Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Tilt on June 05, 2004, 07:20:58 PM
-
Seems we enjoy the luxury of knowing exactly how many bullets we have left.............. do we need this?
-
Good question. I'd say yes, but makes me wonder: How did real WWII aircraft show remaining ammo?
-
If they were like me when I was in the Army they added extra tracers toward the end of the belt thus when a lot of tracers come up you know you'r just about out.....
Gunns
-
Some aircraft had ammo counters, but many relied on a change in tracers. Either a change in the frequency (for example a 2-3 second spot with NO TRACERS) or even tracer color. I know that I wouldnt want a color change...last thing I want is you knowing Im low on ammo LOL!
(http://www.combathanger.com/sinature04.gif) (http://www.combathanger.com/)
-
I'm all for removing ammo counters for planes that did not have them. If somebody thinks it's unfair for LW planes to have ammo counters(even though they did), then I wouldn't mind removing it from them too.
Ammo counters is another one of the subtle reasons that is responsible for game pilots achieving longer fatal ranges in gunnery - when there is no way to keep accurate track of every ammo spent, people become very conservative and reluctant to fire, unless they are absolutely sure they can hit the target.
If this is implemented, I think AH2 gunnery will be on par with FB in realistic needs to close ranges before pulling the trigger.
-
My view is that if the AC did not have it in RL then we dont really need it here...........
I like the idea of using tracer to tell you when your down to some low figure.............. although thi should be optional as in our arena you may also be telling your opponent
Also the damage report could be called a status report and the ammo condition (including bombs) given there.............
Simple dash lights could tell you that a,b or c is armed and ready to fire
In any event cockpits could then have some space freed up for a more realistic instrument layout.
-
On the other hand, HiTech is very perceptive about making realism compromises needed for gameplay and computer screen limited visibility compensation.
The most dedicated WWII buffs might like realistic ammo counters, even if nonexistent, but would most Aces High players?
Like exceptional head movement, auto climb, and relaxed engine management, the ammo counters add to game enjoyment for many people.
I'm always harping about adding an Unrestricted Arena for external viewing and no perk points, but maybe there also should be an Ultrarealistic Arena for totally authentic WWII machine management.
Trouble is, doubt if Aces High has enough resources to add either an Unrestricted Arena or an Ultrarealistic Arena.
Realistic ammo counter is a good question no matter how it translates into Aces High experiences.
-
Historically, even the planes that had ammo counters (which as far as I know belonged exclusively to the LW) were nothing like the ones we have here. They offered only a rough estamit of remaining ammo, rather than any sort of exact count like we enjoy here.
-
Tilt said...
My view is that if the AC did not have it in RL then we dont really need it here...........
Iagree, and could we have instruments calibrated in their native format too, please?
-
I always hated the ammo counters but I only fly LW planes so I am biased. I think all those planes that had them in rl should have them ingame.
I am not sure it would change gameplay...
Less spray and pray because folks are unsure about their ammo load...
Or more because they have no idea how long they have held down the trigger...
Who knows, IIRC I think HT is opposed to removing the ammo counters based on his previous replies on the subject.
Historic cockpits are out of the question as well....
-
Thats one thing id like to see, i know not everyone speaks or can read the different languages but, id be fore cockpits having realistic set ups.
IE the gauges where the would be (think this is in AH2) and different writing in the cockpits, german for LW planes, japanese for japanese planes etc, like in Combat Flight Simulator.
Doubt thatll happen, but i think it adds to the realism factor alot, and for the most part i think we know what the different gauges are, important ones neways.
As for ammo counters, im for if they had em in ww2 they should have em here, the ones that didnt shouldnt.
-
"My view is that if the AC did not have it in RL then we dont really need it here..........."
" could we have instruments calibrated in their native format too, please?"
AMEN to those (and more)! Not holding my breath though.
-
Yea, your NIKI flyers will still spray, and your better pilots will still land kills. I think that the way HiTech has the game set up is good, and maybe we should just leave well enough alone.. know what I mean. I think it is more important to have an accurate Flight Model and Damage model than it is a ammo meter. I mean reall, does it matter??
