Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: StSanta on November 21, 2000, 07:55:00 PM
-
What's so good about WB 2.76?
I downloaded it to check it out.
After five minutes, I wondered whether I, by mistake, had downloaded the wrong version; maybe a very early beta. Everything seemed off.
So I downloaded it again, with all the graphic patches and stuff.
But the game was the same.
Horrible inertia modelling - the 190 for instance had an initial roll rate comparable to the spit, until you've rolled a bit. Then it sped up.
And kept going. "Huh!?!" I thought, maybe this is the way it is in real life. Then again, I've tried flying a cessna and the cessna was crisp and responsible in the roll compared to this.
Oh well, maybe it is something I get used to.
Took a look at the view system. Well, it is somethin akin to a view system; it allows you to, uhm, view around. Not particularly well, mind you, but I guess you could call it a view system.
Engine revving up in a dive? Weird.
Ok, let's to some aerobatics. Stick full back, up into a hammerhead. Waiting for stall horn. "Beep". Uhm. Plane goes a bit more over, then locks there, and then goes nose down in an instant. Interesting.
Pick up speed, let's yanks this baby around. Full stick deflection. Ho humm. Ok speed is dropping, but apparently, this bird is equipped with a nifty anti high AoA system. Not sure what alt I am at since depth perception is nil, zero zap, nada.
Judging the e state of enemy aircraft is odd, and overall the flight model feels like someone had taken a physicist and an aeronautical engineer, given them ether, made them construct a flight simulator, then given it to me and put me on LSD. Weirdo, man, far out dude. Not what I was expecting, but hey, tune in turn on....burn out
Good sides; metric cockpits (listen up HTC (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)), realistic gun counters (you've done it before HT, do it again) and, to me, a feeling of "let's get the details right, for their own sake. Let's not use ammo counters so we can cater to more customers".
Unfortunately, one or two good details doesn't make a combat sim.
Before this, I had no real opinion on WB, blasting it for fun because of the rivalry that exists (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
Now, I am not sure why people bother flying it.
I must be missing something.
Obviously, what I downloaded must be a 1988 beta version.
Something is amiss.
It must be said that the reason I checked it out is because I don't think the perk project is a good idea AT ALL. Quite the contrary. I'm a wee bit tired of fighting nikis, hogs, other LW planes ina big melee. Also wondering about the heavy catering to players who like US planes - VVS has no jabo, LW has no jabo; what is added? Another two US jabos.
The trend worries me a bit. I still love AH, and after seeing the competition, gotta say that this is the best out there. Period. Even if perk project turns out to be a nightmare, it'll *still* be the best. If all US planes that ever existed ar modelled before any vvs/German jabos, it still rules.
I'm staying, dammit. Aces High is the king of the hill, and I've come to realize that my complaints/issues with AH are really minor.
But if anyone could enlighten me about WBII I'd appreciate it. The file I downloaded is called wb2full276 - is it the wrong one?
Is the roll rate/depth perception/LSD stuff supposed to be there, or is it my puter acting up again?
Not slamming WB - just very curious about this.
<S!>
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
while(!bishRookQueue.isEmpty() && loggedOn()){
30mmDeathDIEDIEDIE(bishRookQueue.removeFront());
System.out.println("LW pilots are superior");
myPlane.performVictoryRoll();
}
-
INCOMING!!!!
<ducks into foxhole>
-
anyone try combat flight sim 2 yet how is the model there ?
-
StSanta were all the realism settings on?
Not discounting what you're sayin by any means, believe me. I am just trying to warm you up for the inevitable cross examination by the incoming prosecution team of Emme-Jee, Cabby and Jekyl of the Dewey, Cheetum and Howe Law firm.
-Westy
-
Yah.. WB's is dead.. at least to me. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
And like you; I'm lookin fer SOMEPLACE every NIGHT where I can go and face down adverarys in adversary A/C... and not, as you say; nicki's zekes; chogs typies spits and ponies.
Instead; I wanna fly against guys like you in TRUE adversary iorn.. not fly quakebirds.
I too cast a vote fer a HA.. and hope that HTC reconsiders the situation.
<sigh>
Hang
-
My last hope too. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
-
Although a Historical Arena would be nice, time and time again it has proven a no go in AH. I site for examples the low turnout that we consistently get in Check Six events, and snapshots. Afrika Corps has worked out very well surprisingly, kudos to the planners.
I personally think we ought to get a rolling plane set going like warbirds. Yes u would still get the Niks VS CHogs, but wouldnt be all the time. We get that going in the main arena, and I think most of the complaints would disappear.
------------------
Kronos
CO No. 272 Squadron "Whispering Death"
http://members.home.net/wchiasson/no272/
-
Look for a P47 at 15K, usually where the furball is not.
-
Horrible inertia modelling - the 190 for instance had an initial roll rate comparable to the spit, until you've rolled a bit. Then it sped up.
Yup, I agree there. Apparently there was a version that was even worse, dubbed "MushBirds". It supposedly reduced warp rolls to zero though.
Engine revving up in a dive? Weird.
AH does it too, in case you didn't notice... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Ok, let's to some aerobatics. Stick full back, up into a hammerhead. Waiting for stall horn. "Beep". Uhm. Plane goes a bit more over, then locks there, and then goes nose down in an instant. Interesting.
Pick up speed, let's yanks this baby around. Full stick deflection. Ho humm. Ok speed is dropping, but apparently, this bird is equipped with a nifty anti high AoA system.
StSanta, the first thing you have to do is go to setup -> flight -> and uncheck the "easy flight" box. That disables the "ezmode" AoA limiter. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
I really can't imagine anybody would go from playing Aces High to WarBirds, unless they played it before.
I forgot the worst part. Play it in 2d mode - that's what the Mac guys have to put up with until they get WarBirds III. No wonder you end up with ppl like MG. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 11-21-2000).]
-
<timidly steps up to mic>Um my name is Regurge, and uh.....I still play Warbirds.
<group>Hi Regurge!
Couple of things Santa:
1. Sounds like you had Easy Mode on. From the tower, click the Setup button, and go to the Flight menu. Make sure Easy Mode is unchecked. IMPORTANT: you must click the Close button for changes to take effect.
With easy mode off planes are much more responsive, and will definitely stall and spin. A fully developed spin in an f4u, spit14, or ki-84 is very nasty indeed.
2. Dont judge any damage or FM issues by what the offline AI planes do. Online damage is different than offline, and the AI planes are known for doing UFO type manuevers (especially at Ace difficulty level). Their favorite move is to go into a scissors and decelerate from 300mph to 100 in about 3 seconds. After you overshoot, they hit the afterburner and are back at 300 in no time. Rest assured, no plane can do that online.
As for the views system, well, i gotta agree it sucks donkeys.
On depth perception, when i first started AH i found it difficult to judge my alt by eye. I couldnt tell the difference between 10k and 20k. I think thats because in WB its hazy as you go higher. So at 30k+ you can hardly see the ground at all. Its not really any harder or easier in either sim, just different IMO.
As for your first question "What's so good about WB 2.76?", look up Stiglr. I think he has an teaches hour-long seminar on why WB is better than AH. j/k (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
<edit> juzz beat me to the easy mode stuff. Dam my slow-ass typing (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Regurge (edited 11-21-2000).]
-
YADDA YADDA YADDA.................
Same ol'Chit.....diffrent smell..........\
Been to WB's and as most of the guys that have been there also.........will never go back.....so why give us a play by play of how they are going down? Dont care..........
LLB OUT!!!!!!!!!!!
-
There are a couple of reasons people play WB eventhough it is obviously inferior to AH.
Firstly, I'd say familiarity. The program, the people etc etc.
Secondly, inspite of it's shortcomings, it is still a very good simulator. In many instances AH's superiority is a matter of splitting hairs. Admittingly, in other areas AH clearly exceeds WB.
-
"Engine revving up in a dive? Weird."
