Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: 1epic1 on July 22, 2006, 04:47:29 AM
-
this is the greatest flying game ever...but the damage modeling is questionable...i mean its realistic but for 1 thing...as far as i know they WILL NOT go down unless A.) something falls off or B.) oil,gas,radiator, ect... well in other simulators like combat flight simulator and pacific fighters and also IL2, if you hit the wing on a aircraft the wing is damaged, doesnt always falls off, but if they try to turn or pull up, the plane would want to lean to the side of the damaged wing. The wing is damaged but doesnt always fall off...why isnt that in here but is in all these other simulators?
I mean ive shot at planes with 5-10 rounds of 20mm and even though the wing doesnt fall off, the plane should surely feel the effects of the damage to the wing
-
AH kinda does take that into effect, just not into full detail. Ailerons, flaps or even half a wing gettin knocked off effect flight.
I suppose you are asking that shouldn't a single or few bullet holes in a wing effect flight though?
-
i mean think....4 -6 20mm shots into the wing doesnt always make parts fly off, but shouldnt the plane feel the effects of those hits? lets say the plane got hit in the right wing with 4 20mm rounds, in most simulators the plane would then tend to bank to the right cause of the damage sustained.
but in AH that doesnt happen, the plane keeps flying normaly like nothing ever hit him, unless somthing flys off
-
I would agree on this !
-
Considering all the other changes that have happended, I've been disappointed that the damage model still appears to be all or nothing.
It seems to be the only part of the game that is seriously lagging way behind all other aspects.
I'm sure they'll get around to improving it sometime.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Considering all the other changes that have happended, I've been disappointed that the damage model still appears to be all or nothing.
It seems to be the only part of the game that is seriously lagging way behind all other aspects.
I'm sure they'll get around to improving it sometime.
totally in agreement here.
DM is something that needs a good update after CT, or even before it if there's time, seeing as it is about the most important thing in a combat flight sim
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Considering all the other changes that have happended, I've been disappointed that the damage model still appears to be all or nothing.
It seems to be the only part of the game that is seriously lagging way behind all other aspects.
I'm sure they'll get around to improving it sometime.
exactly
-
Originally posted by Major Biggles
DM is something that needs a good update after CT, or even before it if there's time, seeing as it is about the most important thing in a combat flight sim
It's been years; there's always more time at this point. :D
-
and not to say the damage on engine.
A damaged engine stops totally or it continues giving its power even in a heavy damage and black trail... should a damaged engine chokes, spits and lost his power or not??
Its a long long debate, but most of the people, here ask for more planes, b29, jets, more p47 and p51 versions instead of improving what we already have
-
i don't mind the damage model. doesn't seem that often that i get behind someone and don't put enough lead into them that they don't lose parts they need. i don't fly 20mm birds to often, but i find it hard to believe that 4-5 direct hits on a wing from that caliber would not cause at least an aileron to fly off. then again i could be wrong, and i guess packet loss/lag may also play a factor. in the past i've experienced people hammering me with smaller mg rounds, causing not as much damage, then listening to them gripe about it....as if they hit me with all cannon rounds.
too many other things to worry about, if HT, changes focus to damage model, everyone will whine about not working on CT. If they make damage model too sensitive, many will whine about that instead.
At the same time, if you want a more realistic damage model where a few pings may drastically alter your your planes performance, why not also model random mechanical problems with engine and other parts for the sake of realism. Who knows how accurate the modeling for those other games are, besides just pure conjecture.
also, how would damage models affect gameplay. if you can affect planes ability to fly more easily, would people become more timid and only b/z. damage model is important to game, but imho takes a back seat to flight model and considerations as to how it will affect gameplay/fun factor.
-
Chuck Norris poops light sabers.
-
Fuel lines, oil tank, lines and cooler, control lines, radio (haha! Imagine that, losing your radio and vox dies)
-
losing the radio and therefore the vox would be awesome!
-
Some people lose vox all the time.
I tell them "...think of it as the enemy jamming your communications."
:D
-
I dont know about random stuff I think that would suck but I would like to see la7s for instance with holes in thier engines slow down at least a little. How realistic is it to have any plane chase around for ten minutes all the while leaking oil and outrunning everything else?
