Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Jonny boy 8 on June 26, 2007, 07:53:01 AM
-
I have Il-2 and ah2, and i was woundering which game is better, it all started when i was lay in my bed last night and i thought which game is better, IL-2 or AH2? IL-2 has more planes and a little bit better grafics, but AH2 has more maps and a bigger main arena.
p51srule :aok
-
Aces High has the bigger furballs.
IL2 has the eye candy.
If your a furball junkie Aces High is for you.
If you like things a lil more realistic I think I would go with Il2 Online.
My 2c
-
Ive seen IL2 and i want it sooooooooooo bad:cry
I'll get my coon to steal it.
(http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb146/Forrest76259/Image123.jpg)
:t MUAHHAAHAHAHA
-
That depends on how you define realistic.
I have both, and I prefere AHII. Yes, graphics are better in IL2, but the flying is better in AH. So, it really depends on what you are looking for in the game.
I have gone 1vs1 with the AI set on ace, and beat it every time (takes a while because my gunnery sucks :lol ). Can't do that in AH. Haven't played IL2 on line though.
-
IL2 has questionable quality control, and they cave in to public "mob rioting" and change the performance of their aircraft and the weaponry based on pressure from the players. It's not realistic in flight model or damage modeling, if you ask me.
Consider IL2 a flight game, but it's not much of a simulation of how the real WW2 planes performed.
AH2 has its own issues, but it has far more fidelity to weapons damage and aircraft capabilities than IL2. It has much more realistic flight modeling (but still not perfect, mind you).
AH is better. Still not perfect (I've got a few gripes of my own about it) but it's the best out there right now.
-
Ur avatar is creepy
It even scared my coon.
(http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb146/Forrest76259/Image124.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Krusty
but it has far more fidelity to weapons damage
AH has few things better but weapons damage definitely isn't one...
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
AH has few things better but weapons damage definitely isn't one...
I think it is.
Damage modeling on the aircraft no, but weapon damage yes. They are different.
IL-2 would have us believe WWII aircraft were flying tanks.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
IL-2 would have us believe WWII aircraft were flying tanks.
Never got that impression. Probably aim related issue...
-
the fact that IL2 models the BMG 50 Cal equivalent to a farm yard .22 pretty much ended my relationship with that sim. Still, a beautiful looking deal.
-
I tried Il2 and Pac Fighters, and the view system was so frustrating, that the eye candy was irrelevant. I hated those games.
-
I'm much fond of AH flight style(things like accelated stall by hard pulling of the stick, etc), but I bought every IL2 series and often fly one. The no.1 reason I fly IL2, is those historical missions/campaigns.
The feeling of "historical campaign". You can fly eastern front of 1942 cold winter, shooting dive bombers out of the sky in the desperate attempt to save your carrier in the Midway, etc. IL2 is designed to give that historical experience as "Main", (and online play as supplement). But AH is designed to give us "the Arena". Combat and ACM aspect, (IMO) is much detailed in AH.
Ah, I know, I know, we need the "Tour of Duty". :) That, will make AH to compete with IL2.
-
If you're interested, IL-2 STURMOVIK: 1946 is all the games in 1 package.
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
AH has few things better but weapons damage definitely isn't one...
I agree with this..
In RL a single 20mm shell wouldve blown a plane's wing off......not the case here...
HTC has nullified weapons ballistics for gameplay sake.
-
Depends.
People say the FM's different, but frankly the only thing really different is the general depiction of torque characteristics. IL2 planes are pretty docile when it comes to torque, whereas AH2 can be said 'vicious' when compared to IL2.
I find AH2 to be more believeable in that aspect, but the rest of the flight characteristics are comparable. What I can do in a 109 in IL2, I can do in AH and vice versa.
There are some subtle differences in the feel - Both AH2 and IL2 planes handle smoothly, but under harsh maneuvers at extreme low speed maneuvering IL2 planes tend to 'mush' a bit more, whereas AH2 planes react in vicious stalls. In some cases AH2 seems more correct, in other IL2. Under some circumstances AH2 stall behavior seems better, in other IL2... and etc etc.
