a thing of the past, and you had to get to 100-300 yards.
Sure, I have been picked off more than once with a AH 600+ yard S&P shot, and it's BS. But just because that happened, don't try to sweep what I said under the carpet. Time to accept that certain aspects of *this* game are designed to help the noobs, and to allow the Game-the-Game "experten" to go on living in Cloud-Cuckoo Land.
-
who really gives a watermelon about WBs? AW is the only game that matters after AH.
-
I'll tell ya Beet, I don't buy into the laser gunnery thing.
I can't hit squat here after two years. Not a complaint, my cross to bear.
I personally don't see it on the recieving end either, though the majority of times the guy that shoots me could throw a rock at me too.
If I saw it, it would be a different story from my end. I don't see it.
Honest injun.
-
As usual Kweassa proposes intelligent alternatives for some added realism without heavy handedness.
One thing that must be considered is just how short many flights in AH can be. FesterMA is a good example.
Launch at a base, fly 15 miles, engage enemy fly around for 5 min if your good, kill stuff, go land your kills. At around 250mph average speed this whole process lasts around 13 minutes. If you fly all the way to an enemy base to fight then it takes around 20 minutes.
Just how much tweaking with the engine should we have to do? Will we even have time for it?
-
I wouldn't mind seeing all the things asked for in this thread added to the game, as long as I can turn them all off like I do by using auto trim and auto takeoff. I play to fight and am not interested in a lot of detail management but I'd like it to be there for thoose that enjoy it. I also don't want to see there be any advantage to doing things manually, if you want to do it that's fine but I don't.
des
-
Originally posted by DES
I wouldn't mind seeing all the things asked for in this thread added to the game, as long as I can turn them all off like I do by using auto trim and auto takeoff. I play to fight and am not interested in a lot of detail management but I'd like it to be there for thoose that enjoy it. I also don't want to see there be any advantage to doing things manually, if you want to do it that's fine but I don't.
des
Hence why it would be more suited to AH2: TOD rather than AH2: Classic. We've already been told that aircraft become more reliable as you get a higher rank in TOD since you get better mechanics.
-
I enjoy being able to up and not think about it, but then thats a no brainer way of doing it.
the best thing about puter games is the ability to improve and enhace etc...
personally i think if most just want the arcade style bang bang shoot em up then maybe go for the playstation xbox type of games,
i look for as realistic as possible because i can have an idea of what it was like.
i have boasted and promoted ah as the most realistic without being real and yet i know the game can do much better.
i agree totally with banana. but then htc has their own agenda
my guess is enjoy it while it lasts considering the few ww2 type sims of this caliber their are
Sadist
-
Originally posted by banana
No disrespect intended to any of the AW guys, because every AW guy(and gal-Hi Flossy!) I ever met in person have been friendly and fun to be with. But I think it's a fact that the Warbirds crowd was into more realism than was the AW crowd
Hi banana, I think you may be right about those of us from AW. I know one thing, if it gets too complicated, I will probably struggle, not having had any kind of flying experience in RL and being a secretary in my RL job. I think that's why I never went to WB, because it didn't look (watched Zeb a few times when he tried it) to be as much fun as AW and everyone seemed to take things so seriously. :)
I don't use auto-takeoff as a matter of principle.... just doesn't feel right to have a plane careering down the runway without any input from me - I like to 'feel' the takeoff myself, even if more control than I am used to is needed to keep it straight. I do, however, use Combat Trim most of the time, only manually over-riding it in certain situations.
After playing AH for just over 3 years now, I am getting used to having to read dials (we had an optional digital readout in AW, which I used) to find my altitude/airspeed/manifold pressure, etc and am even getting to grips with the more complex bombsight (though nothing like as good at it as I used to be with the old one!). However, I don't relish the idea of having even more dials to keep an eye on. Like my signature says - I like flying for fun and if it gets too complicated, it could stop being as much fun for me. I would probably end up 'grounded' again like I was for a while following the introduction of the new bombsite, only this time it would be more permanent, I think.
Anyway, I suppose I am in a minority here, so I'll just have to see how things go. :)
-
So I think we have it.
