Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Kazaa on June 11, 2009, 06:18:40 PM
-
I’m thinking about branching out and trying a new WW2 flight combat simulation.
I have a question: How does WW2OL and IL2 compare to AH2, specifically online game play and flight model.
-
I've played IL2 a little. views are different. taking off is different. never played it online, didn't see the need. I like AH better
-
:salute
kazaa ,I gave IL2 sturmovik a shot. I found the flight models a tad unrealistic and the control settings were anything but user friendly. JDJNR normally keeps a server open on IL2 and runs night missions :rock
-
ww2ol has a flight model?
I thought it was a goldfish simulator :D
-
Il2 FM most likely won't fail to disappoint you, especially in contrast with Il2's graphics. You can do some neat stuff (maneuver as a shot is inbound so that it glances off and merely burns some paint), but in the end the FM is just rubbish. Once you're done admiring all that, it completely fails at immersing you past the "yanking a stick in front of a computer monitor" feeling. When you've earned your way to a shot that rip off an opponent's vertical stab. after a long fight, and he just keeps flying....
There's lots of other things too, like the control setup interface, but the FM really is the one feature that kills Il2.
-
i've tried the il2 demo and :rolleyes: its weird in my opinon flight model is so strange cause im not used to it
-
I played IL2 for awhile... Never really caught my interest. It sucks <insert epithet of your choice here>.
-
The viewing system is Il2s downfall for me, although if I was a TrackIR user this might not be the case.
-
WWIIonline is fun in some ways. I really like how it's 1 big map, and your objective is to take it, but it also has ALOT of bugs in it. Graphics are ok, but not great.
IL2 has some great graphics, but it seems to be lacking a bit where AHII succeeds. It's definatley better than WWII online.
Of the three I'd say AHII is the best. IL2 has better graphics, but as we all see, AHII is catching up...fast! :eek:
-
Take if from me, I played ww2OL for a long time. I was there for opening day (and the subsequent 3 days it took to actually get the game running)
The game was rushed, it was poorly coded, broken code was fixed by overlaying more broken code.
BUT it was still the best thing out there. I thought by now there would surely be something more.
WHAT KILLED WW2ONLINE
-Unfortunately, the devs at ww2ol aren't very bright. This was proven when they decided to implement something called "brigade spawning"
Whereas before, you could view the minimap (which was awesome) and choose where you wanted to spawn based on where the action was occurring.
For some reason, they believed they could foster a larger war and bring more people to get involved by creating brigade spawning. Newbs were complaining about spawning into areas where only rifleman were available. That my friends was a town down to the nubs and about to be taken. Their job should have been to take tanks/planes from another town and drive in. But they didn't want to wait 20 minutes to get into battle. Instead of offering a system that would suggest another town with more supply, they implemented a convoluted system of brigade spawing that 'hides' the supply issues to the newbs but makes it nearly impossible to find a good battle...so again, they sit FOREVER only to fire their weapon once..if lucky. Now it's very confusing and frustrating to spawn something AND find battle.
More times than not, you are sitting idle waiting for battle. SO you have to constantly find the action by clicking on the appropriate brigades, sifting through where they are responsible for and learning that whole thing to be able to spawn where the action is. Very lame.
TOTALLY killed the game.
I turned 5 people onto the game, they didn't play at all because of this. Prior to this, I got many people to sign in, but the bugs killed their interest.
Recently I went on to see what they had going on. I was surprised to see the graphics were dumbed down from when I played (at least it appeared this way). I was still getting 'jitters' which are killers when you fly.
Strangely, it seemed the newest systems had the most problems...but if you had issues, you were told that you needed to buy more ram.
This game was and probably still is way beyond its time. The physics and damage models were amazing.
I'm very sad for the folks there. Even their website is confusing, right down to the installer and methods of trying to make a payment through their subscription services.
EVERYTHING about the game to get into battle was super counter intuitive, and thus - it killed the game.
At one point, there were tons of people playing. It was very fun.
Now the infantry didn't run around like a fps...but you could do SO much in that game. It was SO dynamic.
Imagine being able to run up to a play as a paratrooper, jump on, wait for the green light and jump into battle. Only to see tracers coming from inside a very intrique town (not like ah2 towns) to the fields surround the towns. Landing near enemy tanks, planting satchel bombs on them and running for your life. Watching bombs drop from above as bombers pummel town trying to soften it up enough to let your tanks and infantry in.
The whole idea aroudn taking a base is awesome too. Infantry MUST take it (at least it used to be this way) , and to take it...they ran into several buildings that were capture points...and waited next to a radio table for 30 secs to capture it. I can't tell you how many INTENSE battles I've had in that game that took my breath away! I've taken bases that were fought for days, taking the last table in the bunker to grab the final capture.
They added many cools things in tth egame. Game balance was and probably still is a major complaint in that game. The beginning units were spartan but still fun.
Everything is ranked based too, and it wasn't that easy to get rank enough quickly to get the 'cool gear'. Like the LMG, a better tank, an uber plane etc.
Everything has a supply too. Sometimes, to fly that better plane you had to fly from a couple fields back.
Honestly, I think their flight model was pretty darn good. Felt less arcade than AH2 or about the same. But the sheer fact that it had so many glitches and strange behaviors due to bad coding or missing code - made it one of the most frustrating and yet fun experiences in my life. I often refer to ww2 as a woman. :)
I'd say try it out and give it the full trial period but don't expect uber graphics and performance. The forums are nothing but fanboys that worship the 'rat's' (the devs) and like any socialist or communist organization , dissension is NOT tolerated!
