Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Fester' on August 27, 2001, 12:10:00 PM
-
any theories?
in il2 you must do what the real aces said you had to do:
get up close and fire.
in ah you can kill from 5 football fields away no problem. the moto of get close and when you think you are to close get closer does not apply.
asuming both sims have correct bullet physics and target hitmap proportions what could cause this disparity in hit ability besides aircraft control?
could il2 bullets be a differenet size than the bullets in AH?
what causes this disparity in hit ability?
-
Originally posted by Fester':
....asuming both sims have correct bullet physics and target hitmap proportions.......
-
I was watching some gun cam footage from a p-51 on the Wings channel. The plane was firing less than 1 second bursts every 2 or 3 seconds while tracking the enemy (deflection shot). He hit with 2 of the 3 bursts at a range that appeared to be well over 200 yards.
Il-2 does many things well. Their gunnery/damage model doesn't seem to be one of those. Requiring an aircraft to be within 200 meters, and having no real convergance to the guns (that I can see at least) is not more realistic. It seems there are two ends of the spectrum... with neither AH nor Il-2 residing near the middle.
So far, my record in Il-2 is hitting a 1938 fighter 20 times with LW 20mm rounds with no damage showing on the aircraft except for a fuel leak. Exploding rounds detonating harmlessly in a fuel vapor trail.
AKDejaVu
-
Aggreed Deja
I seriosly doubt that the single mission kill records set by german pilots in 109 Fs and G2s would be remotly possible with the Il2 gunnery system..
It is fun to wail away on those Rattas though
-
it might be a matter of clarity.
what i mean by that is when we're flyin in aces high it's pretty much under perfect conditions. unlimited visibility, weather, etc...
now i only took a quick look at the IL2 demo (my system is way below par for it, PII 266), but what i noticed about it was the fact that it was difficult to see things compared to AH, it's not clear/clean, if you understand what i'm getting at.it's harder to get an accurate fix on your target, dispite the icons. sort of like flying AH at night, where you know the other guy is 250 yards in front of you but your not quite sure of his orientation.
i dunno maybe it's just me??
[edit]
i've only flown the p-39 mission so far. that's what i'm basing this on
[/edit]
[ 08-27-2001: Message edited by: pugg666 ]
-
I think the dispersion on IL2 is a big factor. Even setting your convergence close doesn't seem to do much. The bullet paths still seem like a huge cone instead of a concentrated path. I think that this would affect overall damage at the same time. The other thing to consider is the damage model itself. With bullets you can find all the info on weight, drop, volecity, etc. but modeling how much damage a round will do to a piece of aluminum or wood or a spar or cloth, it would be a guessing game. Each game designer trying to do the best as possible to recreate with accuracy :) :)
S!
Rocket
-
I don't think its clarity pugg. Even with the grey thatching on the windscreen, I can see aircraft with much greater clarity than AH provides.
I'm operating at 1024x768x32 OpenGL mode. Maybe this changes with resolution?
AKDejaVu
-
AKDejaVu, Send me please that .trk
SimFreak777@hotmail.com
I killed many AC using only small caliber, If I get close enough. Mostly I brake part off or catch it on fire.
-
I don't know if I saved that one russian.
I only saved two .trk files... one of them with a 5 kill sortie... none of the aircraft went down easily.
Maybe you can explain this comment to me: I killed many AC using only small caliber, If I get close enough.
What do you mean by close enough? How close?
I can hit very consistantly at 200 yards with the mgs. I see debris falling from the aircraft after each burst, so it looks like I am hitting it. Nothing happens to the plane.
Are you saying the guns would be significantly more lethal at 100 yards? If so, I'd like to know why.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
a range that appeared to be well over 200 yards.
Here is a point to be made.
Deja and Pongo, when was the last time either of you stood 200 yds behind a WW2 Aircraft and sized it up.
I gotta tell ya that the last time I was at an airshow I did just such a thing with a P51 and I wasn't surprised to find that it looks quite a bit SMALLER in RL than it does in AH at that distance.
Ever notice that from inside your cockpit, when a friend launches at the same time as you, his cockpit/airplane is HUGE in compairison?
My guess is that if HTC or any other SIM Programer can not visually model 1:1 due to resolution limitations. I.E. a P51 at 400 yds would only be a few pixels wide.
Actual human visual acuity is much better than that, so to compensate, they model the image larger than RL.
Now, if they model the size larger than realistic, and don't expand the hit area to match, then you would not get a hit if you shot near the edge of the visual target.
So, they probably enlarge the target area to match, and bingo, you can shoot 400 yds with more deadly accuracy than a U.S. Marine Sniper.
;)
Viper
-
I've sized up a deer at 300 yards with an open sight before pongo. Last I checked, this was quite a bit smaller than a plane. I can even see cars in our parking lot that are well over 500 yards away. I'm trying to imagine how difficult it would be to hit one with 6 .50 calibre machine guns.
Like I said... this pilot was hitting with short burst at an angle at greater than 200 yards. If he was closer, he wouldn't have kept the turning plane in his sights.
AKDejaVu
-
Il2 gunnery is much more realistic, it requires that you actualy get close in ;)
(more like reality)
theres a saying you know...
"dont shoot untill the enemy fills your windscreen"
it applies there.
I have tracks if anyone wants to see.
(mouse views are excellent too for this)
as far as the damage portion, A very low almost parallel shot will hit and maybe eve richochet off the target.
Oleg states that the Gunnery is modeled in such a way that rochocheting can ocur.
For thos who dont belive that a short burst of 20mm will kill a plane, try a shot from a higher aspect. at about .20 distance.. ;)
:D
-
Hmmmm... there's an even easier question:
Why the hell would you compare two games and denote that because one has an aspect harder you deem it more 'correct'?
Just seems that everytime something new comes out and has this "oo ah" or "this is closer to what I've read" effect that it is the definitive of what it does?
Seriously, how diluted can you possibly get?
-SW
-
For thos who dont belive that a short burst of 20mm will kill a plane, try a shot from a higher aspect. at about .20 distance..
This has occured to me. However, I have hit several high aspect shots... especially when the plane goes into a climb and stalls out. I've not noticed all that much more effectiveness.
BTW.. I don't shoot at greater than 200 meters in Il-2. I am a pretty decent shot. You cannot tell me that this is the maximum range at wich a gun should be effective. I have too much experience with much smaller calibre weapons to believe this for an instant.
AKDejaVu
-
I have to get real close, from far a way I don't see that I'm hitting it. That little stuff that falls of doesn't really help. I never use zoom, just regular view and attack when I can smell him :). Go right behind him and little bit to a side and give a little ruddre and spray into main body section. He should catch on fire quikly.
Run your own tracks and just fallow your enemy, you'll be surprised of how many hits you actually miss.
AKDejaVu, just make new one and show me that it took 20 hits to bring fighter down. They must have those durn shields up. ;)
-
DEMO
-
the slightest input in il2 sends the airplane reeling - i have everything turned down to half and its still like an f16.
i have seen gun camera footage and it look pretty steady - i cant keep the planes in li2 trimmed long enough to do anything.
-
I hit a 109K4 in the oil cooler with (1) 20mm round last night, the fight continued for about 5 minutes before his engine seized and he crashed.
