Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: PanosGR on February 21, 2008, 11:06:39 AM
-
Ok, its a rather looooong post but since there is a lot of talking going on these days about how AHII is good or bad I thought why not make a small
Search in other games forums to see how they see our game. Good or bad. I collect -only- some of them.
FORUM A
Part I)
- Alright, I used to play Aces High II so I am very familiar with fighter combat.Hopefully when I get this game I fit in alright.
- Watch out...Aces High II is a "game." This is more like a "sim." There is quite a learning curve. You'll need to practice a fair bit before you hit anything online.
- So what is this like? (he means Aces High) It's graphics look very similar to Il-2 somehow...
- Tried it and did not like anything about it. The graphics dont even come close to IL2's or anything else for that matter. Just my opinion, others may differ.
- The only thing I really don't like about AH2 is that in the general arenas all aircraft and armor are available to all 3 countries. Also, things like auto trim are allowed.
On a not so important scale, the cockpits are a bit generalized and every aircraft has all 3 axes of trim.
In some areas AH2 is superior to IL-2, most notably low speed high angle of attack. For example, I can land 3 point and nose high in a full stall. I can't do that in IL-2.
The combined arms capability in AH2 is unsurpassed. Add to that the strategic and tactical goals such as capturing towns/airfields ... Don't forget the ability to fully crew up bombers and tanks.
If all you're looking for is better graphics, more accurate systems modeling, and detailed cockpits, then IL-2 beats it.
- I agree about the problem with IL2 concerning the 3-point landings. Hard to do in any aircraft without a wing dropping at the last second. This is not realistic and few, if any aircraft would do this in RL.
- I Can't agree with that. When was the last time you blew an engine in AH?
I sure wasn't able to kill one in three years of playing it. Actually the damage model is much more simple in AH. Everything is failsafe. You can't overrev it, you can't overheat it.
(If running too long on wep and full power the game will automatically turn the wep off and keep going. Engines without wep run for ever on full power. That's why you can't catch heavy bombers at high altitude. The all day full speed heavy bombers is one of the most ridiculous things of the game.
There's no penalty for bad flying or mishandling the engine. There's automatic constant trim in all main arenas. You don't even have to take off the plane. You select the plane, select the weapons, choose the direction, hit full power and let it take off and climb by itself while you go do your laundry. When you come back you are 20000ft and can go kill some bad guys.
Part II)
- The game is just too arcadish. many planes in WW2 were hard to fly, some were complicated, some were temperamental, some pulled hard to right other to left. Some needed a lot of trimming to make them fly good.
All this is almost nonexistent in AH. that's what keeps me away from it. There's no penality for bad flying and no reward for good flying.
- I loved the gameplay ,missions and the general massive multiplayer part of it. But the 1990 look and arcadish FM's keeps me away from it.
Part III)
- See heres the thing... I'm not making this a war between games here, so no one tkae this the wrong way. Everyone on their side of the fence claims their FM's ARE better than IL2, as everyone on our side says IL2 has better FMing. They have provided charts and statistics proving why there FM react the way they do (still in my opinion VERY fast) All I have ever seen here in IL2's defense is we are a full blown Flight Sim not an MMO so we have better and more realistic FMing...
- I`ve also tried AH2 briefly - it went down as a sucker for me quickly, odd FM, 'gamey' solutions like autoclimb etc.. the gunnery is a joke compared to Il-2 (in comparison WW2OL is quite good in this respect, DM/Ballistics is it`s strong side), the graphics are no better than WW2OL, ground combat is there, but it ain`t a big thing. And with equipment available to all sides, it`s really just a Red vs Blue stuff without any historical flavour to it.
- I prefer Aces High II's system...you use the hat to look backwards, and you can place your "head" wherver you want it. ....Its saves your view for every respective aircraft, much like a "personal view" profile.
Its perfect, and IL2 is in desperate need of it
Part IV)
Sorry but coming from aces high to forgotten battles and finding the planes flying the same is rather odd.
I played aces high for years, since 2001. I just stopped paying for it last year, but I still have a current copy.
In aces high the game does everything for you. If you run the engine hard for a while it will cut the boost for you. It pulls the flaps back in if you go too fast with any plane,trims the plane for you, does most of the bombsight calibration for you. Got the idea?
Here if you don't know and watch how you run the engine you'll cook it rather quick. You can blow your engine in so many ways in this game. and in every plane for a different reason. You'll over rev it in 109 if you play with the manual prop pitch and you don't know how. in other 109's you can blow it on the ground if you engage the water methanol boost at over 100% throttle. You can blow the engine on the 109E-7Z if you engage the GM1 boost at lower then 6500m. Of course, you can over heat it, can get your prop pitch shot up, your throttle cables shotup and so on.
- In gameplay AH is way better then this thing because of the massive multiplayer thing. You just can't beat that 100 bomber mission to HQ or the GV wars in tank town.
Part V)
- I downloaded ACES to try it out. Fantastic viewing. But what I don't get is how can anybody fly that sim? Tell me I'm doing something wrong -- it doesn't feel natural. The nose of the ac bounces all over the place. I don't get it.
- Aces High is a great game. Old but still great. That is the only place where you can see huge 100+ aircraft missions (flown by humans).
I'm not playing it online for some times now but sure is a great game.
FORUM B
PART I)
- Yea but TW is the best at realism I've seen so far. I've heard that AH is better now, but I'd have to see that first hand after being chased down by spitfire mk16's which are able to outrun a Hawker Tempest and keep up with a ME262.
- Last time I was in AH was before they shutdown H2H (which makes me laugh btw) But anyway, I was in a f6f5 at 25,000 feet, had been for a while going back to my base with 1/4 tank of gas, and no ammo, when up from the base below me comes a spitfire mk16 straight up i the air shoots me down and then called me a dweeb. that was the last time I ever darkened AH's site, games or anything else. .
PART II)
I don't agree that IL-2 requires better gunnery skills, either. I feel they're about on the same par as Targetware's, and superior to either Warbirds or AH. And, with the "features" they have built in such that just about any shot destroys some sort of control cable or oils the windscreen (depending on which bird you're flying), I don't quite think it's all that great either. Just in terms of damage effectiveness, I think gunnery in IL-2 is as bad as Aces High. Of course, we now know ours could stand a bit of improvement, too... but I'll take TW's damage model over many others.
PART III)
- Yea I saw your avatar over there, I don't even have the game anymore, but I still read their BBs when I need to remember why I don't have the game installed anymore.
And judging from the ones I see on their BB, I think I might never have AH installed again.
( yea you can tell them I said that )
- LOL, i had a bad night in AH, chasing a Spit in my F4F, my plane engine's RPM just drops like a rock. the manifold pressure was still up, i thought i somehow did my "blow up teh engine" stunt in TW in AH. asked my teammate for help as i attempted to disengage and get awat from the spit.
teammate try to helped but the spit caught me
i didnt know you could blow up engines in AH
Part IV)
- Thats right ****, I'm a refugee from Aces High.Thanks for the welcome I like it better here. I told everybody over there I was just taking a break from the temp fest they seem to have in every room, but after playing this one I might never type on their board again.
- HO's by three Tempests at a time??? ROFL. Par for the course at Aces Hobbled. No player controls, and thus plenty of opportunities for dweebery to run wild. But what do you expect from designers that don't respect history?
- They have a few planes now where the controls on the cockpit actually move when you move the stick, but the f6f5 Hellcat, ( my favorite plane) is so unrealistic looking inside its pathetic, they just got most of the f4u's looking somewhat descent though
I'm still having a little trouble hitting the target, but I had that problem in Aces High too, hopefully I can get as good in a bf109 as I was in a hellcat
- ya you got a few more layers of flight modeling detail to process, but once you get a feel fore TW's 6 point floating model you will never go back to 4 point models, like the one AH has. Heck it only had 2 floating points in ah1. I have been told this is largely why TW has such a unique feel.
-
Interesting read, thanks for sharing.
-
You can't pull things from forums without dates.
Some of that is just sour grapes. For example, an f6f at 20k ignores a spit with higher E zooming up at him and he quits the game forever. Perhaps he doesn't understand how zoom climbs work. Or how acceleration works. A spit16 can catch a tempest and a 262 on the deck if it's faster than both, to start with, or if it dives on them, etc. Sour grapes mixed with ignorance.
[EDIT: Definitely sour grapes on the part of folks leaving the HTH scene and going to other games because they can't pay for a subscription]
Also, AH1 gunnery was really suspect. Ah2 gunnery is many many times better. How old are these posts talking about "bad gunnery"?