If I were Hitech, I would be getting off my but and work on a ground game like ww2online. I flew only about 20% of the time in ww2 online and I LIKES TO FLY. That tells you how much fun the gruond game was in ww2...and frustrating.
When I arrived at AH2, I commented in the forums about how wonderful it was to fly , be able to six someone and actually shoot them down and not have to expect some weird glitch. Usually just as you fire.
People warned me that the frustration would arrive when I started to get good but I gotta tell you, I still don't see it. About the only frustration I have is, Hitech's unwillingness to spend the $ and further this game.
This would include : 1. increasing the netcode speed or, the amount of packets going to and fro to calculate everything in this game. ww2online upgraded theirs a couple years after release and it was like night and day. You could walk up to a guy and KNIFE him , and if you saw a round hit near a tank..the guy on the other end saw almost the same EXACT thing. 2. updates - ah2 is very slow to update...ww2online was updated once every couple months! 3. an attitude that we should be greatful to play this game. Just an overall feeling I get from the owners/devs of this game.
It's still the best game in town. If you try ww2online you WILL be back to AH2...I guarantee it. Unless you are more of a ground pounder then maybe not.
WW2Online tried to re-release their game with very little results. They left brigade spawning in (thinking it was the reason for a rerelease), they didn't foster an easy method to get into quick battle and get your hands dirtry, and they didn't advertise very much.
I'm actually surprised they haven't called it quits to be honest. If they were smart, they would hire some younger (20 something) coders that have been hobbying with code since 10 years old like some of the guys I work with. they would have that game working to its potential in less than 6 months...and I guarantee the first thing they would remove would be the spawn system.
OH and the lack of a universal vox was pretty lame compared to AH2's which is AMAZINGLY awesome and I believe, one of the big factors that makes this game succeed.
I've turned a few people onto this game, and they were amazed they never heard of it. I try to plug it as much as possible but too many people these days want easy mode (aka WoW) Click button, watch animation. Rinse / Repeat.
GL and let me know if you have any questions. I may go back there this summer and check it out in hopes that my dream is not dead.
Oh and wait to you try a tank out , ambush a row of tanks and infantry going into battle. You'll be hooked. There is cover in this game too! :)
-
The viewing system is Il2s downfall for me, although if I was a TrackIR user this might not be the case.
TIR sucks in Il2. 2DOF only.
-
That's strange. I know I've seen at least Kegetys get 6DOF to work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFTRsBcSyk8
-
That's strange. I know I've seen at least Kegetys get 6DOF to work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFTRsBcSyk8
back when I still had Il2 on my HD, I have never been able to find a true working version of this MOD ;)
-
I'm pretty sure I had that and the sound files editor... I'll have to check if I still have all that stuff.
-
Never tried IL2, but i can say ww2OL was cool 5-6 years ago. That game has been around for about 7 years and they still have atari style graphics. The flight part of the game can be fun, but it is very close to arcade playing. You get alot of pratice messin with the trim settings. If they would give the game a graphics update it would be fun for ground pounders.
-
I like IL2 for the graphics and the mission creator for my "offline time" from AH2. But recently Oleg released the dev kit and now you can mod IL2 up the wazoo.
Theres a lot to list what you can get for the mods, but check out AAA IL2 mod. Heres a youtube of it:
6DOF Track IR: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3iTHt7iWDA
More mods in side-by-side comparison: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj2BJm6X1A8
-
Hello Kazaa,
i have played WW2Online for quit some time and also tried IL2..
In my opinion graphics are the strength of IL2. If you need and like eye-candy, IL2 is the way to go. When I tried it, it was hard to find servers with good connections. I actually was not able to really play online because of the instable servers. Also there was a strong tendency in IL2 to extremely exaggerate Russian plane performance, don’t know if that changed yet.
Strength of WW2OL is the immersion of a large military combined arms conflict. I still think, that WW2OL is the best combined arms online simulation available. The airwar is completely different to AH2. I think it is much closer to what the Airwar must have been in WW2. The plane-icon-system in WW2OL helps to create this immersion, all planes just show up as grey icons at long distances and only turn red or green at pretty close distances. But this actually means, good flying skills are not really necessary there and are not regularly pitched against each other. Most kills happen - as in real WW2 - by shooting someone down that never saw you. And there are many other annoying things about the game. Performance of the game engine is generally poor and varies widely. Even high-end PCs are prone to low FPS. The game engine is pretty old and so the graphics are nothing worth mentioning.
FM between all three feels different. Personal preferences will decide. After getting my own pilot license, AH2 is the simulation I play, because for me the FM feels right (with some limitations I can accept i.e. Hammerhead) and the game and server performance is stable and good.
In IL2 I had the weird feeling, that the laws of ingame physics were different for different planes and it was so hard to find any stable servers that online play was not an option.
WW2OL FM for me just feels a little bit to unstable, nervous and “floaty”, although i.e. I can easily perform a correct Hammerhead in there, but the overall poor game engine performance of WW2OL just outweights the advantage of a correct hammerhead once in a while.
-
............... Most kills happen - as in real WW2 - by shooting someone down that never saw you. And there are many other annoying things about the game....