I think he means the pitch of the engine increases as you dive and pick up speed. I know it's not realistic but when I first came over from WBs to AH, this is the thing I missed the most. It helps greatly in judging speed without checking the guage. It took awhile to get used to doing without, and I found cranking up the wind in AH helps too.
bowser
-
Now, I am not sure why people bother flying it.
Because I prefer a sim which encourages outflying an opponent, rather than simply outgunning him (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
P.S. Westy, our new law firm is 'Legal, Eagle, Beagle and Briefcase'. I'll send you some of our new letterhead for referrals (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/phoenix
Aces High Training Corps
-
Ok, I`ll bite (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
"Took a look at the view system. Well, it is somethin akin to a view system; it allows you to, uhm, view around. Not particularly well, mind you, but I guess you could call it a view system."
Yep, it is a older view system. AH view system is much better.
"Engine revving up in a dive? Weird."
Nothing wierd about it. Your just used to your sim.
It gives a good sensation of speed, something lacking in AH IMO.
It`s also a good simulation of prop noise. That`s really the issue, not engine noise.
In RL the prop rpm doesn`t change. (very little)
But in a high speed dive the prop sound is much, much louder.
Why?
As somebody else described it to me, it is really about the TIP speed. Tip speed goes by 2 things, rotation and forward speed. Rotation speed is the tip around a circle:
tip speed = ((pi * d * rpm / 60)^2 + v^2)^0.5
When the tip speed gets closer to the speed of sound the noise levels go up in a big way. So in a high speed dive the prop is going to be MUCH louder as you approach a higher mach number for the airfoil. Basicly the volume increases.
In RL if your in a 475 mph dive do you really think it should sound like a Cessna at 85 mph?
"Ok, let's to some aerobatics. Stick full back, up into a hammerhead. Waiting for stall horn. "Beep". Uhm. Plane goes a bit more over, then locks there, and then goes nose down in an instant. Interesting."
Ok, you lost me there. I know of no beep in WB, and the rest is too general. Easy-mode maybe? Make sure it`s turned off.
"Judging the e state of enemy aircraft is odd, and overall the flight model feels like someone had taken a physicist and an aeronautical engineer, given them ether, made them construct a flight simulator, then given it to me and put me on LSD. Weirdo, man, far out dude. Not what I was expecting, but hey, tune in turn on....burn out"
Well I not sure what your exactly talking about, I`m having a hard time trying to read through the extra stuff you have in there. But if it`s Data & Specs you seek then I suggest this link:
Warbirds Flight Test Department (http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/6302/Perform/Flight_Test_WB2.htm)
As you know AH is young and has changed it`s FM drasticly through version x?x, WB FM is mature, stable, and well modeled.
"Now, I am not sure why people bother flying it.
I must be missing something.
I still love AH, and after seeing the competition, gotta say that this is the best out there. Period. Even if perk project turns out to be a nightmare, it'll *still* be the best."
Well StSanta, what you just said there is a BIG matter of opinion, not fact. I feel the same way as you do, only the other way around.
I won`t get into a long list of details naming every little thing I prefer about WB and dislike about AH, but if AH offered me equally or more than what WB does I would have a AH account. But I don`t. IMO AH doesn`t even come close on the overall compairison and some serious issues that are very important to me. But that`s just my 'opinion' and my 'choice'.
I have it on my harddrive, but that`s as far as it goes.
If you and I were at a Pub having a drink, it would be fun to discuss this, but on the AH UBB it`s really hard to keep it clean.
AH is young, it will grow, and I`m keeping an eye on it. But with so much going on in RL and in WB I don`t see me getting an account any time soon.
<shrug> To each his own, it`s all good. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
<S>
PS: There`s lots of sarcasm in your explanations, if you were more serious about your findings, I would have been able to understand where you coming from better.
------------------
Skybax
328th Fighter Squadron
www.352ndFighterGroup.com (http://www.352ndFighterGroup.com)
Blue Nosed Bastards of Bodney
[This message has been edited by sky_bax (edited 11-22-2000).]
-
Unfortunately you wont be able to turn off the ezmode gunnery.
-
Originally posted by -towd_:
anyone try combat flight sim 2 yet how is the model there ?
Yeah I bought Combat Flight Sim 2 Pacific. Of course the controls and cockpit designs are more realistic (Things like mixing your fuel, manually pumping landing gear, cowl flaps, etc.) And the Flight Model seems pretty good if you put it in the most difficult mode. However it still seems a little on the arcade style.
The graphics are amazing and your plane will actually show bullet holes where it was hit and a few other cool things.
Overall I'd say it is worth buying. It won't replace massive multiplayer online games like AH though. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Guys, thanks for your responses
That ez mode thingy definitely made a difference. *Now* at least I can understand why people like the game. There are still major issues with it though, I think.
So, removing all the ez mode issues (which explains the LSD trip adequately.
What is especially unnerving is the inertia modelling - it is just dead wrong. Nope, haven't flown a FW190 in real life, but it ought to be more responsive than a cessna, which I have tried flying.
The feeling of relative speed really isn't there - in Aces High after a fast HO merge, you'll find yer opponent d6.0 away in an instant. Youll also have an excellent idea about your e state.
Skybax - thanks for a civil response. DInnae mean to flame your sim so hard, but yo gotta understand my chock when I found how it was with ez mode, thinking "this is it".
About engine revving up, and using prop pitch to simulate louder engine sound:
Sounds like a (compared to what we can do today) poor choice of implementation - there are numerous things you can do instead. One would be to actually increase the engine sound. Another (that we have here) is to add wind sound to give speed indication. A third is to make the FM's so advanced that you can tell your speed simply by how your plane handles. I can do that in AH for the LW birds.
But, I want the flight test department of Warbirds to try a Cessna. Then imagine that the cessna could go much faster and had a much increased roll rate. After that, justify the inertia modelling in WB.
This is really my biggest gripe with WB. I can live with the cheezy graphics, the lack of "speed" in the game (everything seems to happen in a relatively small amount of space), the too-big planes that sort of hang around instead of swooshing by at 400mph - but the inertia modelling is just terrible.
I *wanna* like this sim/game - it's just like having one more GOOD thing to spend money on. But I feel, for said reasons, that it is inferior to AH - at the moment beyond planeset sizze and HA, I cannot think of anything it does better.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
while(!bishRookQueue.isEmpty() && loggedOn()){
30mmDeathDIEDIEDIE(bishRookQueue.removeFront());
System.out.println("LW pilots are superior");
myPlane.performVictoryRoll();
}
-
"+"
1. You would just love WW2 arena - Axis vs Allies no-nonsense plane sets.
2. There's waaaay more planes to fly.
3. Off-line flying is a very good practice tool for both gunnery and ACM, on higher setting is very challenging, variety of opponent planes including buffs and buff formations.
4. Force Feedback (written by the HTC guys btw...)
"-"
1. View system is the same (basic setup) - of course, AH developed it and added to it ("save head position" is a real beaut!)
2. "Mushiness of FM" - easy mode or no easymode response of a small or high performance plane to control inputs should be instant, there's no other way about it. It is not the case in WB. The rest is "as it was when HT and Pyro wrote it all those years ago albeit dumbed down a little".
3. Engine shouldn't change pitch with constant speed props. Change in tone when you look at planes from the ground is largely due to Doppler effect but sitting in a plane, you are the source of the sound so no changes in pitch.
4. WB's tracers - enough said.
5. Bombing accuracy - you whine about AH? Try WB with Norden done way better on the eye-candy department/info available. Time to "center the sight" before bombing is a neat feature though - if you make wild manoeuvers before the drop you won't hit anything. AH needs something similar.
6. Couldn't figure out why with my V5 I saw all those jagged edges in the cockpit - then it hit me, it's a 2D overlay! That's why it's so easy to create "historic" cockpits - they're just pictures, no 3D modelling required.
7. Nothing on the ground/water is player controlled. No tanks, trucks or anything like that.
From what I've seen in WBIII (see latest really good looking screenshots of SBD and P51) - they're just trying to catch up with AH in graphics department: moving control surfaces, good looking terrain. Complete rework of a plane set would prolly take ages... No advances announced in FM/gunnery.