-
i'm pretty sure IRL if you got an engine smashed / oil leak - you wouldn't be chasing anyone aorund - you'd be running for home. But since it is a game and you can chase with a busted engine..might as well be able to do it a full power before it seizes :) BTW - you can retard your throttle too, if so inclined. And it does have an effect on the temperature.
-
right, there needs to be somthing in here that would make people want to land...how perking every plane,...not alot...maybe 1 or 2 points...and for the early models like the spit 1 and spit 5, 109E and F, 190A5, ect. they wont be perked at all.
-
right, there needs to be somthing in here that would make people want to land...how perking every plane,...not alot...maybe 1 or 2 points...and for the early models like the spit 1 and spit 5, 109E and F, 190A5, ect. they wont be perked at all.
i agree with that an probably everything else here.
i kinda feel AH should forget about TOD, an they can completely concentrate on these other things. my 2cents
-
FORGET THE TOD!?
ARE YOU INSANE!?:O
-
yeah why not?
Most people already have
-
here's a good idea
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=183209
-
I brought this up a while back and HT answered. He said that he too would like to redo the dammage modell but as far as I understood it won't be anytime soon or even at all. He said he'd like to, not that he will.
IMO it is the one thing missing from AH.
I remember when I started playing Warbirds in 1995, it had the same general idea (although a few less parts and such) and it was great at the time. But that was 11 years ago.
One can argue and bigger about Il2 dammage modell and flight modell but the dammage modell is often far superior even though some seriously weird things happen there.
-
Originally posted by mojo7
Chuck Norris poops light sabers.
wow, what intellect!
-
You want intellect?......
Chuck Norris will make you an offer you can't refuse, and then make you refuse it.
Rosa Parks refused to get out of her seat because she was saving it for Chuck Norris.
Chuck Norris once met a bear while walking through the forest. Chuck Norris showed the bear his fists. At this time, the bear proceeded to eat itself knowing that it would be a less painful way to die.
Chuck Norris was once the F.B.I's chief negotiator. His job involved calling up criminals and saying, "This is Chuck Norris."
:rofl
-
If you make the DM more realistic then the game would be harder to succeed in. True it would be harder to fail in as well, but AH has always been about playability, about being a fun and mostly believable game.
I stopped playing IL2 online because it was too much work for too little gain (plus the .50s were pathetically undermoded "IMO"). In AH I can come into the arena and within a matter of minutes have 10 kills under my belt. I like that :cool:
-
Actually Yeager I'd say it might actually be easier to succeed in.
Remember, what we want modelled is to get rid of the all or nothing kind of modelling. Ie. Shoot an aileron off in X plane and lose X ammount of roll rate in %.
Much better to have a cannon shell hit in the outer wing, effect drag, lift etc.
This way people would no longer fly away unharmed with 4 20mm in them (2 in fuselage and 1 in each wing for example). This way 30mm would be as effective against bombers as they were without the need to put them all at the same place (or more or less atleast).
-
Originally posted by mojo7
:rofl
Only fools laugh at their own jokes.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Only fools laugh at their own jokes.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :aok
-
There are only two kind of peoples on earth:
1- People who are scared of Chuck Norris.
2- People who don't know Chuck Norris.
:aok
-
stop with the chuck norris...its has nothing to do with this post...i hate people spam...specificly this site...more specificly my damn post
-
Originally posted by Yeager
If you make the DM more realistic then the game would be harder to succeed in. True it would be harder to fail in as well, but AH has always been about playability, about being a fun and mostly believable game.
I stopped playing IL2 online because it was too much work for too little gain (plus the .50s were pathetically undermoded "IMO"). In AH I can come into the arena and within a matter of minutes have 10 kills under my belt. I like that :cool:
OK what part of simulation DONT U GET!?
This is a combat sim....not some arcade game....combat sims are 99% based on how well the planes are modeled then .5% on game play and another .5% on somthing i dont care about...in other words a new DM will make it easier to shoot people down....so now if u shoot someone up with tons of 50 cals and u get shot down by him, you know that he is hurt and ur not that pissed...unlike now where he has wings full of holes but if nothing is missing HES UNHARMED!