I had to comment on this as I really feel the main problem with the air war in WWII is they do not support 6 dof and going from one to another is like night and day.
infidelz
-
After AW died I went to WW2OL. I played there for 3 years thru all the mess. AT one point, one sweet brief point, it was both fun, and playable. I left before brigade spawning. I did have some issue with the graphics, mainly how if there was 80 people around you, you may not see the guy 20ft away about to shoot you. Also the bombs didnt impact if up too high. Even with cannon, sometimes it took all your ammo into a plane and he may still not go down. (Actually that was'nt so bad...little randomness to it).
As far as the flying goes, when it started, it was similar to AH as far as matchups between a spit/hurri and a 109e. You could dogfight and have fun. Then they changed the 109 so it become a total non turner. Felt more like a tempest vs a spit. You had to stay fast. This killed the airwar for me in there. Not sure how it is now.
The best thing of WW2OL was the terrain. It was pretty. You could set up an 88 at the bend of a river in a little patch of trees, and just looking around it looked like you were in an oil painting. Really nice.
Couple years ago I checked it out again, but it was way too confusing to figure out so I left.
-
Never tried WW2OL, but I've played IL-2 multiplayer sessions side-by-side with AH for quite a long time, and enjoyed both games thoroughly without any bias. Personally I have the utmost respect for both HTC's AH and 1C's IL-2 as being a great WW2 aerial combat simulation game.
Frankly IL-2 series is not really as bad as most people in this thread say it is. Whatever you can do in AH, you can do most of it in quite the same manner in IL-2, and vice versa. The only really visible/obvious difference in FM is how they handle the torque - in AH the torque effects of individual planes are very prevalent and characteristic, and often powerful enough to quickly flip the plane over by itself even in perfectly normal, level flight conditions, whereas in IL-2 the torque effects are depicted as being much weaker, and very gradual in its effect to a plane in flight. This is what makes the plane feel "generic" in IL-2, which, it is not. The differences between planes are much more subtle than in AH, but it is there.
Other differences are much more subtle, and yet effects the game at a very fundamental level - which is another big reason why most AH gamers cannot really adapt to IL-2.
For instance, the ever-famous visual system - the restriction of views in IL-2 was a major let-down even when the very first of its series appeared in the market. Despite having a very successful view system to benchmark in the form of AH, IL-2 chose a primitive restriction where pilot head positioning inside the cockpit was entirely denied. (It was later revealed that this was due to how the cockpit was visually modelled - ie. "facade" type of modelling, rather than the true-3D modelling AH uses, in which the developers had to restrict head movement, or otherwise the optical illusion of having a "3D cockpit" would fall apart at different head angles)
This directly interprets into a serious limitation in visual information during combat, which results in the combat dynamic of IL-2 being much more conservative and defense oriented (..and to a degree, ironically, 'more realistic' in some cases) , rather than the far-more aggressive combat dynamics allowed in AH: even if it is possible to use the same tactics and pull off the same maneuvers as in AH FM-wise, the limitation in visual info makes it much more difficult to do so. Therefore most usually combat maneuvering in IL-2 tends to revolve around the simple principle of "avoiding being bounced", and "never lettings someone behind your six" - in contrast, many capable veterans in AH rather enjoy those kinds of situations where they'd keep constant track of enemy movement behind them, and use a variety of tactics to overshoot the enemy or turn the tables. In IL-2 it's much much harder to do so, so people would rather stick to the basic combat principles, rather than take the risk.
Another such example would be the gunnery. The gunnery/DM in IL-2 is perhaps the single most defined system which actually outshines AH, and differences in armament manifest in very different ways than just the raw power of the gun. There are a lot more parts to be damaged in a very different manner than in AH. For instance, I've actually experienced the following event: I've shot at a Spitfire wing with a 109 MK108 30mm cannon at a close range, from a top angle. The shell landed on the broadside of the wing, and then actually went through the wing, and detonated at the other side as it exited from the structure! The Spitfire obivously got a great big hole and a very widely tattered wing surface, but the structure held intact. In AH that would have constituted an instant wing-snap.
This kind of sophistication really brings out the difference in armament - as in machinegun-class weapons needing a very concentrated shot to really damage an enemy plane, and in most cases the final kill-factor comes from starting a fire or killing the internal engine system causing a great big black smoke, rather than a catastrophical structural failure. While it is certainly possible to snap a wing or blow out the entire rear fuselage with 50cal-armed planes in IL-2, it is much more inlikely to happen than in AH. On the other hand, the cannons do blow out whole pieces from the enemy planes, and most of its kill-factor comes from causing structural failures.
Another factor which is subtle, but deeply effects the combat, is the lack of ammo counters and icon information. Although it is possible to see exact enemy distances, most multi-player rooms restrict the icon info to the basic faction/plane-type standard, which distance information is usually omitted. Since you have no way of knowing how much ammo you have left in most planes, people tend to veer away from trying long-distance shots in IL-2. Most shooting begins within approximately inside 200m in IL-2, which is about twice as closer than in AH where people usually tend to consider the "400" range marker as the optimal shooting distance. Ofcourse, some very talented pilots do try a long-distance snipe with incredible results, and it is certainly possible as it is possible in AH, however the odds of such things happening in IL-2 are indeed, much more slim than in AH. Therefore the average gunnery difficulty tends to be a bit higher in IL-2 than AH, with the side-effect of that being that you have much more chance of survival even if an enemy planes latches behind you at a very close distance. Therefore, while close-quarters knife-fighting is far less common than in AH, when it does happen it does offer a very interesting fight.
...
