Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: BS8th_Jaw on August 09, 2007, 03:22:51 AM
-
So ive been searching the forums and havent found a solution.
My question is, with all these people who pay 15 $ A month to play, why arent we seing major changes in say, graphics? I think the gameplay is great, could use a few changes but its basically great. However the graphcis... not so great, I mean for a game like this they are decent... but IMO really outdated.. and with all that $$$ rolling in each month you would think that HTC could ugprade the graphics to something more modern? Yes, ive dled and installed the HI-res patch... but that really didnt change much... yes it made it look slightly better but not what i expected.
So my main question is for HTC, when can we expect to see a graphics update *major change such as a new graphcis engine* ?
-
With all settings maxed, hi res pack and some of better skins the game looks great.
You have to remember that this game is for online combat. Not 32 player, not 100 player, but several hundreds.
It also caters for people who don't have the latest super dooper computers so they can still play too.
This community thrives on the dogfights, the battles over land and the egos clashing. No other WW2 combat simulation provides the same overall experience.
The latest patch has made the game look better from what it was so HTC does put the effort in to improve. Some of the latest boxed games have looked very pretty and I know what point you are trying to make.
However, nearly all of these new boxed games the flight models are very poor. HT has spent alot of time perfecting the physics and I for one would prefer to have a better flight model over superb eye candy any day.
Bruv
~S~
-
i got to go with bruv on this one
:aok
-
i agree with bruv graphics are great for an online game
what were you expecting in terms of graphics cgi?
-
AH2 could use better lighting. More light sources, dynamic lights and reflections would make AH shine (no pun intended) like Il-2 does. The models and textures are excellent (although animations like retracting undercarriage and ship sinking could be done better. Smoke and fire effects could be better as well).
-
Originally posted by Viking
Smoke and fire effects could be better as well).
I've seen some of Croduh's work in the Terrain editor forum and it can be done with the tools available. Whether HT includes player made graphics in the way maps and skins are done who knows.
-
Bruv nicely put sir <
> :aok
-
Originally posted by BS8th_Jaw
So ive been searching the forums and havent found a solution.
My question is, with all these people who pay 15 $ A month to play, why arent we seing major changes in say, graphics? I think the gameplay is great, could use a few changes but its basically great. However the graphcis... not so great, I mean for a game like this they are decent... but IMO really outdated.. and with all that $$$ rolling in each month you would think that HTC could ugprade the graphics to something more modern? Yes, ive dled and installed the HI-res patch... but that really didnt change much... yes it made it look slightly better but not what i expected.
So my main question is for HTC, when can we expect to see a graphics update *major change such as a new graphcis engine* ?
What a great idea.... make the game unplayable for all the guys with low end computers. Who needs an FPS of 18 when you can have rubber bullets with a FPS of 4.
Heck....why don't these guys just get a job. Send their kids to work. Get divorced. Don't pay the mortgage for a month an get a wandango computer instead.
They may be HO freaks but at least when they HO it'll look fantastic.:aok
-
I think AH2 has a good balance of playability, looks, dl size and can be played on fairly dated machines. Alot of the players are adults who are not as spoiled or interested in very pretty graphics or computers as the younger generation of gamers who spend alot of money on their systems.
When all the planes gets updated looks its gonna be real good. Some still have the old looks and they look so bad (spoiled by the newer planes) that i usually dont fly them.
Also keep in mind that HTC is small operation unlike many of the boxed games by EA and whatnot were they have an army of guys releasing one version and thats it. Very few games have been out there as long as AH while beeing under constant development.
-
Originally posted by BS8th_Jaw
My question is, with all these people who pay 15 $ A month to play, why arent we seing major changes in say, graphics?
So my main question is for HTC, when can we expect to see a graphics update *major change such as a new graphcis engine* ?
You willing to buy me a top-end machine to run it? I work a local dirt-job out here in the sticks. The wife helps where she can. I have three growing boys, and any real good paying job is too far away to justify the cost in fuel to commute 120 miles a day.
I believe HTC is very capable of updating graphics, but they choose not to go too far out of consideration for the player base. Add to that, some of us STILL are running on dial-up in this 21st century of technology :rolleyes: :huh, so no thanks.
-
the last update htc did on the grafix once the bit about it being too dark was quickly sorted actually gave me a better frame rate.
the thing that has to be remembered is as the others have said its a game for everyone with all diferent pcs.
would like to see some of the stuff done for the se arena find there way into new maps but as people who are trying to make new arena maps have been told keep it simple.
simple so everyone can enjoy what ever there machine.
i like the look of il2 but the flying is poop.
pretty is good if it can work for every one.
dumb and good looking useual has its draw backs
-
Originally posted by rogerdee
dumb and good looking useual has its draw backs
Like Paris Hilton? :rofl
Sorry, had to say it.
-
Compare the B-17 and B-24 with the bostonIII and Ki67.
Compare the P-51 with the C202.
You think they're NOT improving it? They are!
They're also working on Combat Tour while doing all this, which explains the slower speed of the graphics upgrades. Fw190s used to look like CRAP. As did the 109E. It was butt ugly, heavy on the "butt!"
Not only has the graphics been enhanced in many ways, the features have also. More realistic cockpits with moving flight controls have been added. More vehicles and aircraft have been added. Hell we're getting the B-25 soon! In several versions!
They just revamped the entire terrain tileset, as well! Redid all the shorelines and trees and many other things. It looks much better now (well, where the map has been updated with new tiles -- some still have the random old tiles and need to be fixed).
I think they're making steady (if not "fast") progress toward a better game. That's just my opinion, based on what I described here.
-
To compare you can also take a look in and out of the cockpit of a 190 vs the TA152. The difference is huge.
-
Ive seen some AWEsome graphics on 1st person shooters, but those games cannot be played dialup, and all require gaming computers---the graphics we have here are quite good, and if THAT is your greatest concern, the major point of the game is passing you by
-
If the game is good you dont have time to notice things like that, and that is were this game shines :)
Im no uncritical fanboI by any means, but when it comes to graphics this game has what it needs in spades. One day before i have to reinstall this machine ill give the high-res pack a try. Dont think my lappy has what it takes, but it has to be tried.
-
Click here to see how many folks HTC are. (http://www.hitechcreations.com/about.html)
-
Originally posted by thndregg
Like Paris Hilton? :rofl
Sorry, had to say it.
umm Paris meets the dumb and misses on the looks.
She has the intelligence of a nail and the build of one too.
-
who cares about graphics.......get me a submarine!!!! ...a PBY to drop mines infront of the CV groups or pick up down pilots for perks ....or even get me CV groups with 3-4 CV's in it!..get me more PT spawns..get me a air transport to land tanks..get me more more MORE!!!!!!!!..ok i going back to my corner now!
999000
-
I like the gameplay with a few exceptions but I do think the graphics need to be punched up quite a bit. To be fair, I have seen MUCH worse.
-
With all settings maxed, hi res pack and some of better skins the game looks great.
You have to remember that this game is for online combat. Not 32 player, not 100 player, but several hundreds.
It also caters for people who don't have the latest super dooper computers so they can still play too.
This community thrives on the dogfights, the battles over land and the egos clashing. No other WW2 combat simulation provides the same overall experience.
Well, I've had different experiences... with settings maxed and the high res pack and extra skins... it does look bettder ill admit but nothing compared to some of the other flight Sim's on the market today.
Yes, I realize its for 100+ players but that shouldn't stop graphics development. I'm not asking for a huge gigantic awesome graphics update... just something to make the game look less like it came from the stone age of graphics. For example, when Oleg's IL2 released, it came out with two available options for graphics for users. Users could set very basic settings if their computer couldnt handle it, other users with better machines could set the graphics higher with a little know how thus giving them the experience of a lifetime by getting awesome graphics with good game play.
On the contrary, have you ever heard of World War 2 online? its a game that offers this type of game play + much much more... and soon, Oleg's battle of Britain will be coming out, according to my research his new series will offer the same exact game play as this Sim offers currently plus a lot more; ground battles (infantry as well), sea battles and air battles all packed into one - except heres where the difference will be, it will have awesome graphics and realism added into it and those two, when combined, will win players hearts.
You see, with todays gaming community, there are two types of players. Game play players and Graphics players and of course you always have the people who are in the middle who will sacrifice either for a game; meaning they would sacrifice graphics for game play or vise versa. I'm more of the third type, I love flying IL2 and I especially love the graphics that the game offers... however I think IL2 is a bit shallow on the game play side of things because it doesn't offer quite as much as say AH2 does - which is why I have started playing this Sim, yet, even though I like this Sim I'm starting to see flaws that could eventually make me stop flying it.
For instance, the flight model... I find it very unrealistic compared to IL2 - now this could just be maybe because I'm flying on the big arena's and I'm not exactly sure of their realism settings... or it could be the Sim itself... so if someone can fill me in on this that would be nice.
Also another thing that turns me off towards this Sim is its lack of historical accuracy. I come from a very historically based family so I love history (My grandpa flew in WW2 and I have heard a whole bunch of stories from him) and when I get into a flight simulator I Like to see historical accuracy as well as fun game play. IL2 kind of hit realism on the head... it still has a bunch of issues however. AH2's problem is its lack of... should I say ww2 realism? In the fact that when you takeoff instead of fighting German or Japanese Aircraft, I'm fighting mainly American and British aircraft... this just isn't fun for me same goes for ground units... when two tanks clash its usually two Panzer's vs one another... not a Panzer and a sherman. Yes I know there is a Axis vs Allies server... except theres one problem.. its always empty. I don't know why the Sim has gone this direction... because it really takes away from a WW2 simulator when you are fighting the wrong battle.
Yes I know about the FSO and me and my squad are currently signed up for the next event. I would hate to think however that this is the only time me and my squad (who are based on a historical squadron) are able to get on and fly historically.
This game has Great potential to become incredible but I believe the only thing holding it back is its graphics engine. Even though the player base is somewhat older people than usual, I still believe that those older people will want better graphics in the future.
What a great idea.... make the game unplayable for all the guys with low end computers. Who needs an FPS of 18 when you can have rubber bullets with a FPS of 4.
Heck....why don't these guys just get a job. Send their kids to work. Get divorced. Don't pay the mortgage for a month an get a wandango computer instead.
They may be HO freaks but at least when they HO it'll look fantastic.
Just to clarify before I move on, I am not attempting to be rude, if I sound rude I apologize ahead of time.
Thats a ridiculous reason... having a family does not keep a person from getting a better computer, unless of course that person is so poor that he/she can barely afford to keep a family up kept... if thats the case then why are they even involved in gaming? If things are seriously that bad... should they not be the ones who work hard to support their family and place all other things aside? And if things aren't that terrible for them, then whats to stop them from saving a little money over a period of time and buying a new upgraded computer?
Look at it this way, I have a family and I am able to support them and also I am able to save money towards my rig, which btw is not exactly top of the line. I was able to build myself a decent rig for no more than $1000.
Ive seen some AWEsome graphics on 1st person shooters, but those games cannot be played dialup, and all require gaming computers---the graphics we have here are quite good, and if THAT is your greatest concern, the major point of the game is passing you by
We aren't talking about FPS games, we are speaking about flight Sims, graphics for both kinds of games are VERY different from one another. One concentrates on small graphics such as weapons, player models and buildings. The other concentrates on airplanes and scenery. And as I stated above the graphics are not my greatest concern about this Sim, its just the one thats really jumping out at me.
If the game is good you don't have time to notice things like that, and that is were this game shines
Im no uncritical fanboI by any means, but when it comes to graphics this game has what it needs in spades. One day before i have to reinstall this machine ill give the high-res pack a try. Dont think my lappy has what it takes, but it has to be tried.
Its fairly good yes, but the original thing that caused me to notice the rather outdated graphics was the lack of historical accuracy on the game play side of things (lack of Axis vs Allied). That was the first thing I noticed, the second thing was the flight model, and the last thing was the graphics.
Don't get me wrong, I still like this Sim, it has way more to offer to a squadron than IL2 does (which like I said already is why me and my squadron have activated in this Sim). Hopefully when Combat Tour comes out, it will make up for the lack of Axis vs Allied in the current installment of the game.
Overall yes I do believe that the graphics are really decent for this type of a Sim. The thing I'm afraid of is that when better Sims come out *Oleg's Battle of Britain* it will pull a whole lot of the player base from this Sim to that Sim.
