Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Clone155 on August 27, 2009, 02:02:33 AM
-
Has to stop. This isn't very realistic, because last time I checked, if they ran full power for long periods of time the engine would become damaged (overheat?).
What I propose is something like WEP. Lets call it, Full Throttle or FT. You can engage FT for lets say 10 minutes. After 10 minutes of FT you will be given a warning light, or warning noise, and if not turned off within another minute, you will experience engine failure or engine oil leaking. If you take the plane off of FT, then after 4 minutes, you will be able to engage FT again. When you are not in FT you will fly on Normal Power, as stated in the E6B.
I would like this to be added because first of all it would make it realistic. It just gives me this frustrated feeling when I think all of these planes are flying full throttle, with no consequences. Second of all, it would help with creating formations, because you will no longer be able to say, "slow down, I can't catch you!" And last but not least, this will create a whole new E management system which would be entertaining to master.
This is my wish.
-
You need to check more carefully.
The limits you speak of were for maintainance scheduling purposes by and large. There is, for example, a known case of a Spitfire Mk Vb pilot panicing and running his machine at WEP boost for 30 minutes, no damage to the engine at all. R-2800s were run for 20+ hours at WEP boost in the factory without failing.
-
You need to check more carefully.
The limits you speak of were for maintenance scheduling purposes by and large. There is, for example, a known case of a Spitfire Mk Vb pilot panicing and running his machine at WEP boost for 30 minutes, no damage to the engine at all. R-2800s were run for 20+ hours at WEP boost in the factory without failing.
Yes, but since we don't have maintenance then this might add some sort of feeling of it, and I say 10 minutes because of the shortened fuel time we have. It could be any time frame they want it to be, be that 5 minutes, or an hour.
-
I may be wrong (it happens :) ) But I think what he is saying, is he would like to see engine management implemented....
I agree I to would to see it, but it is was done, the crying would never stop!.
-
Yes, but since we don't have maintenance then this might add some sort of feeling of it, and I say 10 minutes because of the shortened fuel time we have. It could be any time frame they want it to be, be that 5 minutes, or an hour.
Why? What does it add to the game except to make flights to and from the combat area longer? It isn't realism that it adds as it is an unrealistic thing, therefor it must have a gameplay reason to be added. What reason do you see for it and what effects from it do you imagine would happen?
I may be wrong (it happens :) ) But I think what he is saying, is he would like to see engine management implemented....
I agree I to would to see it, but it is was done, the crying would never stop!.
What he describes is very much less like engine management than what we already have with the RPM and throttle controls. He is talking about artificial penalties for certain behaviors.
-
the crying would never stop!.
hasnt yet anyway
-
People who want more range and a good formation don't fly at full power. Fly an event sometime !
-
if you mean give heavy buffs the same WEP restrictions that fighters already have, then +1
-
If we are to go that far, lets throw in reliabilty as well. Random failures occured more than one thinks.
-
First I just want to make it clear that I am not supporting the OP's wish. The current model (while historically inaccurate) is very fair and consistent for all aircraft and all players. It would be an exceeding difficult task with little return to model the reliability that we're talking about.
However, to the people who cite impressive engine reliability and not needing to adhere to the guidelines set forth in the various aircraft manuals, I suggest you look at the detailed Air Force statistics at the link below;
http://www.afhra.af.mil/timelines/ (http://www.afhra.af.mil/timelines/)
To paraphrase table 130, there were 36,652 mechanical failures that occurred in flight in the European Theater alone, from August of 1942 to May of 1945. These failures were enough to warrant an RTB for repairs. Mind you this is just the total for RTB planes that actually made it back to base, many more were counted as non-combat operation losses when the aircraft went down.
Here is a breakdown by aircraft category,
- Heavy Bomber- 11,839
- Light/Medium Bomber- 3,564
- Fighter- 21,251
-
How many flights were there from August of 1942 to May of 1945?
-
Baumer,
Many, if not the vast majority, of those malfunctions were completely unrelated to use of high boost settings.
-
Baum,
Nice site thx!! :aok
:salute
-
Let's get Into a heated dogfight that lasts more than 3 merges and have it end because one of us forgot to come back on the throttle. This is a game not mscfs. The whining wouldn't end.
-
First of all guys, have you ever flown on normal power? It isn't that much slower than military power. And in many planes its only a few RPMs lower.
Second, I forgot to add a big part of why I wanted this added. This is suppost to be a flight simulator right? No? Combat simulator? Well what ever it is, I think that if the real pilots had to fly like this then we should too.
And for those that say to me "Just do it yourself you twit!" well then that gives the feeling of fighting against jets since I don't climb to the normal 15K to dive in and pick like the rest. I am tired of some friendly zooming past me to get the kill on the plane I just tore half a wing off only 600 out.
-
stuff...
First, nice link and info. You always have the cool links...
But, it was pretty much SOP for most annecdotal accounts I've read, that once contact was made, the throttle was firewalled and left in that condition until the fight was over. I'm not necessarily arguing against you Baumer, I'm just saying... :)
(and I'm one that would like an engine management option much like manual trim or takeoff)
-
since I don't climb to the normal 15K to dive in and pick like the rest. I am tired of some friendly zooming past me to get the kill on the plane I just tore half a wing off only 600 out.
Then your "solution" is entirely contradictory or perhaps irrelevant to your "problem". In the case that you state, the aircraft coming down from high will already be throttled back running in cool mode. He will not only beat you to your quarry still, but your own engine will start to fail because of your required full throttle effort to keep up with an opponent in a similar E state.
Your solution makes your situation worse.
My understanding is that realism is relaxed in this game so as to allow players to spend more time fighting each other rather than their equipment. Your proposal appears to reverse that notion if adopted. If you wish to experience a slightly greater level of realism and immersion, you might look at participating in special events. Many of them require close cooperation and support for successful outcomes (read - fun, happiness, pleasant memories).
-
Well I myself would like to see some sort of engine management OPTION :x , It almost has to be optional, or at least assigned to a particular arena or maybe special event. I cannot for the life of me imagine guys sitting OTR, warming up an engine, wanting to get into the fight. Cause in real life take off was NOT a turn key operation, it takes time folks.
Maybe HT could code it as such that there were just some aspects of EM available, thats if they were to do it at all. I just don't see it happening, there would be a ton of peeps doing nothing but :furious, about how they were in a great fight only to SQUEAK the motor, and its not just about WEP settings causing that, flying inverted for periods of time, oil and coolant hits, radiator settings, mixtures @ different alts, cylinder head temps, and more caused failures.
Add in lack of todays technology, in parts manfacturing and materials, and fact is motors were just not as reliable, stuff happened.
-
NO.
As I believe was stated elsewhere, the artificially imposed over-heat times are no less realistic (in fact, potentially MORE so) than the lack of overheats at all.
And this is from someone who DOES regularly use cruise in the mains.
-
I've said it once and I'll say it again........If this game were realistic nobody would be able to play it. Mainly because you would need a flight instructor and a large amount of money to pay them. (If HTC wants to do this I'm in @ 50.00 an hour) Secondly your first months buy in rate for the game would be about 1.5 million for a war bird and about $1000.00 dollars an hour to fly it. I'm sure HiTech would love to have you in his subscriber base of a realistic flight sim and I'll take you'r $4,000.00 to teach you how to fly one. The game is great for 15 bucks.:aok
-
The MIL power setting in AHII represent settings at which the engine could run for periods longer than the average MA sortie lasts. A "firewalled" throttle in AHII isn't because you still have to hit the WEP button to *really* firewall it.
-
Off topic, were the pilots able to set the pitch of the prop blades manually ? Did they have to or was there an "auto" mode ?
-
Off topic, were the pilots able to set the pitch of the prop blades manually ? Did they have to or was there an "auto" mode ?
In a constant speed prop you can change it indirectly by changing the RPM. In practice you control RPM and throttle, the pitch is adjusted by the plane mechanics to maintain the RPM you set.
-
In a constant speed prop you can change it indirectly by changing the RPM. In practice you control RPM and throttle, the pitch is adjusted by the plane mechanics to maintain the RPM you set.
So what do you mean is that when you lower RPM, the blades rotate to have more air "intake" ? i.e. the cross section gets larger, if you get what I mean, its been 5 minutes I'm thinking about how to write that :huh
-
Its a little more complicated than that. Think of it this way, all constant speed props have a "forward" and "rearward" limit of blade angle of attack (AoA). There is hydraulic pressure supplied by fluid driven by an engine mounted pump called the prop governor. You set RPM within the available range of RPM settings, and the prop governor attempts to create the hydraulic pressure necessary to hold the blade at the AoA necessary to maintain that RPM.
A more accurate description can be found here: http://www.hariguchi.org/flying/info/prop.html
Hydraulic constant speed propellors are most common now. During WWII, it was more common to find electrically driven props. The pilot still set the pitch by desired RPM, but an electrically driven motor rotated the blades.
Its important to note that constant speed propellors can suffer from overspeed conditions, even though they are used to create "constant" RPM. We don't have this modelled in AH2, but a long, high speed dive in most planes in-game would overspeed the props.
-
I agree with clone155's wish, but since the MA is some kind of "arcade'ish" flight simulation I dont think we will never see an overheat of the engine going full power for the whole flight. If anyone have read Clostermann's book his tempest-V's temperature indicator could go in the danger zone if he kept the throttle too longer at full (more or less).
BTW as Noir stated, in Scenarios the fuel management makes you to turn down the throttle to 30 / 60 %, so we gain a bit of realism in those events (and I'm on Euro-time zone, damn me).
Why dont we keep this wish in the priority list of Combat Tour along with pilot training, career, experienced G-forces capability, cockpit mirrors, reflections, night fighters with radar, night time, aircraft's customed victories paintings on the fuselage, rescue missions for POWs and bailed over nme territory etc etc .... ? :noid
chewie.
-
It's a cute idea for sure, but NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.
The game is great sure, but the Business is far more important.
-
I would like this to be added because first of all it would make it realistic.
Hopping in a plane,starting the engine and simply taking off isn't very realistic either.
The list of unrealistic things in this "game" could go on and on.
-
This is a very humorous thread to read... :rofl
The responses are to be expected, too.
Here's some facts for you to consider:
Operating manuals for ALL aircraft contain instructions on the marshalling of engines. Certainly there's some "margin of safety" built in, but you can bet that the militaries of combatant nations did NOT take steps to make sure their pilots went in to combat "babying" their engines just for the hell of it. But, neither did they want them to burn the engines out. There IS a need for proper care, feeding and use of engines.
Most of these aircraft had mixture controls, cooling flaps/gills and if not automatic, prop governors or RPM controls. These weren't placed into aircraft for grins and giggles either. The proper use or misuse of these systems could make the difference between a pilot coming home or not (and often did). These systems weren't there for political correctness. They represented the technology of the times, and were vital to the operation of the aircraft. Anything they could make "set and forget" they DID. Other stuff, well, you didn't have to like it, but you did have to deal with it.
Now, all of you who are saying that engine management is "much ado about nothing" are simply ignoring these facts because you're used to being able to roar around at full throttle with absolutely no consequences. That's pure gamer entitlement mentality. There's no other explanation for it.
A detailed, realistic flight sim simply WILL have detailed engine management. It's not that hard to implement, really. A few more commands to remember. But the key is: it isn't about how "hard" it is to do (how hard is it for a pilot to reach over and adjust a control or two? The same relative effort as it takes a sim pilot to type a command or manipulate a button on his gear); it's all about the fact that you must remember to do these things, or you get some very bad results. Like:
Heat. That's #1. You go roaring about at 100%, and your engine WILL overheat. Fail to do something about that, and it'll start to sputter and act up just when you need full power the most. Now, you people who want to pull out your Pratt & Whitney test bed data go ahead: I'll just mention that an engine up on blocks without even the metal fairing around it, let alone in real combat conditions will likely purr along a lot better for a lot longer than it would in the field. And, not all engines were as reliable and rugged as P&Ws.