Now, all of what I've presented above, results in the fighting styles and tendencies of IL-2 being very, very different from AH. It's basically not so much the FM which brings out the difference between the two games, but rather the difference in the entire environment which encourages the pilot to fly differently. Most AH gamers who try IL-2 for maybe a month or two, never get past that adaptation phase, and in the end just gives up on the game for being garbage - which, it is not. I know that for a fact, because I was the same. I also had a very difficult time adapting to the differences, and tended to think AH was better in every aspect. I never gave the IL-2 fair chance to grow on me - until some of my friends who've never tried AH, started flying in IL-2. So I really didn't have any choice but to fly with them, and after a long time, a lot of the things which I couldn't understand in IL-2, finally started to make sense.
All in all, IL-2 definately is a worthy competition to AH.
I'm sure many of the AH enthusiasts would tell a new player to try AH for some time, and not be judgemental about the game with only a month of two of experience. Try to keep an open mind, accept the differences, learn from the more experienced players, and gulp down the pride and be humble about everything until he begins to understand what AH can really offer.
I can certainly say the same to all the IL-2 bashers on the board. Usually, it is because many of the AH gamers that try IL-2 are already experienced and capable players, that they tend to refuse to accept that they might be just another newbie who needs time to adjust in a new game. Many tend to think being experienced in AH will automatically enable them to show the same level of success when they move to IL-2. Since both games feature the same planes, and same era of aerial combat, once the player gets past that adaptation phase naturally they soar right past the learning curve and become terrific players in IL-2 too. However, there's no way to speed up the adaptation phase, which usually is a very frustrating experince.
I'm not sayin IL-2 is perfect. I still view more highly of AH. Some aspects of IL-2 are noteworthy, and I'd certainly like to see some of those stuff implemented in AH as well, but other aspects of IL-2 are indeed lacking when compared to AH. The user interface is terrible, view/control systems suck, to much attention to techincal detail actually deterr situational reality in many cases, and etc etc.. But it's certainly not garbage. It is a worthy successor to the line of WW2 combat-simulation packaged games that include AoP, AoE, and EAW.
IL-2 at leat deserves that much.
-
Could not agree more with the whole description. Its 100% accurate, Well said it Kweassa.
As it concern my personal feeling in short is that the difference between the two FMs is that in IL2 planes are much more "heavy" and difficult to control them especially in near stall environment while on the other hand in AH most of the aircrafts seems to have lighter controls, more carefree handling and you can perform maneuvers that exceed by far human body limitations. Just my personal feeling.
-
Look at WW2OL as a ground combat simulator. Air part of this game just as "gamey" as ground part of AH.
I tried WW2OL long ago, though, may be its better now, but i doubt it.
-
Kazaa give Battle of Britain 2 a go, its not got any multiplayer yet, but the graphics are fantastic and has a great flight model imho, but AH2 is my fav so far
-
About IL-2 6DOF:
Kegetys said to me when i asked him, that Oleg (the IL-2 Dude) got a hissy-fit over that "hack" and they agreed not to continue the development.
So, that 6DOF is only found as a old test version and definately not for current versions of IL-2
About WW2OL:
I heard a really fitting one-liner in a Finnish virtualpilots meet how to describe that game.
"Loosely to WW2 era based fantasy roleplaying game"
Give it a test if you will, but it surely don´t beat this game in aircombat.
I played it for a few months a couple years back.
-
AcesHigh2 is IMO the best WW2 dogfighting game out there by a long shot. I get caught up in the excitement of battle in this game like no other. Playing the games just can't do it for me.
My only reget is the HTC didn't do a NASCAR sim instead. :rock
-
iL2 the view system and the FM always bugged me. Neither one felt "right" both were anti immersion.
Looked great, had planes that AH didn't, and doesn't have. But just was not fun to fly.
As to WWIIOL, well when it becomes a flight sim let me know. Right now its a sort of combined arms sim with limited flight capabilitys. Everyone was hoping they'd really make a go of it, but they've screwed the pooch all the way down the line.
Seen nothing yet to show that anything has changed on that front.
-
Ghosth, to my opinion they are messing it more while they try to develop it.
ie. the new "rudder fix" which was basicly dampening down the response, so its now lagging and slow moving as it would be tarred.
Also, heard from the new 1.30 patch that people got alot of problems with game performance and stability.
-
I started playing AH at the end on 2001 and WW2OL at the beginning of 2002 and I still have both accounts open. After flying enough for a day in AH I go to WW2OL and grab a rifle and do other stuff. The ground war aspect in WW2OL is very good and immersive -but I don't fly there anymore. ;)
-C+
-
Kweassa:
I strongly suspect a lot of what goes on in Il2 is there because the makers are trying to simulate "the conditions" rather than the "equipment" and because much of the fan base thinks harder=more realistic in WWII air combat simulation.
You can't just laugh off the awful view system like that. It is not just overshoots, difficulty tracking the bandit makes E-fighting/roping/out-of-plane maneuvering very, very difficult, as does the the gunnery. Gives advantage to planes that can just saddle up at dead six 200 and wail away, and they already have enough advantage IMO. :devil
What can I say about the gunnery? Well, if HTC has modeled ballistics, ROF, and lethality correctly, then IL2 is dead-wrong in a lot of areas, especially with .50s, or vis versa. Judging from combat reports and gun-cam footage, I'd go with HTC being correct. Remember, sim pilots have many more hours on target that even the most experienced combat pilots. (Actually in Il2 flying the cannon birds things seem closer to AHII, with the .50s you give 190s 3 second bursts at convergence to little/no effect. :noid. Multiple .30s seem about as effective as multiple .50s in Il2 :huh) If the guns are modeled correctly, then many sim pilots *should* be phenomenally lethal with 'em, right?
