Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: LEDPIG on March 10, 2008, 06:07:51 AM
-
Just an interesting question....I've always wondered what it would be like to have things such as setting intercooler doors, superchargers, mixtures, rpms, and the resulting damage that occurs if done wrongly would be.
I think it would be interesting, make the game a pain, but it be funny to be behind a Mustang and watch him blow up his engine, cause he forgot to set his oil coolers, or a 38 loose a breaker and watch his props go crazy in an rpm runaway. I play IL-2 quite frequently and you can set it to model those things. Gives you an idea of the stuff these guys had to do.
Again, don't really mean this, just a curious thought.
What are your opinions, thoughts ?
Ledpig
S!
-
uhhhh....... NO!
I struggle enough getting my K/D ratio past 1 in the game after 200 fighter kills.
-
I've watched some old P-47 and F4U training films and the pre-flight check lists alone are insane. Can you imagine trying to keep up with that stuff for all of the planes we have each being a unique procedure? :O I still think it would be cool to do...it would probably limit me to 1 sortie a night though.
-
Most of the aircraft had automated systems so the workload probably wouldn't be as high as folks think it would be. Even engine management is pretty simple and simple -- it just looks intimidating.
-
It's not so much the workload, it's how you implement the workload that gets ticklish. There are only so many keys on a keyboard, and you can't assume everyone has a full-blown simpit customized for a specific aircraft.
So, just imagine finding yourself on SkyRock's tail with an ALMOST perfect firing solution but you need to close your intercooler door slightly...
...just press <CTRL><ALT><SHIFT><META>F6 to select intercooler door, then press <ALT><SHIFT>M three times to set the intercooler door to the correct position followed by <CTRL>P to engage.
Meanwhile some zip code in an La-7 just rammed you from behind.
-
Might be something to it, hitting CTRL G twenty one times to pump up the landing gear of a Spitfire. :D
-
I like more pilot interaction with his machine. IL2 1946 has those elements in it, and it is not bad onve you get used to watching your engine temps and things. I actually like it. But most probably will not.
-
Just an interesting question....I've always wondered what it would be like to have things such as setting intercooler doors, superchargers, mixtures, rpms, and the resulting damage that occurs if done wrongly would be.
I think it would be interesting, make the game a pain, but it be funny to be behind a Mustang and watch him blow up his engine, cause he forgot to set his oil coolers, or a 38 loose a breaker and watch his props go crazy in an rpm runaway. I play IL-2 quite frequently and you can set it to model those things. Gives you an idea of the stuff these guys had to do.
Again, don't really mean this, just a curious thought.
What are your opinions, thoughts ?
Ledpig
S!
helllllll....we can kinda get an idea even without having to set all of these things ourselves......how many times have you hit a bomber because you misjudged your rate of closure? or got a bit over anxious and compressed your plane.....or in a furball, hit another plane? could you imagine if friendly collisions were turned on? i've had as many as 5 or 6 guys on my 6.....and theroeticaly that's impossible.......but hell.....5 guys all turning to try to get one guy, is sure to be mid air collision......
just take a bomber on a long range mission too, at say...14-17k.....see how long your ammo lasts if anyone decides to come after ya........
anyway..just my 2 cents.
<<S>>
-
That's an awesome idea but I think HTC stayed away from it in order to keep the game simple enough for everyone... even zip codes and whiners to play it.
Oh, hell, HTC, what have you done!
-
That's an awesome idea but I think HTC stayed away from it in order to keep the game simple enough for everyone... even zip codes and whiners to play it.
Oh, hell, HTC, what have you done!
Maybe it would keep the zipcodes and whiners out..... I'm used to in IL-2, to going ok engines getting warm, back off the power open my cowl flaps some. I'm getting high need to lean my mixture, adjust my rpm's. Oh i'm at 8,000ft need to engage first stage of supercharger. It's fun... :) but like a say it's a hassle and this is a game. And it's made to have fun, so this is not really a serious inquiry.
Check out this article about the stuff a P-38 pilot had to do if he got bounced.
3. As a typical case to demonstrate my point, let us assume that we have a pilot fresh out of flying school with about a total of twenty-five hours in a P-38, starting out on a combat mission. He is on a deep ramrod, penetration and target support to maximum endurance. He is cruising along with his power set at maximum economy. He is pulling 31" Hg and 2100 RPM. He is auto lean and running on external tanks. His gun heater is off to relieve the load on his generator, which frequently gives out (under sustained heavy load). His sight is off to save burning out the bulb. His combat switch may or may not be on. Flying along in this condition, he suddenly gets "bounced", what to do flashes through his mind. He must turn, he must increase power and get rid of those external tanks and get on his main. So, he reaches down and turns two stiff, difficult gas switches {valves} to main - turns on his drop tank switches, presses his release button, puts the mixture to auto rich (two separate and clumsy operations), increases his RPM, increases his manifold pressure, turns on his gun heater switch (which he must feel for and cannot possibly see), turns on his combat switch and he is ready to fight. At this point, he has probably been shot down or he has done one of several things wrong. Most common error is to push the throttles wide open before increasing RPM. This causes detonation and subsequent engine failure. Or, he forgets to switch back to auto rich, and gets excessive cylinder head temperature with subsequent engine failure.