Cooling gills: these can be opened to dissipate heat... but they're a double edged sword. They also create DRAG, and can make a plane more likely to spin, especially on the knife-edges of combat. So, the wise pilot will want to have the gills open during transit periods or "reset" times, and will prefer to close them during the thick of combat.
Those are just a few considerations.
Then, I recall someone whined about the indignity of perhaps having to travel at lower throttle to get from point a to point b. It could take a whole 5 minutes longer to reach a destination (even on a map with 1/3 vertical scale). Oh, boo hoo! FACT: Pilots who had to travel hundreds of miles over ocean often had to "lean out" and cruise at half throttle. Even those vaunted P-51s with drop tanks that could get to Berlin. The reason they could, and still have fuel to mix it up once they got there... was that they used slow cruises and drop tanks. They didn't go 400 mph+ the whole way there and the whole way back.
Here's some other things you might be missing...
1) Did you ever consider that, if everyone can fly at "full level speed" all sortie, it might be harder to catch them or keep contact, unless you have a head-on merge situation? This all-the-time-full-speed flying completely skews every combat situation.
2) Ever wonder how the real pilots could get surprised and bounced, when you know they only had one life to live and you know that THEY KNEW it? Yet, history tells us that they did get bounced all the time. One explanation is that some of them were "head in office" checking engine heat, adjusting mixture, or checking the fuel gauge and not watching outside all the time. This is a VERY important tactical consideration. Without any form of engine management in your sim, you're getting a very artificial advantage (perhaps even more artificial than the head lean allowing you to basically put your head out of the cockpit and get completely ridiculous "Linda Blair" views :) )
Finally, as to the "realism ruins the fun" argument... that's bollocks. I fly a sim that has engine management (and it's somewhat simplified, yet still much more involved than most sims), and I can report that the extra detail makes it MORE fun, not less. I have developed a routine for keeping my engine cool(er), and at times, it can make the difference in a fight: like when I come across some other guy who doesn't marshall his engine and then wonders why he starts smoking and coughing during the fight. I also can remember to my embarassment where I forgot to change from lean to rich while I was "cleaning up" for a fight, and my engine STILL overheated after a few minutes of maneuvering. Lean makes the engine run hotter... so going full throttle on LEAN is just not a good idea. User error: and I paid the price. I also learned something, and gained even more appreciation for what the real pilots had to go through to stay alive.
Just a few thoughts for those of you who are resistant to more realism in your sim.
-
Heat. That's #1. You go roaring about at 100%, and your engine WILL overheat.
And if you go around with your throttle firewalled in AHII, (which you have to hit the WEP button to do), your engine will overheat and automatically retard the the throttle. Do we all "get" that in AHII, pushing your throttle fully forward doesn't *really* firewall it? So talking about people flying around with their (joystick) throttles firewalled is meaningless. What the OP is basically questioning (if he has a meaningful point at all) is whether or not HTC has modeled the power settings one can use continuously correctly. And if one means to argue that they have not, some proof is in order.
-
Stilgr,
The issue about overheating, as has been pointed out many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many MANY times in the endless permutations of this debate is that it was NOT so much a matter of your engine exploding in your face or seizing up because it overheated in combat. The issue is that it meant that engine would most likely require more maintenance for the next flight, have a shorter service life, and need to be replaced that much sooner.
Because of this, instituting any sort of "X time until your engine stops because you ran it maxed out" overheat limitation is EVERY BIT AS ARTIFICIAL as no overheats whatsoever.
Unless HTC decides to institute limited availability of every plane, meaning that some dweeb redlining his engine results in that specific aircraft can't be flown again until its engine is "checked out" or replaced, reducing the number of that particular plane available (say you have 50 Spit XVIs available on your country. Twenty guys exceed the operating restrictions, so now you'll only have 30 Spixteens available for the next given amount of time while the engines are raked over with a fine-tooth comb or while you wait on replacements from the supply depot. If 31 guys want to fly a Spixteen, well, sorry #31 you're out of luck until then) overheating HAS NO PLACE IN THE GAME.
-
Just a few thoughts for those of you who are resistant to more realism in your sim.
A FEW thoughts??
Here's one for ya.
Although your lengthy diatribe was condesending thus humorus,you forgot one major thing.
This is NOT a sim,not even close, its a game. :aok
-
OK. You code it, model the extra controlls in every model....boats and gv's too. I think for gv's a button for the clutch should have to be hit :D while hitting the button for gears. Submitt it to HTC and see if it gets implemented so that 90% of the players can get ticked about it and quit so that 10% can have a few more buttons and knobs. I also think that more realistic engine management should require manual trim controls. I also think that the GPS clipboard should be removed and you actually have to sit in the troop facilities and plan your mission with a real E6B and plotter (that would get rid of the dumb it down squeakers). It would also add to the realism of getting completely lost and crash landing after flying around for 30 minutes because you can't read your compass.
And end sarcasm........
The game is dumbed down so that a broader spectrum of experience can come in and enjoy the GAME.
-
Guess the word OPTIONAL gets lost amongst the feet stamping and unit measuring......
-
Guess the word OPTIONAL gets lost amongst the feet stamping and unit measuring......
I think everyone has to have the same options or one may discover that one has certain advantages over others. :devil
-
Guess the word OPTIONAL gets lost amongst the feet stamping and unit measuring......
And when those that select and use the "optional extras" start getting their arse handed to them by those that don't ... they will stop using the "optional extras" making all that work null and void or they will come back here screaming that everyone must use them else it just isn't fair ... and we know that ain't gonna happen.
So what would be the ROI for HT in all of this ? ... zero ... zip ... nada.
-
A detailed, realistic flight sim simply WILL have detailed engine management. It's not that hard to implement, really.
You show me a current flight sim that has a realistic cooling model...Most of our computers wouldn't have the power to crunch the CFD required to model the airflow and render the game as well. But, since we don't use CFD for the aerodynamics modelling in game, I'll concede you a vector/math based system. How do we know what the cooling efficiencies of any engine that is represented in game? Do we have test data that can differentiate the cooling rates of cylinders on a Japanese Zero engine versus the cooling rates of the glycol in a P-51D? Anything at all to help HTC quantify what a full-power climb with cowl flaps open would do to B-17 engines on WEP? IL2 may introduce these aspects in game, but its implementation is every bit as "gamey" as the lack of it is in AH2.
Personally, I'd like to see a lot more detail in this game, but its not a "detailed, realistic flight sim...". On HTC's homepage, it states "welcome to the internet's premier WWII combat experience". HTC would probably tell you they're not trying to recreate MSFS with bullets.
-
OK, one at a time...
To those "you code it" or show me realistic engine management challenges... I deal with it all the time in Targetware.
Yes, it is simplified such that one system can handle many, many types of planes and engines from different countries. But, even in this simplified state, it's quite robust, adds the correct amount of "pilot workload" and well simulates the benefits and consequences of managing or mismanaging one's engine. As for IL-2, well they OVER-simplified it to the point where it pretty much doesn't even work. But, it can be, and has been, done.
Also, it's not that hard to come up with guidelines and parameters that can reasonably simulate the effects of overheating, over-revving (there's another thing...nobody's ever "thrown a prop" in Aces High, either, have they? ;) ) and the effects of poor application of fuel mixture. You can start with maintenance manuals for aircraft of the period, just the same way you can find test data and design documents for the planes to model them in the first place. As for within the sim, the one I'm referring to has a universal "cooling factor" which can be ratcheted up or down for any aircraft to factor in things like if a certain plane had a record of engine heat problems, if the cooling systems were or were not effective in the field, etc. So, you can apply it equally across the board (not very realistic) or you can tinker with it to produce a more interesting (and probably more accurate) flight model.
To those who say your engine won't act up if totally neglected (which is, to my view, the definition of leaving the throttle at 100% the entire throttle): you're simply wrong. Many pilots didn't come home because they mishandled their engines. And it doesn't necessarily have to "blow up in your face" to malfunction. Steadily lessening output is really all that's needed to drive the point home. You lose 20% of your engine power during a fight and see if you don't notice the difference. And that oil splatter and smoke coming from the cowling? Oh, never mind that.
More on operations expectations: years ago I wondered about these issues, and had a chance to sit down with the real (Franz) Stiegler, a Luftwaffe pilot for JG27 and JV44, and also a trainer. Qualifies as an expert, IMO. I asked him about this, and, to paraphrase, he said, "Full out throttle was saved for periods no more than 10 minutes in a one-hour flight (not meaning WEP or ADI, which has its own limits). We would use full power during take-off, then throttle back to about 80% for a climb [unless it was an emergency "buster" climb to intercept]. Once at altitude you'd throttle back to no more than 75% for cruise." He also said the reason for this was to save the engine for combat when you really needed to go balls out.
One fellow really hit it on the head though: "this isn't a sim, it's a game". I suppose if that's your attitude... well, then nothing really matters other than just "blowing sh*t up," right? :rolleyes: This is what I mean by excuses. You can always find a way that even a good simulation isn't 100% correct, and you can always say things like, 'Well, we don't actually die in the sim, so that's unrealistic too..." or some other smokescreen to excuse things that could be fixed or addressed... but would simply inconvenience a gamer type who doesn't really want any kind of challenge or anything that makes him have to work at to get better, or that he can (heaven forbid) learn something from.
As for "optional" this shouldn't BE optional. It should be a part of the simulation, simply because it was a fact of life in the real event. People would learn to do it, because they'd get tired of frying engines and balky performance. Same principle as if you don't put gas in your car because you "can't be bothered to". When it runs out of gas, and sputters to a stop, you WILL take the gas can and walk all the way to the nearest station, if you want to drive your car again.
Fact of the matter is, many people will fight the very idea of (more) complex engine management only because they're lazy... and because their mindset is on the gamer side of the game <----> simulation spectrum.
-
OK. You code it, model the extra controlls in every model....boats and gv's too. I think for gv's a button for the clutch should have to be hit :D while hitting the button for gears. Submitt it to HTC and see if it gets implemented so that 90% of the players can get ticked about it and quit so that 10% can have a few more buttons and knobs. I also think that more realistic engine management should require manual trim controls. I also think that the GPS clipboard should be removed and you actually have to sit in the troop facilities and plan your mission with a real E6B and plotter (that would get rid of the dumb it down squeakers). It would also add to the realism of getting completely lost and crash landing after flying around for 30 minutes because you can't read your compass.
And end sarcasm........
The game is dumbed down so that a broader spectrum of experience can come in and enjoy the GAME.
Hoo boy, where do I start?
There's no manual TRIM in Aces High? What???? :O No, really?
I've seen armor games where you have to "use the clutch" and gear up or down. WWIIOL and Steel Fury Kharkov '42 come to mind. And, in those sims, at least you have enough ground clutter and ground contour resolution to even get past ARCADE "point 'n plink" mode for fighting. GVs here, and in WB, too, are a total waste of time...
"Submit to HTC..." there's another sore point... they have no will do to the job properly. Years ago I mentioned to Addink that the planes that have metric gauges in them should be represented. He told me, (and I paraphrase for humor and effect): "This here's a 'murrican game, with a 'murrican audience... and they don't LIKE metric anything. So, we won't bother with it." Phew.... with a viewpoint like that, perhaps there's NO CHANCE for anything approaching realism in this game...
-
"Submit to HTC..." there's another sore point... they have no will do to the job properly. Years ago I mentioned to Addink that the planes that have metric gauges in them should be represented. He told me, (and I paraphrase for humor and effect): "This here's a 'murrican game, with a 'murrican audience... and they don't LIKE metric anything. So, we won't bother with it." Phew.... with a viewpoint like that, perhaps there's NO CHANCE for anything approaching realism in this game...
The point is that its just not that realistic. :aok
-
they have no will do to the job properly...
Then why are you here? Do you want to have a discussion about how to improve the game, or do you want to merely condescend and talk about how poor this game is? While you're at it, how about you insult the player's too?