-
Tell us how you really feel sincraft!!!!!!!!!
-
AH2 is way better than il2 il2 is all fighters while AH2 is everything well almost but keep up the great work HTC :rock
-
IL-2 is great if you want to look at your cockpit, but if you want to see out from your cockpit, it'll be a disappointment compared to AH. With full real settings many other things like taking off, managing radiator flaps and engine, finding enemies and finding back home, will also be a challenge compared to what we have in AH. It is all up to what you are looking for in a sim/game, what you enjoy doing.
-
I strongly suspect a lot of what goes on in Il2 is there because the makers are trying to simulate "the conditions" rather than the "equipment" and because much of the fan base thinks harder=more realistic in WWII air combat simulation.
Actually, it's the opposite.
One of the most distinct problems of IL-2 as compared to AH, is that they pay attention to the "equipment" details, rather than the "conditions" concerning combat. A prime example is how they handle the flaps. In short, anyone who has ever complained about the auto-retracting flaps in AH, and asked for manual flap control at all speeds albeit at the penalty of possible damage - well, IL-2 has it right there. You are totally free to engage flaps whenever you want, and although at higher speeds the flaps will indeed damage and jam tight, as long as one avoids those extremes one is free to deploy them at speeds which it is not allowed were it in AH. The end result, is IL-2 combat tends to become a 'flap-fest', as some people call it.
In AH, restrictions are implemented and enforced so that one may only deploy flaps at the speeds listed in the manual. This, in a broader sense of things, actually helps loosely simulate the WW2 pilot mindset, in which many of the average pilots will not venture outside their directives in managing the plane by taking unnecessary risks that may endanger their own lives. Although there are exceptions, such as certain famous or elite group of pilots managing their planes at extreme levels, on a grand average such instances were usually uncommon. Therefore, in AH, if you deploy flaps it means your airspeed is really low. Although it happens frequently, it is as a matter of fact a 'special occasion' where the planes are forced outside their comfort zone and into an extreme stall fight - in which flaps will be used, as it was used in such occasions in actual history.
IL-2 is different. People use flaps mandatorily with every combat turn. Some people even rig-set slider input to flap controls so that they deploy as they turn - almost resembling the N1K2 auto-flap. When you need a speed brake to force overshoot, you don't need the level of skill needed in AH - you just get the plane down to a certain speed lot higher than in AH, and after that just punch out the flaps and they will come down. It's like every plane in IL-2 is like the F4U in AH, lowering flaps and gears in combat.
Other instances, such as abusing manual RPM controls, I've explained in the A/V forum Tempest/Typh thread made by Kev367th.
You can't just laugh off the awful view system like that. It is not just overshoots, difficulty tracking the bandit makes E-fighting/roping/out-of-plane maneuvering very, very difficult, as does the the gunnery.
It's just a matter of adaptation.
The difficulty of keeping track of an enemy plane was a fact of life for WW2 pilots. That's why they needed an extra pair of eyes in case they lose track of an enemy - it's called a "Wingman".
It is true that the view system sucks in IL-2. I have no intention of denying that. However, most often this fact is greatly exaggerated amongst AH gamers to the point of being ridiculous. AH is a relatively recent game. Most other games we've all played much before the coming of AH had those same old-style view system restrictions in place, and we didn't have any trouble playing it back then. It's a matter of adaptation.
Yes, it sucks, especially for people used to the advanced system AH uses - but its not unplayable. The only real difficulty I've had in tracking enemies in IL-2 was inside no-icon rooms, which taught me that I needed to get myself a new pair of glasses or maybe a lasic surgery. But many MP sessions at least provide the friend/foe icon info, in which case as long as the enemy plane was in front of me, I had no trouble at all using a hat switch to track it's position just as in AH. A little bit more difficult and bothersome, but not much trouble at all.
Now, when an enemy plane is at your six, it's a different story. In this case my opinion is that AH is overly lenient in providing a panoramic 6 view which one touch of a button will give you a wide scope of your tail, although with some visual hamperment such as headrests. On the contrary, the fixed head position in IL-2 which totally denies your 5, 6, 7 o'c view, and only allows either 8 or 4 o'c views, is overly restrictive and primitive. In this case the middle path is what I think is best.
Gives advantage to planes that can just saddle up at dead six 200 and wail away, and they already have enough advantage IMO.
An enemy plane saddling up at dead six at 200yards/meters is not an 'advantage'. It's a death. Nothing's different in AH.
What can I say about the gunnery? Well, if HTC has modeled ballistics, ROF, and lethality correctly, then IL2 is dead-wrong in a lot of areas, especially with .50s, or vis versa. Judging from combat reports and gun-cam footage, I'd go with HTC being correct. Remember, sim pilots have many more hours on target that even the most experienced combat pilots. (Actually in Il2 flying the cannon birds things seem closer to AHII, with the .50s you give 190s 3 second bursts at convergence to little/no effect. . Multiple .30s seem about as effective as multiple .50s in Il2 ) If the guns are modeled correctly, then many sim pilots *should* be phenomenally lethal with 'em, right?
US combat reports document the most lethal kill-factor by 50cal fire as "fires". I distinctly remeber such a copy of either a USN or a USAAF investigation report coming up in the A/V forums a while back, which listed the frequency of battle damage received.