They were just talking about installing an automatic power console function that adjusted engine parameters but it hadn't been installed yet. The Focke Wulf had a full automatic power control unit, one of the first of it's day. But for most planes you were on your own with most things....
Eye opening isn't it..... :O That's why these guys are hero's...just another reason... :salute
-
TargetWare's set up the same way, LEDPIG. But I believe it's also why you hardly see anyone flying either of those two sims' as much.
HTC made this simple enough to be fun, and that way to keep the sub's coming in, as many and as often as possible.
A Squeaker or a zipcode's money is just as good as yours, after all.
-
There's a different side to consider in all this.
1.
WW2 lasted for 6 years from 1939 to 1945. From a technological standpoint, 6 years is a long time in research and development, and the technological gap between early war aircraft and late war aircraft in varying fields ranging from ergonomics to automation, is very wide. Contrary to what colmbo said, automation in plane management was not common, and it took considerable amount of high-grade technology to come up with a system that warrants minimal human management. In combat, a complex plane to manage may even result in deaths, as can be seen in many existing AARs on how an unseasoned pilot came close to meeting his maker, because he made a mistake.
In this sense, it can be said that what kind system the plane is equipped with, is as much a combat factor as its speed, climb-rate, or turn radius. Thus, in principle, more complex forms of management can become another excellent material to depict in a combat simulation game.
2.
The problem is in coming up with a generic, simplified form of management that can depict some of the basic (but also important) differences of individual planes and their on-board systems, and yet still easy to comprehend and use for gaming purposes. Obviously no one wants a 20-step checklist just to take-off, or remember the sequence in which they fiddle with pitch and throttle levers so they don't over-rev and blow out their CSU everytime they adjust speed.
Many AH gamers frown at the concept of "engine management", but it doesn't have to be all that complex. The whole "complexity" bit is fairly relative; players of some other games with more relaxed realism in plane handling consider AH a very complex and difficult game to play. When I came over to AH from Fighter Ace, learning to learn the limits of flaps, using the hook to land on CVs, switching between fuel tanks, learning the weapons selection system, learning to use hat-keys for views were all very "complex" to me, until I got used to it. Its basically a matter of getting used to.
3.
A worthy comparison might be made with the IL-2 series from 1C:Maddox. IL-2 has its vices for sure, but there are some very compelling strengths to the game, and one of them is the concept of "CEM - complex engine management". This is a very clever use of words, since IL-2's "CEM" is in reality, anything but "complex". It's basically a very generalized, simplified form of engine management system which is divided into 3 major parts - throttle, pitch, and mixture, coupled with some additional systems that deal with superchargers, radiators and etc..
People who are used to AH, and never played IL-2 think that "CEM" is a needlessly complex form of realistic depiction. But frankly, learning to use the CEM is as about as complex as learning when to drop down flaps during combat - you essentially memorize perhaps one or two more factors in game, and just press the keys accordingly.
In many cases, the mixture control is rarely used under normal circumstances. Only at very high altitudes where the air is so thin, does anyone need to fiddle with mixture control. In German planes, the mixture control is automated through the use of Kommandogeraet, so there's no need to use it at all. Prop pitch control is hardly ever touched, since most planes use CSU. The only thing people really use often with IL-2's "Complex Engine Management", is like in AH, the throttles. In some planes the supercharger has to be set manually, in which case all you have to do is memorize the altitude range you have to kick in the supercharger to next gear.
Essentially, in most cases IL-2's CEM makes you push just one (that's right, one) more button during combat.
4.
Then what's the point of "CEM" in IL-2?
"CEM" is an illusion - a cleverly implemented device that gives out a feel of complexity and realism. It's an immersion device, which apparently works so well in achieving its goal, AH gamers think that IL-2's plane management is more complex and realistic than AH, when in reality its not. Unless you completely forget to shift to next supercharger gear, or forget to thin mixture when flying at 30k, the planes mostly perform no better or worse than in AH. The workload befalls to the pilot in IL-2 and AH2, is about the same, barring perhaps the use of one or two more keys.
This is plain ingenuity - they made a system that uses 1~2 more keys than AH under normal circumstances, and immediately, it gives out a powerful feel of immersion despite not being all that different. This, IMO, is something AH can use. Instead of just outright refusing everything, a small compromise such as the "CEM" can change how people perceive the level of realism in AH, without changing anything much in reality.
Think of it this way:
Just how "difficult" will AH become when it is equipped with a CEM exactly same to that of IL-2?
1. The La-7 pilots will have to press one key to shift superchargers at high altitudes.
2. Many allied planes, such as P-47s or P-51s, will have to press one key at very high altitudes to thin the mixture out.
3. German plane pilots will have to do neither - they've got Kommandogeraet. They can perhaps gloat about it.
Practically, this is about it. There are some other methods in using the CEM, but its effects are minute at best. A very small change, which brings out a big illusion of immersion.