We're having a discussion here. You don't agree, that's fine. But don't start slinging mud--no one will respond to it constructively.
-
Was this before or after you registered for the boards all those years ago?
Years ago I mentioned to Addink that the planes that have metric gauges in them should be represented.
-
OK, one at a time...
To those "you code it" or show me realistic engine management challenges... I deal with it all the time in Targetware.
Yes, it is simplified such that one system can handle many, many types of planes and engines from different countries. But, even in this simplified state, it's quite robust, adds the correct amount of "pilot workload" and well simulates the benefits and consequences of managing or mismanaging one's engine. As for IL-2, well they OVER-simplified it to the point where it pretty much doesn't even work. But, it can be, and has been, done.
Also, it's not that hard to come up with guidelines and parameters that can reasonably simulate the effects of overheating, over-revving (there's another thing...nobody's ever "thrown a prop" in Aces High, either, have they? ;) ) and the effects of poor application of fuel mixture. You can start with maintenance manuals for aircraft of the period, just the same way you can find test data and design documents for the planes to model them in the first place. As for within the sim, the one I'm referring to has a universal "cooling factor" which can be ratcheted up or down for any aircraft to factor in things like if a certain plane had a record of engine heat problems, if the cooling systems were or were not effective in the field, etc. So, you can apply it equally across the board (not very realistic) or you can tinker with it to produce a more interesting (and probably more accurate) flight model.
To those who say your engine won't act up if totally neglected (which is, to my view, the definition of leaving the throttle at 100% the entire throttle): you're simply wrong. Many pilots didn't come home because they mishandled their engines. And it doesn't necessarily have to "blow up in your face" to malfunction. Steadily lessening output is really all that's needed to drive the point home. You lose 20% of your engine power during a fight and see if you don't notice the difference. And that oil splatter and smoke coming from the cowling? Oh, never mind that.
More on operations expectations: years ago I wondered about these issues, and had a chance to sit down with the real (Franz) Stiegler, a Luftwaffe pilot for JG27 and JV44, and also a trainer. Qualifies as an expert, IMO. I asked him about this, and, to paraphrase, he said, "Full out throttle was saved for periods no more than 10 minutes in a one-hour flight (not meaning WEP or ADI, which has its own limits). We would use full power during take-off, then throttle back to about 80% for a climb [unless it was an emergency "buster" climb to intercept]. Once at altitude you'd throttle back to no more than 75% for cruise." He also said the reason for this was to save the engine for combat when you really needed to go balls out.
One fellow really hit it on the head though: "this isn't a sim, it's a game". I suppose if that's your attitude... well, then nothing really matters other than just "blowing sh*t up," right? :rolleyes: This is what I mean by excuses. You can always find a way that even a good simulation isn't 100% correct, and you can always say things like, 'Well, we don't actually die in the sim, so that's unrealistic too..." or some other smokescreen to excuse things that could be fixed or addressed... but would simply inconvenience a gamer type who doesn't really want any kind of challenge or anything that makes him have to work at to get better, or that he can (heaven forbid) learn something from.
As for "optional" this shouldn't BE optional. It should be a part of the simulation, simply because it was a fact of life in the real event. People would learn to do it, because they'd get tired of frying engines and balky performance. Same principle as if you don't put gas in your car because you "can't be bothered to". When it runs out of gas, and sputters to a stop, you WILL take the gas can and walk all the way to the nearest station, if you want to drive your car again.
Fact of the matter is, many people will fight the very idea of (more) complex engine management only because they're lazy... and because their mindset is on the gamer side of the game <----> simulation spectrum.
WOW ... then let's go all the way for the total experience ... as soon as you get shot down ... the game will erase itself and prevent you from installing it again ... you don't really have to die, that would be too harsh.
Targetware may have complex engine management but it is a very poor example of how to make money in this genre.
Have fun in the vacuum of the Targetware servers.
-
And still no useful information has been delivered.
Give some specific numbers for specific planes that HTC can use in the modeling. Don't think a P-51D should be able to run at 60'' and 3,000 RPM indefinitely? Okay, how long should it take to get too hot at that setting? What setting should be allowable for continuous operation? What should happen? And if I roll a P-51D with a well maintained engine under the hood, can you claim that some sort of failure after 30-60 minutes of running at 60'' manifold and 3,000 rpm is going to happen, or is even likely?
-
I dont want a combat sim like this to end up with hundreds of keyboard commands thanks. The current system is fine and fair to all.
If you want realism, we can start with the groups of burning A6M's buzzing round. Its like watching a harry potter movie for goodness sake
:noid
-
Stiglr,
Exactly how many aircraft losses can be contributed without a doubt to be the result of engine failure due to overheating in the course of a single sortie? Y'know, as compared to the other large number of mechanical failures even the best and most reliable of these engines were liable to experience.
The simple FACT of it is that there's far more examples of pilots I'm aware of exceeding these power restrictions and returning to base to tell about it afterwards than there were aircraft that you can conclusively say WITH NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER, that "Oh, Bob was exceeding his maximum engine temperature for ten minutes and it seized up, causing him to crash."
As I said, the impact of such abuse was seen more often on the ground during maintenance than anywhere else.
-
Sax,
And that is exactly why HTC's solution to the nasty problem is probably best. A "by-the-book" limit with automatic shutoff, not engine failure after five minutes and three seconds of WEP.
Stiglr,
Exactly how many aircraft losses can be contributed without a doubt to be the result of engine failure due to overheating in the course of a single sortie? Y'know, as compared to the other large number of mechanical failures even the best and most reliable of these engines were liable to experience.
The simple FACT of it is that there's far more examples of pilots I'm aware of exceeding these power restrictions and returning to base to tell about it afterwards than there were aircraft that you can conclusively say WITH NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER, that "Oh, Bob was exceeding his maximum engine temperature for ten minutes and it seized up, causing him to crash."
As I said, the impact of such abuse was seen more often on the ground during maintenance than anywhere else.
-
It's your WITHOUT A DOUBT WHATSOEVER dodge that gets in the way of clearing this up.
There are too many variables in any flight, let alone a combat flight with bullets flying and lives on the line, to identify one thing out of thousands of other variables as the sole reason for anything happening.
It's a red herring.
Let's try another tack: explain why ALL aircraft had manuals that instructed the pilot how to use the engine, and then explain why, if he could "just throw the throttle forward and not worry about it", the manual wouldn't just say that? Keep in mind that the folks that wrote those manuals knew full well that the pilots were going into harm's way with the planes. And, keep in mind we know that some "margin of safety" is built into those*.But we also know there's a big difference between 'minding a margin of safety' and ignoring the instructions altogether.
Finally, if it was all so automatic, why were there even any other engine controls other than throttle in the pits? Why were those "unnecessary" mixture, prop pitch, fuel mixture and cooler flap controls even THERE?
Also, to head off your next spurious argument, it is not within reason to expect the pilots of the sim/game aircraft to go to some lengths to preserve their aircraft for longevity, even if the game doesn't actually support a "real" career and a "real aircraft life"? Otherwise, where do such hypotheses stop? Do we then just say, "Well, let's say just for the sake of fun, that all planes had unlimited ammo and gas...you just don't need to worry about it. It'll be more fun, and I can rack up a 350-kill mission...[Beavis and Butthead style laughing ensues]"
*(Best example of that is a manual telling you not to spin the plane, and of course we all know that it can and will spin, given the right situation; idea is not to lose aircraft and pilots doing unnecessary stunts that are unsafe)
-
Let's try another tack: explain why ALL aircraft had manuals that instructed the pilot how to use the engine, and then explain why, if he could "just throw the throttle forward and not worry about it", the manual wouldn't just say that?
It was for maintainance schedules. This has already been stated.
-
Fuel conservation in flight, maintaining formation, reduced maintenance times, extended equipment life.
NOWHERE did I say there was no long-term effect from running an engine maxed out beyond its manufacturer's specifications on a routine basis. But to impose an artificial "Your engine is about to explode if you don't back off the throttle" limitation is no more accurate than allowing max power with no effect at all.
As I said, the ACTUAL effects were more often seen in maintenance, where these overworked engines required more and longer maintenance and earlier replacement. Until maintenance time becomes a factor in the game there is no practical purpose to its addition other than trying to impose an artificial restriction on power management.
-
@Karnak:
Not just for maintenance. You guys ever READ? I've read many books by the real pilots that have anecdotal stories of mechanical misfortune brought about, many times, by inexperience with aircraft operation or abuse of same. Yes, like the Battle of France Hurri pilots who hadn't trained well enough on their variable speed props, and promptly oversped and threw the props in battle; yes, physically and literally THREW them off the nose in some instances. History's full of this, and you can't make it go away because it's inconvenient to an arcade flying style.
@Saxman: that's YOU saying 'your engine automatically explodes'. Not me. As I explained earlier, the affects from abuse might only be increasing loss of power.
Also, none of this "rationalization" changes the FACT that pilots did, and HAD TO, manage their engines to fly these planes. They simply did NOT, AT ANY TIME, fly around at 100% throttle for an entire sortie.
-
Has to stop. This isn't very realistic, because last time I checked, if they ran full power for long periods of time the engine would become damaged (overheat?).
What I propose is something like WEP. Lets call it, Full Throttle or FT. You can engage FT for lets say 10 minutes. After 10 minutes of FT you will be given a warning light, or warning noise, and if not turned off within another minute, you will experience engine failure or engine oil leaking. If you take the plane off of FT, then after 4 minutes, you will be able to engage FT again. When you are not in FT you will fly on Normal Power, as stated in the E6B.
I would like this to be added because first of all it would make it realistic. It just gives me this frustrated feeling when I think all of these planes are flying full throttle, with no consequences. Second of all, it would help with creating formations, because you will no longer be able to say, "slow down, I can't catch you!" And last but not least, this will create a whole new E management system which would be entertaining to master.
This is my wish.
(http://www.nerdbird.org/index_files/page0_blog_entry54_1.jpg)
-
Let's try another tack: explain why ALL aircraft had manuals that instructed the pilot how to use the engine, and then explain why, if he could "just throw the throttle forward and not worry about it", the manual wouldn't just say that?
You are criticizing AHII. In AHII you are *not* allowed to use 100% power continuously. Quit throwing out THAT red herring. In AHII, you CAN'T fly a P-51D around at 67" on the MP continuously. You are limited to a (rather conservative) five minutes. You ARE allowed to use some lesser power setting continuously. You seem to be implying that this lesser power setting is ALSO, realistically speaking, too high for continuous operations, yet you offer no suggestions on how it should be changed, no data to support your suggestions.
-
100% doesn't mean WEP, or ADI, or water-injection or any other boost system like that.
It means simply what it says 100% (unaided) military engine power.
That your AHII doesn't model these properly (in use, application or effect) isn't my fault.
As for suggestions, I have made one... model it correctly. That suggestion seems to be the problem for many of you.
And yes, I am being critical. Engine management (or lack of it) isn't the ONLY problem with this particular game system.
-
That your AHII doesn't model these properly (in use, application or effect) isn't my fault.
What fault? It's fine as it is.
As for suggestions, I have made one... model it correctly.
And run it on Deep Blue with a 500 page manual to get off the runway, along with 2 tons of other superfluous micromanagement to take away from dogfighting. I don't think so. That suggestion seems to be the problem for many of you.
Only one with a problem here seems to be you.
-
moot wrote:
And run it on Deep Blue with a 500 page manual to get off the runway, along with 2 tons of other superfluous micromanagement to take away from dogfighting. I don't think so.
Yeah, sure, go to extremes to try and discredit the idea, without even trying it... that's a true fanboi tactic.
As I've said, I've seen it work, seen it work well, and not have it take away from dogfighting, but rather have it become an intriguing factor in dogfighting.
The actual FACT of it being a factor in flying and fighting, well that one you can't win, so don't bother.
Your turn...
-
100% doesn't mean WEP, or ADI, or water-injection or any other boost system like that.
