Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: jon on March 12, 2008, 02:24:23 PM
-
I just got back from a trip to the Twin Cities.While there the wife and I went to the Mall of America. One of the buisnesses in the mall is a place called ACES. Aces has several flight simulators. Well i'm thinking"cool" something to do during her shopping. I cant remember the price but it was like $25 for a half hour and $45 for an hour. The wife said ok, so i bought an hour of time. Cockpit had real looking stick, rudder, and peddals. There were 3 others flying against me. After i was spawned into the air i realized only one opponent was a real person no big deal after shooting down several planes in my F4U1D i took up a zero and to my suprise the flight model was very simular to the Hog. That sucked !!! Even though there was some difference.It was nothing like Aces High. Next i flew a tempast it also flew alot like the hog.
About that time the controller told my opponent he was out of time and had to go (we were all on a common radio with the controller.
The controller then asked if i wanted more opponents so i said yes. When he hit the start screen i realized I was flying IL2. (I own it but have never really flown it)
Well anyway after flying it I reaized It sucks. The flight models suck. and the view system sucks also. The eye candy was ok but I dought after flying there I will ever give it another try.
-
Well, I was a little disapointed with it, agree about the views, although I think IL2:1946 was worth the 20 bucks.
Frankly, the AI in CFSIII was a better "sparring partner of last resort" than the AI in IL2. It did lots of break turns in both the vertical and horizontal upon which to practice deflection shooting, as opposed to the bizarre-but-unhittable rolling dive the AI in IL2 does anytime you get within 400 yards of six o cock. It seems to have no other defensive move. Not to mention the HOs the AI in IL2 does every chance it can, usually with very damaging success, even if it is only armed with .303s.
-
Everything in IL2 is far superior to AH.
-
Is... is that a troll coming from grits? :huh :eek:
-
IMO Il-2 only has two things really going for it: It's sure pretty to look at, and I think their damage model is significantly better (IE, wings are not just either there or gone, but you have various degrees in between where damage can affect your flight).
-
They go overboard on making things so durable you can unload so much ammo into a wing it'll be more holes than wing, and still fly. You can lose almost an entire stabilizer with little ill effect (vertical or horizontal) but lose part of a wing and you're in a death spiral.
The damage model itself is flaky as hell. The idea behind the damage model, the layers of damage, is a good idea. That I agree about.
-
Is... is that a troll coming from grits? :huh :eek:
Yes, that was sarcasm. IL2 blows chunks.
-
I just got back from a trip to the Twin Cities.While there the wife and I went to the Mall of America. One of the buisnesses in the mall is a place called ACES. Aces has several flight simulators. Well i'm thinking"cool" something to do during her shopping. I cant remember the price but it was like $25 for a half hour and $45 for an hour. The wife said ok, so i bought an hour of time. Cockpit had real looking stick, rudder, and peddals. There were 3 others flying against me. After i was spawned into the air i realized only one opponent was a real person no big deal after shooting down several planes in my F4U1D i took up a zero and to my suprise the flight model was very simular to the Hog. That sucked !!! Even though there was some difference.It was nothing like Aces High. Next i flew a tempast it also flew alot like the hog.
About that time the controller told my opponent he was out of time and had to go (we were all on a common radio with the controller.
The controller then asked if i wanted more opponents so i said yes. When he hit the start screen i realized I was flying IL2. (I own it but have never really flown it)
Well anyway after flying it I reaized It sucks. The flight models suck. and the view system sucks also. The eye candy was ok but I dought after flying there I will ever give it another try.
Ran across something like this many years ago in a mall. I lucked out, they were using Ace High. :D
-
IL is definetly tough plane - True it only has one real defensive move but if you do it right (as GHI and several others can) it works great and more then once I have been blown out of the sky by those things.
As for shooting IL down in my pony - I noticed wing roots and wing tips seems to be easiest to shoot to bring em down, or at least lower the manverable (so i can't spell :devil )
-
Yes, that was sarcasm. IL2 blows chunks.
Lets all buy a copy anyway, just to make manufacturers think flight sims might be worth fooling with.
Lot of work has obviously gone into the game, I think the problems come from the designers bending over backwards trying to make things "realistic", alot of sim flyers idea of "realistic" apparently being dang near impossible to even fly straight. It is a truism that "simulators are harder to fly than airplanes" anyway, so I don't see the point of adding more difficulty.
-
I bought a package of Ubi flight games for 20 bucks a while back. I hated them. For the money, I consider a cheap lesson at 5 bucks a pop. The Il2 view system alone was enough to prevent me from ever buying another product.
But, it's more units sold for a number of flight games, so I guess that's a positive.
-
I just got back from a trip to the Twin Cities.While there the wife and I went to the Mall of America. One of the buisnesses in the mall is a place called ACES. Aces has several flight simulators. Well i'm thinking"cool" something to do during her shopping. I cant remember the price but it was like $25 for a half hour and $45 for an hour. The wife said ok, so i bought an hour of time. Cockpit had real looking stick, rudder, and peddals. There were 3 others flying against me. After i was spawned into the air i realized only one opponent was a real person no big deal after shooting down several planes in my F4U1D i took up a zero and to my suprise the flight model was very simular to the Hog. That sucked !!! Even though there was some difference.It was nothing like Aces High. Next i flew a tempast it also flew alot like the hog.
About that time the controller told my opponent he was out of time and had to go (we were all on a common radio with the controller.