And on the other hand, certain communities cop certain attitudes about their own game. IL2 folks claim to have the best FM and get all defensive about it. TW folks claim to have the most accurate and most realistic sim ever, despite huge glaring game engine models which negate this very idea. On top of that TW goes out of its way to make even the simplist of things hard. It's nearly impossible to land some aircraft, and this is from a many-years, many-games veteran, I've never had trouble landing in any sim ever made up til trying TW. It's a highly flawed and artificially complicated system that's subpar to IL2 and WB in realistic flight, let alone AH2.
You may call me biased if you like. I've flown them all over different periods of time. There's a reason I'm still flying AH but not those other games.
-
What is TW?
-
TargetWare
-
Originally posted by Simaril
What is TW?
Target ware
-
Some of these people have to realize that the only place you can get 100% realistic looking graphics, damage modeling, and everything else is in the real world. No game will ever be 100% accurate on everything.
-
Agree Krusty.
Beyond that there are legit pros and legit cons stated.
Its great to see some of the graphics being updated and it would be great to see much better variety in the damage modeling for example. A rethink of the strats system would add a lot more purpose to the game as well. I think most of the FM gripes are not valid.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
You can't pull things from forums without dates.
Some of that is just sour grapes. For example, an f6f at 20k ignores a spit with higher E zooming up at him and he quits the game forever. Perhaps he doesn't understand how zoom climbs work. Or how acceleration works. A spit16 can catch a tempest and a 262 on the deck if it's faster than both, to start with, or if it dives on them, etc. Sour grapes mixed with ignorance.
[EDIT: Definitely sour grapes on the part of folks leaving the HTH scene and going to other games because they can't pay for a subscription]
Also, AH1 gunnery was really suspect. Ah2 gunnery is many many times better. How old are these posts talking about "bad gunnery"?
And on the other hand, certain communities cop certain attitudes about their own game. IL2 folks claim to have the best FM and get all defensive about it. TW folks claim to have the most accurate and most realistic sim ever, despite huge glaring game engine models which negate this very idea. On top of that TW goes out of its way to make even the simplist of things hard. It's nearly impossible to land some aircraft, and this is from a many-years, many-games veteran, I've never had trouble landing in any sim ever made up til trying TW. It's a highly flawed and artificially complicated system that's subpar to IL2 and WB in realistic flight, let alone AH2.
You may call me biased if you like. I've flown them all over different periods of time. There's a reason I'm still flying AH but not those other games.
I would add, that TW is like an eternal work in progress. It's literally been in Beta for half a decade, or more. And, while it does have space for over 100 players' on a server, It can't have something like even our Titanic Tuesdays', with 400 or more. It's not really a MMOG.
TW does extend it's venue to Korea and WWI, however. That is kind of neat.
-
To each their own.
-
I'm always facinated by the FM/"realism" arguements...
There is no question that in many ways AH is "dumbed down" in the interests of better game play. Personally I've never found the IL-2 FM to be superior in any way (FB)...in fact I've felt that all the planes fly to much the same and that over/under modelling is more biased then here. No question that the damage model is more intricate but in my limited experience it awards to much damage...after all planes returned all the time with holes and no sustained significant damage...seems like IL-2 every hit does something.
From the little I gathered IL-2 seems to be attracting alot of the ACM deficient based on the comments on "good flying" linked to trim or engine management. Trim has no effect of any kind on aircraft handling just on pilot workload. A trimmed out plane requires no control inputs unless you change something but the performance envelope does not alter at all due to trim settings.
As for engine management, no question its simplified in AH for playability. To me that puts more focus on SA, Tactics and ACM....right were it belongs and less on...uh...I can run at 2400rpm, 54 lb MP and overheat him in a 2500 ft/min sustained climb...
I would love to see more runway prop, pitch, throttle cable type damage at somepoint....even shot up gauges in cockpit:)...
-
I'd rather stick around and see what HTC pumps out next. They're improving, slowly but surely.
Originally posted by humble
...I would love to see more runway prop, pitch, throttle cable type damage at somepoint....even shot up gauges in cockpit:)...
Definitely! Perhaps even hydraulic failures.
-
I don't care what other people think. I have a fantastic time playing AH..
Most of the comments read squeker like....
-
Damn Greeks.
-
Installed TW and never could get the controls setup correctly. (i have full CH setup). Upped a Zeke and continuously rolled to the left and pitched up. Never could get trim to work properly either. After 3 days I gave up.
Conversely, it took all of 20 minutes to steup aces high and program my CH gear. I have some fairly complex programming
Plus, they talk about trim yet there is no trim indicators in the cockpit. Now some might say "a lot of planes didn't have them' Well that is true but you also could "feel" your trim on the stick, you can't do that in a game. (honestly, i don't look at them all that much as I'm getting used to how the planes "virtually feel")
I see the trim features in AH and a convenience in a GAME that isn't real. I do not use combat trim as I am used to trimming my planes from other sims but I do use the auto trims for just that convenience sake. I can trim my plane into a clime, dive or a slow turn all manually but why bother if all I want is to put my plane into 20 degree climb so I can look at the map.
What many don't realise is that the game is the way it is due to the creator's many years of experience in the genra. Challenging for the experienced, playable for the noobs, and this keeps our pastime here and viable.
Just my thoughts.
-
Engines in AH are artificially limited to unrealistic low durations of WEP because it would be grossly abused if we could run engines like in reality.
Il-2's engines are so grossly mismodeled as fragile as to be an absurd joke. To see Il-2 players tout this as realistic just reveals their lack of knowledge. Both AH and Il-2 use a gamey mechanism to control player abuse of engine maintainance schedules. Il-2's is signficantly more gamey.
-
Some of those are definitely from the freeloaders. What they think or say has never mattered to anyone but themselves.
-
I've flown every online flight sim,and most every combat flightsim made.AH appeals to a lotta people,and right now there is nothing better available imho.To me the idea is to have fun,and AH accomplishes that well.Could it be better?,sure,and I think they doing ok bringing along improvements as needed.My two cents worth.
IronDog
-
Most of those comments read like squeakers. "Tempests in every room" ? That's a definite H2Her...
but whatever, to each his own...
-
Originally posted by Castedo
Damn Greeks.
Hey watch it...Greeks Rock man :D
By the way PanosGR still waiting on info about you helping me get some OUZO from the Samaras Winery
-
Yeah alot of that sounded like sour grapes.
-
Originally posted by IronDog
To me the idea is to have fun,and AH accomplishes that well.
This man deserves a cookie!!!! :)
Most of what I read seemed to be written by folks that were a truck load of clues short of the answer. Is AH perfect? No, but, it is capable of providing tons more fun than any of its competitors.
In addition, no one has to go out an pay to find out if AH is worth playing. Try it for 2 weeks, if you don't like it...go do something else. :)
-
I've tried Warbirds, Fighter Ace, Target Ware, MS Combat flight sim, IL2, Fighter Squadron, Pacific fighters, Battlestations Midway, Attack on Pearl Harbor, and a few I've forgotten since my grandson introduced me to computer gaming a little more than three years ago. Before then I viewed a computer as a tool to conduct business.
If all of these other games are so much better than AH, as the above mentioned posts would attempt to lead one to believe, why am I still playing AH while the other games gather dust in some forgotten corner.
But everybody here already knows the answer to that question. AH rocks, it might not have the latest eye candy, but it was designed to be playable to an absolute gamer noob such as myself. Yet its complicated enough to keep my interest after I've managed to master the relatively easy stuff.
-
Blah IL2 all the planes fly alike.
I never found a stick in WWII online that could even touch me after flying this game.
Aces high has issues but overall its a diamond.
-
I have not played il-2, but I have worked on, and flow some of the aircraft in the game and I'd say AH is much more gamey when it comes to engines and durability. In real life the engines on a B-17G seldom made it to 100 hours before needing a complete rebuild. It was very easy to just crank up the turbo boost and try to compensate for an overloaded plane. Most equipment on all sides was abused but things like water or methanol actually run out.
In AH all you have to do is let the engine cool off and "Poof" the water tank in your plane is full again.
Another real life example would be shock cooling. When diving from high altitude and your throttle at idle, you'd have to be ducking engine parts on the way down.
AH is a game, and it's a great one. It has a large player base and it caters to wide range of skills. I don't think it goes to the Nth degree to capture all the details of actually (and accurately) flying these planes. But, it does a great job for the vast majority of details that matter to keeping us all happy and playing.
:D
BTW, can't wait for the next update!
-
Ahh lahk eet ahlaht... ah flah wit mah dahkta peppa en eet is fun.
