Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Nimrod45 on July 11, 2007, 07:49:01 PM
-
I was messing around in Wickipedia and brought up a game called Fighter Ace, it has loads of different planes. Has anyone played it, does it compare to AH.
-
It sucks.
-
Don't take our word for it, go download it. Check it out for yourself.
For me, I found I couldn't stall any plane unless I had the nose up more than 30 degrees. Even the P51 would do endless circles as hard as you could pull it around.
For sure does not have AH's flight model, nor anything close to it.
-
Never heard of it.
Wonder how many people play it.
I see that it does have a linux client, which is interesting.
-
Has a lot of nice planes. I tried it before I signed onto AH in May, and there were only around 30-45 players on at a time. There is a free trial period though, so it wouldn't hurt to try it out. I prefer AH II and haven't played Fighter Ace since.
Avenger8
-
One of my Sergeants plays it, he thought it was great until I started describing the AH FM and features to him.
Its basically an FPS with planes. Point and shoot, no realistic FM at all.
-
Originally posted by Treize69
Its basically an FPS with planes. Point and shoot, no realistic FM at all.
Treize69 has hit the nail on the head.
-
Originally posted by Avenger8
Treize69 has hit the nail on the head.
Maybe we should point the CounterStrike squeaker horde in their direction.
-
how mucj memory does it take up
-
"Kicks 64"
-
I just tried Fighter Ace, horrid, i deleted it without even using the 2 week free trial. Lots of planes yes, but everything else isnt near as good as AH is.
-
I tried Fighter Ace once, aboot half a year ago. I couldn't figure out how to play the dang game, it always blocked me. I must say that in comparison to this game, it is worthless.
-
Wow, I took a look at it to see if it had changed any, the site itself is much better and easier to navigate now, but it's still not very good. I can't see how they could call theirselves the "premier combat flight game" with Aces High around.
-
Well every one agrees Fighter ace sucks, but I have been on the IL-2 forum and it sounds like a really hot game. More complicated than AH, you have to contol the plane more, not just simple controls like AH, and there are more variables like clouds and wind and things that a combat simulator should have like the real troops deal with, did I forget lots more aircraft.
-
Originally posted by Nimrod45
Well every one agrees Fighter ace sucks, but I have been on the IL-2 forum and it sounds like a really hot game. More complicated than AH, you have to contol the plane more, not just simple controls like AH, and there are more variables like clouds and wind and things that a combat simulator should have like the real troops deal with, did I forget lots more aircraft.
Yayyy, let's all go Il-2. You go first. :D
-
Originally posted by Nimrod45
Well every one agrees Fighter ace sucks, but I have been on the IL-2 forum and it sounds like a really hot game. More complicated than AH, you have to contol the plane more, not just simple controls like AH, and there are more variables like clouds and wind and things that a combat simulator should have like the real troops deal with, did I forget lots more aircraft.
Nimrod, lots of opinions of that game on this board, I'd say do a forum search but I can guarantee the search engine will come back saying IL2 is too short of a search term. ;)
Personally I don't like IL2 much, in-game graphics are nice, but the rest of the interface sucks AFAIK... Also I find the flight model very bouncy and a little on the forgiving side.
-
il2 is a complety fed up flight model which featurs a standered of 2 or 3 vectors rather than the hundreds aces high employs its a bad flight model and you have to try hard to die if you have a decent ounce of skill
-
Exactly. Since IL-2 lacks numerous vectors (such as the dozens which Aces High II has, as Freez pointed out), IL-2's flight model is very unrealistic and arcade. The stalls, in particular, are badly wrong. But I'm only posting this for the very few who are genuinely interested in realistic flight. The majority can keep on believing that IL-2 is realistic, since they don't really care how real airplanes work. I couldn't care less which game any of you choose.
-
Originally posted by Nimrod45
Well every one agrees Fighter ace sucks, but I have been on the IL-2 forum and it sounds like a really hot game. More complicated than AH, you have to contol the plane more, not just simple controls like AH, and there are more variables like clouds and wind and things that a combat simulator should have like the real troops deal with, did I forget lots more aircraft.