The controller then asked if i wanted more opponents so i said yes. When he hit the start screen i realized I was flying IL2. (I own it but have never really flown it)
Well anyway after flying it I reaized It sucks. The flight models suck. and the view system sucks also. The eye candy was ok but I dought after flying there I will ever give it another try.
Yeah.... I am from the Twin Cities...A.C.E.S is a joke. I made the mistake of trying it out a few years ago as well. Bad sim, bad prices, bad competition. It is totally made for the person who has never played a flight sim on a computer. I remember they had me flying F-18's around a carrier, one guy to shoot at who could not fly..
What a waste of money and crap. Still...they are in business after all these years.
-
A game like "IL2" makes one happy for "Real-Life."
-
The Il2 view system alone was enough to prevent me from ever buying another product.
Yup.
-
IL is definetly tough plane - True it only has one real defensive move but if you do it right (as GHI and several others can) it works great and more then once I have been blown out of the sky by those things.
As for shooting IL down in my pony - I noticed wing roots and wing tips seems to be easiest to shoot to bring em down, or at least lower the manverable (so i can't spell :devil )
lurk this up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Xs8HWN6UyE
-
lurk this up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Xs8HWN6UyE
LMFAO godwin's law :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Educational :aok
-
Yeah.... I am from the Twin Cities...A.C.E.S is a joke. I made the mistake of trying it out a few years ago as well. Bad sim, bad prices, bad competition. It is totally made for the person who has never played a flight sim on a computer. I remember they had me flying F-18's around a carrier, one guy to shoot at who could not fly..
What a waste of money and crap. Still...they are in business after all these years.
I used to work for 'em when they were in st louis park at the miracle mile.
The owner is a cool guy, and has gone through a lot of expense to make flight sims enjoyable to the public.
His idea is to make simming more accessible and fun, and to provide a "test drive" into the simming community as it were.
I loved the after hours stuff out there. Used to crank up the realism in F/A-18 and go at it with the boss. Lotsa fun :aok
-
So, This thread was origanally about what? The A.C.E.S. sim at the GAM, or about Ubisofts' game?
-
Ubi's Il2 as setup in ACES at the GAM, by the sound of it.
-
A couple of weeks back i finally downloaded the IL2 demo. Figured it was about time i tried it after avoiding it for so long.
what a piece of crap that was, and even if it costs 5$ at most local chains here its not worth it
-
I just got back from a trip to the Twin Cities.While there the wife and I went to the Mall of America. One of the buisnesses in the mall is a place called ACES. Aces has several flight simulators. Well i'm thinking"cool" something to do during her shopping. I cant remember the price but it was like $25 for a half hour and $45 for an hour. The wife said ok, so i bought an hour of time. Cockpit had real looking stick, rudder, and peddals. There were 3 others flying against me. After i was spawned into the air i realized only one opponent was a real person no big deal after shooting down several planes in my F4U1D i took up a zero and to my suprise the flight model was very simular to the Hog. That sucked !!! Even though there was some difference.It was nothing like Aces High. Next i flew a tempast it also flew alot like the hog.
About that time the controller told my opponent he was out of time and had to go (we were all on a common radio with the controller.
The controller then asked if i wanted more opponents so i said yes. When he hit the start screen i realized I was flying IL2. (I own it but have never really flown it)
Well anyway after flying it I reaized It sucks. The flight models suck. and the view system sucks also. The eye candy was ok but I dought after flying there I will ever give it another try.
Well, Jon, first of all, thank you for the link to that video.... really funny! :)
Secondly, about IL2... don't forget that, unlike AH, IL2 has settings that can turn it into an arcade fligth sim when turned off.... I have IL2 and FM is not the same for every plane. Considering it was in a videogame center, opened to general pubilc and all kind of player and considering what Rebel wrote ("The owner is a cool guy, and has gone through a lot of expense to make flight sims enjoyable to the public."), I'd say the owner set the game for arcade flying, to have most of the people enjoying it.
I don't wanna enter the AH vs IL2 argument, just say that IL2 it's not a bad flight sim as it would seem from your experience.
-
The settings in IL2 don't change the flight model. They enable or disable things like engine overheat, pilot blackout, limited fuel, limited ammo, landings/takoffs or air spawns, maybe something about stalls/spins, and things like that. The overall handling of the planes is pretty much the same regardless of your settings.
On top of that, the overall handling of ALL planes is almost identical. They definitely use a single FM for the entire game, rather however AH does it.
-
lurk this up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Xs8HWN6UyE
Somebody needs to send that to Skuzzy as it would be a great post-it for newbies. ROFLOL
All the Best...
Jay
awDoc1
-
Krusty there is at least one setting that'll disolve any unique character Il2's planes have. Something like "no stall".. I ran into it on a server once, I thought something was wrong with my js, hehe.
Very crappy.
-
Moot: I always flew it with stalls enabled, and they still all felt like the same plane, no matter what I flew. In AH you can tell the difference between a 190 and a 109, a f6f and a c205, almost instantly. That's why folks have such a hard time moving from their training plane (whatever they learned in) to something else.
-
I don't agree, krusty, they are different.
-
The difference in plane personalities is a problem that IL2 does have, I'll admit.
They are there, just not very prominent. It takes a few weeks before you really get a feel for the little there is.
-
very prominent i would say
-
I think the worst thing about it is that they're all least different once you're deep in the stall at a high AOA. Once you're there they all feel pretty much the same.
-
FM
What is FM...I never sought to ask.
-
Flight Model.
-
Been flying IL2 for years... learning curve is much steeper there than here, and unlike earlier comments, there is definitely a different FM for each plane - It's just less gamey than some would like.