Besides, most every gun-cam footage I've seen of USAAF or USN birds attacking enemy planes, starts with a nice group of 50cal hit flash upon the enemy plane, and then ends with a great big trail of smoke. I've seen a few cases where concentrated fire rips off a wing, but those were relatively rare.
This, is spot on in IL-2.
Besides, you may think it's little/no effect when you hit a 190 with a 3 second blast, but according to my long experience in flying IL-2 mp sessions in IL-2, being on the receiving end is no picnic. It's pure havoc, with the pilot bleeding out and sluggish, the internal controls all busted up which almost entirely deprive you of any maneuvering at all, obvious perception of engine damage through the wheezing and coughing sound, and etc etc.. If it was in real life I'd have bailed the second I was shot up like that. It's because it is a game, that the pilot does not bail out so easily and tries to squirm out of the situation, land the plane anyhow, or hope for making it to friendly territory.
It's no different that seeing a blazing fireball of a A6M that you shot up firing back at you. The pilot would have tried to bail were it in real life. Since AH is a game, flaming Zeroes fly all the way until it pops.
-
Hmmm...yes...the flaps thing in AHII in one thing...although I have a totally different take than you, it seems to me in AHII flaps usage is *more* carefree, not less, because of the auto-retract. You end up leaving them out for extra lift as airspeeds increase in downward-moving fights, in situations where you'd probably have pulled them in to avoid damage, and we also tend to use more than the 1 or 2 notch safe "maneuvering" settings the same reason IMO, no fear of damage.
I think the way HTC models WEP is ultimately more realistic than Il2. Il2's overheat-failure cycle is obviously pretty attenuated for some engines. It wasn't like your engine would automatically blow if you ran it at WEP longer than 5 minutes, limitations were as much about service life as anything. From what I've read, if you modeled an R-2800 to its real toughness, you could probably run the thing at 70'' for a full 20 minute dog fighting session without it blowing. In real life you'd probably want to right the engine off before the NEXT sortie, but that is not a concern in the sim. HTC's choice of forcing you to stay in specified WEP limits seems best to me.
You do have the point that *every* flight-sims viewing system seems to suck compared to AHII...I cut my simming teeth on CFS, not AHII or Il2, and CFS's views were worse than IL2. You had to resort to padlock. The first thing I noticed in starting AHII was much more ACM would be possible simply because you could now look around and keep orientation that much more effectively. In most other sims the management of a difficult view system takes equal place or even precedence in importance over the actual flying.
-
What is all this notch flaps here and there... I use flaps for landing and that's it :devil
-
If i had to quit Ah2 and go to another game like it it probably would be il2 but like i said ah2 is alot better
-
I prefer AH2.
HiTech
-
I prefer AH2.
HiTech
Lol!
-
Il2 pretty,AH2 Top notch, WW2OL Blows goats.
-
ive tried them all i feel aces high is still the best
-
Hmmm...yes...the flaps thing in AHII in one thing...although I have a totally different take than you, it seems to me in AHII flaps usage is *more* carefree, not less, because of the auto-retract. You end up leaving them out for extra lift as airspeeds increase in downward-moving fights, in situations where you'd probably have pulled them in to avoid damage, and we also tend to use more than the 1 or 2 notch safe "maneuvering" settings the same reason IMO, no fear of damage.
Just a nit pick. We don't leave them out. They pull back in, so there's no performance advantage. Only a cut down on micromanagement distractions from the real substance of dogfighting: the tactical storyline.
-
Hello... V-stabbed planes continuing to dogfight as though nothing happened??? The Il2 FM is a glitch made to conform to historical specs (or anecdotes), but still a glitch. US models swaying under 50 cal fire? Etc.
It is true that the view system sucks in IL-2. I have no intention of denying that. However, most often this fact is greatly exaggerated amongst AH gamers to the point of being ridiculous. AH is a relatively recent game. Most other games we've all played much before the coming of AH had those same old-style view system restrictions in place, and we didn't have any trouble playing it back then. It's a matter of adaptation.
No way Kweassa! Oleg consciously chose shallow eye candy over authentic elements of the air combat experience. He sacrificed something as essential as the immersion allowed by 6DOF to bullet proof his vision of what it's like to sit in a cockpit.. He'd rather remove from players that immersion than risk them seeing some negligible warts on his cockpit art. That's what's ridiculous. AH is recent, and Il2 is even more recent. They busted their bellybutton including a plethora of aircraft types, implementing a thorough engine management, flight and damage model, but didn't have the sense to make the player's interface with these as transparent as possible. Huge mistake. Nothing you can just dismiss as exageration from AH players' critique.
Yes, it sucks, especially for people used to the advanced system AH uses - but its not unplayable. The only real difficulty I've had in tracking enemies in IL-2 was inside no-icon rooms, which taught me that I needed to get myself a new pair of glasses or maybe a lasic surgery. But many MP sessions at least provide the friend/foe icon info, in which case as long as the enemy plane was in front of me, I had no trouble at all using a hat switch to track it's position just as in AH. A little bit more difficult and bothersome, but not much trouble at all.
No.... You're putting a band aid on the gaping wound. It's a fundamental design mistake in Il2. No way to fudge this one into anything else.
Now, when an enemy plane is at your six, it's a different story. In this case my opinion is that AH is overly lenient in providing a panoramic 6 view which one touch of a button will give you a wide scope of your tail, although with some visual hamperment such as headrests. On the contrary, the fixed head position in IL-2 which totally denies your 5, 6, 7 o'c view, and only allows either 8 or 4 o'c views, is overly restrictive and primitive. In this case the middle path is what I think is best.