SkipNutz
-
"I mean reall, does it matter??"
Yes it does. If one is interested (as I am) in "flying" online in as close to possible a simulated WWII airplane digfighting in WWII era aircombat then one would want it to be as accurate as possible.
Anything less is a___, well, a "game" using "game" vehicles "clothed" in WWII airplane skins for appearances sake.
-
Westy, I disagree with you inregards to instrumentation. A German, Japanese or Russian pilot did not need to do mental calculations in his head when he looked at his airspeed indicator and saw 470kph indicated.
I, like most Americans, would. Same goes for the altimeter. That requirement and the delay it induces is not a simulation. It is more of a simulation, IMO, to have the guages in the pilot's native measurments.
It would be nice for the non-American players if there was an option to run the game in metric.
As to the ammo counters, I'd like historical ammo counters only.
-
"It would be nice for the non-American players if there was an option to run the game in metric."
And wouldn't that be "native" and also realistic? I don't believe Germans, Japanese, French, Italians or the Russians use MPH.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Westy, I disagree with you inregards to instrumentation. A German, Japanese or Russian pilot did not need to do mental calculations in his head when he looked at his airspeed indicator and saw 470kph indicated.
Actually you learn to think in the other units when using those AC that use them.............. further you mostly end up looking at the dial position rather than using the unit numerical.
-
Karnak after a couple sorties it gets simple enough that you dont even think about it.
Actually as an American I find metric more intuitive. Maybe thats because until Ah most flight games I played and flying Axis aircraft it has become natural....
-
I don't mind if the planes all stay Imperial miles and yards and feet and etc etc... it is possible to change the cockpits and "dress them up" to merely LOOK historic, with all the default range/speed system in use. What I mean, is a cosmetic 'mock-up', except the numbers on the gauges correspond to miles and feet. This has been tried by some creative individuals, and we've seen how incredible AH planes look.
Would creating a historic 'mock-up' cockpit for each of the planes, be so disruptive to AH2 performance?
-
Whatever happened to the United States' push to go metric? Don't hear much about that anymore, although apparently vehicle speedometers still include some smaller and fewer metric numbers on them.
Didn't WarBirds have the option of using imperial or metric gauges? If possible, would seem like a logical Aces High solution for its internationale clientele. I don't remember if metrics were an option in WB gun ranges.
While most players surely would appreciate gauges in their native number system without having to translate, having a choice of imperial or metric could also allow more historical immersion and education for all players.
-
As far as the metric/feet call, I have flown (I’m in the USAF as a Loadmaster on C-130's) in over 40 different countries and nearly every country with the exception of former Soviet(which uses the metric system, all use Feet for altitude, Knots Indicated Airspeed and wind in miles per hour for air traffic control. I know that this is a "historical" game, but as long as you know the parameters in which you need to keep the aircraft (i.e. don’t let the airspeed in the 190A8 get below 300KIAS) what does it matter which unit you are using. I there is a strong push to make the aircraft as accurate to the historical flight model as possible, but can we really ask the design team to rewrite all the code in the aircraft performance. The nice thing about keeping all the aircraft in the same measuring system is it allows someone like me to fly and compare the aircraft without a bunch of conversion. I may be way off base here, but those are just my thoughts..
SkipNutz
-
T1loady : You just hit apon why it is like it is.
The primary resone is.
Communication.
Does it realy make sense to have 2 people flying together each using different units? Think of a simple thing like calling out bogie at 10k, next question will be feet or meters?
HiTech
-
I also do agree on removing ammo counters from the planes that didn't have them and for changing the counters on planes that had them to more realistic ones (ie. exact number of the rounds left does not get displayed).
I think doing this would follow the same analogy as the new fuel consumption model in AHII. The planes that had loner range/ammo counters would get the historical advantage they enjoyed.
-
I totally agree on that need HT..
but how about the cosmetic mock-up part? Using feet and yards as standard, but just making the instruments and cockpit graphics bare resemblance to the historic thing?
