Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: CptTrips on March 18, 2001, 12:56:00 PM
-
This is a copy of a post I made to my squadrons emial list regarding WBIII. Some of our members wanted an appraisal from someone who had tried it. Just my opinion. Take it for what it worth.
---------------------------------------------
WBIII Beta Review
OK. I’ve been playing around with this beta for a bit and I’d like to share some of my initial impressions. As a satisfied HTC customer I tried hard to make sure I was looking at it with as unbiased eye as I could muster. I don’t have anything against WB although I do think some of their developers can be abrasive, unprofessional, pompous amazinhunks, and some of their netizens are almost as big of jerks. But a games a game and should be weighed on its own merits.
Sounds:
Functional. That’s as gracious as I can be. Good sounds are at least half the experience for me. It can really make or break the immersion factor. WBIII sounds are rather uninspiring. Luckily, they appear to be compatible will several well done third party sound add-ons for WB2.x. I still don’t understand why they are that funky dll format instead of wavs. That would make it a lot easier for all users to improve their sounds to an acceptable level on their own.
Tracers:
Uhhg. Let me say that again. Uhhhhhg. I hadn’t realized how good tracers assist in aiming and add to the whole experience. WBIII tracers are…uninspiring. Big orange tennis balls. Not helped by the clicky-click typewriter sound effects of the guns (see above).
Textures:
-Ocean. Hmmmmm interesting. I think animated water textures have potential, but this particular implementation is not good. The effect should be subtler. Also ground clutter whitecaps that are stationary would really aid in the sensation of movement at low elevation. Done correctly, it could be quite impressive. The current attempt is not.
-Ground. Functional. They take an interesting approach. The base texture is very low res. Looks ok at 15k but pretty blurry and non-descript at low alts. To compensate for this, a higher res detail texture is blended in on polys that are within a certain distance of the POV. I heard some describe this as bump-mapping but I think that is misleading. There is certainly no real time bump mapping going on. Its better described as a detail texture. I have seen several graphics engines use this technique. Wildtangent (www.wildtangent.com) offers a graphics engine that has this capability. Many FPS games use this on wall textures and such. A surface is assigned a base and detail texture that may be at different resolutions. The detail texture is usually a seamless tileable grayscale granular texture at higher res that blends into the main texture as you get closer. It at least makes the blurry base texture bearable. I’d still like to see more detail in the base. I want to see that that is a farmer’s field rather than a bland blurry colored rectangular area.
-Sky/Cloud. Pretty good. I like the layered cloud. They need to have Cu’s as well though. While not spectacular and ground breaking, they have a nice effect. Especially the more they hide the blurry terrain textures.
Terrain Mesh: Nicely done. Impressive resolution for the frame rate hit. I did raise an eyebrow when I turned off the ocean and saw the ocean floor modeled as well. Good potential there. The best feature of WBIII. Kudos where kudos have been earned.
Physics/Flight Model
--------------------------
1. Nice ground handling. Consistant, intuitive physics. I see good potential for GV’s there.
2. Stall Spins are weak. I had to REALLY try to get any of the aircraft to begin a spin and all of them seemed to immediately self recover if I simply let go of the controls. Modern day general aviation aircraft might have this behavior but WWII era military combat aircraft sure as hell did not. They were built will low stability for maneuverability and they didn’t take excessive effort to get into a spin and they required some active effort to recover. I hope this is merely an oversight and not an effort to “dumb-down” the product for mass appeal.
3. Low speed wing drop. Take her high AOA until just near stall, then try to roll hard left or right. The wing should actually drop in the opposite direction as you are trying to roll. This is because the wings are already at the edge of stall and the ailerons movements to increase AOA on the wing you want to life actually causes it to stall and drop instead. WBIII passed fine.
4. Accelerated stalls. OK. Even at high speeds the wings will stall if you pull back hard enough. WBIII passed fine.
5. Spiral Instability. Uhhhg. These planes are mounted on Teflon rails. Take you hands and feet off the controls. A minute gust of wind or even a minute amount of bank that you can’t even see should start the aircraft into an insipient spiral. Gradually the minute bank should increase because the plane begins to turn and outside wing travels faster than the inside wing thus generating more lift thus tightening the turn thus causing the outside wing to continue to bank more thus generating more lift etc… Because the turn keeps tightening, the plane pulls more G’s which makes it heavier which causes the nose to drop as the turn keeps tightening. Eventually the insipient spiral should degenerate into a high speed, high G spiral dive. WBIII did not. Straight as a rail. Left it, had a shower, ate lunch, watched some TV came back and still straight as a rail. OK. Let me help it. Started a 20 deg banking turn let go. Because the outside wing is traveling faster that the inside wing it should generate more lift. This “Overbanking tendency should feed on itself unless the pilot intervenes. From what I could tell this model will not degrade into a spiral dive on its own. Something not right in the model here. WBIII failes IMO.
