Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: spitfiremkv on July 03, 2005, 09:43:11 AM
-
Say what you might, but in AH2 I do things with my plane I wouldn't even dare to try in FB.
Spin recovery is much quicker, there seems to be a lot more power available and aerodynamic drag is a lot less also.
To rush a landing I have to make shuttle-like S turns.
Planes are much more docile and easy to fly.
I'm not even talking about complex engine management here.
I think HTC could implement a better FM.
-
Do you want harder, or do you want more realistic? There is a difference.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
How many of these warbirds have you actually flown in real life to be such an expert on flight models?
Or are you comparing one "game" to another?
-
turn yer stall limiter off :)
-
I can tell you that some planes are easy to recover, some aint. Take a p-51 will 100% fuel and try and pull a hard turn, and recover....then talk to me about easy recovery:eek:
As far as drag goes, it varries greatly by aircraft type. Some seem to glide very well....others drop out of the sky like bricks when the engine shuts off.
-
I based my comparison mainly on the flight modelling of the 109G10 in AH2 and Il2FBAEP.
Flying the pattern with flaps and gear down in IL2 is a lot harder than in AH.
Spins take a lot longer to recover from and develop into flat spins much more easily.
-
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
turn yer stall limiter off :)
ROFL :aok
-
Originally posted by spitfiremkv
I based my comparison mainly on the flight modelling of the 109G10 in AH2 and Il2FBAEP.
Flying the pattern with flaps and gear down in IL2 is a lot harder than in AH.
Spins take a lot longer to recover from and develop into flat spins much more easily.
Doesn't mean it's more realistic. IMO, Il-2 feels like you're flying on the moon. It's way too light.
-
i have never liked the IL2 FM.
Nothing should be added which takes the emphasis off of concentrating on fighting and having fun. You dont want 99% of the people flying about in the MA too busy keeping their aircraft in the air to worry about fighting anything. That is what MS Flight sim is for.
-
au contraire, that's exactly what I want. and a lot of other people want the same thing.
as real as possible!
-
Don't use another sim to make an argument for reality.
If you wish to make reality arguments, you had best start with real numbers.
HiTech
-
hot damn!
HT's spelling ees not porkd!:D
you da man HT!:aok
-
Originally posted by spitfiremkv
au contraire, that's exactly what I want. and a lot of other people want the same thing.
as real as possible!
Some one already asked but Ill ask again. How do you know whats more "real" ?
-
HT flew P51's, and Oleg didn't, hehe.
Anyway, being on airshows, I've seen a nifty little Spitty doing thing's I can't on AH!
And Il-2 is mushy anyway :D
-
I some hours in Pipers and Cessnas.
The feel in IL2 is closer to the feel of real flying.
Hitech, unless somewhere in AH there's a real-time viscous turbulent flow CFD subroutine, numbers don't mean much. Sure you can use tables with engine performance and stability and control variables and interpolate between them but when you bring your plane on the edge of stall it all goes out the window, all those precomputed numbers.
And there is no such subroutine because a CFD analysis of a 3D object for just one airspeed and one AOA can take anywhere from hours to weeks -depending on how fine your mesh is-and that's on computers much more powerful than a regular PC.
-
I have several thousand hours in airplanes...If we are just going to go on feeling..... I think that IL2'FM is awful. I have never flown an airplane that seems to hunt around all three axis as the IL2 airplanes do. I do think that the eyeball scenery of IL2 is awesome, but the FM just is not very REAL feeling to me. That is just my personal feeling. Then again, since about 1/2 of my flying time is in bi-planes perhaps that makes a difference. Just my two pffenig's on the subject.
Arty
-
Originally posted by Arty
I have several thousand hours in airplanes...If we are just going to go on feeling..... I think that IL2'FM is awful. I have never flown an airplane that seems to hunt around all three axis as the IL2 airplanes do. I do think that the eyeball scenery of IL2 is awesome, but the FM just is not very REAL feeling to me. That is just my personal feeling. Then again, since about 1/2 of my flying time is in bi-planes perhaps that makes a difference. Just my two pffenig's on the subject.