I understand you once said that it'd hit the performance too much for AH1, but I was kinda hoping AH2 could handle that. :o
-
Not that simple, is just a matter of where you wan't to spend the total texture size budget. Pluss the down load size budget.
HiTech
-
CC.. I understand :(
-
Originally posted by Seeker
Tilt said...
My view is that if the AC did not have it in RL then we dont really need it here...........
Iagree, and could we have instruments calibrated in their native format too, please?
While we're at it, could we model shock cooling an engine, or
better yet, have your seat burst into flame when shot down?
Perhaps a noose around your neck for GLOC? There's no
practical limit to the realism we could have!
-
While "not" showing the ammo counters would make things more realistic, I believe that it would also cause more people to "RTB" before they need to, which would result in less engagements and fighting.
We should be asking for things that encourage fighting and engagements ... not preventing them ... intentionally or unintentionally.
Leave the ammo counters alone.
-
Yep, it would be just another excuse for people to either disengage and run for home or other friendlies or just not fight at all.
I like them the way they are. No one up until now has really complained about them and I dont think this really changes how many feel.
-
Originally posted by Westy
"I mean reall, does it matter??"
Yes it does. If one is interested (as I am) in "flying" online in as close to possible a simulated WWII airplane digfighting in WWII era aircombat then one would want it to be as accurate as possible.
Anything less is a___, well, a "game" using "game" vehicles "clothed" in WWII airplane skins for appearances sake.
stick to boxed sims. any MMPOG *is* exactly that, a game.
don't you remember this? "Players are rats."
:aok
-
While "not" showing the ammo counters would make things more realistic, I believe that it would also cause more people to "RTB" before they need to, which would result in less engagements and fighting.
We should be asking for things that encourage fighting and engagements ... not preventing them ... intentionally or unintentionally.
Leave the ammo counters alone.
It is always possible to use a different method of gameplay concession.
Like, the ammo counters are removed, but instead a warning light is implemented - you can't track how much ammo you spend, but the warning light will come on when the ammo load is down to a certain level.. something like less than 50 rounds total of MGs and Cannons combined..
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
I but the warning light will come on when the ammo load is down to a certain level.. something like less than 50 rounds total of MGs and Cannons combined..
If tracers were used to give this indication AH could use them too.
However we would still need some method of showing which weapon sets were selected. This would probably be a row of lights (or virtual toggles) and they could be used to give the feed back you refer to.
It could be moved to the clip board........ just as E6B is there as a sort of pilot note.......
I would not remove them just for the sake of doing so....if it meant that we can have better cockpit layouts then I would be all for it and only keep them for those AC that had them.
Re its effect on game play............I notice myself that I am less diciplined with ammo usage with a full clip than a low one.......I would agree that lack of an exact count would cause me to be more cautious.
-
"There's no practical limit to the realism we could have!"
Riiiiiight. So since extremes can't be modelled then developers should not bother with any nor should players bother to pursue realistic features either.
How inflexiuble, conservative and "unchanging." Why that line of beleif is downright AW-ish. (And we all know where AW is don't we....)
"stick to boxed sims. any MMPOG *is* exactly that, a game. "
If that was the truth then we'd be playing wire framed "planes" ala F-15 circa 1986.
"Don't you remember this? "Players are rats.""
Sure do :) But IMO that apples to scenarios and people trying to find ways to "game" them to "win" by any means rattily possible. (In AH players are "dolts" btw)
-
Originally posted by Westy
"There's no practical limit to the realism we could have!"
Riiiiiight. So since extremes can't be modelled then developers should not bother with any nor should players bother to pursue realistic features either.
How inflexiuble, conservative and "unchanging." Why that line of beleif is downright AW-ish. (And we all know where AW is don't we....)
"stick to boxed sims. any MMPOG *is* exactly that, a game. "
If that was the truth then we'd be playing wire framed "planes" ala F-15 circa 1986.
"Don't you remember this? "Players are rats.""