IL2 uses a bit more complicated general plane management, and some people treat it as if its Microsoft Flightsimulator, but in reality IL2 is nothing more than maybe 2~3 buttons more management than AH2. Basically both games are simplified as it is.
IL2 has botg its strengths and drawbacks in detailed immersion, and this doesn't apply only to the graphics. On the other hand AH2 has its strengths and drawbacks in its simplicty.
Without any prejudice against either I can say both are worthy simulation games, with slightly different approaches to some key issues concerning the simulation aspect.
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
Never got that impression. Probably aim related issue...
Nope.
30mm cannons rip things up. 20mm feels like .303s. .50s feel like 5.56mm.
Set it to "realistic", it is totally different from the default settings.
-
If we could AH flight models and view system with IL2's graphics, we'd have a sure winner!
-
I just tested it (full realism),
Hurri 1 vs B-17G, 3 bursts, each about 3/4 seconds from about 110 yards (100m convergence setting).
Two engines smoking and 1 on fire...
P-51 vs B-17G, 3 bursts, 1/2 second each from about 110 yards (100m conv),
identical result.
109 F4, single cannon vs B-17G, about 20 rounds fired (two shots) from about 165 yards, one engine fell off, one on fire, aileron knocked off.
Doesn't seem weak to me. All depends from what distance you fire MGs and where you hit. I believe it would be very similar to AH in terms of knocking power if not for AH damage model.
-
Maybe we could spread the rumor that IL-2 is "Squeaker friendly". :D
-
Originally posted by Rino
Maybe we could spread the rumor that IL-2 is "Squeaker friendly". :D
!!!!! BRILLIANT !!!!!
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
I tried Il2 and Pac Fighters, and the view system was so frustrating, that the eye candy was irrelevant. I hated those games.
what he said.
If I could ever get the views set up to work like in AH2, I'd play both alot more.
-
IL2 depends a lot on who set-up any particular server. AH2 is a better game mainly because it is at least CAPABLE of handling more players than an IL2 arena which is hard capped at 128, but IL2 is more realistic, more planes/weapons modeled, more extras such as shipping.
If IL2 could handle 1,000 planes in one arena I'd be there exclusively.
-
Oh god, what hath tho done!?
NEVA' EVA' EVA' speak thy words Il-2 & ace'ith high.
NEVA'!
Has anyone seen my dog's squeeeeeeeky toy?
-
According to your test....
In IL2 8x .303s are the same effectiveness as 6x 50cal?
In IL2 1x20mm is as effective (more so, it would seem!) than 6x50cal?
That game I've unloaded entire ammo clips into fighters in a plane with 2x7mm and 1x20mm weapons, and not brought it down. I've unloaded 5+ 37mm rounds from a P-39 point blank up the arse of an enemy fighter (and got the big fireball explosions) and had it fly away damaged but intact.
Flaps act as miracle speed brakes.
30mm are god-like weapons, blowing wings off of TB-3s and B-17s as if the target were an A6M instead.
Nothing about the game is accurate, vis a vis real world comparisons.
It may all come together into a nice offline game, but it cannot be considered "more accurate" by any sense. It has a "more complex" damage system, but that does not make it more accurate.
There are plenty of reasons to like it, including shipping and other AI aspects of the game, however it is neither more accurate nor better than aces high in my opinion.
P.S. sure the later games like PF look nice, but IMO gameplay trumps game looks every day of the week. I was playing HL mods up until HL:Source came out, and the HL1 game engine came out in 1995. A very outdated engine but had great gameplay with DOD and CS. So graphics are nice, but look at Tribes2: All the eye candy in the world don't make up for s***y gameplay.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
P.S. sure the later games like PF look nice, but IMO gameplay trumps game looks every day of the week. I was playing HL mods up until HL:Source came out, and the HL1 game engine came out in 1995. A very outdated engine but had great gameplay with DOD and CS. So graphics are nice, but look at Tribes2: All the eye candy in the world don't make up for s***y gameplay.