The other sim... Errr... Umm... There's nothing there that AH doesn't have at the moment other than an option to be a single rifleman and hide behind trees. Oh yeah - and more eye candy in the cockpit. I was not very impressed although it's very early days yet (I still don't see how the whole thing is going to work).
------------------
lynx
13 Sqn RAF
[This message has been edited by -lynx- (edited 11-22-2000).]
-
Santa, you need to post your opinion on AGW to get non-partisan feedback on your opinion. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) http://agw.dogfighter.com/ (http://agw.dogfighter.com/)
-
LOL! Santa,
"About engine revving up, and using prop pitch to simulate louder engine sound: Sounds like a (compared to what we can do today) poor choice of implementation - there are numerous things you can do instead. One would be to actually increase the engine sound. Another (that we have here) is to add wind sound to give speed indication. A third is to make the FM's so advanced that you can tell your speed simply by how your plane handles"
This is too funny. Po' Skybax has been getting it left and right about this on the WWII Online boards about just this subject. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-Westy
(new law firm noted (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) )
-
Well there's one thing about opinions, everyone has them.
If you want to debate the issues about Warbirds then by all means bring it over to ARGO's forum for discussion. You will get similar passionate responses that you have read here, except in the opposite direction.
For me there is no comparison, I find WBs superior in game play, plane choices, arena choices, scenarios, flight models and gunnery. I find AH superior in graphics, view system, damage model and map editor.
But that is my opinion.
Miss some of you guys, we should fly both sims and have the best of both worlds.
Ram1
31st Fighter Group
[This message has been edited by Ram1 (edited 11-22-2000).]
-
Catch up in graphics system?
You are kidding, or? The models in AH still have a low number of polygons and some planes look like they are modelled without having time. (See wing root of MC202 and 205 as example)
The later modelled planes look very good, I really like the JU88. You can clearly see how modelling improoved here over time.
www.lemsko.de/3d/Hurri1/1.jpg (http://www.lemsko.de/3d/Hurri1/1.jpg)
not a ingame shot, only in 3D Studio and still not completely finished, btw.
This is 1 model for the game. Comparing them to models which are limited to a much lower number of faces is not fair, i know. WB2.x is an old game, made by the guys from HTC. They made a new game, so it is complete normal that it has a big advantage in all graphical things. Now AH is a little bit older than 1 year and it will be behind WB3.0 in the graphical department. Totally normal because of the fast changes in the computer area. Come on, when you buy a computer you have to run home, else its old when you put it together, eh (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
All the other things are a matter of taste.
Funny the feel the speed thing runs in both directions (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
How planes move and react depends much on what yopu are used to from your favourite game. So planes in other Sims feel weired.
For me the lack of FF in AH is the most missing feature. I only have a FF stick and it is simply no fun to fly any game without effects with that stick then.
"wrong" things like rpm changes in engine i always found they were used to make it easier for you to judge speed without looking always at numbers in your gauges.
If i should judge the games because of graphics and models i would place IL2 models at the top, following by WW2Online models (because both have very nice 3d cockpits, whick look historical), then WB3 (pity 3d cockpits are not done yet) and at last AH (like i mentioned before the 3 other games can use higher detailed models, so it is like comparing apples and oranges)
Lem
P.S.: Cya guys at the next Euro Con <S>
-
If you have played AH for almost an year wich i guess you have have Santa, its not fair to djudge another sim by simply flyin an couple of sorties in it...
You still got to much AH in your system to give it an fair chance, IMHO you have to give it atleast 1-2 weeks of flying...
And that goes vice verca too ofcourse...
------------------
AH : Maniac
WB : -nr-1-
-
Eye candy sure is an individual thing. Me, I think WB looks old and tired.
But , you guys flying WB, how do you explain the very poor inertia modelling and the lack of a sensation of speed at merges?
Not a flame, jsut curious.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
while(!bishRookQueue.isEmpty() && loggedOn()){
30mmDeathDIEDIEDIE(bishRookQueue.removeFront());
System.out.println("LW pilots are superior");
myPlane.performVictoryRoll();
}
-
Hmmmm,
i always have the sensation of speed in merges in Warbirds. Sorry, i don't know what you mean Santa.
Arn't you a little bit off here. first you tell your graphics are superior, then when sopmeone steps in and shows you superior art then it is only eye candy?
Ok, you don't want to discuss really, i am off. Cya
Lem
-
For starters I would stick to comparing graphics and models to games that are actually released to the public.
Nevermind comparing actual games to 3D Studio models. Sheesh.
AH is obviously graphically superior to WB as it stands now. When WB3 is actually available then you can compare it to whatever AH has available at the time.
To be sure, both games have positives and negatives. I have moved to AH. 'nuff said.
------------------
Lephturn - Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs http://www.flyingpigs.com (http://www.flyingpigs.com)
(http://tuweb.ucis.dal.ca/~dconrad/ahf/lepht.gif)
"My P-47 is a pretty good ship, she took a round coming 'cross the Channel last trip.
Just thinking 'bout my baby and lettin' her rip, always got me through so far."
- Steve Earl
-
Originally posted by sky_bax:
...But if it`s Data & Specs you seek then I suggest this link:
Warbirds Flight Test Department (http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/6302/Perform/Flight_Test_WB2.htm)
I didn't know that page, but after visiting it I noticed a very big difference between AH flight data and WB flight data. For example, the 109F max climb rate in WB is 4688 fps,
while it never exceeds 3900 fps in AH acording to the aircraft charts.
-
Each to his own.
IMO AH now (1.04) has a small but clear advantage in FM, damage, gunnery, viewsystem and "features": ie icons dissapearing when plane not seen, mission planner, build in RW, clouds, ect.Overall strategy is also better - allthough still a joke.
WB's major strength for some is the impressing row of well planned and run scenarioes + the ability to fly in historic settings 24\7.
Difference isnt that big if you can abstract from the eyecandy really.When you get used to one of the sims it will feel "right" - took me some 8-12 weeks so transform to AH.What drove me away was the painfully long-drawn gunnery\damage debate culminating in several "Emperors New Clothes" adjustements presented by HS.
Each to his own.
danish
[This message has been edited by danish (edited 11-22-2000).]
-
"For example, the 109F max climb rate in WB is 4688 fps, while it never exceeds 3900 fps in AH acording to the aircraft charts."
So how did the real aircraft perform? Please don't use another sims charts as the benchmark for how it should be modelled elsewhere. Compare a game/sim to real life. THEN say that this one or the other is more accurate. For instance, how much ammo did a real 109-F have? In WB's it has about 300% too much and odlly enough even with all that extra ammo it still climbs like a bat out of hades? Does WB model into the FM the wieght of ammo, as AH does (I believe)?
-Westy
-
nr-1: I flew WB from late 1995 until Jan 2000. I still have an account with ICI/iMOL/iEN. From that point of view I'm new to AH.
I tried it again at the Con - the controls response was very slow and imprecise!
Funny the feel the speed thing runs in both directions
AH gives increased wind noise with speed which is very life-like and accurate IMHO.
OTOH I "feel" WB ground and think that you can judge your altitude close to the ground by sight. I can't do it in AH, have to rely on instruments which is a pain when the field elevation is not known... BTW - do you guys have airfields at diff elevations? I can't remember...
There are lots of things I like in WB and wish HTC would implement them here - after all, the bastiges designed most of them in the first place! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) But overall - AH has the egde.
Graphics better in WB3? I've seen nice looking Pony that is still coming. I liked its prop blades. Radiator scoop looks like someone stuffed an old blanket in it. The rest of it looks no better than the one we've flown in AH for a year.
SBD - very nice indeed (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)... *yum*
But how right you are about it going both ways - it took me a month to get used to AH... Plus you need to change the stick buttons, plus...
(Absolutely no disrespect to SUPERFLY and the gang but having looked at WWIIOL planes I can certainly say that FT is still the God of 3D artists... It's when the planes look so that you want to touch them, to check if they were real...)