Arty
My dad feels the same way about Il-2's flight modeling. He was a private pilot back in the 70's, and flew many civilian planes, as well as DC-3's. He says the DC-3 we have is pretty much spot-on.
-
fine. get a mossie and get to 360 mph on level flght stall spin it and try to freakin recover. It took me 20k to recover
-
Well I can't compare to anything it's the only online combat fkight sim I've flown.
I only have a couple of question marks -
1) Pull up hard in a Mossie from a dive it tends to roll over.
2) Various planes have the characteristic of a hard turn results in the inner wing dipping sharply.
I have no idea if this is intended or realistic so maybe someone can enlighten me.
-
1) Pull up hard in a Mossie from a dive it tends to roll over.
There is something weird with the mossie. At low speeds it feels tail heavy so when you finally stall the nose doesn't come down making it hard to recover. Also, in accelerated stalls the tail sometimes "whips" around adding sharp yaw to the roll and throws the plane all over the sky.
Center of gravity is off perhaps?
Over all, AH has the best FM of all the sims I played. It has its weak points and a few specific quirks but I'll take it over FB anyday.
Hitech, unless somewhere in AH there's a real-time viscous turbulent flow CFD subroutine, numbers don't mean much. Sure you can use tables with engine performance and stability and control variables and interpolate between them but when you bring your plane on the edge of stall it all goes out the window, all those precomputed numbers.
And there is no such subroutine because a CFD analysis of a 3D object for just one airspeed and one AOA can take anywhere from hours to weeks -depending on how fine your mesh is-and that's on computers much more powerful than a regular PC.
Spitfiremkv, you talk like someone who knows something about aerodunamics and numerical simulations. You probably also know that numerical calculations, based on first principals, in numerous cases are flat out WRONG, no matter how big a computer you use - and almost always wrong when you try to model turbulent flow. Triple wrong when you try to model the onset of turbulance.
All modeling of this sort require some empirical components. There's no shame in that. Since HT or other modelers cannot actualy test real aircrafts, a lot of guesswork is needed - this will makes the relism arguments and debates valid, but in many cases pointless, unless you find some evidence from real tests.
Bozon
-
Originally posted by spitfiremkv
I some hours in Pipers and Cessnas.
The feel in IL2 is closer to the feel of real flying.
Not to be argumentative, but Cessnas and Pipers arent high performance fighter planes. I'll trust the feelings and the word of guys who have actually flown these crates over someone with limited time in modern aircraft only as to "feel". There may be issues with some of the planeset still, but it has been my experience that when people can show real world data that shows the FM HTC put out isnt "on the money", they have made adjustments. You cant just go tweaking stuff without a solid base to work from though. If you dont like the current FM, and you think its wrong, find the data and PROVE it. Simple enough.
-
Thank Bozon -
Any idea why some planes if you pull a hard turn the inner wing will dip really sharply?
Never used to happen in a Spit, it does now. Considering everyone who actaully flew one says that it was the one of most forgiving planes they ever flew, some of it's quirks in AH seem off?
Tiffy - Pulling out of dive sometimes tends to roll sharply to one side also.
-
Also not being argumentative, just my 2 cents....
Every 3 months I hop into a simulator for the real plane I fly.
It does everything it should. BUT its nothing like flying the real thing.
Its a (very expensive) computer you set numbers and you can expect the same result every time. Again NOTHING like the real thing.
I like HT's FM, but it is a simulator, I dont fly other sims, but since the consenus is that they have a different feel, it IMHO it comes down to, if you like it, fly it. If not, well....
regards
-
Ive flown both AH and IL2.
Before IL2 introduced torque (month ago) the AH2 flight model imho was way supperior. Just simply by the fact that IL2 didnt have such a crusial thing as torque.