-
"Less gamey"? Really?
WWII airplanes really were so unsteady that you could barely make the pipper quit bouncing at any speed, no matter how carefully you trim? A 2 second burst from 6 .50s at convergence range really didn't do anything deadlier to a 190 than make it leak a little fuel? (But the wings of a 109 is mysteriously soooo much easier to saw off with even 4 .50s! in IL2...Don't ask me why.) It took a WWII pilot 3 or 4 seconds to go from looking back over his right shoulder to looking back over his left shoulder? A nitpicking detail perhaps, but if you go by IL2, P51D pilots always burned the ferry tank LAST....really? Not even mentioning the odd fact that one mysteriously misses targets flying THROUGH your bullet stream constantly.
The famous "complex engine modeling" isn't really a problem in flight...its wierdness like the stuff above that ruins what is otherwise one of the best efforts we have going in simming right now.
Simulators are harder to fly than airplanes under the best circumstances, what with no peripheral vision, no physical "feel" for the thing. Pilots were often sent into combat with 1/10th the flying hours some players here have in sims, yet often became aces, or at least survived. Like I say, I think IL2 is a case where to make the customer think they are gettng a "realistic" challenge, they have exceeded reality in difficulty, in the process making what should be simple difficult/impossible (Like destroying an un-maneuvering target at convergence range from a saddled position.)
Agree that there are differences in plane handling, in fact in some ways I'd consider the FMs themselves superior to AHII. And the team at Ubisoft has certainly worked very, very hard doing their research, creating beautiful skins, landscapes, missions, and complex engine modeling. But the Devil is in the little details and that is where HTC wins out.
-
No, all the planes react pretty much the same once they are near the edge of flight. The learning curve might be a little steeper or longer than AH, but it's certainly not more authentic.
Just one example of the many off the wall stuff an FM as scripted together as Il2's does: You can fly a plane missing its vert stab with negligible slide. You can dogfight it, maneuver for solutions on a squirming target, without ever spinning out.
There's a lot of nice elements to Il2's physics, some of them better than AH's equivalents, but the FM isn't one of those.
If the impartial opinion of a pixel vet like me isn't proof enough that something's funky under Il2's hood, then take Widewing's word for it...
-
I feel compelled to answer here, not that I want to argue or put one sim above another because I enjoy them both. However, I do like Il2 and think its a fine sim and not that easy if flown in full switch as are the servers that I fly on (spits Vs 109s or Hellcats Vs Zeros both over hyperlobby not to mention I fly Forgotten Skies missions). I usually never fly on the arcade-like servers not even on WarClouds wich is only icon-enabled. There have been many a time where my 109 had a hard time making it back when my wing was full of holes, the handling deminishes with the more damage sustained. I don't know, the flight models do not seem that vanilla to me. I fly the Bf.109/Mc.202/Mc.205/G.50 almost all the time dependant on the time period and theatre of opperation, and I have compared it to the FW.190 as well as rides of the IJN and still only the small stable of aircraft I listed above feel good to me.
Well, Im done. Go ahead and attack me for saying IL2 is not total junk. :P
-
It's not total junk, it just doesn't do what it should. Filling up the interface to a plane's controls to the point that you're overwhelmed and doing more instruments management than actual dogfighting isn't a measure of FM realism.
Like I said, the FM just doesn't work. Almost all the figter planes do the same things negligibly different when nearly stalled out.. There's lots of very strange stuff like the vert stab thing. And really, how does this thing even happen? How does anyone see that and not start to see the cracks and seams in the whole thing?
The whole FM just seems to have been built in different parts so that the performance would match the real planes' at each different regime of flight, and it gives the impression that it was stitched together and tweaked rather than all emergent from a single physics model.
It would be redeeming enough if it was fun despite this, but it isn't. AH's physics make for more fun dogfighting. There's only a few things that don't behave right (e.g. hammerheads and very sharp departures at relatively high speeds like Flat Plates etc) but they don't interfere with fun fighting as much as Il2's do.
That's the physics.. AH would definitely benefit from having a detailed and gradual damage model like Il2, the graphics would definitely be as good as it and maybe BoB if HTC added some well-measured amounts of pixel shaders, and the sounds could also really boost immersion. But if all this needs to be compromised as it is for the flight physics to be good enough not to break people's immersion, then it's not such a bad trade-off.
-
Actually moot makes a good point here, how come you can't pull of a decent hammerhead in AH? Most of the time when I attempt one I always end up in some kind of unusual attitude which usually winds up spitting me out going a different direction to the intended which tends to throw my entire attack plan out the door and leaving me having to either improvise or run away and make a new approach.
These days I lean more towards the more time consuming and potentially more Immelman style of reversal.
-
The best hammerhead in AH is the one where you hear as little of the stall horn as possible, in my experience. You need to do it at very slow airspeed.
-
lurk this up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Xs8HWN6UyE
ROFLMFAO :aok
Take Note EVERYONE hehehe
-
OMG the AImussie !!!!
-
ROFLMFAO :aok
Take Note EVERYONE hehehe
Go away, you fake!!!! Run! I'll take care of him!!!! <extracts his pc viruses box and usb cable.....>
EDIT:
Like I said, the FM just doesn't work. Almost all the figter planes do the same things negligibly different when nearly stalled out.. There's lots of very strange stuff like the vert stab thing.
True, once I shot the whole elevator/stabilizer complex off a PBY and it didn't fall... it kept flying, climbing in a straight course... I think I still have it on tape, though it's not playable anymore with last patches.