It means simply what it says 100% (unaided) military engine power.
Um, again the military power settings used in AHII are not actually throttle to the firewall, and do NOT represent 100% of the engine's rated horsepower. You use of the term "100%" does not make any sense in this context and does not convey any useful information about specific power setting for specific WWII airplanes.
That your AHII doesn't model these properly (in use, application or effect) isn't my fault.
As for suggestions, I have made one... model it correctly. That suggestion seems to be the problem for many of you.
You have failed to define what "correct" would be for even a SINGLE airplane, much less the plethora of aircraft in AHII. For instance, currently in AHII, you can run the P-51D at 60'' MP and 3000 RPM continuously without reaching redline temperature. Is this inaccurate? If so, how long should it take the P-51D to redline at those settings? What power settings should the P-51D (or any other plane) be able to operate at continuously? Be sure to back up your answers with some sort of valid data.
If you cannot even give a valid answer to these questions, then you have no evidence and leg to stand on when criticizing the engine modeling.
-
moot wrote:
Yeah, sure, go to extremes to try and discredit the idea, without even trying it... that's a true fanboi tactic.
As I've said, I've seen it work, seen it work well, and not have it take away from dogfighting, but rather have it become an intriguing factor in dogfighting.
The actual FACT of it being a factor in flying and fighting, well that one you can't win, so don't bother.
Your turn...
That's because it is an extreme suggestion. What kind of simulation of real engines and protocol would it be with anything less than a completely fair emulation, across the board of the whole plane set (good luck finding all that data, with no exceptions since this is supposed to be fair), of complex engine management, complex damage, etc? You'd have near-zero new player retention and dogfighting would be choked with micromanagement, and there'd be no room left for e.g. acceptable graphics at MMO scale in the resource budget. The intrigue of whether you should push button A, B, C, D, E, or F, in combination with enough things going on OUTSIDE the airplane to, on their own, already give 90% of players information overload to the point of ruining the actual dogfighting taking place? Flipping a dozen switches and turning knobs to do a single thing that you can do as well with just one or two buttons like the automations in the AH cockpit aren't fun. Are you dense or pretending? No one here is pretending to be a real life pilot.
-
I believe that one other time when this topic came up on the boards HT said something like "why make more button pushes available just for the sake of pushing buttons?" The idea is to have a fun game that the majority of people can play. The game has a steep learning curve as it is, adding "engine management" just for the sake of realism is going to turn more people off than it would bring in.
-
I believe that one other time when this topic came up on the boards HT said something like "why make more button pushes available just for the sake of pushing buttons?" The idea is to have a fun game that the majority of people can play. The game has a steep learning curve as it is, adding "engine management" just for the sake of realism is going to turn more people off than it would bring in.
Ironically, the one button you have to push to utilize WEP is one MORE button than you would have to push to utilize WEP in many WWII aircraft, where WEP was simply balls to the wall.
P.S. There are very, very, very good reasons button WEP instead of just making it reliant on the throttle slider, that anyone who has ever played with a worn-out Z-axis is aware of.
-
What fault? It's fine as it is.
And run it on Deep Blue with a 500 page manual to get off the runway, along with 2 tons of other superfluous micromanagement to take away from dogfighting. I don't think so. Only one with a problem here seems to be you.
Well said.
I don't think this guy gets it.
Its a game,NOT a flight sim.
And I don't think many in here would want to see it become one.
And if he's seen it done before and it didn't seem to pose a problem with dogfighting, why isn't he still flying it then?
-
You know, I could see AH getting way ahead in intricate physics modeling.. But making the cockpit and other interface into rube goldberg machines? I really doubt that.
-
Here are 2 quotes on HT's point of view on such things that are based on the argument of realizism.
Much of this quote won't pertain to this thread but let's nip it before someone chimes in with those next.
Ok do not mind me, my credentials are only limited.
I only have about 20 hours total of real ACM.
I only have 1bout 600 total hours flying time.
I only have about 200 hours aerobatic.
The only planes I have done dog fights in, are T-6, P51ds, La7s, Marchietties, and RV8's.
Ok and never mind my credentials of very close to 20 years flight sim design.
So lets talk about your so called realism, that you are completely clueless about.
* Combat trim
You seem to believe combat trim some how is unrealistic, but obviously since you have spent so little time flying real planes, you are clueless how trim actually is used by a pilot. You seem to believe that flying a perfectly trimed plane gives some sort of advantage in a fight.l It is not, when flying hard manuvers the only time trim comes into play at all is when doing very large changes in air speed. When going from 160 to 360 the forces will become heavy in pitch, and with out ever thinking about it a pilot roll's in a little trim. Now the deal is, in most planes it is done with out ever moving your head out of the cockpit. Tell me how many players in a fight could find the correct key on a key board with out looking to roll in some trim?
2nd Tell me how they can feel the trim on the stick like you do in a real plane, Computer joy sticks work nothing like the real thing. You have zero feel for the forces acting on the stick, and it is much much harder to fly a sim as precesisly as a real plane. Combat trim is a compromise between how the real planes handle and the hardware that is available. It is an attempt at providing a much more realistic flying experience than what you believe it is.
* Aileron trim for aircraft that did not have it, e.g. a lot of Spitfire marks, 109, etc.
Aileron trim that exists on real planes is only there so that a pilot can trim his planes hands off for long flights. In my RV8 I do this by balancing fuel between the wing tanks, as I am fairly sure most pilots do who can control fuel from each tank. There is no advantage what so ever to have Aileron trim in a dog fight, it is only there to lower the work load for long cruises. Why do you think the P51 had it when other planes did not? SO can I assume because you wish to change aileron trim, you wish to also want to fly 6 - 8 hours missions. And if you do not have this time available you are not permited to take a sortie?
* Ammunition counters
We have a game where it is best for people to be able to fly many planes. In the real world pilots put in many hours learning the speciefices of each plane. They knew before they flew how man secs of ammo there plane had. In the world of AH we do not require pilots to have 10 hours of instructions before put into combat in a new plane. Do you really wish the same amout of instructions before you are allowed to fly any given plane type? Or are you once again only taughting makeing somthing more difficult than it was in the real world in the name of BS realism.
* No mixture controls
Mixture control has one purpose in life, to conserve fuel. When it is time to engage it is not even thought about to shove 3 levers ahead at the same time. Exactly how many people have 3 levers all beside each other like most real planes have? How easy is it to tak your right hand and push all head to max performance like most fighters were capable of?
* No supercharger controls
This one could be debated, but the real fact is do you really want to have to learn each planes critical altitudes just so you can do nothing more complicated than pushing one button? Because that is all you are asking for. Push 1 key when your altitude reaches one point. This sounds great fun to me, I tell you what since you believe it is so necessary to a good flight sim, I will write it, and you can come to my office and do nothing but watch the altitidude and press that so important button at the correct time.
* No radiator/cowl flap controls for engine cooling
Once again, these really have very little to do with dog fights, they have much more to do with engine life.
* No engine overheats
See above, exactly how high can you run your engine? Or would you wrather just have a randomize control your destiny.
* Weak engine torque
Engine torque is 100% accurate. We do take one liberty with how the tail wheel operates, but with out those liberties very very very few people including you could get in the air. Do you know a gentleman name Bob Shaw? You know the guy who wrote books, flew fantoms, did carrier landings and such? Well he was tail wheel endorced. The scariest moment I have had in a plane was the first time he flew mine, and on take off he proceeded to bend my airplane enough that it required 3 months of repair.
* 360 degree head swivel
In reality you have better than 360 deg field of view do to head and eye movement. Tracking an airplane in real life requires no thought as with a joy stick hat. Even with the 360 degree turning, tracking a plane in a sime is many many times more difficult than real life. So it is an atempt to bring things closer to reality. Not less as you seem to state.
* Flaps auto retract when airspeed increases
Once again choices on how to implement realism, Putting the book spec with auto retract flaps puts more not less realism into the game. It simply forces you to fly as real pilots did. Show me data where the real flaps broke, how they were bent, what happen to all the different type. This data does not exist in any form I have seen.
So the options are make flaps break at the speed the book sais, or make them retract. If we made them work like landing gear and break, we would just put a loud noise before the would break, once again all you are asking for is another key press that is more difficult than real life.
* No weather
Tell you what, Ill suspend your account 3 out of 7 days a week, because the simple matter is, with bad weather the planes did not fly.
* Automatic bomb sight calibration
This is now the way it is simply because of the lack of precision of joy sticks. The point is that a pilot must be in the bomb sight, and must be maintaining constant speed and headings before the drop, just as in real life.
* GPS clipboard map
Once again you are clueless about real life flying. 40 mile vis is not all that uncommon and 20 mile vis is very common. The detail of maps and compture screen do not even approach what real life is like. The volume of land marks you have in real life vs the sim do not compare. Before any long flight I spend a good 30 mins planing my flight path. Now if you wish to be forced to be on the ground for 30 mins before every flight, we could implement what you want, but I have a feeling you once again only what what YOUR brand of realism is, which really is nothing to do with reality.
The simple fact is in real life, people would not be in any of the planes we fly with out at least 100 hours of training. So tell you what, you send me 6 months of money in advance, and in 6 months I let you fly any of the planes we have. And in another 100 hours I will let you fly your first real sortie.
Because what you believe is realism, is nothing of the sort, you just wish to inflate your own ego on flying something that you perceive is more real when in fact it is much less realistic.
The fact is , AH is meant to simulate air combat.Learning this task alone is a never ending task. It is not meant to simulate all the boring pieces of flying that any one who has spent 20 hours of real life flying wishes they did not have to deal with.
HiTech
And this one:
It never ceases to amaze me how people wish to pick and choose the items they wish to see, but them try use the argument of realism to justify there arguments. The simple fact is , there are many things about flying a plane that are not fun. Such is the fact of life. Simple things like flying for 250 hours and never seeing an enemy plane is very close to realistic. But I do not hear you saying it should be modeled.
Spending 2 hours planing before each flight is realistic, I do not hear you wanting it.
The simple fact of the mater is, You play a game, the game is Air combat. The terms simulation vs game are not in any way in conflict with each other, you wish to try separate the 2 terms, but you really can not.
Some simulators are made for real life training. These simulators are designed for a specific purpose in mind. AH is no different , it is a simulator with a specific purpose in mind, and one of those purposes is fun.
Some here wish to say IL2 is more realistic because it has you push a button to open cowl flaps? I say BS again. They just makes different choices at what it wishes to accomplish. They want you to believe it is realistic, but start looking into real details of how things work and you will see , they just are making you push a button.
Ah is designed to learn air combat. It strives to model planes perfectly in their flight envelopes so that the air combat is real. Please do a side by side of AH against any game on the market when it comes to flight dynamics.
both are from this thread if you wish to look at the entire thing.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,260209.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,260209.0.html)
I think this pretty much sums it up.
Honestly though I would rather have my fights won because I simply was better at ACm and shot him down than have him on my six and suddenly I get the "you killed so-n-so" because he blew up his engine running at too high rpm's or any other micro-managing feature.
-
I like to encourage suggestions that aren't the usual "he shot me/took my base/dropped a bomb and has to be stopped!" posts. I think you deserve credit for making an attempt to positively enhance the experience of players.
As you might have divined by now, a large portion of the player base would loudly resist a change to make an already challenging game even more difficult, despite the benefit of an enhanced personal immersion experience. There are less difficult ways of doing this - skins for example. Special events tend to remove the less real aspects of arenas where you see Spits chasing P51s and a P47 bouncing a Hurricane to save a N1K. Immersion is enhanced.
If Moot and I were to battle now in the MA the result would be me shot down handily and quickly.
Under your system, if Moot and I were to battle in the MA the result would be me shot down after a lot more work to get myself into a position where he would do that. It doesn't have a lot of appeal.
Thanks for your input and a suggestion that you genuinely believe would enhance the game play experience. I just can't support it as much as I would like to.
-
I am not dead-set against modifying the engine management model.