Sure do :) But IMO that apples to scenarios and people trying to find ways to "game" them to "win" by any means rattily possible. (In AH players are "dolts" btw)
AW was killed because EA didn't want to bother supporting it.
There was still a strong player base right up until the end. It just
wasn't enough to interest the suits. Since you had melted down
long before this happened, I guess you could have missed the
particulars.
How exactly does removing ammo counters improve the game?
There are tradeoffs for realism/playability in any sim. Most of the
"make it more difficult for the hell of it" crowd seem to forget a
great deal. For example, how many fly with a HOTAS setup in
here? I worked on fighters in the mid-80s and hotas was just
in it's infancy on the birds I worked. In the 1940s you had to
reach down and flip switches, turn knobs, pull levers to control
things like trim and the prop.
On your computer you can press a single button and have it
perform several functions at once. I don't hear many complaints
that the trim controls work too quickly, or the engine starts too
fast.
All I am saying is have a little perspective. I am certainly not
against improvements, far from it. I'd like to have a rear view
mirror available to the aircraft that had one..I also realize this
is not a priority here.
-
How exactly does removing ammo counters improve the game?
There are tradeoffs for realism/playability in any sim. Most of the
"make it more difficult for the hell of it" crowd seem to forget a
great deal. For example, how many fly with a HOTAS setup in
here? I worked on fighters in the mid-80s and hotas was just
in it's infancy on the birds I worked. In the 1940s you had to
reach down and flip switches, turn knobs, pull levers to control
things like trim and the prop.
On your computer you can press a single button and have it
perform several functions at once. I don't hear many complaints
that the trim controls work too quickly, or the engine starts too
fast.
All I am saying is have a little perspective. I am certainly not
against improvements, far from it. I'd like to have a rear view
mirror available to the aircraft that had one..I also realize this
is not a priority here.
The realism in this case does not oppose the gameplay aspect of it - the realism IS gameplay.
The very fundamental heart of the whole simulation genre itself relies on reality - a simulated sensation which is in close resemblance to the real-life counterpart aircraft, is practically the only edge these types of games hold, over all other else. No matter what someone wants to say about "gameplay", the goal of simulation is to make it as real as it gets.
Now, there are some problems inherent in trying to simulate reality.
For instance, we can't expect a gamer to go through weeks and months of flight training to up a simulated aircraft.
Nor can we expect them to create custom cockpits looking like the real thing, having to operate all the switches and stuff.
Sometimes, the limitations of current technology make it absolutely necessary to implement some types of concessions. The icon system immediately jumps into mind.
However, aside from that which cannot be averted, all else should be as close to the real thing as it gets, at least, up to the point which the developers can handle.
Like I said we don't expect people to take weeks and months of training to just operate a plane. But we do expect people to gain weeks, months, years of experience to become good in this game - why?
Because, how the game is played out - the essentials that follow within the boundaries of realism AS gameplay(not realism VERSUS gameplay), itself, is something that cannot be yielded. Yielding in something like that, results in something like relaxed realism arenas, external views, unlimited ammo... - you name it.
Ammo counters are the same thing - ammo counters are one of the factors which determine how realistic the gunnery can become. Maintaining strict discipline with the trigger takes practice and experience. As you cannot keep accurate track of your ammo laod round-per-round, you are expected to conserve it and save it until you are absolutely sure you can hit it. You have to keep a general sense of how much firing time your plane has, how much you have fired so far and so on.
It makes up an important part of the process of learning air-to-air combat.
Not to mention, it also distinguishes individual characteristics of certain types of planes from others - some planes are more advanced and pilot-friendly in the internal systems(such as ammo counters, automated controls, better cockpit layout and etc etc..) compared to others. Having an ammo counter is a relative advantage which one type of plane has, but the other does not.
The upper mentioned factors, are realism issues which make up gameplay, not deterr it.
Ofcourse, once one gets used to all the wonderful crutches a game has to offer, one may think differently about 'realism'.
Heck, why do we even need stalls and limited ammo at all?
