Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Benny Moore on March 05, 2007, 10:33:29 PM
-
I think I am going to explode. Why do they cling so to their pathetic, out-dated "simulator"? Why do they base their perception of real flight on a game and then scoff at any that differs from that false perception, regardless of which has more virtue?
Stress my wing-spars! I yield. No more shall I proselytize amongst the ignorant masses of IL-2 players. No more shall I endeavor to let the light shine upon them. Tell them it's over; tell them Benny is through.
-
(http://nwsource.razorgator.com/images/play/monty-python.jpg)
oh-kay
<>
-
:huh
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
I think I am going to explode. Why do they cling so to their pathetic, out-dated "simulator"? Why do they base their perception of real flight on a game and then scoff at any that differs from that false perception, regardless of which has more virtue?
Stress my wing-spars! I yield. No more shall I proselytize amongst the ignorant masses of IL-2 players. No more shall I endeavor to let the light shine upon them. Tell them it's over; tell them Benny is through.
(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/Masherbrum/Vicious.jpg)
-
Right, I just needed a reminder that it's not just the IL-2 people. Thanks!
-
Right, I just needed a reminder that it's not just the IL-2 people. Thanks!
No, Benny, It's not just the IL-2 people. Everyone over in Targetware Thinks AH is a joke, too. LOL
Well, a couple of them do, anyway.
Aces High strikes a balance, in reality. It takes enough of the sim factor to let you believe that you're experiencing the kind of combat that the planes and pilots of WWII went through, but simplifies it enough to make it enjoyable in a competitive, MMOG game-type format. Have you ever flown IL-2 or Targetware? Those are more about flying than anything. You must remember to set your mixture at takeoff. You can't forget to make sure your radiator vents are open. You must make sure that you don't strain your motor too much by flying everywhere at full-throttle.There is no MA's with fictitious, evenly three sided maps, ALL of the above mentioned are historical scenarios, with maps of North Africa, Europe, Russia, etc. Those games are more Simulator than game.
So really, when you hear people compare them, You're really hearing people that are actually comparing apples to oranges.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
No, Benny, It's not just the IL-2 people. Everyone over in Targetware Thinks AH is a joke, too. LOL
Well, a couple of them do, anyway.
Aces High strikes a balance, in reality. It takes enough of the sim factor to let you believe that you're experiencing the kind of combat that the planes and pilots of WWII went through, but simplifies it enough to make it enjoyable in a competitive, MMOG game-type format. Have you ever flown IL-2 or Targetware? Those are more about flying than anything. You must remember to set your mixture at takeoff. You can't forget to make sure your radiator vents are open. You must make sure that you don't strain your motor too much by flying everywhere at full-throttle.There is no MA's with fictitious, evenly three sided maps, ALL of the above mentioned are historical scenarios, with maps of North Africa, Europe, Russia, etc. Those games are more Simulator than game.
So really, when you hear people compare them, You're really hearing people that are actually comparing apples to oranges.
True. And while Il-2 Sturmovik may be more detailed in a modeling sense, it feels considerably less realistic than Aces High II (even with the lame drag "update" that has nerfed quite a few of our aircraft). I mean, when it feels as if you're flying on the moon even in a Thunderbolt, you tend to wonder just how accurate it really is.
Everything in Il-2 Sturmovik is far too responsive. It's as if every aircraft has the most advanced fly-by-wire technology installed with lightning-fast rudders and ailerons. Along with that, all of the planes are just too stable in level flight.
Heh, even my dad, who flew light civilian aircraft for years, said that the P-51 felt like flying a Piper Super Cub.
-
That's my point. Aces High II skimps on the avionics, but its flight model is the best I've seen. IL-2 and Targetware are both bad jokes as far as the actual flying goes.
But whenever I mention this, I get the old "lol how would u know u never flown a wii figher" argument. But it matters no more. I'll let them wallow in their wretchedness. That's the best thing about flying; you are up above the pettiness and drudgery of everyday life and the dumb people who don't care about flying.
-
You spelled it wrong, it's fanboi.:aok
-
Neither of them offer the same kind of arenas that Aces High does, with the same kind of accuracy of flight for a mass media.
Just my opinion.
-
Originally posted by Fruda
Everything in Il-2 Sturmovik is far too responsive. It's as if every aircraft has the most advanced fly-by-wire technology installed with lightning-fast rudders and ailerons. Along with that, all of the planes are just too stable in level flight.
How do you fly to and back from Berlin with an unstable plane ? (when trimed obviously).
Plus don't forget : in AH plane use burn twice the fuel they burn IRL.
-
Originally posted by nirvana
You spelled it wrong, it's fanboi.:aok
I almost pointed that out too! :rofl
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
No, . You must remember to set your mixture at takeoff. You can't forget to make sure your radiator vents are open. You must make sure that you don't strain your motor too much by flying everywhere at full-throttle.
I personally wouldnt at all mind seeing any of those things implememted in AH
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I personally wouldnt at all mind seeing any of those things implememted in AH
And also turning back for base with engine problems...... :D
-
IL2 is rubbish and targetware is a totaly pathetic waste of space.
yes, i have flown both extensively.
-
Having flown AH, IL2, WWIIOL, TT, etc, I would say that AH2 is the most fun from a flight perspective, and I enjoy its flight model the most; it does feel a bit dumbed down in various aspects of flight but in many ways thats what makes AH2 such a commercial success. I especially love how level bombers are portrayed in this game. Strat bombing in wwiiol for instance requires manual calibration, you actually have to sit there with a calculator and a map and determine and set your altitude and manually input your speed, etc. which makes it more realistic but less accessible to many players. And for all that is holy on earth there is no autoclimb there, so you actually have to sit there and climb your He.111 to 6km,,,yes you can trim using trim to set it into a climb but thats not really reliable.
I would like to see radiator usage, I would like to see engines burning out (having come from those other sims, I've been paying alot of attention to my engine temps in this game as I am so used to burning out my DBs in my 109s, little did I know its impossible to overheat without damage,,,,I will watch my temps anyway :aok ), but I can live without it as long as I can fight and fly against 100s of people.
My perfect online game would be the ground game and strategic depth of WWIIOL with the flight model and huge variety of aircraft +loadouts and strat bombing of AH2 with the naval game being Silent Hunter 3 like ..... lol...... maybe someday.
-
Originally posted by straffo
How do you fly to and back from Berlin with an unstable plane ? (when trimed obviously).
Some ships, such as the P-51, were indeed impossible to trim to be perfectly straight and level. The pilot always had to be trimming.
I, too, would love to see realistic engine management (which, by the way, IL-2 does not have). I've started threads on it. Unfortunately, the overwhelmingly vast majority of the community does not. However, flight model is more important than avionics. It is possible to have a perfectly realistic flight simulator with no avionics or engine modelled (though it would probably model a hang glider). However, you cannot have a realistic flight simulator with no flight model (or a bad one).
At any rate, those who think that IL-2 has complex engine management are wrong. Not only is it missing most of the details (even fuel tank selection, which Aces High II does model), but it's missing many of the basics. The American fighters in IL-2 don't have mixture controls, which they should. They don't have blower controls, which most also should. Alll they have is R.P.M., manifold pressure, and radiator or cowl flaps. Again, that's not much different than Aces High,
Moreover, you don't ever need to touch any of the engine controls other than throttle and radiator, even on "maximum realism." Just like in Aces High, you fly until your engiine overheats and then you throttle back. IL-2 makes you do it yourself, but it does pop up a big message telling you that you're too hot. And when you're overheating, you only need to throttle down for a few seconds and you're good to go again.