I don't know which planes are modeled in the demo, in the beta version the LA-5 and Yak-3 are monsters, Luftwaffles beware! :cool:
-
You're right russian.. I'm probably just missing a whole lot. It only looks like explosions from the 20mm strikes with the 109. They are most likely backfires coinciding with my bullets flying by.
:rolleyes:
I'm hitting the planes. I'm hitting them from all types of angles at close range. I can see the effects of the strike... I just seldomely see damage.
AKDejaVu
-
the quote
"dont shoot untill the enemy fills your windscreen"
is from WW 1, by baron von richtoven i think,
so it may or may not apply
-
Aside from shooting ranges, in all the gun cam footages we've seen from WWII, has anyone seen the plane being shot flipping around in the air (stick stirring) like we have in AH? :eek:
-
Sometimes I get those invincibility planes in front..
Once I emptied whole 109 load (no gondolas) into I-16 and it didn't go down until I rammed it.
It was like a swiss cheese after all 20mm and machiengun but nada! (surprisingly no surfaces had fallen off..)
but I did get 4 Yak's in 109 alone.
I shot 3 others easily by shooting the wing with cannon and those fell off or pilot bailed.
4th one took rest what I had.. it just didn't go down.. then I.. well, rammed it ;)
though, I got other time 4 Yak's again in 109, this time shooting them all and having gondolas. (extra peas always good)
wing fell off from most of them. (one lost rear)
One thing that bugs me, is that unstability.
bank a little and you'll find plane reeling like a boat.
P-39 excels this one.. I hate its stability at anything less than 400kph.
and yeah, never seen in guncam footages such thing happen as tough.
John,
nah, that guy shot when foes eyeballs were visible ;)
-
remeber my first target shoting in military academy at 17 years old machine gun and automatic pistol
at 25 m was not able first time hit even the border of paper target and with machine guns to hit something at 400 m take a damn concentration even with single shots , with burst shoting se ing just the eart flying around and tracers was just a smoke that porked my visibility
pepz from usa i wonder about all the miracle <should be> you got real liberty practicing with real guns and i have the feling many pepz saying they are shoting like from movie and at reality ??????
objectivly plzzz i em not blind not use any glases was not the best of best but vas damn pride when first time hit 3 x10 with 7.6 caliber pistol at 25 m many old boys not was that sharp <actualy VZ56 a peace of crap >
plz jsut dont begin whine is it a whine :D
-
Ive also had to face an invincible Yak1
I was DIRECTLY behind him, he was flying straight, I was blasting him with the 109f4 2xmg and 1x20mm and I could see like 10 explosions before he finally started leaking smoke, and around 4 more explosions before he finally broke a wing.
hehehe.. I hope this is a bug and not a feature.
-
I think it likely that AH is closer to reality, but with the icons long range shooting becomes easier. If you fly without icons it becomes MUCH harder to hit at long range, so you have to get close.
I have some pictures of a 109g under attack by a typhoon. The typhoon landed 4 20mm hits and the 109g was leaking fuel and/or on fire in 4 locations.
-
Slightly OT but it doesn't seem like IL-2 models every round like AH does, only the tracer round. Strafe the water with your cowl guns and you will see that only tracer rounds cause splashes.
ra
-
I haven't noticed that... but I've noticed that the tracer trajectory seems to decay quickly, and at further ranges, the tracer will fall behind the target while the actual round are causing damage to it.
I know that the Il-2 damage model is very complex - and that unless you really hit something important, you aren't going to do much damage, and your rounds will just pass on through. I remember reading that Il-2 doesn't use a hit bubble - you have to actually hit the model to hit it - though it seems that AH might be the same, since I have a hard time hitting anything in AH too. (Actually, I find AH gunnery a lot more difficult...) as for cannon rounds not causing a lot of damage, I've been told in various discussions that the earlier M-Geschoss rounds could explode on the surface of an aircraft without doing a lot of actual damage... maybe we are seeing this modeled in the 1942 aircraft?
Not sure what it means in the end, but Il-2 gunnery seems to make a lot more sense to my mind - less laser beam-ish - but who is to say if that isn't just personal preference... I've never shot an aerial cannon, so I have little frame of reference apart from games, as is the case for 99% of us.
-
For one thing, when you hit planes with mgs you dont see hit sprites, little pieces fall off that arent apparent unless you are in real close. I think in il2 you hit with more rounds than you think. Also a plane can be fataly wounded and still fly. If you do a mission 1 vs 1 and keep your eye on the con you see him kinda "slump" over and glide into the ground. This is the sims most awesome feature.
Aslo ive been flying AH for 2 years and il2 "which is still beta" for 2 days. Even if you could compare the two its way to early to do so.
-
"I opened fire only when the whole windshield was black with the enemy... at minimum range... it doesn't matter what your angle is to him or whether you are in a turn or any other maneuver."
Colonel Erich "Bubi" Hartmann, GAF
world's leading ace, Luftwaffe
352 victories, WWII
"You can have computer sights or anything you like, but I think you have to go to the enemy on the shortest distance and knock him down from point-blank range. You'll get him from in close. At long distance, it's questionable."
Colonel Erich "Bubi" Hartmann, GAF
world's leading ace, Luftwaffe
352 victories, WWII
"I had no system as such. It is definitely more in the feeling side of things that these skills develop. I was at the front five and a half years, and you just get a feeling for the right amount of lead."
Lt. General Gunther Rall GAF
3rd leading Luftwaffe ace, WWII
275 victories
"As to gunnery passes, the best was when you dived with speed, made one pass, shot an opponent down quickly, and pulled back up... The secret was to do the job in one pass; it could be from the side or from behind and I usually tried to open fire at about 150 feet."
Major Erich Rudorffer, Luftwaffe
7th leading ace, WWII
222 victories (13 on one mission!)
I think anyone with more than 200 kills knows what they are talking about!
"Go in close, and then when you think you are too close, go in closer."
Major Thomas B. "Tommy" McGuire, USAAF
2nd leading U.S. ace WWII
38 victories
See, even beginners have the right idea!
For reference, all of these great quotes and more are in "Fighter Combat Tactics and Maneuvering" by Robert L. Shaw, probably the single best source for learning and understanding every aspect of air to air combat.
-
Slightly OT but it doesn't seem like IL-2 models every round like AH does, only the tracer round. Strafe the water with your cowl guns and you will see that only tracer rounds cause splashes.
Firstly, they don't have splashes.
I don't think the rest is correct either. When using the explosive 20 mm rounds, you definately know when you've hit the plane. I can't imagine they wouldn't model each of those explosions.
AKDejaVu
-
Deja,
I was referring to cowl MG's. You strafe the water, you see splashes, but only for tracer rounds.
Another IL-2 cheerleader :rolleyes:
ra
-
Well i downloaded il2 twice and both time i opened file it had a csc? error or something like that.Can someone send me the file or mabe tell me why it wont work?
Thanx a bunch :eek:
-
I was referring to cowl MG's. You strafe the water, you see splashes, but only for tracer rounds.
Another IL-2 cheerleader
Sorry.. I missed the water part. But.. with the 20mm.. I don't believe the tracers were explosive? If they were... I'm hitting with more than what is indicated... not less?
BTW.. don't really get the Il-2 cheerleader thing. Are you saying I'm the cheerleader or that I implied you were?
AKDejaVu
-
I tried the demo:
My Throttle isnt recoginzed.