For about 5 years I played DOD (Day of Defeat) pretty much exclusively as my online game of choice before the gamer pittered out. I played the public servers for a year and for the next 4 played competitively in leagues such as CAL and to a point where I was a CAL admin. Anyways, when Valve released HL2 everyone loved it. We saw what the HL2 engine could do and all use DODers drooled over what DOD could be with the physics and graphics and orga....
But Valve had split apart the original team that developed DOD for HL1 and they gave into the 'pubbers' demands. In retrospect here pubbers=squeakers. DoD:Source was very much a killer for the competitive community (vastly a minority, but we were the smart ones that wanted the game to stay unique, not turn into Call of Duty Arcade style).
Before I go on a 5000 word rant that I've expressed many of times before in the past on the DoD forums, the idea of what Krusty said is true.
DoD:Source was pretty, however, the gameplay was utter crap. Even after the updates. For those of you who never played either game (if you played DoD:Source only, keep your mouth shut you have no right to voice your opinion! :t ) think of it this way:
Take AH2, make it pretty like IL2, but your guns no longer shoot where you are aiming and it now takes 3-4x as much ammo to shoot down a plane. And also put the flight controls of all planes like the spit16, i mean easy mode. :t
And B-29's with Nooks are rampant
-
Oh GOD don't get me started on those crack-addicts at Valve!
Hear hear!!!
-
Originally posted by Krusty
According to your test....
In IL2 8x .303s are the same effectiveness as 6x 50cal?
No, check the firing time....
Originally posted by Krusty
In IL2 1x20mm is as effective (more so, it would seem!) than 6x50cal?
No I don't think so, but it looks that well aimed shot with centrally mounted cannon does plenty of damage.
The only reason why I did the test was to see if certain weapons are really so anemic as Karnak says. I didn't find it so...
Originally posted by Krusty
It may all come together into a nice offline game, but it cannot be considered "more accurate" by any sense. It has a "more complex" damage system, but that does not make it more accurate.
Weapons modeling and aircraft damage modeling must be seen together.
In IL-2 it just seems much closer to original gun cam footage than it is in AH.
I'm not saying that IL-2 is better game, I'm saying that AH is lagging behind in this aspect and that weapons accuracy means nothing if damage model can't keep up with it.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
!!!!! BRILLIANT !!!!!
:rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
I tried Il2 and Pac Fighters, and the view system was so frustrating, that the eye candy was irrelevant. I hated those games.
You hit it right on the head!
I have the newest il2 1946, totally sux, anybody want it send me $20 and its yours.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
the fact that IL2 models the BMG 50 Cal equivalent to a farm yard .22 pretty much ended my relationship with that sim. Still, a beautiful looking deal.
would that be .22 Short, Long or Long Rifle. Also, a hollow point LR adds a nice touch to a chuckers head ;-) Flying Woodchucks. ha ha ha.
Softail.
-
That game I've unloaded entire ammo clips into fighters in a plane with 2x7mm and 1x20mm weapons, and not brought it down. I've unloaded 5+ 37mm rounds from a P-39 point blank up the arse of an enemy fighter (and got the big fireball explosions) and had it fly away damaged but intact.
Got a .trk file?
Basically, I don't trust your gunnery, nor your memory. I can produce roughly the same results as 2bighorn's above, and if you wish I can always record the test sortie and send you the trk file. I'll bet 2bighorn would also be able to send you the file... therefore, I'd naturally expect you can do the same.
If it isn't some oneshot freak bug, or a crappy net connection, or just plain exaggeration of a bad gunnery, then I'm sure you'd be able to reproduce the results and show us the .trk file, on how a fighter plane is hit with 5x37mms at point-blank and survive, no?