-
Yeah like Irondog said, AH is a game you play because its a fun flight sim, the complaints I saw on those post were all about how AH is modeled realistic enough, but I don't play AH because I'm looking for a game thats as close to realistic flight as I can get, if thats what I wanted I'd be flying FSX all the time. Me and I'm sure the rest of you guys play it because we find it fun, not because were looking for the most realistic flight sim we can find.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Engines in AH are artificially limited to unrealistic low durations of WEP because it would be grossly abused if we could run engines like in reality.
I wish it were more like reality. Pull the plug and WEP your yourself crazy. Those who do not monitor the engine instruments get a rude surprise in the form of a stopped propellor.
:D
That would add more realism to the game and stop any WEP-a-holics at the same time.
-
It didn't work that way in real life. In real life it meant the engine had to be overhauled after the plane landed. In this game you get a "new" plane every next sortie. You could run WEP for over an hours and get a totally unfair advantage.
It's much better to limit WEP.
As for water etc, often there was more water than just for 5 minutes' use, and many planes don't HAVE additive WEP, they just run at higher boost and RPM. It's still WEP but there's no additive.
Most often WEP is limited by engine heat, NOT the additives onboard. Also, with fuel burn increased 2x in the MAs, how would that affect WEP? If you use an additive, does it run out 2x as fast? Does that mean one plane gets 5 mins standard but the water injection only gets (say) 2.5 minutes?
Again, totally unfair advantage.
And no, making a dive wouldn't break chunks off your engine :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Baumer
In real life the engines on a B-17G seldom made it to 100 hours before needing a complete rebuild.
BTW, can't wait for the next update!
That's why we land after an hour or 2, depending on objective, and let the invisible professionals on the ground rebuild our engines and fix the the leaks.
This might be the wrong place to post this, but an improvement might be to not have all planes or GV's available in unlimited numbers as soon as 1 hanger pops.
The other games I've played do not have the ability to keep players loyal to the game like AH. I've been in for several years and still learning and enjoying the company around me.
-
Originally posted by Roundeye
I wish it were more like reality. Pull the plug and WEP your yourself crazy. Those who do not monitor the engine instruments get a rude surprise in the form of a stopped propellor.
:D
That would add more realism to the game and stop any WEP-a-holics at the same time.
Merlins were run at WEP for more than half an hour with no adverse effect on the engine other than upsetting the maintainance schedule. The engine did not lock up. The engines were not as fragile as you seem to think.
-
"those who do not monitor engine instruments......"
Not saying every plane would blow an engine from continuously running WOT with WEP.
It certainly doesn't do some of them any good. It would be insane to run a real plane WOT for an entire flight, much less add WEP for the entire duration. It is equally insane to claim it would cause no damage (to the point of diminished performance or even catastrophic failure) to run every model represented here continuously at WOT with WEP.
It would take exhaustive research on the many different types of engines modeled here to determine which ones suffer and which ones don't.
I sugest this because of a valid point someone brought up about there being no penalty for abusing an engine in this game. The example of B-24s running WOT for a whole mission rings true....that would not be a fun mission in RL.
Logic would dictate that certain engines under the correct conditions would eventually see high CHT and oil temps leading to loss of power, detonation under boost (boom) or seizure from inadiquate oiling.
-
Originally posted by Roundeye
"those who do not monitor engine instruments......"
...snip....
Logic would dictate that certain engines under the correct conditions would eventually see high CHT and oil temps leading to loss of power, detonation under boost (boom) or seizure from inadiquate oiling.
But wait --
Is the point of the game to simulate exactly what it was like to fly these birds? To be honest, that level of work would, well, seem like WORK. Only a handful of players would actually ENJOY absolute engineering fidelity, just like only a handful of grognards like playing Third Reich in its boxed version. Most of humanity likes Risk way better, for a reason.
Would be game designers need to realize that these are supposed to be games. The real goal is to BALANCE fun with realism at a point that meets the needs of a good chunk of both goals.
Like the poster said above, players vote with their virtual feet. AH is thriving, which makes it pretty clear that HT got the balance right on for his target audience. If some airborne grognards want more "realism" then they should go to products that they think feel more realistic. (I emphasize the feel because odds are they aren't likely any closer to reality, but that the compromises were made differently.)
For my money, AH hits the balance right on. Different tastes no doubt make different assessments, but then they shouldn't complain about low numbers wherever they land.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Only a handful of players would actually ENJOY absolute engineering fidelity
You are correct. I guess I want the mechanics too real, but it's what I do. (Licensed Airframe & Powerplant mechanic, Inspection Authorization and Private Pilot). I am one of those "handful". Marketing is directed toward the masses who don't know or don't care.
Point taken.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Engines in AH are artificially limited to unrealistic low durations of WEP because it would be grossly abused if we could run engines like in reality.
Il-2's engines are so grossly mismodeled as fragile as to be an absurd joke. To see Il-2 players tout this as realistic just reveals their lack of knowledge. Both AH and Il-2 use a gamey mechanism to control player abuse of engine maintainance schedules. Il-2's is signficantly more gamey.
"WEP", was actually a very short, one shot "Emergency use deal", most planes that had it used water injection to boost air density, you had to store water for this but more over if you used it to much you could easily damage the engine.
Also most american planes, not sure about each one, or most other nations, altho i'd guess this would be simalar if you flew inverted for more then 10 or 15 seconds your engine could suffer damage due to oil preasure loss.
it's a sure thing you would not be flying long if you flew at full throttle the entire time.
if you search some of the actual flight manuels of these planes you will find alot of things that a game such as this would not take into account as it would ruin game play.
there are actual reports of ammo actually freezeing at high alt, makeing the guns inop, gun jams are another thing we don't deal with, dud bombs, lots of real world stuff would make the game less enjoyable.
It's a game, it really can't be 100% accurate.
Don
-
I agree on 1 point.......the graphics in AH2 are vastly inferior to IL2 let alone something like FSX. I understand tho that HTC isnt trying to market or produce a high quality graphics sim.
One thing that would make AH2 look 1000% better is the square hills and mountains. From 5k up the ground doesnt look to bad. When you look out to the horizon tho the jagged hills and square sides are almost horrific. This is my number 1 vice with AH.
On the other hand......I fly to have fun and get sweaty palms. Pretty scenery doesnt do much for the excitement factor. Doing a slow rolling scissor with the stall horn blaring dodging trees trying to get your nose around to kill the enemy is where its at IMHO. Its at times like that the scenery doesnt matter, the guages dont matter, or anything else but that task. This is what AH2 does very well IMHO. My hands still shake sometimes after a flight and I cant recall that ever happening in IL2.
My main vice with IL2 is that in a 1v1 fight with the difficulty level set to ace and realistic the AI pilots arent really that good. You can even give them a better plane, where they promtly run at the first sign of trouble. In the career mode forget about a real challenge. Most of the wingman blindly follow there leader and ultimately become cannon fodder.
I would die and go to heaven if you could marriage the best qualities in both games. I'd also turn over in my grave when I got the bill for said game!
Mindless rantings,
Strip(er)
-
Originally posted by yanksfan
"WEP", was actually a very short, one shot "Emergency use deal", most planes that had it used water injection to boost air density, you had to store water for this but more over if you used it to much you could easily damage the engine.
Are you saying what you "know" or do you actually have sources? I ask because that contradicts what I have read.
Oh, sure, some aircraft have additive based WEP, but that is hardly "most". For example, the minor lines of Hurricane, Mosquito, P-38, P-39, P-51, Spitfire, Tempest and Typhoon all used boost based WEP, no additive at all. I've read enough pilots and incident comments to know that it was not a "Five minutes and then the engine might blow" limitation, it was a "More than five minutes per sortie and we'll have to do excessive overhauls" limitation. I've read of R-2800s being run at WEP for more than 24 hours straight without failure or excessive wear.
I'm sorry, but unless you can actuall provide evidence of your claims I can't take your say over these other documented cases.
Strip,
Actually I think AH's graphics are far more functional than Il-2's.
Cockpits: All of AH's cockpits are full 3D allowing custom positioning of views, even in the old AH1 cockpits and the newest AH2 cockpits look better than Il-2's. Il-2's cockpits are "fake" 3D, meaning that if you could move your head position around you'd see big gaps in the polygons, they save you from this by locking your viewpoint in a very unrealisticly fixed position.
Winner: AH
Terrain: Mixed bag. Il-2's terrain looks more natural and it has far better rivers and textures. The trees however look great from high up and are completely non-functional once you get down low.
Winner: Function AH, looks Il-2
Aircraft: AH1 and early AH2 aircraft look worse than Il-2 and more recent AH2 aircraft look better than Il-2. Il-2 suffers particularly strongly due to low texture resolutions.
Winner: AH2, but not AH1
Clouds: Il-2's look and feel far better.