-
1. The La-7 pilots will have to press one key to shift superchargers at high altitudes.
And having done that if he raises revs to 2500 his engine will last about 30 secs...........
but to address the original
I think HT has made it very clear that additional management that carries consequences that deny access to combat (such as total engine failure etc) are not favoured options.........the line most likely to succeed is one where some marginal benefit is gained from good engine management..................
-
2. Many allied planes, such as P-47s or P-51s, will have to press one key at very high altitudes to thin the mixture out.
But did the real P-47 or P-51 have to adjust mixture at altitude? I don't think so. The mixture was Cutoff/Auto-lean/Auto-Rich. Depending on the power setting you select either auto-lean or auto-rich and the carb handles the rest. A lot of what I've seen in sims to add "engine management" is just stuff added in sims to add engine management and isn't realistic.
Engine managment would be fun...as long as it realistic and not something done just to add to the game.
-
To add to all this, i didn't really mean i meant this to be IMPLEMENTED in AH. I just brought it up as a fun curiosity. :)
I'll explain what i mean...in IL-2 for instance your flying along. You have your rpm, manifold, and mixture set for a max economy (sometimes i do this for immersion, not necessary in AH). I'm jumped by Germans, i move my one switch on my control stick throttle to full rpm, push the mixture up, (two buttons mind you) and advance the throttle. I drop my DT's (same as in AH). Depending on plane, my supercharger is already set, (some you dont have to set). I check my oil intercooler or cowl flaps (another one button). During the fight i check my engine instruments to check temp and back out of wep or throttle and open or close my cowl flaps or intercooler doors accordingly, (for some planes this is automatic, again it's just one button).
I really just pushed two maybe three more buttons thats it, it's taken me two extra seconds. In Il-2 you can blow your engine out by over temperature, but you can put up a little gamey automatic message that says "engine overheat", or just use your actual oil temp and oil pressure gauge. I've never over rev'd in that game, don't know if you can. But you will hear your props speeding up quite a bit if your in a dive and gun the throttle.
Another thing Il-2 has a fire extinguisher canisters that can be fired maybe one to three times to put out a fire. After that you have exhausted your supply. It really works in putting out fires. And if the fire is too bad and you used up your supply your going to burn anyway. Also diving does put out fires, seems again if fire is too bad, or you can't gain enough speed by diving it won't help you. Seems like i remember AH having something like this, it doesn't seem to work now. Seems like this fire management would be a nice little addition, instead of being generically doomed to burn every time your lit up.
Another thing, no prop feathering? It's mighty fun if after your engine is shot out you can feather a prop and see that still propellor blade just sitting there, adds to my immersion. :)
It's just little things like this that i'm talking about, and you could turn this complex features off like you turn off the stall limiter in this game.
Ledpig
S!
-
To add to all this, i didn't really mean i meant this to be IMPLEMENTED in AH. I just brought it up as a fun curiosity. :)
I'll explain what i mean...in IL-2 for instance your flying along. You have your rpm, manifold, and mixture set for a max economy (sometimes i do this for immersion, not necessary in AH). I'm jumped by Germans, i move my one switch on my control stick throttle to full rpm, push the mixture up, (two buttons mind you) and advance the throttle. I drop my DT's (same as in AH). Depending on plane, my supercharger is already set, (some you dont have to set). I check my oil intercooler or cowl flaps (another one button). During the fight i check my engine instruments to check temp and back out of wep or throttle and open or close my cowl flaps or intercooler doors accordingly, (for some planes this is automatic, again it's just one button).
I really just pushed two maybe three more buttons thats it, it's taken me two extra seconds. In Il-2 you can blow your engine out by over temperature, but you can put up a little gamey automatic message that says "engine overheat", or just use your actual oil temp and oil pressure gauge. I've never over rev'd in that game, don't know if you can. But you will hear your props speeding up quite a bit if your in a dive and gun the throttle.
Another thing Il-2 has a fire extinguisher canisters that can be fired maybe one to three times to put out a fire. After that you have exhausted your supply. It really works in putting out fires. And if the fire is too bad and you used up your supply your going to burn anyway. Also diving does put out fires, seems again if fire is too bad, or you can't gain enough speed by diving it won't help you. Seems like i remember AH having something like this, it doesn't seem to work now. Seems like this fire management would be a nice little addition, instead of being generically doomed to burn every time your lit up.
Another thing, no prop feathering? It's mighty fun if after your engine is shot out you can feather a prop and see that still propellor blade just sitting there, adds to my immersion. :)
It's just little things like this that i'm talking about, and you could turn this complex features off like you turn off the stall limiter in this game.
Ledpig
S!
So you want to make the game MORE gear dependent?
With my stick I just set a macro.
Now think of the poor SOB who can't do that.
-
uhhhh....... NO!
I struggle enough getting my K/D ratio past 1 in the game after 200 fighter kills.
Uhh...YES
-
So you want to make the game MORE gear dependent?
With my stick I just set a macro.
Now think of the poor SOB who can't do that.
You could turn it off or on like you select, auto takeoff or stall limiter. Or tracers on or off. Both those things can handicap or help you depending on how you look at it. Didn't you read where i said that Bronk?