My twisty stick rudder isnt recognized.
The 109 is impossible to aim as it doesnt have a gunsight, the phyiscal gunsite is offset to the right while the projection seems to centered and you only ever see it in tight turn.
I HATE the film/dirt on the window, maybe the russians loved flying around in filthy planes but I know for a fact it was standard LW procedure for the "black men" to clean the windows before flight, toejam they even removed the mud/dirt from their pilots boots so it wouldt fly aroind inside the cockpit in combat and smudge the glass.
The aiming is very hard, but I suspect its because I have no aimpoint in the 109, no rudder control to finetune shots, and no way to cut throttle to prevent overshoots.
I think AH aiming is too easy at exterem ranges, all USA pilots in here said 500yds max for .50cals but waaaaay to many in here hit and kill with those things at 800-900-1000 yards, even on the deck.
-
Grunherz, if you look click on Controls and look for something like 'center sight (German only)' you'll see it has a hot key: Shift+F1.
I think the reason Oleg did this is because if you really flew a 109 by looking over the gunsight, you'd be leaning to the right the whole time. Sort of an aesthetic thing.
[ 08-27-2001: Message edited by: leonid ]
-
Hehehe.. one thing I found funny was a bug where a bullet comes through the glass and hits the gunsight. Its pretty cool in the effect and it kicks the top portion of the sight off and bends it to the right.
In the Bf109, this is enhanced by the fact that your guns now fire at the sights new position (way down and to the right). I know its just a bug.. but its a funny one.
AKDejaVu
-
How about the fact that in RL, WWII pilots would say to get in close because they were shooting for their very lives with a limited amount of ammo. I highly doubt they ever practiced extreme range shots while in combat the way we can do on a daily basis with no fear at all.
We do seem to have no RL effects on bullet flight paths except for maybe gravity. Wind certainly doesn't play a factor.
When you first started AH, did you routinely hit with long range shots, or have to fine tune your skills?
Given the oppurtunity, I would venture a guess that several of the better WWII pilots could have hit longer range targets if they were given the fear free environment in which to do so.
I think that IL2 has artifically decreased the range of theguns to match up with what WWII pilots experiences were. Not what real guns are capable of doing.
-
Midnight you sound like deezcamps unsubstantiated bashing of AH, be careful... :)
I wanna see my rudder, throttle and gunsight work before i make my full opinion of IL2 gunnery, as it stands now i find it impossible.
-
Impossible as this may sound, a little common sense will guide you all to the answers you seek regarding the gunnery.
1943: There you are in a P51D chasing a 109G6. You are roughly 500 yards away, but you have no idea how much ammo you have left. You know you've only fired a few short bursts into a few 190s and 109s. None went down as near as you can tell. You figure you have 3 seconds of ammo left.
3 seconds of ammo, 500 yards away and your bellybutton is on the line. Would you rather have that 109 take the brutal punishment of 3 seconds worth of .50 caliber firing time or piss it all away with long range bursts at 500 yards?
Now you see why it makes more sense to get in close in real life. Because it's your life on the line, not a few pixels that fade away and reproduce in another quadrant on some virtual battle field.
Harder or not, you guys ALL know where the data is and you ALL know how the tests you can do if you want to find out the velocity, trajectory and bullet flight path of each of our weapons.
Many have brought up the weapons issue before, many have come with data... here we are today and the only thing done to the gunnery was adding the cockpit vibration. Why? So far HTC's weapons modelling has matched real life tests.
-SW
-
I think it is something to do with multiple numbers of reasons all stated above oozing and mixing up to create a strange effect. Particularly something to do with the damage models mixing it up with gunnery models.
First, I don't think "I know I hit something" is very objective. You send out a birst, bits and parcels come off... but was it all your shots landing and ripping off some vital chunks? Or is it a few rounds cropping away dust and blowing useless holes? Everytime when somebody complains about "1 ping fatality" in AH, he's met with the classical "that 1 ping could be 1 round hitting, but it also could be 10 rounds hitting. U don't know for sure" answer(which seems reasonable to me, anyway..). I don't see why this sort of logic shouldn't apply to IL-2.
Second, maybe the damage model is drastically different from what we've seen in AH. In AH, something gets immediately destroyed. All-or-nothing. No damage or total destruction. I can't say that MS CFS has modelled damages more properly than AH(since, yeah, I know jacksh**.. I've never in WWII :D), but in CFS, damage models seem to make a bit more sense to me.
'Fatal' damages somehow never look fatal. Things don't just rip out and show as easily as AH in CFS. Many times I shoot at a plane, and it seems to fly on and I chase him and dump everything just to blow him up. It wasn't until later that I found out that the target plane, looking pretty healthy to me, was actually a flying brick. I chased a plane I shot for a moment to see what happens.. the damaged plane, though it seems it was still flying, would just go plain straight, can't move around much, then after some time will lose alt and plummet to the ground. Or in other cases, the plane I shot flies fine straight.. until I chase him, he tries to move away, then can't recover from his roll and drops to the ground. Or sometimes, the plane just seems to be fine.
AH is crisp and clear. It's easy to find out if u've shot him and done damage. I don't think it's quite this clear in IL-2.
I wonder if there is a hit percentage data of the single sortie one flies in IL-2. This would help to clear up if IL-2's gunnery model is a 'screwed' one, or a 'realistic' one. Until we get to judge upon that sort of data.. I don't think we can do much more than just oggle around and keep guessing :)
-
There were no P51D in 1943. :) (joke)
Listen from what I read about WW2 combat two things always come to trhe top regarding gunnery.
USA fighter pilts pretty consistantly said max range of US .50cals was 500 yards.
USA bomber gunners said pretty consistantly that max effective range of their .50cals was about 600 yards.
ALL pilots said get in close, then get in even closer before fring.
AND
Pilots on BOTH sides, allied and axis, would recount at being relived when the opponent would open fire at greater than 500meters/yards as they knew this was a rookie who didnt know what the hell they were doing. Again Ive seen this from both ALLIED and AXIS combat accounts.
As to the AH community too many of us here belive quoting supposed asccuracy figures of hand built custom .50cal single shot bipod/tripod mounted, hi power scope, and muzzle brake equipped, $5000 sniper rifles, fired by expert snipers from a fixed position at a fixed target with complete freedom in time to take aim and fire, to be the same performance of mass produced aircraft guns.
SURPRISINGLY (and logically) this is not the same as firing 6-8 high rate of fire guns, in a flexible mounts, with rather flexible shaking wings, with variable convergence, with rather imprecise sigting, fireing from a platform in constant 3 dimensional movement at another small constantly 3D moving target, who is trying to make you miss.
Now dont any of you try to back out of you roadkill sniper rifle arguments, you know you made them and you know they are roadkill. But I dont suppose youll own up to it. Oh well, keep ur fantasy going I suppose, it certainly is not my problem.
:rolleyes:
enjoy!
-
The round itself... not the gun, not any gun... is one of the most ballistically perfect rounds ever developed.
Get over it.
-
Ok I admit it! Custom built scoped sniper rifles firing from fixed positions at fixed targets and mass produced high ROF MGs in wings firing from a moving target at a moving target with crude sighting ARE ecatly the same.
How could I ever assume otherwise.
Really some of you guys are true red-white-and blue fanatics........ You are the USA Taliban......
