Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Jekyll on November 03, 2000, 11:45:00 PM
-
It's great to hear the news about the ongoing development of 1.05, but I wonder if there's a need to return to basics before we get all fired up about navies, perk planes, P51Hs and Ta152s.
Is there anyone out there who doesn't think that the following list would be good for Aces High?
1. Realistic Sun Effect - lets make that sun a blinding orb in which enemies can hide. At the same time, bring back the 'halo effect' that HTC modelled in version 0.39 or so.
2. Two-sided war. Get rid of one of the countries. I'm not talking about a strict Allied-v-Axis, where you only get to fly half the planeset. Make all aircraft available to each side, but dump one of the countries. In my timezone, there's often only about 20 on at night. Usually something like 8 Bishops, 8 Rooks and 4 Knights. Hardly enough to get a decent war going (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
3. Realistic fatigue effects for pilots. You like to carve small circles in the sky at high G? OK, no problem, but you'll tire more easily than the guy who flies low G BFM. And you like flying rolling evasives in a Spitfire at 400mph? Better not do it for too long, or you'll wear yourself out real quick (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Some have suggested a 'fatigue bar' onscreen. Personally, I don't have a problem with that idea ... its just as realistic as the current icon system we have (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Which brings me to ...
4. The Icon system. Get rid of exact ranges. Give the range to the nearest 200 yds, or 500 yds. Or have a sliding bar below the aircraft icon which gives a rough idea of relative range. Besides, with only two countries you wouldn't need that blocky Rook, Knight or Bishop icon anyway.
5. Increase the dispersion for high-alt buff drops. Putting a 500lb bomb on an ack from 20000 feet is slightly ridiculous. Wanna fly high out of the range of the defending fighters? No problem, but you'd better salvo 4 if you want to be sure to hit anything.
6. Inflight radar. Sector counters only .. no exact locations for enemy fighters.
7. Bring back the torque.... no, not the pilot named Torque (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) But bring back some of the torque and prop-drag we had prior to version 1.04.
OK, there's my wish-list, and not a Dora in sight (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Any others I missed?
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/phoenix
Aces High Training Corps
-
Amen to all of the above. A few I might add:
1. Engine damage when run at 100% for too long
2. Broken and/or oily windscreen when hit or flown through wreckage
3. Instrument damage
4. Chance to escape if captured
5. Ability for each plane to land and rescue downed countrymen
------------------
Rust
(http://home.earthlink.net/~rocketace/_uimages/rust.jpg)
The Free French Air Force
[This message has been edited by rust (edited 11-04-2000).]
-
i can live without Ta but Dora is necesery to fight the mustangs athervise agree
-
REALISTIC GUN COUNTERS.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.angelfire.com/nt/regoch/sig.gif)
-
WTF do you guys want, a flight sim??
OK, I will play.
Remove the ammo counters from all the planes that did not actually have them, which is most of them.
If a plane or vehicle was not used much dump it and use the space for something that was{P40 please}
Correct cockpit instrument layouts for each plane.
Rivers, roads, fewer sheep.
A Russian C47, it had a gun.
------------------
When did they put this thing in here and WTF is it for?
-
Just get USB working on Windows 2000!
-
I second or third ALL of those points Jekyl! Very good list.
-Westy
-
Sounds great except the 2-country part.
-
1. Realistic Sun Effect - lets make that sun a blinding orb in which enemies can hide. At the same time, bring back the 'halo effect' that HTC modelled in version 0.39 or so.
I like this one.
2. Two-sided war. Get rid of one of the countries. I'm not talking about a strict Allied-v-Axis, where you only get to fly half the planeset. Make all aircraft available to each side, but dump one of the countries. In my timezone, there's often only about 20 on at night. Usually something like 8 Bishops, 8 Rooks and 4 Knights. Hardly enough to get a decent war going.
I don't like this one based on what I've heard of its typical results. I have been told that this typically results in 90% of the players duking it out in one location and because it is the "hot spot" to get action, people just keep returning to it.