It seems that the people who don't want any extra complexity besides the pure air combat element, are still open-minded enough to graciously accept changes as long as it is allowable as an option. :)
Woohoo! Compromise is reached on banana's original suggestions. Case solved!
1. Make take-offs and landings harder, but also allow auto takeoffs as an option. However, landings will still require more work, since there ain't no "auto landings".
2. Implement more various engine conditions in terms of damage + a more complex engine management method. However, it will remain as an option, for those who want it.
This should be implemented without major performance disadvantages on either side of choice, unlike in the case of stall limiters, so it strictly remains as a preference issue.
3. Icon and radar issues - will remain as it is in AH.
..
I don't think anyone's gonna be angry with this. ;)
-
No one's going to be against it if there's no performance disadvantage one way or the other and if it is a voluntary, selectable user's choice.
While one guy wants to taxi around the airfield and check his magnetos before takeoff, another guy can hit autotakeoff and go get a fresh beer.
This is as it should be.
It's when stuff like this is forced on players that the neck hairs start to rise. Because this is correctly seen as non-performance related, non-essential stuff.
-
Originally posted by Toad
While one guy wants to taxi around the airfield and check his magnetos before takeoff, another guy can hit autotakeoff and go get a fresh beer.
I would prefer something in between.... I don't want to be bothered with all that checking, but at the same time I don't want the 'gameyness' of using auto-takeoff! As it is right now is about right for me. :)
-
Originally posted by Toad
The "ego stroked" comment was in direct response to this:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by dracon
Auto-Takeoff is for...Toads UGH! Go play Quake.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh come ON now Toad!! Quit being a-a-a Toad! You named yourself, Live with it! You know very well Quake is a "Game Style..No Strat, all Combat! That is what "furballers" do Right??? You are QuakeBirders. Any insult is self-inflicted as my use of the term refers to the Genre.
NoBaddy,
Originally posted by dracon
WRONG! This is a Flight Sim that we do combat in.
To quote you "WRONG!". The basis of this game is an AIR COMBAT SIM and NOT a flight sim. Don't believe me? Ask the creator
You missed the point! I'll explain......To some It is a COMBAT SIM that you fly in. To others, such as myself, it is a FLIGHT SIM that you do combat in. It's to each ones personal taste. One should not tell the other what is right or wrong. One should not tell the other what to WISH FOR.
Most of the people involved SHOULD have understood that many of the things banana was talking about could be turned on or off with a tic mark. Hope that helps!
The 339th is a JABO Squad. We always take ORD. It doesn't matter if we come in at 40,000 or NOE, the bases start Flashing. Oft times we have a welcoming committee there an waiting. We're swarmed on as we drop, then pounced on when low and in "recovery mode". Ahhh well, it keeps or scores high and what we do is OUR choice. What more could we ask for. I don't ask to remove "Dar" from the cockpits. After all...I'm realistic and a Rook! Cooperation is not something you can plan on :) I do ask that it be a bit more realistically LIMITED and that the "Flashing Fields" GO AWAY!!
I'm sure we'll get what HTC decides as HTC's goal is to keep the arena and their pockets full.
WarBirds is harder than AH???? Where did that misnomer come from?? There is NO strat or engine management in WBs. You could take a P-51 and literally dive it from 30K with a "click" flaps and not have the flaps raise or lose a wing. Try that in AH and you're a lawn dart. There are no more guages in WBs than in AH. Remember..both Sims had the Same Creator.
Well all, I'm out!
-
somebody want to tell me which WWII plane couldn't run at full military power for 10 whole minutes?
most people skip the running from the tower thing... I would skip the preflight inspection and running up the engine and warmup and mag checks and all that.
I think the people who want all that want easy vultches or... more important.. they want the sorties to last longer.. take off 5 fields back say and fly in formations and all... maybe use only historical plane sets... the closer they get to realistic 4 hour flights without a fight the better. Bounce people who have fallen asleep or who are trying to get that "perfect" cowl setting.. How many really want to wait hours to get into a decent fight with nothing to do but fiddle with settings?
no thanks.
as for 800 yard shots... nope... doesn't happen here very often.. 600 maybe often... most wait till around 300-400. Bet real pilots with a couple of thousand hours of SHOOTING time could hit at 600 most of the time and 800 occasionaly. What beetle wants is for the sim to make up for experiance. he wants us to all be newbies who can't hit past 100 yards and then.. not very often... perfect for the B & Z style... but not realistic. If the bullet drop and dispersion are modeled then whatever you can do... you can do.