The moral of the story is that flight model is far more important than avionics, and Axhes High is absolutely superior to IL-2 in flight model. Moreover, IL-2 isn't much better about avionics than Aces High. Only things it has that Aces High doesn't, really, is cowl or radiator flaps. And it doesn't have fuel tank selection like Aces High.
-
I haven't played the entire Il-2 series, just Pacific Fighters, and this is my feeling on it:
Graphically, it's BEAUTIFUL. Some of the best visuals I've seen in a combat sim not made by Janes' (CURSE YOU EA!!!!).
I think its damage model is superior to AH. I enjoy the challenge of keeping my plane level with a huge gash in one wing, and watching the steadily declining responsiveness as control surfaces get chewed up. However, as a product targeted more towards a hardcore audience much like the more complex engine and fuel management (btw Benny, in Pacific Fighters, at least, you CAN set fuel mixture) they're able to implement features like this.
The views system SUCKS. It's like the Il-2 series superglues the pilot in place and tosses him in a straight jacket for good measure. There's no ability to shift in your seat to look around obstructions which pilots COULD do in the real aircraft (many times pilots loosened their harness once in the air).
Factors such as speed and altitude are nearly impossible to judge at a glance. While this isn't unreasonable when fighting over water, this same issue with perception continues over land, as well.
Handling of individual aircraft is suspect as well. The F4U was noted for its capability to snap-roll, however even ATTEMPTING such a thing in PF results in a flat spin (add that to the fact the R-2800 engine overheats in seconds at any throttle setting over 50% even with radiators full open). The generic flap modeling (all aircraft have the same four settings: Up, Combat, Takeoff, Landing) also detracts from the distinctiveness of each aircraft. Recoil in the .50cal is just LUDICROUS. Loose just one gun to a jam or damage and even short bursts make it impossible to put any sort of sustained fire into a target (the F4U is a 6-ton aircraft. The Ma Deuce didn't have anywhere NEAR the kind of recoil to significantly slew around the aimpoint of something that massivie!) Tracers are virtually impossible to see in some guns (once again, the Browning) so the gunnery model is made even more difficult to learn.
Sounds are AWFUL. Engines, generic flap/landing gear actuators, weapons fire are totally weak.
In-flight communications are nothing short of confusing. I don't like they use terms like: Altitude 3 and give EVERYTHING in metric with no option to get them to say things like, Altitude 20,000ft, or angels 20 or something like that. Oh yeah, and the fact that you hear the radio chatter for ALL friendlies, not just intended for your own flight without any sort of differentiation. Many times I've followed the in-flight headings and altitude instructions only to end up WAY off course, or have been looking for bandits that weren't there, because they were intended for some bombers squadron 50 miles away. At LEAST have callsigns for each group so they can differentiate who a message is intended for ("Bulldog Flight, course two-eight-zero, altitude angels 15," etc).
The built-in campaigns are, similarly, awful. I tried playing through the default Guadalcanal campaign, and found the objectives at times vagues. I'm being sent out loaded with ordinance, and no idea what I'm supposed to be hitting! And don't even get me STARTED on the frelling air spawns timed to arrive behind you...
The control interface I think it substandard. It's much less intuitive to set your controls since you actually have to PRESS the button you want to assign a given function to (and this includes the axes of motion!!) This is especially an issue with eight-way switches where some positions are difficult to hit without hitting another one in the process.
As beautiful as the game is, just SEEING can be an issue. While a known problem in ever simulator, other aircraft even at close range can be downright impossible just to see, much less identify.
-
I like the Il-2 series eye candy, but I found the game itself to be an exercise in getting frustrated. The engine management is really just busy work (click a button, click another button, click the first button again), and I couldn't stand the view system. I think AH has ruined me on other flight sims/games.
-
Originally posted by Saxman
Sounds are AWFUL. Engines, generic flap/landing gear actuators, weapons fire are totally weak.
Yeah, the sounds are pathetic. It really seems that they recorded them in native 64kbps, 22khz, mono. They sound absolutely horrible.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
I think AH has ruined me on other flight sims/games.
Same here. I did enjoy the original Il- when it came out.
After flying AH2 for a year I reinstalled Il2 just to find out that I can`t stand it any more. And the only reason is the crappy view system, regardless if with our without TIR.
-
IL2 is great for makin films.
thats about it.
-
The supposed offline missions were stupid. "Fly this P-39 this way, kill any 109s you see"... Only the randomly generated missions ran out of things to do after mission 5. By mission 79 it was REALLY boring as hell. 5 out of every 7 missions in a row were the exact identical mission you'd just finished. Including one ace in the enemy aircraft always being the same craft, including spawn points, including enemy alts.
No frakkin' thanks! The fact that you never progress to a new plane *inside* a campaign was pissing me off as well. I don't WANT 100+ missions in a 109E dammit! I want to start in the E, move to the F, then the G, but NOOoooOOOoooo.... You have to do 100+ boring missions in one plane then start an entirely new set of 100+ boring missions in the next.
Ah is far better in all things except damage. IL2 goes too far the to the other extreme with damage. Even the engine overheat in IL2 is arbitrary, IMO, so folks can't say "engine control is better in IL2" -- because it's not, really.
-
Yeah, the sounds are pathetic. It really seems that they recorded them in native 64kbps, 22khz, mono. They sound absolutely horrible.
You do realize, that none of the in-game sounds we're hearing, that really do sound better than IL2, are actually a part of AH itself, don't you?
...
If you guys weren't so readily biased and willing to knitpick IL2, you would have tried a more impartial comparison by pitting AH's actual default sounds against IL2's.
-
I agree Lusche, the main reason I didn't care for IL2 was that the views were totally FUBARed. Good thing it was a demo, I'd have hated to spend any significant amount of money on it. MS Combat sim 1 is a better game in my opinion.
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
Some ships, such as the P-51, were indeed impossible to trim to be perfectly straight and level. The pilot always had to be trimming.
Define always : every 1 , 10 ,30 second or minutes ?
-
yes, there is a lot more work in flying Il2 series than AH but personally I like it. I wont get in a urinating contest about which one is better, i think that's always personal opinion anyway. one thing that cannot be disputed is Il2s superior graphics engine. The new "Storms of War: Battle Of Britain" takes that yet another step ahead. If only they had 1,000 plane arenas... oh well At least I paid my 33 dollars with no monthly recurring charge.
-
Aces High II is arcade ...
Now go explode! :aok
-
Aces High strikes a balance, in reality. It takes enough of the sim factor to let you believe that you're experiencing the kind of combat that the planes and pilots of WWII went through, but simplifies it enough to make it enjoyable in a competitive, MMOG game-type format.
This is interesting, in a very amusing sort of way.
What you're basically saying is;
"AH simplifies its realism/detail level enough to make it enjoyable in a competitive, MMOG game-type format".
The reason this is so amusing, is the fact that the above explanation is what we usually refer to as "arcade", when us AH fans ridicule some of the other games such as Fighter Ace or WW2OL.
Fighter Ace or WW2OL, on grounds of allowing easier access for casual gamers, simplifies their level of detail and realism regarding flight, to make it enjoyable in a "competitive, MMOG game-type format". Therefore, we regard their level of realism as inferior to AH, and we call them arcade. So if we call FA or WW2OL arcade, what's there to stop IL2 folks from calling our AH arcade as well?
The FM can be subject of debate, but at least the modelling of the environment, interaction to objects, damage modelling, depiction of the plane on-board systems, weather effects, ground effect, take-off/landing procedures, and just about every other thing in IL2 is more detailed and realistic than AH. Heck, some people knitpick even the sounds, but try using AH's default sound.