I am simply putting out that if someone wants to make a specific criticism like "You couldn't run your plane around for for 30-60 minutes on the military power settings used in AHII!" or the vague "the engine modeling is wroooong!" then they need to show some evidence.
-
I find that very revealing about Mr. Addink.
Now I see how he can tell me that it's not worth his time to have actual accurate gauges in planes that had them simply because he (and his audience) are Americans and don't like metric.
The key words are "out of touch" and "arrogant" I'd say.
As just one example: why would you want to know your critical alts so that you could click a simple key to change the supercharger setting? Simple: your plane might start gasping at that alt if you don't. The real ones did if the pilot didn't mind that one little lever. Hence it becomes part of the player's challenge in flying that plane to do the same. And a FAN of type might find that kind of minutae interesting.
Another one: in his diatribe against flap damage or auto retraction, he couldn't even figure out that some aircraft DID do that for you. Since that's a FACT, then allowing planes that didn't not to suffer damage (like increased drag, or loss of the flap itself; doesn't take a rocket scientist to be able to model that better than simply pretending the phenomena doesn't exist at all!), gives them an advantage they shouldn't enjoy. The same way that a plane that actually was pretty much fully automatic (the FW190) gets shafted because the Spits and Hurris it is flying against have much easier pilot workload than they should. And you think that allowing a P-51D to tool around at 400mph ALL SORTIE isn't allowing it to enjoy an unrealistic advantage???
One thing does trump this entire discussion: whether you're satisfied with "just a stupid game" or if you're interested at all about WWII history, aviation, and the brave men and women that really flew these things for real. If you're not interested in any of those things, then I can see how you're not interested in anything that gets in the way of your "Nintendo-style fun". But if you DO give a sh*t about those other things, I'd think a greater level of realism would interest you.
Believe me, engine management isn't even close to "hairshirt" realism-just-to-make-it-hard type of simulation...
Oh and then there's this little gem:
Please do a side by side of AH against any game on the market when it comes to flight dynamics.
First off, if he truly means GAME, and not sim, fine. But if he means compare against a SIM, he's got another think coming. For just one example, I point you towards the posts talking about the "ueberplane scourge" of the ... wait for it... BREWSTER BUFFALO. :rofl
If your sim has this spud terrorizing the arena AT ANY POINT in the war timespan, there are some serious issues with your flight modeling. Oh, I also noted in that thread that someone pointed out its climb rate... which was the climb rate for the F2A-1, a non-production variant of which 11 were ever made, BEFORE the Navy went and loaded it up with 300 lbs. or radios and such... seems Dale likes to take the stats he likes for his modeling, rather than accurately model a representative aircraft...
-
Speak for yourself..
-
I believe I am...
-
You're speaking and the only thing you're convincing of is that you're playing the wrong game. The Brewster isn't terrorizing anything.
If you really want to hit where it hurts, go ahead and call HTC. seems Dale likes to take the stats he likes for his modeling, rather than accurately model a representative aircraft...
You're going nowhere just sniping about it on a forum. Give em a call. Walk the walk.
One thing does trump this entire discussion: whether you're satisfied with "just a stupid game" or if you're interested at all about WWII history, aviation, and the brave men and women that really flew these things for real. If you're not interested in any of those things, then I can see how you're not interested in anything that gets in the way of your "Nintendo-style fun". But if you DO give a sh*t about those other things, I'd think a greater level of realism would interest you.
Wrong.the FW190) gets shafted because the Spits and Hurris it is flying against have much easier pilot workload than they should.
Wrong.not worth his time to have actual accurate gauges in planes that had them simply because he (and his audience) are Americans and don't like metric.
I doubt that.. It's just better game design to have everyone on the same page. It makes no difference whatsoever in the actual meat of the subject.. That is, air combat.
-
If your sim has this spud terrorizing the arena AT ANY POINT in the war timespan, there are some serious issues with your flight modeling. Oh, I also noted in that thread that someone pointed out its climb rate... which was the climb rate for the F2A-1, a non-production variant of which 11 were ever made, BEFORE the Navy went and loaded it up with 300 lbs. or radios and such... seems Dale likes to take the stats he likes for his modeling, rather than accurately model a representative aircraft...
If you would even bother looking at what aircraft we have in game, it's the Brewster B-239 export version that was sold to Finland and stripped of most of the weight that made it crap, and became a plane with a (IIRC) 16:1 kill ratio, an early mount of some of the highest scoring aces of all time...
If you have trouble against the Brewster except in its contemporaries (like the I-16) then there's a pretty big gap in pilot skill going on.
-
moot wrote, further up:
and there'd be no room left for e.g. acceptable graphics at MMO scale in the resource budget. The intrigue of whether you should push button A, B, C, D, E, or F, in combination with enough things going on OUTSIDE the airplane to, on their own, already give 90% of players information overload to the point of ruining the actual dogfighting taking place? Flipping a dozen switches and turning knobs to do a single thing that you can do as well with just one or two buttons like the automations in the AH cockpit aren't fun.
First off, there is NO relation between graphics/data/CPU load and engine management; none whatsoever. Everything you do in the cockpit is handled on your front end, and your position, damage state and weapons (dealt and received) are the things that pass through the internet to the server. So throw that out the window right away. No impact on performance or graphics.
Secondly, information overload is a HUGE part of situational awareness, the same way you can get lost among 20 planes, when it's so much easier to just watch and defeat one guy in a duel. It's yet another FACT that some planes were a lot harder to fly in than others simply BECAUSE of differences in pilot workload.
You simply can't say that the process "isn't fun" because clearly you haven't flown it both ways. I have. And I'm here to tell you (yes, IMO...) it ADDS to the fun. And it isn't nearly so hard as you think. It's more memory and routine than it is "effort". And it gives you a lot of appreciation for the real aircraft.
Here's one tidbit for you guys and then, maybe I'll leave it alone... you guys have the I-16, right? How many of you know that the landing gear were hand cranked on a chain/pully system, and it took SIXTY revolutions of the knob... located on the right hand side of the cockpit floor area... to get it retracted or deployed? Now, since most pilots are right handed for the stick... you don't think that might be an interesting little imposition on a Rata pilot? :furious
-
If you would even bother looking at what aircraft we have in game, it's the Brewster B-239 export version that was sold to Finland and stripped of most of the weight that made it crap, and became a plane with a 16:1 kill ratio, an early mount of some of the highest scoring aces of all time...
If you have trouble against the Brewster except in its contemporaries (like the I-16) then there's a pretty big gap in pilot skill going on.
I do know that. But even that variant didn't have the climb rate of the -1 version.
Also, do keep in mind that the Finns were highly trained, and the Russians they flew against weren't. Yes, they worked wonders with the Brewster... but give credit to the pilots, and the quality difference between them and their foes... not so much the planes.
-
Here's one tidbit for you guys and then, maybe I'll leave it alone... you guys have the I-16, right? How many of you know that the landing gear were hand cranked on a chain/pully system, and it took SIXTY revolutions of the knob... located on the right hand side of the cockpit floor area... to get it retracted or deployed? Now, since most pilots are right handed for the stick... you don't think that might be an interesting little imposition on a Rata pilot? :furious
Wikipedia (I know...) has automatically retracted landing gear being introduced in pre-production versions of the I-16.
I do know that. But even that variant didn't have the climb rate of the -1 version.
Also, do keep in mind that the Finns were highly trained, and the Russians they flew against weren't. Yes, they worked wonders with the Brewster... but give credit to the pilots, and the quality difference between them and their foes... not so much the planes.
Light versions of the Brewster were regarded as superbly maneuvering aircraft, even by the Americans.... they were merely slow.
Pilot skill is pretty subjective. Though many Soviet pilots certainly weren't the best trained, if you assume the Finns had both vastly inferior numbers and vastly inferior aircraft I can't imagine they would have done so well...
-
First off, there is NO relation between graphics/data/CPU load and engine management; none whatsoever. Everything you do in the cockpit is handled on your front end, and your position, damage state and weapons (dealt and received) are the things that pass through the internet to the server. So throw that out the window right away. No impact on performance or graphics.
You're saying the full realism work-over would have "NO" effect on the resource budget? Are you serious? And to a more pertinent point - Why would you add any micromanagement superfluities before getting the physics part of the modeling done with? What's the use of fifteen hundred instrumental permutations if the physics aren't there behind the dashboard? Why would you bother with so much extraneous stuff before e.g. getting a flawlessly realistic damage model? Do you know what superfluous means?
Secondly, information overload is a HUGE part of situational awareness, the same way you can get lost among 20 planes, when it's so much easier to just watch and defeat one guy in a duel. It's yet another FACT that some planes were a lot harder to fly in than others simply BECAUSE of differences in pilot workload.
... And your point is?
You simply can't say that the process "isn't fun" because clearly you haven't flown it both ways. I have. And I'm here to tell you (yes, IMO...) it ADDS to the fun. And it isn't nearly so hard as you think. It's more memory and routine than it is "effort". And it gives you a lot of appreciation for the real aircraft.
I have, and it's not as fun. There's a big difference in shallow instrument interface like racing a car, and flying a plane in combat. In the former you can afford to and actually find appeal in having the full blown manual control, whereas in the latter it simply adds to the workload for no fun because it actually substracts from the tactical gameplay. It would probably work great to some extent in CT, but not in the MA. The latter which you're using as premise for your whole argument. Your whole inquisition against the game.
Here's one tidbit for you guys and then, maybe I'll leave it alone... you guys have the I-16, right? How many of you know that the landing gear were hand cranked on a chain/pully system, and it took SIXTY revolutions of the knob... located on the right hand side of the cockpit floor area... to get it retracted or deployed? Now, since most pilots are right handed for the stick... you don't think that might be an interesting little imposition on a Rata pilot? :furious
We do know that and did talk it over before release... To cut to the chase - why does it matter? Who cares? Do you need to crank the gears during combat? Is there some tactical use in cranking a gear or repeatedly hitting a key or button instead of just pressing once? Why not do pre-flight checks or argue about the instrument units while we're at it.. Oh, wait. :lol
You might have a some actual leverage and credibility if you made some really pertinent points like.. planes seemingly artificially holding their gear brakes just right so they don't bury their nose into the runways.. Or the ground being perfectly flat out in the country side.. But instead you pick something the game is fundamentally designed to do (remove tactically-extraneous chaff) and pretend it's a "fault" in what the game is supposed to be. You're just playing the wrong game and want to convince everyone that they're wrong to be playing this one.
-
I'm not making a distinction between arenas. Doesn't matter to me, if the sim's for toejame, it stinks whether the plane matchups are historic or not.
If by resource budget, you mean the actual creation and coding of the aircraft.... then, that's a different matter than whether it's a load on a player's rig, or a load on the server (which it's not). In the former case, well, it all comes down to whether you see value in a realistic, nuanced sim or see it as "just a game"...
My point (which you quoted) is right there in front of you. Some planes were easier to pilot than others from a controls standpoint, but you'll find no evidence of it in AHII. Poor simulation, again.
"Simply adds to the workload?" Answer me this: did the pilots have to manage the controls or didn't they? They DID. Was there a distinct advantage to doing it properly, and an even greater penalty for failing to do so? Yes. So, taken to an extreme, your argument could extend to if the player can "be bothered" to move his joystick, rather than just "type in an immelman command" and have the game do that for him, too.
The Rata anecdote, I admit, has limited utility in a combat situation... but, well if you were being pursued home by a rabid opponent and trying to pancake on the runway and get away with your butt still attached, well, then it'd be a factor, no? (just joshing with ya) Seriously, a little nuance and attention to detail is a wonderful thing, though...
-
Read the end of the post above yours.
I'm not making a distinction between arenas. Doesn't matter to me
IOW the facts don't matter to you. There IS a difference between the MA and what CT's supposed to be, and it's right in the contentious area you're arguing on. a realistic, nuanced sim or see it as "just a game"...