------------------
lynx
13 Sqn RAF
[This message has been edited by -lynx- (edited 11-22-2000).]
-
They are both good, and the inertia stuff I have no clue on. Bottom line for me is which sim provides the experience that I desire. That experience is a historical recreation of WWII air combat.
So far, Warbirds far exceeds AH in this aspect. The SL's, Scenarios, terrains and plane set enable much more varied and historical possabilities.
AH is working that way and has some nice features to facilitate this in the future, but for now Warbirds has an(based on much more qualified persons than me) accurate flight model, many planes and a community that embraces historical events.
Fly an SL over there sometime, Santa, if you want to see what Warbirds is all about.
-
Actually I have nothing meaningful to say, rather than to test my new sig.
---------
Don't give pilots with lower wingloading a fair fight !
They wouldn't notice anyway.
(http://www.angelfire.com/nt/regoch/sig.gif)
Glunz
9./JG54 "Grunherz"
[This message has been edited by Glunz (edited 11-22-2000).]
-
Lots of good points in here.
Lots of bad ones too.
I would like to make a few comments to some of these issues, but there are several from different members so I will apologize in advance if I don`t mention your name along with your quote.
"make the FM's so advanced that you can tell your speed simply by how your plane handles. I can do that in AH for the LW birds."
AH FM is not leaps and bounds over WB FM, and I can tell my speed in WB by the way the aircraft handles without a doubt. Just like you can in AH.
"the lack of "speed" in the game (everything seems to happen in a relatively small amount of space), the too-big planes that sort of hang around instead of swooshing by at 400mph"
I find it odd that you feel that way. It`s the opposite for me. IMO there is no sensation of speed in AH, and even many of the guys I know who fly both feel the same way. That has been a major gripe on this board from many AH members in the past year who have switched from WB.
"I cannot think of anything it does better."
Like I said before StSanta, there are dozens of things I like better, I`m sorry but I really don`t want to put together a list.
"Change in tone when you look at planes from the ground is largely due to Doppler effect but sitting in a plane, you are the source of the sound so no changes in pitch."
That is not correct. See my explanation above. Prop sound gets MUCH louder as you increase with speed.
"Couldn't figure out why with my V5 I saw all those jagged edges in the cockpit - then it hit me, it's a 2D overlay! That's why it's so easy to create "historic" cockpits - they're just pictures, no 3D modelling required."
Yep, and I just prefer the 2D ones. I would welcome 3D cockpits, but only if they were modeled well. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
"Nothing on the ground/water is player controlled. No tanks, trucks or anything like that."
Yep nothing changed there in the old code, but not for long.
"From what I've seen in WBIII (see latest really good looking screenshots of SBD and P51) - they're just trying to catch up with AH in graphics department: moving control surfaces, good looking terrain. Complete rework of a plane set would prolly take ages... No advances announced in FM/gunnery."
Trying to catch up? AH is a step above the current WB in graphics, and it should be, it`s a lot newer. Just like WWIIOL`s graphics. But WBIII is in an entirely different league, major leaps and bounds there in graphics. I wouldn`t say catching up, I would call it raising the bar big time and setting new standards.
It`s not taking ages to build models with what their using, thet are pumping out aircraft like crazy and that it even with a very small work staff.
"Does WB model into the FM the wieght of ammo, as AH does (I believe)?"
Yes Westy, and if you go to the link I gave above at the bottom of the page lists most of what WB models.
"Graphics better in WB3? I've seen nice looking Pony that is still coming. I liked its prop blades. Radiator scoop looks like someone stuffed an old blanket in it. The rest of it looks no better than the one we've flown in AH for a year."
Looks no better? Are you sure?
http://www.iencentral.com/warbirds/wb3_wallpaper.html (http://www.iencentral.com/warbirds/wb3_wallpaper.html)
"Fly an SL over there sometime, Santa, if you want to see what Warbirds is all about."
Yea the SL`s are good, they run often and they are fun if you want to jump in a organized event at the last minute solo. But the S3`s are where it`s at. S3`s are at an entirely different level. Then there are events like the upcoming Midway, months of hardwork for a single event. Hats off to these guys in our communities, they are what really make the difference in a sim.
I like AH, and I like some of it`s features better than WB. But in a overall compairison WB beats it hands down IMO.
Both are good sims, just very different.
This is all I can really help you to understand why people prefer WB over AH without getting into long feature lists.
Opinions are like a**holes, everybody got one.
PS: I am wondering why this wasn`t posted in the Off-topic Forum thinking the AH staff making it clear after that last party.
------------------
Skybax
328th Fighter Squadron
www.352ndFighterGroup.com (http://www.352ndFighterGroup.com)
Blue Nosed Bastards of Bodney
[This message has been edited by sky_bax (edited 11-22-2000).]
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
But , you guys flying WB, how do you explain the very poor inertia modelling and the lack of a sensation of speed at merges?
In general i find WB planes to be more nimble than their AH counterparts. But i have no basis for claiming either to be more realistic.
I think screen resolution might have an effect on sensation of speed. Even at hi-res (1024x768) the planes in WB are just blocky groups of pixels until you get fairly close. I run AH at 1280x1024 and that seems to give me much more information on what the other planes are doing.
-
Gee Santa, that's some really good bait you're using, can I get a little of that? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
-
Definitely OT.
It's still a nice troll though Santa.
-
Thanks for the civil and informative reply Skybax. <S>
-Westy
-
StSanta,
Don't judge the "other" sim from just a few flights offline.
I followed hblair over to AH after he insisted that I try it..........
Initial impressions were not favorable then, as I was not used to the AH flight model, and the more intense graphics combined with my video card at the time made me hate it.
Enthusiasm for either of the sims is an acquired taste........you grow to like or ou don't. I left the "other" sim for almost 6 months, have lately gotten disenchanted with what I consider to be a stagnant state of affairs in AH, and have recently started flying the other one again, on a piecemeal basis.
Things I "miss" from the other sim?
Buffet effects when you get your plane really hauling, especially near the compressibility area. Flew the other one the other nite, was fun as hell when I was bouncing a guy at over 400 mph, and the sight picture was vibrating like crazy. Real life planes, especially the ones modelled in these combat sims, did not ride like 747's, all cushy and smooth. Read any story from a pilot who actually flew combat in WW2, and almost all will talk about vibrations and the aircraft shaking at different speeds.........not like they are on a set of rails like we get currently in AH.
Til you have flown the "other" sim online for a minimum of 4-12 months, you are not in a position to judge it; anything you say will be just an opinion of someone who is not used to the sim yet, much like those who come from WB to AH, and are not used to it yet.
-
heheh actually not a troll guys. Fuess I've cried wolf one too many times (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
Let me restate a question that wasn't answered:
How do you guys explain the inertia modelling in rolls in WB?[/b}
I've flown a cessna (not by myself though (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)) and I can tell ya; that slow, poorly maneuvering plane is a lot crisper and sharper with a good deal less inertia than the WB 190.
Which is surprising, since the 190 historically had a very good turn rate, initial and "sustained".
When that question has been adequately answered, I'll leave it up to "taste".
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
while(!bishRookQueue.isEmpty() && loggedOn()){
30mmDeathDIEDIEDIE(bishRookQueue.removeFront());
System.out.println("LW pilots are superior");
myPlane.performVictoryRoll();
}
-
How much does a Cessna weigh? What is the wing loading?
-
Hehehe my my, how far we've come! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Let me turn that one around on you. How do YOU, on the basis of "flying a Cessna, not by yourself," profess to know so much about what is "right" in terms of inertia modeling? A typical warbird has the mass of about EIGHT Cessnas, with a lot more of that mass concentrated in the wings than what a Cessna has, about twice the wingspan, and, oh, 20 times the torque or so (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Which 190 did you fly? The Dora in WB is suspected to have some problems, but the A4 should give you a decent perspective. Also, where are you getting your numbers? I'll accept that the 190 had a good "instantaneous" turn rate, and I'll bet that DocDoom or one of the ex-Warbirders around here could show you that the WB 190 DOES have a very good instantaneous turn rate. As for "sustained," well, show me the numbers! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Don't get me wrong. I think that AH has a (very) slightly "more realistic" feeling FM than WB, but they're certainly both "close enough" to the real thing that the FM isn't the deciding factor for me.