-
Originally posted by LYNX
What a great idea.... make the game unplayable for all the guys with low end computers. Who needs an FPS of 18 when you can have rubber bullets with a FPS of 4.
Heck....why don't these guys just get a job. Send their kids to work. Get divorced. Don't pay the mortgage for a month an get a wandango computer instead.
They may be HO freaks but at least when they HO it'll look fantastic.:aok
So before you bust a gasket you going to have to come back down to earth before the sky is falling. Upgrading the graphics doesn't neccessarily mean you have to toss your computer to the wayside. Welcome to the world of programming where different graphic options can be intiated to make all kinds of computer playable.
Reflections on the water? Uncheck that box. Atmospheric fog? Uncheck that box. Directx 9 or Directx 8 mode? Select what your video card can handle. And the list can go on and on.
So before you get on the bandwagon of bashing different graphics upgrades and automatically assuming your 30 fps will now become 5, take a look at pretty much any other game out there.
Look at World of Warcraft, a pretty new game compared to the age of AH2. The minimum specs for that massive mutliplayer are as follows. Granted it probably doesnt look pretty but you can still play the game.
800 MHz or higher CPU.
256 MB or more of RAM.
32 MB 3D graphics card with hardware Transform and Lighting, such as GeForce 2 or better.
4 GB or more of available hard drive space.
DirectX® 9.0c or above.
A 56k or higher modem with an Internet connection.
Yes, a GF2, thats 7 years old...
-
I look at it this way. What we play now is a loooooooong way from these "stone age graphics":
(http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/3264/flightsim64vx1.gif)
I'm pretty comfortable with Aces High.
-
ha ha .... so Oleg's BoB sim is gonna support 500+ players .... lmao
I doubt it ... it will be another il2 boxed h2h room sim .
-
"On the contrary, have you ever heard of World War 2 online? its a game that offers this type of game play + much much more... and soon, Oleg's battle of Britain will be coming out, according to my research his new series will offer the same exact game play as this Sim offers currently plus a lot more;"
You've touched on a topic that some of us have discussed before (in other threads). You might be able to search for it, but allow me to sum up.
WW2OL is a ground game. It will always be a ground game. The Aircraft are thrown in there, and it is not a real flight sim. The air aspect of it is simply pathetic compared to almost every other sim out there (AW, WB, FA, AH, IL2). It doesn't count, to me, as a "flight" game. No more than BF1942 counted.
IL2's another can o' worms. IL2's flight physics are a joke. While they add new "features" to each new add-on/stand-alone, the root code itself hasn't changed since the first IL2 game was released. PF has better graphics, sure, but it's still the same flight code, the same physics, just with different 3D models and lighting effects. It's a dated system, to say the least. On top of that, the original flight model is absurdly arbitrary. Flaps work like super speed brakes on all aircraft. They work the SAME on all aircraft. The lift and flight code makes EVERY plane fly almost identically to every OTHER plane in the game. You can take up a P-39 or a Fw190, and aside from the parameters that cause it to stall out, it's the exact same identical plane. Same for most planes.
In AH you actually FEEL like you're in a 190 or a p51 or a zero. AH's physics model (how forces act on a plane in any given case) isn't perfect, but is by far the best out there until some future as-yet-unstarted game is developed.
The only thing IL2 has over AH, in my opinion, is that when you stall out in IL2, it's more of an immersive feeling of stalling out and fluttering over. That's a minor point though.
Oleg is totally arbitrary in how he assigns weapons damaging, reversing himself several times. First he makes 50cal very strong, then he makes them very weak. Then he makes them as strong as depleted uranium shells. He changes the performance of planes based on the griping of folks in the forums that "thought" they should be better.
HTC models weapons after the real strengths of the WW2 weapons. They model the plane performance off of the best WW2 historic performance. For example, Oleg models the Ki84 with high-octane US fuel (based on a post-war test where one was given high-end US fuel), but the Japanese never had this fuel, nor this performance, nor this capability in the war. HTC models it on historic performance charts based on the fuel it actually used when it flew in combat. You see the difference?
Oleg just pumps out cookie-cutter games (all the same physics with new graphics), while HTC actually does their best to make a damned good flight model (and on TOP of that are STILL introducing new features AND new graphics!)
So, IMO, neither of the two games you mentioned are even semi-accurate. IL2 is mostly a scripted, linear, offline-mission based game, and it does a decent job when you fly it offline. It won't ever match HTC for accuracy or "fun." WW2OL doesn't even count.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Snip
Hmm twice in less than 7 days.
Run people the world is ending.
:noid :noid
Bronk
-
Well all I'm going to say is AH has come a long way from what it used to be. But if you are not happy with that progress, and so hard up for graphics like iL2's or ww2ol, then go play those :) Even though iL2 and ww2ol is NOTHING like AH.
Also there was a comment about the Battle of Britain release and being able to host 500 people.. well at any given time there's at least 250 people on and quite possibly all the way up to 800 depending on the night and time. iL2 would cream their pants if they ever seen numbers like that.
HTC in general has enuff things to worry about than boosting up the graphics which at this point in completely unnecessary. Lets worry about getting our planes modeled correctly, getting the B25, new maps, and CT.
-
Awww, what the heck it had to end sooner or later.. :O
-
You've touched on a topic that some of us have discussed before (in other threads). You might be able to search for it, but allow me to sum up.
WW2OL is a ground game. It will always be a ground game. The Aircraft are thrown in there, and it is not a real flight sim. The air aspect of it is simply pathetic compared to almost every other sim out there (AW, WB, FA, AH, IL2). It doesn't count, to me, as a "flight" game. No more than BF1942 counted.
IL2's another can o' worms. IL2's flight physics are a joke. While they add new "features" to each new add-on/stand-alone, the root code itself hasn't changed since the first IL2 game was released. PF has better graphics, sure, but it's still the same flight code, the same physics, just with different 3D models and lighting effects. It's a dated system, to say the least. On top of that, the original flight model is absurdly arbitrary. Flaps work like super speed brakes on all aircraft. They work the SAME on all aircraft. The lift and flight code makes EVERY plane fly almost identically to every OTHER plane in the game. You can take up a P-39 or a Fw190, and aside from the parameters that cause it to stall out, it's the exact same identical plane. Same for most planes.
In AH you actually FEEL like you're in a 190 or a p51 or a zero. AH's physics model (how forces act on a plane in any given case) isn't perfect, but is by far the best out there until some future as-yet-unstarted game is developed.
The only thing IL2 has over AH, in my opinion, is that when you stall out in IL2, it's more of an immersive feeling of stalling out and fluttering over. That's a minor point though.
Oleg is totally arbitrary in how he assigns weapons damaging, reversing himself several times. First he makes 50cal very strong, then he makes them very weak. Then he makes them as strong as depleted uranium shells. He changes the performance of planes based on the griping of folks in the forums that "thought" they should be better.
HTC models weapons after the real strengths of the WW2 weapons. They model the plane performance off of the best WW2 historic performance. For example, Oleg models the Ki84 with high-octane US fuel (based on a post-war test where one was given high-end US fuel), but the Japanese never had this fuel, nor this performance, nor this capability in the war. HTC models it on historic performance charts based on the fuel it actually used when it flew in combat. You see the difference?
Oleg just pumps out cookie-cutter games (all the same physics with new graphics), while HTC actually does their best to make a damned good flight model (and on TOP of that are STILL introducing new features AND new graphics!)
So, IMO, neither of the two games you mentioned are even semi-accurate. IL2 is mostly a scripted, linear, offline-mission based game, and it does a decent job when you fly it offline. It won't ever match HTC for accuracy or "fun." WW2OL doesn't even count.
I'm beginning to wonder if anyone here has ventured outside of AH2 and played IL2 1946 at all because frankly what you stated above about IL2 is not true. The part about the fuel I haven't researched so I wouldn't know about it.
Yes the Sim has its problems and oleg has reversed his decisions many times (I've been with the Sim since day 1) but thats what happens with games, decisions are made and sometimes reversed and revised.
IL2's another can o' worms. IL2's flight physics are a joke. While they add new "features" to each new add-on/stand-alone, the root code itself hasn't changed since the first IL2 game was released. PF has better graphics, sure, but it's still the same flight code, the same physics, just with different 3D models and lighting effects. It's a dated system, to say the least. On top of that, the original flight model is absurdly arbitrary. Flaps work like super speed brakes on all aircraft. They work the SAME on all aircraft. The lift and flight code makes EVERY plane fly almost identically to every OTHER plane in the game. You can take up a P-39 or a Fw190, and aside from the parameters that cause it to stall out, it's the exact same identical plane. Same for most planes.
That statement there tells me that you havent flown il2 1946. Because it isn't true at all. Flaps do not work as super speed breaks on the aircraft in il2, if you were to attempt to use them that way you would either jam them or throw your airplane into a spin/stall. The part about the lift flight code is false, aircraft do not all fly the same in il2. For instance, a zero will climb faster than a wildcat and the wildcat actually stalls out first in a climb due to its heavier weight - since the zero is lighter it climbs alot faster. Each separate aircraft you fly in il2 is different and requires you to learn the airplane before you can become a decent pilot in it. If what you said is true, then that would cut out the learning part as you could just go up in any aircraft and have it act exactly the same as the plane your fighting.
I find il2's flight model does have some problems yes, but I do believe it is better than most people believe I find its way more complex to fly. First time I hopped in a plane in ah2 I couldnt believe how easy it was to pickup any aircraft I flew... it seems easier which kind of takes the challenge out of it for me.
So before you bust a gasket you going to have to come back down to earth before the sky is falling. Upgrading the graphics doesn't neccessarily mean you have to toss your computer to the wayside. Welcome to the world of programming where different graphic options can be intiated to make all kinds of computer playable.
Reflections on the water? Uncheck that box. Atmospheric fog? Uncheck that box. Directx 9 or Directx 8 mode? Select what your video card can handle. And the list can go on and on.
So before you get on the bandwagon of bashing different graphics upgrades and automatically assuming your 30 fps will now become 5, take a look at pretty much any other game out there.
Look at World of Warcraft, a pretty new game compared to the age of AH2. The minimum specs for that massive mutliplayer are as follows. Granted it probably doesnt look pretty but you can still play the game.
800 MHz or higher CPU.
256 MB or more of RAM.
32 MB 3D graphics card with hardware Transform and Lighting, such as GeForce 2 or better.
4 GB or more of available hard drive space.
DirectX® 9.0c or above.
A 56k or higher modem with an Internet connection.
Yes, a GF2, thats 7 years old...
Good point, I agree 100% with this. Settings can be changed to suit a users computer setup.
Well all I'm going to say is AH has come a long way from what it used to be. But if you are not happy with that progress, and so hard up for graphics like iL2's or ww2ol, then go play those Even though iL2 and ww2ol is NOTHING like AH.
Also there was a comment about the Battle of Britain release and being able to host 500 people.. well at any given time there's at least 250 people on and quite possibly all the way up to 800 depending on the night and time. iL2 would cream their pants if they ever seen numbers like that.
HTC in general has enuff things to worry about than boosting up the graphics which at this point in completely unnecessary. Lets worry about getting our planes modeled correctly, getting the B25, new maps, and CT.
I come from the IL2 crowd, and yes the numbers were impressive... but it was hardly orgasmic worthy.
WW2OL may not be the best, and the flight Sim part of it may not be the best either regardless it is a direct competition Sim for AH2.
Olegs BOB will suppport more than 500 people, its a fact and well known to the il2 crowd. And regardless of what you may think when it releases it will be a direct competitor for people who fly this sim.
Also, il2 is more than an offline flight Sim, there is a huge online community for IL2 (which brings me back to my original point of that you must have never really experienced IL2).
-
personally I think every 3d model that has been added recently and will be added soon is top notch work far superior in accuracy and representation of the real thing than those boxed games with the unreal engine that the boxed game makers are paying millions for in licensing.
that being said I have always prefered the atmosphere of openGL over direct3d hands down.
I think the terrain will be technologically ready for another subdivision after a while it would seem to my eye that although the ah2 style of terrain is higher resolution it is heavily limited by the inability to combine any texture at will with any other and has some pretty sever blocking and grid effect the higher altitude gets. its a bit of a jigsaw pattern problem with 4 textures being interconnected with a + grid in their middle.