-
They go overboard on making things so durable you can unload so much ammo into a wing it'll be more holes than wing, and still fly. You can lose almost an entire stabilizer with little ill effect (vertical or horizontal) but lose part of a wing and you're in a death spiral.
The damage model itself is flaky as hell. The idea behind the damage model, the layers of damage, is a good idea. That I agree about.
Does that compare with the AH version of planes continuing the fight after missing half a wing?
-
Depends on who's flying the F4u missing all its parts... :noid
-
I haven't played IL-2 and AH enough to note this similarity in the edge of the flight envelope he discusses.
But, having said that, I don't find that the IL-2 planes fly 'the same' THROUGHOUT the flight envelope. I do find them different. I don't find the differences as noticable as in AH2.
I've been trying to quantify my feelings with respect to the FM of IL-2 vs. AH2, and I just don't know where I come out, having never flown a WW2 plane.
Sometimes I feel that the IL-2 FM is 'hard' just for the sake of being hard. Like someone else mentioned, I find it incredibly difficult to get a stable gun solution on an even non-maneuvering target. No plane should be that unstable. And, in IL-2, I find it much harder to 'hit' the target.
But, I also find the damage model in IL-2 more 'believable', the missing stab issue notwithstanding. I have milked a few planes home full of holes, and the FM definately changed in response to the damage. Furthermore, I've had killshots on enemy planes where I didn't know for sure if the plane was dead, or just evading low.
In AH2, I find it much easier to get a gun solution, even on a maneuvering target. The damage model, while certainly acceptable, is very...similar? for each plane. I shoot the plane and the flap comes off, or an aileron, or the engine oil, or the fuel leak...it's the same sort of damage to every plane, and I've become accustomed to being able to tell how much damage I've done to an enemy plane. I usually know right away if I've done fatal damage to an enemy in AH2; in IL-2 it's much harder to tell.
At first I was thinking that IL-2 had the more 'realistic' damage modeling. I didn't thing many pilots were landing 4-5+ kills in a sortie in real life, and in AH2, with good ammo management, you can rack up tons of kills in a single ammo loadout. I've rarely killed more than 2 planes in a sortie in IL-2- it take too long to get kill damage with a single ammo loadout. But then I've been watching Dogfights on TV, and it sure seems like there were plenty of 4 kill sorties in Pony's and other .50 cal birds. So maybe AH2 isn't so wrong after all....
Overall, I find that both games bring something different to the table. You can't go dropping bombs on ships in the Coral Sea from your Betty in AH2, and you can't go to CAS in your Beaufighter in AH2. You can't fly through a thunderstorm, or fly on instruments.
In IL-2 you can't get even remotely the same kind of coordination you get from a real-life human wingman in AH2.
I have both, play both, and am happy to have the choice on any given day. We've really come a long way in our simming these days.
-
One of the biggest turn off's for me re IL2 was the view system. Once you've flown AH all else pails.
However, there is now a mod that does a pretty good job of 6dof for freetrack/trackir:http://allaircraftarcade.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1006 (http://allaircraftarcade.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1006), pretty sweet.
I think Pyro put up a post about the physics resolution of the current FM, something along the lines of twice the fidelity of IL2. Flying the planes in AH feel more predictable, on rails, solid. I personally find the IL2 FM a bit wishywashy. (sry for the technical terms).
-
Yes, remember that last episode of "Dogfights", concering operaton Bodenplatt?
A P51 pilot makes a deflection shot on a FW190. He is far inside convergence, he hits both wingsroots on the 190, 3 .50 calibers working on each wing.
This caused the wings of the FW 190 to break and "fold" up, almost like some sort of carrier plane, trapping the unfortunate pilot in his plane! The FWs high-G turn probably did help break the wings off, but still, 3 .50s weakening a wing to that point? That is pretty darn effective. This and countless other accounts of a single good burst doing fatal damage to enemy fighters make me think AHII's take on stopping power and gunnery is more accurate than IL2s.
What I mean about some aspects of IL2s FM being superior, it seems to me that AHII airplanes do not suffer from speed, either in control stiffness or structural damage. I think one of the major reasons that some planes seem so much better in AHII than real life accounts would lead one to believe is that they don't suffer any penalty in rate of turn at practical maneuvering speeds. 110 is a good example of this, I believe I read somewhere that it had a smaller mininum turn radius than the 109, which makes sense. considering the big wing. However, other readings suggest that the controls were just too stiff to have a good turn rate at practical fighting airspeeds, so that it would have had a hard time turning in offense/defense. Or take the 109/P38, 190/P51 dichotomy. In Aces High, the former are pretty much superior to the latter. Yet the latter planes were produced, effective, and feared, so they must have some advantages, one of which I suspect was control effectiveness on the high end of REASONABLE airspeeds.
AHII 109s for example simply do not suffer signifigantly in control authority until past 400mph IAS or so (after which it quickly enters compression, which I don't understand, I thought 109s actually had a fairly high critical mach number). Having controls that DON'T stiffen up at these monstrous airspeeds isn't really much of an advantage in a dogfight, because the black out limits you to barely turning anyway, and because you have to power dive to get your plane that fast in the first place. Whereas in IL2, I notice a reduction in turn rate in 109s and P38s starting at around 270mph. 190s start to stiffen around 400. Even the might P51s and P47s don't turn real well as you creep close to 500IAS. I have a gut feeling this is more correct than AHIIs take.