The guns in IL-2 does what it is intended to do. The only people I've seen who'd remark as you did were very typically the people who'd fly IL2 series for maybe one hour every month, get frustrated by the fact that they can't adapt to it, and just leave it alone until the next month when they'd get another impulse, fly it again for an hour, get frustrated again, and then would post a thread on how much IL2 sucks, without actually understanding the subtle differences between the games.
30mm are god-like weapons, blowing wings off of TB-3s and B-17s as if the target were an A6M instead.
Nothing about the game is accurate, vis a vis real world comparisons.
The funny thing is, none of your remarks on the IL2 is accurate, vis a vis real game experience. Frankly I'd equate your remarks a blatant slander against the game, coming from a serious bias against it.
It may all come together into a nice offline game, but it cannot be considered "more accurate" by any sense. It has a "more complex" damage system, but that does not make it more accurate.
That's like saying "bears have more strength and pointy claws than humans, but that does not make them more dangerous."
I find quite intriguing to see so many people, otherwise very reasonable and experienced, can be so much troubled when confronting the fact that some games may actually have better performing aspects then their own game. When confronting these differences, instead of trying to understand they mark it as some sort of inferiority, and then immediately dump it away for some more pom-pom cheerleading for their own favorites.
With no disrespect to Yeager or Karnak, just look at what they wrote;
the fact that IL2 models the BMG 50 Cal equivalent to a farm yard .22 pretty much ended my relationship with that sim. Still, a beautiful looking deal.
30mm cannons rip things up. 20mm feels like .303s. .50s feel like 5.56mm.
Now, I'm not sure just how long Yeager or Karnak flew IL2, nor if they ever flew it extensively online against other players. With that into mind, what the say in the above quotes is actually a very typical case of misunderstanding on the differences that comes from having a more detailed DM and GM.
Some people say IL2 gunnery isn't any more difficult than AH, and they can achieve the same firing distance in IL2 as they can do in AH (approx. 400~500m). But what Karnak comments is a very clear indication that gunnery in IL2 is very different. Like 2bighorn said, a well put consecutive hit of 20mm shells will bring down a plane as easily in IL2 as in AH, but the difference is it's easier to acheive that concentrated shot in AH, whereas in IL2 it is more diffucult, requires a much closer distance (preferably under 150m for a 'sure kill'), and visual confirmation can be sometimes confusing, since IL2 models individual rounds which mixes up AP rounds with HE rounds even in 20mms.
(I mean, with the 'arrows' hit indicator option, I've even actually seen these instances such as;
* a cannon shell fired at 90 degress against an enemy wing at point blank range, that punched through the wing, and detonated at the other side in empty air.
* 30cal ammunition fired at wrong angles actually being deflected off the surface of an IL-2 wing
I'm not kidding when I say visual confirmation of a hit is much more difficult in IL2 - there are a lot more variables than you'd imagine)
People coming from AH don't understand that fact, fires a shot as they might have done in AH, thinks he landed a lot of hits (which in fact, landed a lot less than it would have been in AH), and then thinks 'gee, IL2 guns are retarded'. Close in about 200 more meters than you would in AH, fire longer and steadier bursts of guns (don't expect those 'snapshot' kills of AH will happen as easily as in AH), and try to visually confirm your blows.. and one soon realizes the IL2 approach is worth a lot more than one would have imagined.
Now, look at Yeager's comments.
That's exactly the kind of misunderstanding in with different DM approach. In AH, a burst of 50cal causes structural failures as easy as cannons. AH doesn't have any internal structural modelling in such parts as the wings or fuselage, and therefore any surface hit causes loss of structural integrity as a whole. Therefore, 50cals in AH snap wings and tails off, giving you an immediate kill.
Not so in IL2. To snap off a wing in that game, you must either hit the ammunition box or a fuel tank to cause a fire that eats away the integrity, or, actually land enough hits to blow off spars and supports so that the wing cannot support the force of flight and buckles. It's like trying to snap a wooden table in two using guns - it's possible, but you need to land that much consecutive hits on a very very small spot to cause it to fail. Counting in the dispersion and convergence factors its a very difficult task.