-
Originally posted by BS8th_Jaw
I'm beginning to wonder if anyone here has ventured outside of AH2 and played IL2 1946 at all because frankly what you stated above about IL2 is not true. The part about the fuel I haven't researched so I wouldn't know about it.
Yes the Sim has its problems and oleg has reversed his decisions many times (I've been with the Sim since day 1) but thats what happens with games, decisions are made and sometimes reversed and revised.
The fuel issue is correct. Here's the thing. Oleg hasn't "made a bad decision" in regards to the 50cals... He's made a decision. Then reversed it due to mob rule. Then reversed THAT due to a different mob rule. He doesn't care about how his game works as long as he makes money so he panders to the crowed. He simply said "this shall be X damage," then some time later totally changed his mind and said "this shall be X*3 damage," for no reason other than yells and cries from the community. He did not base it on historic values and strengths. This boggles the mind, as the historic values are readily available. He's making up numbers for things when the real numbers can be found with a little work. That's not revising his decision, it's flip-flopping on his game's core values as if they don't matter at all to him.
That statement there tells me that you havent flown il2 1946. Because it isn't true at all. Flaps do not work as super speed breaks on the aircraft in il2, if you were to attempt to use them that way you would either jam them or throw your airplane into a spin/stall. The part about the lift flight code is false, aircraft do not all fly the same in il2. For instance, a zero will climb faster than a wildcat and the wildcat actually stalls out first in a climb due to its heavier weight - since the zero is lighter it climbs alot faster. Each separate aircraft you fly in il2 is different and requires you to learn the airplane before you can become a decent pilot in it. If what you said is true, then that would cut out the learning part as you could just go up in any aircraft and have it act exactly the same as the plane your fighting.
That's not what I meant. As I said, the parameters change (speed, power, climb, etc) from plane to plane, but ALL planes fly and feel the same. They all feel almost identical, and that's just wrong. While the zero may turn tighter circles around a f6f because of the lower stall speed, it still feels like a generic plane, indestinct from all other planes. That is not about the speed/climb. It's about the entire feel of the flight sim. If you don't understand what I mean, perhaps you aren't familiar with non-IL2 flight sims? I lack the articulation to describe it best, but others have agreed with me in the past so I'm not alone in noticing this.
P.S. I meant below "jam" speeds for the flaps.
WW2OL may not be the best, and the flight Sim part of it may not be the best either regardless it is a direct competition Sim for AH2.
No, they both have entirely different audiences. WW2OL is a competitor for games like BF2 and the like. The main focus is indivuduals on the ground. Aces High is designed as an air warfare game. To that end the game focuses on the air aspect with some vehicles thrown in. WW2OL focuses on the ground aspect with some vehicles (planes) thrown in. There is a distinction. They are not direct competitors. If somebody wants to fly they will choose AH. If they aren't really much for realistic flying they'll fly Airfix Fighters, or WW2OL.
Olegs BOB will suppport more than 500 people, its a fact and well known to the il2 crowd. And regardless of what you may think when it releases it will be a direct competitor for people who fly this sim.
Also, il2 is more than an offline flight Sim, there is a huge online community for IL2 (which brings me back to my original point of that you must have never really experienced IL2).
Trust me, I have. I know about the IL2 community. I know about pretty much all of it. Sure, IL2 is an AH competitor, no doubt about it. It's not the same though. It's more a matter of "I want an apple, and I want an orange, but can only afford one," instead of "I want an apple, can only afford one, but can't decide between Granny Smith or Safeway brand."
By that I mean the same audience enjoys both games, but one is an apple the other is an orange. Related, yes, competitors, yes, but IL2 BOB replacing AH? Not too likely.
I know there is a big online IL2 movement, but it still pales compared to Aces High. It's not a matter of numbers. It's something harder to define. Simply upping the numbers allowed on a server isn't going to improve the game. That's like saying upping the numbers on a Counter-Strike server to 500 is going to make it just as fun to play as WOW, because it'll have the same numbers. There are too many other differences to add up.
I'm not a rabid AH "fanboi"... I've tried many other games. I've been looking for other flight sims over the years because I enjoy this genre so much. There was a time I was snapping up every game demo I could for every jet sim out there.
I soon tired of them all, except AH. I've stuck with that since the beginning. Every time I install WB, I uninstall it again after a few sorties. Every time I install IL2 again, I only can stomach the flight model for so long before I stop playing it. I keep it for when the mood strikes me, but when I take off in a 109F in AH2 it feels a lot more like a 109F than when I do it in IL2. In IL2 it feels the same as a lagg3, or a yak9, or a p39, or a fw190... Performs a little different, mind you, but feels the same. One of many reasons I don't prefer IL2.
-
Originally posted by PK1Mw
But if you are not happy with that progress, and so hard up for graphics like iL2's or ww2ol, then go play those :)
Typical suck up to HT attitude. What is wrong with wanting the game to look better?
HTC in general has enuff things to worry about than boosting up the graphics which at this point in completely unnecessary.
That is your opinion and nothing more. I remember my first day in the game. It was a disapointment as far as the looks go. Even now. The sun for example should not be in front of the mountains.
Lets worry about getting our planes modeled correctly, getting the B25, new maps, and CT.
Well, the models have been perfect since day one :rofl
new maps are done by players (I think)
and the CT will be done in 2 weeks
-
Originally posted by thndregg
I look at it this way. What we play now is a loooooooong way from these "stone age graphics":
(http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/3264/flightsim64vx1.gif)
I'm pretty comfortable with Aces High.
Funny thing is that we all had a blast with games that looked that way. Kinda makes you wonder what we will be playing 10 years from now
-
Originally posted by BS8th_Jaw
WW2OL may not be the best, and the flight Sim part of it may not be the best either regardless it is a direct competition Sim for AH2.
Last time I played ww2ol there were significantly less players there than AH. And its air war graphics were significantly inferior not to mention the flying-in-a-fog-bubble. Methinks you do not speak from experience.
Ever played in one of AHs organized events? No? Try it, nothing else compares and you'll see AH at its best.
MA is just furballing practise. Events are the real game.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Funny thing is that we all had a blast with games that looked that way. Kinda makes you wonder what we will be playing 10 years from now
We'll be playing this:
(http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/airport-denver-photo20b.jpg)
:D
-
Originally posted by dedalos
Typical suck up to HT attitude. What is wrong with wanting the game to look better?
That is your opinion and nothing more. I remember my first day in the game. It was a disapointment as far as the looks go. Even now. The sun for example should not be in front of the mountains.
Well, the models have been perfect since day one :rofl
new maps are done by players (I think)
and the CT will be done in 2 weeks
Your still around... why?
-
Originally posted by BS8th_Jaw
For example, when Oleg's IL2 released, it came out with two available options for graphics for users. Users could set very basic settings if their computer couldnt handle it, other users with better machines could set the graphics higher with a little know how thus giving them the experience of a lifetime by getting awesome graphics with good game play.
IL2 is also a boxed game and unlike AH. Since the main way of getting AH2 is via download, the file size has to be kept in mind. How would you like to have to sit through downloading a 1gig+ game like IL2 on a dial up connection? Even on broadband it takes some time.
On the contrary, have you ever heard of World War 2 online? its a game that offers this type of game play + much much more... and soon, Oleg's battle of Britain will be coming out, according to my research his new series will offer the same exact game play as this Sim offers currently plus a lot more; ground battles (infantry as well), sea battles and air battles all packed into one - except heres where the difference will be, it will have awesome graphics and realism added into it and those two, when combined, will win players hearts.
WW2OL's graphics aren't stellar and if you haven't played it (sounds like you haven't) then you wouldn't know that the FM sucks, I mean really sucks and is only decent if you enjoy the ground combat portion. Think twice about using WW2OL as an example of "what to do" as it's a better example of "what not to do".
Oleg's game will most likely (if the posts on their forums is any indication) the same multiplayer format his current crop of games. With all the delays that game has already suffered and will most likely the release date will be pushed back further (rumor is 2nd/3rd quarter of '08 and game was scheduled to be released in '06) that AH will probably have been updated a few more times with additional aircraft and some more graphic optimizations and hopefully Combat Tour. I don't see any threat from Oleg and the Rodina to HiTech.
You see, with todays gaming community, there are two types of players. Game play players and Graphics players and of course you always have the people who are in the middle who will sacrifice either for a game; meaning they would sacrifice graphics for game play or vise versa. I'm more of the third type, I love flying IL2 and I especially love the graphics that the game offers... however I think IL2 is a bit shallow on the game play side of things because it doesn't offer quite as much as say AH2 does - which is why I have started playing this Sim, yet, even though I like this Sim I'm starting to see flaws that could eventually make me stop flying it.
You're an eye candy sort of player that would gladly sacrifice realism for great graphics. Typical casual sim player.
For instance, the flight model... I find it very unrealistic compared to IL2 - now this could just be maybe because I'm flying on the big arena's and I'm not exactly sure of their realism settings... or it could be the Sim itself... so if someone can fill me in on this that would be nice.[/b]
Nothing to fill in, it's just a matter of your perception. But I really do hate to burst your bubble but AH has the better flight model.
Also another thing that turns me off towards this Sim is its lack of historical accuracy. I come from a very historically based family so I love history (My grandpa flew in WW2 and I have heard a whole bunch of stories from him) and when I get into a flight simulator I Like to see historical accuracy as well as fun game play. IL2 kind of hit realism on the head... it still has a bunch of issues however. AH2's problem is its lack of... should I say ww2 realism? In the fact that when you takeoff instead of fighting German or Japanese Aircraft, I'm fighting mainly American and British aircraft... this just isn't fun for me same goes for ground units... when two tanks clash its usually two Panzer's vs one another... not a Panzer and a sherman. Yes I know there is a Axis vs Allies server... except theres one problem.. its always empty. I don't know why the Sim has gone this direction... because it really takes away from a WW2 simulator when you are fighting the wrong battle.
This is not a World War II simulator. This is a game that simulate aerial combat using World War II aircraft. If you want to "recreate" the war then WW2OL should be your next stop.
I mean think about it...in World War II did they fight for God, country and sheep? Last time I checked, there weren't any countries called Bishops, Knights and Rooks. So please, don't play the "this isn't a historically accurate game" card.
Take part in scenarios, FSO/Snapshots and the AvA arena if you want a more historical plane match-up.
This game has Great potential to become incredible but I believe the only thing holding it back is its graphics engine. Even though the player base is somewhat older people than usual, I still believe that those older people will want better graphics in the future.
This game has already reached the "incredible" level, no potential at all about it. It is also by far the best online combat flight sim available. You'll find that most of the player base for these sort of games tends to be on the "older" side of things, while it's grown in the last few years, online flight sims is still pretty much a niche game and will attract older players more readily than younger ones.
ack-ack
-
500 people is either 5 hordes of 100 , 50 hordes of 10 or whatever combination possible :D
-
Originally posted by Krusty
We'll be playing this:
(http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/airport-denver-photo20b.jpg)
:D
blah civilian flying is boring.. i need my guns
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
blah civilian flying is boring.. i need my guns
Oh that was just MSFS MCCXVI :D
Janes "Classic Fighters of the 1900s" will look more like this:
http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/050429-F-3961R-003.jpg
-
BS8th_Jaw,
1st offf, welcome to Aces High, and what is your ingame gameid?
2nd, I think you would be amazed or surprised at how many Aces high community members/online players actually play both IL-2 and Aces High at the same time.aloong with a good number of Aces High members who are probably caught up in playing 3 to 4 online WW2 flight sims at the same time
Aces High 2,
Targeware's: Target Rabual, Target Midway, Target Korea
Warbirds II / III ( in which if you were un aware, hitech had his hand in the making of WB's btw )
long ago we had AirWarrior ( hitech also helped in the programming of that game as well )
players also play Fighter Ace, wwiionline, we used to have 4vs4/8vs8 rooms on Jane's Combat Fighter network
and a good majority of the Aces High community has probably been and was in to the flight sim scene long before IL-2 ( or any of its add on packs ), Fighter Aces, Targetware, Jane's Online combat fighter s, wwiionline , had ever even became a thought in peoples minds....yet we all are still here, alot of us give each new up and coming online flight sim a fair shake down........
and what some people ahve typed in this thread is fact..
you are comparing apples to oranges.......
talking about a new IL-2 1946 Bob addon /er game is no different than HTC building an add-on /stand alone game part to HTC called Combat Tour........
before slamming another games flight model though, you should really do research and have facts and not opinions.......that is best for everyone and reduces any flaming or flame baiting
check out the events, check out AvsA on Tues and Thrus nights ( usually draws a good crowd ),
register for the upcoming Scenario, Scenario's "ROCK".......if you want historical fun, just like FSO's on fridays and also the individual snapshot events.......
again, welcome you and your squad to Aces High
~S~
-
I see now that I came off somewhat antagonistic. For that I apologize. I welcome you as well, and stand by the points I made, but am sorry for the un-neighborly tone I took.