-
"AW was killed because EA didn't want to bother supporting it. "
AW was dead & dying LONG before EA shut it down.
"There was still a strong player base right up until the end. "
Yes there was a small, loyal player base. but it was not strong, vibrant nor growiing. And most of all it was not profitable in the least.
"It just wasn't enough to interest the suits."
Nor was there interests from the growing numbers of peopel gettin onto the internet and who would be interested in playing in a WWII aircombat- flight sim/game. Fact was AW was not growing while FA, AH and WB's WERE. And as for the suits? Like DUH! No fooling? It wasn't making any money in the least so why would ANY suit from yet one more bloated corporation to own AW think highly of it. Especially since the software was old, badly outdated and so far behind the competition that it was not attracting the necessary players for status quo let alone grow?
"Since you had melted down long before this happened, I guess you could have missed the particulars."
Melt down? bwaha. Baloney. No meltdown. I simply saw the what was coming while folks like you wailed about yet another "dweeb" crying about the sky falling and then stuck your head in the sand chanting " nope, nope nope. all is well here!" to yourselves.
The only one who's "off" on the particulars is you. AW was on critical life support since at least 94 (never made a dime before and never made one after). Jjust read the brutally honest eulogies Dok and BB wrote if you don't like the words I use and if you still can;t recall the facts reread the Kesmai people pointing fingers at each other and telling it like it really was in Bigweek a couple of years ago.
And as for AW4? Even the inside people like GE basically said it would have been a pale contender in comparison to AH.
Poor attempt at historical revisionism Rhino. Must be those rose colored, democrat glasses you see through.
-
Who really cares about how AW died?
Especially since we really need "Homing Ammunition".
Since we will not be able to handle using Metric and Imperial units together and need to have ammo counters I would like to make one other request.
Can we have "homing ammunition". This will help out the poor shots such as myself. See it will level the playing field so that new players will be able to score kills right off the runway. You could scale the homing accuracy based on the time in the game. The more you fly the less "homing" ability you ammo has to offer.
See newbies could just sit on the runway holding the trigger down and score kills within a few sectors. This would definately attract more players.
Once they learned to take off then we could reduce their homing range a little at a time...
LOL
Crumpp
-
There seems to be some people for and some people against the current accurate Ammo counters so why don't HiTech change it to an approximation like the approximations they use for the distance that a plane is from you (I find the new system annoying and prefered the exact distance counter).
This would mean you could keep the current selected weapon boxes and the ammo read out box next to it but in the case of ammo you could have several steps such as 600, 500, 400, 300, 200, 150, 100, 50 bullets left with it getting slightly more accurate as you get towards the bottom of the scale (50 bullet intervals instead of 100).
This would mean that there would be:
- no accurate measurement for 'realism'
- but an approximation for people who want an ammo indicator
- it would mean you wearn't entirely sure when you were going to run out of bullets but you'ld have an idea
- a good way of NOT allowing the NME to know when your low on ammo
Of course inorder for this to work for cannons the 'seperators' would need to be different and i think there should still be an exact indicator for bombs because it wouldn't be hard for the bombardier (or whatever his proper name is) to count how many bombs he saw fallingthrough his sight. (also he'ld know how many times he'd pressed the button).
Therefore i think this would be a good system to use to please everyone (or at least it would be a good compromise)
-
I'm surprised that Westy doesn't view AW as superior to AH in this particular regard. After all, AW's ammo counter was far less acccurate than AH's and only showed your approximate ammo load for ONE set of guns (whichever had the longest firing duration).
On an unrelated side note, since AH and WB's have been "Growing" for so long, how long ago is it that they passed that other game's subscription base, the game that was "Dead"? Oh wait, that's right, they havent....that other game still had more players than AH or WB has ever had. AW may not have been profitable, but it also had 4 times (or more) the overhead of AH--a textbook case of mismanagement. I will agree that the mismanagement started well before EA got a hold of it; however, the sheer incompetence shown by EA's meltdown forever imprinted itself upon the minds of all who witnessed it. EA's online venture was the Titanic of online gaming, and AW was but a single passenger. There were few survivors.