-
Originally posted by 1epic1
stop with the chuck norris...its has nothing to do with this post...i hate people spam...specificly this site...more specificly my damn post
They can't, they'll the horse until every bone is a powder.
-
I personally support this idea. I also think it would change in some ways how people fly (not totally, but maybe a little).
Think about it.
La7 dives down on a P-51 for the HO. Normally La7 would take out the 51, and then dive away with maybe a fuel leak.
New damage model.
La7 dives on a P-51 for the HO. P-51 is destroyed. La7 now has 40% less roll from the right alieron, the right wing only provides 65% of it's previous lift, has a fuel leak, and the engine can only output 87% of it's total power.
Sure, the La7 can continue on in the 2nd example, but he's also much more of a sitting duck. It might force people to either improve thier flying, learn to fly home sooner, or both. It also increases the importance of being a wingman and an assister.
Another good example would be the Ace pilot who tries to bounce 2 n00bs.
The Aces Pilot might still get his kills, but if the 2 n00bs work together, there's a much higher chance that Ace needs to get his butt home, or might actually damage the Ace enough to force him to think twice about jumping 2 n00bs.
-
Originally posted by mojo7
There are only two kind of peoples on earth:
1- People who are scared of Chuck Norris.
2- People who don't know Chuck Norris.
:aok
Are you a Junior in real life aswell? You sure act like it...
-
Fill in the contexts, shall we?
If you make the DM more realistic then the game would be harder to succeed in (for me). True it would be harder to fail in as well, but AH has always been about playability (for me), about being a fun and mostly believable game, (which definition of 'believable', happens to be a game which lets me get 10 kills in a matter of minutes).
I stopped playing IL2 online because it was too much work for too little gain (or in other words, I just couldn't adapt to it)... (plus the .50s were pathetically undermoded "IMO" (I mean, I couldn't shoot down something with .50s - if the .50s were modelled right, the fact that I couldn't fully adapt to the game shouldn't matter - if I shoot, the wings should come off! Teh 50s ArE the R0XX0rS!). In AH I can come into the arena and within a matter of minutes have 10 kills under my belt. I like that (and that's what really matters to me. Who cares if the game changes to something that more closely resembles real life?)
I was also one of the smug folk who thought AH was simply the best in everything. I'd sit down and play IL-2, and see that I'm getting my butt kicked in situations which in AH would've been different, and I'd sit down and think to myself "total bullshi* - obviously the game's wrong."
That went on for the first few months - until I got used to the restrictive view system. Played both AH and IL2/FB (and all the diddly add-ons) extensively, and reached the conclusion the 1C:Maddox folk almost perfected the DM system.
Frankly, anyone who'd suggest the AH DM is even remotely superior over IL-2/FB's is either seriously biased or insane. And bringing in the 'gameplay excuse' is a just a classic cop-out. The general difficulty and success rates of aerial gunnery in IL-2/FB matches real life instances much more closely than AH, and the effects of gunnery (DM) are much more profound and believable.
There used to be the same bullshi* 'concerns' about the refined gunnery when AH2 beta came out - how people obviously will not be able to cope with a more realistic gunnery, and that kind of 'too much realism' would ruin the game and make customers go away.
As it turns out, those claims proved to be exactly what it is - a crock of bullshi*. The average gunnery distances in AH1 was way over 500 yards, easily upto 600 and occasionally 800 to 1000. The refined hit detection reduced the gunnery range down to 300~400 yards (which btw, is still way too far) - people had trouble for the first month or so, and they easily adapted to it ever since.
It's not as if refining the DM realistically is the same thing as asking "8-hour-flights-to-target" sort of realism. The DM is directly related to combat and frankly higher level of detail in such components of the game only enhances the fun, not deterrs it.
Any flightsim that depicts hydraulic fluids catching fire, and then the flames dying out after the fluids are all spent, is superb in my book. Or, a sim that depicts damaged throttle gates, the pilot rudely realizing that his throttle system has been rendered unresponsive by enemy fire.
Can AH offer that kind of heart-pounding immersion with its DM?
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Fill in the contexts, shall we?