What some of the other guys said is key: you've got to fly the other sim long enough to adjust to its FM. NO FM is more than about 80% "accurate" IMO. You'll find that in that 20% that is lacking are various little things that you can either live with or make it unlivable for your PREFERENCE, but the fact that that 20% exists makes it very hard to claim overall "superiority" for one FM over the other. Neither comes anywhere close to simulating landings and takeoffs accurately, for example, although both are "convincing enough" and offer some challenge there.
Any judgement of "crispness" or "mushiness" is pure opinion IMO, without flying the actual real aircraft. Get a 12000-pound Corsair (one of the best rolling planes historically) rolling at 90 degrees/sec, and see how "crisp" it is (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) Don't compare it to one flight in a 1500-pound Cessna.
It's also worth noting that the current AH FM is CLOSER to the WB model now, because it was found to be somewhat inaccurate in matching historical turn rates. You don't get to say, "Oh, it's much more realistic in inertia modeling," and then gloss over the fact that it doesn't do as good a job at replicating turn performance. (Although, like I said, I do think AH is slightly better, and it even felt more "realistic" to me before they changed the FM).
If I came in here, compared the too-easy takeoffs and landings to the real thing, compared the simple spin recovery of an "easy" plane here to the impossible spin recovery of a "hard" plane in WB, left the auto-takeoffs and combat-trim thingie on, and judged the gunnery by what it does to the drones, would anyone give my opinion any weight?
Oops, dumb question. None of you give my opinion any weight anyway (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
--jedi
[This message has been edited by jedi (edited 11-22-2000).]
-
I didn't know that page, but after visiting it I noticed a very big difference between AH flight data and WB flight data. For example, the 109F max climb rate in WB is 4688 fps,
while it never exceeds 3900 fps in AH acording to the aircraft charts.
The Warbirds test is at 50% fuel, the AH charts are for 100% fuel. Plus several WarBirds planes have somewhat overmodelled climbrates, especially at low speed.
-
Both sims have things that turn people off, that 20% factor that jedi mentioned.
Personally, I like the number of planes the other sim has. HT gave a ME-109G10, which, according to all the online info I have ever found, had a max speed of around 435 mph. Look at the HT performance page, and you will see that HT has the G-10 setup to perform at the level of a 109K. Just as I was about to make comment, I seem to recall Pyro telling us that the engines in the G-10 and the K were the same, and that is why the similiar performances. Not being a LW/109 fan, I do not know all the nuances involved in the ME designation system. But I do think that there were more differences between the G10 and the K than that. Sharing the same engine should not mean that a G10 is the same as a K. At least in the other sim, you know what you are supposed to be flying, not a later model represented as an earlier one just for convenience sake.
-
Uhm, with not by myself I mean that I ain't a qualified pilot. I jump outta planes, I don't fly um. I've tried my hands at flying though.
The basic principles of physics apply to both though.
That being said, it's interesting how defensive you got all of a sudden (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif). Gone from "we're damned sure this is right" to "ok it might be wrong prove it".
Even used the old and tried "have you flown a 190" argument. Nope. I haven't been shot in the head either, but can tell it's a bad idea.
None of the sources I've looked up suggest that the Spit should have a near equal instantaneous turn rate (dunno the English term for it, sorry) to the 190.
About the inertia, as far as I can see, you're essentially rolling along a centre of gravity going through roughly the middle of the plane. With the big ailerons of the 190 and the very way it is constructed, I don't see it as unrealistic in any way that it has an instantaneous roll rate that's quite good.
It doesn't in WB. All planes feel the same in that way. Am told HotSeat implemented this "lag" in roll after HiTech and the gang left, possibly for correcting some kind of stick stirring problem.
Have to go to classes now (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
while(!bishRookQueue.isEmpty() && loggedOn()){
30mmDeathDIEDIEDIE(bishRookQueue.removeFront());
System.out.println("LW pilots are superior");
myPlane.performVictoryRoll();
}
-
eddiek; the K series was meant to be a standardisation of the late model G-10. Thus they are virtually the same aircraft in performance terms. The commonly tossed about speed for the G-10 is without MW 50, and if you look at the black curve on the AH chart you will see it matches that number.
Besides, aircraft designations can be somewhat arbitrary. A late model P-47C is virtually identical to an early D. Spitfire Mk VIII, IX and XVI, performance wise are practically the same a/c. Lancaster I and III are identical apart from their engines country of manufacture. The list goes on...
-
Well Santa for your own sake i'd drop that Cessna argument right there .. it's just a bit too far from the real deal ..
i've flown dozens of different airplanes and don't even think of coming close to what a real warbird would feel whenyou fly it.
Now regarding the Scenarios:
As most of you guys said AH is relatively young, WB is maturer, has a bigger player base.
In AH we've just started with Scenarios and ifg you had a little flying in them you can see how far we got from the first starts till now..
A lot of folks in the CM Corps where new to the design and management of a scenario and we're all still learning, also the tools we have to make oit happen , but i can assure you that we ARE learning , also the attendance is gettng stronger and stronger with every frame we have.
For all who have a WB and AH account i can only suggest giving the AH Events (weekly and the Big ones) a spin to see how we are doing in that departement (Inputs are allways appreciated)
DW6
Aces High - Scenario Corps
-
Just like WWIIOL`s graphics. But WBIII is in an entirely different league, major leaps and bounds there in graphics. I wouldn`t say catching up, I would call it raising the bar big time and setting new standards.
Not sure where you got major leaps and bounds from - you still have no working clouds (I fly in RL and can attest that the clouds in AH look very much like their RL counterparts, those of SE England anyway). Planes look - and I repeat what I've said above - NO BETTER than current AH set especially the late ones Ju88, TBM, Hellkitty.
I'm sorry, I'm at work and can't do comparative screenshots but I'll do it when I get home.
And BTW when you call the stuff you have in WB "terrain" you obviously have't seen Luzon and others created by players with available to anyone to play with AH terrain editor...
"Change in tone when you look at planes from the ground is largely due to Doppler effect but sitting in a plane, you are the source of the sound so no changes in pitch."
That is not correct. See my explanation above. Prop sound gets MUCH louder as you increase with speed.
But of course it is - LOUDNESS (change in volume) has nothing to do with PITCH (change in frequency) Plus:
Pi(3.14159...)* D (prop diameter)* RPM (prop revs) / 60)+ V (plane speed) - this is the linear speed of a prop tip. (Not sure where you got squares/roots in your formula from)
From that point of view lets look at a fighter travelling at 300 kts with a 4 meter prop at 3000 rpm:
(3.14159*4*3000/60)+300*1852/3600=783m/s...
Speed of sound at sea level ~ 340m/s.
Your blade tips are already doing Mach 2+...
Check out the Nose Art page. WarBirds III allows squadrons to have their own insignia displayed.
Sorry - couldn't help it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) - from the horse's mouth, so to speak (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif). You do know that it's a standard feature in AH, don't you?
"Nothing on the ground/water is player controlled. No tanks, trucks or anything like that."
Yep nothing changed there in the old code, but not for long.
I've looked and looked and looked through the zillions of now released screenshots... Unless you know something I and what looks like the developers themselves don't.... Do tell?
(See wing root of MC202 and 205 as example)
Macchi - that's exactly the point - see MC202 and MC205. Do you? In WB I mean? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
I won't say much about the guncamera, or, rather, a flight recorder that makes movies of your flight where you can see what you were shooting at, who was shooting at you and what happened when you blacked out and found yourself in the tower upon regaining consciousness.
Sorry but it's deteriorating into something silly now (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I'm bailing. Pulling the cord just above ground... Uh-oh - forgot that in WB it still is not possible... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
lynx
13 Sqn RAF
-
Only for you, Lynx
(http://www.lemsko.de/3d/MC205/FINAL/205_.JPG)
(http://www.lemsko.de/3d/MC205/FINAL/205_.JPG)
That is the game model in a viewer, which is using the Winter Wolf graphic engine.