-
Sniper rifle data I posted was merely to demonstrate the capability of the round under optimum conditions.
I have never read ANY post and I certainly did not post any statement to the effect that WW2 wing-mounted machine guns could approach the accuracy of a bolt action .50 BMG.
IMO, you are deliberately trying to mis-inform people in this regard. I look forward to your posting of a thread where anyone made such a statement.
Ask yourself this:
What other pre-WW2 machine gun round is still in current use?
The first machine gun was standardized as the M1921 and, in 1924, the Caliber .50 Browning Machine Gun Cartridge was adopted in the form pretty much as we know it still today.
The .50 BMG is rapidly approaching its 80th birthday and it may well see its 100th birthday in active, front-line US military service. It's the oldest continuously serving caliber left in existence, next to the .45 ACP.
Why, in this age of CAD/CAM would such an old relic persist?
Because it is simply either the best or one of the very best heavy machine gun rounds existent.
You can try to sway the argument with heated rhetoric but the facts are out there and easy to find.
The .50 BMG is just an amazing round.
Now go cry into your leather hankie. ;)
-
Allahu Akbar!!! Toad.
Yes its good round, but again you admit to posting the sniper rifle data when ppl inquire about 50cal performance in AH. Now please dont try to waesel out of it as the implication is clear.
Anyway it seems that the guys in WW2 actually firing the guns had no idea what they were doing and that the consistant 500/600 yard max range is quoted. I suppose they simply hadnt the benefit of your fine indoctorization on the "capability" of their round.
Anyway if you wanna know the capabilty of this round thjey were capable of killing out to 1000yards, yessir. In Korea at 45,000 feet altitude thje thin air imposed less drag on the bullet, and voila 1000 yard kills.
In AH I see no diference in 50cal range from sea level to to 35000 feet. Bit then again its a very "capable" round isnt it? :)
Allahu Akbar!!!!!! Toad!!
Now go cry in ur red-white-and blue Turban!
-
Never mind Toad I really dont mind the 50cal modeling in AH all that much, just the extreme range stuff from time to time.
Its good round and all but this arguing is pointless and dangerouus.
<S> and thanks!
-
'43, '44... So what? One key away.
-SW
-
Just a joke SW. :) You know for fun. heh
-
ROFL! Nice one Toad.
Grun, I'm a pretty fair shot with the .50's in the pony. I've no idea how many kills I've got in the last few years here.. maybe more than a couple anyway.. and I never hesitate to 'tap' a non-manuvering target less than 1,000 yards out... to get him to manuver, bleed speed, and hopefully get him into 'lethal' range.. THATS about all a .50 cal round can do to an enemy plane at those distances...
Yet in all that time flying and dying, I don't think I've ever done lethal damage to any A/C outside of 500 yards.. maybe I've gotten 4 or 5 kills at 400-500 yards, all lucky pilot hits.... fact is, the majority of my success with the 'laser .50's' is at 300 yards or less... often MUCH MUCH less.
The LW propaganda on the .50's gun modeling being overdone is just that.. propaganda. About the only plane the .50's can kill in a snap shot is a spit or zeke... and the few times it's happened I felt fortunate indeed.
A FW or a 109 takes a concentrated non-deflection, close to zero 'g' shot at VERY close range to kill it outright. Unlike my feeble pony which loses it's entire god-damned tail to just one of YOUR LW cannon hits lobbed my way from 700 yards in a 6 g turn.
:)
-
Allied propaganda on the overmodeling of LW cannon is jut that, propanganda... :) muhahaaa
-
I dont get you guys. lol its pretty funny, Im not bashing AH, Im merely pointing out how IL2 is better.. in certain areas.
In MY opinion it has it beat in the gunnery department hands down. Sorry,.. Its just WAY MORE REALISTIC. I dont see how ANY of you can argue that. When you fire you have to Aim with Great prescision, and You have to take more of a planned approach to shooting your target.
In aces, you can be upwards of 800-1000K feet or is it yards? ;) and still Blow off a wing by some miracle of luck or.. ahem.. Skill.
Contrast: Il2 if you hit the target even if its possible (great aim and luck from those distances out, under a prime target with high aspect, at most you will litterally put a nice hole through the wing. I dunno call me crazy, but I think this makes more sense. :rolleyes:
3 seconds of ammo, 500 yards away and your bellybutton is on the line. Would you rather have that 109 take the brutal punishment of 3 seconds worth of .50 caliber firing time or piss it all away with long range bursts at 500 yards?
So does the above mean that In aces things are simplified down to the point where we can shoot with abandon? Does it mean that IL2 is trying to simulate Airal combat with a greater degree of realisim? I think yes on the latter.
AH is crisp and clear. It's easy to find out if u've shot him and done damage. I don't think it's quite this clear in IL-2
This is true, but you know what?... It would not be so superfically clear in reality either. Thus this is what IL2 is simulating. Rarely does a plane get shot up a fair amount in aces and not wind up losing wings, elevators or other major flight supporting components. In Il2 beyond the fact that there is a better graphic representation of how the damage is applied, you also have damage, and a great deal that can be taken on a vast majority of the plane. In Il2, it definatly seems that if you were to hit the leading edge of a wing, that is what you would most likey damage. NOT an elevator or an aileron for that matter.
-
Yes Grun, I posted the sniper rifle data and have never denied it or tried to weasel out of it. If you will take the trouble to re-read the post, you'll see that I SPECIFICALLY said it was a sniper rifle and thus OPTIMUM conditions.
That gun put 5 rounds in an 8" circle at 1000 YARDS. It's a good gun, but it's not ALL the gun... you have to have a good round to do that. An EXTREMELY good round.
I think I also pointed out that an MG couldn't approach that type of performance.
I don't know where the actual guys in WW2 fired. I doubt they know for sure within a few hundred yards.
I DO know this... a bullet doesn't just vaporize into another astral plane at any range. It follows a trajectory and eventually arrives back on the ground.
Never saw a claim of a MiG kill in Korea at 45k. Perhaps you could give me a link? I have read of 1k kills at lower altitudes. Or is this more of your exaggeration?
I _think_ Pyro does use the altitude modeling in the ballistic computation. I can't say that for sure, however. Just because YOU don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.
I'm sure you agree that it will go at least 1000 yards at any altitude, correct? Ever seen hit sprites on a target or ground at 2K? Because I assure you, the .50 BMG will travel far more than 2k on the ground or at any altitude. But can you see them hit in the game?
You seem to be an intelligent guy. However, your name-calling posting style doesn't do much for winning points in a discussion.
I'll resume this if you like... after you read what I actually posted on the sniper rifle.
-
Originally posted by DeeZCamp:
Il2 gunnery is much more realistic, it requires that you actualy get close in ;)
(more like reality)
theres a saying you know...
"dont shoot untill the enemy fills your windscreen"
it applies there.
I have tracks if anyone wants to see.
(mouse views are excellent too for this)
as far as the damage portion, A very low almost parallel shot will hit and maybe eve richochet off the target.
Oleg states that the Gunnery is modeled in such a way that rochocheting can ocur.
For thos who dont belive that a short burst of 20mm will kill a plane, try a shot from a higher aspect. at about .20 distance.. ;)
:D
Deez, on one hand you keep applauding the *realism* of IL-2, while constantly blabbering about how you use the mouse view for *UNREALISTIC* viewing in the cockpit.