3. Realistic fatigue effects for pilots. You like to carve small circles in the sky at high G? OK, no problem, but you'll tire more easily than the guy who flies low G BFM. And you like flying rolling evasives in a Spitfire at 400mph? Better not do it for too long, or you'll wear yourself out real quick Some have suggested a 'fatigue bar' onscreen. Personally, I don't have a problem with that idea ... its just as realistic as the current icon system we have Which brings me to ...
Only if the G tolerance is raised to a realistic point. We blackout at 4.5Gs. There's a guy who pulled an 11G Manuever in an F-16 and did not black out.
Spitfires roll slower at high speed, but if you think the penalty needs to be larger, OK.
4. The Icon system. Get rid of exact ranges. Give the range to the nearest 200 yds, or 500 yds. Or have a sliding bar below the aircraft icon which gives a rough idea of relative range. Besides, with only two countries you wouldn't need that blocky Rook, Knight or Bishop icon anyway.
OK
5. Increase the dispersion for high-alt buff drops. Putting a 500lb bomb on an ack from 20000 feet is slightly ridiculous. Wanna fly high out of the range of the defending fighters? No problem, but you'd better salvo 4 if you want to be sure to hit anything.
No, not from 20,000ft. I could agree to RAM's altitude list, e.g. as is up to 25,000ft, difficult at 26,000 to 30,000 and nigh impossible at 31,000+ft.
If realistc accuracy IS added, I want 50 AI controled B-17s or Lancasters to take off with me, fly in formation to the target and then carpet bomb it (500 would be more realistc).
We CAN'T get the numbers of bombers to use historcal tactics. If historical accuracy is modeled, bombers will cease to be a factor in AH.
6. Inflight radar. Sector counters only .. no exact locations for enemy fighters.
Only if we get auto vectoring message from Ground Control. There are numerous examples of Ground Radar guiding fighters onto a single aircraft.
7. Bring back the torque.... no, not the pilot named Torque But bring back some of the torque and prop-drag we had prior to version 1.04.
Torque does feel a bit weak, but prop drag? Lets see some evidence that torque and prop drag are under modeled.
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
[B
Only if the G tolerance is raised to a realistic point. We blackout at 4.5Gs. There's a guy who pulled an 11G Manuever in an F-16 and did not black out.
[/B]
Correct me if i am wrong, but present day Jet pilots wear a flight suit designed to reduce pressure from g-forces? If so, i reeeeeealy doubt the guys back in WWII had them....
Hamish
-
Excellent karnak..I aggree with your version.
There were g pants in ww2 but even without them the typical pilot could fly better then 4.5 I think but it would be taxing.
-
Good points on the draw back for two sided arenas.
As for G-suits? The USAAF was distributing them to P-47 and P-51 pilots in latter 44 and 1945. Not sure about other aircraft typre pilots. But of those two I am.
-Westy
-
"But I figured that, while pulling four or five Gs, I was relatively safe. Hauling back on that stick for all I was worth and in a semi crouch, I was tightening my stomach muscles tightening all my muscles trying to hold my head up against the vicious, unrelenting force of magnified gravity. I no longer knew if I was in the same piece of sky as Johnson; the positive Gs were draining the blood from my head and I was sightless."
4.5g blackout unrealistic?
-
Only if the G tolerance is raised to a realistic point. We blackout at 4.5Gs. There's a guy who pulled an 11G Manuever in an F-16 and did not black out.
The F-16's seat is tilted back to put the pilot in more of a reclining position. This helps fight blackout. As Hamish pointed out, G-Suits are also an item that is standard issue today but non-existant in WW2 (at least in current effective form).
As Jekyll's original post... great ideas. I'd like to see even more modeled. The only one I don't like is the two sided war issue for the reasons stated above.
AKDejaVu
-
I got to fly an WWII era AT-6 Texan in some aerobatic manuevers, where we pulled up to 4.5-5 G's down in FL (http://www.warbirdsadventure.com)
I can definitely tell you that depending on individual physical conditioning, it is very possible to start the blackout (ie tunnel vision) at 4.5G's.