Lem
[This message has been edited by Macchi (edited 11-24-2000).]
-
StSanta inquired:
"What's so good about WB 2.76?"
figaro answers:
"It supports the Macintosh OS."
When are you all AH fliers going to realise that the lack of multi platform support might be hurting your player numbers significantly??? Dont you wish more people played AH???
You are all rightly suggesting and demanding more features to improve your AH sim experience and its attractivness. New planes, vehicles, perks, scenarios, map tools, sounds, marketing efforts, etc...
Right on! Now what about suggesting something that will IMMEDIATELY bring in a significant number of players, like myself, who have flown AW since 1987 (handle parsifal), WB since 1996, and are now thorougly frustrated because they cannot move onto the current "King of the Hill" (as somebody called it) sim.
Thank you for your attention, and please dont mention the asinine MG character. I suspect some of the answers this post will receive will show that there are plenty of those on both sides.
Cheers,
figaro
[This message has been edited by figaro (edited 11-23-2000).]
-
Leeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeem (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
GATT
4° Stormo Caccia - Knights (http://www.4stormo.it)
Macchi C.202's sting (1,9MByte film) (http://web.tiscalinet.it/gatt/breda.avi)
-
figaro,
No dis-respect to the Mac fliers, but HTC has to look at return on investment. I'd bet that after creating WB, the HTC crew has a really good idea how much effort it takes to create a Mac version and how much it will impact their game. HTC will also have a good idea of how much more revenue they could bring in with a Mac version. In short, I think HTC knows very well all the plusses and minuses of doing two versions. If it was a good move for them, I'm sure they would have done it. It obviously is not a good move at this time.
Yes, it's too bad that you Mac fliers don't have the option to fly AH, but I respect HTC's decisions and I realize that their company and the game is likely better off sticking with a single version. There is no way that HTC could crank out the versions with the speed they do now if they had to run two versions. Never mind the fact that they likely don't have the resources to create and maintain a Mac version anyway.
Sometimes you pay a price to choose Macs. This is one of those times, sorry.
------------------
Lephturn - Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs http://www.flyingpigs.com (http://www.flyingpigs.com)
(http://tuweb.ucis.dal.ca/~dconrad/ahf/lepht.gif)
"My P-47 is a pretty good ship, she took a round coming 'cross the Channel last trip.
Just thinking 'bout my baby and lettin' her rip, always got me through so far."
- Steve Earl
-
PLAYING BOTH NOW, i have to say following:
gunnery is better in WB (ah better tracer graphic)
FM is better in WB
view system better in AH
loadout variants better in AH
planeset better in WB
AND I HAVE MY METRIC SYSTEM IN WB!!
-> Wb has better "feeling" of flight
------------------
-------------------
Habicht
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.angelfire.com/nt/regoch/sig.gif)
"Die Ta 152 war meine Überlebensversicherung in den letzten Tagen des Krieges" OFw Willi Reschke, Ritterkreuzträger, 38 Abschüsse
[This message has been edited by HABICHT (edited 11-23-2000).]
-
Hehe Habicht,
as a Warbirds player i would say the gunnery in AH is better (i only mean shooting).
In Warbirds good player have a accuracy between 35% and 15%. Far too high, i think nooby would disagree here.
In AH it is around 10% for the best. That looks much more realistic.
Lem
-
Average WB player is around 3% to 4%
Mine is between 8% and 10%
The 15% to 35% you speak of comes from a very small amount of people. Hardly the average or majority.
I would call them the elite.
------------------
Skybax
328th Fighter Squadron
www.352ndFighterGroup.com (http://www.352ndFighterGroup.com)
Blue Nosed Bastards of Bodney
-
"Not sure where you got major leaps and bounds from - you still have no working clouds (I fly in RL and can attest that the clouds in AH look very much like their RL counterparts, those of SE England anyway). Planes look - and I repeat what I've said above - NO BETTER than current AH set especially the late ones Ju88, TBM, Hellkitty."
Lynx,
Who said anything about clouds???
You said,
"I repeat what I've said above - NO BETTER than current AH set especially the late ones Ju88, TBM, Hellkitty."
Thought we were talking about aircraft models?
Besides, it`s closed beta and not a finished product. Water & clouds are yet to be seen. Looking forward to it.
Screenshot comparison not needed.
Everyone here knows what AH looks like. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
That`s why I have provided a link above if you want to compare aircfart and not muck up the AH board.
Terrian? Lets not go there. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
What turns a thread bad is stuff like this. I can stand here and say that AH has better graphics than the current WB and it should. I can say here that AH some some great features. I have no problem seeing the truth.
But the fact is WBIII is newer and graphicly superior to anything out there. To deny that is just not being honest IMO. That is when it`s time for me to leave the thread.
Just ask Rip from your community. He visits AGW often, and has made several comments to the designers on their models and terrian being the best he has ever seen.
I have to respect that, he can look at the another sim and say WOW unlike yourself. That says something.
You wouldn`t happen to be one fo those funky AH cheerleaders would you? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
Skybax
328th Fighter Squadron
www.352ndFighterGroup.com (http://www.352ndFighterGroup.com)
Blue Nosed Bastards of Bodney
-
WHOA! Looks like 4^Stormo rules in WarBirds as well! Keep up with the good work Lemsko! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
GATT
4° Stormo Caccia - Knights (http://www.4stormo.it)
Macchi C.202's sting (1,9MByte film) (http://web.tiscalinet.it/gatt/breda.avi)
-
WTF is Warbirds. (http://members.home.net/ereid/smbounce.gif) (http://members.home.net/ereid/camper.gif)
-
Wow, they really come out of the woodwork, don't they? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
-
Duck, you know I wuv you but...
You can't tell me the 190 will have an instantaneous roll rate that is worse than Cessna and equal to the Spit and say that the fm is good. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the 190 have larger ailerons, and, due to higher speeds, more pressure on 'um?
Would make them heavier for sure, but let's say you have max deflection. How long does it take to overcome the initial inertia?
I figure Wb has some kind of lag for anti stick stirring in it, and that it's part of the problem.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
while(!bishRookQueue.isEmpty() && loggedOn()){
30mmDeathDIEDIEDIE(bishRookQueue.removeFront());
System.out.println("LW pilots are superior");
myPlane.performVictoryRoll();
}
-
How did WBIII and WWIIOnline jump into this mess? Neither of them are in the form of compiled code in a beta form on the majority of users flying WB, therefore they are moot points. And saying "look at this model I made in 3D Studio Max, it's being viewed through a viewer".. well give me a few months and I'll make one just as nice. Doh! It may not actually be worthwhile to make it though, if you don't know how it's going to perform on your system...... WBIII is going to leave low-end users behind, that new graphics engine with the high poly counts is gonna smack the older systems around like red headed step childs.
Now, before I leave.. Santa asked for current WB players to tell us what they prefer about the CURRENT WB over AH, not what they THINK THEY WILL PREFER in WBIII or WWIIOnline.
-SW
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the 190 have larger ailerons, and, due to higher speeds, more pressure on 'um?
In fact the reason are not only the better ailerons, but the little wing area. shorter span and higher wingloading too.
BTW the wing form was also a decisive factor. The spitfire had an elliptical wing wich was a great form to keep E, but proved a nightmare to place proper ailerons on. The Fw190 had bigger ailerons and with better control.
As a matter of fact, the Fw190's instantaneous highspeed turnrate was indeed at least as good as the one in the Spitfire. The starndard way to evade a spit in the 190's six was just that. A fw190A with a spit on his six only had to do a roll-pull-roll-pull. THe spitfire worse rollrate would let it sat down. I will post an image later so you can see it better.
You aren't the only who has tried WBs, Santa. The reason I'm not there is just the rolling thing. The lack of response of the WB's fw190 controls is...how to say...disgusting?...