Why don't you take it to BlueBytes forums instead of toejamting on HTC on their UBB?
Both games have advantages/disadvantages over each other depending on the features you choose to focus on.
Il-2 is entertaining and quite different in its play than AH - but it's in poor taste to keep promoting it and attacking Aces High on this website - STFU already, we can draw our own conclusions about the two games.
[ 08-27-2001: Message edited by: jihad ]
-
S! all
There are problems with IL-2, in particular the roll rates of the aircraft at high speed, but the gunnery model in the Sim is probably the most advanced ever.
Here is an article which talks about the hit model on IL-2 and other Sims:
http://flightsim.thrustmaster.com/articles/read.php3?id=182 (http://flightsim.thrustmaster.com/articles/read.php3?id=182)
-
lol
-
S!
About the so called "not all bullets are modeled since no splash"- statement. Oleg himself has stated that every bullet is modeled, but to save FPS not every single splash is drawn.
About the tracers. IRL they had different trajectory than ordinary bullets.Usually the tracers had higher arc than oridinary bullet.So it can appear that U hit the target with tracers but the real ones pass harmlessly below the target.
As in the article at Thrustmaster, the IL-2 gunnery makes sense. As stated there, the nose oscillation increases the dispersion at greater ranges thus decreasing the hit propability.
Someone mentioned the bullets flying in a cone. That is true. The gun vibrates, barrels heat up, wings flex, increasing dispersion and this causes the "cone" of bullets.No 8" hits from 1000yards ;) U can put up every single table of testbench fired gun, but that only gives an idea how the gun performs in ideal conditions against stationery target, not in actual combat.
Oh well..I get shot down in FLAMES by posting this, but had to post my 2 cents here ;)
-
I think i've shot down 10x maybe 100x more planes than any hi scoring ace in any war. If i shoot 200,000 bullets and the ace shoots 200 bullets i think my aim is going to be better than his due to more practice.
Players of this game are more accurate at gunnery due to more practice. If the guns in the game were modeled completely correct i would still have a better aim.
RWY
-
On a totally unrelated side note - I can hit with the 13mm MGs in the Dora out to about 800 yards in AH. I can't shoot anyone DOWN at that range, but I can ping em with short bursts. Usually most people just ignore it though, and keep flying straight. I guess the trajectory isnt as flat with the LW MG's, but it isn't exactly a mortar shell either, it can be done.
-
Il-2 seems so dedicated to detail that unrealistic gunnery is very unlikely. Just try playing ti for few hours and carefully watch what is happening around you.
More likely Il-2 gunnery has more factors involved than what we used to.
-
oh.. by the way, have you ever shot the tail off from your IL-2 with tail gun?-)
..surely doesn't feel like AH gunnery, where you can fire through rear fuselage with ball turret and damage enemy only.
-
I'm surprised how none of you have figured out yet that you're shooting basketball sized bullets in Aces High.
EZmode gunnery a la carte
WW2OL is another good example of correctly modelled bullet size.
Snorkey
-
No idea how so many missed that Snorkey. How did you figure it out?
OR could it be AH is the correct size but WW2O uses green pea sized ammo?
;)
-
Hey, if your stick and throttle aren't working, run video using DirectX instead of OpenGL as your renderer... there is a bug in the demo with OpenGL - usually with Saitek sticks.
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
Are you saying the guns would be significantly more lethal at 100 yards? If so, I'd like to know why.
AKDejaVu
I don't for a minute think they should be considerably more lethal. However, there are a few things sim pilots tend to forget about reality versus sims.
Most of the successful fighter pilots in history were significant shots. A few of the best shots died despite that, but they were nevertheless very good at shooting. They did not shoot at anything like 200m. That's ridiculous to imply that they would. Richthofen, Marseille, and Hartmann all preferred to be in very close.
I suspect the reason is grouping. All of these guys could shoot very well. Richthofen once climbed out of his aerodrome while it was under attack, dispatched a buff, and landed. His armorer found only three cartridges missing from his gun belt. I bet they all hit the pilot.
Even with armor plating, if you can manage to get inside of 100ft., you will down your opponent with very few rounds dispensed. Even with the comparatively weaker .50 caliber I find that I can kill with as few as 30 rounds per gun. You just have to be very close. I'm not saying that's easy, or even possible in some situations, but true. You simply cannot concentrate your fire upon a single impact point from 200m. (or yards). It takes fewer rounds when you can, so getting in close is very definately important. The difference between 200m and 100m would be small. The difference between 200m and 20ft. would be huge.
In any flight sim you do not have the ability to use the earth to steady your aim. You are not upon a bench rest. Your airplane is in relative free suspension, and as such no two rounds will hit precisely coposition, unless you get very, very close (and not even then).
I waste a lot of ammunition in Aces High. I'm still learning the gunnery, and such, but I know what works.
I have not tried IL2, and it is not likely that I will.
:cool:
-
Oh oh, someone shot down Festerbria twice in a row.
-
I was very sceptical about Il-2 when I first tried it. Now I simply love it.
Look at this pic (borrowed fromanother board).
(http://home14.inet.tele.dk/snefens/tracer.jpg)
Different types of rounds per weapon. Different effects when those hit the ground or plane. Drool !!!!
-
Also, check this thread:
http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/Forum35/HTML/001430.html (http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/Forum35/HTML/001430.html)
Now that's gunnery !
-
I waste a lot of ammunition in Aces High. I'm still learning the gunnery, and such, but I know what works.
I have not tried IL2, and it is not likely that I will.
:rolleyes: gee yad think that by this statement he might as well come out and say that the gunnery is easier, and less forgiving.
"And I likey won't try it"?? :eek: wtf is that about? Wow I guess only aces high has proper modeled guns, or at least close to it.
Gimme a break,.... People who say that they wont even try somthing before they judge it, might as well stuff all the crap thier spewing back into thier mouths.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Voss:
I have not tried IL2, and it is not likely that I will.
I advise you to give it a try. Some bubbles might burst :).
-
Deez,
Perhaps...just perhaps... he doesn't play stand alone boxed sims? Only online?
Could that be a valid reason?
Or do you just want to pre-judge him by your standards without really understanding the whole situation?
[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
Try it before judging it.
-
IL2 gunnery is simply bizzare, yo can be 30 meters behind sombody and miss pretty much every round.
Then there is the fact that the 109 in the beta doesnt have a working gunsight, and then well lets say the AH MG151/20 shell isnt week compared to the IL2 version.
Then there are the filty windows, and the vey sqirrely planes that make terrible gun platforms.
Oh well, I really wanna IL2 because its just so great to look at and fly arund in, but they better change a lot in the final version compared to this beta/demo.
-
Grunherz, press Shift+F1 and Revi will reveal itself. Try CTL+D too.
From what I gather, 3 different rounds (each of them as tracer version adds 3 more types) all have different ballistics.
I agree about dirty windows.
[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: Hristo ]
-
Also use keys Del, End and PgDown to zoom your view in/out.
Always funny to see people bashing games if they don't even know how to play with 'em. Just like running in AH from tower to hangar... ;)
-
Hristo now I can actually hit the basiges!!!
Which unfortunatly brings another problem.