-
BoB game looks great. I don't believe it is supposed to be released for another 5 months but here is a preview I found... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9OWQ55n8ig (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9OWQ55n8ig)
IF (Such a huge huge word) that game has over 500 in an arena... wooooooooooooohooooooooooo!
AH guys have a lot of talent and I hope they will step up and top this. It certainly is something to hope for! :-D
-
Originally posted by BS8th_Jaw
WW2OL may not be the best, and the flight Sim part of it may not be the best either regardless it is a direct competition Sim for AH2.
Ummm.....no. Not even close. 90's graphics do absolutely nothing for me.
Granted, theres room for improvement, but AH is way way farther ahead of WWIIOL graphically. And sorry, dressing up 4 year old airframes in a new dress does not constitute an update. Believe me, after paying for it since 2001, theres no one who would like to see that game advance more than me...but I simply dont see it.
-
Whats really funny is BS8th_Jaw has no Idea how many of us have All the il2 games sitting in our box of games ...
I myself have all of those, plus Janes, Fighter ace 1-3,WB 1-3,CFS 1-3,MSFS ,targetware,lomac, wings over vietnam,BF 1942, crimson skys, DOA, plus others .
Most of us have flown all these games and more . Theres a reason we're all huddled together here in AH ... (I'll leave that to you to figure out)
-
Heh, pretty much the same collection..although I couldnt bring myself to buy BF1942. :D
DOA I& 2 were a blast! 3 totally killed the community...that and the simultaneous killing off of 2.
-
Oh the argument between graphic quality and game play. AH graphics aren't too bad, they could be better, but overall I am pleased with them. I am hooked on this game because of the game play. I have played many games that looked good, but had horrible gameplay (I.E. Madden 07 on PS3. Ended up buying Madden for the ps2 due to the horrible game play on the ps3 version...I hope this Madden holiday yields a good game for the ps3). :aok
-
What I can't figure out is why BS8th_Jaw is playing AH? I mean really if the game is so much more inferior than IL2 why stay?
BS8th_Jaw, you may be taking a bit of flak here for coming in on your high horse, but those of us who have been here for ever have seen the steady changes AH has made over the years. You come in and what a few days, weeks, know whats wrong and what needs to be done to improve AH. I think if you take the time to get to know the community, and and the company HTC, you'll understand why so many people rise up to defend "their" game and HTC.
-
Originally posted by BS8th_Jaw
Its fairly good yes, but the original thing that caused me to notice the rather outdated graphics was the lack of historical accuracy on the game play side of things (lack of Axis vs Allied). That was the first thing I noticed, the second thing was the flight model, and the last thing was the graphics.
What am I missing here. You dont like the histirical accuracy, the flight model(s) or the graphics. What exactly is it you DO like thats keeping you from going somewhere else?
-
Originally posted by Bruv119
With all settings maxed, hi res pack and some of better skins the game looks great.
You have to remember that this game is for online combat. Not 32 player, not 100 player, but several hundreds.
It also caters for people who don't have the latest super dooper computers so they can still play too.
This community thrives on the dogfights, the battles over land and the egos clashing. No other WW2 combat simulation provides the same overall experience.
The latest patch has made the game look better from what it was so HTC does put the effort in to improve. Some of the latest boxed games have looked very pretty and I know what point you are trying to make.
However, nearly all of these new boxed games the flight models are very poor. HT has spent alot of time perfecting the physics and I for one would prefer to have a better flight model over superb eye candy any day.
Bruv
~S~
no one could have said it better than the first reply.
S!
-
See, you all have misunderstood what im talking about here.
I did not say I hated the game, on the contrary I like playing AH. I am only making a point that with the amount of money that the company takes in they should be able to provide a slightly better graphics system.
And as a real world pilot, I believe that the flight model in this game is not as realistic as people seem to think. IL2's flight model system is a bit closer to what feels natural in a real aircraft, or at least to me. Im not saying that the flight model is terrible, but im not saying its great, im just saying its good but still needs some work.
And please don't speak to me as if I have not been around, I've flown nearly every flight Sim I could get my hands on and have settled with IL2 and AH, mainly because those two have the biggest player base and the best game play/graphics. I have played ww2OL and don't care for it, I've also played War birds (didn't care much for it either) as well as several of the old titles you guys' have listed, so your aren't the only ones who have done their research on flight Sims.
As I stated before, me and my squadron are enrolled in the FSO and are planning on a few other events as well - also as I stated before however, I would hate to think that that is the ONLY time that me and my squadron can enjoy some nice historically based game play. Which is why I brought up the part about the online arena's not being AvA. I also stated that this is the main reason for us becoming active in AH2, because it offers more of a squadron based online community than IL2 does.
Im not attempting to be ruled out as the bad guy here, im just merrily taking a stand and wondering about future graphics updates for the game and if the y will improve to be a lot better than the current graphics.
Oh, and btw, I am not the eyecandy type of person, if I was, i would have never came here, dled the game, and started playing it. If I was the eye candy type of person i would have skipped this Sim altogether and just kept playing my IL2.
As far as the feeling the airplane thing goes, I know exactly what you are talking about and I get that in IL2 because each aircraft is different - I also get it here.
-
Originally posted by BS8th_Jaw
And please don't speak to me as if I have not been around, I've flown nearly every flight Sim I could get my hands on and have settled with IL2 and AH, mainly because those two have the biggest player base and the best game play/graphics. I have played ww2OL and don't care for it, I've also played War birds (didn't care much for it either) as well as several of the old titles you guys' have listed, so your aren't the only ones who have done their research on flight Sims.
Let me ask this question then since you didn't answer my last one. Exactly how long have you been flying on-line flight sims?
Many of us have been around since the early to mid '90's, some as far back as the '80's with on-line flight sims.
The ones most popular have always featured "open arenas", those which allowed you to fly whatever you wanted to. Likewise, they have all featured three countries. These two factors alone seem to be key ingredients to on-line success and nessesarily rule out the historical accuracy aspect. Because of that, each of them has also included scenarios to bring that aspect into play for those that want it.
As to the flight models, I'm not a real world pilot but you, I'm guessing, have never flown a WWII fighter either. Therefore, the only guage as to which is more realistic is matching the models in the various sims to real world test data for each specific aircraft. You mentioned that you've done your research. Have you really? Visit the Aircraft and Vehicle forums. Scroll through the topics. Actual test data vs. AH modling is discussed regularily. The players keep the heat on HTC to model these things correctly. That said there is room for improvement in specific models, but I'm convinced that when I hop into whtever I hop into that it's as close to the real thing as I'm going to find in a flight sim.
Relative to graphics, is there room for improvement? Yes. Is it nessesary? In my opinion no. I will lobby as I'm one of those with an antiquated machine but in other games they provide graphic options which still allow me to play, albeit minus some of the eye-candy, and I'm sure they could do the same here. But that's not the issue in my mind. I'd like to see HTC spend their limited resources on further developing the plane-set/vehicle-set and enhancing gameplay than spending it on developing a new graphics platform that is just fine the way it is, and that has been what they've done in the past.
Don't get me wrong here. I'm not trying to rip on you but I've been around for a long time and for me at least, it's the balance between diversity, playability and immersion. I've never seen it all but HTC does a great job in balancing these things. Why do you think all of these people who have been around so long have all gravitated here?
Welcome aboard. We'll probably be discussing things like this for the next decade or so.
-
How do those B24 cockpit and gun positions look in IL2? Oh wait,..... never mind.:t
-
Another thing to note...
If you have flown AcesHigh for less than 6 months (1 year really) then you have no clue about it's FM.
It takes at least that long to get a good "feel" for the various aircraft and how they perform.
You will be able to do things in your planes after flying for a year you couldn't even dream of pulling off when you first start.
That's one of the things I love about AcesHigh.
I agree that the IL2 flight modeling is "flat". All the planes do indeed fly pretty much the same. (And yes i've flown WarBirds, AirWarrior, Fighter Ace, WW2Online, Aces High, and IL2. Been at this for almost 12yrs now)
I'm surprised nobody brought up the IL2 view system yet.
(edit: you want historical? click the CALENDAR (http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/calendar.php?s=) link at the top of the page here)
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rules #4, #5
-
i agree the sun when its cut in half at sunrise/sunset and a few other graphical errors do seriously detract from the visual experience.
but really dedalos, i know your point is correct, but to me it looks like the majority who reply against graphical improvements are listing the decent and accurate reasons for it, not just sucking up.
that being said the thread starter has every right to start this thread on this topic, its a good topic and one that really would be nice to get some HTC feedback on.
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
but really dedalos, i know your point is correct, but to me it looks like the majority who reply against graphical improvements are listing the decent and accurate reasons for it, not just sucking up.
Well, if they are it is pure luck. HT does not report to me what his plans are, what he can do, what he is whilling to spend to do them, etc etc. Maybe he does report to them.
My point is that saing we dont need better graphics or that someone should just leave if they dont like something about the game is total BS.
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
i agree the sun when its cut in half at sunrise/sunset and a few other graphical errors do seriously detract from the visual experience.
Speaking of the sun, would it hurt to include a pair of sunglasses in every plane. Come on, we all know WWII pilots rocked the Aviators. :rofl
-
Originally posted by TwentyFo
Speaking of the sun, would it hurt to include a pair of sunglasses in every plane. Come on, we all know WWII pilots rocked the Aviators. :rofl
Or to be able to read the map? :rofl
-
Somebody post some old AW screenshots for the gentleman :D
-
Originally posted by Vudak
Somebody post some old AW screenshots for the gentleman :D
Why? I don't play that game. If I ever do I may ask for improvements. I want my game to be beter, thats all
-
Why? I don't play that game. If I ever do I may ask for improvements. I want my game to be beter, thats all
Your argument is you wish a game with nicer looking graphics. Translating that statement to mean "a better game" is not necessarily true. So no you do not wish a better game, but rather just make an argument for your wishes and then make a claim about only wanting a better game. And then try claim that all other people do not wish the same thing.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by hitech
Your argument is you wish a game with nicer looking graphics. Translating that statement to mean "a better game" is not necessarily true. So no you do not wish a better game, but rather just make an argument for your wishes and then make a claim about only wanting a better game. And then try claim that all other people do not wish the same thing.
HiTech
What???? :huh Dude, you over analized it a bit don't you think?
What if I used "better looking game"? That better?
And then try claim that all other people do not wish the same thing.
:confused:
-
I would consider with all else being equal, that ah2 with better graphics would be a "better" game than ah2 with worse graphics. Just my 2 cents, I understand others don't want that.
-
Let me ask this question then since you didn't answer my last one. Exactly how long have you been flying on-line flight sims?
Many of us have been around since the early to mid '90's, some as far back as the '80's with on-line flight sims.
The ones most popular have always featured "open arenas", those which allowed you to fly whatever you wanted to. Likewise, they have all featured three countries. These two factors alone seem to be key ingredients to on-line success and nessesarily rule out the historical accuracy aspect. Because of that, each of them has also included scenarios to bring that aspect into play for those that want it.
I have been flying flight Sims for over 10 Years, since I was around the age of 13, which goes back into the 90's for me.
Now let me ask you a question, why does it really matter how long I have been around flight Sims or been flying them? Even if people have been around a little bit longer or a lot more longer than I have that doesn't mean that my opinion does not count or isn't as important as the other person - I am still a paying customer.