At the time, I was in very good physical conditioning (lifting weights 3 times a week, and running 3 times a week), and I had no problems not blacking out if I performed the "Grunt" anti-G manuever.
But once, I was not paying attention and watching the scenery, the instructor pulled a hard manuever, and I went to about 90% blackout in an instance.
Another virtual pilot took the same flight at a later date, and he told me he had a much more difficult time with the G forces.
So its not as unrealistic as you guys seem to think.
Trust me, 5 G's is Alot if you have never been under sustained G forces before.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
There's a guy who pulled an 11G Manuever in an F-16 and did not black out.
Karnak, what is your source?...
I'd like to read it because I dont know how can a F16 pull a 11G maneouver while its Fly-by-wire system prevents pulls over 9G.
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
Only if the G tolerance is raised to a realistic point. We blackout at 4.5Gs. There's a guy who pulled an 11G Manuever in an F-16 and did not black out.
You don't blackout in AH at about 4.5G, you'll just enter into tunnel vision.
Try next time look at the G gauge as you pull.. you don't get into complete blackout until 7.5G and you'll see fine till 6-6.5G through tunnel vision. (depending on that how you can maintain SA with limited sight)
I've tested this before and I did also test now for more accurate results than what I remember.
I don't think that term 'blackout' also includes tunnel vision.
Late war allied planes had G-suits, but they surely weren't as effective as today, when you have also seats made to help you from going blackout.
-
1. Realistic Sun Effect - lets make that sun a blinding orb in which enemies can hide. At the same time, bring back the 'halo effect' that HTC modelled in version 0.39 or so.
Here here! I'm all for it.
2. Two-sided war. Get rid of one of the countries. I'm not talking about a strict Allied-v-Axis, where you only get to fly half the planeset. Make all aircraft available to each side, but dump one of the countries. In my timezone, there's often only about 20 on at night. Usually something like 8 Bishops, 8 Rooks and 4 Knights. Hardly enough to get a decent war going (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
ERRRRRRRR, try again. A 3 country war, aside from the obvious arguments, give you a wider range of targets. Not targets as in aircraft or structures, but other people. Keeps things interesting and if you get tired of Spatula killing you, attack the other guy.
3. Realistic fatigue effects for pilots. You like to carve small circles in the sky at high G? OK, no problem, but you'll tire more easily than the guy who flies low G BFM. And you like flying rolling evasives in a Spitfire at 400mph? Better not do it for too long, or you'll wear yourself out real quick (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Some have suggested a 'fatigue bar' onscreen. Personally, I don't have a problem with that idea ... its just as realistic as the current icon system we have (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Which brings me to ...
Sounds Ok, although I'd do some more work on it. Putting up a "Strength" or "Endurance" bar makes it seem more like Blood 2 or Rogue Spear than Aces High.
4. The Icon system. Get rid of exact ranges. Give the range to the nearest 200 yds, or 500 yds. Or have a sliding bar below the aircraft icon which gives a rough idea of relative range. Besides, with only two countries you wouldn't need that blocky Rook, Knight or Bishop icon anyway.
Nope. I like the icon system the way it is. You want historical or limited settings? Hit the SEA or create a HA.
5. Increase the dispersion for high-alt buff drops. Putting a 500lb bomb on an ack from 20000 feet is slightly ridiculous. Wanna fly high out of the range of the defending fighters? No problem, but you'd better salvo 4 if you want to be sure to hit anything.
Damn straight! If cheesy games like ATF Gold can have bomb dispersion, why can't we?
6. Inflight radar. Sector counters only .. no exact locations for enemy fighters.
See answer to #4
7. Bring back the torque.... no, not the pilot named Torque (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) But bring back some of the torque and prop-drag we had prior to version 1.04.
Yep. I miss watching guys flip a plane over or slam it into a hangar on takeoff. Of course, with the wind set as it is this would make things REALLY fun! Crosswind landings, with the torque of a DB-605 threatening to flip you if you gun it; nothin better!
------------------
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
"My art is the wings of an aircraft through the skies, my music the deep hum of a prop as it slices the air, my thrill the thunder of guns tearing asunder an enemy plane."