You could go in your clipboard and click select "complex engine management" or leave it like it is. Now given that could handicap OR help you depending on how you use it, against a guy who is flying around in simple management. Not any more so than someone flying around with stall limiter or whatever...which we already have.
That way not everybody would have to do it. Only the diehards could do it. Of course you'd have to accept the extra responsibility of learning how to use it. But not any more so than someone who knows all the in's and out's of bombing, or gv's or any other skill.
Ledpig
S!
-
Not the same led.
One click and stall limiter is the same for all.
However not the same for your complex management set up.
-
Maybe it would keep the zipcodes and whiners out.....
But those zipcodes, whiners and squeakers help pay HTC's bill just like the rest of us.
The stated reason we don't have a more complex and advanced engine management system is that HiTech wants to the keep the game accessible to anyone that wants to play. Players will likely get more frustrated and not stay beyond the trial period if they have to worry about whether or not their plane's engine is going to explode because they may not have the cooling slots open enough.
ack-ack
-
Not the same led.
One click and stall limiter is the same for all.
However not the same for your complex management set up.
Yes one click for stall limiter off or on, then you go out and fly around with the handicap of it being off or on to suit your choice.
Same with "complex engine management" with the selected click of one choice in your preferences menu would cause you to have to operate all things associated with "complex engine management" The Rpm, mixture, supercharger, cowl flaps, oil intercoolers, having to monitor your engine temps, auto lean or rich, prop feather, fire extinguishers. All that would be thrown under YOUR control. All with the choice of one selection on your clipboard menu. You could choose it or not, up to you.
Different planes would be basically set up different. For instance on the 51 you just select auto rich or auto lean. Other planes you would have to adjust your mixture with ONE (either up or down, same way you adjust flaps while flying) button, while flying. I do it by ballpark charts, or listening to the engine and adjusting the mixture while flying.
The F-4u you would shift the Supercharger yourself, other planes would be automatic. Some planes you could select auto oil cooler set or open and close the doors yourself.
All this would be changed and available to you with that ONE selection in your menu. Turn it on or off, if you don't want it, it doesn't effect you, fly as you do now.
Could be as simple as us selecting auto trim, or moving flaps as we do now, a couple extra buttons, or mapped features.
-
Maybe it would keep the zipcodes and whiners out.....
Just a note i did NOT say the above quote. Someone else did. I personally don't mind zipcodes and whiners. I like them, they add zest and zeal to the game. I was a zipcode at one point and so was everybody else, and i have been a whiner. :)
And once again,.....select those extra features if you WANT too. Just go in your clipboard and select the function, turn it off or on as you wish. Same as with alot of extra features that make the game easier or harder that we have now.
Ledpig
S!
-
Led your not getting my point.
By my having a stick that I can macro. I'd have an advantage.
It's not as simple as stall limiter off and on.
-
Led your not getting my point.
By my having a stick that I can macro. I'd have an advantage.
It's not as simple as stall limiter off and on.
True it's more complicated Bronk, but it would be a personal choice based on whether you wanted to or not. If you don't have a stick complicated enough for all that don't worry about. Let the die hard numbnuts like me be flying around worrying if my cowl flaps need to be opened in the heat of a dogfight.
They won't have the added frustration, maybe it will give them an advantage, maybe it won't. Same way someone with stall limiter flies around. Sure it keeps them from stalling, but it limits their performance. If you fly with it off you have to monitor that but it also lets you max perform. Harder to do, accept that risk if you want.
Besides people that are not using "complex engine management" would have the computer set all this up for them at optimum parameters. Without this selected you'd have to do it yourself, now whether you did it as good as the game's artificial intelligence would be up to you and how good you are at it. Maybe by adjusting a few things you could eek out a little more performance with the risk of engine damage.
Same way you risk turning without stall limiter and you have to monitor your stall and airspeed. Maybe you can get a little more performance, but you won't have the computer program to do it for you.
-
Just a note i did NOT say the above quote. Someone else did.
That would be me :P
And I gave the same reasoning as Ack-Ack as to why we DON'T have CEM.
-
True it's more complicated Bronk, but it would be a personal choice based on whether you wanted to or not. If you don't have a stick complicated enough for all that don't worry about. Let the die hard numbnuts like me be flying around worrying if my cowl flaps need to be opened in the heat of a dogfight.
They won't have the added frustration, maybe it will give them an advantage, maybe it won't. Same way someone with stall limiter flies around. Sure it keeps them from stalling, but it limits their performance. If you fly with it off you have to monitor that but it also lets you max perform. Harder to do, accept that risk if you want.
Besides people that are not using "complex engine management" would have the computer set all this up for them at optimum parameters. Without this selected you'd have to do it yourself, now whether you did it as good as the game's artificial intelligence would be up to you and how good you are at it. Maybe by adjusting a few things you could eek out a little more performance with the risk of engine damage.
Same way you risk turning without stall limiter and you have to monitor your stall and airspeed. Maybe you can get a little more performance, but you won't have the computer program to do it for you.