As I stated before, my beef is not with the game play it is with the graphics ( if you can call it a beef). My point about the game play is this, this style of game play (all planes for all sides) tends to attract people who really aren't as serious about flight Sims as the rest of the crowd. It tends to draw people who are only hungry for the action of a ww2 flight Sim and who aren't entirely interested in the flying part of it. As an example, in il2 servers most the players attempt to work together, fly formation with one another and work as a team. The most teamwork I've seen in this Sim so far (at least on the big arena's) is people helping get someone off another players six. And yes I realize that in the special events that teamwork does happen... but what my opinion is, is I don't believe that it should take a special event to get teamwork to happen in a ww2 Sim, because ww2 was based on teamwork, its the only way the war was won by the allies... which is why I believe that a good ww2 Sim needs to concentrate more on teamwork than anything else. Again this is just my opinion on the whole matter and I'm not trying to get it changed.
As to the flight models, I'm not a real world pilot but you, I'm guessing, have never flown a WWII fighter either. Therefore, the only guage as to which is more realistic is matching the models in the various sims to real world test data for each specific aircraft. You mentioned that you've done your research. Have you really? Visit the Aircraft and Vehicle forums. Scroll through the topics. Actual test data vs. AH modling is discussed regularily. The players keep the heat on HTC to model these things correctly. That said there is room for improvement in specific models, but I'm convinced that when I hop into whtever I hop into that it's as close to the real thing as I'm going to find in a flight sim.
Whether I've flown a ww2 fighter or not (which btw, I have had the opportunity to go up in a trainer from ww2) the physics that act on a aircraft are all the same physics, all that changes is how the specific aircraft can handle those physics acting upon the aircraft and the performance level of that said aircraft. I have not bothered to read through the aircraft and vehicles forum yet, I haven't gotten to it quite yet but I will in the future I'm sure.
Alot of people who haven't flown a real world aircraft can hop into a Sim of their choosing and instantly say "Its real, it acts like a real plane does" because they haven't had the experience of a real world flight. But until they do hop into a real airplane and take a real flight they really don't have a clue about how a real aircraft works in midflight. (Not hitting on you, just a general statement).
I do believe that they have become very close to accurately portraying the real world aircraft counterparts but some things still need some work.
Relative to graphics, is there room for improvement? Yes. Is it nessesary? In my opinion no. I will lobby as I'm one of those with an antiquated machine but in other games they provide graphic options which still allow me to play, albeit minus some of the eye-candy, and I'm sure they could do the same here. But that's not the issue in my mind. I'd like to see HTC spend their limited resources on further developing the plane-set/vehicle-set and enhancing gameplay than spending it on developing a new graphics platform that is just fine the way it is, and that has been what they've done in the past.
Don't get me wrong here. I'm not trying to rip on you but I've been around for a long time and for me at least, it's the balance between diversity, playability and immersion. I've never seen it all but HTC does a great job in balancing these things. Why do you think all of these people who have been around so long have all gravitated here?
I'm merrily just attempting to get HTC's opinion on this matter and everyone else's input as well to see what the future holds for this Sim and whether or not it can compete with the larger Sims coming out on the market soon. Because I do believe (and this is my opinion) that when the larger Sims come out on the market with similar game play and much better graphics (SW:BOB) that it will pull a bunch of the player base from this game. Because like stated before, not everyone is a buff for just simply game play and graphics really do matter to people.
I understand the whole part about the balance between the three rules of a game and how to make it popular and I do believe that HTC has done their Homework so to speak and have done a good job with this Sim. It is still my opinion however that this style of game play takes a whole lot of experience away from a player. For example, in IL2 (which is AvA based) when I go up in a p40-E and run into an enemy KI-43 I actually have to work for my kill and it is a great challenge to shoot an enemy plane down. Reason being when you engage an enemy airplane in IL2 if you do not know the stats of that aircraft and how it performs you simply do not shoot it down unless the pilot makes a really stupid mistake.
This is the immersion part of the game, as in ww2 a fighter pilot had to know his enemies aircraft just as well as he knew his aircraft, so he could exploit the strength's and weakness's of the enemy aircraft and come out the victor in the battle.
I feel that in AH2 this does not happen nearly as much because dogfights take place on such a large scale and against so many different aircraft you don't have time to sit and think "ok this ones a f4 well I know that its fast, so my p40 cant really keep up with it, oh and I know I can turn tighter so my options are short" you see the f4 you engage and in seconds the dogfight is over with and then your next target is something completely opposite such as a fw190 or a 109 or usually in AH2 its an American or British aircraft coming at you.
heres what I'm getting at, with this style of game play that the game uses (air, ground, sea) it wouldn't take a special event to recreate the biggest battles in ww2 if the arena's would operate AvA (I can imagine it right now, mass formations of b17's escorted by squadrons of p51's getting jumped by a group of fw190's) (or a large formation of he-111's on their way to bomb out Britain and getting jumped by squadrons of hurricanes and spits) Thats the style of game play im talking about and like I said before yes I realize this happens within the special events but I hate to think thats the only time it happens.
Your argument is you wish a game with nicer looking graphics. Translating that statement to mean "a better game" is not necessarily true. So no you do not wish a better game, but rather just make an argument for your wishes and then make a claim about only wanting a better game. And then try claim that all other people do not wish the same thing.
IMHO AH2 with a extreme graphics overhaul would really increase the quality of the game, thus bringing more players to the game, thus benefiting HTC in an increase in monthly funds, thus making them happy. Like I stated before, alot of people don't fly this sim because of the graphics. One of my own squadmates is a prime example, he refused to play this game because the graphics sucked or so he said. Yes he is one of the people who likes graphics.
Oh and about the immersion part, don't you guys believe that having better graphics would provide a more immersive feel for the game? Giving the player a better experience? Obviously HTC does or they never would have produced the High Res pack.
Some discussion we're having here, but I would like to request people to attempt to keep it clean... and please try not to flame each other... this is a rather interesting and intelligent discussion but it all can be ruined by flaming... so please if you do not have something to say on the subject of the topic at hand please don't say it at all? That way the discussion can move on (yes I'm a person who likes to have a good debate every now and then)
***ps***
Well, if they are it is pure luck. HT does not report to me what his plans are, what he can do, what he is whilling to spend to do them, etc etc. Maybe he does report to them.
My point is that saing we dont need better graphics or that someone should just leave if they dont like something about the game is total BS.
I agree whole heartedly with what you said.
Btw, my ingame name is the same as on the forums. BS8thJaw.
-
Il-2 does not model the specific quirks of the various aircraft. It just uses a generic flight model and tweaks it for wing loading and powerloading.
That is why all the aircraft feel similar. The A6M does not lock up at 350mph, for example.
Physics do not act the same on every aircraft. Wing and body shape have a massive effect on how an aircraft performs as speeds, power, weight and altitude change.
-
I fly the Il2 series a lot Karnak, I have to completely disagree... The FMs are about the same as AH except you have to work a bit harder to fly the plane... Individual plane-specific problems are modeled including engines catching fire in jets when you improperly manipulate the throttle. or the famous FW high speed stalls (grrrrr)
I spend more hours there than I do here and I know the differences in the planes. I didnt fly the series when it was first released and that may have been the case back then but its nothing like that since PF was released
-
"I'm merrily just attempting to get HTC's opinion on this matter and everyone else's input as well to see what the future holds for this Sim and whether or not it can compete with the larger Sims coming out on the market soon."
-------------------------------------------
i think its the other way around ... All the other sims have to attempt to compete With Ace's High .
-
With all due respect, since you wanted that friendly debate, and I'm bored ;)
Originally posted by BS8th_Jaw
Now let me ask you a question, why does it really matter how long I have been around flight Sims or been flying them? Even if people have been around a little bit longer or a lot more longer than I have that doesn't mean that my opinion does not count or isn't as important as the other person - I am still a paying customer.
Indeed you are. However, you are also one with less experience at this game, and these forums. As such, you wouldn't, and couldn't, realize certain things. Such as how HiTech's own personal plane is modelled in this game for him to test things such as "feel."
As I stated before, my beef is not with the game play it is with the graphics ( if you can call it a beef). My point about the game play is this, this style of game play (all planes for all sides) tends to attract people who really aren't as serious about flight Sims as the rest of the crowd. It tends to draw people who are only hungry for the action of a ww2 flight Sim and who aren't entirely interested in the flying part of it.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here at all. Please clarify.
As an example, in il2 servers most the players attempt to work together, fly formation with one another and work as a team. The most teamwork I've seen in this Sim so far (at least on the big arena's) is people helping get someone off another players six. And yes I realize that in the special events that teamwork does happen... but what my opinion is, is I don't believe that it should take a special event to get teamwork to happen in a ww2 Sim, because ww2 was based on teamwork, its the only way the war was won by the allies... which is why I believe that a good ww2 Sim needs to concentrate more on teamwork than anything else. Again this is just my opinion on the whole matter and I'm not trying to get it changed.
No offense, but that basically strikes me as the common, "people should have to play my way" philosophy. To be blunt, I have news for you. You're never going to get that to happen. There is no real way to *force* people to use group tactics, play as a team, whatever, in the MA, or in Il-2. You've simply encountered a group of people who enjoy working as a team in Il-2, and have yet to encounter one of the many groups of people who enjoy doing the same in Aces High.
Check around the squads, fly with a few. Some are very teamwork-centered, while others have a much looser structure. Different strokes and all.
Whether I've flown a ww2 fighter or not (which btw, I have had the opportunity to go up in a trainer from ww2) the physics that act on a aircraft are all the same physics, all that changes is how the specific aircraft can handle those physics acting upon the aircraft and the performance level of that said aircraft. I have not bothered to read through the aircraft and vehicles forum yet, I haven't gotten to it quite yet but I will in the future I'm sure.
Alot of people who haven't flown a real world aircraft can hop into a Sim of their choosing and instantly say "Its real, it acts like a real plane does" because they haven't had the experience of a real world flight. But until they do hop into a real airplane and take a real flight they really don't have a clue about how a real aircraft works in midflight. (Not hitting on you, just a general statement).
There are many, many real life pilots in this game, including the owner. HiTech has even flown a P-51 before. Have you?
I do believe that they have become very close to accurately portraying the real world aircraft counterparts but some things still need some work.
And when HTC finds something is wrong, they tend to fix it. If they don't, we all scream bloody murder :D Of course, they don't fix things on a whim. They rely on solid data.
I'm merrily just attempting to get HTC's opinion on this matter and everyone else's input as well to see what the future holds for this Sim and whether or not it can compete with the larger Sims coming out on the market soon. Because I do believe (and this is my opinion) that when the larger Sims come out on the market with similar game play and much better graphics (SW:BOB) that it will pull a bunch of the player base from this game. Because like stated before, not everyone is a buff for just simply game play and graphics really do matter to people.
If graphic quality is what is most important to them, by all means, they should enjoy themselves with Il-2. Aces High is, however, plenty good enough for me :)
It is still my opinion however that this style of game play takes a whole lot of experience away from a player. For example, in IL2 (which is AvA based) when I go up in a p40-E and run into an enemy KI-43 I actually have to work for my kill and it is a great challenge to shoot an enemy plane down. Reason being when you engage an enemy airplane in IL2 if you do not know the stats of that aircraft and how it performs you simply do not shoot it down unless the pilot makes a really stupid mistake.
Are you saying that it is not challenging for you to shoot down planes in Aces High? If so, you're either the next coming of Leviathan or simply running into less talented/experienced players.
This is the immersion part of the game, as in ww2 a fighter pilot had to know his enemies aircraft just as well as he knew his aircraft, so he could exploit the strength's and weakness's of the enemy aircraft and come out the victor in the battle.
We have to do this too... Not being an AvA format doesn't change this whatsoever... If anything, it doubles the workload...
I feel that in AH2 this does not happen nearly as much because dogfights take place on such a large scale and against so many different aircraft you don't have time to sit and think "ok this ones a f4 well I know that its fast, so my p40 cant really keep up with it, oh and I know I can turn tighter so my options are short" you see the f4 you engage and in seconds the dogfight is over with and then your next target is something completely opposite such as a fw190 or a 109 or usually in AH2 its an American or British aircraft coming at you.
Oh, you have time to think of it, you're just not experienced enough yet. Give it time. It will come.
heres what I'm getting at, with this style of game play that the game uses (air, ground, sea) it wouldn't take a special event to recreate the biggest battles in ww2 if the arena's would operate AvA (I can imagine it right now, mass formations of b17's escorted by squadrons of p51's getting jumped by a group of fw190's) (or a large formation of he-111's on their way to bomb out Britain and getting jumped by squadrons of hurricanes and spits) Thats the style of game play im talking about and like I said before yes I realize this happens within the special events but I hate to think thats the only time it happens.