The quake label doesn't bother me.. played it once... seemed fine... the "strat" seemed about as meaningful as AH "strat"... the strat in AH is just an excuse to have a fight in my opinion... some take it way too seriously for it's triviality but they have various reasons to do so... none good in my opinion.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
Bet real pilots with a couple of thousand hours of SHOOTING time could hit at 600 most of the time and 800 occasionaly.
Maybe, but I sincerely doubt it, though.
The reason may also be attributed to the difference to some factors present in real life that are not portrayed in the game. I don't know about you, but to me, this seems to make a lot more sense then a theory which relies everything on subjectivity.
In any rate, only when most of those factors are adequately portrayed inside a game, will we ever get to see if the "gamers are more experienced in gunnery" theory is really true... which for some reason, people don't want to see it happening.
I'd say it's a mix of both, with the larger weight of reason going to the latter(environment), than the former(human factor).
-
Originally posted by dracon
WarBirds is harder than AH???? Where did that misnomer come from?? There is NO strat or engine management in WBs. You could take a P-51 and literally dive it from 30K with a "click" flaps and not have the flaps raise or lose a wing.
How long since you flew WB? Airframe stress has been there since just after I joined WB, c1998. There was a time when they had airspeed indicators with coloured arcs (green, yellow, red) but you could dive a 190 to 700mph without breaking it. Then, in 2.01, they introduced airframe stress but then removed the coloured arcs from the ASI! It was prettythang backwards. First they had meaningless coloured arcs, then when the coloured arcs would have become useful, they took them away! :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Maybe, but I sincerely doubt it, though.
The reason may also be attributed to the difference to some factors present in real life that are not portrayed in the game. I don't know about you, but to me, this seems to make a lot more sense then a theory which relies everything on subjectivity.
In any rate, only when most of those factors are adequately portrayed inside a game, will we ever get to see if the "gamers are more experienced in gunnery" theory is really true... which for some reason, people don't want to see it happening.
I'd say it's a mix of both, with the larger weight of reason going to the latter(environment), than the former(human factor).
Reasons why gunnery in AH or sims is better...
1) Single biggest reason... we can ZOOM in! Think about it at 1500' (D500) a 109 is a pretty damn small target. Being able to ZOOM and see what the plane is doing in terms of roll, climb, and yaw makes setting up the shot darn easy. Try flying a sortie in which you never touch ZOOM and see how good you do.
2) Icons... pretty red signs that tell you the range to target. How cool is this! Setting up the 3000' (D1000) shot on a fairly level target is painless with .50s. At the ZOOM I use I aim about 3/16ths of inch above plane and pull trigger. WHACK! Again if you can get yourself into a 1 V 1 fight turn off Icons and see how good you do.
3) Round dispersion modelling... done pretty poorly. Aircraft vibrate like mad! Even a 1/2" vibration will cause rounds to be off by several feet at 6000'. Worse wing warping isn't even modelled at all. Ever look at the wing of an aircraft in flight? It isn't even remotely perfectly straight. It flexes and warps in the turbulence and G input. I suspect this would toss the rounds even further off target. Imagine what it would do the the F4Us aiming, remember the F4Us prop is bloody huge and the plane isn't even slightly small.
Can anyone think of additional reasons?
-
What flit said...
-
I'd just like to have smoke pour from the cowl on startup, feel the plane bounce around a bit as the engine roars to life and the prop washes me with a strong wind. Keeping her on the runway means dancing with the rudder and working the stick to keep the upwind wing down. Once you get a taste of this in Il2 it's hard not to want it in AH.
-
Originally posted by dracon
You missed the point! I'll explain......To some It is a COMBAT SIM that you fly in. To others, such as myself, it is a FLIGHT SIM that you do combat in. It's to each ones personal taste. One should not tell the other what is right or wrong. One should not tell the other what to WISH FOR.