Insulting is more accurate.I hoped to fly for once at all in a realistic WWII environment (Axis vs allied arena)...but I dont see the point if a Spitfire rolls like a 190, to be true. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 11-23-2000).]
-
Hmmm. Well, I don't know what WB FW-190 you guys are flying, but the one I fly will roll faster than any plane in EITHER sim, and will definitely roll faster than a Cessna.
But you're definitely underestimating the effect of inertia IMO. There are a few planes that can initiate a roll somewhat "instantaneously," and I honestly don't know if the WB 190 can initiate a roll as quickly as a real one. However, NO plane anywhere, can REVERSE a roll instantaneously. Physically and aerodynamically impossible boys, no matter how many flight sims you've played that could do it.
Sounds to me like you 1) don't really have enough experience with the real thing to comment with any authority on the "fidelity" of a flight model, and 2) you didn't have Warbirds software set up properly. I'll bet you I can make the AH 190 wallow like a pig if I fly it at the right speed and set up my joystick scales the right way.
And sorry, but overall, the WB FM is still more "responsive" OVERALL, across the spectrum of the plane set, as far as "quick" manuevering goes. Which is not to say that it's better (and this makes 3 times now in this topic that I've said that AH is a little better "feeling" FM overall). But if you're pinning your whole contention of AH's "obvious" superiority on your personal preference for the way inertia is modeled, with only a few minutes of Cessna time and NO "heavy" or "high performance" stick time to back you up, well, sorry again, but you just don't have the data to make any pronouncements on the subject.
The two FMs are both "reasonable" simulations, with, as I said (four times now) a SLIGHT edge to AH in "feel," but in terms of a verifiable "qualitative" advantage to either model, well....nope. Each does some things better than the other. But if you want to believe AH's is "vastly superior" in the interest of giving yourself a more positive outlook on your hobby and boosting your sense of self worth, well, by all means, go right ahead (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
jedi, have you read the RAE evaluation of the Fw 190? They said that from another plane, the Fw 190 looked like it was doing snap rolls, so fast could it change the direction of its roll. The Luftwaffe pilot used this very trait as an effective evasive technique.
-
Santa,
Try to calibrate your stick in WB, theres deadbands and stuff djust like in AH you know...
Also you can press f12 in flight to "center the stick" (ie quick calibration).
-
Hm, jedi...
I ain't claiming to be an authority, but like the bullet to the head example, I can tell when something is definitely off.
If there was a massive amount of weight being moved far away from the centre of "spin" (man, now I really can feel that English is my third language), then inertia would be very noticeable. But the vast majority of the mass is located close to this spinning point. To illustrate what I am talking about, take a penci, place a round piece of lead in the middle and then roll the pencil. Some inertia. Take 2* half the amount of lead, place at the very tips of the pencil, roll. Significantly more.
It seems weird to me that the Spit and 190 have quite similar instantaneous roll characterstics. This is where I feel like most WB planes are very much alike.
Take the AH 190A8 and compare it to the 109G10; enormous difference. The difference in WB is much less.
This inertia modelling makes the planes feel "mushy" in a way - and that to me is the opposite of crisp. E bleed in AH is a bit higher than in WB, but that must not be confused with crispness/mushyness.
I've played WB offline for some hours now and will continue to experiment; this far what I can say is that I don't find the same diversity in the fm's as in AH. Spin modelling however is far superior in WB. OTOH, trim modelling in AH is better.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
while(!bishRookQueue.isEmpty() && loggedOn()){
30mmDeathDIEDIEDIE(bishRookQueue.removeFront());
System.out.println("LW pilots are superior");
myPlane.performVictoryRoll();
}
-
RAM I guess we're gonna see in WWIIOnLine (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Santa what you are talking about is about moment of inertia and the angle (angular???) moment (I Think its said this way in english)
Each object in this world has its own moment of inertia depending on it own mass, distribution of that mass, and specific form of the object.
And any object in a given moment ,for instance-a plane, has an angular moment. THe angular moment its CLOSELY linked with the moment of inertia, and too in the attitude of the plane (if the plane is rolling to a side, to the other, or is not rolling at all).
Bassically, the bigger moment of inertia, the bigger angular moment. And all objects in this world try to keep their angular moment, (you know when you launch those little spinning toys of the kids?...they keep spinning for a long time because they conserve the angular moment and there is no other force trying to stop them other than friction with air and with the land).
To change the angular moment you have to make a force against that moment...for instance, in a rolling plane you do that with the ailerons... But we will go with this later.
Now there is another concept ,and it is that the moment of inertia of an object spinning on an axis that its not a symetry axis (Arg damned english) is bigger. I know I havent explained it quite well lets try with an example:
Lets see, think on a cylinder,a bar, whatever. Instead of making it spin by the middle, try to make it spin around one of the extremes...costs more than by the centre ,right?.
Its called Steiner effect, basically if one tries to spin an object asymetrically, will find far more opposition to it than if tries to spin it in a symetry (Sp?) axis. The opposite is true, if one tries to stop it, costs more too.
That is the main reason because the multiengined planes have such a poor roll inertia. The P38 has to counter two big and heavy booms with heavy engines and superchargers inside, spinning around an axis out of them. And that was the main reason because the Do335 was borne with that engine instalation...putting both on the central axis of the plane would give it the best rollrate of any multiengined fighter/zerstorer of the war.
IN effect, the best way to ensure a low angular moment around a given axis is to ensure a low inertia moment around that axis. You get that putting, the fewer mass far from the axis, the best.
The Fw190 was a master piece of engineering in this regard: had the most tiny wing they could fit safely in a relatively heavy fighter airframe. It was a model of compact design.
The Spitfire had broaaaaaaaaad biiiiiiiig wing, with a biiiiiiiiiiiig wing area. That gave the wingloading a blessing, but the rollrate a kick in the prettythang, because the moment of inertia was significantly bigger than in the Fw190, a shorter spanned, significantly little winged plane.
To put the things worse, to overcome the angular moment (basically the plane has inertia and refuses to change its state, so you have to do a force against that inertia) you need means to make a force to roll. That means to use ailerons.
And the Fw190A had one of the best designed ailerons of any aircraft type. Big, good responsing ailerons in a little wing.
In contrast the Spitfire had an elliplical wing, its main feature, that proved hellish to be provided with an effective aileron system. Result :the spitfire had sluggish ailerons while the Fw190 had possibly the best of their time.
Net result, the rolling inertia of the spit was wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy bigger than the one of the Fw190.
And in Wb this is NOT felt,seems both to have the same rolling inertia...a bassic error that is robbing the best feature of the Wuerger in combat.
Jedi...the Fw190 was not only able to change roll direction in a moment, but it was its best feature to evade a spitfire attack...if I only find the damned magazine where an image showed it I'd post it here...arrrg.
But the thing is, YES, the Fw190A was able to change direction of roll in a spilt second.
The responsiveness and good control of the Fw190 were possibly the best features of this plane, making it an easy one to fly. in the simulators this is NOT modelled (All planes are relatively easy to control). SO the 190 sees one of its historical advantages stolen. Rightly, but stolen.
Now I find a sim that makes a Fw190's initial rollrate seem the very same as the one in the spitfire. Well, that its for me the best proof that the sim in question and me wont have a good relationship between us (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
And excuse my poor english...it sux (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 11-24-2000).]
-
Skybax - I'm not AH cheerleeder. I don't like many things in AH an I'm reasonably ouspoken about what I like or dislike.
For me the whole thing is about experience.
I have a PPL and reasonable hours in RL - controls response in WB is porked (and we all know why they did it too - I was still flying WB when this was implemented to combat stick stirring 190 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)).
Engines/props don't start instantly - there's a run up time (neither does it stop in the same position (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)).
Your head does have a freedom of movement, not just 17 fixed positions...
I can go on and on - that would include lack of FF support and daft late-war plane set with C-Hawg to boot.