Winner: Il-2
Damage: AH2 indroduced a similar, but not as extreme, system to visually representing damage as Il-2. However there are very few damage textures in AH and they look repetitive quite rapidly. They also don't work for all aircraft, such as the wooden Mossie. Il-2's damage graphics are more varried and the dynamic "hole" system looks really good....until it goes too far and your aircraft looks more like swiss cheese.
Winner: Il-2
-
The people who complain about the graphics are missing the point. The flight models(best around as far as I've heard, who cares if a hill looks blocky as long as the kites fly like they did IRL). The ability to read up on ACM's and tactics then directly apply them here. The people/characters around here with the smack talking, egos, personal beefs, the helpful people, the wells of information. Thats whats important to me
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Are you saying what you "know" or do you actually have sources? I ask because that contradicts what I have read.
Oh, sure, some aircraft have additive based WEP, but that is hardly "most". For example, the minor lines of Hurricane, Mosquito, P-38, P-39, P-51, Spitfire, Tempest and Typhoon all used boost based WEP, no additive at all. I've read enough pilots and incident comments to know that it was not a "Five minutes and then the engine might blow" limitation, it was a "More than five minutes per sortie and we'll have to do excessive overhauls" limitation. I've read of R-2800s being run at WEP for more than 24 hours straight without failure or excessive wear.
I'm sorry, but unless you can actuall provide evidence of your claims I can't take your say over these other documented cases.
A good guy to ask would be Widewing, i have seen on these bbs where someone posted parts of an actual P51D manuel, which explain "WEP" limitations and warnings, I'm just pointing out ,that the carefree form of "Flying" we do is not realistic at all, nor should it be.
As far as different birds, well, thats why i said find the actual flight manuels, but if anyone would know, it would be Widewing.
(EDIT)
Just a quik search i found this link, if you look at the first post in this forum the guy posted in pdf format a manuel for the P51b, i didn't have time to look thru all of it, but it looks really cool, you may find more indepth answers here.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech/north-american-p-51b-mustang-10365.html
also this one
http://www.tailwheel.nl/n/northamericanp51dmustang/p51trainingmanual/index.html
Don
-
First of all, I agree with shuffler, that was some briliant jibberish
If we had to fly around with engines that acted like a time bomb waiting to go off does not sound like any fun to me. A game is supposed to be fun and AHII has nailed that. I kinda compare it to the Microshaft air combat game, only I die a lot more...a LOT more! Hitech..P.S. my wife hates you, LOL
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Are you saying what you "know" or do you actually have sources? I ask because that contradicts what I have read.
Oh, sure, some aircraft have additive based WEP, but that is hardly "most". For example, the minor lines of Hurricane, Mosquito, P-38, P-39, P-51, Spitfire, Tempest and Typhoon all used boost based WEP, no additive at all. I've read enough pilots and incident comments to know that it was not a "Five minutes and then the engine might blow" limitation, it was a "More than five minutes per sortie and we'll have to do excessive overhauls" limitation. I've read of R-2800s being run at WEP for more than 24 hours straight without failure or excessive wear.
I'm sorry, but unless you can actuall provide evidence of your claims I can't take your say over these other documented cases.
Strip,
Actually I think AH's graphics are far more functional than Il-2's.
Cockpits: All of AH's cockpits are full 3D allowing custom positioning of views, even in the old AH1 cockpits and the newest AH2 cockpits look better than Il-2's. Il-2's cockpits are "fake" 3D, meaning that if you could move your head position around you'd see big gaps in the polygons, they save you from this by locking your viewpoint in a very unrealisticly fixed position.
Winner: AH
Terrain: Mixed bag. Il-2's terrain looks more natural and it has far better rivers and textures. The trees however look great from high up and are completely non-functional once you get down low.
Winner: Function AH, looks Il-2
Aircraft: AH1 and early AH2 aircraft look worse than Il-2 and more recent AH2 aircraft look better than Il-2. Il-2 suffers particularly strongly due to low texture resolutions.
Winner: AH2, but not AH1
Clouds: Il-2's look and feel far better.
Winner: Il-2
Damage: AH2 indroduced a similar, but not as extreme, system to visually representing damage as Il-2. However there are very few damage textures in AH and they look repetitive quite rapidly. They also don't work for all aircraft, such as the wooden Mossie. Il-2's damage graphics are more varried and the dynamic "hole" system looks really good....until it goes too far and your aircraft looks more like swiss cheese.
Winner: Il-2
See page 14, use WEP only in extreme emergency for no more then 5 minutes
http://www.tailwheel.nl/n/northamericanp51dmustang/p51trainingmanual/index.html
-
Originally posted by yanksfan
"WEP", was actually a very short, one shot "Emergency use deal", most planes that had it used water injection to boost air density, you had to store water for this but more over if you used it to much you could easily damage the engine.
Also most american planes, not sure about each one, or most other nations, altho i'd guess this would be simalar if you flew inverted for more then 10 or 15 seconds your engine could suffer damage due to oil preasure loss.
it's a sure thing you would not be flying long if you flew at full throttle the entire time.
if you search some of the actual flight manuels of these planes you will find alot of things that a game such as this would not take into account as it would ruin game play.
there are actual reports of ammo actually freezeing at high alt, makeing the guns inop, gun jams are another thing we don't deal with, dud bombs, lots of real world stuff would make the game less enjoyable.
It's a game, it really can't be 100% accurate.
Don
WEP wasn't necessarily that short.....i think the german planes used nitrous oxide, although i don't know how well it worked. i think planes like the p47, p51, p38, used an artificial throttle stop for "normal" use. if you got into trouble, you hammered the throttle foward through this stop, and forced more rpm, and power out of it, but in the process, you'd also trash the engine....but then engines are much more easily replaced than the pilot, so it was a good trade off. i think the water injected ones were the pacific theater of operations aircraft..the hellkitty, the later f4f's, and the corsairs...they worked i think because the water basicly cooled the incomming charge, thus condensing it, thus allowing more fuel to be injected, creating more power...but again i don't know how long this lasted, or what effects this had on the engine's longevity. i don't think the japanese planes ever had it....they were superior, and didn't need that, armour, or self sealing tanks, as they'd never be shot at due to their super skilled samurai pilots:D
for the oil systems, i'm not sure, but i'd think they would've been equipped with inverted oil systems considering the purpose they were built for......
-
Originally posted by CAP1
WEP wasn't necessarily that short.....i think the german planes used nitrous oxide, although i don't know how well it worked. i think planes like the p47, p51, p38, used an artificial throttle stop for "normal" use. if you got into trouble, you hammered the throttle foward through this stop, and forced more rpm, and power out of it, but in the process, you'd also trash the engine....but then engines are much more easily replaced than the pilot, so it was a good trade off. i think the water injected ones were the pacific theater of operations aircraft..the hellkitty, the later f4f's, and the corsairs...they worked i think because the water basicly cooled the incomming charge, thus condensing it, thus allowing more fuel to be injected, creating more power...but again i don't know how long this lasted, or what effects this had on the engine's longevity. i don't think the japanese planes ever had it....they were superior, and didn't need that, armour, or self sealing tanks, as they'd never be shot at due to their super skilled samurai pilots:D
for the oil systems, i'm not sure, but i'd think they would've been equipped with inverted oil systems considering the purpose they were built for......
as for the engine longevity if you were to fly at wide open throttle all the time......go try it with your car........i'd be willing to bet that the engine'll be toasted in less than an hour....much less:D
in game, just pull up your clipboard, and then click the E6B......look in the middle i think..it'll have max rpm max cruise rpm, and max cruise manifold pressure.........fly your plane, leave it WOT till speed stabalizes, then adjust your throttle and rpms to the cruise settings....
<>
-
Originally posted by yanksfan
"WEP", was actually a very short, one shot "Emergency use deal", most planes that had it used water injection to boost air density, you had to store water for this but more over if you used it to much you could easily damage the engine.
Also most american planes, not sure about each one, or most other nations, altho i'd guess this would be simalar if you flew inverted for more then 10 or 15 seconds your engine could suffer damage due to oil preasure loss.
it's a sure thing you would not be flying long if you flew at full throttle the entire time.
if you search some of the actual flight manuels of these planes you will find alot of things that a game such as this would not take into account as it would ruin game play.
there are actual reports of ammo actually freezeing at high alt, makeing the guns inop, gun jams are another thing we don't deal with, dud bombs, lots of real world stuff would make the game less enjoyable.
It's a game, it really can't be 100% accurate.
Don
ooo.......almost forgot...you ever see anyone in here fighting with bombs or a belly tank still slung underneath? i think most fighters(including the pony) were not able to fight with any of this still hanging..i think the pony was actually supposed to be flown straight and level with bombs hanging..or tanks........