Problem is that the person that has disabled these options would be at an advantage over the player that has these options enabled.
Back in WB, there used to be an EZ mode option. Enabling that option would prevent your plane from spinning your plane. Players that had this option enabled had an advantage over players that didn't fly in EZ mode. If you were in EZ mode, all you really had to do was pull back hard on the stick (remember, EZ mode = no spins) and watch the guy on your six get into an accelerated stall and spin in trying to match your turn. Being called an EZ mode player was worse than being called a dweeb.
So if someone that wasn't flying with engine management options enabled wouldn't have to worry about his engine over heating and quitting and potentially losing the fight as a result, unlike the person with it enabled. The clear advantage would be the person with these options disabled. Because these players would have the advantage, guess which options would be the most common to disable first?
Using our stall limiter isn't that good of an example because it's coded not to give the person that has it enabled an advantage over a player that doesn't. In fact, it penalizes the player that has it enabled because it prevents the player from being able to fully fly their plane on the edge and will never be able to turn it as tight as someone that has it disabled.
ack-ack
-
Using our stall limiter isn't that good of an example because it's coded not to give the person that has it enabled an advantage over a player that doesn't. In fact, it penalizes the player that has it enabled because it prevents the player from being able to fully fly their plane on the edge and will never be able to turn it as tight as someone that has it disabled.
ack-ack
Maybe it could be done how your saying AK. If you had the easy engine management the computer could be set at an estimate of max performance. Where if you did the "complex engine management" you could eek out maybe 5% more performance. And maybe get a little bit more performance where you would risk blowing your engine. Maybe nobody has the attention span and lack of a life for this but me? :confused: :D
-
Hmmm, just for the sake of argument, I submit the following:
CEM could be set up in a way to allow a player choosing to use it to eek out more performance from his engine, in the same way stall-limiter off allows a player to eek out more turn performance. You could get somewhat lower drag from manually managing cowl flap/radiator settings, more power from pushing the boost settings closer to disaster, burn your WEP longer at the risk of frying the engine, etc. Of course, they would have to model water injection and running out of it, nitrous for the TA-152, etc and so forth. That would be alot on the plate of HTC, who seem to have enough irons in the fire right now. This is interesting speculation, but things being what they are, I think AHII can live without CEM for now.
One thing I'd seriously like though...how about making WEP available on the throttle instead of a button? Like, you could set up to make the first 95% of your throttle axis control MIL and pushing it past that point would cut the WEP on? That would free up one of the six buttons on my cheapo stick :D and make power management in fight smoother, IMHO.
-
Hmmm, just for the sake of argument, I submit the following:
CEM could be set up in a way to allow a player choosing to use it to eek out more performance from his engine, in the same way stall-limiter off allows a player to eek out more turn performance. You could get somewhat lower drag from manually managing cowl flap/radiator settings, more power from pushing the boost settings closer to disaster, burn your WEP longer at the risk of frying the engine, etc. Of course, they would have to model water injection and running out of it, nitrous for the TA-152, etc and so forth. That would be alot on the plate of HTC, who seem to have enough irons in the fire right now. This is interesting speculation, but things being what they are, I think AHII can live without CEM for now.
One thing I'd seriously like though...how about making WEP available on the throttle instead of a button? Like, you could set up to make the first 95% of your throttle axis control MIL and pushing it past that point would cut the WEP on? That would free up one of the six buttons on my cheapo stick :D and make power management in fight smoother, IMHO.
I agree this is all just interesting speculation and AH has alot to do as it is, and they are doing a great job....bravo to them.
If i want to fly around like this in full on anal realism mode i'll just fly Il-2, which seems to get a bad rap from alot of AH'ers. I don't know why. Check again, the flight model is just as complicated (you have to install the desired patches and updates) and the realism with everything else and the graphics are unparalled.
And IL-2 does have the wep on the stick. Only problem, sometimes its hard to judge just how far to push the throttle up is wep and how far to pull it back is mil power. Most real throttles have a detent.
-
Bronk, you obviously haven't read the lengthy explanation on why the CEM in IL-2 is but an illusion for immersion, and there's practically nothing more complicated in IL-2 than AH2.
Let's me put it this way.
There are "zipcodes" and "whiners" and "n00bs" and "braindeads" in IL-2, too. Curiously enough, they have no problem in adapting to what IL-2 has to offer by pushing one or two more keys during combat than AH2. Are you suggesting our zipcodes and whiners are so dumb, that they can't do what the same grade of zipcodes and whiners can do in IL-2?
Perhaps, we should stop using the "zipcodes" and "whiners" and "n00bs" as an excuse for our own tastes - since they are everywhere in everygame, to which they most usually, willingly adapt nicely. The "zipcodes" and "whiners" in IL-2 whine about as much as their bretheren in AH2, but they never whine about the game being "too complicated". They whine how the P-51 is undermodelled, the 50cals are too weak, the German planes are misrepresented, and on and on and on... but not a single complaint on how "IL-2 is too difficult in CEM".
...