So, is that not enough for IL2 folks to call AH 'arcade'?
Or at least, 'mostly arcade'?
Your comments contradicts Benny's original post. If we take what you're saying at face value, then there's no denying that AH is 'arcade' or 'mostly arcade', when compared to IL2 - because for the same reasons, we ourselves call those lesser than AH in realism 'arcade'.
So just what exactly makes up this level of 'realism' which AH is supposed to be at, that qualifies AH as being a 'realistic game' than compared with FA or WW2OL, but does not make it 'arcade' when compared with IL2?
Truly amusing indeed.
Have you ever flown IL-2 or Targetware? Those are more about flying than anything. You must remember to set your mixture at takeoff. You can't forget to make sure your radiator vents are open. You must make sure that you don't strain your motor too much by flying everywhere at full-throttle.There is no MA's with fictitious, evenly three sided maps, ALL of the above mentioned are historical scenarios, with maps of North Africa, Europe, Russia, etc. Those games are more Simulator than game.
So you're implying that the level of flight management in IL2 is so realistic and complicated that it satisifes only people interested in serious flight simulations, and not suited for MMO gamers, but AH is simplifed and compact enough to fit the needs of online gamers but still retain enough realism into it.
Okay, so just what is there in IL2's notorious "Complex Engine Management(CEM)", that is not in AH, that makes IL2 a 'sim' and AH a 'game'? Shall we actually try counting it?
* RPM/pitch management: also in AH
* throttle management: also in AH
* mixture control: not in AH
* supercharger control: not in AH
* radiator cowl control: not in AH
Okay. Did I leave anything out? Should I put this in as well?
* managing engine temperature by throttle level
Wow. That makes it a grand total of THREE more buttons to fiddle around in IL2, than in AH. If we add in the engine temp control, a total of FOUR more items to take care of.
Golly, just how difficult is it to press three more buttons/keys? Let's see...
*mixture control... leave it auto rich. Lean out when plane drags fuel vapors
*supercharger control... memorize alt to kick in, and press button
*radiator control... leave it at auto. If no auto, leave it at 2~4. If engine temp high, 6~full open
* engine temp management... fly under 100% enroute. fly WEP at combat.
Wow! My head is bursting. This is so complicated that IL2 must be only fit for tech-geeks.. AH is soooo much more simple without four items to manage. Or. is it?
How many pilots in AH memorize the optimum alt best for their planes?
How many pilots memorize optimum speed for flap engagement?
How many pilots use different levels of flaps by situation and feel?
How many pilots use cruise settings, or other forms of fuel conservation?
How many pilots memorize the steps to landing on a carrier?
How many pilots memorize the septs to take off a fully loaded F4U from a carrier?
I don't know about you, but the above 'conditions' to memorize about IL2 CEM, doesn't seem all that much more complicated than some of our own knowledge in plane management and ACM that we use in everyday AH flying and combat.
The only reason some of the CEM features are considered as a 'sim' stuff in your comment, is because your comparisons between AH and IL2 is inherently biased towards the favor of AH, in the sense that your definition of "complexity" is entire based on AH alone. The very same "too complex and difficult, and unsuitable for true MMO gaming" argument you are using, can be used against AH in the exact same manner when compared to FA or WW2OL. Perhaps rightfully so - since empirically most people who play games such as BF'42 or FA or WW2OL have much more difficulties in trying to adapt to AH, which is considered a more serious 'simulation', from their point of view, and not a truly enjoyable 'game'.
In other words, the dividing line between 'sim' and 'game' you are using for IL2 and AH2, is incredibly arbitrary. As we've seen, the CEM is hardly 'complex' at all. The CEM is nothing but merely three ~ four more points of management where we simply memorize and press a single button according to the situation at hand.
Saying the CEM is complex enough to make it a 'sim' (and therefore its functions not desirable in a MMOG), is like saying pressing the "G" key to manually raise gears is too much complex simulation, and must be unsuitable for MMOG than compared to auto takeoff.
Think about it. The take-off procedure. How many procedures of take-off do we naturally memorize by the time we become a seasoned AH pilot? Think about your very first day in AH, and then now.
First you 1) lock tail-wheel by pulling stick, 2) engage throttle, 3) see speed, 4) memorize the speed which is suitable to lifting from the ground, 5) use flaps if necessary, 6) pull back the stick and up, 7) press the G key to retract flaps, 8) retract flaps as well, if they're used. That's an eight step process which for someone unfamiliar with flight sims as a whole, can be considred much too complex. But in the end, with experience, it just comes naturally. CEM is nothing different.
If you want to see a really difficult, "simulation" level of engine management try flying a Bf109E-3 in Flight Simulator X. If that were the case then clearly your argument would've made sense.
But in reality the level of flight management isn't all that different from IL2 and AH2. The only difference is IL2 has 3~4 more things which AH just casually leaves out, and the level of technical detail concerning those 3~4 stuff can't be anymore 'complex' then memorizing how one takes off manually in AH2.
Therefore, the whole;
"IL2 is too realistic and complicated that it satisifes only people interested in serious flight simulations, and not suited for MMO gamers, but AH is simplifed and compact enough to fit the needs of online gamers but still retain enough realism into it"
..argument falls apart.
IL2's every bit a game as AH is. The only difference is one is package based and has a limited multiplayer session, and the other is played upon an online server and has a basic MMOG interface and a 'virtual war' in it. The different levels of realism, which AH clearly lacks in, can not be excused with an "IL2 is too complex, and AH is just about right" attitude.
It is only a matter of preference. It's not something that needs to be either justified or discredited. There can be arguments that people in AH don't want CEM because they're not used to it, or they feel it tedious, but any argument which implies that an IL2-ish CEM is too complex and unsuitable for MMOG is pure bogus.
So really, when you hear people compare them, You're really hearing people that are actually comparing apples to oranges.
Ofcourse, declaring the two uncomparable, is about the easiest way to discourage people from actually comparing something and learning that IL2 is actually a pretty great game.
...
[edit]
Here's the infamous FSX Bf109E-3 skin take-off procedure.
LINK: Bf109E-3 Takeoff Procedure (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEjHOaIpuYY)
6:30 seconds required for take-off...
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
First you 1) lock tail-wheel by pulling stick
...er....you do?
- oldman (learn something new every day)
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
This is interesting, in a very amusing sort of way.
What you're basically saying is;
"AH simplifies its realism/detail level enough to make it enjoyable in a competitive, MMOG game-type format".
The reason this is so amusing, is the fact that the above explanation is what we usually refer to as "arcade", when us AH fans ridicule some of the other games such as Fighter Ace or WW2OL.
Fighter Ace or WW2OL, on grounds of allowing easier access for casual gamers, simplifies their level of detail and realism regarding flight, to make it enjoyable in a "competitive, MMOG game-type format". Therefore, we regard their level of realism as inferior to AH, and we call them arcade. So if we call FA or WW2OL arcade, what's there to stop IL2 folks from calling our AH arcade as well?
The FM can be subject of debate, but at least the modelling of the environment, interaction to objects, damage modelling, depiction of the plane on-board systems, weather effects, ground effect, take-off/landing procedures, and just about every other thing in IL2 is more detailed and realistic than AH. Heck, some people knitpick even the sounds, but try using AH's default sound.
So, is that not enough for IL2 folks to call AH 'arcade'?
Or at least, 'mostly arcade'?
Your comments contradicts Benny's original post. If we take what you're saying at face value, then there's no denying that AH is 'arcade' or 'mostly arcade', when compared to IL2 - because for the same reasons, we ourselves call those lesser than AH in realism 'arcade'.