We actually have a dedicated Axis vs. Allies arena...
IMHO AH2 with a extreme graphics overhaul would really increase the quality of the game, thus bringing more players to the game, thus benefiting HTC in an increase in monthly funds, thus making them happy. Like I stated before, alot of people don't fly this sim because of the graphics. One of my own squadmates is a prime example, he refused to play this game because the graphics sucked or so he said. Yes he is one of the people who likes graphics.
Graphics do get updated from time to time, but it is a small team that has other things on its plate. Primarily, producing CT, which IS the AvA, teamwork oriented, total immersion game that you have been asking for in much of your essay. You can't have it all at once, you know.
Oh and about the immersion part, don't you guys believe that having better graphics would provide a more immersive feel for the game? Giving the player a better experience? Obviously HTC does or they never would have produced the High Res pack.
Sure, but my, and apparently, most of the customer basis' priorities are different. If graphics were our #1 priority, we wouldn't be here. We have other options, as you've stated.
Some discussion we're having here, but I would like to request people to attempt to keep it clean... and please try not to flame each other... this is a rather interesting and intelligent discussion but it all can be ruined by flaming... so please if you do not have something to say on the subject of the topic at hand please don't say it at all? That way the discussion can move on (yes I'm a person who likes to have a good debate every now and then)
Ok, now you're asking for the world :D
-
3 things I'd like to add to:
1) Teamwork in AH main arenas. It's there. However, in IL2 you get a "pitched battle" where 1 flight of enemy slams head first into 1 flight of friendly (for example). You slug it out until one side is dead. Aces High has a constantly moving amorphous fight, that can dynamically triple in size or peter out and die away. Your wingman dies, he can reup and rejoin you while you're still in the same fight. You die, you can get back to the SAME fight and it's still going on. You may think this is a lack of teamwork. It's a sort of community teamwork. Your country's pilots are all working to help you in that fight, even if they're not on your particular radio channel or winging with you specifically. When you get to know a few folks and make some friends you actually can start winging up, but you have to know who you like to fly with, their flying style, your flying style, if you work well together (if you both have compatible attitudes, etc). Until you wing up with them or join a squad like that, you'll feel somewhat alone. Find some "friends" and the teamwork begins. It doesn't have to be wingman pairs and strict structure, but you're in close proximity and you're covering each other, and the experience is much more fun than without it.
So until you find some folks you don't mind flying with, you will feel there is a lack of teamwork. It's a matter of what you consider teamwork. AH teamwork has a more relaxed attitude, simply because of the dynamics of finding and engaging the enemy. Strict structures of flying only work when there are strict structures of engagement.
2) Your P40 analogy. That applies to any game. Only in this game if a P40 goes up against a zeke the p40 has to stay fast and not turn-fight the zero. You know (of course) that a P40 will be dogmeat it he gets into a turn fight. However, you don't only have to rely on the enemy making a mistake (but this is most helpful!), you simply have to know your strengths and the strengths of the enemy, your situation, your energy states, etc. If you have alt on the enemy you could cut more angles than you would if he had alt on you. In the end, you STILL have to know your plane and the enemy plane. Whether it's AH or IL2. That doesn't make a difference. It's good to fly many planes in AH so you know their capabilities (and better, you know how to kill them!). Once you know this, you won't even have to pause and think "what can he do?" you just instantly know. It's like knowing what a word means. You don't need to think, you look at it and understand due to repetition of its use.
3) Grapics making the game better... Yes and no. I won't say that graphics alone make a game better or worse, but focusing on graphics at the exclusion of important game code and features is a recipe for disaster. Look at HalfLife2. Long-awaited, critically-acclaimed, a masterpiece of an offline game with amazing graphics (which take up much more processing power). However the online play is a farging JOKE. The game is so loathed and hated that both DOD and CS died almost instantly overnight and still have not recovered many years after the fact. HL1 was one of the most interesting game platforms for 5 years after it was obsolete, because of the net code. The models and game limits were ugly as sin, but the gameplay was SOOOOO sweet you didn't care. Take Tribes2. Tribes1 had decent graphics for its time, and better gameplay. I devotd (and I don't use that word lightly) my life to it for 2 years, so wonderful was the gameplay. Tribes2 goes so far out into left field adding new graphics and special effects that it totally rewrites the gameplay and it's no longer fun. It didn't kill the community overnight, but it was a very quick death. So, if you have a good game and try to make the graphics better, that's one thing, but it's a slippery slope where graphics meets game change.
Say you want to make the shoreline look better? Hrm... well now you've got to rework how the entire terrain system works. While you're at it you have to recode how all of the water system works. Now you've got to divide the geometry of the landmass itself to get more complex shorelines, requiring more system requirements, and essentially a massive ground-breaking code change that affects everything from ditches to trees to collisions to runways to GVs to bomb hits to every aspect of gameplay, just to make the shorelines "look better." What I'm getting at is, if you start out just to make things look better for no reason, you have to take into consideration how it's going to change the entire gameplay and code processing of the rest of the game. AH focuses on gameplay changes over graphics changes (but has both). IL2 focuses almost entirely on new graphics and plug-n-play plane add-ons, with very few changes to the underlying code. IL2 sells mostly based on eye candy. AH2 sells mostly based on performance and experience. You can't expect folks here (more concerned with accuracy and realism, so to speak) to worry as much about eye candy when they're already enjoying the game. It would be nice, but we don't want to screw up what's already "working."
-
Originally posted by BS8th_Jaw
I have been flying flight Sims for over 10 Years, since I was around the age of 13, which goes back into the 90's for me.
Now let me ask you a question, why does it really matter how long I have been around flight Sims or been flying them? Even if people have been around a little bit longer or a lot more longer than I have that doesn't mean that my opinion does not count or isn't as important as the other person - I am still a paying customer.
I never said that your opinion doesn't count or isn't as important as another persons. I asked because if you had been around ON-LINE flight sims for any length of time the concept of everything against everything in a three country fomat wouldn't be at all foriegn to you, which it sounds as though it is.
As I stated before, my beef is not with the game play it is with the graphics ( if you can call it a beef). My point about the game play is this, this style of game play (all planes for all sides) tends to attract people who really aren't as serious about flight Sims as the rest of the crowd. It tends to draw people who are only hungry for the action of a ww2 flight Sim and who aren't entirely interested in the flying part of it.
You are exactly 180 degrees wrong on this. Stick around for a while, you'll see what I mean.
As an example, in il2 servers most the players attempt to work together, fly formation with one another and work as a team. The most teamwork I've seen in this Sim so far (at least on the big arena's) is people helping get someone off another players six. And yes I realize that in the special events that teamwork does happen... but what my opinion is, is I don't believe that it should take a special event to get teamwork to happen in a ww2 Sim, because ww2 was based on teamwork, its the only way the war was won by the allies... which is why I believe that a good ww2 Sim needs to concentrate more on teamwork than anything else. Again this is just my opinion on the whole matter and I'm not trying to get it changed.
Teamwork happens all of the time in this game. Krusty stated it quite well in that teamwork here is more fluid than structured.
Just last night I worked with several countrymen to capture a base. We were all in communication, knew what each other were doing and were coordinating our efforts to achieve our goal.
Squads work together constantly in team environments. Go up against the AK's or the LTAR's some night or beware my own little fighter squad as we set up kills for and cover one another.
Post or join a mission in the MA's. You can have P-51's covering B-17's as you mention later in this post.
Whether I've flown a ww2 fighter or not (which btw, I have had the opportunity to go up in a trainer from ww2) the physics that act on a aircraft are all the same physics, all that changes is how the specific aircraft can handle those physics acting upon the aircraft and the performance level of that said aircraft. I have not bothered to read through the aircraft and vehicles forum yet, I haven't gotten to it quite yet but I will in the future I'm sure.
Alot of people who haven't flown a real world aircraft can hop into a Sim of their choosing and instantly say "Its real, it acts like a real plane does" because they haven't had the experience of a real world flight. But until they do hop into a real airplane and take a real flight they really don't have a clue about how a real aircraft works in midflight. (Not hitting on you, just a general statement).
I do believe that they have become very close to accurately portraying the real world aircraft counterparts but some things still need some work.
While I've never piloted a plane both my father and brother were pilots so I've spent some time flying (not counting 1000's of hours in commercial jetliners).
You are correct in stating that physics are physics. To say that all that changes is how the specific aircraft can handle those physics acting upon the aircraft and the performance level of that said aircraft is an oversimplification.
Consider just a few variables. Engine performance at varying altitudes, prop thrust vs. engine power, wing lift and critical angle of attack at varying altitudes.
It's not as simple as power vs. weight ratios, lift and thrust. Each of these is affected differently at different altitudes by different aircraft.
I'm merrily just attempting to get HTC's opinion on this matter and everyone else's input as well to see what the future holds for this Sim and whether or not it can compete with the larger Sims coming out on the market soon. Because I do believe (and this is my opinion) that when the larger Sims come out on the market with similar game play and much better graphics (SW:BOB) that it will pull a bunch of the player base from this game. Because like stated before, not everyone is a buff for just simply game play and graphics really do matter to people.
You did get his opinion in a manner. Who do you think you just quoted.
"LARGER sims". Please explain.
I understand the whole part about the balance between the three rules of a game and how to make it popular and I do believe that HTC has done their Homework so to speak and have done a good job with this Sim. It is still my opinion however that this style of game play takes a whole lot of experience away from a player. For example, in IL2 (which is AvA based) when I go up in a p40-E and run into an enemy KI-43 I actually have to work for my kill and it is a great challenge to shoot an enemy plane down. Reason being when you engage an enemy airplane in IL2 if you do not know the stats of that aircraft and how it performs you simply do not shoot it down unless the pilot makes a really stupid mistake.
This is the immersion part of the game, as in ww2 a fighter pilot had to know his enemies aircraft just as well as he knew his aircraft, so he could exploit the strength's and weakness's of the enemy aircraft and come out the victor in the battle.
I feel that in AH2 this does not happen nearly as much because dogfights take place on such a large scale and against so many different aircraft you don't have time to sit and think "ok this ones a f4 well I know that its fast, so my p40 cant really keep up with it, oh and I know I can turn tighter so my options are short" you see the f4 you engage and in seconds the dogfight is over with and then your next target is something completely opposite such as a fw190 or a 109 or usually in AH2 its an American or British aircraft coming at you.
It's no different here. If you don't know your plane and your opponent's inside out your not going to last long.
No, you won't have time to think "ok this ones a f4 well I know that its fast, so my p40 cant really keep up with it, oh and I know I can turn tighter so my options are short", you'll just know it instinctively and move on to the 190 or the 109 which you'll also know instinctively what tactics to employ against.
heres what I'm getting at, with this style of game play that the game uses (air, ground, sea) it wouldn't take a special event to recreate the biggest battles in ww2 if the arena's would operate AvA (I can imagine it right now, mass formations of b17's escorted by squadrons of p51's getting jumped by a group of fw190's) (or a large formation of he-111's on their way to bomb out Britain and getting jumped by squadrons of hurricanes and spits) Thats the style of game play im talking about and like I said before yes I realize this happens within the special events but I hate to think thats the only time it happens.
This is a "play my way" type of statement. That's what the AvA and scenarios are for.
IMHO AH2 with a extreme graphics overhaul would really increase the quality of the game, thus bringing more players to the game, thus benefiting HTC in an increase in monthly funds, thus making them happy. Like I stated before, alot of people don't fly this sim because of the graphics. One of my own squadmates is a prime example, he refused to play this game because the graphics sucked or so he said. Yes he is one of the people who likes graphics.
Oh and about the immersion part, don't you guys believe that having better graphics would provide a more immersive feel for the game? Giving the player a better experience? Obviously HTC does or they never would have produced the High Res pack.
Sure, I'd love better graphics if it doesn't affect download time, load time, performance or further development related to planes and/or vehicles or gameplay.
I think if you spend the time to visit the Aircraft and Vehicle, Wishlist and Bug Reports forums you'll have a better understanding of where immediate priorities lie in the eyes of this community and a better understanding of the care that goes into modeling the planes and vehicles in the game.
You've still avoided answering the question posed in my first post though. If you dont like the histirical accuracy, the flight model(s) or the graphics what exactly is it you DO like thats keeping you from going somewhere else?