I was also one of the smug folk who thought AH was simply the best in everything. I'd sit down and play IL-2, and see that I'm getting my butt kicked in situations which in AH would've been different, and I'd sit down and think to myself "total bullshi* - obviously the game's wrong."
That went on for the first few months - until I got used to the restrictive view system. Played both AH and IL2/FB (and all the diddly add-ons) extensively, and reached the conclusion the 1C:Maddox folk almost perfected the DM system.
Frankly, anyone who'd suggest the AH DM is even remotely superior over IL-2/FB's is either seriously biased or insane. And bringing in the 'gameplay excuse' is a just a classic cop-out. The general difficulty and success rates of aerial gunnery in IL-2/FB matches real life instances much more closely than AH, and the effects of gunnery (DM) are much more profound and believable.
There used to be the same bullshi* 'concerns' about the refined gunnery when AH2 beta came out - how people obviously will not be able to cope with a more realistic gunnery, and that kind of 'too much realism' would ruin the game and make customers go away.
As it turns out, those claims proved to be exactly what it is - a crock of bullshi*. The average gunnery distances in AH1 was way over 500 yards, easily upto 600 and occasionally 800 to 1000. The refined hit detection reduced the gunnery range down to 300~400 yards (which btw, is still way too far) - people had trouble for the first month or so, and they easily adapted to it ever since.
It's not as if refining the DM realistically is the same thing as asking "8-hour-flights-to-target" sort of realism. The DM is directly related to combat and frankly higher level of detail in such components of the game only enhances the fun, not deterrs it.
Any flightsim that depicts hydraulic fluids catching fire, and then the flames dying out after the fluids are all spent, is superb in my book. Or, a sim that depicts damaged throttle gates, the pilot rudely realizing that his throttle system has been rendered unresponsive by enemy fire.
Can AH offer that kind of heart-pounding immersion with its DM?
Are you making a lot of bullsh** assumptions here? Adapted? Meaning what? They all like it now? Or they all have grown to accept the fact that it wont change and decided to get used to it?
The latter doesn't necessarily mean that all are satisfied. Neither does it mean any further refinement of the "DM"/"Gunnery" wouldn't be the proverbial straw that brakes the camels back either.
After all...most IL2 players i have known over the past 3 years are now playing AH exclusively. Bet many Ah2 players can say the same.
If you think it isn't possible for HTC to Upgrade its self outa business...think again. After the higher percentile of new Ah2 subscribers are of the younger (Duke Nukem) generation. If they cant shoot at something and see watermelon blow up...they wont hang around for long.
Final note.
Wonder what the Hit% and Kill%/totals are Post new Dm compared to Pre DM?
I personally know many, at least 10 or better players who have spent much less time in AH2 since the new DM/gunnery change. Its the same ole comment (I cant hit watermelon anymore) and the dissappear, not to be seen online again for several months. Many of them in fact, frequent the Message Boards here at HTC.
-
imop , the damage setting on the runway and the damage in flight are total in the Vulchers advantage,
If i'm in flight most of the fighters/bombers need 5-10 or more 20mm hits to blow up,(unless pilot killed) but if i'm on the runway with gear down 1, ONLY 1 x 20mm shell make the plane blow up, in pices , Why is this diference? what's the logic explanation?
It should be opossite, cuz in flight are dynamic forces stressing the structure that would help a damage made by a shell
-
Posted by 1epic1
OK what part of simulation DONT U GET!?
This is a combat sim....not some arcade game....combat sims are 99% based on how well the planes are modeled then .5% on game play and another .5% on somthing i dont care about..
I used to be a real pain in HTC's side demanding all sorts of "realism" until i just realized that ah is indeed a game that has high fidelity airplanes (from a gamers perspective). This is not a sim, it does simulate some aspects of WWII aircombat but in the end its about having fun. I play somewhere else when im in the sim mood, but when you just want to break out a beer and shoot something ah is great.