You were trying to make some other point besides telling someone else that he was "WRONG!"? No...wait..."One should not tell the other what is right or wrong." :rofl
The point is that the game is about combat. If the realism requested is to have a positive impact on combat...by all means, do it. If not...what is the point?
-
I think you're fooling yourself banana. There's not as much difference as you think.
Originally posted by banana
WW2OL
1. Start engine
2. Lock tail wheel
3. Lower flaps-i never use flaps for take off
4. Set max RPM's-You can do this in AH too
5. Close canopy to reduce drag-its already closed when you spawn
6. Gradually engage throttle until plane starts to move slowly-I just firewall it like in AH
7. Continue to increase throttle in a gradual manner until at full military power
8. Apply rudder inputs to correct for torque effects
9. When nose comes up, hold stick back to prevent ground looping-I never do this
I'll grant you points 2 and 8, and sort of 4 because AH defaults to max rpm when you spawn. For me the only difference in T/O sequence 3 extra keystrokes (takes less than a second) and a little more concentratoin on rudder input. And I think the latter is due to planes being far less stable in yaw than in AH rather than superior torque/p-factor modelling.
Engine Management:
WW2OL
Three RPM settings: Economy RPM's, Continuous RPM's, Max RPM's. Max RPM's is typically only used during take off and during a fight. One must be careful not to use Max RPM's too much, or engine damage will result, caused by overheating.
Depends on the plane, in H-75s and 81s I just leave it at max rpm/max throttle with occasional use of WEP. But in Brit planes I agree you cant do that and need to watch the temp gauge. There can be just as much need for engine management in AH if fuel economy is important in your particular mission. Do planes ever run out of fuel in WW2OL? I dont even know where the fuel gauge is on WW2OL planes.
WW2OL definitely has some some aspects better than AH, but I wouldnt say FM or engine management is one of them. The ones that stick out for me are canopy glare, more dynamic engine noise, and the constant little head movements. All that makes flying much more immersive. I think the short range, fade-in icons make fighting more fun and unpredictable.
-
Ummm.......Ahhhh...... NoBaddy
Have you ever walked out of the bathroom with your zipper down?
LOL CYA 'round bud
Drac's OUT
-
Originally posted by nopoop
Can't argue with that banana. Alittle either way goes along way. A balancing act any way you look at it.
Too much weight on either side and gravity takes over.
Thats just profound.
-
Originally posted by dracon
Ummm.......Ahhhh...... NoBaddy
Have you ever walked out of the bathroom with your zipper down?
LOL CYA 'round bud
Drac's OUT
No...but obviously you just did :D
CYA up there :)
-
Originally posted by Flossy
I would prefer something in between.... I don't want to be bothered with all that checking, but at the same time I don't want the 'gameyness' of using auto-takeoff! As it is right now is about right for me. :)
I am of exactly the same opinion. I enjoy the basic take off as it is in AH, but a 15 step pre-flight check will only result in me having to write a complex macro for my joystick to do it all in one button click.
-
Originally posted by scJazz
Reasons why gunnery in AH or sims is better...
1) Single biggest reason... we can ZOOM in! Think about it at 1500' (D500) a 109 is a pretty damn small target. Being able to ZOOM and see what the plane is doing in terms of roll, climb, and yaw makes setting up the shot darn easy. Try flying a sortie in which you never touch ZOOM and see how good you do.
Your other reasons may be valid, but this is false.
Zooming in, as you put it, is not actually giving an unrealisticly large view of the target. It is, in fact, give a realisticly sized target instead of the artificially small target provided by the wide angle view that is an attempt to compensate for the narrow field of view that a computer monitor occupies.
In summary, it isn't zooming, it is correcting to realistic sizes.
As to other reasons why gunnery is artificially high. Think about the physical enviornment. You aren't straining to maximize manuverablity while in a cramped, noisy and freezing environment.
You also aren't trying to do fine adjustments to your aim while in fear for your life with adrenaline pumping through you.
You also must do a lot more moving around to keep up your SA, whereas in AH it is all on a hat or two.
-
I believe for most of us (including the shed battlers), time to the fight is very important. Therefore, any changes which increase the amount of time spent doing non-productive screwing around is bound to be unpopular with most of the MA inhabitants.