Also, in AHII the only aircraft I've ever been able to damage from dive speed (as opposed to pulling Gs) in the 262. Seems like the rest of them can power dive from the stratosphere and never suffer any structural damage until they hit the ground. The net effect of this is that structural strength in a dive also doesn't mean much of an advantage in AH. In IL2, even the Jug starts to shed parts at 560+ or so. The 109 can't turn very well at these high speeds in IL2, but it does SURVIVE them well without compressing and becoming a lawn dart. Taking advantage of superior structural strength in a dive is actually a viable escape tactic in IL2. Once again, from what I've read, I suspect that in this regard, IL2 is closer to reality.
-
I believe AH has it modeled so that wings overstress at lower G limits if they are damaged.
Also, historically, [most] planes didn't rip wings off in dives. The pull out ripped them off.
On planes where the controls locked up, they could (and some DID) dive from 20k+ into the deck without falling apart until they impacted.
There was a P-38 pilot that commented he and 2 of his buddies dove to escape some planes, at a high alt, and they locked up and only the guy telling the story just barely pulled up once they hit the denser air at low alts. His 2 wingmen impacted on either side of him.
If high speed dives in IL2 shed wings, that's most likely wrong.
One of my beefs with IL2 is that it's subjective to the whim of Oleg, and he caters to the loudest folks on the forums. I used to read the forums, back when I was interested. He'd change engine powers, performance, etc, based on the biggest whines. He made 50cals weak, then made them so strong any burst could kill, because folks complained about their weakness. Then he made them weak again because folks complained they were too strong!
At least HTC has a set policy of modeling things based off of realistic strengths and weaknesses. Whether they do this or not (I won't get into the debate) they have a policy and stick to it.
Oleg just changes whatever the masses want, from my observations. Not a good policy in a supposedly realistic flight sim.
-
There's quite a few AH planes that lose parts from high speed. Off the top of my head, the 110 and A20 lose elevators somewhere around 400IAS, the Ki84 loses (I think) its rudder about halfway past 400... Etc.
The truly better thing about Il2 is the unevenness of air. Planes will jitter around at high speed, which doesn't happen at all in AH's perfectly still and homogeneous air..
-
They don't loose wings so much as control surfaces start fluttering and shake off...
-
Word to the wise - if you ask Krusty what time it is - make sure you check for yourself because his answer will always be wrong.
I have been inside and out of the Il-2 'FM's' and 'DM's' and everything Krusty had posted is 100% incorrect - just like everything else he posts on these forums. That's not a personal attack anyone can search his posts.
Both AH and Il-2 are great games. Fly the one you want. However, just as an observation, anyone who would come into other game forum and complain about a game they really have no idea about is just silly. Whenever you hear 'The FM feels better in XXX' you know you are dealing with someone who has no idea what he is talking about.
Wotan
-
Wotan, do you mean flying around without a vert stab almost like nothing happened is right? And compared to AH, the planes in Il2 do act negligibly different once they're near the edge and at a high aoa. Flying a P39 and a 109, Zeke and P38, the differences are really small in the above conditions.
-
*shrug* Own and play both regularly, just pointing out their relative strengths and weaknesses is all. Think it is a shame a great sim like IL2 is near ruined by 3 big flaws, annoying view system, the ridiculously bad stability, and the bizarre impotence of the guns, esp. .50 cals.
The fantasy would be one game that combines the best features of both.
Word to the wise - if you ask Krusty what time it is - make sure you check for yourself because his answer will always be wrong.
I have been inside and out of the Il-2 'FM's' and 'DM's' and everything Krusty had posted is 100% incorrect - just like everything else he posts on these forums. That's not a personal attack anyone can search his posts.
Both AH and Il-2 are great games. Fly the one you want. However, just as an observation, anyone who would come into other game forum and complain about a game they really have no idea about is just silly. Whenever you hear 'The FM feels better in XXX' you know you are dealing with someone who has no idea what he is talking about.
Wotan
-
Lovely slanderous and personal attack there, Wotan. Way to be a beacon of the community.... :huh
Not to mention insulting everybody in this entire thread that's even remotely expressed an opinion about either game in comparison to each other.
Yeah, real nice.
-
. Whenever you hear 'The FM feels better in XXX' you know you are dealing with someone who has no idea what he is talking about.
Wotan
bollocks. Feeling something is a discription that encompases all the senses. If something feels wrong then something is broken.
Don't underestimate the innate understanding of physics that humans have. It's hardwired into us. I mean do the math to throw a rolled up piece of paper into a bin 15ft away.
-
BnZ, planes in AH do suffer loss of performance in rate of turn with speed... just try to fly a Zeke or a Hayate and you'll see... perhaps it's less noticeable in some plane than in others, but they do suffer it and you can see it.
And they suffer damage from high speed diving, as m00t pointed out. (Btw, m00t, Frank usually lose its elevators when diving beyond 450 mph... I knew that too well........ :D)
-
Btw, BnZ,
The 109 doesn't compress in our game under 20K until past around 460 mph. What you're experiencing is really high speed of air over the elevators which make it hard for you to use them effectively. Not unlike the Spitfire's tendency to lose aileron authority or the P-38G/J's loss of aileron authority at high speeds. It's not compression, it's just too much air speed over the surfaces.
-
It is accepted that the lack of API/APIT rounds on the .50's make them less powerful than they should be in IL2.
Though the incendiary concept is porked, .50's rarely create structural damage on wing-shedding scale. They are bullets, not cannon rounds.