The DM in ah is pretty dang insta kill compared to anyting i have flown before, heck in targetware I have had Fiat g50s fill my p40N with their entire 303 clip and I can manage to slowly and awkwardly make it home for a nice crash landing, of course over there they dont have it so kills are announced to everyone so the mentality is completely different. Just wounding a plane and sending it home to protect your bomber or base is gratiflying. In ah its fun to go around and bag some scalps, having a DM that is simplified makes it so you can kill 10 planes and rtb to get a bunch of WTGs, which i think is integeral to the gameplay. Maybe for Combat tour, since it seems less oriented around how many kills you get and more about applying force when needed to make a mission move the DM will be more realistic since it wont make or break the gameplay, a wounded bomber that is going to have to ditch before it makes it to your base is a succesefull victory, maybe some sort of different public reward system will have to be developed to message Egos.:p
-
I personally know many, at least 10 or better players who have spent much less time in AH2 since the new DM/gunnery change. Its the same ole comment (I cant hit watermelon anymore) and the dissappear, not to be seen online again for several months. Many of them in fact, frequent the Message Boards here at HTC.
I sure hope they don't give up as easily in real life as they do here cause if they do they are in serious dodo.
People who get pissed off and leave cause 1000 yard kills are made more difficult might wanna go and play some older kind of game instead. Or maybe Doom.
But of course that is just my opinion, sure there are people who think the exact opposit.
-
In AH1 I shot down an La7 in a P-47D-40. The La7 was 1.7k out and I was co-alt on his 7'o clock. I had the convergence maxed, and used a wee-bit of Kentucky windage. Luck? Perhaps. Heck, I routinely make 1.5k-2.0k Ostie shots, some will <
> me, most don't (they whine or yell at their PC).
But to quit over the Damage model is asinine.
-
The DM has always been the weakest area in AH. I understand that doing a more detailed DM is a major task for a small company like HTC. I would think that over the years, the time for doing this would be found, but it wasn't. While we are at it, re-doing the coastlines for the v2.0 graphic engine is also way over due.
HTC has its priorities and they might be different from what I or some other guy want. I'd rather have a better DM than some more hangar queens modeled. HTC decided to play everything on the CT vision and so again such things as the DM which are not immediately essential are pushed aside.
So AH is less then perfect, but it is still the best out there.
-
Originally posted by 1epic1
OK what part of simulation DONT U GET!?
This is a combat sim....not some arcade game....combat sims are 99% based on how well the planes are modeled then .5% on game play and another .5% on somthing i dont care about...in other words a new DM will make it easier to shoot people down....so now if u shoot someone up with tons of 50 cals and u get shot down by him, you know that he is hurt and ur not that pissed...unlike now where he has wings full of holes but if nothing is missing HES UNHARMED!
again, if you were to ask me, this game is much more arcade than a sim. we have reduced flight times, hangars that reconstruct, ships that rebuild at port within minutes. you can spawn as many plane/tanks/pt boats as you like. the only real strat involved are hangars troops and ord, all of which can be easily killed and suicided ad nauseam. ack that seems to shoot through objects and does not prioritize targets. not saying it's not a good game, just not a simulation.
guess i am missing a point somewhere....if you put "tons" of ammo into someone, they go unscathed in AH? i wouldn't mind an altered DM, as someone said people will adapt. i just hate to think people are calling for planes to be disabled and killed more easily for the sake of having easier kills. it might be fun to have things like stuck throttles and various parts of planes on fire, damaged gauges etc....but to remodel for easier kills in a game that already rewards vulching and flying in hoardes seems a bit lame imho.
-
Pluck, if you'd like more realism than the main arena, I highly recommend scenarios -- I like them very much. For me, the main arena is a fun place to keep up flying skills in between scenarios, but scenarios are what I fly for.
-
AH is still the most realistic flight-sim experience yet. All planes are rendered with a high degree of detail and accuracy.The flight dynamics seem to be a bit more rigorous than most can handle.The visuals in AH aren't nearly as impressive as in some of the others (Il-2), but the ease of play and varied game options make this one a keeper.
Chuck
--------------------
System Specs:
CPU: Z80
SPEED: 3 MHz
RAM : 32 kb
ROM : 32 kb
TEXT MODES : 40 x 24 / 80 x 24
GRAPHICS: 240 x 240 dots in four out of eight possible colours
COLORS: Monochrome or colour monitor
SOUND: 1 channel
I/O PORTS 2 x RS232, expansion bus slot
-
AH damage modelling is the singlemost worst of its game features.
