Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: LtHans on July 04, 2001, 10:11:00 PM
-
Anybody take a look back at WarBirds lately?
They just released a new version this week. Now, I still think Aces High is ahead of them, but the gap is closing fast.
They have most of the planes from the old WarBirds II, and have also added a lineup of ground vehicles too.
M4A1 Sherman tank
M3 troop transport (4 troops, 2 machinguns)
M16 AA halftrack just like ours
M3 GMC halftrack with a 75mm howitzer.
(http://www3.ient.com/wbhtml/M4A1ShermanTank4of4.jpg)
(http://www3.ient.com/wbhtml/M3GMC75-3of3.jpg)
(http://www3.ient.com/wbhtml/WBsIIIDed190.jpg)
They're also commenting that...yes...they are going to design their new game to be a combined arms sim, though they may not do infantry, other than as the current paratrooper drones. They even provisioned their ocean to have underwater terrain for submarines. Their land terrain has more rolling hills than AH has, and includes towns with artillery that you can control (like the artillery of Dawn of Aces).
It's still a beta test right now. There are a few planes that need some work, and only half have the 3D cockpit art done yet.
I'm just curious to see what everyone else thinks of WarBirds 3. Is it going to be better than Aces High?
-
Its already better than Aces High. :cool:
<G,D,Run like Hell>
-
Their clouds are awful, AH is really the only sim ive seen that does those big puffy white ones well. Ill always remember this time I snuk up to a P51 at hi alt and blew him up right inside this huge cloud valley with massove cloud mountains on the sides, simply awesome.
-
One major difference between WBIII and AH is that WBIII supports hardware transform and lighting (3D geometry calculations) of GeForce and Radeon cards while AH doesn't (although I don't know about the DX8 beta version of AH). Using the hardware acceleration of T&L allows many more polygons to be rendered in reasonable framing rates. This allows more polygons per plane, giving smoother rounder nacelles like on the B17 above, and more polygons in the terrain, giving more hills and smoother coast lines. It also allows much more complex cities and lots of trees. Of course, if you depend on the hardware to do the T&L then you depend on it doing it right. Geforce cards don't do things right when you use a 32 bit Z-buffer with 16-bit rendering. Since 16-bit Z-buffers produce serious round off errors leading to bad polygons, you have to run in 32 bit mode to get a more accurate 32 bit (24 bit plus 8 bit stencil) Z-buffer. This slows things down a bit. But the high polygon count sure looks nice.
On the other hand the cockpit I saw (Spit IX) didn't look nearly as good as AH. And then there is the WB flight model. For some bizarre reason they limit control surface response rates: if you do a hard over on the stick the ailerons take a full 2 seconds to respond to their limits. This leads to an annoying mushy overshoot feeling to the FM.
The other major drawback to WBIII is that it's an 85 MByte download! And me with the poor phone line limited to 32,000 Baud :(
715
-
From what I have gathered (from some older Cornered Rat guys, not the current WarBird programers) the reason the controls of WarBirds were slow was deliberate. The netcode couldn't always keep up with the player throwing his controls around, particularily rolling.
So, they had the rolling inertia really high to prevent micro warps and such.
Aces High and WW2 Online both don't do this anymore. WarBirds does.
Still, I've been poking around WarBirds lately and downloaded the last two versions of the game. I'm not going to quit Aces High just yet, but I may if either WW2 Online or WarBirds III can do the virtual battlefield any justice.
To be honest, I haven't played AH in over a month. My brother already canceled his account with AH.
Hans.
-
Originally posted by LtHans:
So, they had the rolling inertia really high to prevent micro warps and such.
Hans.
It's not just the ailerons- the rudder and elevators also take 2 seconds for full deflection. This makes control of the aircraft annoying- there is no better way to mess up a control loop than add a delay to it. It forces you to program your brain to anticipate and backwards control the "inertia" (for example to roll to the left you have to push the stick full left and then pull it past center to the right temporarily to cancel the inertia of the overshoot- in RL you would just recenter the stick when the desired degree of roll angle was reached).
Re clouds: WBIII models cirrus clouds and they look pretty good (for cirrus clouds). AH models cumulus clouds. They look very very good but the instant "grey out" when you enter them is not as realistic as the WBIII "fog" effect when you enter their clouds. Nevertheless, you can't hide in the wispy transparent WBIII clouds. Sunrise is way better in AH as well: for some reason WBIII thinks sunrises are green ;)
715
-
They are doing a good job. Nice aircraft graphics. Nice ground vehicles. Now you can capture villages and above all they have early war planes to do realistic scenarios. I wish the best to them.