I own Pacific Fighters (the sequel to Il-2) and it is actually quite good...I dunno how the multiplayer is, since nobody else in my area has it, though.
-
Although, I did find it exceedingly difficult to stall/crash without actually trying to. The flight model was much worse than AH, as I'm sure was already mentioned, but I skip to the bottom of everything. :)
-
Il-2 is to AH as what AH is to FA.
Makoyouidiot, you want to go online, then go to Hyperlobby.
Benny, IL-2 is not a vector based game.
-
I downloaded Fighter Ace to get a direct comparison. As Angus said, it sucks.
The graphics appear to come out of a Tom and Jerry cartoon, which doesn't work well in a flight sim. Some of the parts of your plane look flat, demonstrated best by this screenshot of the left landing gear.
http://wikipedia.ketsujin.com/index.php/Image:MiG-3_Left_Side_Gear.jpg
The flight model is horrible. It's simply throttle up, pull up, and go. You have no fear of stalling at anything other than vertical. It's very simple and arcade-like.
Fighter Ace does have more aircraft than Aces High, however, I prefer a good flight model to a bunch of airplanes.
-
What do you meen il-2 is to AH what AH is to FA
-
Dang trying to sign up for this thing but its a pain in the areas I click free acount then set my password but it wont let me log in. Any tips?
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
Exactly. Since IL-2 lacks numerous vectors (such as the dozens which Aces High II has, as Freez pointed out), IL-2's flight model is very unrealistic and arcade. The stalls, in particular, are badly wrong. But I'm only posting this for the very few who are genuinely interested in realistic flight. The majority can keep on believing that IL-2 is realistic, since they don't really care how real airplanes work. I couldn't care less which game any of you choose.
Just out of curiousity, how is it so bad? i.e. What are these vectors of which you speak?
I'm planning to get it so I would like to understand as much as possible how it's bad. I've tried it before and other than the 'bounce' it seemed fine to me. One thing I especially like is the CV landings.... they seem more realistic but thats just my opinion.
-
Aces High II uses dozens of vectors, such as lift points and drag points. For instance, each wing has many of these lift points at which are calculated the lift based on the speed of the aircraft. Or something like that. Here's a picture.
(http://hitechcreations.com/pyro/poweron01.jpg)
IL-2 has no such thing. Contrary to what MiloMorai says, IL-2 does use vectors (currently, all flight simulators do, although the unreleased Knights of the Sky by Gennadich is supposed to be using fluid phsyics, which will be better). However, IL-2 only uses the traditional four vectors, which are lift, drag, weight, and thrust. That makes for a very, very unrealistic flight model, in particular the stalls and the drag. Aces High II's dozens of vectors make it dozens of times more precise.
You can see irrefutable proof that IL-2's stalls are terrible wrong by taking up a real airplane and stalling it and by going to Zenoswarbirdvideos.com and observing how the real fighters stall in the training video. If you're blind, the narrator even describes them. There's no excuse for not realizing that the IL-2 stalls are simply wrong.
-
Bets way to tell the IL2 stalls are wrong is to read the pilots manual for the Bf-109 and fly it any other sim, then fly it in IL2. The flight manual states, and any sim but IL2 replicates, that all you have to do to get out of a spin in a 109 is chop throttle and release the stick, with light rudder input, to recover.
In IL2, 90% of the time my spins in the 109 are irrecoverable, indeed following the procedure in the RL manual results in a more violent spin in the opposite direction.
That was what really turned me off to their FM, and it qwent downhill after that.
IL2s only saving grace is its graphics, its gunnery and damage model is total BS too.
-
I actually found the spins in IL-2 to be much easier to recover from than in Aces High II. However, that may be because I played IL-2 for far more time than Aces High II. I spent four years or so in IL-2. If only I'd known about Aces High, that would have been a lot less time wasted of the crappy IL-2 series (not to mention $200 down the toilet).
-
I was in the open beta for IL2 back when it first came out and I still flew WB regularly. All the WBers complained about the 109 FM and were told it would be fixed in the final release, it was just a testing model.
Almost 10 years on and its still the same FM...