The 20mm hit explosions are so huge and black that they completly obscure the target and make it difficult to score repeat hits.
Plus the planes are still too rubbery.
But its lokking better now!!! :)
-
I was very sceptical about Il-2 when I first tried it. Now I simply love it.
Look at this pic (borrowed fromanother board).
I wish I was allowed to post screens of some of the neat stuff in the beta.
Does the demo version allow you to fly the 1943 <late model> IL-2 with the 'cassette' armament?
It's pretty neat to see all those little potato mashers fall on a target. :cool:
-
Originally posted by DeeZCamp:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 seconds of ammo, 500 yards away and your bellybutton is on the line. Would you rather have that 109 take the brutal punishment of 3 seconds worth of .50 caliber firing time or piss it all away with long range bursts at 500 yards?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So does the above mean that In aces things are simplified down to the point where we can shoot with abandon? Does it mean that IL2 is trying to simulate Airal combat with a greater degree of realisim? I think yes on the latter.
I was compared all games versus the real air combat of the war.
So basically, all of your assumptions are well... wrong.
-SW
-
Distance matters, especially with rifle caliber bullets, in damage as well - the closer you are, the harder the rounds hit, so close is more destructive as well as more accurate.
Just a thought, but think a minute about how heavy a fighter is... it has a lot of mass, so if you try to make a small adjustment in the flight path, it isn't going to want to do it right away, and it seems to me it would be quite 'squirrely', even without adding in all the variables of flying through wind, different air temperatures, turbulence from the plane in front of you (which has great effects in Il-2 when they come really close, have you noticed?)... it amazes me that anyone was able to hit anything by pointing trying to point the nose of the plane at the target... especially at 500 yards... that's a long, long way with a rifle from a prone position on a still day... seems that dispersion and luck would be the only things getting you hits at that distance.
The British went into the war thinking that the best way to shoot down a target was with a long burst from about 400 yards (the "Dowding Spread", I believe), the idea being to saturate the air with bullets. They very quickly discovered that this didn't work at all, and that the real way to bag a target was to shove your nose up its bellybutton and fire quick bursts. They began to harmonize their guns for much closer ranges and recommend short squirts of fire, and started getting a lot better results.
I tend to agree - I can't hit a barn at 500 yards, but at 100, how can I miss?
just a thought...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
IL2 gunnery is simply bizzare, yo can be 30 meters behind sombody and miss pretty much every round.
Then there is the fact that the 109 in the beta doesnt have a working gunsight, and then well lets say the AH MG151/20 shell isnt week compared to the IL2 version.
I guess you're talking of 0.30 distance?
I believe that is 300 meters.
Within 100 meters I don't have problems with hitting.
Up to 200 meters I can hit fairly well.
I did damage 109 with IL-2's cannons from 0.78 distance few times :)
I was surprised to see couple big black puffs and some smaller debris with other hits.
I could see difference with IL-2 and 109 cannons.. big difference.
IL-2 literally chops the target.
(also more effective against ground targets..)
With 109, how about trying Shift-F1?
What bugs me, is its radio system which couldn't be much more akward when talking about easy-&-fast-to-use radio.
I can't either believe spin modelling.
Wish I could get some more advanced version of IL-2 already.. like retail or beta version, not some sluggish demo. :(
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Deez,
Perhaps...just perhaps... he doesn't play stand alone boxed sims? Only online?
Could that be a valid reason?
Or do you just want to pre-judge him by your standards without really understanding the whole situation?
[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
Pretty close, Toad, although DeeZ might have trouble digesting even that. Let him waste his time offline and learn new gunnery skills that will be ABSOLUTELY USELESS here. Then when he chases my Arado ALL over the map he still won't be able to hit me and I'll watch him auger in the ack AGAIN! :D
Gotta love the dweebs around here...
:cool:
-
Just give Il-2 a fair try. Or will you rather stay ignorant ? (ears covered, eyes closed)
-
I tried IL2 and why not? It's a free demo. Not like paying $40 to try something.
I found it a very pretty sim. Best boxed sim I have seen to date. Graphics are really nice and so are some of the details (Joining the group of dirty canopy dislikers here)
I have never flown a P-39, IL2, or 109 in real life and likely never will. I normally just accept what the game producer models without much thought and if I don't care for it I fly a different plane.
I find it an interesting new view of the war from a perspective other than a western one and it's refreshing from that standpoint to me.
I may buy it when it comes out, probably will but doubt I will spend the time in it to get very good at it or used to all it's quirks (or what I find to be quirks). I have been able to change the mapping so I can use my Aces High mapping for throttle and joystick and that has eased some of the initial difficulty for me.
As far as the difficulty in hitting targets... well... I suck at gunnery anyway :).
(http://home.att.net/~lmluper/markatsig.jpg) (http://www.jump.net/~cs3)
-
Ignoring Hristo, I shall instead answer the initial question.
This game (AH) and IL2 are different because they involve two totally different development teams. :eek:
Now move on with it! :p
:cool:
[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: Voss ]
-
Its really funy how the next level of technology is here, and yet poeple stand firmly behind what they are used to, and feel that nothing is better. lol :D
Hey Voss,, Toad, My point is OBVISOUSLY this...
IF it is a FREE DEMO,.... who gives a ##@# that it is going to be a boxed game in the future. Who knows... you may even be seeing it as we see aces here. (wouldnt that be scary...)
POINT: if its a free demo, and it is far superior in many aspects of WWII air combat to anything we have currently, Why not try it.??
I agree with Hiristo..
TO many of you are stuck in a way.. a thought process, and the willingness to learn somthing new, or even look to the future. This is hilarious, I wonder what Ideals and willingness you poeple have when something new is introduced into the world.
Seems like the motto of most here is.. "it hasnt been done that way, wont work, isnt good,, blah.... "
Hehe whatever.. stay in the past then. While the flight sim market improves and becomes closer to realism, Graphically, and technically. :D
About this whole discussion of Flight and Airal gunnery,.... IL2 is simply, in effect recreating BY FAR a more realistic Scenerio here as to what is required to successfully employ your weapons.
I dont see how any of you can argue this.
I highly suggest that all the nay sayers, go watch the history channel or wings. You will not suprisingly see the same effect of how gunnery is achived as is in IL2.
:rolleyes:
-
I had doubts about Il-2 too. And I was hesitant to even try the demo. What a mistake would that be.
If you chose to stay ignorant, I can't help you. I gave you an advice in good faith though.
-
well i will have my say in this too
Deezcamp you seem to think every one should want to try all these games out
lots of people dont have lots of spare time to wast on a large download and a demo that they will never play on a game they dont care about.
i for one agree with voss. i doubt i will every try the game . its a box sim
and box sims dont intrest me at all. hell most games overf all dont intrest me.
but yet you seem to think sence you have nothin else to do with you time everyone else must not eather.
btw if they ever come out with a pure online game from il2 i will love to try it out. because that would intrest me. until then i dont care.
[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: Trell ]
-
I'm surprised nobody has asked this yet, so here goes.....
Deez,
What exactly do you now about realism and aerial combat?
Now before you go off and say the old "well what do you know about it"....understand that I am not the one making claims as to what is more real and what isn't.
So, since you are pontificating like an expert on the subject of WWII Aerial Combat, please tell me what your qualifications are, starting with:
Type of WWII Plane Flown
Hours in Type
Combat Hours in Type
And finally number of planes shot down in each type.