Therefore, in IL2, when you are on the receiving end of the 50cal, your wing may stay intact, but the flying experience becomes miserable. Your oil blows, your engine is damaged and starts draggins smoke and fumes, your pilot is wounded and bleeding, the instruments are busted, aileron or elevator cable/rods are busted and rendered useless, wing or tail loses lift and your plane begins to lose stability.
I mean, there are times when I actually wish that the DM was like AH - at least, in AH, even if you are hit you don't suffer from anything unless the damage exceeds the set values that make it snap off. Much more variables means much more things can happen, and somtimes, even a half-hearted shot from a 50cal weapon can kill your elevator control cables.. and when that happens all you can do is just bail. In these times the 50cals actually feel much stronger than even AH !!)
In real life all this is enough to make the pilot bail. However, being a game, people stay inside their planes and still try to maneuver away.
From an AH gamer's point of view, he thinks that he landed enough hits to kill it in AH, but sees the enemy plane still flying, and thinks that the bullets in IL2 are messed up.
However, from an IL2 gamer's point of view, the 50cals did their work. The enemy plane is almost as good as dead, and he is most definately out of the picture. The chances are, wait a few more moments and the enemy plane will point downwards and crash to the ground, because the elevators aren't functioning any more. The best the pilot can manage is to bail out to safety, or try a ditch which is also much more difficult than AH.
Or, with a bit more patience and bullets, the enemy plane will burst to flames in any moment and you'll see the enemy pilot bail.
50cals aren't weaker than in AH. It just damages the plane differently. And it is these kind of differences that AH gamers who try out IL2, most usually do not understand.
-
Oh, that's nice... You don't like what I have to say so you slam me...
Okay, fine. I'm done with this. You've said as much before and this is the last time I stand here and take your crap.
Consider me done with this thread. However my comments are NOT to be brushed off so lightly as Kweassa suggests. If you've got IL2 you can make up your own mind. Fly it. You'll see.
-
Originally posted by Platano
I agree with this..
In RL a single 20mm shell wouldve blown a plane's wing off......not the case here...
HTC has nullified weapons ballistics for gameplay sake.
Watch the gun cam footage that Skyrock posted....... I think they are "RL" watching those 110's and 109's and 190's pump rounds into planes I'd disagree that a single 20mm would tear a wing off...but maybe they were just firing MG rnds
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
I tried Il2 and Pac Fighters, and the view system was so frustrating, that the eye candy was irrelevant. I hated those games.
Thats it!
Its absolutly horrible to sit inside a cockpit without to be able to look around the fat canophy frames.
Planes like the FW190 and P39 get unplayable, while in other planes its possible to look around the frames by toggling "gunsight view" on/off.
I dont know the latests FM/DMīs there, but the fact that all did chage very much, again and again, from patch to patch did anoy me very much.
In the last version i had, its more easy to bring down a B17 with a P51 than with a FW190A8(4 x 20mm), simply cause the .50cal dont need any aim, similar to the MK108 they seems to shoot heat seakers, while the 20mmīs need a very exact aiming point.
btw, in AH we also had a 30mm heatseakers for very long time.
Greetings,
Knegel
-
Just a secret for you guys;
If "Cockpit Always On" is off, hit Shift-F1 in Il-2. Your cockpit will be replaced by a gunsight and certain instrument dials. Realistic? Hell no. Fun to blow the crap out of stuff? oh Yes. ;)
-
Biggest hinderance for me for iL2 is absolutely no effective AC software included. This discovery after seeing some incredible things in certain servers, and after doing some research.Pretty game, but any SW that does not have to matchup client/serverside file for file (such as just about any MMP) is always going to be subject to this crap.