So just what exactly makes up this level of 'realism' which AH is supposed to be at, that qualifies AH as being a 'realistic game' than compared with FA or WW2OL, but does not make it 'arcade' when compared with IL2?
Truly amusing indeed.
So you're implying that the level of flight management in IL2 is so realistic and complicated that it satisifes only people interested in serious flight simulations, and not suited for MMO gamers, but AH is simplifed and compact enough to fit the needs of online gamers but still retain enough realism into it.
Okay, so just what is there in IL2's notorious "Complex Engine Management(CEM)", that is not in AH, that makes IL2 a 'sim' and AH a 'game'? Shall we actually try counting it?
* RPM/pitch management: also in AH
* throttle management: also in AH
* mixture control: not in AH
* supercharger control: not in AH
* radiator cowl control: not in AH
Okay. Did I leave anything out? Should I put this in as well?
* managing engine temperature by throttle level
Wow. That makes it a grand total of THREE more buttons to fiddle around in IL2, than in AH. If we add in the engine temp control, a total of FOUR more items to take care of.
Golly, just how difficult is it to press three more buttons/keys? Let's see...
*mixture control... leave it auto rich. Lean out when plane drags fuel vapors
*supercharger control... memorize alt to kick in, and press button
*radiator control... leave it at auto. If no auto, leave it at 2~4. If engine temp high, 6~full open
* engine temp management... fly under 100% enroute. fly WEP at combat.
Wow! My head is bursting. This is so complicated that IL2 must be only fit for tech-geeks.. AH is soooo much more simple without four items to manage. Or. is it?
How many pilots in AH memorize the optimum alt best for their planes?
How many pilots memorize optimum speed for flap engagement?
How many pilots use different levels of flaps by situation and feel?
How many pilots use cruise settings, or other forms of fuel conservation?
How many pilots memorize the steps to landing on a carrier?
How many pilots memorize the septs to take off a fully loaded F4U from a carrier?
I don't know about you, but the above 'conditions' to memorize about IL2 CEM, doesn't seem all that much more complicated than some of our own knowledge in plane management and ACM that we use in everyday AH flying and combat.
The only reason some of the CEM features are considered as a 'sim' stuff in your comment, is because your comparisons between AH and IL2 is inherently biased towards the favor of AH, in the sense that your definition of "complexity" is entire based on AH alone. The very same "too complex and difficult, and unsuitable for true MMO gaming" argument you are using, can be used against AH in the exact same manner when compared to FA or WW2OL. Perhaps rightfully so - since empirically most people who play games such as BF'42 or FA or WW2OL have much more difficulties in trying to adapt to AH, which is considered a more serious 'simulation', from their point of view, and not a truly enjoyable 'game'.
In other words, the dividing line between 'sim' and 'game' you are using for IL2 and AH2, is incredibly arbitrary. As we've seen, the CEM is hardly 'complex' at all. The CEM is nothing but merely three ~ four more points of management where we simply memorize and press a single button according to the situation at hand.
Saying the CEM is complex enough to make it a 'sim' (and therefore its functions not desirable in a MMOG), is like saying pressing the "G" key to manually raise gears is too much complex simulation, and must be unsuitable for MMOG than compared to auto takeoff.
Think about it. The take-off procedure. How many procedures of take-off do we naturally memorize by the time we become a seasoned AH pilot? Think about your very first day in AH, and then now.
First you 1) lock tail-wheel by pulling stick, 2) engage throttle, 3) see speed, 4) memorize the speed which is suitable to lifting from the ground, 5) use flaps if necessary, 6) pull back the stick and up, 7) press the G key to retract flaps, 8) retract flaps as well, if they're used. That's an eight step process which for someone unfamiliar with flight sims as a whole, can be considred much too complex. But in the end, with experience, it just comes naturally. CEM is nothing different.
If you want to see a really difficult, "simulation" level of engine management try flying a Bf109E-3 in Flight Simulator X. If that were the case then clearly your argument would've made sense. But in reality the level of flight management isn't all that different from IL2 and AH2. The only difference is IL2 has 3~4 more things which AH just casually leaves out, and the level of technical detail concerning those 3~4 stuff can't be anymore 'complex' then memorizing how one takes off manually in AH2.
Therefore, the whole;
"IL2 is too realistic and complicated that it satisifes only people interested in serious flight simulations, and not suited for MMO gamers, but AH is simplifed and compact enough to fit the needs of online gamers but still retain enough realism into it"
..argument falls apart.
IL2's every bit a game as AH is. The only difference is one is package based and has a limited multiplayer session, and the other is played upon an online server and has a basic MMOG interface and a 'virtual war' in it. The different levels of realism, which AH clearly lacks in, can not be excused with an "IL2 is too complex, and AH is just about right" attitude.
It is only a matter of preference. It's not something that needs to be either justified or discredited. There can be arguments that people in AH don't want CEM because they're not used to it, or they feel it tedious, but any argument which implies that an IL2-ish CEM is too complex and unsuitable for MMOG is pure bogus.
Ofcourse, declaring the two uncomparable, is about the easiest way to discourage people from actually comparing something and learning that IL2 is actually a pretty great game.
:O Whfeeew
Please keep your signature to 5 printable lines in height, or lese.
Now if we can keep his posts to 5 lines or less.:D
Just kidding Kweassa.
As always and interesting view point.
Bronk
-
...er....you do?
I know I do.
Don't you?
:confused:
-
They are all GAMES. My god. Buy a plane and fly it if you want real life.
This is the exact same phenomenom we see in AH when someone denigrates another's game play (toolshedders vs dog fighters).
It continues to amaze me that so many people require such personal validation that they can't stand someone prefering something else.
Get over yourself and enjoy whatever game you like, played the way you enjoy it most. Stop worrying about those with a different opinion.
-
Get over yourself and enjoy whatever game you like, played the way you enjoy it most. Stop worrying about those with a different opinion.
..but... but...
... where's the fun in that? :eek:
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Have you ever flown IL-2 or Targetware? Those are more about flying than anything. You must remember to set your mixture at takeoff. You can't forget to make sure your radiator vents are open. You must make sure that you don't strain your motor too much by flying everywhere at full-throttle.
Don't ever hit X. :)
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
..but... but...
... where's the fun in that? :eek:
Hey look!! Its and imposter!!! The real Kweassa would not say that in less than 1000 words.
-
Point of order, Kweassa:
In AH2, you can replace the sounds you don't like. In Il-2 you're stuck with the ones they give you whether you like it or not.
I didn't like my Brownings in AH sounding like a laboring dishwasher, so I went out and found a sample of a real Ma Deuce firing. I don't have that option with PacFighters.
-
Call me when IL2 (or any other game at all for that matter) can handle a 500 player event.
-
I gave up il2 series after I found out out it didn't have auto-pilot of auto-take off...
I mean - I need to get a beer, pee or do other things on climb out. I don't want to fly a plane the plane to the fight - I want to fight and blow stuff up! :)
-
Originally posted by nirvana
You spelled it wrong, it's fanboi.
From Wikipedia:
"Fanboy or fanboi is a term used to describe an individual (usually male, though the feminine version fangirl may be used for females) who is utterly devoted to a single fannish subject, or to a single point of view within that subject, often to the point where it is considered an obsession. Fanboys remain loyal to their particular obsession, disregarding any factors that differ from their point of view. Fanboys are also typically aggressive towards the opposing brand or competition of their obsession regardless of its merits or achievements."