-
Check out the "Wings" thread, and watch the combat footage of 190s. The 190 is a tough plane. Stronger than the 109 and able to take more damage (better suited to ground attack). 50cal bursts blow them to pieces. Wings fluttering off, complete explosions.
It only takes a weak point in a piece of load-bearing metal to crack and split, especially at high speeds, high Gs, high buffet, high vibration. Even microscopic flaws in turbine blades can make them shatter and destroy the engine when in use.
So a .50cal bullet punching through over an inch of solid steel may not blow that steel up, but that steel can't hold the weight it could BEFORE the hole was punched in it. A couple more holes... and... well the steel can't hold the weight of the wing, let alone the air pressure, the vibrations from the engine, and all that stuff airplanes are put through.
-
Okay, I'll hone to not testing the Japanese stuff in dives.
But the point remains that MOST planes in AH can dive without fear of structural damage. And more importantly, the loss of control authority in AHII happens at speeds so fast that it doesn't really consitute a huge disadvantage for a P38 or a 109 in a dogfight, except perhaps the frustration of watching a con dive away. Whereas if you were to fight a PonyV109 duel with IL2's flight model, if the 109 and Pony merged both going 300+mph IAS, the Pony would have a much higher turn rate and gain angles initially. Not having a Mustang or a Messerschmidt parked outside the house, I can't with honesty say which modeling is more accurate. But the difference is interesting, and I wonder which one is more believable.
-
Are you sure you used the same trim settings in Il2 and AH?
-
I disagree BnZ. I can say that VD is regularly attained in aircraft I fly :lol
Control authority is lost at a wide range of speed dependant on the particular aircraft, and the particular controls that experience the loss also varies from A/C to A/C. From what I've seen and experienced these speeds are relatively consistent with the historical data.
-
Well, one admitted problem with modeling control stiffness, as opposed to critical mach or what have you, is, just what are we going to make the abilities of the "pilot" at the controls? A flyweight or a 200 pound arm-wrestling champion? Rather like the black-out in that way.
Some IL2 prop planes can't pull max Gs at air speeds easily attainable in level flight, while no AHII prop planes (as far as I know) have that limitation. My THEORY, and I stress that it is only a theory, is that the lack of such a limitation is why, say, the 110 is a better dogfighter in AH than it was percieved to be historically. I also think advantage in high-speed turn rate might explain why P51 pilots thought they could and in fact did "out turn" 109s, even though common sense tells us that a plane whose wingloading was lighter and which tends to have a better powerloading would have a better mininum turning radius.
But, like I say, it is only a theory, and if any of you history/aerodynamics gurus wish to tell me where I'm wrong, go right ahead.
I disagree BnZ. I can say that VD is regularly attained in aircraft I fly :lol
Control authority is lost at a wide range of speed dependant on the particular aircraft, and the particular controls that experience the loss also varies from A/C to A/C. From what I've seen and experienced these speeds are relatively consistent with the historical data.
-
Well no game can accurately model the G and control weight effects for every pilot. They are a case of "one size fits all".
The 110 is really not that great a dogfighter, it is prone to deep stalls if mishandled and try pulling off a snap roll in one and tell me how you fare :lol , it's just the guys (and gals) who fly it a lot in the MA know how to fly it to it's strengths.
Don't confuse wing loading and control authority. A plane that can pull off tight high G turns at high speed may not be able to sustain that turn for an extended period before their energy state falls below their minimum effective speed. There are many aircraft in AH that need to be moving at certain speed to attain their best turning performance.
Try a few out and you will see. I try to fly a new plane once or twice every month, I don't always get around to it but I find it interesting to see just where the differences lie. It's all about getting to know your enemy ;)
-
Well, BnZ, I agree with m00t and SD67, I think AH does a good job in modeling speed effects on planes. As for the knowing how the true aircraft behaved back then, this site (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/)) could be of help (I never really had the time to thoroughly search it), many original documents there. And I'm sure people like Widewing have more stuff about this topic.
Btw, regarding the control weight effect, Combat Theater should emulate this factor, IIRC. It would be interesting to see how it comes out. :)
-
While IL2's graphics are great eye candy I could just never stand their view system.That alone kept me from playing it much if at all.
-
Don't confuse wing loading and control authority. A plane that can pull off tight high G turns at high speed may not be able to sustain that turn for an extended period before their energy state falls below their minimum effective speed. There are many aircraft in AH that need to be moving at certain speed to attain their best turning performance.
Believe it or not, I have heard of corner velocity. :D
I am speaking of the opposite phenomena, the possibility that some planes that have a smaller slow-speed radius might have an inferior high speed turn.
-
Moot,
Wotan, do you mean flying around without a vert stab almost like nothing happened is right? And compared to AH, the planes in Il2 do act negligibly different once they're near the edge and at a high aoa. Flying a P39 and a 109, Zeke and P38, the differences are really small in the above conditions.
That's never happened to me. I have never lost my entire vertical stabilizer and flew around like nothing is wrong. If you have please post a track. If you are talking about seeing some other human player doing it then you have no idea how hard it was to maintain control. On the several occasions where I have lost a good portion of my vertical stabilizer the plane was all but un-flyable. JG14_Hertt just recently experienced this and was forced to bail out as he could not regain control of the plane. If you are talking about AI aircraft - then who cares. I don't fly against AI or off line. AI aircraft use simplified formulas. Like AI in almost every other game its poor.
BnZ,
*shrug* Own and play both regularly, just pointing out their relative strengths and weaknesses is all. Think it is a shame a great sim like IL2 is near ruined by 3 big flaws, annoying view system, the ridiculously bad stability, and the bizarre impotence of the guns, esp. .50 cals.