Feels like popping popcorn at d7 - IRL you dont hit any fighter target at that distance - most targets fell from d2 or less IRL.
I like AH flight modell and all updates compared with its main competitor WarBirds ( which HT also did many years ago ).
I do not say gunnery / damage model is perfect in WB - just more realistic.
Do we want quakebirds or a relistic sim ?
-
For those who think, AH doesnt have the technology cause its too small....you are wrong. So i was talking to the developers of WWII Online and guess what their DM to their planes is the same as in IL-2 Pacific Fighter, ect. they also stated that AH is the same size company as they were.... so HTC has the technology and IMHO need to consentrate on making things better before new features like the CT for example, the CT is a good idea but they need to improve on what they got first!
-
Originally posted by 1epic1
OK what part of simulation DONT U GET!?
This is a combat sim....not some arcade game....combat sims are 99% based on how well the planes are modeled then .5% on game play and another .5% on somthing i dont care about...in other words a new DM will make it easier to shoot people down....so now if u shoot someone up with tons of 50 cals and u get shot down by him, you know that he is hurt and ur not that pissed...unlike now where he has wings full of holes but if nothing is missing HES UNHARMED!
Should you do a search I'm sure you'll find where Hitech posted that this is a "Game" not a simulation. More people like to play games than do simulators, as I think Hitech is looking for the money to keep him self in scotch, I think he will stick with the game.
I'm sure most would agree that the DM isn't what it could be, heck even Hitech has said it, but right now all there attention is on CT. Remember, this is a bussiness to Hitech, which do you think will bring in more customers, a NEW game style of play, or a better DM?
-
Originally posted by The Fugitive
which do you think will bring in more customers, a NEW game style of play, or a better DM?
DO you really want me to answer that question?
I think improving what we have now will do better... than adding new material because for 1 thing the DM now is old...very very old it needs to be worked on ASAP, every other part of the game has been updated but the DM... and second the CT will do good, yes, but right now the game is like a website... tons of pages but no material on those pages, so what do u do? add another page of nothing!? no u improve on what you have first then go to other stuff
-
Are you making a lot of bullsh** assumptions here? Adapted? Meaning what? They all like it now? Or they all have grown to accept the fact that it wont change and decided to get used to it?
Adapted, as in 'adapted', Mugz. Did the MA numbers wane? Did the customer base shrink? Did 'too much realism' hurt the company?
The latter doesn't necessarily mean that all are satisfied. Neither does it mean any further refinement of the "DM"/"Gunnery" wouldn't be the proverbial straw that brakes the camels back either.
Obviously it seems the world's got plenty of camels that seem to bear lot heavier loads than some others.
After all...most IL2 players i have known over the past 3 years are now playing AH exclusively. Bet many Ah2 players can say the same.
That's funny. Because, on the flip side most people I know who start out with IL-2 would not even take a glance at AH2 - why should they waste their time on an 'inferior' product? Everytime I recommend AH to a friend, he would go, "oh geez, looks like fun. But really, I got IL-2/FB and that's enough for me.. I mean, it's more real".
If you think it isn't possible for HTC to Upgrade its self outa business...think again.
Did I say that? Where?
I never said anything even remotely close with the stuff you're putting in my mouth. What I did mention, is how some knee-jerking AH pom-pom boys would do anything to make up excuses for AH being actually inferior in some specific (and very important) components of the game compared to some of its contendors, most specifically IL-2/FB.
The AH DM is lacking, and they somehow come up with the bullshi* that AH is an online game so it can't 'calculate' as many factors as a packaged game. Then they come up with justifications that a 'non-realistic' DM is actually some kind of business strategy to keep the 'gameplay' value high. Just the same way how they tried the same approach when they realized the refined gunnery modelling lowered their personal scores, and try to smother it with justifications that it would kill the game, which ofcourse, turned out to be totally untrue.
Well I call it baloney.
Never did I criticize HTC for not having a better DM. All I did was state the facts as it is - no more, no less; 1) AH DM is lacking, and 2) IL-2/FB did come up with a very convincing example of advanced DM that AH.