-
My problem with Wb is the horrible inertia which does not correspond to my RL experience. When the pilots at the club can throw around Cessna 182's or even some twin engine SE A II's faster in a roll than WB 190's, I know a)reality is modelled wrong or b) WB is modelled wrong :)
-
Totally OT
-
I've heard the clouds currently in the beta are only early ones the final release should have much much better clouds. To be honest I've flown warbirds for 3 years and AH for 2 months or so and noticed very little difference in FM between the two. Some aircraft feel different like the corsair for instance others feel almost identical.
What I do like in AH is the 100% damage on gunnery. Whatevr you hit you destroy.
Narsus
-
And of course, there's another issue. WBIII doesn't work on my system. Or, it does rather, but there are no textures. Everything is white, none of the controls functon correctly, and it's sloooooooow!
-
Ill give it aother try when the release is official and I finally get a G card.
The good news is HTC does not like being second best so whatever the pit crew at iEN does I think HTC will do better. They sure did with WB2 vs AH1.
Lets see what AH2 does against WB3 :)
Y
-
Well... I keep accounts in both, but do 99% of my flying in WB2.77. WB3 is looking good, but its still a beta and has plenty of bugs. A bad keyboard bug makes it inplayable for combat for me...
I actually think AH has much better FM's, tons better effects such as fire, hit sprites ect., HUGELY better interfaces and support stuff like keymapper and films.... and I think the AH graphics, while not as good as WB3, are close enough that the other things still make AH the better sim. Hands down.
So why do I play WB if AH is the better sim? Simple. AH Gameplay sucks. There is no historical arena, its all late war superplanes and the S3 events are held in WB.
Ultimately... who has the best sim means less than who has the best gameplay. For me.... WB has that hands down.
Fang
JG26
-
A big drawback with WB3 is the HUGE download if your on a modem.
The U.I. is a real clunker, the terrain is butt ugly, stick response is awful, the plane models look funky in external view. <may be that sorry bellybutton 3D Max software they model with?> The high polygon counts just add more jaggies IMO.
On the bright side they've come a long ways from the 1st build of WB3, if they can keep it alive they might catch up to AH eventually. :p
-
Following all 3 sims closely, but do my playing in AH at the moment. I do miss the historical WW2 arena in WB very much. It should not be difficult for HTC to offer a similar arena.
WBIII sure is nice graphics, and some effects are better. AH should pic the best and implement if possible. Have a look at the launching of rockets from planes in WBIII. Very very nice. Wish AH get rocket launch effects like that.
Both competing sims are too buggy for me to see them as real oponents yet, but as bugs are fixed they sure will be if AH should not develop much further. However, I trusth HT to follow suit and stay in lead.
LtData *in case you dont know Fokker, old handle * ;)
-
fokr from WBs? (Vlcn/Vlkn) from WBs :)
Originally posted by Fokker:
LtData *in case you dont know Fokker, old handle * ;)
-
I'm only going to switch back to WarBirds if they can get the virtual battlefield of thiers working right. Of course I still need to see how they intend their final version of the ground war to to look like.
It is surely better than the aircombat of WW2 Online. Sure, in that game you can fly, but not very well. Its mostly a ground combat game. Maybe after they implement a panning view system or stick sets It will improve, but right now I hate flying WW2OL because I can't configure my veiw keys the way I like it to.
Aces High is still going to be mostly aircombat, and probably won't ever add a fully fleshed out ground war. It wouldn't take too much if you ask me, just treelines, roads, bridges, and farm buildings.
Hans.
-
So long as WB has allied vs axis and no 6 view and puny undermodeled machine guns I will have no interest in it. I don't really care about ground wars but would like things to strafe.
lazs
-
IEN is offering free online play of WB, WB3, and DOA from the 6th through the 9th of July.
I got the downloads and have only flown them offline for now.
My take: The terrains are not as nice as AH. AH terrains have a more realistic appearance. About the only area enviroment wise in which WB3 has an edge on AH is the water. It's alive and undulating. However their shorelines are not as well done as AH.
The planes in WB3 are nicely rendered, but the cockpits seem dead and lifeless. Cockpit art is nice, but your head seems frozen in space. Some folks complain of the undue head movement in AH when manouvering the plane, but I think it adds life to the cockpit.