If CEM or the likes of it would ever be implemented in AH, then it no doubt, will become global. You wouldn't be able to turn it on or off, just as you won't be able to use externals in MA. However, this is hardly a relevant matter at hand. The point of contention is whether a CEM would benefit the game or not, and I say it would.
There's another point I've purposefully not mentioned in the previous post, and that is the "realism" is what draws in the younger crowds to the game these days.
Many of us are well over the age of thirty or forty, have been playing combat sims since the late 80s or early 90s, during the days when the technology wasn't enough to really depict the finer aspects of aerial combat. Like it or not, we're used to having things simple, and although this may be a painstaking revelation, us old birds like to think our own standards would last forever.
Unfortunately, the younger generation grew up on a wildly different environment from us, with PCs, internet, high-end graphics and visually stunning games are the norm. These young kids, in about 10 years or so, would replace us as the main customer base for HTC, and they should - when a game is permanently fused with only one generation of players, then it means the game is growing old and dying.
Our generation has our fathers who fought in WW2, some of us fought in Vietnam. To the generation below us, the tails of war and combat are so far and beyond that the very notion of "realism" appeals to them in a manner different from us. Some of those kids actually willingly prefer to fly a "20-step checklist" takeoff, much to our amazement. They thrive on details both systematic and visual.
AH2 is a great game, but frankly, its getting older and older everyday.
Maybe its time to admit that we aren't the only people with preferences that matter. Because, seeing how IL-2 became an amazing hit despite the fact that its a boxed-game in a genre market that was previously thought as dying out, it makes one think twice on what kind of impact the prospect of "realism" can have on the younger people. Many of us think AH2 is still the best, and I think so, too.
But how long do you think it'll be until someone comes up with a game with high realism and details on the level of IL-2, and makes it into a MMOG format like AH2?
-
You'll see auto arrestor hook or even auto landing gear before CEM in AH2.
In BF1942 it worked well :D.
-
Ugh, I hated trying to land in BF1942, I always ended up auguring.
-
Uhh...YES
NO!!!!!! :cry :uhoh
-
Are you suggesting our zipcodes and whiners are so dumb, that they can't do what the same grade of zipcodes and whiners can do in IL-2?
Well... um... yes. ;)
-
Wow i must really be a dweeb to want to operate my own engine in flight...... :uhoh
-
No.
I play the game cause I can up easy and get into a fight with relative ease. Thats why I like this game and have no interest in wanting the more complex settings and list of things to do while in flight. I'd just play the others if I wanted to spend the hours learning all the commands and management. And that's how i ended up here, I tried them and not what i want to do for a game I may play for a couple hours some weeks.
-
NO!!!!!! :cry :uhoh
YES!
:rofl
-
Just as an aside, I have IL2, and there are a few things it does better than AHII in terms of realism OR gameplay, and alot it does worse.
The engine management "tricks" that the best IL2 pilots have discovered often do not relate to what you might read, in say, the P-51D manual.
The lack of g meters and stall buzzers I do not consider a step forward in realism. If you were in a real plane, you would have a butt in the seat and a hand on the stick. Something must be done in a simulation to make up for this lack of physical touch relationship with the aircraft. Airplanes are so much harder to trim properly in computer sims than in RL that I don't consider combat trim a major blow to realism, either.
The snap-view system is alot worse than AHII, though not as bad as CFSIII. I mean, imagine you want to check your six. Okay, you can't look directly back, fair enough, I couldn't turn my head completely backwards strapped into a cockpit. So you look back left and right at 45 degrees or so, which sorta covers yours six...EXCEPT....it is about 4 seconds for you "head" to swivel. Mouse views actually allow you to see your six better. Presumbably, the designers think you should be playing with TrackIR.
What will really get you though is the near impotence of 50 cals in IL2. A HurriIs .303s are actually as destructive, maybe even slightly more so, in IL2 than 6 .50s.
-
The snap-view system is alot worse than AHII, though not as bad as CFSIII. I mean, imagine you want to check your six. Okay, you can't look directly back, fair enough, I couldn't turn my head completely backwards strapped into a cockpit. So you look back left and right at 45 degrees or so, which sorta covers yours six...EXCEPT....it is about 4 seconds for you "head" to swivel. Mouse views actually allow you to see your six better. Presumbably, the designers think you should be playing with TrackIR.
It takes me less than a second to look to my rear right or left in an aircraft.... sorry that you have neck problems and can not look back quicker. As for IL2 being a sim... it is so only in engine management. The nose bounce baloney at 300 kts ias is so gamey it is not funny.
-
I was talking about the "neck" of the IL2 pilot there Bodhi, not my own, which, stiff as it is, can swivel from "up-back-right" to "up-back-left" a heck of alot quicker. :D
I should have mentioned the total lack of stability of any aircraft as a gun platform no matter how well-trimmed it is. It is funny, you'd think most combat flight games would lean towards unrealism in how EASY it is to fly, it almost seems like IL2 tries to make their stuff harder to fly than an actual airplane.
-
Bustr: Slidr, Aces High has come a long way since Relaxed Realism in Air Warrior.