I watched promo "in-game" movies of WWIIOL at EuroCon and thought to myself that I can see 95% of what was shown there in my everyday AH flying. Funnily enough, I had my own version of one of those films - Spit strafing a tank - recorded Sunday before last during Afrika Corps scenario (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I was in that Spit (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
And why not go to terrains? The current WB terrain came with WB2.0 and that was long time ago. I dont' know whether WBIII would be good bad or ugly - screeshots look OK. Can you create your own in WB? AH terrain editor allows create things that need to be seen to be believed. I still like WB's water better though - with or without waves it gives the same feeling of altitude, no need for altimeter when low.
But as I said - it's a believing experience for me. I duck in HO passes (my girlfriend laughs her head off) and in WB I see a yellow (sigh) tracer and it becomes a game...
You seem to be promoting WB that's still to come and, like many pointed out, we don't even know what it's going to be like - screenshots be damned (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Especially if they show a Pony carrying bombs and 8 rockets (it's either 6 with bombs or 10 without...) but who's counting, right? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif).
lem u bastige - great screenshot! - I honestly tried to get similar from AH but since it's a flying thing I couldn't get close enough (was either too far or too close). It's still a very nice looking plane... And it's available to fly and fight in... And 202 too... Try it - you might like it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif).
------------------
lynx
13 Sqn RAF
-
Hehe Lynx, thx (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
all the time when i was in my trial period in AH (2 times) i was flying the 202 and the 205. Flying and looking at the planes gave me good hints to improove my models. My low polygon models you will see in SDOE in near future (i hope so)
I must say it was much easier to do the planes for WB3.0, because of the big numbers of faces i could use. And i have the big advantage to model only 1 model, because the graphic engine will reduce face numbers dynamically in real time, so no ´modelling of 4 to 6 LoD meshes for 1 plane. Too sad i couldnt find the CD at the Con, could have shown you the low detail models of the Macchis.
WB2.x is an old game, so like i said before, comparing it to a newer game isn't really fair. Same counts for comparing WB3.0 graphics to AH. WB3.0 now gives you 40fps with a P3 400 and a Geforce MX card at 1600x1200. Only thing is, i never would use this high resolution, because more than hi res i like to have a good refresh rate for my monitor, so max 1280x960 for me.
I was impressed by the WW2Online demo at the Con. Graphics wernt revolutionary new, but show a very nice overall style. Myself i don't like to have photo realistic terrains while all the other 3d objects you see have painted textures. I always hate mixing 2 different styles. It will be a game for more serious players (simmers), while AH and Warbirds both will have their place, because of focussing on air combat.
I would use it for serious teamwork missions and the time i want to fight others and want to relax only i would use AH or WB.
Ram and Santa, i mostly fly the 190 and i always use my advantage in the roll to fight Spitfires and i can begin the roll so fast in a 190 that people would complain about flic rolling (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Use the A4, its the most agile version of the 190s in WB. and with low fuel and ammo settings i have no problem to turnfight P51s too. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Santa, be fair in both directions. You don't want to compare AH graphics with newer game engines, so dont do it with old WB, because we all know its an old outdated graphic.
Lem
-
What RAM said about the physics and the 190.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
while(!bishRookQueue.isEmpty() && loggedOn()){
30mmDeathDIEDIEDIE(bishRookQueue.removeFront());
System.out.println("LW pilots are superior");
myPlane.performVictoryRoll();
}
-
What is Warbirds?
-
"What is Warbirds??"... it's the turkey the day after thanksgiving.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
as a long time WB'er... The advantages of AH over WB are.... Better FM, both in "hitting the numbers" and in low speed handling (land a ded stick plane in both sims).
film.. obvious view system... painfully obvious. plane choice... WB limits you to axis vs allied and as such, about 4 useful planes per time frame at best with absolutely no variety in the fights... simply the same 109/190 fight over and over.
Warps... warps and warp rolls... far worse in WB, night and day actually. What we complain about in AH would be the steadiest connect/FM ever seen in WB.
leathiality.... or, in WB the leathiality lottery. is 50% 60% 70% back to 50% for some and 100 for others? Who knows? Combine low leathiality with warps and it's a mess.
I waited a long time for a lot of the FMs, the view system, warps and leathiality and film to all be fixed in WB and all i ever got was the silliness of the restrictive and boring "axis vs allied" and the bizzare "balancing" lottery that seems to have sprung from it. Don't like the way your guns or FM or damage model is today? wait a day or so and it will be different.
Oh.... WB has "right click mouse six calls" a far superior and realistic feature. AH should steal it.... right now. I can't think of any other feature worth stealing.
lazs
-
RAM: Nice post, to bad your conclusions are all wrong, Moment of inertia i.e. (rotational mass) does not effect roll rate, it only effects the time needed to change your current roll rate i.e. accelerate or deacclerate the roll.
Roll rate is dependent on Ailaron force VS wing area and length.
Basicly you have to over come the lift gerated by the downward moving wing. Roll rate varyies linerly with speed,unless stress issues such as the alerions can't move,stick force or warping wings come into play.
HiTech
-
Jedi's right.
-
Skybax,
While I WILL say that the WBIII terrian engine shows some serious promise... as do the particle SFX, I MUST disagree on the aircraft models. Some of the WBIII aircraft models are just WRONG, and the textures range from excellent (P-51D) to down right AWEFUL (the Spitfires).
Just my Humble O of course.
------------------
Vila <Flying Pigs>
Oink! Oink! To War!
-
Hmm
Just checking out my sig..
Oh - I flew WB online for a bit with the 100th F/B group. Have to say it was fun but not worth the hourly fee. Maybe I'll go back now that they have unlimited usage but the Afrika Korps scenario is too much fun at the moment.
Hey Lynx - those panzers you were strafing, was that near A6? (that would have been my group) Your uber hispanos wern't as effective as they were in Frame 2, were they? Spit losses - 2, Pzr losses - 0 :-)
------------------
Moose11
DEUTSCHE AFRIKA KORPS
(http://www.capecod.net/~amuse/daklogo.jpg)
-
In Warbirds good player have a accuracy between 35% and 15%. Far too high, i think nooby would disagree here.
In AH it is around 10% for the best. That looks much more realistic.
Well, bearing in mind that in WB you generally try to close in to about 200yds or less, I would expect WB pilots to have higher gunnery percentages than their counterparts in Aces High.
After all, in AH you just shoot once you are within 600yds and the target is dead.
So I would regard WB gunnery as more 'realistic' in effect.
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/phoenix
Aces High Training Corps
-
Originally posted by hitech:
RAM: Nice post, to bad your conclusions are all wrong, Moment of inertia i.e. (rotational mass) does not effect roll rate, it only effects the time needed to change your current roll rate i.e. accelerate or deacclerate the roll.
Hitech note that I am talking ALL The time on ROLLING INERTIA and INITIAL ROLL RATE. I dont talk at any time on SUSTAINEd rollrate.
Heck, one of the best roller planes in AH is a P38 at 350mph IAS...once you managed to make it roll,because it still is one of the planes with the worse roll inertia (with those 2 big engines out of its central axis (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif).
What I feel mushy in Wb is the INITIAL rollrate, I mean, to put a 190 in a roll feels like putting a spifire in the roll. And sorry but that is quite wrong...yes, once you are rolling, the 190 rolls faster, but then again to change the direction of your roll takes ages, and that can't be right.
I think you mistook my post, read it again. I talk all the time on the roll INERTIA, in the mechanics on how a plane stops rolling to one side and starts rolling the the other, etc...all linked with the roll inertia, not the sustained ROLL RATE.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 11-26-2000).]
-
Jekyll, you must be an allied pigdog opportunist.
If yer in a LW plane, you close to d300 if you want to have any chance of hitting.
Tried spraying on a stable fleeing enemy at d600. Opened up with 4/20mm + 2*13mm. Not one single hit.
OTOH; I *did* get one at d430 two days ago. It was so unusual I had to let my squaddies know, and got lots of "wow"'s and admiration as a result. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
while(!bishRookQueue.isEmpty() && loggedOn()){
30mmDeathDIEDIEDIE(bishRookQueue.removeFront());
System.out.println("LW pilots are superior");
myPlane.performVictoryRoll();
}