-
(http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/1117/sl00atvsivent05lt2.jpg)
This is the thread that doesn't end,
Yes, it goes on and on, my friend.
Some people started posting it not knowing what it was,
And they'll continue posting it forever just because...
This is the thread that doesn't end....:rolleyes:
-
Can IL2 be played dialup?
-
Originally posted by hitech
Your argument is you wish a game with nicer looking graphics. Translating that statement to mean "a better game" is not necessarily true. So no you do not wish a better game, but rather just make an argument for your wishes and then make a claim about only wanting a better game. And then try claim that all other people do not wish the same thing.
im pretty sure this comment relates to thread starter, not dedalos.... ???
what i saw was dedalos saying NO to graphics and YES to the current version of AH2.
i could be wrong.
-
Originally posted by thndregg
(http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/1117/sl00atvsivent05lt2.jpg)
This is the thread that doesn't end,
Yes, it goes on and on, my friend.
Some people started posting it not knowing what it was,
And they'll continue posting it forever just because...
This is the thread that doesn't end....:rolleyes:
C'mon, now, this is two days old... I think you've jumped the gun with this one :D
-
Ill put it this way...
What would you rather, more planes and features, or pretty planes and features that do nothing to improve gameplay?
Ill go with the former.
-
Originally posted by Motherland
Ill put it this way...
What would you rather, more planes and features, or pretty planes and features that do nothing to improve gameplay?
Ill go with the former.
Why not BOTH? I think that was the point he was making.
-
If eye-candy is what floats your boat....you should go else where.
-
Didn't we get a graphics update not too long ago?
The new terrain tiles look excellent.
I personally would like to see a re-vamp of the clouds and the oceans. The clouds look good now but there is room for improvement.
The sea needs a new animated model too.
The old planes also need to be updated.
Other than that i don't really see any problems with the graphics, and even in the state they're in, i don't really notice any major effect on the gameplay immersion factor.
-
Originally posted by Vudak
C'mon, now, this is two days old... I think you've jumped the gun with this one :D
Oops! Sorry. :p
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
Why not BOTH? I think that was the point he was making.
I dont think HTC has the rescources to do both.
Just a little change in lighting will make the game look great though. I think it looks pretty good right now.
-
OMG my head hurts!.....................just give me a sub!.....
999000
-
the planes look AWSOME, the flight model, is beyond anything else available..
the effects.. are.. sub par.. I.E. hits on aircraft.. a 7.6mm hit looks the same as a 30mm hit..
the terrain.. equally below what most people are used to in terms of eye candy is it functional? yes, very. but its again, its not up to par with with, for example IL2..
BUT really, those are the only REAL gripes about this game I can think of, which puts it FAR ahead of anything else at this point..
-
Originally posted by Snubby
the effects.. are.. sub par.. I.E. hits on aircraft.. a 7.6mm hit looks the same as a 30mm hit..
One might infer you've never landed a hit (ever) with the 30mm if you make a claim such as this.
Just a heads-up :aok
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Ive seen some AWEsome graphics on 1st person shooters, but those games cannot be played dialup, and all require gaming computers---
Improving graphics wont affect network traffic/latency unless its taxing your CPU to its maximum. Most graphics enhancements are going to affect your video card and RAM more than your CPU.
I'm overall happy with the AH graphics except for the old cockpits which are still hanging around. My only graphics gripe at the moment is of the fire and smoke effects on the ground (burning hangars etc looks quite cheap).
I'd also like to see some better ground textures. Mountains so often have fields and farms on steep inclines. Some rock-faces etc in appropriate places would be nice. And some coastlines with cliffs rather than a beach would really help with realism.
-
Coming from AW and flying on and off in here this game has been a step up in graphics. I do have two questions to ask. Has anyone who claims to have played a long time in AH noticed the fog is back? I had heard it's very realistic. I'd sure like to understand in what part of the virtual world this WWII flight/dogfight sim is located. I fly all the time and it's pretty rare day that I'm not in CAVU. In fact, if it was always like we see here in AH2 I'd suspect that most GA pilots wouldn't bother flying much. Also, if anyone ever saw any actual movies from aerial combat over Great Britain or Germany one thing that stood out over all else. High altitude contrails against a deep blue sky.
This raises question #2...I've seem to remember already having gone down the fog route with the change over from AH to AH2. Reasons alluded to back then was so many people flying = FR drops. Add fog, FR stays up. People complained daily the owners saw the light and the fog went away. Has something changed so the game requires fog to still be playable?
Many players have enough trouble just trying to fight and not get shot down, including myself. Not being able to see if the bad guy is coming at you or going away doesn't help and a new monitor doesn't help much. This is a change that many new members might not even know about if they haven't seen how good it was.
Thank you for listening
-
Those who want somewhat improved effects and clouds in ah click my sig.
-
What fog are you talking about? :confused:
-
I think cheesedip thinks fog is something different.
The fog in AH is by the horizon. It's that "fading into the distance" thing. I notice it here on bad days. On a bad day (hazy, poluted) you can't see the mountains too well (I'm in Denver). However on a clear day you can make out every detail and the mountains behind them as well. Sometimes it's limited visibilty, sometimes unlimited.
The fog in AH simply limits what has to be displayed. Anybody close enough to be seen as a dot you will still see coming or going. Fog won't affect your gameplay for the most part.
-
I would like to see some of the long-lost graphics from AH1 (and II). Namely:
-The palm trees (like there used to be on Mindnao)
-The camoflauge-net vehicle hangers (as the 2 new spread out hangers on the VB's)
-The rocks (like there were in the canyons of Pizza but without the exploding when you run into them part)
-The desert (like the high plains of Pizza)
-The deciduous trees/forests (like we had just before this last update)
This would all be in addition to what we have now, sprinkled around the right places.
It would be nice to see trees/forests change with elevation and/or proximity to water.
BTW, I agree with cleaning up the buildings on the steep hillsides (speaking of that remember those huts that used to be on the hillsides?) and adding some rock-face/cliffs along the seasides.
I would think most of these graphics, already having been developed, wouldn't take too long or too much effort to integrate but I could be wrong.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Ive seen some AWEsome graphics on 1st person shooters, but those games cannot be played dialup, and all require gaming computers---the graphics we have here are quite good, and if THAT is your greatest concern, the major point of the game is passing you by
Pretty much all that play those types of games competively or are hardcore players turn the graphic settings down to minimum when playing.
ack-ack
-
Yes, I've noticed the "fog". Now I see planes about about 7000 yards (if I'm lucky). Of course, I've also seen it on HT's new flat screen monster and it's much different. One thing that seems to help is to keep your gamma as low as possible. It's a trade-off for me, see the enemy planes or read my dash. Oh well, I guess even virtual life is about compromise. :D
-
Originally posted by NoBaddy
Yes, I've noticed the "fog". Now I see planes about about 7000 yards (if I'm lucky). Of course, I've also seen it on HT's new flat screen monster and it's much different. One thing that seems to help is to keep your gamma as low as possible. It's a trade-off for me, see the enemy planes or read my dash. Oh well, I guess even virtual life is about compromise. :D
How bad can it be if you can see a plane 7K or 10K out?
-
The only thing in this game that should look good is the plane. If you're looking at anything besides another plane, or doing anything other than trying to shoot the aforementioned plane, you're a sissy, and you're wasting bandwidth. Please stop.
Yes, as has been said about four million times now, il2 has better eyecandy, but at least in AH, you can look around and see how ratty things are.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
The only thing in this game that should look good is the plane. If you're looking at anything besides another plane, or doing anything other than trying to shoot the aforementioned plane, you're a sissy, and you're wasting bandwidth. Please stop.
Yes, as has been said about four million times now, il2 has better eyecandy, but at least in AH, you can look around and see how ratty things are.
Your opinion really counts NOT !!!:furious You are from the desert areas of shouth Chicago or as you call it "Indiana" . Anything would look good to you :D
-
Originally posted by NoBaddy
Yes, I've noticed the "fog". Now I see planes about about 7000 yards (if I'm lucky). Of course, I've also seen it on HT's new flat screen monster and it's much different. One thing that seems to help is to keep your gamma as low as possible. It's a trade-off for me, see the enemy planes or read my dash. Oh well, I guess even virtual life is about compromise. :D
I'm sorry. I don't know how long you've been playing and I mentioned it's been on and off for me. You mentioned you notice fog now. Were you around when there was none? It seems to me if something was working and now it's not except for a few people with high end flat screens then compromise is game induced for a select few. I have tried gamma sliding. I've moved the gamma to both extremes. Nothing really helps. I use a Dell CRT which is very crisp and clear. 7000 yards? I have trouble seeing a plane turn in front of me at 2200 yards because the fog washes out planes. I use my monitor for clear color definition prior to printing to get vivid color prints but AH2's ocean, for example, is a dull shade of grey. What ever happened to deep blue?
For years I've stopped by, read the forums and heard the Company has tried to go middle of the road to allow all different types of computer setups with the game. They always did a great job. My P4 2.6 Ghz, 9800 video card had worked well. Now it's appears to be inadequate because someone got a new monitor and changed the views to fog? I already asked the question, "how realistic is that?" I'm looking out the window of my home and can see a clear blue sky with some wisps of high level cirrus. I try to get into the game and fog is all I get.
I also mentioned I tried the game for a while when it was AH. The skies were crystal clear. The change to AH2 occured and fog showed up. It was all but unplayable. It was so bad I left but stayed in touch with some friends. They told me it was fixed and I came back and looked. It wasn't quite as clear as the original AH was but worked well. The only difference between the old fog and the new fog is the old fog had tiles on the ground. The new fog doesn't.
I remember the days in AW when a fast computer got you a frame rate of 17. An upgrade to a new computer cost $1000 and go you a frame rate of 20. That was considered good because when you rolled the plane your view didn't look like a Blue Angle doing an 8 point roll to 90 degrees of bank angle. It appears as though a change of thinking has occcured and players may have to begin "keeping up with the Jones", just to be able to play the game. In those days there were changes made and it greatly effected frame rate. I'm not so sure adding personal eye candy for one player helps the whole community and being married with kids and pets I'm not sure I can afford it. It would be nice for the programmers to continue to provide a great game with a great view for all to play.
Some people may call this complaining. Others may call it an honest assessment of the game. Call it anything you want but it's one mans opinion. Nothing more or less.
-
:lol
I know exactly what you mean with the "8 point roll" thing. I started AW on an 8 mgz Atari ST. :)
I was an alpha tester here. Yes, I know what it was like before the haze was added. I would suggest you try dinking with the gamma. Lowering it did help somewhat.
dedalos...
Options are a nice thing to have. Waiting until I'm engaged to find that all the other baddies are above me is annoying. I would much prefer to have the option to hike my skirt up and run away screaming like a lil gurl!!!! :)
-
Cheesedip,
Try changing your horizon setting here: http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/graphics.html
or try shift F1, shift F2, shift F3 or shift F4 to change your viewing distance.
-
If you can't see a plane 2k out you have monitor or video card settings problems.
You admit it's set up for printing -- but this usually means it is set so at the expense of all other programs that use your monitor. Either you're set up for print or you're set up for best color. Rarely will the 2 coincide.
Try making a profile for your current settings, then another with all your tweaking REMOVED. Restore the monitor to default values across the board, and your video card as well. Make sure your AH gamma is set to default ("1").
-
OK OK OK.....I'll jump on the graphics bandwagon ...if you can get me a Blonde with big "guns" instead of "tatertot' as a co-pilot!
999000
-
NoBaddy, I've moved the gamma bar all over the place. Other than things get brighter or darker the clarity remains the same. Atari? Hehe. I started flying with a Mac. I can't remember if it had a 100 Mhz CPU but I had to upgrade the CPU in my Mac a few times until I finally got over 20 frames per minute. There were different plug-in, after market, CPU's available for a few hundred bucks. I also paid an hourly rate to fly that wasn't very cheap and the internet gateway was a bulletin board. I think there were only a few providers that you could access flying through.
Furious, I saw the check and uncheck the box for better visibility and will give it a try. I don't like using the F keys because I don't experience too much of a frame rate drop. It seems to maintain 55-65 most of the time.
Krusty, I've been flying on and off for years and have used the same card and settings the whole time. My mentioning color saturation for printing was used to show I've very familiar with card settings and setting up for this game.