Slidr: Bustr don't go there!! I remember when you got out your pellet pistol and a flashlight to look for my MOUSE first time I mentioned I had one in my room...........
-
Yes, I want as much realism to the aircraft as possible.
Arguing that it would impede new players or more casual players is not a valid argument since, as has been discussed, it could be turned on or off like the stall limiter.
Arguing that that it would be a performance advantage to turn off engine management and thus no one would use it also is not a valid argument since, as has been discussed, turning off engine management could result in a slight performance penalty like using the stall limiter. (Just have max power be a little less with auto engine managment turned on, just like how the stall limiter doesn't allow you to pull quite as much angle of attack as you can with it turned off.)
In the absense of resource-constraint arguments (which I talk about next), the only reason I can see that anyone would argue against more-realistic engine management is from people who don't want it themselves but also don't want others to have it if it means those others would then have a small performance advantage. That isn't a good argument either.
The most-valid argument really is just the resource issue. HTC has limited programming resources and needs to work on the highest-priority things. What would you like? Better graphics, arena enhancements, improvements to flight models, improvements to damage models, additional aircraft, more-realistic engine management . . . ? They can't do all of that at the same time. They must pick the biggest bang for the buck and pass over or delay other items. I like more realism and hope that aspect continues to be in the mix over time, but there will be others who would rather see HTC forget about more-realistic engine management in order to focus on other things.
-
YES
Bring in the CEM as a CM option for the SEA...[cough]friendly-only/no-icons option[cough].
The MA's we can leave for the easy-mode/kill-air-quaker-squeakers.
-
It's AHII, Not FSX. I Can't Even Take Of Without The Auto Take-Off Enabled Thingamobobber. However, It Would Be Nice To See A Ticker!
"Lukania [B-24J Liberator] Crashed"
"Lukania [B-24J Liberator] Crashed"
"Lukania [B-24J Liberator] Crashed"
"Neubob1254 [P-38 Lightning] Lukania"
Lukania Has Been Disconnected --- Reason: Being A 'Smacktard'
-
Friend Brooke..
When someone comes in and reminds us, "HTC is only 7 people, they don't have the time" that sucks the fun and life out of these wonderfully imaginitve discussions :D :D
-
There is "realism" and there are "realism annoyances" - often, a very thin line separates them.
Realism in how things operate is a good thing, while realism in how things are being operated is nothing but a nuisance. The perfect example perhaps is HTC's choice to model non-realistic cockpits. The instruments are not at their correct position and most of them do not look like they did in the real thing. However, they do allow you to read them clearly and transition between planes without converting meters into feet. In all flight simulators that used historical accurate cockpits I ended up using a HUD because I couldn't effectively read the instruments. Which is more realistic?
Having to click many buttons on a non-historical keyboard to perform some mundane operation does not add to realism. If it offered some added tactical value, then perhaps yes.
-
Friend Brooke..
When someone comes in and reminds us, "HTC is only 7 people, they don't have the time" that sucks the fun and life out of these wonderfully imaginitve discussions :D :D
You are absolutely right -- and point noted! :)
-
Brooke:
You say using "complex" settings would give you a bit more power than "easy" settings....
But HTC isn't going to do something that is basically an exploit to get more power. There were a few bugs in IL2 some time back where folks were over boosting their engines with custom engine settings, and it totally messed up the "accurate" performance of the craft.
HTC isn't going to introduce something that's either 1) a handicap to half the players or 2) a secret fight-winning benefit for the other half.
The entire feel of AH I get is that the planes are EQUAL no matter who's in 'em. It's how you use 'em that determines the kill. Certain planes are better, sure, but when a P51 goes up against a P51 you know for sure that they both have the same max power.
Having 1 109K be faster than another 109K at the exact same conditions, because the player over boosted the engine, throws the entire idea of "standard" performance out the window, IMO.
IF any complex engine handling is included, it must not give any benefit over the old system, so that a fight is still a fair fight. However, if it gives no benefit, and takes more time to do, almost nobody will use it.
The only other alternative is HTC changing engine management across-the-board, no options, "this is how it is now" -- and I don't see that happening anytime in our lifetimes.
-
But HTC isn't going to do something that is basically an exploit to get more power. There were a few bugs in IL2 some time back where folks were over boosting their engines with custom engine settings, and it totally messed up the "accurate" performance of the craft.
In principle, I agree with this.
HTC isn't going to introduce something that's either 1) a handicap to half the players or 2) a secret fight-winning benefit for the other half.
However, the suggestion for "CEM" and similar concepts is neither 1) nor 2).
The entire feel of AH I get is that the planes are EQUAL no matter who's in 'em. It's how you use 'em that determines the kill. Certain planes are better, sure, but when a P51 goes up against a P51 you know for sure that they both have the same max power.
The point is, internal management techincally qualifies as "how you use 'em". When you think about it, there's no reason why this "how one uses it" should only be limited by your stick and throttle.
Having 1 109K be faster than another 109K at the exact same conditions, because the player over boosted the engine, throws the entire idea of "standard" performance out the window, IMO.
This is a conceptual error, since when one K-4 faster than the other, (ie. as in overboosting) its not at the exact same condition.