-
Originally posted by Booz
Call me when IL2 (or any other game at all for that matter) can handle a 500 player event.
If I could play in a 500 player arena here, I'd still be a customer. If it ever changes back to that, I will gladly come right back.
-
Ah well that's wikipedia...reality is a commodity:aok
-
Hwkeye's a wikifanboi. Go figure.
-
This thread delivers.
Il2 is fun when you want to dive a 262 through a flight of B17s with one hand on the joystick and the other down your pants. Oh, and for doing stupid **** that no real pilot would ever do... Other than that, I'll stick to WW2OL and AH2, thanks.
-
Kweassa, in reference to your post: The point I was trying to make was, if Both AH and IL-2 had the same online format (multiplayer MA's), Based on FM, which do you think most would prefer? To me, IL-2 seems to make E-management much more of a chore, and perceived speed does not seem the same as AH. You can look at the latest version of WB's, and fly it side by side with AH. WB seems like it's at 2/3 speed to AH, at best. But WB's still has people flying it, because it's simple enough for most people to fly and fight, without having to worry so much about burning your engine up halfway to the fight.
P.S. I also noticed you alluded to IL-2 alot...But no comparison with Targetware?
-
Targetware goes (stupidly) to the end of the extreme marked "making it difficult just to make watermelon difficult". It's almost impossible to land an aircraft there. Hell it's almost impossible to take 'em off! Not to mention "runways" that have hills or bumps in the middle of them, spawning in the MIDDLE of the runway and being forced to taxi to one end (where you will most likely ding your plane just trying to taxi). It is stupid to the point of confusion for 90% of the entire game engine.
It's got a black box coding module that even the people BUILDING IT don't know how it works. You plug in a HP factor for an engine and that's it. It adds torque and all the other stuff based off an archaic code foundation. The people creating the planes, for example, don't even know the power curves or the proper cruise settings for the engines. These are supposed to be included with each aircraft so the user (the player) can set proper settings. Only if the folks MAKING it don't have a damned clue, how the hell can they be sure it's RIGHT????
It's a totally whacked out project, destined to failure.
-
I went up for a hop in a real plane the other day. While I'm sure the comparison of a 70s vintage 172 to a 40s era warplane is apples and oranges, it was pretty basic. I think that's what I like about AH; without all the seat-of-the-pants feedback, things like trim and engine settings become mere guage-watching and button pushing. While that may be realistic, it's painfully dull.
I like the concept of firewall the throttle, kick some rudder, pull back, and take off, because it mirrors my own limited experience in planes.
-
When your wrong...your wrong!
-
Targetware's biggest failure IMO, Immersion, or the lack of it.
1 too busy setting, manageing, manipulating controls to ever be able to look around and say yeaaaaaaaaaaah, I'm FLYING!
2 No permanent world, you log on, you pick a scenario, you pick plane, finally get off the ground, and WHAM back in the tower you find yourself.
Scenario ended. HUGE immersion killer IMO.
3 Both Targetware & iL2 have lousy ingame maps the last I saw.
Ace's high clipboard & map setup is light years ahead.
4 iL2, FB, Pacific fighters, all look visually stunning.
But all fly like your a plane model perched on a giant invisible ball.
It just doesn't "FEEL" right. You see the plane makeing the moves, but don't feel drag, wind, mushy controls when out of trim, etc.
In that respect even FS 2004 is superior, but AH rules all.
5 None of them have, or will, ever have 300 people online in one place at one time. AH has had that many in a single special event. Heck I've seen a lot of Fri night Squad ops that will have well over 200 online for a 1 life event.
Show me anything like that in anything else out there.
Until you can, its all apples & oranges.
And even if iL2 could do it, they'd lose most of their current eye candy pulling it off. Which is why they don't even try. They know they are better off selling it as a boxed sim with limited multiplayer.
Last, targetware has been waiting what, 2, 2.5 years for the big .65 upgrade that never happened. Then all of a sudden its not .65 anymore, its the equivilent of AH1 going to AH2. WTF?
Personally I would love to see targetware make it. Just because it would be an alternative. I'm not sure about you, but I've looked around, there really isn't much else out there. While I don't agree with some of their decisions, it was their decision to make and I respect that. But if they can't keep up with the basic engine without a 3 year melt down how can they possibly stay alive? I waited a year & a half for the .65 upgrade so "maybe" RS would be flyable. Eventually I just walked away. Its a year plus later & they still don't have it.
Ohhh yeah, Fighter Ace. ROFLMAO.
Full realism, take your fav plane up, bring it into a turn, and keep tightening the turn. Most if not all the planes would do a flat circle at about 150 mph ALL DAY LONG without loseing E. Around and around and around endlessly.
In fact the only way you could stall them was to point the nose straight up.
Needless to say this one didn't last long on my hard drive.
-
I enjoy the IL2 Series. Fun to play when you just don't feel like playing the MA. Nice break to fly the missions once in awhile.
Aces High however is just more fun to play. Many human opponents as compared to a few. And no dumbed down Al.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
This is interesting, in a very amusing sort of way.
... (werry long post)...
I hardly ever agree with Kweassa but I think he's struck it on the head here. It's all about personal preference and how 'tactically immersed' you want to be in the game. Personally I'd rather not screw around with things like mixture settings, cowl flaps, etc. etc., but that's my personal preference. I want to fly, not push buttons all day trying to get my plane into the air and fly straight. Like hubs said, I would find it dull and repetitive and not enjoyable. If I did I would buy and fly a real plane.
People like Benny and some others would really like to have CEM down to the rivets because that's what they enjoy.
Being a small dev house like HTC is, they really need to focus on the featureset that will appeal to the most players and potential players. If it's simplified and 'gamey' in order to have good attraction and retention rates, that's good for the game. However it's up to HTC to decide how 'realistically immersive' to make the game, with the knowledge that only a very small minority would actually utilize the advanced features/controls... Aside from the few birds that significantly benefit performance-wise from manual fuel tank selection, how many people do you imagine actually spend their time ganking around with the fuel tanks aside from drops?
That being said, I found the IL2 game visually beautiful, aurally lacking, confusing to set up and control, bouncy flight modeling, retarded missions.
-
I seem to remember all the same arguements in AW about easy mode vs real mode or whatever.
In fact the easy mode guys NEVER or very seldom flew real mode, because once you get used to arcade flying it is hard to go to any type of realisim.
I thought that back when AH first came out HT and crew had hit upon a good "middle road" for real time vs easy.
Now we have as a community caved into full or almost full easy mode (I speak here or auto take off, auto trim, etc etc).
I guess I don't really care all that much either way except for all the time I spent learning how to fly AH in the beginning as compared the new guys now.
-
Originally posted by Boxboy
I seem to remember all the same arguements in AW about easy mode vs real mode or whatever.
In fact the easy mode guys NEVER or very seldom flew real mode, because once you get used to arcade flying it is hard to go to any type of realisim.
I thought that back when AH first came out HT and crew had hit upon a good "middle road" for real time vs easy.
Now we have as a community caved into full or almost full easy mode (I speak here or auto take off, auto trim, etc etc).
I guess I don't really care all that much either way except for all the time I spent learning how to fly AH in the beginning as compared the new guys now.
Apples and oranges, my man. In AW it was the arenas that were easymode/FR. here it's a personal choice.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
So really, when you hear people compare them, You're really hearing people that are actually comparing apples to oranges.
DAM WELL PUT
-
Most other games that have "arcade" mode have relaxed physics, relaxed rules that greatly simplify the entire game code underneath it.
That's what AWs RR/FR difference was, the arena code itself was processing things differently.