-
Originally posted by CAP1
ooo.......almost forgot...you ever see anyone in here fighting with bombs or a belly tank still slung underneath? i think most fighters(including the pony) were not able to fight with any of this still hanging..i think the pony was actually supposed to be flown straight and level with bombs hanging..or tanks........
The Pony was... just not with 1000 lbs bombs. And certainly with droptanks (though they obviously killed performance)
-
Yanksfan,
The manuals (I have the Mossie 6's) aren't telling you the engine's limits. They are saying what you're supposed to do....for the maintainance schedule.
We know of, for example, a Spitfire pilot who panicked and ran on WEP for more than 30 minutes with no adverse effect on his Spit's Merlin. If the Spitfire's manual's listed limits (5 minutes, as in AH) had been near the hardline, don't you think if it had by some miracle not siezed it would at least had shown some signs of damage?
FYI, I think the limits in AH are a good thing. But they have nothing to do with real life engine failure.
Originally posted by CAP1
ooo.......almost forgot...you ever see anyone in here fighting with bombs or a belly tank still slung underneath? i think most fighters(including the pony) were not able to fight with any of this still hanging..i think the pony was actually supposed to be flown straight and level with bombs hanging..or tanks........
Weapon limits were a lot different in reality. For example, rockets had a very specific speed and angle they were to be fired at.
As to bombs and fighting, I imagine it happened on accident a few times, but I am sure it was not desirable. If a mount is rated for 1000lbs and you pull a 3 G turn, that mount is going to fail.
Droptankwise, Spitfires were tested for combat ability with the slipper tanks attached. You can see that in varios documents. I don't know about any fighters other than Spitfires.
-
I think the best point has been playability (read: fun) vs. reality (read: work).
Both games scratch a certain itch.
If I feel like immersing myself in 'hardcore realism' (whatever that is) and I want to micromanage my engine, I boot up Il-2. If I want to go up and worry about ACM and not have to micromanage things in my plane that would likely be far easier to manage in real life, I boot up AH2.
I have both games and I enjoy both games for what they are.
People hold up and tout 'realism' like it's some goal that is SUPPOSED to be attained. I disagree. For some that IS the fun part, and for them there are games where that can be the focus. What can be equally fun is having a sim where the principles that needed to be adhered to are in place, where historical strengths and weaknesses can be exploited, and where real life tactics can translate into game successes.
Or, in other words, sometimes I feel like doing a ramp start in Falcon 4, and sometimes I just want to hit E and get on with it.
I don't think one thing necessarily makes one game better than the other.
Having said that, my K/D is much, much higher in Il-2 than it will ever be in AH2, and that is at ace level! :O
-
One other thing re: what the others say:
I was browsing SimHQ in the IL-2 forum, and there was this guy who is some sort of online 'legend'- and he went on a whole post about his technique for flying around in a 190 and then picking lower guys when they weren't looking. The thread went on quite a while with folks basically agreeing with the tactic and talking about other tactics equally 'dweeby' in AH2.
What struck me about the discussion was the perception of the players who were posting. What would get you laughed off this board was not only bragged about, but encouraged on the Il-2 boards. The difference in mindsets was very interesting.
-
I found it, here's a taste of what 'the other guys' are saying:
guy 1: i can watch a furball below me.. pick out a manuevering victim and time it so that when i get to within spitting distance he'll be directly in my crosshairs. that imo, is more usefull than being able to hit a target at insane angles.
guy 2: Rewarding isn't it? That's one of may favorite things to do, especially when flying a 190. Flying along up high, then you see that bright white/blue underside of a maneuvering Yak or an La...wait, watch, then roll in and dive when the time is right, level off just behind him at 890kph, give him a half second burst and annihilate him.
I love that.
Here's another I enjoyed; This is from their version of 'trainers' from what I gathered....:
When reversing you typically have the choice of five manoeuvers.
In order of altitude gain (and therefore airspeed/energy loss)
1 - Immelman - high energy loss
2 - Chandelle - moderate energy loss
3 - Horizontal turn - no energy loss
4 - Slice - moderate energy gain
5 - Split-s - high energy gain
The Immelman is only good when you are looking to gain as much altitude as possible during the reversal and the energy loss doesn't matter as you are 'in the clear'
Chandelle is good for unclear circumstances where you keep your airspeed high yet gain some altitude.
Horizontal turn is good for aircraft that are at high speed and in their 'rate turning' range - it allows them to maintain their altitude and airspeed while turning at their best rate.
Slice is good for when you find yourself low on energy and need to reverse while speeding up.
The Split-S is is good when you need to maximize acceleration and the altitude loss is irrelevant.
Before you make the choice of what reversal method to use, you need to take the tactical situation into account and in particular your current energy state. If you are under threat you do not want to use a method that results in energy loss.
This is from their version of 'trainers' from what I gathered....
-
HT or Pyro once said something like: HTC won't introduce random failures. Modeling some things is extremely complex, requiring significant computer resources. Randomizing the unstimulated points is not an approach HTC takes.
That makes alot of sense to me. I see this approach in AH when I compare it with other sims.
The AH damage model certainly needs work, but I think HTC knows this...and I hope they are working on it.
While more complex engine management, and other such things may be enjoyable at times, this is the type of thing I'd enjoy in FSO or something-not some random occasion when I have limited time to play. I think most people don't have the time, equipment, etc for such things.
I think HTC understands this, you can't have a good business on a game that people only play twice a month because the complexity requires such a time investment.
Another point. We have 'equipment' not cockpits. Is it realistic to try to remember your mixture, rpm, throttle, trim, etc buttons? Not many people have a simulation 'cockpit' with such levers, and knobs and things. If your lucky you have a stick and pedals ... most don't even have pedals.
Is it realistic to be restricted to a keyboard interface? So much BS that isn't even discussed here... But I'll bet HTC has considered most of this stuff, and it's why they have a successful business, and not a dream.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Yanksfan,
The manuals (I have the Mossie 6's) aren't telling you the engine's limits. They are saying what you're supposed to do....for the maintainance schedule.
We know of, for example, a Spitfire pilot who panicked and ran on WEP for more than 30 minutes with no adverse effect on his Spit's Merlin. If the Spitfire's manual's listed limits (5 minutes, as in AH) had been near the hardline, don't you think if it had by some miracle not siezed it would at least had shown some signs of damage?
FYI, I think the limits in AH are a good thing. But they have nothing to do with real life engine failure.
Weapon limits were a lot different in reality. For example, rockets had a very specific speed and angle they were to be fired at.
As to bombs and fighting, I imagine it happened on accident a few times, but I am sure it was not desirable. If a mount is rated for 1000lbs and you pull a 3 G turn, that mount is going to fail.
Droptankwise, Spitfires were tested for combat ability with the slipper tanks attached. You can see that in varios documents. I don't know about any fighters other than Spitfires.
well.....that was my point.......and it doesn't take too much of a turn to go past 3G's.....helllll..in a cessna 172, if you bank 50degres and fly a 360 circle, you're pulling around 2G's....and that's only doing about 100ktias.......imagine the pony..or any other fighter doing 400mph, and banking over 50 or 60 degrees, and pulling........
even with the drop tanks...how much did they hold? 100LL avgas weighs 6lbs/gallon......back then they used(i think)130 octane.....but i think it's about the same in weight........but i don't know how big the drops were......
i also do agree with the limits, although i keep forgetting to use wep in the ponyB and the f6f......probably because i was flying the zeke a lot, and it doesn't have it.....
<>
-
Originally posted by toonces3
One other thing re: what the others say:
I was browsing SimHQ in the IL-2 forum, and there was this guy who is some sort of online 'legend'- and he went on a whole post about his technique for flying around in a 190 and then picking lower guys when they weren't looking. The thread went on quite a while with folks basically agreeing with the tactic and talking about other tactics equally 'dweeby' in AH2.
What struck me about the discussion was the perception of the players who were posting. What would get you laughed off this board was not only bragged about, but encouraged on the Il-2 boards. The difference in mindsets was very interesting.
sounds like storch is over there now:D
-
Also...
How unrealistic is it if a 'dweeb' player never even thinks of landing because of 'engine management', and exploits an engine they replace in a moment?
I like to land my sorties. The incentive to land now is already limited. Extreme complexity of engine management would make this 'dweeb' problem even worse.
If your playing against a player who doesn't want to land/live, is that 'realistic'? It's all a matter of where your priorities are I guess.
-
Comparing AH models to IL2 models and saying IL2 is clearly better is false.
Look at the original IL2 models. Boxy, flat, uninteresting, often poorly shaped with low poly counts (did you even LOOK at the gun troughs on the 109 cowling??) Even on maxed graphics they were stick-figure planes outside a certain range, then when they got into range they "popped" into 3D.