The problem with IL-2 was that a certain flight set/equiment allowed the player to manually over-rev the engine over the normal flight conditions and keep it just under the failing point - which in reality the complications of internal management would make it practically impossible under combat conditions. In reality, these functions were considered for only special situations, such as taking off very short airstrips. This problem comes from the fact that 1C:Maddox believes in the "technical realism" perspective, rather than the "situational realism" persepctive as HTC does.
However, that does not mean the said functions of the game cannot be rendered differently, to prevent exploits = which I have utter faith in if HTC would ever consider it.
IF any complex engine handling is included, it must not give any benefit over the old system, so that a fight is still a fair fight. However, if it gives no benefit, and takes more time to do, almost nobody will use it.
About half true.
It is true that if a CEM is introduced that it won't make the planes "better" in anyway. However, what one can expect is a certain minor factor involved in general management which different level of experience might influence as to the outcome of combat.
For example, in HTC's rendition of the La-7, it would have to manually switch the supercharger to 2nd gear at 15k and over. This is just one key(when toggled), or two keys, if rendered "UP/DOWN" like the flaps. However, in the heat of battle it is entirely possible that a lesser pilot might forget to switch the superchargers, or engage them too late - which would lead to a decrease in performance until the supercharger is set correctly.
Imagine that an La-7 is trying to get away from an enemy plane close behind by a shallow climb around 14k - a better experienced pilot would not forget when to engage the 2nd gear to keep the speed/climb performance at optimum levels. A lesser pilot may not recognize the optimum point, and he might engage the SC too early or too late - in which case he'd be caught by the chasing plane due to a temporary decline in speed/climb.
Now, is this too difficult? Say, how much more difficult is it, when compared to using X notches of flap during combat? People learn optimum levels of flap usage with experience, and often the knowledge of just when exactly to use flaps by how much can influence the outcome of the battle. This kind of knowledge is in the sanctum of veterans. How many people complain that "this is too difficult for a n00b to learn"? I don't think I've ever seen someone mention, "this flap usage thingy is just to damned difficult for most n00bs. It is excessive realism."
As a matter of fact, veterans actually love this kind of difficuly and learning curve.
So, would anyone be willing to say "I have to push one key to change SC of the La-7 at 15k alt" is something so difficult as to be considered excessive and annoying amount of tedious realism? Why should this be considered any more difficult and excessive than the more obscure, arcane knowledge of "using flaps right"?
This, is what the CEM can offer to AH.
A minor, generic, simplified rendition of general engine management that somewhat influences how optimum your plane flies. It doesn't make the planes perform better. What it does, is it may allow the planes to perform a bit differently according to knowledge and experience - as an experienced pilot will manage it better and his plane will fly more optimum, whereas an unexperienced piot MIGHT mismanage it, and suffer some amount of penalties from it. Sometimes, under rare/extreme circumstances, this might damage their plane with mismanagement.
Ofcourse, AH players have this wierd tendency to think n00bs are impossibly stupid, and will have so much trouble with "management" that they cannot possibly learn it, will always mismanage their plane and damage it, and then just give up. However, I've seen the same kind of impossibly stupid people in IL-2 too. They learn and adapt.
...
It is nothing different from how people already fly their plane in AH2 - a good pilot moves his plane smoothly, E-efficiently. A bad pilot pushes his plane roughly, and might bleed a lot of E here and there. The only difference is this management is internal, using push of buttons, whereas what we are currently doing is external, using the stick.
The only other alternative is HTC changing engine management across-the-board, no options, "this is how it is now" -- and I don't see that happening anytime in our lifetimes.
I thought the very same thing about great many things.
HTC said that they didn't consider a historic cockpit useful, and they preferred the generic cockpit for a number of reasons. Every suggestion went upon deaf ears, and I thought we'd never see historic cockpits. But then poof! With the Ki-84, HTC surprised us with their drastic change of positions, with a very clever, visual compromise.
So I'm keeping my hopes up. They may seem quiet, but HTC is constantly monitoring, and thinking stuff through.
-
Brooke:
You say using "complex" settings would give you a bit more power than "easy" settings....
But HTC isn't going to do something that is basically an exploit to get more power.
What I mean is that, just like when users use the stall limiter and then can't pull as much angle of attack as if you have stall limiter turned off, it would be very easy to have it such that, with realistic engine management enabled, you get (assuming you optimally adjust your settings) up to N HP, but if you use "easy-mode" engine management, you get 0.95 * N HP (or 0.98 * N, or 0.99 * N, or whatever would be decided as the slight underperformance).
No one complains that people who turn off the stall limiter can pull more AoA. After brief adjustment, my guess is that folks likewise would not complain that using realistic engine management allows you to get max power out of the engine while easy mode gives you slightly less. (And to be clear, what I mean by "max power" is max power available at given altitude and airspeed by having your engine settings set correctly and optimally -- i.e., the best power you could get with the correct settings under those conditions, settings that easy mode would set for you, just slightly less expertly than perfect.)
I prefer more realism to the planes where it can be had as Aces High evolves.