Physics first, extraneous micromanagement last. Take it or leave it. Or leave it while turning your nose up and making as big and whiney a fuss about it as you can.
What we have are planes running at their historical best to put tactical play at its best. If you don't like that, it's your problem. Just don't run around trying to wake everyone up to a fact they already know.. Imperial units weren't what germany or Japan used, and no, you didn't just press a button to have trim work itself out. We know all that already.
Unless you can come up with an actual argument, I'm done. All you're looking for here is making a big stink about AH not being designed like you would have it. And you want to spoil everyone else's fun because you can't have it. That's the real objective of your argument.. Unless you actually believe that some thing happening on a computer screen could be "realistic", or that arguing people's taste isn't a fool's errand.
-
Read the end of the post above yours.IOW the facts don't matter to you. There IS a difference between the MA and what CT's supposed to be, and it's right in the contentious area you're arguing on. Physics first, extraneous micromanagement last. Take it or leave it. Or leave it while turning your nose up and making as big and whiney a fuss about it as you can.
What we have are planes running at their historical best to put tactical play at its best. If you don't like that, it's your problem. Just don't run around trying to wake everyone up to a fact they already know.. Imperial units weren't what germany or Japan used, and no, you didn't just press a button to have trim work itself out. We know all that already.
and to finish that thought..... but we are playing a game, they were not!
-
My point (which you quoted) is right there in front of you. Some planes were easier to pilot than others from a controls standpoint, but you'll find no evidence of it in AHII. Poor simulation, again.
As opposed to what? Il-2 where EVERY aircraft flies exactly the same?
Here's the simple fact, Stig: If you have such a problem with the game and it's not what you want, THEN SHOVE THE FRELL OFF. No one's strapping you into the chair to play it. Go find some other community to spam with what you think their game should be.
And so far all your posts are in this one thread. You're either a troll, or have far too much time on your hands.
-
Stiglr I can't understate how much I disagree with your assessment of Dale or the rest of HTC. I had the opportunity to speak with both Dale and Doug at length, during the last convention and they were ALWAYS willing to openly discuss any topic. That includes some of the very issues you are complaining about. I found their answers to be forthright and we had a very good discussion about engine management and pilot workload.
It is very clear to me that Aces High is NOT a simulation, it's a game. HTC has created an interesting game that is much more enjoyable, and with more customers, than any other online WW2 air combat game than I have found. If there is a better game, with the customer support, and following that HTC have created, by all means show it to me and I'd be glad to play. However, until that time, no amount of complaining by anyone is going to convince me that there's a better community or better game.
-
I find that very revealing about Mr. Addink...The same way that a plane that actually was pretty much fully automatic (the FW190) gets shafted because the Spits and Hurris it is flying against have much easier pilot workload than they should.
[sniff]...[sniff]...Kurfurst? Another of our infamous old Luftwhiners? You'd have been better off merely trying to extol the virtues of your favorite game, err sim, rather than come in here and bad-mouth HTC.
-
I may be wrong (it happens :) ) But I think what he is saying, is he would like to see engine management implemented....
I agree I to would to see it, but it is was done, the crying would never stop!.
Here's the problem... 90% of the playing population can't fly worth a crap as it is... Concentrate on what's important; flying, fighting and having fun.
My regards,
Widewing
-
So far this thread just seems like a huge argument on whether his facts are true or false. But it much rather resembles a creation of an idea.
Engine Maintainance? Very realistic, not happening. The failures that have occurred in real life did not have a reset, meaning you could not get ticked off from it happening again, again, and again. Here in AH, there is a Reset.
You can go and fight without needing to check your engine or wings, or anything of that sort. Why? Because adding maintenance failures would come to make it so realistic failures would occur 30% or more of the time. Then what good is the point of playing if you're going to have a failure 1/3 of the time?
Example:
You're in a 109 chasing a quite outrageous Spitfire, when you suddenly get a gun point so precise that the pilot would scream "Ya damn Hacker!" believing you hacked because it was so precise of aim. Unfortunately, your engine failed, the upward force jammed your guns and the fuel line was so used it broke. Imagine this happening 33.33% (1/3) of the time?
-
Secondly, information overload is a HUGE part of situational awareness, the same way you can get lost among 20 planes, when it's so much easier to just watch and defeat one guy in a duel. It's yet another FACT that some planes were a lot harder to fly in than others simply BECAUSE of differences in pilot workload.
You really don't know what the hell you're talking about... We fly a combat sim, not a Cessna tooling around the midwest. From the time the wheels are in the wells, you had better be ready to fight. There is no engine management in combat, you firewall it and cylinder head, coolant and oil temps be damned. Engines can be replaced, your bellybutton is the only one available. Use up an engine? That's why God made mechanics. You can build an engine in several hours, a fighter in a few days. Pilots take years to train.
Flying with your head in the cockpit is the fastest way to get dead. Everything forward, and you don't even think about engine management, unless you want to die.
Prop to full RPM, mixture to rich, throttle up, gun switch on, gunsight on... Everything listed should already have been done prior to initial contact... Thus, work load in combat is minimal.
If you want engine management, you have it. Get the respective aircraft manual and fly it by the book. Be my guest. But, I'll bet you throw away the book when you find my fighter on your six... "The heck with engine management, I gotta get the hell out of here!"
It wouldn't matter tho, I'll bet I could send you a telegram the day before and you still wouldn't be prepared for me.... :rock
My regards,
Widewing
-
...And still Stiglr has not given me any estimate on how soon the engine in a P-51D should overheat from running at military power, or what setting IS safe for continuous operation, or any single bit of data about ANY plane modeled by AHII that could prove the modeling erroneous and serve as a basis for correction.
-
...And still Stiglr has not given me any estimate on how soon the engine in a P-51D should overheat from running at military power, or what setting IS safe for continuous operation, or any single bit of data about ANY plane modeled by AHII that could prove the modeling erroneous and serve as a basis for correction.
That's probably the key point of ALL of this: He hasn't provided ONE SCRAP OF EVIDENCE that the modeling is wrong. All he can repeat ad nauseum is "Well the manuals say use these settings" and claims of what he heard talking to pilots. That is NOT anything that HTC can build complex engine management around. To change it HTC needs numbers, otherwise any change is just arbitrary. Stilgr says that running the engine should cause a loss of power. Ok, on what grounds? What hard, numerical data do you have that shows this is what would happen? How long can it run before failure? How much of a loss of power would a Merlin or an R-2800 experience if it was overworked on a sortie? The simple fact is he has been unable or unwilling to provide those numbers, so instead decides to dwell on what the manual recommends.
I'm not even saying I'm completely against engine management at all. I'd LOVE to see manual supercharger, magneto and mixture controls on aircraft that didn't have automatic ones. Hell, HTC could even set it up like Combat Trim, where newbies can put the manual systems on "auto" to keep the settings on their "by the book" levels, while allowing more experienced pilots full manual control to fine-tune to their liking.
But as Widewing said, all that goes out the window once the bullets start flying, and even with complex engine management the nature of overheats means they still HAS NO PLACE in Aces High. As I've said repeatedly and Sitglr doesn't seem to absorb, is that the only definitively realistic effect of overworking the engine in combat--more frequent and longer maintenance, and probably needing to replace the engine sooner--would NOT come into play because AH doesn't have maintenance schedules and limited supplies of aircraft, parts and engines. Any other effects--loss of power, engines seizing, or outright blowing up--is an artificial and arbitrary limitation on aircraft performance with no basis in reality that he has been able to identify.
-
Well, as a partial answer to this dodge, and that's what it is...
Can you folks, or the modelers at HTC (or any modeler anywhere) provide scientific level evidence of exactly how many bullets it takes to take a wing off? Of exactly how much energy a plane loses in a turn?
No, you can't. Too many variables. But you can make a very educated guess based on the science you do know. The ballistic effect and the evidence of gun cam film and some physical calculations on area and toughness of a wing might provide a formula so that you can figure out how much damage the part can absorb. It might be fair, it might be believable, but "scientifically provable"? No way. About the only thing you can get to that degree of accuracy *might* be aerodynamic airfoils... and even that will be sullied by all the other variables (weight of fuel on the airframe, angles of attack, the less-than-perfect performance of maneuvers during testing, etc.) Fact is, you can arrive at a number, apply it to your models, and although not 100% ironclad or "provable" it will still be fair and pass the suspension of disbelief test.
The evidence that engines will overheat is there: it's called the Pilots Manuals and, where they can be found, maintenance manuals for the aircraft. How to figure out how soon and at what rate an engine begins to lose power, smoke, overheat, or even die isn't a scientific process. It's a judgment call. But then so are a lot of things in this sim. Not sure what it is now, but the ballistics and effects of weapons was way over the top last time I flew this game. Basically, anything more than a mere snapshot and you were losing major parts, no matter what the caliber of the weapon was. And of course d10 shots were commonplace and easy to pull off... tell me how scientific that is/was?
-
FYI: Aircraft aren't even visible as dots at D10.
And maintenance and pilots manuals say NOTHING about the effects of running the engine outside its recommended power settings. The ONLY thing they describe is what the manufacturer decided were the recommended power settings to use under controlled, every day, run of the mill flight conditions, which air-to-air combat WAS NOT.
-
However, I can put an end to this debate...
I apologize. I came into this with the assumption that at least some of you thought you were flying a SIM.
It's become clear that the vast majority think (and prefer) to be flying a GAME. I quote Baumer:
It is very clear to me that Aces High is NOT a simulation, it's a game.
Realism, accuracy, detail, none of those things matter in a game. You design for the most fun, not to try and create a set of historical conditions or parameters.
My fault for making that assumption.
And my parting shot is this:
How can you say things like: (Widewing)
There is no engine management in combat, you firewall it and cylinder head, coolant and oil temps be damned.
Right. See my earlier comment about deciding that it's not worth your time to gas up your car. You *will* care if you started an engagement with the engine already hot, and now your performance is diminishing instead of increasing.
Thus, work load in combat is minimal.
In some planes, true. But tell that to the Brewster pilots in Malaya who, in order to get anything like rated performance in combat had to manipulate the fuel pump while flying!!! :O (Yes, that's an extreme case). Or the pilots who had to be sure to lower rpms before a dive, or their engine *would* quit... or the Spit I drivers with carbureted engines, that had to go inverted before a dive or have the engine quit from negative Gs.
And finally, all of you fail to see the gray area between needing to manage your engine while out of combat, ferrying, transiting, cruising, etc. and having to firewall it during combat. Of course you need every bit of power for the fight, yes. No argument there. But the FACT was, you didn't use it full out all the time. Because you DID have to manage your engine.
-
or the Spit I drivers with carbureted engines, that had to go inverted before a dive or have the engine quit from negative Gs.
Take a Spit I up in the game and do a negative G pushover, then watch what happens.
For that matter, I wonder now if you ever HAVE actually flown in the game.
-
Stiglr,
The manual for the Mosquito Mk VI (which I have) doesn't mention overheating at all.
The only book I recall a Spitfire's engine locking up (twice to the same pilot) happened due to battle damage. The first took an oil hit over the channel and the pilot ran it until it locked up to get back over Britain and the second time he took an AA cannon round to the engine which stopped it immediately.
When Saburo Sakai was fighting alone in his A6M5 vs fifteen Hellcats he had his throttle firewalled the whole fight. His thoughts, according to the book, were something like "Forget the engine, burn it up if need be." and in that long fight for survival his engine did not lock up, it did not produce less power.
Never, not once, anywhere have I read of an engine actually failing like you insist would happen if you ran it past the manual's limits.
As to yur comments about damage and E loss. Damage is subjective, something that is impossible to model perfectly. E loss can be modeled very closely though. There are known formulas for that.
-
However, I can put an end to this debate...
I apologize. I came into this with the assumption that at least some of you thought you were flying a SIM.
Adios!
-
At least now i dont have to search a lanc's pilot's memoirs i once read, in which an engine failed on takeoff, so he proceeded to fly the entire mission at full throttle with his 3 remaining engines.