After the higher percentile of new Ah2 subscribers are of the younger (Duke Nukem) generation. If they cant shoot at something and see watermelon blow up...they wont hang around for long.
This is where the 'old flight-sim vets' got it all wrong. Heck, I'd even go so far as to say that it's basically an arrogant assumption that the only people who has any right to judge what kind of amount of realism is suited to games, will always be 'old vets'.
It's a blind and foolish assumption spread around people who've been playing flight-sims for a long time. Those opinions are usually from the 'old vet people' - the guys who were interested in WW2 flight sims even before there were 'graphic cards' or 'color monitors'. The guys used to the 'traditional style' of gameplay that dates back to AW, progresses through WB, and ends up in AH.
They're so used to the limitations in realism and 'gameplay concessions', which existed due to the fact that game technology wasn't advanced enough to come up with something better, that they mistakenly begin to think such limitations are the only thing suited for the status quo.
Well wake up.
It's a new era now. We've got young people playing computer games who weren't even born yet when AW first existed. These people are totally uninfluenced by the 'tradition', and what we think is right for simulations.
They have totally different standards in the game that interest them, compared to the waning old generation who started out with meager 'text-based flight sims'. They thrive on graphcal detail and level of addictive realism. To them WW2 is something more than half a century ago - with the only means of interacting with such history is through books, media, and games - the more real it is, the more they love it.
While the 'old guys' would just cringe their faces at the thought of 'boring' take-offs and landings, the young people like it the more difficult it is. They go to internet forums asking how one can land 109s perfectly without destroying their landing gears. People post manifold and RPM settings in the boards for specific landing procedures and stuff.
In short, the opinion that more realism would tick off the new generations is basically false. The only people that are ticked off by more realism is the 'old guys'. The younger kids, they love it. Restrictive head angles, no ammo counters, no 'combat trimming', manual engine operations, flicking magnetos and mixture levers, etc etc.. the 'young people' have absolutely no problems with it.
Face it - the 'old vets' are the past. There's a new paradigm in town, and IL-2/FB was a slap to the faces of some people who thought AH was always the only single pioneer in WW2 aerial combat simulation.
What it did was show us where the next generation of WW2 aerial combat simulations was going. The only question is will AH head in the same direction, or become just another 'has been', like the fate AW and WB walked.
Wonder what the Hit% and Kill%/totals are Post new Dm compared to Pre DM?
I personally know many, at least 10 or better players who have spent much less time in AH2 since the new DM/gunnery change. Its the same ole comment (I cant hit watermelon anymore) and the dissappear, not to be seen online again for several months. Many of them in fact, frequent the Message Boards here at HTC.
Welcome to evolution.
If they can't adapt, they go extinct.
-
Sorry but hes right!!! I would love to see many of the features he described. I am young (21) and the more realistic it gets the more I would like it. Autotakeoffs and easy mode bombsights suck! I would love to see wind in the ma! As a matter of fact I am going to start practicing bombing with wind involved simply because bombing at 40k is like dropping jdams.........to easy! Oh get this maybe flaps that didnt retract when overspeed occurs.......maybe then people wouldnt deploy them so much in stupid maneuvers. Or gun malfunctions do to the spray and pray method. Bottom line if you make the game more challenging people might stop doing the stupid crap that makes people just wanna quit. They would focus on something else. The list goes on and on about the stuff that should be less gamey.....I want a sim not a game! Maybe at least a little more sim and little less game.
Ryan
-
we still havent had a HTC say in this....dont be afraid HTC come on...
we got cookies...skuzzy...pizza for u
-
we still havent had a HTC say in this....dont be afraid HTC come on...
They don't answer questions they don't like. And questions like these are one of them.
Besides, I think its safe to assume that being stuck in development of the Combat Tour, they'd hardly have the time to introduce a new DM in the game - at least not for years, which is my take.
One can only hope that it is not 'never will happen', as Wilbus said it might be. Let's just hope that 'someday' comes a lot sooner than we expected it to come.
In the meanwhile, all we can do is have some fun bashing each other's heads for having bad opinions. :D