In Aces High you don't have this. The rules are all the same. The density of the air is the same. The ballistics of the gun and lethality of the round is the same.
Players may choose how they interact WITH that set of physics rules, but they may not bypass them.
That is why AH does not now, nor has it ever had, an "arcade" feel.
Stall limiter is an individual option. It hurts your performance more than it helps. At the benefit of keeping you from spinning out and dropping a wing, you lose a great chunk of your ability to manuver your aircraft. Trust me, you can instantly tell. It feels like you've lost one of your elevators.
Auto takeoff is a wierd thing... It's a nice luxury to have, if you can't learn to take off for yourself, or if you're taking off in very heavy bombers, but for the most part it's more fun to take off for yourself, and gives you the ability to turn around after you pull gear up, to dodge vulchers, and do what you want.
All arguments that AH is arcade-ish don't hold up in my book. It's got a damned good set of laws for physics and interaction. Heck, I considered the "hit bubble" of AH1 to be far far more arcade like than anything we have today. That's gone and the game is a million times more realistic (and fun!) for it.
-
Most other games that have "arcade" mode have relaxed physics, relaxed rules that greatly simplify the entire game code underneath it.
That's what AWs RR/FR difference was, the arena code itself was processing things differently.
In Aces High you don't have this. The rules are all the same. The density of the air is the same. The ballistics of the gun and lethality of the round is the same.
AH has relaxed physics in takeoff runs and landings, especially concerning the importance of tail wheel locks, combating dangers of groundloops, importance of hardened tarmac/airstrip vs. just 'ground', ditching a plane at speeds, maintaining rate of descent at landings. IL2 may not be as frustrating as Targetware in takeoff and landing runs, but it does require the presence of some discipline and practice in getting to learn the proper method of take off and landings. It's simply more realistic and coherent.
Therefore, your asserion that AH is inherently different other games by being 'born into the realism caste' is false.
Players may choose how they interact WITH that set of physics rules, but they may not bypass them.
That is why AH does not now, nor has it ever had, an "arcade" feel.
AH bypasses certain sets of physics upon need, as mentioned above. Therefore it can certainly feel "arcade" to gamers who play IL2 or Targetware, where they can't simply 'bypass' the process of coping with difficult physics of takeoff or landings.
Stall limiter is an individual option. It hurts your performance more than it helps. At the benefit of keeping you from spinning out and dropping a wing, you lose a great chunk of your ability to manuver your aircraft. Trust me, you can instantly tell. It feels like you've lost one of your elevators.
Auto takeoff is a wierd thing... It's a nice luxury to have, if you can't learn to take off for yourself, or if you're taking off in very heavy bombers, but for the most part it's more fun to take off for yourself, and gives you the ability to turn around after you pull gear up, to dodge vulchers, and do what you want.
Pretty irrelevant matter at hand.
All arguments that AH is arcade-ish don't hold up in my book. It's got a damned good set of laws for physics and interaction.
Yes, because you're biased against other games.
AH does have a good set of physics but it has its shortcomings. Unfortunately, people just refuse to acknowledge these shortcomings as shortcomings, and treat it as if it was either intentional or adequate, whereas they view other games dealing with such problems as "going overboard" or "unnecessary".
It's basically the same defensive mental reaction towards someone saying "I have a big noodle", by responding "you don't need a big noodle".
Heck, I considered the "hit bubble" of AH1 to be far far more arcade like than anything we have today. That's gone and the game is a million times more realistic (and fun!) for it.
The irony is many AH gamers hated it when the "hit resolution" was refined to what we have now, and that's not even half of it.
Many AH gamers hated the realistic cockpits,
they hated the new icon system,
they hated the new head position restrictions,
they hated the new GV armour modelling,
they hated the ack...
...and they hate every new change that brings AH somewhat closer to 'realistic' properties. They hate it for about a week and a half, and then get used to it, and forget they ever hated it at all.
This tells a lot about how AH gamers' brains are wired up when it comes to 'realism' discussions.
-
The biggest dings against IL-2 in my book are the view system (though AH's is often too lienient, IL-2's is WAY too limited), the fact that anything over 500 meters is impossible to identify, even at highest detail settings and at 1920x1280 and, biggest of all, that nothing has any sense of weight or presence to it. I simply cannot tell one fighter from another without looking at my cockpit and wings. In AH I would know immediately if my Ki-84's FM had been replaced by a Spitfire's, let alone a P-47's or Bf110's and in Il-2 I simply cannot feel that difference.
-
Originally posted by wstpt10
Il2 is fun when you want to dive a 262 through a flight of B17s with one hand on the joystick and the other down your pants.
HOTAS in the truest sense.
-
Originally posted by Boxboy
I seem to remember all the same arguements in AW about easy mode vs real mode or whatever.
In fact the easy mode guys NEVER or very seldom flew real mode, because once you get used to arcade flying it is hard to go to any type of realisim.
Now we have as a community caved into full or almost full easy mode (I speak here or auto take off, auto trim, etc etc).
I was an AW easy mode guy. I tried full realism mode and spun in every time I tried to turn. Got frustrated and went back to half time. But, as I recall, it was costing me 6$ per hour to be frustrated when I could be flying.
As far as Auto take off, it's just easier. Can I take off as Pilot in Command? Of course, but it serves no useful point unless I'm trying to get in the air on a capped field using the flaps and gear up as soon as I get a positive rate of climb so I can at least start to turn.
I like WWII aircraft. I'm not interested in the cockpit minutia of actually flying one.....unless I get the chance to actually fly one. Stroking the fuel primer 8 times or whatever before cranking over is not really up there on my list of things I want to do in a game.
You have the option of using auto take-off or auto trim ect. So I guess, I don't get it. If you don't want it you think nobody should have the option? Don't take this the wrong way. I'm not being antagonistic. It just seems to me that if this was a game for Grognards the game would not appeal to most people.
-
Well I didn't nor do I now think you were wrong in most of what you have done with ACES HIGH HT, I did think that adding the "easY mode" for take off was not needed since it takes very little time to learn how to do it without that.
I too paid 6 bucks and hour to play AW and remember quite well when you tried to get some code from them to do skins and were roundly rebuffed.
As far as pumping the primer for startup I think the time you have alotted for takeoff start and warmup is a fairly good representation of doing those things without the bordom of having to do it.
-
Kweassa, 3 points:
1) I've played IL2. The landings and takeoffs are just as easy as Aces High. I've never had any problems landing or taking off in IL2, ever. In fact I have more problems landing in Aces High due to torque in some planes (like Ta152 or other craft that want to ground loop on landing). I've never EVER crashed on takeoff or landing in IL2, EVER. I've done it chitloads of times in AH.
The claim that IL2 requires more skill to land and takeoff doesn't hold water.
2) (2 points). You say "AH bypasses certain sets of physics upon need, as mentioned above" but this isn't true. The physics is all there. Your aircraft is still flying through the air on auto takeoff. It is computer controlled, and will fly as a preset, but the physics of it is no different than before. This is the same as IL2's annoying autopilot feature that will not only hold formation with you, but will fly faster than maximum speed while on auto pilot, to catch up to wingmen. How is that any different? It's NOT turning the game engine into an arcade game. It's simply taking over the controls for you. For one, there's no reason you can't take off by yourself, as long as you have a rudder axis. It's easy as hell in any aircraft to take off. And since AH doesn't have an "auto landing" you can't gripe about that.