In all the RAF biographies i've read, i've never encountered a pilot being concerned with his engine overheating, with exception to taxiing and landing.
-
Second, I forgot to add a big part of why I wanted this added. This is suppost to be a flight simulator right? No? Combat simulator? Well what ever it is, I think that if the real pilots had to fly like this then we should too.
Real pilots did not HAVE to fly at reduced throttle, they were ordered to to reduce overall maintenance. The planes are perfectly capable of flying at mil power.
It is no difference than my plane, I can fly at full throttle for ever also, but it uses more gas and will reduce the time between overhauls.
What you suggest is not simulating the plane but rather simulating orders, if you take that view of modeling then you are no longer simulating "Vehicles" but rather the war.
HiTech
-
In all the RAF biographies i've read, i've never encountered a pilot being concerned with his engine overheating, with exception to taxiing and landing.
That's because the vast majority of flight time was non-combat time. When combat did occur, the results were usually decided in less than a minute.
In flight sim games we spend upwards of 10 minutes or more engaged in combat without breaks. If similar events had occured in "real life"tm, overheating would have been more of a concern.
-
Real pilots did not HAVE to fly at reduced throttle, they were ordered to to reduce overall maintenance. The planes are perfectly capable of flying at mil power.
It is no difference than my plane, I can fly at full throttle for ever also, but it uses more gas and will reduce the time between overhauls.
What you suggest is not simulating the plane but rather simulating orders, if you take that view of modeling then you are no longer simulating "Vehicles" but rather the war.
HiTech
*Sits back for Stiglr to complain about HTC not flying a WWII-era piston engine*
Really, I don't see anywhere that a SIMULATOR can really accurately represent the effects of this sort of wear on the engine. There's a handful of them out there that involve attrition (European Air War is the only one that really jumps out at me) but this is REALLY something that's more at home in an Real-time or Turn-based Strategy game, where maintenance times and supply would actually come into effect and impact your available aircraft.
As hitech more or less implied: A WAR game, not an air-combat simulator.
-
Never, not once, anywhere have I read of an engine actually failing like you insist would happen if you ran it past the manual's limits.
That's because Stiglr has never flown a military recip.... Then again, I have over 3,200 hours pushing those things through the sky. This gives me a slight advantage when discussing the topic of engine management....
My regards,
Widewing
-
Just to prevent misunderstanding, I'm not saying that overheating an engine would immediately cause it to fail. ;)
So many of you complain about Il-2, but I am yet to ever blow an engine from overheat in the game. I've run the F4U for 9 minutes with WEP and the "overheat" message and got bored before the engine blew.
-
Neither am I, Arax. But then, the others just aren't listening.
In an attempt to discredit the argument, they're trying to make it completely black and white, e.g., "if you abuse the engine, it immediately blows up, without fail, without delay." Which isn't what I'm saying at all.
What I'm saying is, if you run it full out for long periods of time, engine heat will collect and that will soon produce a lack of efficiency (loss of "full" power) and eventually it could burn up or fail.
As for those saying they've never heard of pilots being concerned about engine heat (whether at taxi or at any other time), they simply don't remember reading it, if they read it at all. I have many books that mention it, especially in theatres like the Mediterranean, the tropics and the Dutch East Indies.
And again, if heat were no consideration, why do ALL aircraft have not only engine heat gauges, but usually cylinder head temp and oil temp, and sometimes air temp gauges in the pit? And cooling gill controls? Because the engine heat has to be carefully monitored by the PILOT (not just the mechanics and ground crew) to keep the engine going, that's why. Otherwise that's a lot of gauges to cram into the pits for no apparent reason.
-
Stiglr,
You're wanting something to be applied over the course of a single sortie. As has been pointed out AD INFINITUM THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. The wear and tear on an engine that would occur from instances of pilots running beyond the manufacturer's specified power settings for durations exceeding the safety manuals (as has been pointed out, MANY times for all or parts of some sorties!) built up OVER TIME. As in, MULTIPLE MISSIONS.
-
I didn't notice stiglr made an appearance welcome to our board.
If you wish to remain on this board you will adhere to the rules. Calling me names, and miss quoting me in a derogatory manor will not be tolerated.
So to be clear about metric gauges.
I have no preference if AH is in metric or English units.
I have a very big preference that all planes use the same units.
The reason for this is simply a communication issue between all players. When calling an altitude to another person or your speed or what ever, I have no desire for anyone to have to convert units in your head.
2nd not many pilots of the world have to switch between metric and English on a 5 minute basis as would be the need if we did each plane in its native unit. This drives game play that players would tend to only fly English or metric planes and not mix switch easily between the 2.
This like many other "realism issues" that on the surface sound realistic, are not in the bigger since. How many pilots flying a fight had to think in a unit they are not used 2.
Finally if we need to choose 1 unit for all planes I will choose the unit that most of my customers are used to, I.E. English units.
SO stiglr if you ever quote me in a derogatory fashion again,as you did, you will be gone from this bbs. This is my home, do not even think of throwing stones because you will be escorted to the door very rapidly.
HiTech
-
moot wrote:
Yeah, sure, go to extremes to try and discredit the idea, without even trying it... that's a true fanboi tactic.
As I've said, I've seen it work, seen it work well, and not have it take away from dogfighting, but rather have it become an intriguing factor in dogfighting.
The actual FACT of it being a factor in flying and fighting, well that one you can't win, so don't bother.
Your turn...
Back that statement up. As far as I know the attitude you are portraying destroyed 1 game, and keeps another from ever getting a real following. So if you think "seen it work" is a few people having fun together think again. Exactly how many players are up in TW your current game of choice.
HiTech
-
Anaxogoras,
My experience with overheating in IL2 is very different. Shortly after the onset of the overheat my engine starts to lose power, rapidly reaching such critical power loss that the aircraft can no longer maintain level flight. That bears no similarity to actual engine performance.
What I'm saying is, if you run it full out for long periods of time, engine heat will collect and that will soon produce a lack of efficiency (loss of "full" power) and eventually it could burn up or fail.
You keep saying that we aren't listening, but we really are and you are not. The statement I quoted is flat out wrong and we have told you that over and over and over yet you do not listen.
-
What I'm saying is, if you run it full out for long periods of time, engine heat will collect and that will soon produce a lack of efficiency (loss of "full" power) and eventually it could burn up or fail.
Although these are modern aircraft, they're similar.
Run balls to the wall in a 182R and a 172, no issues, engine's still in excellent condition. HiTech, IIRC, flies a little wanna be plane (RV-8 ;)) and has probably run full for extended periods of time as well. So, first hand experiance, vs a manual (still haven't seen a page on a manual warning of engine overheating from throttle). Hmm...
-
OK, one at a time...
To those "you code it" or show me realistic engine management challenges... I deal with it all the time in Targetware.
Yes, it is simplified such that one system can handle many, many types of planes and engines from different countries. But, even in this simplified state, it's quite robust, adds the correct amount of "pilot workload" and well simulates the benefits and consequences of managing or mismanaging one's engine. As for IL-2, well they OVER-simplified it to the point where it pretty much doesn't even work. But, it can be, and has been, done.
The only problem is that both of your examples do not model realistic engine management. Just because you have to hit an extra button does not increase the 'realism' of the sim.
ack-ack
-
Anaxogoras,
My experience with overheating in IL2 is very different. Shortly after the onset of the overheat my engine starts to lose power, rapidly reaching such critical power loss that the aircraft can no longer maintain level flight. That bears no similarity to actual engine performance.
I agree. I don't know why it's different for us. Besides the F4U, I have also tried to bust the DB605 on the 109G-6, without success after 7 or 8 minutes of overheat, radiators closed (complex engine management on of course). Maybe it's something that changed with the latest version of the game, 4.08m.
-
I agree. I don't know why it's different for us. Besides the F4U, I have also tried to bust the DB605 on the 109G-6, without success after 7 or 8 minutes of overheat, radiators closed (complex engine management on of course). Maybe it's something that changed with the latest version of the game, 4.08m.
Could be a change within the last two or three years. I haven't run an IL2 game since back then.
-
Here's the problem... 90% of the playing population can't fly worth a crap as it is... Concentrate on what's important; flying, fighting and having fun.
My regards,
Widewing
Stop making sense damnit!
ack-ack
-
Just to prevent misunderstanding, I'm not saying that overheating an engine would immediately cause it to fail. ;)
So many of you complain about Il-2, but I am yet to ever blow an engine from overheat in the game. I've run the F4U for 9 minutes with WEP and the "overheat" message and got bored before the engine blew.
Anax: In a bizarre coincidence, I did this experiment this morning. It took 15 minutes of full throttle at 10K for the F4U-1A in Il2 to start making a bizarre squealing sound and lose power. Nothing changed on the RPM or MP gauges mind you, but speed fell off.
-
flies a little wanna be plane (RV-8 ;))
Suck my vertical climb rate. :D
HiTech
-
The simple FACT of it is that there's far more examples of pilots I'm aware of exceeding these power restrictions and returning to base to tell about it afterwards than there were aircraft that you can conclusively say WITH NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER, that "Oh, Bob was exceeding his maximum engine temperature for ten minutes and it seized up, causing him to crash."
As I said, the impact of such abuse was seen more often on the ground during maintenance than anywhere else.
I once spoke with a P-47 pilot at the Bradley Air Museum in CT and he told me that he had one hairy sortie and upon returning to the airfield in England, he didn't realize until he crawled out of the cockpit that he had fire-walled the throttle (WEP) and NEVER took it off for the whole rest of the sortie. The WEP ran dry and the engine continued to work flawlessly.
He said the ground crew guy was none too happy but he didn't really care ... he made it through the fight and made it home ... that's all he cared about.
-
One thing I WOULD like to see is that once your WEP is gone it's gone. Most of these planes used some sort of water/mix injection, so once you run it dry it shouldn't recharge again.
-
One thing I WOULD like to see is that once your WEP is gone it's gone. Most of these planes used some sort of water/mix injection, so once you run it dry it shouldn't recharge again.
How many of them fit this description? None of the Merlin powered aircraft do.
-
Anax: In a bizarre coincidence, I did this experiment this morning. It took 15 minutes of full throttle at 10K for the F4U-1A in Il2 to start making a bizarre squealing sound and lose power. Nothing changed on the RPM or MP gauges mind you, but speed fell off.
should be 30mins iirc, using our continuous mil pwr settings.
-
He said the ground crew guy was none too happy but he didn't really care ... he made it through the fight and made it home ... that's all he cared about.
I would love to see the reports from McGuire's ground crew when he'd bring back his Lightning all bent and twisted from his flying. Must make for some very funny reading.
ack-ack
-
Anax: In a bizarre coincidence, I did this experiment this morning. It took 15 minutes of full throttle at 10K for the F4U-1A in Il2 to start making a bizarre squealing sound and lose power. Nothing changed on the RPM or MP gauges mind you, but speed fell off.
15 minutes? That's a long time. All I can say is that the later versions of the game seem to have been brought to more "realistic" (whatever that means) standards of engine management. That's not to excuse years of having it wrong, but better late than never.
The irony is that the sim AH players love to rip on over engine management now allows you to run WEP without consequence for longer than AH. :lol
-
Stiglr,
You're wanting something to be applied over the course of a single sortie. As has been pointed out AD INFINITUM THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. The wear and tear on an engine that would occur from instances of pilots running beyond the manufacturer's specified power settings for durations exceeding the safety manuals (as has been pointed out, MANY times for all or parts of some sorties!) built up OVER TIME. As in, MULTIPLE MISSIONS.
Again, you truly don't understand what you are arguing about.....
If I were abuse an R-2800 (we used R-2800-52Ws), I would notify the crew chief and write it up. The mechanics would pull sumps and strainers and inspect the residue for magnetic material. An oil sample would be sent out for spectro-analysis to determine if there was any wear that would reduce engine life and/or reliability. If nothing negative was found, the aircraft would be signed off as ready for flight.