Other than that your opinion is just like everyone else's amazinhunk.
I'm not saying you shouldn't have an opinion, but, man.....just slow up a little on it.
Actually this board reminds me of an old joke......
If amazinhunks could fly, then the AH BBS would be an airport
Thank you and goodnight :)
Deez,
I actually tried Il-2 and I liked it so far. I do think it has some issues that need to be looked into, but for a game its very entertaining.
Cobra
[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: Cobra ]
-
Originally posted by Sky Viper:
My guess is that if HTC or any other SIM Programer can not visually model 1:1 due to resolution limitations. I.E. a P51 at 400 yds would only be a few pixels wide.
Viper
There have been flight sims in the past that have rendered the AC much larger than RL but are you sure AH does? I suspect not. The AH default view is 90 degrees wide. A P51 at 400 yds subtends 1.8 degrees (37 ft wingspan). That's 25 pixels (if you're using 1280x1024), not "a few pixels".
715
-
It takes about 0 brain power here folks to understand and know what is more realistic.
Cobra, you seem intellegent, I would hope to know that you are one that has enough hindsight to see what sim (YES between the two) is replicating air to air and air to ground combat.
As far as WWII experience... Why dont ya look to the WWII flyers that are part of the IL2 testing as support.
Wait dont tell me... even though they say that it is VERY representative of it, thier words hold no value right? :rolleyes:
I suggested and will suggest again, by the mere fact of watching WWII combat footage, you see how IL2 spanks aces.
Trell.. You are a Gem, I cant express any greater degree of your ignorance or, for that matter your lack of intellegent decision making in the issue. :D
You must be the type that says... if its not name brand, it isnt as good lol.
lots of people dont have lots of spare time to wast on a large download and a demo that they will never play on a game they dont care about.
hehe wow,.. lets think alitte man.. How about maybe,... Idunno.. downloading it at nighttime when ya go to sleep?... Is that too far of a stretch?
Lets be alittle more creative on the "how we can get somehting done" here.. :eek: wow
i for one agree with voss. i doubt i will every try the game . its a box sim
This is spectacular!! Ignorance is just OoOoOzing from this statement. :rolleyes:
Thats like saying Ill never by nike shoes because they are nike. lol dumb dumb dumb :D
I wonder how many more will come up with Great Ideas as to HOW they cannot, or will not put any effort into trying somthing else.
:rolleyes:
-
Well, Deez, I just don't qualify for the pasty-skin, squint-when-I-see-the-sun category of computer gamers.
I don't even get to play AH as much as I would like.
So, here I am having a blast in AH, while Oleg is creating the absolute greatest flight sim EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (enough exclamation points? :rolleyes: )
I may buy IL when he's done creating the mostest, bestest ever.
I might even try it when it gets near the END of the beta.
Or I may not do either. (Like a few others, I'm basically an online multi-player type. I like the interaction.)
If it ever goes online MMP, I'll certainly try it.
In any event, I expect my life really won't change much. There's a little more going on in it than ACM games. I wedge those in when I can and as long as I'm having fun, I am stress-free over the "flavor of the month".
You see, apparently as hard as it is for you to believe, people have different priorities and different "tastes".
Probably why they make cars in so many different styles and colors too, eh? Yah think?
-
I think I read about 2 years ago where pyro or HT said Aces High's planes are all modeled the correct size, where they were made artificially large in warbirds...
-
DeeZCamp, don't even try to convince them. I flew the 109G2 in Aces High....LOL "Offline opponetns yawn" Well IL-2 has MP and when do you see these 200 people in 1 place at one time hmm? If its not AH or you don't like you.. you get flamed!
BTW DeeZCamp how do you see with the mouse pan view? Argh its to hard for me.
-
S!
I won't compare which is better of these 2 sims. I play them both and ENJOY doing that. It just feels like communities of ANY sim are quite narrowminded in some cases. If it doesn't have this or that, then it is crap or not realistic blahblah. The arguments can go on for ages without any result.
Trying to compare graphics of these 2 sims is next to ridiculous. Other is barely a 19 meg download and still supports decent 3D. The other is a boxed sim with a CD filled with 3D models etc. They just can't be compared. The whole disucssion would be useless, since requirements are so different.
As far realism is considered, neither of these even get close to real. A PC sim just can't simulate every single detail without choking and puking out it's parts. And the Cray's calculate for days, even weeks, to get something simulated at high accuracy. Don't expect realism from a PC sim, since that is what it can't offer. Sounds a bit strict and scoped, but all sims on PC are JUST games to entertain us.
My bottom line is, that either game You play, You enjoy doing it. Ain't the product good if You like it and it's challenges? Realism, graphics etc. have nothing to do with it IMO.
My 2 cents..feel free to flame me ;)
[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: DB603 ]
-
Originally posted by pdog_109:
If its not AH or you don't like you.. you get flamed!
No, I don't think that's it at all.
It's looking more like if you don't immediately download the demo beta and swear you've seen the second coming of you-know-who.... THEN you get flamed for not immediately converting to the "true faith".
Most guys with a true interest in WW2 ACM will give it a look, sooner or later. I know I will.
I'm deeply, deeply sorry if my IL timetable doesn't meet your expectations and wounds your psyche. :rolleyes:
-
"It's looking more like if you don't immediately download the demo beta and swear you've seen the second coming of you--know-who.... THEN you get flamed for not immediately converting to the "true faith"."
EXACTLY!!! :)
And... "when do you see these 200 people in 1 place at one time hmm?"
Well, certainly not 200 in one 25square mile grid in the MA that's for sure. Scenarios? Hell yes. But either is sure more than 16 or 32 in "1 place at one time". Every night I fly I take off from a base with 8 or 9 MOL and with a similar number of friendlies we head for an intercept of attack against liek numebers of enemy. If there is a CV involved then there is more folks when you count in the shore bombardment, pt boats and mannable ack guns. All the while this is going on more folks are heading off in gv's or other strikes, attacks or furballs. Most often there is a different group of MOL doing the same as the group I am with but elsewhere on the same map - but we listen to each other on squad channel or RW. That goes for any number of seperate "battles" all over the map.
All of which makes for a richer environment (for me now., just my opinion) than any player hosted 16/32 multiplay can do. BTW, anyone even know if more than a few folks can fly togther. The 16/32 hasn't worked for anyone I know. Even RogueSpear and other similar "MP" games choke when they get to about 10 players.
Westy
[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Westy MOL ]
-
Just my 2 cents from a player who participated in AH from the inception of their beta until the Fall of last year, plus the entire IL2 beta process.
IL2 is primarily a wonderful "boxed" simulation with tremendously enjoyable and challenging A/I routines. It will not be a serious MMP contender without improving the network coding and security for handling more than 32 players, not from a 'how many can you see at a time point of view', but rather the ability to handle a larger sense of immersion across broad theaters of operations in scenarios. The quick and dirty furball flyer (like the AH HtoH flyer) will enjoy IL2 even with its 32 plane overall limitation. To grow to become a serious MMP challenge to AH, Oleg needs to build in several host options to eliminate players from using automatic padlocks, cockpit graphics removal capability and other features such as multiple external views for all planes. I suspect that there will also be an immediate and growing IL2 security problem with player hacks of models (109's with F16 FM's etc), similar to the problems experienced with all versions of FA (including the current closed beta testing FA3), as well as CFS2. I'm sure that Oleg (very talented and all round nice guy) would be able to expand the network component to become a secure MMP simulation, but I think there are a whole lot more complex issues involved in doing that then most people realize.