Flakbait
19 September 2000
-
BTW the seat position in the 109 was more reclined than typical allied counterparts, therefore the 109 pilot could withstand slightly more g's (physical health etc being equal) than an allied pilot.
SKurj
-
Sounds good in general. Don't know about the 2-side war. It might be hard to get it balanced.
------------------
Otso
-
AMEN JEKYLL!!!!!
------------------
AH : Maniac
WB : -nr-1-
-
Skruj, are you starting that wives tale in this topic too?
-Westy
-
I'm just reposting something that I posted earlier in the general discussion board... it's kinda burried, so here it is again..
What about making the bombers historically accurate. This would necessitate large formations of bombers to have a chance of success. With a limited player base like in Aces High, this severely limits large formations UNLESS we had automated bombers. This could be done by allowing each bomber pilot lead say... 3 other automated bombers in a formation. The 3 otto bombers would do their best to keep up with the lead plane, and would hold a decent formation, and drop with relatively good historical accuracy. The other 3 planes would have otto gunners with accuracy that mirrors the human controlled gunnery statistics of AH. This would bring large formations of bombers to AH, and still allow the effectiveness and sense of accomplishment to bomber pilots WITHOUT having super accurate bombing computers, that somehow negate the effects of turbulence (which there would be in real life, and which would randomize the drop.
To do this, bombers with simplified flight models could be programmed to follow the leader. The leader could select different numbers of bombers for his flight depending on a) the type of airfield he flew from, b) the status of that field with respect to damage, c) relative numbers of players for his country. This would allow large stratiegic formations from rear bases, and smaller tactical strikes from front bases. Also, if a side was outnumbered, they would be allowed more bombers to help keep the balance even. Experimentation in the game could be used to determine a fair (bomber formation modifier) to compensate for being outnumbered 2 to one or 1.5 to one. Maybe it could simply be based on number of aircraft int he air at a given time for each country, so that it would balance out any formation death staring that could occur.
Anyway.. this was just a brain storm.. what do you guys think?
CJ
-
Two countries, and then start building around that.
sax
-
I've been sitting out of this thread for a while, watching what develops.
It seems that the main sticking point is the idea of the 'two-sided' war. As I understand it, the opponents of the idea believe that this would lead to all available aircraft converging on one sector or airfield to do battle.
And this is a bad thing?
Think about it. Let's look at a mythical night with 90 players online.
Option 1. - The Current Situation
The 90 players are evenly split between Knights, Rooks and Bishops. Fights are occurring all over the map, often in relatively small groups of 6 or so. There are sporadic areas of concentrated forces, where you might find 20-30 aircraft doing battle. But you still will probably only see 3 or 4 buffs in the larger groups, since current buff accuracy means we can level a field with only a small number of bombers.
Option 2 - the Two Sided War
There's 90 online, evenly split between Country X and Country Y. Because buffs are less accurate at altitude, Country X (the attacker) has a formation of 10 buffs inbound to a base. They have an escort of 15 fighters, with the remaining aircraft either furballing or driving vehicles to the base.
GROUPS OF VEHICLES! Bloody big seething masses of armor heading for the 1 base under attack.. not split between 5 or 6 bases .. all converging on the one place!
Buff boxes.. close and long range escorts.
Only possible if we have a single point at which to do battle.
Now I know some will say, "But you'll never get even numbers.. so one side will always be at a disadvantage". So what's different to the current situation. If anything, it's even worse now, since you often see the most populous countries battling against the country with the fewest online in an attempt to race each other to winning the war.
Anyway, just a thought. I have these visions in my head of ranks of buffs or panzers performing set-piece moves in a concentrated attack on enemy fields.
And voices in my head too... but that's another story (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/phoenix
Aces High Training Corps
-
(Ghosth sits back in his chair lites his pipe )
Hmmmmm sure paints a pretty picture with them words doesn't he!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Keep preaching Brother Jekyll, maybe while your at it you can get HT to add a early war arena & planeset to test it in?