Some of us knew what was comming and enjoyed it while we could :)
J_A_B
-
I did not like AW's either to be quite honest. I imagine that comes as a surprise ;) It was as unrealistic as AH's is and I cannot find either superior over the other. Kind of not being able to say I like red or green peppers when I hate peppers period.
As for numbers being an indicator of a superior game? then AW and AH both sucked in comparison to EQ or Quake. AW had the benefit of being the first sim around (and ironically ended up as an arcade due to lack of development and advancment). The AOL exposure and the Bigweek/AWIII beta free play followed up quickly by the cheapest $$$ subscription around created those numbers more than anything else. At $10/mo it was the only affordable game in town. But BEFORE AOL and Bigweek/AWII beta the AW numbers never approached anything like seen in AH th last couple of years.
I'd bet if one could count all of the players in AH, WB, WWIIO and IL2 I they'd handily exceed AW's arena totals on thier best day under Gamestorm.
-
"As for numbers being an indicator of a superior game? then AW and AH both sucked in comparison to EQ or Quake."
Indeed; flightsims all have suffered from an inability to attract a signifigant number pf players. I wasn't making any claims of superiority one way or another (not this time anyway hehe). I merely pointed out that lack of player interest was NOT the cause of AW's demise (my point, unstated but present, was that if AH can get by on its smaller player base, AW should have been able too as well). Mismanagement killed it, the same as what is in the slow process of killing WarBirds. The process is almost the same---the core product being neglected in favor of other projects which there is little interest in, from either the community OR the "average gamer".
I will give credit where credit is due--AH shows greater mass-market potential than AW ever exhibited, by virtue of its expanded ground war and such innovations. There are squads in AH dedicated to the ground war; such a thing was unthinkable in AW. That variety is a GOOD thing. AH also benefits from a focused design crew who have only ONE product to worry about and NO corporate suits looking over their shoulders--this too is a GOOD thing.
Oh yeah, ammo counters. Um....I don't really care...I don't pay much attention to mine...the plane I fly has one built-in anyway (when you are low on ammo, you have only 2 guns shooting instead of all of them). I don't think ammo counters affect the game in any substantial way though so since they're in, might as well leave them.
J_A_B
-
here's a simple solution......
I think HTC should remove ammo counters INSIDE the cockpit and replace it with the ammo counters similar to what we have when we man a turret, gunfield, or shore guns (Note that ammo counters for manning turret, gunfield, or shore guns are located at the TOP RIGHT SCREEN IN GREEN TEXT.).
I also think that ammo counters and icon range (host/CM can only turn off the range #s, not the plane icon) can be turn on or off by H2H host or C.M.
(sorry i did not have enough time to read the whole thread :) )
-
Originally posted by Westy
Yes it does. If one is interested (as I am) in "flying" online in as close to possible a simulated WWII airplane digfighting in WWII era aircombat then one would want it to be as accurate as possible.
Anything less is a___, well, a "game" using "game" vehicles "clothed" in WWII airplane skins for appearances sake.
Sorry Westy, this really just isn't a plausible argument at present for the simple reason that we fly historically allied planes against historically allied planes etc. In WW2 seldom did Hurricanes and engage Spitfires on purpose because they had different colored icons. ;) This is definitely a game, not an immersion simulation.
-
This is definitely a game, not an immersion simulation.
This is a game of the simulation genre. People are incorrect when they suggest a difference between a "game" and a "simulation".
That's like comparing "orange" and "fruit" - those are two different categories.
Ultimately Aces High, Warbirds, Fighter Ace, WW2OL, MS Flight Simulator series, military flight simulators and etc etc are all in the "simulations" category. The only difference is what level of realism can be accounted for each of them - how one game is more 'real' than the other.
Simulations are literally that - it simulates the reality, giving second-hand experiences to people who don't have an opportunity to fly first hand. Thus, "how real it is", is what comprises the main strengths of the games of this genre, as compared to others - role playing, arcade, strategy, etc etc. Obviously the more serious it is in the reality department, the more pronounced it is, as a simulation game.