I was seriously UNimpressed by the state of IL2 graphics, straight from the box. Compare THOSE original graphics to the original Ah graphics, and they're a toss-up. AH more crisper, clearer, IL2 a bit more detailed (wires, etc)
Folks like to compare the latest graphics model of IL2 to the oldest graphic model of AH1. Instead they ought to compare it to the P-51s, B-25s, and so forth, of recent AH graphical updates.
Compared to THESE graphics, IL2 isn't such a clear victor anymore. They both look pretty good, only IL2 requires a monster computer to get its good looks.
I was never impressed with the "top-down only" ground in IL2. It showed up one way as a low-res model than "popped" into view as something else. You could see the break where the detail level shifted, and rivers didn't line up or anything. When you got below 5000 feet it started looking bad, and on the deck it's pure crap. You're looking at a texture of something that's supposed to be far away, only you're right next to it, and the illusion totally fails. AH1/AH2 terrain has always been better. Lately, I dislike the broken horizon AH2 has, but that's only been around since the tiles recode. Once they fix it, it'll go back to looking pretty sweet.
So,
Terrain: AH win
Graphics: Compare like generations and it's a toss up
But AH requires a sh** load less of a computer to pull off the highest levels of detail.
The ONLY thing IL2 has is a super-inflated use of colored light. It's a big part of their eye candy and rendering, but I think folks misunderstand WHAT they like about it. It's not the terrain, nor the planes, but the light that is bouncing off of either! (my opinion, take it as you will)
-
I think its interesting that there are IL-2 fans that revel in the "accuracy" of the IL-2 flight model. I'm reminded of my first few sorties in Pacific Fighters, when, using auto land, on short final in my F4F, I was indicating 65 km/h. :O
-
Originally posted by Stoney
I think its interesting that there are IL-2 fans that revel in the "accuracy" of the IL-2 flight model. I'm reminded of my first few sorties in Pacific Fighters, when, using auto land, on short final in my F4F, I was indicating 65 km/h. :O
Our B5N2 might still be flying at that speed with full flaps and a gentle decent. Maybe.
Any of our fighters? Long since in the drink.
-
Lot of completely wrong stuff along with the few accurate and impartial comparisons.. Anyone who's been around long enough, or knows the game well enough could have a field day stripping out most of the "facts" from those quotes, but these are the worse:
The game is just too arcadish. many planes in WW2 were hard to fly, some were complicated, some were temperamental, some pulled hard to right other to left. Some needed a lot of trimming to make them fly good.
This guy never tried combat trim off. He also rags on AH about something that's actualy worse in Il2. This is the single worst thing about Il2 for me. The planes don't have anywhere near the personality in Il2 as they do in AH. Flying near the limit in Il2, all the planes (in comparison with AH's) feel pretty much the same.. The stall is completely mushy and generic and doesn't really highlight the different planes' designs. All the different areas of Il2's flight envelope, across all models, seem like they're tacked together to match reality, rather than naturaly emergent from a single physics engine.
All this is almost nonexistent in AH. that's what keeps me away from it. There's no penality for bad flying and no reward for good flying.
Sounds like he couldn't fly for crap, nor saw anyone who could fly worth a damn in his brief stay.
I played aces high for years, since 2001. I just stopped paying for it last year, but I still have a current copy.
In aces high the game does everything for you. If you run the engine hard for a while it will cut the boost for you. It pulls the flaps back in if you go too fast with any plane,trims the plane for you, does most of the bombsight calibration for you. Got the idea?
Here if you don't know and watch how you run the engine you'll cook it rather quick. You can blow your engine in so many ways in this game. and in every plane for a different reason. You'll over rev it in 109 if you play with the manual prop pitch and you don't know how. in other 109's you can blow it on the ground if you engage the water methanol boost at over 100% throttle. You can blow the engine on the 109E-7Z if you engage the GM1 boost at lower then 6500m. Of course, you can over heat it, can get your prop pitch shot up, your throttle cables shotup and so on.
So Aces High should become a hardware failure simulator? Certainly not in the Main Arenas... Much more proper to CT.
- I downloaded ACES to try it out. Fantastic viewing. But what I don't get is how can anybody fly that sim? Tell me I'm doing something wrong -- it doesn't feel natural. The nose of the ac bounces all over the place. I don't get it.
This guy had his setup totaly crooked. The planes in Il2 are far more bouncy, there's no comparison (nevermind if we don't look past the really user unfriendly input setup) The only place AH wobbles more than Il2 is with combat trim at low speed (foolproofing aimed at noobs who can't keep things in the air, e.g. taking off/landing), or in hammerhead reversals. Everything else is rock solid in comparison to Il2.
- Last time I was in AH was before they shutdown H2H (which makes me laugh btw) But anyway, I was in a f6f5 at 25,000 feet, had been for a while going back to my base with 1/4 tank of gas, and no ammo, when up from the base below me comes a spitfire mk16 straight up i the air shoots me down and then called me a dweeb. that was the last time I ever darkened AH's site, games or anything else.
"iI got shot down" whine, nothing to do with the physics...
- LOL, i had a bad night in AH, chasing a Spit in my F4F, my plane engine's RPM just drops like a rock. the manifold pressure was still up, i thought i somehow did my "blow up teh engine" stunt in TW in AH.
Another guy who doesn't know wtf is going on (he dropped his RPMs somehow, or his RPM axis went out of calib.) and blames the game..
-
Numbers don't lie.
Login US prime time and you can see that on average 600-800 players a night midweek!
I often go back and check the forum at my old haunt and there are more people logged into this forum, debating and discussing worthwhile topics, than there are on all of their servers actually playing.
Thats the main reason I switched and the fact that I have come to learn that this game is superior in many areas. Plus there are quite a few decent sticks who can match anyone on their day.
These guys are all gaming with there eyes wide shut. This is where it is at and we are the lucky ones to be able to experience such dweebery on a mass scale.
Bruv
~S~
-
If for a minute now and then, the game can suck me in where my imagination, my love of the history and the computer makes me feel like I'm 'in the cockpit' then the game has done it's job.
Only Airwarrior and now Aces High have done that consistantly.
Can't ask for more then that.
-
Ahhh yes, there is nothing that compares to dweebery on a mass scale :aok
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Are you saying what you "know" or do you actually have sources? I ask because that contradicts what I have read.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry, but unless you can actuall provide evidence of your claims I can't take your say over these other documented cases.
http://www.tailwheel.nl/n/northamericanp51dmustang/p51trainingmanual/index.html
Read page 14 of this P51D pilots flight manuel and you will not have to speculate, i was making a generalized comment on what i had seen on another thread and what I have seen from other sources.
Here is the manuel, read it.
have a great day
:aok
-
"Last time I was in AH was before they shutdown H2H (which makes me laugh btw) But anyway, I was in a f6f5 at 25,000 feet, had been for a while going back to my base with 1/4 tank of gas, and no ammo, when up from the base below me comes a spitfire mk16 straight up i the air shoots me down and then called me a dweeb."
Happens to me all the time :)
-
I think HTC is making a terrific job and that’s why I’m still here. Someone said something about balance between reality and game and I think this is the case here. But, I believe a few more “realistic” inputs won’t harm anyone and I wonder how a player here would react during ACM under a certain “management pressure”.
To gather all these treads from other forums took time and by no means its a representative part of these specific forums concerning AH. Is just what I tried to find out.
Btw is anyone knows what the heck this means
“ya you got a few more layers of flight modeling detail to process, but once you get a feel fore TW's 6 point floating model you will never go back to 4 point models, like the one AH has. Heck it only had 2 floating points in ah1. I have been told this is largely why TW has such a unique feel.
What is the 6 point floating model and why AH has a 4 point floating model
-
Originally posted by yanksfan
http://www.tailwheel.nl/n/northamericanp51dmustang/p51trainingmanual/index.html
Read page 14 of this P51D pilots flight manuel and you will not have to speculate, i was making a generalized comment on what i had seen on another thread and what I have seen from other sources.
Here is the manuel, read it.
have a great day
:aok
Yanks, it was commonplace for pilots to exceed the WEP time limit recommendation, and almost always without breaking the engine. Here's a typical example of a P-51 chasing an Me 262, running at 74" of MAP for 15 minutes without the slightest problem.
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/353-hinchey-14nov44.jpg)
In another example, a P-51 chases a 190 for 50 miles (two sectors in game) pulling 70" MAP. At 360 mph, he ran the engine in WEP for nearly 9 minutes.
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/361-webb-25june44.jpg)
Roy Webb's P-51...