-
Jekyll's list is a good one. 2 sided war may be iffy for reasons outlined, though I suspect good map and strat design would mitigate that.
Just to be a putz, I'll argue that including ships in 1.05 should come as intended, then Jekyll's list should be attended to. This simply because the ships add an extra dimension to the game as a whole (the "this is Aces HIGH!!" whine carries no wieght to me. Aircraft of all nations are tasked principly with supporting the naval and ground branches, even when that means a-to-a combat).
One comment; it seems like -some- dispertion to bombs would be good, with an increase in blast damage, which is quite weak from my perspective. A 500lb bomb hitting within 20-30 yards of a MG nest should shave it off at ground level. Two 500lbr's hitting within 20 yards of a hanger should have a serious chance of caving in the side from the shockwave, and perforating anything inside (planes, groundcrew).
So add mild dispertion, perhaps less than historical levels, and adjust the blast radius to something more realistic (to test, detonate a 500lb bomb outside the old iMagic offices at various distances).
I think this would mean that a single buff couldn't take out a field all by itself, but 2-3 could. Right now I suspect allot of the lack of heavy bomber coordination and squads is a result of the buffs being able to single-handedly do most fields in themselves. So it should require 50 buffs, and shouldn't be doable with one.
Just some Thog-thoughts.
Thog
-
Guys.. at the end of the day it all comes down to this : what do we want Aces High to be?
If we want it to be purely escapist fun - a game - then we have hyper accurate buffs, 3 sided wars, laser ranging icon gunsights etc.
If we want it to be a simulation - ....... well, you know my thoughts (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/phoenix
Aces High Training Corps
-
I agree to the first point...but none of the others.
-
After so many years i dont want the MA furball style of play.
But the real issue is what HTC wants AH to be. Do they even know themselfs?
------------------
AH : Maniac
WB : -nr-1-
-
I think they do Maniac. As much as anyone out there building or operatng thier own online sim/game. It's easy to take potshots at them on a web board. You do it, Towd does and so do many others. Folks who have visited thier offices in Texas or went to the CON do not seem to have any remarks such as yours. They come away with an enourmously postivie outlook on the direction they see shown them. HTC have more online expereince than just about any of us here and a hellovalot more actually online business experience too.
It would seem to me that they are puting out a product liked by many and many also know that AH is not in a maintenance mode nor is it stagnant by any means.
The problem is people want what they want and they wanted it yesterday. Add that hardly anyone wants the same thing at the same time so I wonder what any business would be like if they catered to the whims and fancy's of whoever posts the most or loudest?
HTC has thier course set and their eyes on the horizon working on wha;'s coming next. That's a more than I can say about anyone else, besides the CRS folks.
-Westy
p.s. to answer Jekyl. I'd like both. Sometimes I log on and only want to furball mindlessly because I only have 30-60 minutes to be online. I don't want to waste it prepping for a mission or fly a long diatnce as a bomber/cap/sweep to get shot down in 10 seconds. Other times when I want something with more substance, ie historical, and that leans more to simming I like the latter more than the former. But for me it's a question of how can I get the most enjoyment for my time at that moment.
[This message has been edited by Westy (edited 11-14-2000).]
-
Well, I have to admit that over the past week I've gone back to Warbirds.... and I'm having a ball.
SO nice to be able to evade the guy camped behind you at 400 yds, force the overshoot and kill him dead (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
AH has the eye candy ... no doubt about it. But eye candy only lasts so long as an attraction. It's gameplay I'm after... and I'm starting to doubt whether AH will EVER be a WW2 flight sim.
-
"and I'm starting to doubt whether AH will EVER be a WW2 flight sim."
Well it would be nice if HTC would tell us what their vision of AH is.
One start would be to put the Med terrain in the main arena, that would improve MY enjoyment of AH.
The vibes i get from HTC is that they want this to an FA2 type of game with an better FM.