Thank you all for the hints and tips.
My concern is like an old story, "There once was a game called AH. It played almost like the real thing in the virtual world of aerial combat. Then one day, along came a man from Texas who bought himself a new flat screen monitor". Well, you get my drift. It's kind of like God telling Noah to build an Ark without providing him with the design specs to have all of the animals come aboard and thrive once the flood was over. How many get left behind because they can't afford a new monitor?
I remember when the arena held 600 people and there was at least that many up on weekends. Visibilty was not an issue even with so many flying in the same arena. The frame rate wasn't even bad. I have no idea why someone would just make it so hard to see. I wonder if it's because of this so called eye candy? I'm not sure that I'm seeing much of a change in the air except of the programmer induced fog. I must say I like the wispy clouds and it doesn't appear to effect my frame rate much and is very realistic. The fog is anything but realistic. Maybe I should rephrase that. The fog is realistic but I ask anyone to show me where every single day of the week is foggy. Speaking more of eye candy I remember talking to someone from AW who went to one of their conventions. He mentioned they presented new, improved graphics and showed a P-38 canopy that went up and down. They also introduced the two smoking, burning parts when a plane blew up. I think I've seen the same eye candy here. I gather that didn't hurt frame rate much and is realistic.
One last question. What ever happened to night time? That was somewhat realistic and you knew what to expect. If you didn't like flying at night you logged off until daylight arrived which didn't take long. Unfortunately we don't have the luxury of waiting for the fog to lift.
I'm not here to complain so much as understand why the need for fog 24/7, every day. The game is excellent so why diminish it? I've been reading the forums and there doesn't appear to be much in the way of the "why" things are done but a lot of "don't ask because it's the way it is".
-
Originally posted by NoBaddy
dedalos...
Options are a nice thing to have. Waiting until I'm engaged to find that all the other baddies are above me is annoying. I would much prefer to have the option to hike my skirt up and run away screaming like a lil gurl!!!! :)
Really? How about you follow your own advice then? :rofl
If eye-candy is what floats your boat....you should go else where.
Just replace eye-candy with options, fog, etc :rofl :rofl :rofl :noid
-
Cheesedip, nighttime was terrible. 90% of the paying customer base logged off for 45+ minutes because of night. This happened almost every time. Even when DUSK arrived folks logged.
With 90% of the 500-player arena logging the second it starts getting dark, it was a clue that nobody was going to stay (or PAY) for night time. It's gone, and it's staying gone (until HT's further notice), and good riddance!
Anytime somebody asks for night, I say "Fly offline. You'll get the same results."
-
Originally posted by Shuffler
umm Paris meets the dumb and misses on the looks.
She has the intelligence of a nail and the build of one too.
:aok Exactly.
-
Krusty,
When I flew in AH the night time was fun but I do remember people logging off. I wasn't aware of dusk being a problem but the current fog equates to dusk on my computer. Every 45 minutes, if that is how long it was there, wasn't too bad but forever? I'm very surprised that people don't find that a bit much.
Along those same lines the new orange and blue arenas can only hold a limited number of players? This subject is about graphics and after flying AH with 600 people in one arena I can't believe it's due to graphics issues. What happened there? I recall there was something for everyone all under one "roof". Even the milk runners had some place to go. There were furballs with so many people it looked like a huge ball of gnats from a distance with more than 35 planes in the fight. Very strange. Not graphics, right?
A last change that might be a little off topic but related to changes an old flyer might see on his return. I looked at the early war arena. 5 people? About 8-10 planes available? At least half of those are perked? Why would someone perk planes in an arena where there are only 5 people flying? I suppose there needs to be an arena for 8 people to play in but perk planes? I thought these were supposed to be planes frm a specific era. Graphics is obviously not a issue. Doesn't H2H fit that requirement? Few players, set up any way you want, perk what you want. Has reason gone out the window? Waste of resources? You decide.
After returning I find AH2 isn't quite the same game it was. I have to wonder where it's headed. I hope AH doesn't follow in AW's footsteps and get sold so it disappears from the virtual world in favor of some first person shooter game.
This is not a condemnation of the game. Just a returning players observation of what was and what is. When someone gets too close to something it sometimes gets difficult to step back and take a look at what's going on. It is a great game. Then again so was AW.
-
I'm still not sure what you mean by "fog".... I don't think what you're describing is really fog.
The reason for the 2 arenas is to split the player base into even groups. Each arena could hold 600+ players, but if you have large caps you'll find one full 100% of the time and the other unused by all but a handful of players. By creating the changing limits on these arenas the player base is distributed more evenly across both of them. They only stay around 250-350 each because there's 500+ players on (half in each late war arena). I think it was Sunday night that I saw one of the caps go up to 400+ because so many folks were logged on.
It's for the better, in my opinion. Still has bugs, but a step in the right direction.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
By creating the changing limits on these arenas the player base is distributed more evenly across both of them.
They only stay around 250-350 each because there's 500+ players on (half in each late war arena).
I think it was Sunday night that I saw one of the caps go up to 400+ because so many folks were logged on.
It's for the better, in my opinion. Still has bugs, but a step in the right direction.
If you say so.
-
CheezeDip, I don't know who you are, seeing you havn't signed your posts, so I'm inclined to think you post are a troll, on the other hand...
The "fog" you speak of,was put in to ease FR in the game. With a distance fog added in machines don't have to draw all those details hidden by the fog. When the fog was first put in, it was a bit much, however after a trial period it was toned down. Enough so that most don't even see it any more... see Krusty's post above.
The early war arenas and the mid war arenas were made to have arenas where people could fly with always having to worry about the "late war" muscle machines thundering in. Early war has those planes that were avalible then, with a couple that were "new" at that time period of the war hence the "perked" rides. The same in the Mid war arena.
The late war arena was split due to the "health of the community" there was too much hording, and not enough fighting, and HTC retention of clients was getting effected. The arena was split, and an automaticlly adjusting cap system applied to try and keep the population in both arenas more even as the climbed and dropped in cap totals.
All of this info is easily avalible by runing a search on these boards. Yes the game has changed from the old days, but some things are better, some maybe not, but where are ya going to find a flight sim thats even half as much fun?? No where !
So, join the fun, or don't, its your choice !
-
I vote he joins the fun! :aok
-
The Fugitive,
Since when is an honest observation of a before and after experience a troll? If you feel that way then I apologize to you and everyone.
I had just mentioned sometimes people get too close to something and don't notice the change. When I began flying in AH there was no fog. The frame rate was good. The game upgraded to AH2 and fog with horrible tiles was present. It was so bad people complained and it was fixed. the frame rate was still good. The fog is back. NoBaddy said he's been present since the game started and he also says it's back. I am not putting words in anyones mouths. These are statements of fact.
I can't say I remember your name from those days but I don't remember other ones either but I must have missed something because the arena was full and I don't remember anyone complaining about it. Maybe I should rephrase that. When I flew a while back there seemed to be a small group of people who used the forum to complain about everything about the game. They were always on the forums but flew rarely. Most of the players never read the forums and just played. I came into the forums to get updated information about the game. But as long as I've flown there has always been milk running and furballs. There appears to be no other changes in the arenas. There are still 3 countries that fight each other, if two countries see that one country is losing they both gang up on it. No big deal there. That has always been the nature of the game and there appears to be less people playing now than before so I have no idea what that's about. 200 and 280 players spread out over 2 arenas still doesn't equal the numbers that used to be in 1 arena but appears to separate friends. Odd but true. One other thing I've noticed that's different is the way perks are assigned due to individual country numbers. It almost seems fair. Almost until two countries with less people but equal to 2X as many as the one country with more individual players and they both gang up on one front with better quality planes. The country with a few more individual players fights a losing battle against superior odds in both planes and players. I guess that's fair. After I've had a few gin and tonics. Krusty already mentioned when it got dark people logged off. I guess I can do the same when the odds get one sided and come back when it's more even. I guess that's what people do today.
One thing I do ask is please don't think I am so anal as to go back and read years of forum topics. I am just trying to figure out what's happened to the game after being away for a few years. While the changes seem strange my only real issue is with the present day fog. The rest can be dealt with since the planes seem to fly the same as they did before.
As I've said, everything is an observation of before and after. Facts are pretty much facts. How things have arrived at this point is lacking because I wasn't around to witness the changes. Only that the changes are there. I'm not even particluar about the one sidedness of anything just that the graphics should be fixed so I can actually see the plane I'm fighting. Krusty, I'm sorry I somehow missed your note on fog and limited visibilty. I think there is a difference between fog and haze. Haze allows you to see what appears to be dot out there and fog hides the dot all together. The reason I call it fog is because at 1200-2000 yards I should be able to make out the direction the plane is going and not be surprised that one second he is going away and the next he's pointed at me for a head on. When I maneuver in a fight I am always angling to arrive at the guys 6. Take that away and some of the fun of a dogfight is gone. It doesn't matter what color the plane is if every single one washes out against a grey water background then something is very wrong.
I'm not sure what you meant by not signing my posts. I'll sign them. Sorry. I have to choose a new name since I'm sure my old one is not available. I'll change from a number to name soon.
Sincerely,
CheeseDip
-
Cheesedip,
Could you take a screenshot of the "fog" and post it? Because, honest man, I just have not seen any fog.
...and just email skuzzy, he will give you your old nick back in game.
-
Originally posted by CheeseDip
NoBaddy, I've moved the gamma bar all over the place. Other than things get brighter or darker the clarity remains the same. Atari? Hehe. I started flying with a Mac. I can't remember if it had a 100 Mhz CPU but I had to upgrade the CPU in my Mac a few times until I finally got over 20 frames per minute. There were different plug-in, after market, CPU's available for a few hundred bucks. I also paid an hourly rate to fly that wasn't very cheap and the internet gateway was a bulletin board. I think there were only a few providers that you could access flying through.
Well, part of the difference is that now planes become shapes, instead of dots, farther out. Seeing those "shapes" in the haze can be a bit tough. By lowering the gamma, the shapes became darker...hence, easier to see.
Originally posted by dedalos
Really? How about you follow your own advice then?
Just replace eye-candy with options, fog, etc
Having taken the time to go back and read what you have posted (well, at least what Skuzzy hasn't deleted), I have determined that the basic thrust of your posts here are directed at flaming anyone that doesn't agree with you. Therefore, congrats!!! You are the 2nd person to make my ignore list!
Have a nice day. :)
-
I think that would help if possible. To quote Inego Montoya, "I do not think it means what you think it means..."
I think we're having a miscommunication about "fog."
-
Originally posted by NoBaddy
You are the 2nd person to make my ignore list!
Ohhhh Noooooozzzzz, not the ignore list! :rofl
I really did care about what you had to say. It was always very constructive. Especialy when you ask people to leave if they want something from the game. :rofl Who is flaming who again???????
-
Originally posted by NoBaddy
Well, part of the difference is that now planes become shapes, instead of dots, farther out. Seeing those "shapes" in the haze can be a bit tough. By lowering the gamma, the shapes became darker...hence, easier to see.
NoBaddy,
I was unaware the shapes can now be seen farther out. I thought the resolution controlled shapes to a certain point and at that point a pixel is a pixel. The only difference was the size of the pixel. It was either large or small depending on how far you sit from your monitor. I tried lowering the gamma which darkens everything but it also makes the washout near the ground worse.
Krusty said people logged out when it got dark. Isn't darkening the gamma doing the same thing? You are going from a foggy grey shape to a dark shape that blends in with the darker background, especially water.
This is a serious flaw that from past experience really needs to be here?
Thank you all for the help.
Sincerely,
CheeseDip
-
Cheesedip, more has changed from AH1 to AH2 than just the "fog"...
The number of things rendered has probably quadruppled on CVs alone. The details on fleets, the details on trees, buildings, and many other things has all been increased. Even if the settings were 100% identical to AH1's graphics, you'd have a much lower FPS because over time more and more has been added to the game. I know, trust me. I had a system that ran AH1 but slowly got worse and worse with every AH2 update, until it couldn't run the game at all. I had to upgrade (this was a pretty low-end system, mind you).
The fog we are thinking about is only at the horizon, far far out, way past icon range. We're not entirely sure if you are talking about the same thing we are. Can you please take a screenshot of it and post it for us? You may be having a hardware/software problem with how the game displays (maybe, not sure).