The second point you say is "Pretty irrelevant matter at hand" when I talk about these "features". You say they're irrelevant, but you're the one claiming they make AH fly like an arcade game -- so they're pretty damn relevant! The point is that stall limiter is the only thing you can say is even close to "arcade like". Even so the cost of using stall limiter greatly hampers even the most basic manuvers (pulling up) and reduces your efficiency to the point of not being worth using. It limits the AoA you can pull, prevents you from stalling and thus spinning out. Most that know better avoid it like the plague. Most that don't know eventually LEARN and then avoid it like the plague. It's only a benefit to those that are still learning to fly, and every game has "training" levels before the "boss" levels. Those that use it only penalize themselves and most likely get shot down for it, so I don't see it as any major problem to this game's balance. If, for example, using SL were to increase your turn radius and all-around performance to the point of flying like a spixteen in a p40, then you'd have a valid complaint.
3) the personal accusations...
"Yes, because you're biased against other games."
Uh... wrong. I'm not biased. I went into each of the games mentioned with an open mind and a willingness to enjoy it. I can enjoy older less-sophisticated games. I'm not ignorant. I'm no fool. I like CivII despite it's age. I like Diablo II. I liked Tribes (1), and Counter-Strike (pre-CS:S), and many other genres and many other types of games. I am quite open to new gameplay styles, types, and enjoy a wide variety.
The reasons I have for disliking TW and IL2 series games I have already explained. These games have poor gameplay. The reason Counter-Strike was able to survive for 7+ years on an outdated game engine -- let's face it Half-Life was old as hell -- is because of gameplay. Aces High 1 survived because the gameplay was fun, despite lagging graphics. IL2 and Targetware lack decent gameplay in all areas, including the offline missions of IL2 (the only supposed advantage it has over Aces High in gameplay). Hell even TW's graphics aren't that great. The Beaufighter has a painted-on gunsight and is pushing 5+ years old, but won't ever be updated at this pace.
I am not "biased" as you claim. Bias implies an irrational aspect that defies logic. I'll return to this in a moment. My opinions on these other inferior games is based entirely on the experience the game provides. IL2 is not better than Aces High in any regard, least of all reality or physics. It has a more complex damage model, but it goes out of its way to make it nearly invulnerable to all weapons fire, requiring multiple 30mm hits to bring down compact fighters, unloading 1000 rounds from a 109F into a Lagg-3 and not bringing it down. More complex does not equate to "more realistic". Realistically, if you hit a craft enough it went down. In Aces High you hit a craft enough and it goes down. I've yet to see that in IL2. Unless you all fly with "simplified gunnery" checked -- which goes back to arcade play.
And, as a foot note, you speak of me being biased. What do you call yourself? You're on a crusade to say AH is the worst game there is. You claim we gloss over flaws. We don't. You claim we call these flaws features. You're probably talking (among other things) WEP implementation. They chose a way to do it. They're not going to change it unless they redo all engine controls. That's not a "feature" it's just the way they did it. Bomber drones follow you down and lower gear, flaps, line up and land all perfectly on their own. That's not a feature it's just the way they made it. Otherwise you'd have to switch to each drone and duplicate it all. You're on a crusade for minutae, with regards to this game. There's more important things to crusade for, so why quibble over the little stuff, when we still have big flaws to worry about.
Sorry if I ruffled your feathers during this post, but man you've been going on for a little while now about how bad AH is, and I think you're biased yourself.
-
(Posted here in the intended thread I accidentally posted in the other AH/IL-2 thread)
I for one would enjoy a more realistic feature set when it comes to aircraft management systems, but am willing to accept that the modeling for each aircraft needs to be "standardized" in order to allow the developers to keep the models to a manageable level of detail. And I don't mean flight characteristics, I mean the modeling of the aircraft systems which has been simplified down to the few most important basics, and even they are often modeled in a not entirely accurate fashion.
Take a simple one... WEP. WEP on some aircraft was simply adjusting the throttle beyond a certain stop, and the limitations on the actual amount of time that WEP could be engaged for were determined by engine temperature (with of course some relatively conservative recommended maximums designed to prevent a drastic shortening of the service lifetime of the equipment if not an outright destruction). Other's utilized a an injection system, and when you ran out of "whatever", you were done. Some had the ability to do both.
Other systems, such a propeller pitch, flaps, mixture controls, electrical systems, cowling and cooling flaps, hydraulic systems, and the like all varied from aircraft to aircraft such that it would be a work of tremendous magnitude to accurately portray the management of each system in the game in the fashion that it deserves. And additionally, each model would need it's own specific documentation to allow pilots who don't have access to the original pilot's manual some sense of how to fly it.
So it would be much more difficult for the casual player, as well as a lot more work for the developers. So while I'd prefer more realism in this area, I accept why we don't (and may never have) it.
-
For some reason, AH pilots have this peculiar opinion about the 'casual' gamer in which he views him as an unchanging and unadapting buffoon who are destined to be perpetually dumbfounded by every part of detail they are forced to manage during flight in some other game... and yet, they expect him to adapt and change and become better pilots with experience, in their own game.
It's the almighty "but.. but... what about the n00bs?" defense - the equivalent of the "not guilty by reasons of insanity" in murder trials. Since the n00bs are the equivalent of insane people in society, who has no hope of ever getting better and adapting to his own surroundings, the game must always make special amends for them.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
AH does have a good set of physics but it has its shortcomings. Unfortunately, people just refuse to acknowledge these shortcomings as shortcomings, and treat it as if it was either intentional or adequate, whereas they view other games dealing with such problems as "going overboard" or "unnecessary".
Exactly. I fully acknowledge the shortcomings AH's flight model currently has, and while the physics engine is quite good, I'd rather it be quite a bit more detailed in the management department.
As for that sounds quip, I wasn't comparing Il-2's sounds to AH's defaults. It was a statement about Il-2's sounds, period. There's really no excuse for how poor the sound effects in that game are. I mean, Aces High's sounds are built-in with a completely free download. Back when Sturmovik was released, you had to pay $49 for it, and those sounds were (and still are) downright appalling.
...Not that I noticed that the P-47, FW-190, and La-7 sounded exactly the same. (Of course, it would've been fine and dandy if only the Focke Wulf and Lavochkin sounded the same, as the Lavochkins used copies of the BMW 801 radial engine). Oh, and the MiG-3 sounded the same as the P-40, and last time I checked, the Mikulin AM-35 engine was nowhere near identical to the Allison V-1710...
...And the gun sounds are some of the worst I've ever heard in any game, period. It sounds as if they were recorded in a very large abandoned warehouse with a microphone/tape deck combo from the mid-1990s. And mind you, I had an Audigy card and Altec Lansing speakers when I first played it, so don't think it's an issue with a ghetto computer...
...Sorry about the rant, but anybody can see that I'm pretty uptight about sound design. Hey, who wouldn't be after making sounds for AH for so long? But really, the sound design is pretty good in Il-2. It's just the sound effects that are so underwhelming.
-
Originally posted by Booz
Call me when IL2 (or any other game at all for that matter) can handle a 500 player event.
can AH anymore? ;)
-
I do prefer IL2 to AH, yet they are both simulators with their pros and cons. The one I read here that state that IL2 is a joke, or AH is a joke must not know much about flying.
I think that both are simulators because they recreate the basic forces applied to a flying propeller aircraft in a fairly convincing fashion. The typical relationship between angle of attack and lift, do this ... expect that type of thingy.