That's right, and the middle path would be AH doing a bit of biomechanical homework (same as they did for stick forces modeling choices) and restricting head position/movements correspondingly with G loads on the pilot. e.g. No Linda Blair 6 view while rolling hard and pulling 6 Gs on the opposite side, no jacked up over the nose view while pulling yourself to the edge of +G-lock, and a stricter -G redout threshold. And so on.
US combat reports document the most lethal kill-factor by 50cal fire as "fires". I distinctly remeber such a copy of either a USN or a USAAF investigation report coming up in the A/V forums a while back, which listed the frequency of battle damage received.
Besides, most every gun-cam footage I've seen of USAAF or USN birds attacking enemy planes, starts with a nice group of 50cal hit flash upon the enemy plane, and then ends with a great big trail of smoke. I've seen a few cases where concentrated fire rips off a wing, but those were relatively rare.
Historical anecdotes are no holy grail, physics are. AH anecdotes and historical ones couldn't match without improper physics because they're set in two separate sets of circumstances. Apples and oranges.
It's no different that seeing a blazing fireball of a A6M that you shot up firing back at you. The pilot would have tried to bail were it in real life. Since AH is a game, flaming Zeroes fly all the way until it pops.
Definitely undermodeled, the debilitating heat, smoke, and pain of a BBQ'd cockpit.
-
I prefer AH2.
HiTech
HTC keeps me happy, never felt the need to go somewhere else..So I prefer AH2 as well.
-
IL2 is good practice for ah2
-
Well I'll tell you what I think about head movements under g load, burning planes, and engine management concerning AH. It all belongs in CT. In the rest of the place, however, I like to be in complete control and in full capability of my flying machine as I match my flying ability against the other guy. Matching my ability to manage my organs and engine heat in addition to managing the fight does not appeal to me for some reason.
-
Ok I am looking for a first person shooter game with combined air and ground. I really enjoy AH2 but I would like to get back into first person shooter. I been hearing that WWII is not FPS, however it looks like it is can someone explain that for me. Thanks <S>.
-
Ok I am looking for a first person shooter game with combined air and ground. I really enjoy AH2 but I would like to get back into first person shooter. I been hearing that WWII is not FPS, however it looks like it is can someone explain that for me. Thanks <S>.
Last I played (years ago) it was FPS, far as I know it still is.
-
if you like multiplayer groundwar - ww2online is the game
if you like to fly .... go for another sim
They have one thing I like though - the icon system for planes- not the gps-like icons we have in other sims with exact distances and plane types - you see if a con is closing or going away.
-
hi kazaa
i tried il2 and wwol
well at ww ol the FM is not the best, you dont feel the E, and it feels stiff to me
the strongest drawback of the IL2 series is, there is no dedicated server. the online server are private driven, if you going to shot the server admin, you might be kicked off the server. that was my experience :rolleyes:
so wait for the update, and be happy :)
-
Just a nit pick. We don't leave them out. They pull back in, so there's no performance advantage. Only a cut down on micromanagement distractions from the real substance of dogfighting: the tactical storyline.
Yeah, but they stay out right until your speed gets high enough to put them away with no consequences. Thus they are even somewhat useful as divebrakes. This is distinct from how I use flaps when playing Il2, where I am very conscious of the possibility they will get jammed and end up not using them as much.
-
I think it is much closer to what the Airwar must have been in WW2. The plane-icon-system in WW2OL helps to create this immersion, all planes just show up as grey icons at long distances and only turn red or green at pretty close distances.
There is no such thing as 'long distances' in ww2ol, it's like flying in a goldfish bowl full of pea soup.
-
try blackshark its not ww2 but its fun http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjSI021j-c
-
Hello guys,
I've been really busy and haven't had the chance to check the board until now, just reading the whole topic now. :x
-
One thing to keep in mind, IL2 was being created in the late nineties and was originally released in 2001. about the same time as TrackIR 1.x... 6DOF did not exist until TIR 3.0. About the time Pacific Fighters (IL2 "3.0") was being released many people were using TrackIR in flight sims and obviously wanted 6DOF in IL2. This would have required a complete re-write as the original game was written with basically 2D cockpits with some 3D elements to give the illusion of 3D. While the modding community has injected a lot of life into IL2 it has basically been a dead horse since 2006.
-
I stand corrected then.. But it's still a bad decision. That view system is more important than milking the franchise for cash with endless add ons.
-
I prefer AH2.
HiTech
Me too HT :lol
-
I prefer AH2.
HiTech
HiTech,
May I ask what you "like about" IL2/WWOL. :t
-
Good review Kweassa, I agree 100%. A couple of additional comments:
6DOF: As you may know, there are many community-made mods (sounds, aircraft, maps, feature improvements, etc) available for IL2. The online standard mod pack includes 6DOF. Many online servers have the mod pack as a requirement. I agree that the IL2 plain vanilla view system is very limited compared to the view system in AH2, which imho is the best in the market.
Gunnery/damage model: AH2's damage model is simplified - each structure has a hit point limit. When the limit is exceeded, the structure fails. Up until that the structure works like new. In IL2 you have various stages of incremental damage. One machine gun bullet hit may cause your wing to drag, which in most cases forces you to disengage. In IL2, the different types on ammunition in your ammo-belt make a big difference. In my opinion, the gunnery/damage model is far superior in IL2.