One thing I did really like, and would like to see in AH. When you put the plane into a dive, the engine rpm sound would wind up, and in a climb, would slow down as the prop was loaded. This gives you a pretty good seat of the pants feel on your energy state without having to look at your guages. A nice feature that I hope gets incorperated into AH.
I won't go into great depth on the flight model cause it's been beated to death here already, but to me it seems overly mushy, and unresponsive. I don't get the feeling of flight as in AH.
The stall horn is about as annoying a sound as could be found. And does it really have to go off on the take off roll?
Haven't had the chance to try the gunnery yet, or witness the damage graphics from gun strikes, but the tracer effects are weak as compared to AH.
In conclusion, for my money AH is still the best value out there for a good WW2 combat flight sim. I'll be here a while yet. :D
It's just my opinion, I could be wrong. ;)
-
Yeah WBIII has the eye-candy but it's the same ol' game as 2.7. Same FM, same balistics, etc...
nothing has changed except the graphics IMO.
Show me some real improvements and maybe I'll be impressed.
-
Well I thought I would give it a spin, it's free this weekend. I suppose it's what you're used to, but it feels like you're flying in molasses. No sensation of speed, poor response, mushy, bouncy. These are supposed to be high performance aircraft and I felt like I was flying a Cessna. It may look nice, but the selling feature still has to the FM. No thanks.
bowser
-
Tried it, yuk.
-
<<<About the only area enviroment wise in which WB3 has an edge on AH is the water. It's alive and undulating.>>>
Weave, have you ever flown over water? It doesn't look anything like WB3 effects. WB3 ocean looks like a gigantic jacuzzi. AH's unmoving textures are much more like what you see from the air.
I like the WB3 haze layers, they would be nice additions to the AH clouds.
ra
-
I think the WB3 guys should check out X-plane
;) Now where is Deez ?
-
My problem with Wb is the horrible inertia which does not correspond to my RL experience. When the pilots at the club can throw around Cessna 182's or even some twin engine SE A II's faster in a roll than WB 190's, I know a)reality is modelled wrong or b) WB is modelled wrong
Rip tested & compared the AH & WB 190s roll.
Oddly they were nearly identical, dispite how they might feel.
Yeah WBIII has the eye-candy but it's the same ol' game as 2.7. Same FM, same balistics, etc...
nothing has changed except the graphics IMO
Same FM = wrong
Same balistics = wrong
Nothing changed except graphics = wrong
You need to really get out more :)
PS: Far as the original title of "catching up" that is a matter of opinion.
With all due respect to HTC and the fine sim that AH is, there are many areas that AH has never caught up to WB. And the AH current engine is just not capable of doing what the WBIII Winter Wolf can do.
[ 07-07-2001: Message edited by: Skybax ]
-
"...Rip tested & compared the AH & WB 190s roll. Oddly they were nearly identical, dispite how they might feel..."
Does that include the 10 seconds it takes the aircraft to respond and start to roll? :)
bowser
-
Skybax: variety in aircraft aside, name one.
-
Rip tested & compared the AH & WB 190s roll.
Oddly they were nearly identical, dispite how they might feel.
Heh, here's a little math question for ya.
Aunt Anne has a cross motorcycle and Uncle Bill has a big BMW.
They both accelerate at full throttle and go on for x meters.
In the beginning, Aunt Anne's superior acceleration puts her in the lead, but they end up arriving at the goal line at the same time. Why?
Perhaps because while the BMW does not accelerate as well, it has a much higher top speed?
According to you, the two "drive models" would be identical. I hope the fallacy of this line of argument is obvious.
WB has a code that makes the initial roll rate of all fighters WAY too slow - and this ain't just a touchy feely thing. I'll ask our pilot to roll the Cessna 182 and I'll time every 45 degrees - the Cessna is much faster than the WB 190 for the first 45 degrees.
I haven't had much real life stick time, but spent some time riding planes. And it was amazing to me how crisp even these private planes like a Cessna 182 are when flown by a capable pilot. Or the SE A II's rudder authority - KICK MOVE RELEASE STOP. All like a snap.
The inertia modelled in WB is ridiculous. It really is. Fix that, and I'll be very happy to fly WB but as it is, that inertia is just too much.