(http://www.littlefriends.co.uk/gallery/361g/b7-w.jpg)
In late 1944, Republic Aviation ran a durability test on an R-2800 C series engine. They ran it continuously at MIL power with one 15 minute burst at 80" MAP every hour. After 250 hours the engine was removed from the test stand and torn down for inspection. It proved to be badly worn, however, there was no indication of impending failure of any internal component.
As has been mentioned, WEP restrictions were in place to limit wear and tear in normal operation. In combat, no one paid the slightest attention to those restrictions. Engines were pushed as hard as necessary. Especially when in a situation where survival was the primary issue, and it didn't matter what air force you were flying for or what type of fighter. Engines were expendable. If it had to be changed, so be it... You made it home.
There has never been a more durable aircraft engine than Pratt & Whitney's R-2800. Yet, the AAF set a 5 minute WEP restriction. Believe me, this was an institutionalized restriction and not a reflection on the R-2800. Ask any combat pilot about WEP restriction in battle and they will give you a smirk and tell you it was ignored. Engines are less expensive to replace than whole airplanes and pilots.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by PanosGR
What is the 6 point floating model and why AH has a 4 point floating model
I think you'll have to go to the forum where that was posted and ask them. Whether it "means" anything, I couldn't say. Sounds like propaganda that may not have much basis in reality.
Supposedly the main code guy at TW is developing their latest version which is supposed to support about anything you might want to develop, including guided missiles. For example, he is said to have coded into the next release the solar system and 9000 stars so you can navigate at night if you want, and so that all stars are in their correct position for any real date during WWII. On the other hand, currently there are no manable gun turrets, no carriers, no this and no that. TW is a volunteer "community" development based on the TW engine, and there is a lot that is lacking.
I fly TW and up to this point it is definitely not superior to AH. It's different. Some minor things I like about it, but there are many things I appreciate a great deal more in AH. For one, there's full support for TIR 6 DOF in AH, but on 3 DOF in TW, and that is extremely annoying when you are used to looking all around.
Best regards
-
I have an older copy of Il2 that I played for a while while I was waiting for my internet to be connected in my new house and in my opinion it didn't have anything much on AH.
The environments look nicer and all that... but it's a flight sim, not a nature walk.
The one thing that really impressed me in Il2 was the way the water works.
I actually made a point of crashing into water a few times because it was so nice.
Having some real water would be cool... but again... it's a flight sim and I'd rather see HTC continue on with what they're doing at the moment... upgrading and adding aircraft.
There is one other thing I loved about Il2.... It was the progressive engine damage model.
Running the engine too hot or taking damage initiated a progressive engine degradation. Power out-put drops and the sounds indicating the gradual destruction of the engine were great too.
Adding something like this, as opposed to the oil-hit -> fly until you run dry -> engine stops dead would be cool.
Other than that.... Il2 does nothing for me and I've not played it since my internet connection was installed.
-
Xasthur, you're right about the water. I forgot to mention that in my last post. AH has better land, IL2 better water.
Panos: It's hype. HTC doesn't share this kind of stuff. In all my time of reading the AH forums (since after AH left BETA) I haven't run across any reference to "floating point models."
He's using his own made-up terms to describe something HTC has never talked about, so he's BSing to make TW look better.
Most folks in TW have left, given up hope, or out and out QUIT because the engine is so terribly buggy, inaccurate, and limiting that they can't do what they want with it. The "next version" has been in the works for 6 years, and in fact the main coders have left so it's never coming. The base code engine is so limiting that large amounts of drag are hard-coded into cooling flaps, regardless of which plane and which cooling flaps are in use. Durability of a plane part is directly linked to the weight given to said part, as well. Many plane builders have complained about these and many other bugs in the TW forums.
TW is so flawed on even the most basic levels that it will never be "accurate" as most TW folks claim. I think TW caters to the minority group that likes fiddling with engine settings, only....
They're not accurate settings!! It's plug-and-play! They plug in the power of the engine and a few other settings, and expect it to generate a perfectly accurate power curve. Most planes plug in the most basic values for the engine but then don't even include the WEP, max, takeoff, cruise, continuous throttle settings for the engine, meaning they never tested them in the first place. Which means they only compare top speeds, they aren't very accurate.
It's like trying to duplicate the Mona Lisa with legos. Only you have to use the ones you have. And you don't have many. You can come up with some things that might resemble it (what TW is now) but it is nowhere near accurate, and claiming it is (what TW fanatics say now) is absurd to anybody outside looking in.
My little $0.02 rant.
-
Originally posted by Xasthur
There is one other thing I loved about Il2.... It was the progressive engine damage model.
Running the engine too hot or taking damage initiated a progressive engine degradation. Power out-put drops and the sounds indicating the gradual destruction of the engine were great too.
I liked the idea, but NOT how IL2 programmed it.
IL2 you take any single hit anywhere near the engine and you're done for. Game over, you can't produce enough power to stay in flight.
Historically some planes took massive engine damage and soldiered on.
Some at reduced power, but for hours. One pilot in WW2 took major engine damage, was going to bail, but he had some kills on the guncam and there was serious competition with other squads about this, so he kept at it, and it took him almost all the way home (a long distance from the feeling I got reading about it). There was some pilot with a radial engine that took a cannon round through the cowling that sheared off parts of two cylinders (showing the pistons!) and he couldn't even feel a power difference, nor did the engine slow down. He landed without incident.
In IL2, you sneeze at a plane and the timer starts. When the timer gets to 0 your lose all power regardless of how weak the damage was.
I never liked that.
-
One great thing about Il2 is shallow cannon hits.. If you present as much shallow surfaces to the enemy as you can, you run the chance of his cannon hits just glancing off or no doing more than burning the paint. Really cool to pull off vs. 30mm birds.
One anecdote I only recall now is about vert stabs in Il2:
I once lost a vert stab, and could fly around with a minimal yaw stability penalty... There was some real slip as you'd expect from losing the one and only yaw control surface on the plane, but only when I reduced throttle to almost nothing. This was in one plane (late model C205) and I supposed it had special aerodynamics qualities to make this happen.
But later in a 152 I once again could fly with barely any sideslip with just two small vert stab structural stubs left on the tail. Which was surprising to say the least, given the huge sideslip you get with a damaged rudder in AH, and the relatively big aspect ratio. I didn't experiment further with that since i was pissed and reupped asap to kill the bastard that got me...
The real conclusive evidence was a P63 that I put two 30mm hits on with a K4 from almost point blank in a rolling scissors. It didn't seem to have much damage from the first round which hit somewhere in the forward half of the fuselage, but the second one hit in the tail, and I just broke the scissors thinking I had TKO'd it... Not so.
Just then I ran out of fuel and the P63, with no vert stab at all, maneuvered down from about 10-15K to the deck while correcting its approach for my evasives for two or three consecutive killshot positions, from probably 350 mph down to 200 or less, with no sign of slip.
There's some nice stuff in Il2's physics, but they are without a doubt just tacked together rather than the result of a single good physics engine.
-
heres what I say about AH: If your interested download the game for a two week free trial. If you like it, great. If not GTFO. All that other rubbish is just so much hot post intestinal gas.
-
Roy Webb
After approximately 50 miles ...
wow 22k dive to the deck and pursues for 2 whole sectors :eek: I thought that just happened in the MA
-
Originally posted by Yeager
heres what I say about AH: If your interested download the game for a two week free trial. If you like it, great. If not GTFO. All that other rubbish is just so much hot post intestinal gas.
Absolutely!
One should never suggest ideas or try to improve a community!:rolleyes:
-
Well, that happens nowadays that H2H is gone.
-
Alright, I'll admit it. I've never played AH2, only Il2. I came to this message board to lurk around a bit; an open minded expansion of the horizons. I plan on taking my two weeks. I'm just waiting for a time when I can dedicate more time than I currently have.
-
As far as statistics go, Il2 and AH2 are too similar to give the advantage over another. I ran a few calculations and found that small differences in top speed range from 2-5 Km/h where large ones are 7-10.
That isn't much, close enough to pass as individual interpretation. IMO. Nothing worth bragging or griping about.
I did notice several FM trends, however.
In AH, some planes have a certain altitude range where top speed does not increase, only stays the same. Where, in Il2, the performance of the same planes almost always drop 5-10 Km/h.
Also, in AH, using emergency power does not do anything for you at certain altitudes. In Il2, there is always an improvement in speed, though only 2-5 Kp/h. Again, too close to brag about.
The statistical FMs are too close for using it in a realism debate.
-
As for Boom n' Zoom versus Turn n' Burn...
Here at AH, furballing is worshiped more than position fighting. TnBing is much more fun and honorable, Bnz is cowardly.
On the Il2 boards, the exact opposite. BnZing is looked upon for being much safer and TnBing more riskier and foolish.