OTOH, changes to the flight model (including increasing take off / landing difficulties, realistic engine performance hits due to heat damage and so on) would be warmly received by the general population. At least that's my take on the MA attitude.
Just don't give me a check list. ;)
curly
-
Re take off.......... I use auto take off.. I dont have to its just convenient and any thing else seesm superfluous..........to me.
AH2 adds some extra challenges during manual take off...... I suppose auto take off could be locked and combined with anti stall to create a beginners set up.
I think if beginners were forced to use the AH2 manual take off then AH2 would struggle for newbies.
Icons......... I like the idea of "fade in" icons
Re engine manage ment............. We have rpm control and yet we have a magic WEP button also with auto switch off. I would agree that rpm based wep should be via the rpm control with a mind to the temp guage to avoid engine damage.
Same with auto retracting flaps...............
-
I'll grant you points 2 and 8, and sort of 4 because AH defaults to max rpm when you spawn. For me the only difference in T/O sequence 3 extra keystrokes (takes less than a second) and a little more concentratoin on rudder input. And I think the latter is due to planes being far less stable in yaw than in AH rather than superior torque/p-factor modelling.
Thank you, regurge! You just proved my point. I'm not asking for a 37 step checklist like some people have assumed. Adding a few more features that would permit an optional slightly more immersive take off procedure would add an additional 2 seconds of things to check, which wouldn't inconvenience anyone, except for the extremely attention challenged.
What could it hurt if it's optional?
-
Icons......... I like the idea of "fade in" icons
The fading icons in WW2OL make bounces possible again. When's the last time you were ever caught unawares in AH? If ever, it happens very rarely.
Yesterday in WW2OL, I was patrolling the front in a Hurricane I and found a 109. I started a fight, and after about 30 seconds of jousting, I lost vis on him. As I desparately looked for him, I was starting to sweat. After not seeing him for about a minute, I assumed he must've broke off and went home, so I did the same.
About 10 seconds later, I hear "Taka-taka-taka-taka!" and see tracers whizzing by my canaopy. Shortly thereafter, I took a bullet to the head and am KIA.
It was just like the movie "Battle of Britain". I loved it. :)
-
banana,
The problem with WWIIOL's fade in icons is that they take way, way too long to give you the data on that dot that in reality would not be a dot.
What fade in icons should prevent is getting IFF info while rapidly panning your head. Once you stop panning and look at a dot the IFF info should come up very rapidly. In WWIIOL you have to stare at the dot for what feels like multiple seconds, and in a dog fight that functionally means you'll never get icons as your movenment and his movement constantly reset the icon fade in.
I'm all for fade in icons if they have a realistic fade in time, but fade in icons that combine with the low data limits of a computer monitor to make visual IFF a near imposibility are just making it unrealistically hard.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
banana,
I'm all for fade in icons if they have a realistic fade in time,
I think this says it........ although realism and playability may be two different things.
Seems to me that presently we "shoot by numbers" AH2 has jumped forward by reducing enemy icon range data to the nearest 200 yards.
If the whole icon data set were more/less easily readable as a fuinction of distance then this would be more realistic. The debate remaining would be related to what distance.
I believe that icons could be simplified significantly...........
Use three colours
lose the chess symbol
identify generic plane types not sub types.
make freind and foe range to nearest 200 yards.
Indeed I would eliminate freind range data completely (but it could be that its selectable as name or type/range much as it is now)
Freind would just be a green name. The closer the clearer.
Foe would be red or blue (or what ever) with a 4 alpha for the plane type and 3 numerical for the range. (LLLL N.N) Again the closer the clearer.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Zooming in, as you put it, is not actually giving an unrealisticly large view of the target. It is, in fact, give a realisticly sized target instead of the artificially small target provided by the wide angle view that is an attempt to compensate for the narrow field of view that a computer monitor occupies.
In summary, it isn't zooming, it is correcting to realistic sizes.
You know you are probably not wrong about this Karnak.
Anyone happen to remember the math to calculate apparent size?
Object 35' wide and we'll call it 9' tall at 3000'. What is this objects apparent size?
OK so far for gunnery we have...