The fantasy would be one game that combines the best features of both.
Sorry BnZ - I wasn't referring to anything you wrote. There are many games out there from TW, WBs, Il-2, AH, WWIIOL, FA and even the many boxed games that have their redeeming qualities. It is the fantasy of many that the best aspects of all be in some way combined into one game. However, that's not going to happen and the best we consumers can do is fine one we enjoy.
Krusty
Not to mention insulting everybody in this entire thread that's even remotely expressed an opinion about either game in comparison to each other.
You made claims - not opinions. What you claim about 1 flight model and about aspects of Il-2s DM is just wrong. Il-2 has been hacked, there is an SFS extractor that will allow you to open up the SFS files and you can look at them for yourself.
bollocks. Feeling something is a discription that encompases all the senses. If something feels wrong then something is broken.
Don't underestimate the innate understanding of physics that humans have. It's hardwired into us. I mean do the math to throw a rolled up piece of paper into a bin 15ft away.
'feel' is not measured in physics. Eric Brown flew Il-2, Il-2 was flown by real life LW and VVS pilots. They are qualified to offer an opinion on 'feel'. What folks mean by 'feel' in this thread is the differences between Il-2 and AH. Its perfectly fine to prefer one over the other but to claim one feels more 'real' is ridiculous - both are games. A lot of the differences in 'feel' between the 2 games has to do with stick settings and trim.
SgtPappy,
The 109 doesn't compress in our game under 20K until past around 460 mph. What you're experiencing is really high speed of air over the elevators which make it hard for you to use them effectively. Not unlike the Spitfire's tendency to lose aileron authority or the P-38G/J's loss of aileron authority at high speeds. It's not compression, it's just too much air speed over the surfaces.
Bf 109s don't 'compress' what happens is in both Il-2 and in AH the virtual pilot can only pull 50lbs of stick pressure. In both games as the Bf 109s go faster (and some other planes) - around 640km/h the controls become heavy. The faster you go the heavier the stick becomes. Several LW pilots write about real life experiences where by they were so fast that their controls felt like they were in concrete. Since this 'heaviness' can't be directly modeled, so that you feel it on you stick, what happens is see a loss of stick input - we pull nothing happens. It may feel the same as the P-38 in both games but it not the same thing. The P-38 would compress and the controls would would move but because of the turbulent air you get no response. For the Bf 109 could adjust trim to relieve stick pressure where as trim in the P-38 would not help.
It is accepted that the lack of API/APIT rounds on the .50's make them less powerful than they should be in IL2.
Though the incendiary concept is porked, .50's rarely create structural damage on wing-shedding scale. They are bullets, not cannon rounds.
The belting in both games - and others - is suspect. Il-2 is no different and it's not just .50 cals. In AH the MGFF are horrible. However, in Il-2 MGs - including .50 cals - are very effective in cutting control cables, knocking out engines and PK's. Very rarely will see a plane explode or a wing get blown off in Il-2 like in AH. In AH this happens more often then in most other games. Firing .50 cals at convergence is very effective in Il-2 and we fly against Allied squads that are very good at flying and killing in P-47 and P-51s.
I don't read this section of the forum enough to keep up with all the posts - sorry for the wall o'text. However, just fly the game you like. If you went to the TW, IEN, FA, WWIIOL, UBI, 1C forums you would hear a lot bad stuff said about AH. A lot of 'AH feels like we fly on rails' and other such nonsense. Just fly and the game you like.
We have a lot of guys fly with us that come from different games. I have had a lot of AH folks fly with us over the years. Some enjoy Il-2 some never take to it. From the restricted views to simple stuff like managing fuel tanks and the lack of combat trim (or the built in trim delay via key press in Il-2) there are several things some folks just don't like. I can list an equal number of things about AH. This would just be nitpicking as it all comes down to which one is the most fun personally.
-
MG's in AH are actually very effective a killing pilots. It's about the only way to get a kill flying the Stuka :lol
-
Wotan, you took a massive dump on EVERYTHING said in this thread, and EVERYbody that has replied to it.
I'm not talking about "hacked" games, I'm talking about offline play with a stock patch update releases from Ubisoft themselves.
BnZ: Hitech has flown in a P-51D. He might know a little about how responsive it is. HTC *does* take into account the pounds of pressure required to move a stick, max range, and all that stuff. I recall reading some threads about it way back. There were some informative posts that showed average WW2 pilot stick deflection, and with X pounds of pressure and Y range of motion, the plane will roll Z degrees per second. I think the end result is that AH matches fairly well to average pilot strengths (at least in the planes in discussion at the time)
-
Wotan, you took a massive dump on EVERYTHING said in this thread, and EVERYbody that has replied to it.
I'm not talking about "hacked" games, I'm talking about offline play with a stock patch update releases from Ubisoft themselves.
BnZ: Hitech has flown in a P-51D. He might know a little about how responsive it is. HTC *does* take into account the pounds of pressure required to move a stick, max range, and all that stuff. I recall reading some threads about it way back. There were some informative posts that showed average WW2 pilot stick deflection, and with X pounds of pressure and Y range of motion, the plane will roll Z degrees per second. I think the end result is that AH matches fairly well to average pilot strengths (at least in the planes in discussion at the time)
The thing I liked about Wotan's post, is that it does seem to be a decent, comparative, side-by-side evalution of the two games, NOT conducted by a die-hard fanboi of either. One problem that much of the AH community has, is too much time put in flying AH, and are to used to/comfortable with it to actually take the time to get used to any other game out there, and give a fair shake. That's really the only way one could say much, about anything else.