We don't expect gamers to go through weeks of flight training, or to build a state-of-the-art virtual cockpit and operate every switch there is.
However, we do expect them to gain months and years of experience to become a better pilot - nobody complains about that(well, some do, but to those guys we say "then go play an arcade, or Fighter Ace in RR arenas")
Because gunnery is a skill issue, which is very intimately involved in what makes a simulation game so interesting - depiction of reality - the more real it is the better.
Otherwise if someone may denounce that fact and declare "this is only a game, and gunnery should be easier", then there's no logical distinction between a game like Aces High with arcade shoot-em-up games - after all, someone may always find gunnery like AH1 still too hard.
They gonna ask the same thing; "does gunnery have to be this hard? This is a game, why not give us unlimited ammo and easier targetting?"
What is anyone gonna answer to them in that case? Where's the line drawn then?
-
<-- Likes it the way it is...
-
There seems to be some people for and some people against the current accurate Ammo counters so why don't HiTech change it to an approximation like the approximations they use for the distance that a plane is from you (I find the new system annoying and prefered the exact distance counter).
This would mean you could keep the current selected weapon boxes and the ammo read out box next to it but in the case of ammo you could have several steps such as 600, 500, 400, 300, 200, 150, 100, 50 bullets left with it getting slightly more accurate as you get towards the bottom of the scale (50 bullet intervals instead of 100).
This would mean that there would be:
- no accurate measurement for 'realism'
- but an approximation for people who want an ammo indicator
- it would mean you wearn't entirely sure when you were going to run out of bullets but you'ld have an idea
- a good way of NOT allowing the NME to know when your low on ammo
[SNIP]
This sounds like a great compromise. What are your thoughts?
-
Can we have an ammo and bomb/rocket counter indicator similar to when we man an ack gun?
ps The ack gun ammo counter is located at top right in green text. If HTC implaments this, AH cockpit will look less gamey(!) and equal or surpass that from Fighter Ace 3.7.
-
I would like to have the cockpit as realistic as possible, with no ammo counter if the original had none, knots/miles/kilometers and so on.
So.. say some planes didnt have ammo counter but have combat flaps, german planes had ammo counter but didnt have combat flaps.
Why is it german planes get strict start land flaps, with notion of realism but other planes get ammo counter with relation to game decision.
ciao schutt
-
Originally posted by Schutt
I would like to have the cockpit as realistic as possible, with no ammo counter if the original had none, knots/miles/kilometers and so on.
So.. say some planes didnt have ammo counter but have combat flaps, german planes had ammo counter but didnt have combat flaps.
Why is it german planes get strict start land flaps, with notion of realism but other planes get ammo counter with relation to game decision.
Its called gameplay considerations. If it makes the game more fun and accesable to newbies, and it doesnt have a significant impact on gameplay, Im fine with it.
In WWII, many planes were loaded out with special tracer rounds to indicate 1/2 ammo and 90% gone. When Im in a fight, Id actually be able to use that more, cause I dont got time to be looking at no stinkin gauges!
-
Regarding metric units and "native" cockpits..
What is the Ki-84's cockpit in? Still in mph, feet, right?
You could change that to metric and odds are good I'd never even notice...
As far as ammo counters go... anyone still think they are still "evil" and lead to outrageously long shots? The gunnery has changed quite a bit, but we've still got ammo counters.
-
Noone has particularly promoted that the ammo counter was 'evil'. It's importance lies in the fact that it is merely another factor which persists, that might effect gunnery. The virtual pilots of AH still can count exactly the rounds left, and assign a certain level of controlled risk by "wasting it" at whim.
For instance, if I am in a P-47 with some 3400 rounds of ammo, I'd try a little spray up to even 600 yards, perhaps about 1000 rounds of .50s can be "afforded to be wasted", and it'd be an acceptable risk since I can stop exactly at 2400 rounds when I wish.