-
Deleted
-
Deleted
-
Originally posted by OOZ662
Just a secret for you guys;
If "Cockpit Always On" is off, hit Shift-F1 in Il-2. Your cockpit will be replaced by a gunsight and certain instrument dials. Realistic? Hell no. Fun to blow the crap out of stuff? oh Yes. ;)
Yes, and to kill the immersion completely i give the enemys nice pink skins, so i can spot them better.
As arcade game without cockpit and with icons IL-2 is nice, but not as a simulation, where i wanna sit inside the cockpit and feel like a pilot.
The AH viewsystem is most perfect, why this system never got introduced into IL-2 is a miracle for me. We did ask for it already while beta-testing it.
Oh, another bad drawback are the absolut unbalaced middle distance gaphics(important for people who like to play without or with short range icons). A game where the 109 show a more big distance graphic and dot than a B17, P47 or FW190 and where i-16īs simply dissapear in 300-500m distance is not playable in a fair balanced game.
The AH viewsystem + gameplay possibility, in combination with the IL-2 graphics and FM/DM possibilitys(adjusted to more credible results) and the EAW middle/long distance plane graphics + icon system would result in the best WWII Sim ever.
Never i will understand why O.M. dont took the best of all, but concentrated and wasted his time on useless details, like a clock in a truck that noone can drive.
It also looks to me that they dont know to handle their FM/DM engine in a good way. IL-2 offer great possibilitys regarding the FM/DMīs, but thats nothing worth, as long as the makers are not able to create credible FM/DM-relations with it.
Since i stopped to play IL-2 2 years ago(after so many years in hope, cause i saw the theoretical potential), i cant say if its all still the same, but i guess it is.
Therefor i play AH(as teamfight game) and EAW(offline and online as dogfight game).
Greetings,
Knegel
-
Kweassa,
I am basing my experiences on a setup I did for fun.
Ki84-Ib (four 20mm) vs Me323s and Ki-84-Ic (two 20mm and two 30mm) vs Me323s. I ran that many times. I was occasionally able to down a single Me323 witht he Ki-84-Ib. Witht he Ki-84-Ic it was wholesale slaughter of all of the Me323s.
The difference should not have been that much.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The difference should not have been that much.
There isn't much data about ho-155 30mm cannon but many claim it was one of the best WWII 30mm aircraft mounted weapon.
I can't really compare Japanese 20 and 30mm, so I'll stick with German guns.
MG 151/20 loads were mixed with API, HE, I, API/HE, HE/I, API/I, HE/M and HE/XM rounds, typically they'd alternate between 3 types in a load.
Normal 20mm HE round had less than 3g of HE and HE/M less than 20g in comparison with MK-108 HE 30mm M-geschoss with 86g. There were more then dozen of 30mm ammo types, but typical air to air load consisted of HE/M and HE/MI mix only. Other types were used for specialized loads.
MK-108 5 round shot released at least 10 times more energy than typical MG151/20 5 round shot.
So, I think the destructiveness of 30mm is not exaggerated either in il-2 nor in AH.
-
2bighorn,
I agree that the 30mm was not exagerated.
That said, a squadron of Ki-84s (modeled with US fuel and therefor one of the best fighters of WWII) each armed with four Ho-5 20mm cannons should not have been completely impotent against Me323s, a plane that was meat to fighters. That makes me very suspicious of the 20mm modeling, not the 30mm modeling.
-
:O HTPWND :O
-
Originally posted by Karnak
2bighorn,
I agree that the 30mm was not exagerated.
That said, a squadron of Ki-84s (modeled with US fuel and therefor one of the best fighters of WWII) each armed with four Ho-5 20mm cannons should not have been completely impotent against Me323s, a plane that was meat to fighters. That makes me very suspicious of the 20mm modeling, not the 30mm modeling.
What version do you have? I have 4.08m.
I just tried with KI-84Ia (2 X Ho-5) vs Me-323. I've shot short, less than half second bursts, into wings from about 150m. I fired cannons only. I knocked off the wing 14 out of 16 times. Most of the times one burst was enough (when my aim wasn't off).