-
So, his opinion, heavily laced with insult to me specifically and everybody else in this thread in general, hold more weight?
I don't even think he plays AH anymore. When WAS the last time he played? I haven't seen him post in over 2 years before he replied to this thread.
Does he even know about the major FM changes of the 2.06 airflow update? Does he even know how this game compares at all?
Don't get me wrong. I used to fly IL2 a lot, offline. I really wanted a nice campain game, something to sort of develop a character (this all before CT was well known). It turned me off because of a lacking FM, but I gave it a fair shot for a while, finishing several of the axis and soviet mission sets.
-
Moot,
That's never happened to me. I have never lost my entire vertical stabilizer and flew around like nothing is wrong. If you have please post a track. If you are talking about seeing some other human player doing it then you have no idea how hard it was to maintain control. On the several occasions where I have lost a good portion of my vertical stabilizer the plane was all but un-flyable. JG14_Hertt just recently experienced this and was forced to bail out as he could not regain control of the plane. If you are talking about AI aircraft - then who cares. I don't fly against AI or off line. AI aircraft use simplified formulas. Like AI in almost every other game its poor.
It does happen, Wotan, and to the player. I have trk of it, I just can't remember where and in which version of the game... but I'll try to reproduce it and film. When you lose vertical stab, you can keep flying in IL2 and even fighting, in AH is impossibile, you can just "hit the silk".
I'm not talking about "hacked" games, I'm talking about offline play with a stock patch update releases from Ubisoft themselves.
Krusty, he's just saying that the game code is available, so you can check it for yourself and trust your own eyes.
And, btw, what IL2 are you and the other referring to? Because there is difference between IL2 and IL2-FB+AEP+PF 4.08m, just like between different versions of AH.
-
LOL! This thread reminds me of something Wulfie said a long time ago:
"Posts like the ones you make and the majority of the responses to those posts are like listening to a bunch of 8 year old virgin boys who are natives of Wisconsin argue over the best way to get laid in Thailand. It's amazing, in a very sick and painful way. Someone writes a post that is totally inaccurate. Then 20 people argue for 150 posts about the details of the initial post - none of which have anything to do with reality."
Unless you people have actually flown these planes in R/L you are totally unqualified to determine which simulation is the more accurate when it comes to how the plane "feel" or "behave".
IL2 and AH are both fantastic games ... GAMES.
8 year olds ... LOL!
-
So what exactly is the correct procedure for changing a lightbulb?
-
Moot,
That's never happened to me. I have never lost my entire vertical stabilizer and flew around like nothing is wrong. If you have please post a track. If you are talking about seeing some other human player doing it then you have no idea how hard it was to maintain control. On the several occasions where I have lost a good portion of my vertical stabilizer the plane was all but un-flyable. JG14_Hertt just recently experienced this and was forced to bail out as he could not regain control of the plane. If you are talking about AI aircraft - then who cares. I don't fly against AI or off line. AI aircraft use simplified formulas. Like AI in almost every other game its poor.
I've lost my entire vertical stabilizer in IL2 several times. (P-63, consistently)
The first few times, I had to fly more gently, as to prevent spinning. But little performance was lost.
Other times, I disengage from the battle because my nose swings around far to much to accurately aim my cannon.
In the game, how the plane reacts too a missing vertical stabilizer is dependent on how well you can keep a balance, once it is lost; you're stuck without it.
-
Moot,
That's never happened to me. I have never lost my entire vertical stabilizer and flew around like nothing is wrong. If you have please post a track. If you are talking about seeing some other human player doing it then you have no idea how hard it was to maintain control. On the several occasions where I have lost a good portion of my vertical stabilizer the plane was all but un-flyable. JG14_Hertt just recently experienced this and was forced to bail out as he could not regain control of the plane. If you are talking about AI aircraft - then who cares. I don't fly against AI or off line. AI aircraft use simplified formulas. Like AI in almost every other game its poor.
Wotan this was all multiplayer online.. No way were they really having that hard a time. In one instance I (K4) was in one piece myself and dodging his (P63) attacks! It's not fair to say I failed to outfly him with that handicap because I came out on top of a longish knife fight 1:1 where I shot his vert stab (and another shot in the fore section) with 30mm. Then he proceeded to come down from maybe 10kft and maneuvered for a killshot multiple times. I couldn't believe it when I saw it..
I have 3 instances of it on film, 2 of them I could probably find easily, let me find em.
One instance was with a 205 late model, another against that P63, and another for a few seconds myself in a 152 with just a part of the structural beams of the vstab in the wind. In the last instance I was in a hurry to reup and shoot down the guy who did it, but I did need visual confirmation that my vstab was gone.. It didn't fly like it was mising more than maybe 50% of vstab surface.
-
There are many planes whose controls (roll or pitch or both) stiffen up significantly at higher combat speeds: P-38's, Zeros, A-20's, Bf 109's, Bf 110's, TBM's, most bombers, etc. I've seen historical information for at least some of these that talks about this happening.
There are planes that come apart if dive speed is too high: Ki-84's, Mosquitoes, Zeros, most bombers, etc. I haven't read enough on these to know if there's much out there that talks about them coming apart at high speeds and thus have no opinion on it.
-
Hey Wotan <S>
Took ya long enough to finally see this thread!
I hate I missed FS, but work scheduel and a family tends to do that.