To me, flying IL2 mimics flying a real aircraft BETTER than AH. The hammer head in particular, point the nose up, roll on the edge, reduce power, and wait for gravity to smoothly pull you back nose down. In AH, what happens "at the top" is always quite entertaining. The takeoff/landing is also recreating the feel of flying better to me. Despite what Krusty says, in IL2 you need to be on the ball, you need to monitor your speed/skinrate/attitude more closely. In IL2 you feel the plane fighting gravity to get airborne, the transition between rolling andflying is well reproduced. In AH I feel like I'm "shooting in the air". Granted some planes are easier to land than others, but bringing a 109 to a stop in IL2 is far more work than in AH. You have to constently adjust your rudder/aileron/elevator inputs so much more than Aces High where you just "chop the throttle and flare". heck, landing with a rudder shot off in Il2 always brings the concern of "Am I going to run off the runway ... or maybe ground loop and crash".
As far as CEM, being a real life pilot, I like to tweak stuff. Sure AH does not have mixture control/supercharger stuff but AH stills models it. Hitech once told me, that since in fighting "everything would be shoved foward anyway, why bother the player with it?" Well ... in IL2, I noticed you actually can gain a little edge by adjusting prop pitch/mixture/charger depending on the manoeuver you are pulling, especially on the 109s. It greatly multiply your workload in a dogfight, but I like it. I found it more satisfying, but I don't thing it's what makes IL2 a sim compared to AH, which is the argument of this discussion.
I have a ball flying IL2 in online campaigns, keeping track of your position with matching outside terrain with the map, constantly looking around for enemies, kicking rudders to check your six every other minute, having to visually ID a target befoer opening fire, sometimes making your miss it completly ... and the overall feeling of flying a plane, iven if the view system sucks.
AH in the other hand, has the MA thingy, with all those great people you fly with and against. It's a more social game, less anonymous. I also have much more confidence in accuracy as fra as aircraft performances. I'm convinced that HTC's creew did their homework. The flying part does a good enought job for me to enjoy "fighting", even if I don't quite enjoy "flying".
Both games are fun in their own ways.
-
S! Chaps
Interesting topic must I say, especially when it - in a way - seems to arouse the kind of territorial defences :lol
I must agree with much of what SFRT - Frenchy just said about IL2 and AH. I fly both (My first simulator was EAW which I still sometimes use as a point of comparison to other games) and enjoy both very much. AH must be the best "saloon" there is (yes, its very social) and the ALT-X option keeps me from dehydrating...
But what have not yet been said, is the kind of SA thingy I find different in the two. In IL2 with full real visual settings, you have to keep your eyes open all the time. In AH (MA) it is almost hard to lose focus on enemy plane - and good SA allows more "technical" flying which of course, dictates the nature of battle. In IL2 you have to (usually) play it safe due to the fact that you cant monitor the enemy's movement 100% of the time. In practise this means that in IL2 you can really surprise your enemy - while in AH you usually surprise enemy pilot only when he is getting more beer from the fridge or is otherwise occupied (in cbt).
That said, I have nothing to say about the realism issue, but I think IL2 has the kind of "fog of war" sense in it that AH lacks. And I must say - after a dozen of beer I am truely grateful AH does lack this kind of "realism" :aok
-
Originally posted by Hwkeye
Originally posted by nirvana
You spelled it wrong, it's fanboi.
From Wikipedia:
"Fanboy or fanboi is a term used to describe an individual (usually male, though the feminine version fangirl may be used for females) who is utterly devoted to a single fannish subject, or to a single point of view within that subject, often to the point where it is considered an obsession. Fanboys remain loyal to their particular obsession, disregarding any factors that differ from their point of view. Fanboys are also typically aggressive towards the opposing brand or competition of their obsession regardless of its merits or achievements."
Are they all republicans?...
-
I've flown WWII era aircraft including a B17 and all that engine management crap is not 'fun'.
Its the pain in the butt part of flying old airplanes.
I once flew a Beech 18 from New York to Airborne Airpark in Wilmington, Ohio in a raging blizzard.
5 solid hours of nerve wracking hell because I was desperately trying to keep the engines running and ice off the airplane.
Flying solo, navigating (using one bad VOR receiver) at night with no autopilot while managing manual oil shutters, manifold heat, prop alcohol, windshield alcohol and manually activated pneumatic boots is about as much fun as bathing in 350 degree oil.
Those who want ultra realistic engine management only want it because they believe they would somehow gain some sort of an advantage because they would be better at it than anyone else.
-
Originally posted by Gumbeau
Those who want ultra realistic engine management only want it because they believe they would somehow gain some sort of an advantage because they would be better at it than anyone else.
I think this is about right. I've heard cracks about folks in IL2 using the custom engine management to over-boost engines with no penalties or some such bug. This was years back that I heard it, and it might be fixed by now.
-
You might be miss informed Krusty, you can manually control the manifold/prop RPM in the 109. That allows you when you pull a vertical manoeuver to run your RPM at 3,000 instead of the max auto of 2,700 (something like that), which gives you a little edge. The thing is that if you do it more than 2 or 3 secs you'll kill your engine. Consequently, if you disable the auto prop RPM management, you have to constantly adjust your RPM with your airspeed, and more than once, in the heat of a dogfight, I ended up over-reving the prop and blowing my engine up.
I thing it's accurate to say that the aces of WWII where the ones, on top of other things, get the most out of their airplane, and that includes system managements. I'm happy it can be recreated in a flight simulator also:cool:
As Gumbeau said, manual engine management is not fun, but personaly it's what I like. Contrary to Gumbeau, I prefer flying in the ice and juggle the system to keep my plane airborne, rather than setting my cruise parameters and flying on autopilot for 3h on a CAVOK day. This human/machine combo victory over nature feeling, like Saint Exupery often describe in his books.:aok
-
It was a long time ago, before I ever flew IL2. I can't be specific.
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
As Gumbeau said, manual engine management is not fun, but personaly it's what I like. Contrary to Gumbeau, I prefer flying in the ice and juggle the system to keep my plane airborne, rather than setting my cruise parameters and flying on autopilot for 3h on a CAVOK day. This human/machine combo victory over nature feeling, like Saint Exupery often describe in his books.:aok
Then you obviously aint done it enough. After the first dozen funerals you begin to realize you would rather be looking back on the 'good ole days' versus taking the long dirt nap.
-
Those who want ultra realistic engine management only want it because they believe they would somehow gain some sort of an advantage because they would be better at it than anyone else.
So which part of IL2 CEM is 'ultra realistic'?
I think it's accurate to say that the aces of WWII where the ones, on top of other things, get the most out of their airplane, and that includes system managements. I'm happy it can be recreated in a flight simulator also.
I'm willing to bet that such a thing would have never, ever happened in real life, be it a novice or an experten, especially in the heat of combat. Fiddling around systems to gain a combat advantage by using them for some strange purpose out of context is something only us gamers do. Going manual prop control in 109s is an emergency procedure done only under certain specific conditions where it is relatively easy to maintain a steady increase/decrease in RPM. It's not something a pilot would be using when his hands are tied up to HOTAS or BHOS.
-
I see your point Kweassa, you might be right.
Originally posted by Gumbeau
Then you obviously aint done it enough. After the first dozen funerals you begin to realize you would rather be looking back on the 'good ole days' versus taking the long dirt nap.
"After the first dozen funerals" ... oh pleuuuuAse!
Not wishing to enter a pissing contest here, but flying cargo in Cessna 402 and Metroliner in Utah/Idao/Washington I had my share. Yet it's my job, and you have to go again the next day, you just make it happen. Icing flying is the daily routine of 100s of other cargo pilot in the midwest winters, flying older planes in more or less good shape. Like I said, everyday in bad weather is a man/machine victory above nature which brings satisfaction, and makes summer flying so borring in comparaison.