The thing is though as HT says you cant compare sim vs sim. Both are simulations of reality and they are both subjective implementations of reality as they are simulations and not reality. No sim will ever be 100% realistic.
The feel of flying is just a simulated feeling that you cant compare with the real feeling unless you have experienced the real feeling.
You cant even compare flying a Cessna to flying a Spit in a game. You can compare flying a real spit vs flying a sim spit. That you can compare.
But you cant compare flying a IL2 spit vs a AH2 spit as you are comparing two subjectives without reference to a objective. Your comparasion hence always be subjective.
In your case the subjectivness and interpretation of reality will be Il2 as you are most use to Il2.
Though there are things you can say and can sudgest.
What Ive been saying about il2 for a very long time "Id like the flight model to implement torque because its an important characteristic of a plane".
You can say "I would like to see AH implement more engine management such as cowl flaps management and fuel mixtures".
You could also say if you have statistical evidence "The accelleration of plane XXX in AH is too high".
But if we go back to the comparing of Il2 vs AH2.
One thing that I feel as a difference in the two games is that there is much more distinguished characteristics between the planes in AH then Il2. Il2 has improved in this area with the added torque but the planes are still much more similar to each other then they are in AH. This is something I do enjoy with AH over IL2. If its more realistic, I have no idea as I havent flown any WW2 planes irl.
Tex
-
I have flown EVERY flight sim since the 1st MS flight sim, SWOTL, Chuck Yeagers Air Combat, etc...
AH2 has the best "feeling" flight modeling of any of them to date. Xplane is is a close 2nd, IL2 just feels like "rails in the air" not fluid enough for me.
I have flown paragliders, prop planes and helicopters. No RL WWII fighters, yet, but I think that's enough to make me a qualified FM analyst.
g00b
-
Originally posted by spitfiremkv
au contraire, that's exactly what I want. and a lot of other people want the same thing.
as real as possible!
au contraire....it's a GAME....NOT a flight sim !!! Take your pack off and relax, have some coffee, light a Camel, take a couple drags, put yer feet up and just have FUN :D
-
Camels burn real well, must be the hair :)
-
Originally posted by spitfiremkv
au contraire, that's exactly what I want. and a lot of other people want the same thing.
as real as possible!
I disagree. Having flown in and having numerous hours in different warbirds, I do not want the responsibility of a real aircraft in here. It is a game and I want to have fun, not worry about cylinder head temps and fuel flow. Plain and simple. As for flight models, I like AH's a hell of a lot better than the bobbing boat in 10 foot long swells model of IL2. But hell, if complex engine management is yer deal, go fly IL2 if yer so damn unhappy. I am sure few would miss you.
-
Originally posted by Angus
And Il-2 is mushy anyway :D
bah, you know you might have a point. When I posted I totally forgot that I have also flown a Saratoga (biggest plane I flew) and indeed it felt a lot more stable than the Archer or the 152 or the 172.
But then again, it doesn't compare to the a WW2 fighter.
-
I guess the best thing to do after reading these posts would be to combine the flight model of Aces High with the graphics of IL2-FB-PF. However, finding a computer that would run the resulting product smoothly at a decent Frame rate might be a little difficult......
-
I would have (somewhat) agreed with you if you were comparing AH1 to IL2..AH2 the stalls and spins are there.
I would like complex engine management too as a selectable option for TOD.
And AH2 has by far the best "feel" in their FM.
-
Back in the days of Air Warrior there was a real world WWII P-47 pilot, don't remember his name now, but who was nice enough to give us a few old war stories and general comparisons of AW and real warbirds in the newsgroup. As I recall he spent most of his tour doing ground attacks, straffing and such. I'm pretty sure he said that the FM in AW was really good and the most noticeable difference was the feeling, or lack of, in the seat of your pants.
I've only been in AH for a month or so and haven't flown any other combat sim except Air Warrior, but I find this sim/game to be very close to AW so I'm thinking that 'ol vetran's opinion applies here too :)
-
sorry, no option for delete of duplicates :(