<steps off the soap box>
------------------
AH : Maniac
WB : -nr-1-
-
Many points I agree with: Sun effect, reduced high alt bomb accuracy, pilot fatigue, a change to the icon system, better engine management and better tourque/yaw effects. These items would help add to the sense of immersion in a WW2 based flight sim. I'm not sure all or any of these would be more fun/appealing for the average flier though. Would there ever be a place for a super realism arena in HTC? I hope so.
The problem with creating an "accurate" historical sim is that too many people have their own view of history. From reading posts on these boards in the last year, its clear that many of these views are the result of differing and sometimes contrasting historical perspectives. There is lots of great information in these boards but many stated "facts" are interpretations, assumptions, partial truths, or opinions. HTC will never be able to please everyone but have done a very respectable job so far.
As far as G-effect on the pilot? We should have a sensor on the joystick that measures body fat percentage (as an indication of physical conditioning) and base max/sustained G endurance on the reading. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Kidding!
MiG
-
Trust me, 5 G's is Alot if you have never been under sustained G forces before.
=======
Hell Verm,
Ive been known to have problems at 1G
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Y
-
HTC has thier course set and their eyes on the horizon working on wha;'s coming next.
Does anyone other than HTC have the foggiest idea what course is plotted?
Is AH planned to become:
1. Warbirds on steroids
2. Fighter Ace with better FMs
3. WW2OL 'lite'
Anyone have any definitive answers?
It would seem to me that they are puting out a product liked by many and many also know that AH is not in a maintenance mode nor is it stagnant by any means.
If you want to see a stagnant program, check out Warbirds 2.76. No significant changes in well over a year.
And yet tonight, while AH had 28 in the MA, the WW2 Arena of WB had 81 online.
Why?
[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 11-19-2000).]
-
My biggest concern is the bomb dispersion, I think at 25k a b-17 should be able to salvo off 12 500's over a small field and have tem land all over the place roughly inside the perimiter of the base, 30k+....you better be bombin a city stratotard! this sound like buffer's wouldent like it but look at it this way
DISADVANTAGE: a lone buff can no longer creep in at 35k and snipe every hangar and GE with lazerbombs (dont think many will miss that)
ADVANTAGE: insted of HAVING to aim EVERY bomb you can just fly over target at 25k or so and drop all your bombs with like a .3delay and know they will land within the perimiter of base and that sometimes they will kill ALOT of stuff, other times you might just kill a few fuel or Ge. If you drop a salvo the way it is now you will end up with a perfect little line going across the field hitting a few thing but not doing much else besids looking stupid.
It really bothers me that HTC will go through such pains with all these flight models and such and then toatlly ingore something as obvious and annoying as this. if you dig through bullitin board history you will notice that ALOT of folks feel the same way.
-
No real answer Jekyl to your question. WB's is less expensive now and I do know that has drawn several AW groups even though the difference between AH and WB's is only $1.25 per week but they hedged signing up for AH. Given the latest release of AW (AW:ME aka "Mickey Version") and the horrendous server/hosts problems and they've been left no choice.
Maybe WB's is now the "easier" sim and has a little less of a learning curve and is attracting more folks now? What stage in the WWII arena is it? Early war Axis Uber-advantage or is it late war Allied war machine rolls over all?
-Westy
-
westy
thats a kind of funny statement. i never played wbs but i would expect early war matchups (spit V versus 190a-5, wildcat versus zeke) to be decidedly in favor of axis, while late war (f4u-4 versus n1k, spitXIV v 109g etcera) to be decidedly in favor of allies. So that makes sense to me?
-
Zigrat it does make sense. Untill you go and read AGW and see for yourself all the issues (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) Some real and valid. Whilst some <twirls index finger around ear> are quite imaginary.
-Westy
-
Interesting point Westy, about which is the 'easier' sim. Having flown both extensively quite recently I'd have to suggest that:
1. AH is easier to get off the ground and fly (at least compared to the WB WW2 arena)
2. AH is definitely easier to get kills in (can't forget that 'fun' factor, can we)
3. WB is easier to survive a fight in (get and sustain 500yds separation and you have a good chance of RTB)
-
1. AH is easier to get off the ground..
True. AH used to be much harder. Still. If sims were only about taking off and landing WB's would leave this one in the dust I guess. As for flying? Nah. WB's with it's aircraft of the never expending E is much, much easier to "fly"
2. AH is definitely easier to get kills in (can't forget that 'fun' factor, can we)
Now that is hogwash. WB's is the easier FM by far. And in WB's guns ARE changed for playability first, realism secodn - unless it ticks off some segement of the communit in which case "wait till next week and we can see what Hotseat can do for us."