Multiplayer coop: IL2's strength are the multiplayer coop missions, specifically online campaigns. Our squad has been flying these types of events for about 4 years now, 1-3 times a week, every week. We average about 20 players each time. Out of the box, 32 players are supported, in addition to an unlimited amount of AI planes/vehicles (only limited by cpu power, really). With the mod, 64 live players in a coop are supported, in addition to the AI's. "Dogfight" servers, without AI planes/vehicles, support 128 players out of the box. If you want a dogfight style server, in most cases AH still wins that battle. But with a good group of friends and squaddies, the IL2 online campaigns give the best online simming experiences I've ever had. Possibly with the exception of the best AH scenarios. But we dont get to play those every week. ;)
Camo
-
You left out the physics.
-
HiTech,
May I ask what you "like about" IL2/WWOL. :t
That they aren't as good as AH? :D
-
If you mean ballistics, at least for me, the "feel" is similar. I dont have much trouble adapting between the two games. Snapshots seem connect equally (poorly :D) in both games.
Camo
-
I mean the flight modeling. The center piece of a flight sim.. You agree with Kweassa on that part?
-
I found it alot easier to shoot down planes on IL2 than AH2, on il2 they seem to take some hits and boom..but that might be becaue ive only ever played IL2 offline :x
-
I tried IL2 online play several years, ago.. perhaps it is more secure now from.. "code manipulation" than it was before, but after running into numerous VTOL IL2s that could take off in 1/4 of the runway and reach 8k in about 10 seconds and cruise at over 500mph I left and never went back.
-
Problem I have with IL-2, other than the view system, is that regardless of which aircraft I am flying they all feel like they use the same flight model with different numbers plugged in. Meaning they may roll at different speeds or be heavier, but there are no distinct differences. Speed affects them all the same, flaps are all the same. In AH I know the performance over the speed spectrum of a Spitfire Mk VIII is very different from a Bf109K-4 or a Ki-81-Ia or an F4U-1a and so on. They don't use the same base performance.
-
Problem I have with IL-2, other than the view system, is that regardless of which aircraft I am flying they all feel like they use the same flight model with different numbers plugged in. Meaning they may roll at different speeds or be heavier, but there are no distinct differences. Speed affects them all the same, flaps are all the same. In AH I know the performance over the speed spectrum of a Spitfire Mk VIII is very different from a Bf109K-4 or a Ki-81-Ia or an F4U-1a and so on. They don't use the same base performance.
I am not a fan Karnak, but speed *does* effect different airplanes in Il2 differently. Control authority differences at different speeds, planes fall apart at different speeds, etc. Now on roll rate, it seems to me in Il2 the differences between best and worst rollers aren't as pronounced as they are in AHII.
-
Barely any differently. Even Kweassa admits it's a "subtle" difference.
-
Barely any differently. Even Kweassa admits it's a "subtle" difference.
There actually seems to be MORE variation in control stiffness as speed increases...this part I actually like. Some plane still turn well, others still turn like crap.
-
One larger scalar doesn't say anything about the whole FM. Il2's planes all feel like the same airplane with different parameters. It's most obvious in stall fights. And there's still the really obvious flaws here and there... Like the v-stab thing. A P63 with no v-stab kept up with my scissoring and barrel rolling K-4 like nothing was wrong. That is pure crap.
-
I mean the flight modeling. The center piece of a flight sim.. You agree with Kweassa on that part?
Pretty much, yep. Of course, AH2 and IL2 are different in their respective FM's, no doubt about it. In the AH2 MA environment, a good pilot can survive in any plane, even in an early war machine against multiple late war crates. In IL2 the plane seems to make much more of a difference, the early war plane would have its tail handed on a platter instantly. I cant really put my finger on why this is happening, maybe due to the graphics, views and ease of losing sight of other planes (in a no-icons environment) and the subsequently worse SA. Possibly differences in energy retention. Or maybe its the thing Kweassa mentioned: maybe I'm just having more trouble adapting to IL2. :)
As I mentioned, IL2 shines in multiplayer coop missions with a historical setup. With a balanced plane set, the FM's are fairly equal. In IL2 we usually fly in a 1943 setup, for example 109G6/190A6 vs La5/LaGG3/Yak9. All planes have their respective advantages and disadvantages, as you would expect.
In my view, the FMs of both games are good and close enough. When comparing the two games, the other features of each game become more highlighted. From my perspective, AH2 is better in the "dogfight" category with its MA. IL2 is better in the "historical scenario" category with its multiplayer coop missions. Luckily I dont have to make a choice between the two. I can play both. :)
Camo
-
I do agree there's something in Il2 that makes it pretty hard to objectively compare the physics.
That coop aspect is really great, but for me it's completely spoiled by the really odd stuff, like that v-stab behavior. That upsets any attempt I've made at ignoring the way the FM "feels" in stall fights (I don't like it..) so I could enjoy the rest. The failures of AH's FM are really minor in comparison, imo. A sluggishness in hammerheads (and any other situation that's comparable, physics wise), and some inaccuracy in acceleration (e.g. the Tempest was historically a slow-poke, relatively), but nothing out-right freaky like being able to maneuver at 80% combat agility with a missing vert stab. No excellence of immersion in the other aspects will make that negligible... Just like the heart of a racing sim is to feel the car as if you were there, you can't get that immersion if the car drives like a Mario Kart. No amount of eye and ear candy will bury that.
I find AH, despite its flaws, is closer to reality than Il2, and even on its own in an absolute assessment... It's more coherent than Il2 is. Il2's planes just aren't as fun to flog.