This is not necessarily true outside of the message boards. I see WAY more TnBing than BnZing in Il2.
Both were strategies applied in WWII. It is merely a differentiation of cultural evolution of the two simming communities.
In example:
In Il2, dropping flaps is an attempt, rather than the good tactic it is seen at AH.
-
The engine damage model in Il2 is not as touchy as described in this thread. I've never had a problem with it.
I took engine hits in several different planes last night. I was able to fly back to base without a practical (or even noticeable) loss in power or speed.
It takes a relatively heavy engine hit to trigger the progressive damage timer.
Same with engine overheating. 90% of my dogfighting time is with an overheated engine. I may drop the throttle to 90% if the dogfight has been going on for a while.
-
Ever any questions.... ask Widewing, he da man:aok
Don
-
Originally posted by toonces3
I found it, here's a taste of what 'the other guys' are saying:
guy 1: i can watch a furball below me.. pick out a manuevering victim and time it so that when i get to within spitting distance he'll be directly in my crosshairs. that imo, is more usefull than being able to hit a target at insane angles.
guy 2: Rewarding isn't it? That's one of may favorite things to do, especially when flying a 190. Flying along up high, then you see that bright white/blue underside of a maneuvering Yak or an La...wait, watch, then roll in and dive when the time is right, level off just behind him at 890kph, give him a half second burst and annihilate him.
I love that.
Here's another I enjoyed; This is from their version of 'trainers' from what I gathered....:
When reversing you typically have the choice of five manoeuvers.
In order of altitude gain (and therefore airspeed/energy loss)
1 - Immelman - high energy loss
2 - Chandelle - moderate energy loss
3 - Horizontal turn - no energy loss
4 - Slice - moderate energy gain
5 - Split-s - high energy gain
The Immelman is only good when you are looking to gain as much altitude as possible during the reversal and the energy loss doesn't matter as you are 'in the clear'
Chandelle is good for unclear circumstances where you keep your airspeed high yet gain some altitude.
Horizontal turn is good for aircraft that are at high speed and in their 'rate turning' range - it allows them to maintain their altitude and airspeed while turning at their best rate.
Slice is good for when you find yourself low on energy and need to reverse while speeding up.
The Split-S is is good when you need to maximize acceleration and the altitude loss is irrelevant.
Before you make the choice of what reversal method to use, you need to take the tactical situation into account and in particular your current energy state. If you are under threat you do not want to use a method that results in energy loss.
This is from their version of 'trainers' from what I gathered....
this speaks volumes as to why BnZ is thought of as "the right way" in that sim....... no mention of Energy Management and potential / kinetic energy states... .......
but honestly in regards to this Thread,
WGAS
If you have fun here, keep having fun, if you not having fun.either find a different approach, or find another game somewhere.....
WGAS
:cool:
-
I bought a Flat screen TV a couple of months ago and absolutey
love it .
My wife brought an article to my attention a couple of weeks
after we had it , the article diced my TV as inferior , poor picture ,
poor sound and other negatives to many to mention .
I threw the article in the garbage and still think my TV is worth
every dollar spent .
-
Originally posted by Krusty
You can't pull things from forums without dates.
Some of that is just sour grapes. For example, an f6f at 20k ignores a spit with higher E zooming up at him and he quits the game forever. Perhaps he doesn't understand how zoom climbs work. Or how acceleration works. A spit16 can catch a tempest and a 262 on the deck if it's faster than both, to start with, or if it dives on them, etc. Sour grapes mixed with ignorance.
[EDIT: Definitely sour grapes on the part of folks leaving the HTH scene and going to other games because they can't pay for a subscription]
Also, AH1 gunnery was really suspect. Ah2 gunnery is many many times better. How old are these posts talking about "bad gunnery"?
And on the other hand, certain communities cop certain attitudes about their own game. IL2 folks claim to have the best FM and get all defensive about it. TW folks claim to have the most accurate and most realistic sim ever, despite huge glaring game engine models which negate this very idea. On top of that TW goes out of its way to make even the simplist of things hard. It's nearly impossible to land some aircraft, and this is from a many-years, many-games veteran, I've never had trouble landing in any sim ever made up til trying TW. It's a highly flawed and artificially complicated system that's subpar to IL2 and WB in realistic flight, let alone AH2.
You may call me biased if you like. I've flown them all over different periods of time. There's a reason I'm still flying AH but not those other games.
I tried TW TT just for the hell of it. I had a hell of a time getting a spit off the ground. Yet a 190 was fairly easy. Was kind of strange IMO. Biggest problem with that game is it doesn't seem to show the true path of the aircraft.
If a plane was behind you it seems like it's on a popsicle stick flying through the air. That and all the planes I tried felt almost the same in the air, just didn't seem to have a good FM.. IMO
-
Panos, you know most if not all of the TW related comments you quoted is almost a year old.
:D
[quote:- LOL, i had a bad night in AH, chasing a Spit in my F4F, my plane engine's RPM just drops like a rock. the manifold pressure was still up, i thought i somehow did my "blow up teh engine" stunt in TW in AH.]
Moot- Another guy who doesn't know wtf is going on (he dropped his RPMs somehow, or his RPM axis went out of calib.) and blames the game..
To me that quote sounds tainted with a bit of sarcasm, moot.
:)
-
Uh no... how do you drop RPM in AH without noticing it? I've never heard of such a bug. Like I said, it's more likely he pressed a keyboard shortcut for reduced RPM, or his RPM axis un-calibrated.
A lot of those quotes are just clueless people who don't really understand what happened, but talk about it as thought they've got some sort of definitive authority on what happened.
Immorebetter:
"On the Il2 boards, the exact opposite. BnZing is looked upon for being much safer and TnBing more riskier and foolish.[...]
In example:
In Il2, dropping flaps is an attempt, rather than the good tactic it is seen at AH."
That's because there's far less maneuverability at low speeds in Il2 than in AH. You can't do half the furballing you do in AH once you drop past a certain speed in Il2's planes.. It's a bit like flying in B25Hs.
-
Originally posted by moot
Uh no... how do you drop RPM in AH without noticing it? I've never heard of such a bug. Like I said, it's more likely he pressed a keyboard shortcut for reduced RPM, or his RPM axis un-calibrated.
A lot of those quotes are just clueless people who don't really understand what happened, but talk about it as thought they've got some sort of definitive authority on what happened.
Immorebetter:
"On the Il2 boards, the exact opposite. BnZing is looked upon for being much safer and TnBing more riskier and foolish.[...]
In example:
In Il2, dropping flaps is an attempt, rather than the good tactic it is seen at AH."
That's because there's far less maneuverability at low speeds in Il2 than in AH. You can't do half the furballing you do in AH once you drop past a certain speed in Il2's planes.. It's a bit like flying in B25Hs.
Speaking of RPM that's another thing I couldn't stand in TW.. When adjusting the throttle the engine noise didn't change much. So it was very annoying as it seemed to sound almost the same pitch at full or quarter throttle.
-
here's my take on this.......i flew AW till somewhere around 98 or 99......then didn't do any flight simming till about a year and a half ago........to me AH had a very steep learning curve(probably because in AW, i spent all of my time foolishly in the RR arenas). i've never flown IL2, and probably never will.
HiTech has an almost impossible job.........that is to please all the people all the time. even HE can't do this. it's impossible. there's ALWAYS going to be someone who's unhappy with this or that. there's alWAYS going to be someone who says this is wrong, or that is wrong, or that shouldn't be possible. well...in my humble opinion, AH2 is the best sim there is. i get to come in here, and fly a WW2 fighter of my choice...and if i die, i get to come back and try again. i get to fight others, and if i'm lucky, i get to shoot them down. i get to make friends in here,.......and enemys........when i come into the arenas, i get to leave the headaches and tension of my real life behind....even if it's only for an hour. when i drop into a furball, i get to ride a virtual roller coaster. has any of you ever paid attention to how you feel after about 2 minutes(asuming you live that long) in a big furball? notice your heart's still going about 300mph? THAT and all of the above is what makes this sim worth every single penny.
there's always going to be some that say these same things about IL2.....and they're entitled to their opinions.....and they're entitled to expressing them just as we are......just as we feel that they're wrong, they feel the same......like i said i've never flown it, and won't..........so this is my virtual pilot home........and allof you that've become friends(you know who you are).
<>all, and just keep having your fun, regardless of which sim you choose to fly........
-
how is there "no energy loss" in a horizontal turn??? what kind of FM are they using?
-
The IL2 one. 'Nuff said. :cool:
-
Originally posted by Wes14
To me that quote sounds tainted with a bit of sarcasm, moot.
Oops.. You meant the other guy.. :)