6. Flying in a vacuum? This one is hard to explain and rather subjective. Its especially noticeable in pitch. Its like there is no air resistance. Its like I can throw the nose +-30 deg with the same stick effort at 300mph and I can at 150mph. Or at least the diff isn’t enough. I wonder if this is because WBIII is merely translating stick dispacement directly to control surface displacement. As opposed to saying 50% stick displacement generates 6 ft/lbs stick pressure and at different speeds that buys you different amount of control deflection. I dunno it just feels as the controls are more disconnected from the world physics than they do in AH which I am more used to. WBIII failes IMO.
7. Yaw roll. Fly nice and straight and then yaw hard. Should cause the outside wing to lift. WBIII passed fine.
8. No redouts or black outs. None. Nada. Ziltch. Big fediddleen goose egg. I don’t know what I was doing wrong. I pulled enough G’s to rip the wings off a F4U once but never saw any hint of G induced impairment. Hope this is mere an oversight and not part of a “dumbing-down” conspiracy. Big fediddleen “F” here.
Overall, not horrible. More Alpha than beta. A LOT of work to be done before I’d shell out money for it. There is some good material there to work on. I’m a little concerned that its already 80 meg download and needs 256 meg of ram to run well at this early stage. What will it take when they’ve actually added some features. That a high threshold for someone with a 56k modem who wants to download it and see if it’s a game he’d like. That’s going to turn away a lot of potential customers at the download page.
Certainly not the greatest software achievement of Western Civilization whose complexity is beyond the capacity of mere mortals to comprehend. I think some of the statements of their lead designer sound like he’s channeling Derek Smart.
Regards,
Wab
-
Re: Spiral Instability
nervermind. I go ack to my original score. I looked at my notes and realized the source of the difference.
Take it up to 20k+. Level out on autopilot. Shut off engine. Let it stabalize in glide. Then take off auto pilot.
Even the zero will glide all the way down straight as an arrow like it was bolted onto teflon rails. thats a no go.
Regards,
Wab
[This message has been edited by AKWabbit (edited 03-18-2001).]
-
Sounds like you flew in EZmode to me.
-
Uhhh no. Not unless you are refering to WBII itself as easy-mode. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) Unless I'm misunderstanding how the selection buttons work. The one that says full realism has the black dot. If it had a film recorder I would tape a demo for you. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
There may be a flaw in my test methods or understanding of the principals involved. I posted up here for peer review and sanity check. Are you getting different results? Redouts? Blackouts? Compressibility? Engine off spiral instability?
Regards,
Wab
-
Check to see if red/blackout effect was turned on,IIRC you can disable it. Have seen black outs.
-
Ahh gotcha. That was scaring me. I'll admend that to a passing grade then.
GUI has got to fail though. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) I would have thought that the buttons I had pushed in were the activated ones. Am I correct in the that the full-realism button should have the black dot in it to be selected?
Is this Mac style GUI or something? Very confusing.
Thanks for the help.
Regards,
Wab
-
I must confess to loving the terrain, and I love the layout of the more historically accurate airfields/taxiways.
Nexx
-
No comment on the less-than-desireable modelling of inertia?
------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"You filthy piece of distended rectum! DIE allierte schweinhund!"
-
I believe you can change sounds just like in WB just like you do in WB, other than that default sounds are in .dll files.
-
When I first tried WBIII I started out in the KI-84 and the first thing I noticed was the same old 2D cockpit with a little eye candy. My first thought was same old stuff with a new paint job. I soon realized that I was being a bit harsh because I was biased towards AH. What changed my mind was when I dove after a drone, missed, then pulled up into the vertical, as I went inverted and looked down I could see the drone appear and disappear as it was scudding through the cloud layer. Nice!
The perfect online flight sim for me at this moment would be the menus, FM and 3D cockpits of AH along with the terrain and clouds of WBIII.
Guess who just ordered another stick of RAM. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
No comment on the less-than-desireable modelling of inertia?
Ours or theirs? Everytime (since 1.03) I do my endless landing pattern with no engine at 200mph without losing speed nor alt I wonder about that.
-
Gatt, I'm thinking about roll inertia mainly, not gliding (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"You filthy piece of distended rectum! DIE allierte schweinhund!"
-
Now that the control surfaces are moving according to the stick input it shows why the rolls seem a bit sluggish.
Standing on the runway it takes 2 seconds to make the aileron go from one full deflection to the other, with the dampening set to 0.
I don't know. It seems high to me, but I am no pilot. It might be a anti stick stirring measure?
-
Actually, the slow stick responce is because HS implemented the time it would actually take a pilot to apply the correct amount of force. So when you are moving the stick full deflection in .5 of a second, in a 109G moving at 400 mph, it takes your "virtual pilot" a couple seconds to apply enough force to move his very heavy stick that same amount. The first revision it was really heavy, they dampeened it down some since then.
------------------
-
The problem is that it isn't linear, nor bidirectional. If it takes 70 pounds of force, and thus time t to deflect fully an elevator, it won't take time 1/2t to deflect an elevator with 35 pounds of force. Furthermore, the control surfaces should center almost instantaneously -- like dropping 70 pounds of force, not like applying 70 pounds in the opposite direction.