-
Hah i bet i'll get burned at the steak for this but my avatar is an IL-2 screen xD
What can I say, i love the graphics. But I haven't had much time flying in the game.
-
Ah yes I see. But what about the turning for example? (You'll have to forgive me I'm terrible with how things get programmed) The P-51 noticeably turns horribly compared to the Spitfire in IL-2. Just wondering how that was programmed.
I'm also thinking the torque is programmed differently too, though the torque seems unrealistic on take-off. But I still admire those CV cables!
Also, I can't wait to feel those fluid physics you've talked about, Benny. If this is good, fluid must be awesome.
-
Fluid phsyics won't automatically be more realistic than the way Aces High II does it, but it does have the potential to be much more realistic. Currently, however, Aces High II's the best with it's multiple vectors. I believe X-Plane also uses multiple vectors, but fewer than Aces High II and it doesn't feel realistic at all. The Cessna in X-Plane handles absolutely nothing like the Cessnas I flew in reality. In fact, in X-Plane I crashed the thing on takeoff (and I tried X-Plane after flying the real deal). In the real Cessna, I had absolutely no problems. It was just about a hands-off thing.
-
Hah. I've never flown a real plane. I've only read a lot. Here's hoping I'm able one day to really feel what it's like. I recall being taken up in a small, single piston engine plane before. It was a tricycle gear type, high wing, non-cantilever private trainer. And I now remember that it didn't shake and wobble after every maneuver as the IL-2 planes do.
Just out of curiosity, how many flight hours have you racked up?
-
Originally posted by HoseNose
Hah. I've never flown a real plane. I've only read a lot. Here's hoping I'm able one day to really feel what it's like. I recall being taken up in a small, single piston engine plane before. It was a tricycle gear type, high wing, non-cantilever private trainer. And I now remember that it didn't shake and wobble after every maneuver as the IL-2 planes do.
Just out of curiosity, how many flight hours have you racked up?
Of course it wont shake and wobble, its slow with a low wing loading. Most civilian planes will rip their wings off if they try to maneuver at the speeds military aircraft do.
Heck, a P-51s maximum gear speed is higher than the maximum rated speed of many modern light civil craft. Especially those high-winged ones.
And of course the P-51 will turn horribly compared to a spitfire, why should that be surprising?? :huh
-
I thought I'd read over the FAQ's on Fighter Ace, to see what problems the people there encounter, and how that game works. See for yourself:
How do I use the formation autopilot controls?
To join a formation, first locate and lock onto the friendly plane you wish to form on using ALT+F4 and the next/previous target keys (. and ,). Then press CTRL+A to follow that player. Lock will be broken when that player's plane gets to 100% damage, but if it flies erratically before reaching 100%, you will have to disengage the autopilot manually by pressing CTRL+A again.
-
Who cares?
Hosenose, I only have a few hours. I'm not exactly sure, but I think five or six. But it's enough to see firsthand how real trim works and how it differs from how it works in simulators. Most simulator users, unfortunately, tend to confuse the way simulators work with reality and preach accordingly. This is a major problem because simulators are often wrong (sometimes unavoidably, as in the case of trim). A good example is the discussion we just had where some people were suggesting that, in a real airplane, trimming affected the elevator's physical limit.
Interstingly, the German fighters in World War Two worked completely differently than American ones and modern aircraft. In German aircraft, trimming actually moved the stabilizer or something like that. So in that case, trimming actually did move the elevator's physical limit. But that's an exception.
-
Oh I see. Wow, German fighters, huh? Hm I wonder if they have such a feature in-game.
Treize, by wobbling i meant after any maneuver. Not like high G immlemans and such. I just mean if you banked a little with rudder and aileron and stopped banking, your plane in IL-2 would just get back to its normal position (unless banked into a position that gravity took over) and while getting back to that position it would wobble.
-
Originally posted by HoseNose
Oh I see. Wow, German fighters, huh? Hm I wonder if they have such a feature in-game.
No. Aircraft individualities like that are not modelled. Also not modelled are different braking methods and tailwheel locking methods, nor are different speed units.