-
I think it's important to reiterate that it is not true physics inertia that is being modeled in WB3. They actually limit the rate of movement of the control surfaces. Use the external rear view zoomed close and do a hard over of the stick (roll). You will see that the plane responds immediately to the visible aileron position but that the aileron itself moves very slowly. It isn't ten seconds :) but it is a full 2 seconds from one extreme to the other. This is what gives the mushy bouncy feel. If you want to rapidly roll 45 degrees left you have to push the stick full left until you reach something less than 45 degrees and then move the stick all the way right to hasten the slew of the aileron back to neutral to prevent an overshoot in roll angle. I doubt any real aircraft responds that way: even monster sized transport aircraft have almost immediate response of the control surfaces to stick input, you can see that when they check them on the ramp. A fighter would obviously need instant response. And, in fact, I don't think WWII fighters could have a delayed response since the control surfaces were connected to the stick directly by wires (and I doubt very much they used bungie cords :) )
715
-
yes the mushy feeling of wbs is teh #1 reason why i wont subscribe
its rediculous i agree with santa 100%
-
I think AH's is a much better sim. The graphics don't seem as "cartoony" to me in AH. Now if we could just get more turning going on here. hehe, sorry couldn't help myself.
[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: Jase ]
-
I tested warbird this weekend .. Uhm i was a bit consterned that there is EASY fly mode button, and it depend on player if he will use it in MA(historical area) ..
WB sounds are like my mothers kitchens utils. Real strenght...
I think WB is for lames and childrens and some very cleave USa GODS.
but best Weather whitch i ever saw was in X-plane ... its real rock http://www.x-plane.com (http://www.x-plane.com)
AH is prety good but expensive so i will enyou h2h till htc get some good idea like there is 50 peoples whitch could pay us a bit lover then their 30 deadly usd .
[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: EagleC ]
-
There are few things WB has that AH doesn't..
Historical action..
Early planes..
Lack of 1 ping-kill hispano dweebery
FM that bleeds E enough to enable landing without 2 rounds around orbit
and most of all: lack of 1 ping-kill hispano dweebery.
It's too bad neither of the games have the good aspects of the other.. it would rock.
WB has enough weaknesses to make me doubt it.. OTOH AH has D1.0 snapshot killing gunnery and rubber-neck 6 views.
It's a tradeoff both ways IMO.
-
I'll take AH any day.
Like I stated earlier.. nothing has changed in WB except the candy.
Now that I'm playing the dx8 version of AH, there is not much reason for me to look any further.. the eye candy is here.
Besides, the game play is the issue. The feel of the FM, etc.
They (WB) do have more planes though.. drool.
-
I tried WBIII this weekend. Didn't really play it enough to comment on the FM, but here are my impressions:
Likes:
1) Planeset - nice to see the stuka, hurricane etc.
2) Ground vehicles are well done in terms of model/skins
3) Haze layers are excellent.
4) Tracer was ok.
5) Towns/strat targets look varied and realistic, as did the landscape.
6) Tyre rumble was appreciated and the explosion sounds were good.
Dislikes:
1) Control surface response. Ugh! That delayed deflaction thing was very annoying - I tried to up the stick sensitivity but it had no real effect on the rate of response. Not nice.
2) Water effects look ridiculous. Like others have said, water doesn't look so dynamic from the air - especially the higher you get.
3) Tracers - AH tracers aren't the best I've seen (B17 II) but they are better than WBIII. I didn't like them - they looked more like rockets.
4) Some plane models just look wrong. The Yak-9 looks stubby compared to photographs and I think AH has got it much closer.
5) Although some of the skins are excellent, others are pretty poor compared to latest AH skins.
6) Without icons it was hard to distinguish between aircraft (running at 1280x1024 on 1 19in Trinitron screen).
As a beta it looks ok, but it has someway to go before it prises me away from AH. :)
-
3) Haze layers are excellent.
Um, they call those "clouds" over there. :D
-Westy
-
HT can be proud to have so much cheerleaders.
but he will still loosemthe competition.
WB3 has most things better than AlliedsHigh.
and after reading THIS thread, and the IL2
thread...i know why i left this game.
going tank busting now with my Ju87G, cya
all cheerleaders
wastel aka habicht
9./JG54 w2ol
I/JG3 WB
-
Lol @ HAsqueak.
I enjoy the toejam out of the 9/JG54 guys always poppin back into AH
for the "poor 'ol me, HT and
AlliedHigh is going lose everyone."
Go get em TankBuster!
---
[ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: Creamo ]
-
Looks like there's an 'MG' type for every nation. lol
-Westy
-
i tried it this last weekend and was not to impressed i flew WB foir 2 1/2 yrs i find they still got a long ways to go befor they got anything to bring me back to it
-
I thought my review was pretty honest and unbiased. I am not a cheerleader. I've never worn a skirt, of any length.
So to reinterate, harbicht: au revoir.