And yes, it's an anti-stick stirring measure.
-
I must be missing a file for the FM because I can whip all the current WB III fighters around the sky like I was playing AirWarrior in a "Relaxed Realism" arena. They handle like Piper cubs on steroids. It takes a hug amount of yanking and banking to even get a touch of black out and the damn things wouldn't spin no matter what I did. They'll stall ok. But no spin.
And yes. I was not on easymode and this was with yesterdays patch - as well as before. The old WB's fm was not like this *at all*.
Granted it is a pretty game.
-Westy
[This message has been edited by Westy (edited 03-20-2001).]
-
File this under FWIW (since I haven't flown it) but I believe HS said he modified all of the CofG info. Whether he mucked with anything else is uncertain. Word has it that torque is still under represented which probably affects spin tendencies after a stall a great deal.
lugnut
-
Well I should know better but I have to respond a bit to Westy.
HS has stated that they updated the code for the physics model for WB3 and that it was not completed yet but should be for the release. Some of the problems they know and are working on are spins, and other FM issues. That is why we are in Beta to fix what is not working.
OK, wasted enough time on this one.
Ram1
-
Kinda uncomfortable when the shoe is on the other foot, ain't it Ram1? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
FMs are like sexy women, you never really quite get finished messaging them. Theres always some curve or soft spot that needs some more work.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Not really Rip1, its just important to me that the facts are presented.
Once WB3 is released, and if we still have those problems, then I will get in line to complain like the rest of the WB pilots.
Now if Westy really wanted to get into a debate on flight models using 2.77 as the baseline then others more knowledgeable then myself can debate him.
But we already had that debate and we all concluded that there is very little difference between the two sims since AH 1.04. So my only point is that he fails to remind everyone when he posts that what he is reporting are known bugs. Now we wait for them to be fixed so we can get back to where we were and move forward from there.
Ram1
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
Kinda uncomfortable when the shoe is on the other foot, ain't it Ram1? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
To be honest Ram1, if things were that clear cut I wouldn't bother making any comment on a feature unfinished. However, it's pretty hard telling what is in place, what's not and what will be changed because H.S. makes one comment in one newsgroup and another in on a different board - if he's made a comment at all. ARCWING did the best damn post about the state of the beta to date. And he's not even an employee any more.
I don't have time to keep up with what is what and I really do not have the interest nor care to help out. So the FM isn't finished either. Noted.
Ripsnort nailed it on the head. Others have done what you just did but for AH in AGW and were torn to pieces in posts by H.S, MG, Cabby, Stiglr, you and several others. I'm posting my honest thoughts and there isn't a slam on WB III in any of them. I do not have stock here nor am I linked by family ties to HTC. I do however like them and most definately thier product. It doesn't preclude me from checking anything else out. It's ridiculous to think I could not have an objective opinion on WB III (or WW2O, TK or any other game).
YOU tend to color posts, or anyone who has a less than stellar impression of WB III, anyway you like it as most neo-WBIII hardcore community members tend to. Example: " he fails to remind everyone when he posts that what he is reporting are known bugs " is pure crap. I posted ny thougths about WB III an hour after it was relased. There was no bug list by iEN. I pposted this am about a release last night. There was no bug list by iEN. If there is a bug list it sure aint on AGW and if there are posts then I haven't see em or they weren't up when I commented on something. Where do you get off with writing this roadkill about me hiding facts?
-Westy
[This message has been edited by Westy (edited 03-20-2001).]
-
Fair enough Westy.
Its funny how thin skinned we all can be at times over these games. But I would say that you writing WB3 is more like a Nintendo game then a flight sim would be considered a slam.
But I do think many here and many over on AGW are no longer objective about the others game. So bottom line, you have fun flying AH, I'll have fun flying WBs and let's just let it rest there. Comparing the two sims just leads to trouble and probably can't be done unless by a non-aligned 3rd party.
Ram1
-
"WB3 is more like a Nintendo game then a flight sim would be considered a slam."
Flight model. And I take it back. It wasn't objective and it was a tweak in the nose at those who claim WB's to be the uber-all when it comes to a realistic FM. I just edited that out.
How it feels, the comparison to AW is how it feels to me. Too light and too quick to respond - without the redout, blackout or spins one would expect. Now I know it's not done so we'll see how it fairs later.
As for a third party to review? Seems that won't cut it with iEn as they told SimHQ to halt any criticism of WB III.
Objectiveness isn't wanted by the folks at iEN and, IMO, it's not wanted by those who are iEN's fans. Adore WB III, praise WB III or 'shut the hell up' is the message from iEN' and even the from many of the AGW folks who eat their own who step out of line.
That's the cold truth and it is in plain text to read on AGW and in their email to SimHQ.
-Westy
[This message has been edited by Westy (edited 03-20-2001).]