AH is an excellent MMP combat flight simulation. It is not a "boxed" off-the-shelf distributed product loaded with superb A/I. It is about large numbers of real people against real people, but most of all it's about a sense of community who enjoy a common hobby and an arena based on-line entertainment medium to fantasize "what if" they had been there. Its competitive challenges from IL2 are not from the technology within the current version or Fall commercial release, but rather about where Bluebyte may possibly take IL2 from a marketing perspective in the future. IMHO, AH is currently the best overall MMP arena oriented environment for air combat simulation buffs on the Internet. The new lower price only enhances that position and attracts a broader demographic of potential players. If and when IL2 achieves MMP technology parity with AH, then I think direct comparisons are fair and in order. At that point with all other things being equal, the choice issue will become purely about subjective personal preferences and the price point each offer their service at.
Neither currently support Apple systems , although IL2 optionally permits the user to select OpenGL versus DirectX as the primary graphics engine. Interestingly enough, I find the OpenGL superior on all my in-house Nvidia based systems from a performance and graphics appearance point of view. With an OpenGL capability, Oleg could easily migrate IL2 to Macs (or others OS's) which would add a potential 29% to 33% increase in numbers of paying users, who are interested in flying computer based combat flight simulations.
FWIW
[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Badger ]
-
Real Life. Hmm, mentioned more then once I see.
DeeZ, in real life I have to juggle between earning the almighty dollar, working on personal projects that require a ton of time on the computer and no flying, learning airframe and powerplant maintenance, and working on my commercial ticket. I pay more then $100/hr to fly:
(http://www.wfeca.net/users/voss13tas/TC.jpg)
...and for some reason I like that more then your silly idea of flying IL2, also.
Aces High offers me multiplayer flight with radio comms (via Roger Wilco), and a squadron to support strategic aims. I'm not likely to try IL2.
Now go away, and quit your whining.
:cool:
-
It takes about 0 brain power here folks to understand and know what is more realistic.
Apparently
-
:D lol
-
Isn't this thread supposed to be a simple one?
I mean, there's a new kid on the block. We take a look at 'im, size 'im out, and talk about it later when we are amongst ourselves. If the kid has some cool things which might be better to learn than ignore, hell yeah, it might look silly all our friends suddenly praising and chanting the 'new style'.. it might even seem pathetic to some.
But in the long run, its definately better to move on, learn and input new things.. isn't it? So, what is the fuss about?
The fuss should be strictly about either "IL-2 has something more harder, more realistic aspect which might help change some of the things some people didn't like in AH" or "No, IL-2, while interesting, is just something different, not enough data to say it is MORE realistic than AH".
Comparing some things relying on which very little data and experience we have. Trying to make sense through this-or-that sorts of logical 'sleuthing' :) ...
I can't believe some people here are beginning to sound like: "Oh yeah? IL-2 more realistic than AH? So what? I like AH the way it is now. Let us not change it".
And all this time I thought, though preferences of engagement and strategical realism differ, the AH community took pride in 'our' AH always one step ahead of other sims in realism. IL-2, to some people, seem to be better in some realistical aspects of AH.
So the pride is shattered? Is it rejection or conversion? I thought everybody who likes AH would naturally think "if there is a possibilty of better flight modeling, what the hell, let's see it in AH".
Guess I was wrong :(
ps) So, is IL-2 more realistic or not? The clobbering around here keeps on digressing into something of dispute between "I like AH the way it is" and "I like to see it changed".. Let's just talk and dispute about whether it is more realistic or not. Because, ultimately, it seems logical we take into AH the 'more realistic' thing. The thing we love about AH - accurate FMs and performances.
Cheers, let the slug-fest continue :)
-
This whole thing is ridiculous. Like Badger so eloquently stated, it is pretty much pointless to compare the two games. How can you compare a boxed sim that supports multi-player with a sim that was designed specifically for multiplayer?
Yes, they both have WW2 planes, tanks, boats, etc in them. But that is about it. It is kind of like comparing Falcon 3 with Strike Commander (from waaaaaaaaay back when the 386-486 was the king of the hill). F3 was a sim of modern air combat (my fav all time jet sim) and SC was a story based game like Wing Commander, but with modern jets. Some parts were similar, but both were very different games with different priorites.
If you want to argue and say that the potential is there for Il-2 to have MMOL component, fine. But until it does have this, remember, there is no way that you can say that it beats AH at what AH does. Just like nobody here can say that AH beats Il-2 at what it does. Also, the thing to remember about potential is this: WW2OL has potential (please note that I am NOT saying that Il-2 is like WW2OL, just referring to saying that Il-2 will have great multi because of potential is a load of crap, like WW2OL).
For the slow people out there (and you know who you are, you ride the short bus to school), I will make a simple metaphor for you. Apples and oranges people. Both may be fruit, but they are different types of fruit.
Oh well, this is completely lost, I am sure, on several people here.
-math
btw, Funked, that is one of the best replies I have ever seen. :D
-
Do not have two windows open at the same time.
-SW
[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: SWulfe ]
-
Er, Math, I think the point behind all this wild text is "IL-2 has better gunnery. Let's implement it to AH".
I don't think the fight is about(though some people, admittably, seem to want to drag it that way) comparing as a whole, "IL-2 is better than AH", or vice versa....
Although.. come to think of it... Deez did make some very controversial remarks concerning the 'comparability issue', didn't you Deez :D ?!
I'm sure he doesn't mean that IL-2, as a whole, beats the crap outta AH. Hmm? :)
-
What deez means is that the day, if it comes, Il2 becomming a MMOG. Aces needs to up the ante', because they may get knocked off the block by the new kid in town. ;)
-
Originally posted by highflyer:
What deez means is that the day, if it comes, Il2 becomming a MMOG. Aces needs to up the ante', because they may get knocked off the block by the new kid in town. ;)
I remember the same thing being said before B17II and WWIIOnline were released ;)
Heh, and Aces ups the ante anyway....go figure.
Cobra
-
Originally posted by Westy MOL:
Even RogueSpear and other similar "MP" games choke when they get to about 10 players.
Not so. I sometimes host RS games and can get 16ppl in with no lag. If everyone has a decent connection its possbile with fast server.
-
Westy MOL obviously haven't tried Counter Strike or other Half-Life mods..
...Yes, I did play it for 2 weeks.
Usually playing in servers between 16-20 players and no problems.
Transfer rate never exceeded 10-12kb/s
It has even better coded MP than RS.
In fact, RS MP is sh*tty and just when I thought so, they brought in OFP MP which is even more sh*tty than RS ever.
In aircraft games this is simplier than in FPS games.
In FPS games you need to send out alot data to react on sudden moves of a player (yes, REALLY sudden)
Let's remind that WarBirds already in ancient times worked with 14.4k modem without warps (unless someone was playing through spaghetti cable and that why warping itself)
...and you can guess if AH netcode is in any relation to WB's.
[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Fishu ]
-
Wow,just tried Il2 demo..Never thought a boxed sim would up the anty for arena play.