What's interesting that wing (most of the times) broke outside and I was shooting at inner third.
So, I'd say ho-5 20mm has a punch (maybe slightly less than MG 151/20).
It also seems that Me-323 damage model is off, so you may get vastly different results, depends at what part you shoot at and the distance you fire from. As long as you aim for the wing and you don't walk the rounds from one side to other, you should down Me-323 pretty easily.
-
Much older version. I long ago uninstalled it.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Oh, that's nice... You don't like what I have to say so you slam me...
Okay, fine. I'm done with this. You've said as much before and this is the last time I stand here and take your crap.
Consider me done with this thread. However my comments are NOT to be brushed off so lightly as Kweassa suggests. If you've got IL2 you can make up your own mind. Fly it. You'll see.
... and the toys have officially left the pram.
:rofl
-
just read this thread.
Ive tried very very hard to like IL-2 and I always come back to AHII.
Its not the fidelity, the physics, the views or the historical accuracy.
Its just sterile. Thats the best word for it.
Lovely graphics but no soul. Long time getting anywhere (yes I know you can speed it up but thats not real!) and limited AI...
I dunno, its just boring in the end... and I drop it and Im back into AH again.
Cant understand why the IL-2 guys on my local server dont ever try AH either. they seem worse zealots than us even.:)
-
Originally posted by yanksfan
You hit it right on the head!
I have the newest il2 1946, totally sux, anybody want it send me $20 and its yours.
Ill swap you a set of CH peds for it. :)
Ren
-
Originally posted by DamnedRen
Ill swap you a set of CH peds for it. :)
Ren
NO need, you want it, it's yours.
really if you wanna try it i'll send it to you.
-
So where do I send the peds?
Ren
-
to me Geroge W Busch:lol
p51srule:aok
-
Really nice writeup Kweassa. There is room on the playground for more than one toy.
S!
JimBear
-
Ok, first off - htc flight dynamics have more parameters in their calculations.
Secondly I disagree that a stream of lead needs to hit an ammo box or main spar to snap off a wing. The wing's allready loaded and a lead knife is introduced.
Anyone tried a snap roll in il2 ... or an inverted spin --- sim failure.
As has been said - il2 for candy, AH for randy!
-
Originally posted by ForrestS
Ive seen IL2 and i want it sooooooooooo bad:cry
I'll get my coon to steal it.
(http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb146/Forrest76259/Image123.jpg)
:t MUAHHAAHAHAHA
You have a pet racoon? Holy watermelon I've never heard of that.
-
Yep sure do :D
(http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb146/Forrest76259/Image118.jpg)
-
I play both the new IL2 1946 and aces high on a regular basis. I think they are totally different games. I originally bought il2 because I do alot of filming and wanted better graphics and more control. As an example you can make up convoys with as many ships and aircraft as you like. You can choose from hundreds of maps alot of which are historical. There are many more people designing skins, maps, missions etc for il2 than there are for ah2. Even better you can alter these all to suit yourself. Also I havent done much online with il2 but I know there is a huge community out there including squadrons from just about every country. They even have world competitions at aerobatics etc... and an american squadron supported by the blue angels and flying in their colors. Il2 has a huge amount to offer if you are into that sort of thing and with the endless amount of historical skins ( I stopped counting at 200 for the 109 alone ) and ready made maps and missions it is a brilliant sim. I also like being able to easily design maps and control far more gvs etc...than ah2. So if you like being in a squad, flying in historical skins in structured missions with set goals it might be for you. I personally have had zero problems with setup and found the learning curve quite short. Alot of the problem is that you have to find lots of things out for yourself but the forums are really useful. Of course I suppose for some its biggest advantage is NO MONTHLY FEE . Once you own the game its free to play online.Having said that I will never leave ah, great guys, lots of fun things to do and high numbers.
Also ah has arenas that are changing by the minute. Like I said 2 games with different gameplay but both in mho are brilliant in their own rights. jdjnr