Clearly, without any specific ammo counters one cannot take the luxury of affording some rounds to be wasted.
More rounds in the air does increase the chance of hit upto a certain point - and it basically comes down to how willing the pilot is, to waste his ammo.
If he feels the risk is not worth it, he wouldn't bother taking pot shots at an enemy at 600 yards. Maybe fire a couple of streams and forget about it.
However, with the ammo counters the risk can be contained, so what we get is some people can still steadily shoot at a target in bursts, upto 600 yards, and know exactly how much more they can risk wasting.
Thus overall the realism of gunnery (at least IMO) have improved, but not to a point where people would be thoroughly discouraged to even try a shot at 400+ .
But however, since the average level of gunnery in AH2 has been brought down to a much more reasonable level, I don't have any particular gripes with it. I guess it could be viewed as a 'compromise point'. A Spit9 may land behind my 109 at 400 yards, and I still have a decent chance of outaccelerating it and stay unscathed from his relentless gunfire(unless the pilot's an ace and a pretty good shot).
I guess that's good enough.
-
Originally posted by T1loady
As far as the metric/feet call, I have flown (I’m in the USAF as a Loadmaster on C-130's) in over 40 different countries and nearly every country with the exception of former Soviet(which uses the metric system, all use Feet for altitude, Knots Indicated Airspeed and wind in miles per hour for air traffic control. I know that this is a "historical" game, but as long as you know the parameters in which you need to keep the aircraft (i.e. don’t let the airspeed in the 190A8 get below 300KIAS) what does it matter which unit you are using.
A 190 doesn't even do 300KIAS.
Wind isn't given in mph but in nautical miles per hour, which is the same as knots.
-
While I don't see a need for ammo counters, providing there was some other means to guess how much ammo is left (i.e. more tracers, different color, whatever) I disagree with any argument about some planes had them, some didn't, take them away from planes that didn't.
There are some things that either have to be universal for all aircraft, or everything has to be changed to only what an aircraft actually had.
Ammo counters - if you change this, then you will hear arguments for
Automatic flaps
Automatic engine managment features
Lead-calculating gunsights and CCIP type bombsights
Pilot adjustable trims (some planes could not be trimmed from the cockpit while in flight)
Guns that jam under certain flight conditions
Guns that jam just because they were poor design
De-icing equipment for high altitude flight
Range finders on guns and turrets
The list goes on and on. The bottom line is that the realism aspects, though wanted by some, are probably not going to happen because it would either scare away the gamer crowd, or just make more people choose the equipment with the best features.
-
This is just my opinion but I see a lot of things relating to realism in theses posts. Like ammo counters. I think that there has to be some unrealistic things for game play. It has to be fun and enjoyable to play for most of the people not all coz you can’t please all the people and that’s where our choice to play and pay or move on without complaints it’s your money.
I flew a lot in Air warrior 8 years ago and met a lot of great people that I see the names again in AH. I was an addict and loved it I was so disappointed when AW ended that I stopped flying for 4 yrs. :( My love for flying in WWII sim was still alive but the only choice was only WWII Online which is very realistic if you get low on ammo in that game the guns sounds got lower in volume and that’s how you knew.
There was no dar and no map displays you could only see like 20 square miles of a very large realistic map. You might fly for 2 hrs and not see any planes and this wasn’t any fun at all. I don’t have the time I wish I had, to fly as much as I would like because of the other thing we do, real life. This is why I and a lot of people left WWII Online.
I would say if possible that when we have the WWII sanario’s in the other arena maybe they can do what people want like total realism for theses events that would be great. But as far a Main arena I think it has a great balance of realism in it already and almost perfect for game play. If you have 1 hr to fly and you want a fight you can do it fast and fun or just stay on 24-7 hats off to you HTC and thank you for bring back one of the most enjoy things I have done in many years and hope many more. :aok those people that have been around since the old AW days understand what I mean.
For those that want realistic **** pits well that’s easy just hope that one of the skinners will make them and you can customize your own just like the sound packs that are out there.