1) Round dispersion is effectively not present in AH
2) Great big red laser range finder icons
3) Lack of nervous jitters while flying around
4) ***MAYBE*** the fact that we can Zoom in
-
Speaking of the "zoom". Found myself in a hurry the other day and driving too fast. Saw a parked car off the highway several hundred yards ahead. My thumb moved for the zoom button, had a chuckle.
-
ROTFL!:aok :rofl
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Speaking of the "zoom". Found myself in a hurry the other day and driving too fast. Saw a parked car off the highway several hundred yards ahead. My thumb moved for the zoom button, had a chuckle.
Dont feel bad.I was pulling into the driveway to fast,Swung the doors open and poped the hatchback to throw out flaps to slow.Couldnt find the gear switch so I bailed.Im getting a new garage.
<
-
scJazz, You might wish to use the .target command to find out how much dispersion there is.
HiTech
-
Hiya HiTech, welcome to the thread. Care to enlighten us if we'll be seeing any more optional "realism features" like I suggested above? Or perhaps a modified icon system?
I still think it's a shame that the blind bounce has gone the way of the dodo bird in AH. With the widespread use of voice communications in AH, is it really neccessary to retain the current neon icons? Between the icons, the check six feature, the voice comms and the direct six view... chances of bouncing a foe unseen is next to impossible in this day and age.
-
No chance banana. And the myth you create that icons prevent sudden bounces is incorect. People still foreget to look back.
HiTech
-
and people still think that the other team cares that there already fighting someone so they shouldent attack...
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
I believe for most of us (including the shed battlers), time to the fight is very important. Therefore, any changes which increase the amount of time spent doing non-productive screwing around is bound to be unpopular with most of the MA inhabitants.
curly
Very good point; but one that opens questions:
1) Why do we want to get to the fight so quick (and I very readily admit that we do)? What are we missing that MSFS2002 offers?? People buy that specificaly to fly around aimlessly; some of them the same people that fly in AH! Why is "aimlessly flying around" fun in an MS product; but taken as being a bit dull in AH?
2) From your original point: "Therefore, any changes which increase the amount of time spent doing non-productive screwing around is bound to be unpopular with most of the MA inhabitants";
What if the non-productive screwing around is something you do to occupy the time to fight; instead of prolonging the time to flight? In that way; the subjective "empty time" becomes actually less!
After all; why do we have manual trim? I would speculate that should the question of trim ever be raised again; a large proportion of posters would be for deleting it?
-
Originally posted by hitech
No chance banana.
HiTech
Pity, that. Ok, thanks for responding.
-
Damn. One down. One left.
I'll ask.
HiTech are any "optional "realism features" like those banana suggested above possibly coming?
Thanks,
Westy
-
I think that's what Hitech meant by the "No chance".
Looks like we'll have to get our engine management fix somewhere else, Westy.
-
Originally posted by hitech
People still foreget to look back.
Absolutely right! How many times do you hear someone moan after being bounced by an unseen enemy "nobody gave me a Check6!"??? Whatever happened to SA? People rely too much on the Check6 command, IMHO.... if I die to an unseen enemy, I only ever blame myself for not looking around and possibly being fixated with another enemy. :)
-
I think currect Icons settings are absolutly right and that is why:
[list=1]
- What is your screen resolution? SVGA? XVGA maybe more? And what is your eyes resolution. In reality you can distinguish between different plane types at very large distance - can you do this in AH when the planes size is 5x3 pixels? Can you realize the distance to the target on its angle dimantions? No. But human eye can.
- Zoom - someone can tell that this will show you the plane bigger - but if you see the enemy dot at left coner of the screen - you should move your virtual head and make zoom - human can just move his eyes - and it is done very fast
- Some one play AH not with XVGA resolution but lower (actually I use 800x600 to increase FPS) - this become even more problematic.
- You will never be able to get on the screen full feeling of what heppens in real eye - so you must use icons.
Probably only thing need to add is sun effect - that is currently could not be really used in tactic engagement.
-
Aye banana :( I thought perhaps he was answering only about changes to icons. I've always been a proponant for icon evolution too and while I wasn't pleased with the reply I'd pretty much expected it as he's said the same before.