3. WB is easier to survive a fight in (get and sustain 500yds separation and you have a good chance of RTB)
Of course it's "easier" to surivive because they have a lower percentage of lethality to make it more "FUN." Do you must fly the 109-F there? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) [/b]
You can't hide AGW. It's WB's Achilles heal.
-Westy
-
Ya but in AH we got 100% lethality and the laser pin point sights wich tell us exactly how far away an con is wich IMHO is not good.
I wish someone of the different OL sim companys would grow the balls to experiment some with the icon solutions...
But i guess this is one of the "Dont fix it if it aint broke areas" wich btw only applyes to certain areas hehe.
P.S Does anyone know what size the bullets got in AH?
------------------
AH : Maniac
WB : -nr-1-
-
. I do not agree thatr we have laser pin point sights due to the effects of convergance, dispersion and gravity wich all effect, heavily, the rounds trajectory in AH. I can agree on the issue with icons 100% I see that WB III will have them. They look no different from what we've had for years be it in AW, WB's or AH. WWII Online has had some place holder type of icon. So no judgement from me on what I can't see to begin with at this time. I too also wish someone would try something innovative with icons. We need an indication of some sort till graphics and computer hardware rise to and even surpass "the challenge" to do away completely for them.
IMO, of course.
-Westy
-
OK Westy, here's an easy test for you.
Grab an AH P51, go up offline, and see how hard it is to nail the drones at 600yds range.
Then take up a WB P51 and do the same.
And THEN tell me which sim is the easiest to get kills in.
And in WB's guns ARE changed for playability first, realism secodn
Which is EXACTLY what they need to do to bring balance between gunnery and laser-ranging eyeballs. Don't you see that? Perfectly simulated gunnery cannot co-exist with imperfectly simulated pilots without creating an imbalance of its own. If the pilots are 'uber' the guns have to be 'unter' so that the net effect is realistic!
And as for WB's having the easier FM, I'm afraid your comments are so laughable as to not even merit reply.
Have you ever heard of E-bleed? AH 1.04 apparently has not!
You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
Oh wait,
Sometimes I log on and only want to furball mindlessly
Now that I re-read your earlier post, I think I understand you better. OF COURSE you would prefer AH turbolasers ... much more fun in those mindless furballs. Just like real life WW2 air combat, eh?
[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 11-21-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 11-21-2000).]
-
Offline? Give me a break.
I'm not conceding anything here but arguing with you isn't going to do you, me or anyone else here any good. And I'm argued out (in general. not juyst with you). I know AH is superior to WB's in about every way except for the number of aircraft available. The fact is we agree on more than we disagree upon. This isn't the "friendly" jousting we did a couple of years ago with me with AW and you for WB's in a.g.a.w.
But I can only wonder this, if WB's is so good, why do you come here to post or even play?
-Westy
[This message has been edited by Westy (edited 11-21-2000).]
-
Aces High is a game in development.
Warbirds is a game that is done.
Remember this.
HTC is in a tough spot regarding this thread. They have to maintain an objective, middle of the road view. There are many groups in the community that lobby for something or another, yet they don't see how it will affect others, only how it will affect themselves. All online sims bring out the best and the worst in those who fly them, myself included. It's the nature that goes with competition and being isolated by many miles.
IC
-
You guys squeak too much I real sorry for your pets (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
-
Never mind.
[This message has been edited by Maniac (edited 11-21-2000).]
-
if WB's is so good, why do you come here to post or even play?
Because Aces High has such potential to be a truly amazing WW2 flight SIM, rather than just a game.
But I suppose in the end it all comes down to $$$$
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/phoenix
Aces High Training Corps