And if it were a blanket reply regarding icon changes and the addition of more "realismz" then. That's too bad. But why bother providing any any manual functions? Why not just automate the whole shebang?
Westy
(I really like the features in T:Rabaul but I can't deal with the 9fps-at-best that I get running it)
-
I was only answering about icons.
HiTech
-
Is that essentially all your gripes are taken care of in AH2.
Takeoffs and landings are much more difficult. Enough so, that I predict much whining and complaining, even when there is an auto-takeoff feature. I like both manual and auto depending on my mood.
No more exact ranging distance icon combined with (I think) more dispersion makes 1000 yard shots a thing of the past, or at least a VERY rare occurance. Aren't there some incredibly long documented shots in RL (Yeager?)?
Engine management... You have a point, what I would like to see is an auto-management feature. Like combat trim and auto-fuel selection. You can leave it on and never worry about your motor, or turn it off and extract that last .1% of performance at the risk of overheating/overrevving and blowing it up.
So other than an occasional engine failure... whadd'ya whining about?
I see HiTech just posted, if you read this post, Mr. HiTech Sir, what do you think of the auto-management for the engine?
-
I've always thought that locking convergence at an historically favorable 350/400 yards maximum would go a long way towards quieting many of the "laser .50" and "Hizooka" complaints. Though frankly, it has never been an issue that I have experienced with any regularity or particularly worried about since I began playing.
Charon
-
Originally posted by hitech
I was only answering about icons.
HiTech
Whoa! So what does that mean for the future of engine management? A possibility of optional advanced management for those of us who care to use it?
Do tell.
-
So what does that mean for the future of engine management?
It means nothing.
HiTech
-
Or is Dale handing out the smack-down today :rofl
-
I guess that's as good an answer as I'll get and perhaps deserve I imagine.
HiTech. I never had a moment of regret being a customer for as long as I was. Would love to log on again someday.
Over & out......
-
So fade in Icons are out and any engine stuff as, and when, and if, (if ever) HTC thinks it appropriate.
I agree about the bounce SA is not so dependant on icons.......its about actually looking...............
-
does the sky there still look like vomit?
Cit having just started there three weeks ago I can say from the ground I can say they looked painted. I expected nothing better when I finally got around to lifting off. When I “finally” managed to take off in the D.520 and climbed out I was amazed how different and pleasing the clouds were. They are quite different from Aces High, I seemed to fly through three layers. As they became thicker in parts my view of the earth was obscured as it would be. It did not suddenly turn gray as it does in Aces High, but a opaque white, yet all the while misty and somewhat translucent. Very nicely done and very realistic to me. It gave me a real feel for movement through the air. Aces High models more of the cumulus type of clouds while WWIIOL has a more cirrus look and style.
The whole flight experience was different from Aces High. That is what I was looking for and received. Yet I am in WWIIOL for the ground war, not flying.
------------------------
CM, CO daddog
332nd Flying Mongrels (http://www.332nd.org/)
Roster (http://www.332nd.org/squadroster.htm)
Noses in the wind since 1997.
(http://www.ropescourse.org/cdaddog.jpg)
You can’t build a reputation on what you are going to do – Henry Ford
-
As far as realism goes, anybody mention turning kill shooter off?
That'd be real. Or maybe too much? :)
-
It is off in events kj. ;)
Used to be off in the CT much of the time, till some players blew it.
-
Great thread. If you want a good dose of just crank it up and take off, try X-Plane. Finding the brake release is the main takeoff requirement.
There's nothing like hopping in the only C-99 ever made and taking it off ... off the end of the runway, through the fence, through trees and buildings, up and down hill and dale, dust spewing from the landing gear, until finally you fall off a cliff or something and somehow manage to drag it into the air.
(Contrast that with Fighter Ace which immediately takes out your landing gear if you stray an inch off the runway, grass or not.)
The X-Plane flight model is supposedly so good it qualifies for some real life training credits. It is fun, and I do like it, just as I enjoy several other simulators for their various different ways of doing things.
All of which means like most of you I have to admire HiTech and crew for their ability to balance realism and gameplay. Probably the toughest fundamental issue of all computer simulations.