We suffered an engine failure in a C-131 shortly after takeoff on a very hot day. We were slightly over max allowable weight. I kept the remaining engine (number 1) at takeoff power for a very long time. Cylinder head and oil temps were barely above normal. You do what you have to do....
My regards,
Widewing
-
Take a Spit I up in the game and do a negative G pushover, then watch what happens.
For that matter, I wonder now if you ever HAVE actually flown in the game.
Probably hasn't...
:noid
-
Again, you truly don't understand what you are arguing about.....
If I were abuse an R-2800 (we used R-2800-52Ws), I would notify the crew chief and write it up. The mechanics would pull sumps and strainers and inspect the residue for magnetic material. An oil sample would be sent out for spectro-analysis to determine if there was any wear that would reduce engine life and/or reliability. If nothing negative was found, the aircraft would be signed off as ready for flight.
We suffered an engine failure in a C-131 shortly after takeoff on a very hot day. We were slightly over max allowable weight. I kept the remaining engine (number 1) at takeoff power for a very long time. Cylinder head and oil temps were barely above normal. You do what you have to do....
My regards,
Widewing
Just to clarify, are you referring to me, or Stiggie and using my post as an example?
-
Just to clarify, are you referring to me, or Stiggie and using my post as an example?
Stiglr....
I piggybacked it on your post... Should have been more clear.
-
15 minutes? That's a long time. All I can say is that the later versions of the game seem to have been brought to more "realistic" (whatever that means) standards of engine management. That's not to excuse years of having it wrong, but better late than never.
The irony is that the sim AH players love to rip on over engine management now allows you to run WEP without consequence for longer than AH. :lol
Breaking after 15 minutes isn't realistic. Realistic engine modeling would basically equal infinite WEP for all planes, since there would be very little chance of them breaking from being balls to the wall for the typical, what, 20 minutes max?, that players would be in combat. I think the "book time limit", automatic shutoff, no breaking on you, is actually a good compromise.
-
Ok, fair enough. But if I had to choose between 5 minutes and automatic shutoff, or 15 minutes and engine failure, I'm going with the 15 minute option every time. Let me run the engine hot and decide for myself when it's time to throttle back.
I'm also sympathetic to widewing's idea that WEP recharge time should be affected by throttle in AH.
-
Ok, fair enough. But if I had to choose between 5 minutes and automatic shutoff, or 15 minutes and engine failure, I'm going with the 15 minute option every time. Let me run the engine hot and decide for myself when it's time to throttle back.
I'm also sympathetic to widewing's idea that WEP recharge time should be affected by throttle in AH.
To me an engine failure way too early is less...lets call it aesthetically pleasing...than the little cartoon pilot saying "Okay Junior, I got the ship, we're pulling her back down to book settings". Plus, 15 minutes of WEP is basically infinite WEP for MA purposes.
I agree about recharge time though.
-
Adink writes:
The reason for this is simply a communication issue between all players. When calling an altitude to another person or your speed or what ever, I have no desire for anyone to have to convert units in your head.
2nd not many pilots of the world have to switch between metric and English on a 5 minute basis as would be the need if we did each plane in its native unit. This drives game play that players would tend to only fly English or metric planes and not mix switch easily between the 2.
I'll call BS on that, Dale.
For one thing, you're discrediting the ability of people to be able to think. Expressing 10,000 feet as about 3km is describing the same distance. Why this "need" to have to use same units? I'm extremely math challenged IRL, and yet I can keep them straight in my head, after flying virtually for several years.
Also, because of your 'murrican mindset, don't you think your Euro flyers might be much more used to km/h, or km alt than feet and inches (In fact most of the world is at odds with feet & inches)? Oh, and by the way, I did quote (or rather paraphrase) you correctly on the communication between us way back when when I requested accurate gauges in the various types. You actually did basically say that "this is an American audience game" and basically say no other viewpoint was relevant.
As for your comments about Targetware, don't forget that popularity doesn't mean superiority. I'll wager a lot of AH's popularity has do to with the fact that it is, by you and your players' own admission a GAME first and a sim a distant second. The above discussion on units attests to that. You'd rather leave out the detail of accurate gauges in favor of some perceived gameplay benefit.
And, the problems over at TW have much more to do with the core coding cabal than anything I may have done or said. I will say I wish they were as dedicated as you and your team in terms of producing product and supporting it. :salute to you for that, at least.
And, as a final note, don't bother with the ban threats, please. For one, I don't really care. For two, I would ask you to apply the same yardstick to your fans, and the way some of them reply in this same post (and actually, I don't think any of them have crossed any lines, either, unlike on some other boards). I haven't done anything even remotely out of bounds as far as your rules go. So for you to pull out the ban-stick on this would simply be because you want to stifle debate.
-
Stiglr,
No comments about your request as being revealed to be the unrealistic, gamey crap you rail against?
-
Adink writes:
I'll call BS on that, Dale.
For one thing, you're discrediting the ability of people to be able to think. Expressing 10,000 feet as about 3km is describing the same distance. Why this "need" to have to use same units? I'm extremely math challenged IRL, and yet I can keep them straight in my head, after flying virtually for several years.
Also, because of your 'murrican mindset, don't you think your Euro flyers might be much more used to km/h, or km alt than feet and inches (In fact most of the world is at odds with feet & inches)? Oh, and by the way, I did quote (or rather paraphrase) you correctly on the communication between us way back when when I requested accurate gauges in the various types. You actually did basically say that "this is an American audience game" and basically say no other viewpoint was relevant.
Well hmm, valid point, oh, wait, never mind, you phail.
This is HIS game, not yours, can it.
His dicision on gauges makes perfect sense, IRL, 2 people would be communicating using the same units, 1 f-15 wouldn't be using km while the other mi (that's cause they'd both be using knots. ;)). Unification is what he's going for, and well yes, it IS a more of an American based game, why? Cause it's made here in the US of A. Shocking, I know, someone would go with the units for the area it's made...
So again, you fail, go away. if you don't like it.
-
Suck my vertical climb rate. :D
HiTech
Kiss my vertical dive rate! :aok
-
Hi all,
I hesitaded very much before posting a reply on this thread. I am afraid of contributing only to bring attention on a very insignificant matter.
What we have here is a discussion about if Aces High should be a flight simulator or a game. If you try to assume it is a simulator then this wish - that, apparently, is beeing presented as a major flaw and, therefore, a mandatory fix - is valid. If it is a game, makes no sense at all.
I believe that all of AH older users have already understood that Aces High is the next best thing to a WW2 flight combat simulator. Aces High is right were it has to be right, is fair were discretion must be applied and humble enough to keep improving it. But these older users have no illusions about AH not beeing a hard-core flight simulator. And although they would allways welcome more immersive functionalities - in planes, weather, etc. - they will never try to impose it to the whole community.
Simmers want 100% historical and technical accuracy, they enjoy immersion above all else. Gamers play for points and ranking. Simmers wish the impossible. What they want to feel is impossible to be felt behind a computer. Thank God, the majority of Aces High users are true enthusiasts and very realistic persons that enjoy the best they can a close interpretation of WW2 combat.
I must admit that, if more realistic functionalities were introduced, I would enjoy some of them and hate some others... I have, myself, contributed in these forums with some very non-original "ideas"... just do a search, you will all see what I mean...
Let me tell you one story. I believe that in the past there was the option of having metric readings in cockpit instruments - have I dreamed? My memory plays tricks on me lately. I never used it and I am an european. You know why? It's simple: I "learned" to fly in british/american sims/games where the aircraft had instruments in knots/mph/feet... I understand 5.000 feet, I fail to understand 1.500 meters quickly, I must mentally convert it, it is tiring and distracting. But if I had to, well, Iwould have to get used to them. But not by option.
Also, I remember - was it in WB or in AH? - to have seized a Spitfire engine by flying inverted for too long. Yes, this is true. I was fooling around with my squad mates doing that Top Gun joke and I did it for too long. It seized.
In real life, things like not having a Vokes air filter in Malta or North Africa would mean that your engine would die sooner and could fail on you more often than not... and many did when they needed it most. Even stupid things like dust could kill you. Engines would start to run rough, losing power, overheating, seizing in flight... Sometimes they even failed to accelerate on the take-off run, the booster valve stucked closed by sand and oil...
In real life, pilots dove in a con and the temperature differences between cold and warm air layers frosted canopies and front windshields in such way they couldn’t see, let alone aim or fire… Guns froze al altitude, ice build on wings and control surfaces, props ran away, you name it!
This was real life, this cannot be reproduced in a computer sim. You would have to randomize these things, build athmosferic systems for others to work, sorry, it makes no sense. Why have such trouble developing ultra advanced systems when not even NIGHT is well accepted? And when in NIGHT mode, you know that some people end up tuning his graphic settings to turn NIGHT into DAY?
What is the point of bringing in so much “realism” that you start not enjoying the thing? If this is to be like work, I want to be paid for it…
There are other issues in Aces High that must have higher priority and are of much higher importance to many more users than this. Close or open a radiator cowling? Please… Turning landing lights on or off? Give me a break! I am sure that the vast majority of Aces High users would laugh if this was implemented before, let’s say… the He-111…
Dear fellow pilot: I do not wish to be rude, but you must think better about the importance of such minutea. Enjoy Aces High for what it has of good. Express your ideas, formulate your desires, participate in this community life. But accept that some of your ideas are not so good, feasible or even fair to implement.
Enjoy Aces High, I will be delighted to fly with you or against you. Planes are free.
<Salute>
-
You really don't know what the hell you're talking about... We fly a combat sim, not a Cessna tooling around the midwest. From the time the wheels are in the wells, you had better be ready to fight. There is no engine management in combat, you firewall it and cylinder head, coolant and oil temps be damned. Engines can be replaced, your bellybutton is the only one available. Use up an engine? That's why God made mechanics. You can build an engine in several hours, a fighter in a few days. Pilots take years to train.
Flying with your head in the cockpit is the fastest way to get dead. Everything forward, and you don't even think about engine management, unless you want to die.
Prop to full RPM, mixture to rich, throttle up, gun switch on, gunsight on... Everything listed should already have been done prior to initial contact... Thus, work load in combat is minimal.
If you want engine management, you have it. Get the respective aircraft manual and fly it by the book. Be my guest. But, I'll bet you throw away the book when you find my fighter on your six... "The heck with engine management, I gotta get the hell out of here!"
It wouldn't matter tho, I'll bet I could send you a telegram the day before and you still wouldn't be prepared for me.... :rock
My regards,
Widewing
The analogy I've always used with Pilots are that "They are likened to Race Car Drivers". You do one thing, you drive, your crew takes care of the car to prep for race day. The driver, just drives.
I'd say the same with pilots as well. Pilots leave their ground crews to the maintenance and overhauling, to allow the pilot the best chance of returning for another sortie.
Stigler just seems hellbent on avoiding a very simple detail and putting whitewash all over it.
-
Shocking, I know, someone would go with the units for the area it's made...
Case in point:
While Il-2 gives aircraft their accurate gauges (German aircraft in Metric and American in English units) all COMMUNICATIONS in the game are given in Metric, rather than in the appropriate measurement for the aircraft you're flying. Why? Because the game's designers are based in RUSSIA. Double-standard, Stiggie, to blast HTC for using one unit of measure while ignoring the fact that other developers do the same.
Also, think about communications in the game. ASSUMING you ever play. This is an example of what you might see on TXT:
Saxman: Visual four bogies, my left 10 low, alt 5k.
Widewing: Roger tally, alt 5k. Con two P-51s and two P-47s 3.5k out.
Gavagai: CC 51s and 47s. Three more behind them higher, about 7-8k
So tell me Stiggie, what altitude and range are those contacts at? With that information would you be able to tell whether they're at 5000ft or 15,000?
This is PRECISELY why the game has universal units of measure. If both Widewing and I are in F4U-1As we'd be seeing it as 5000ft. But if Gavagai is in a 109, his altimeter would be reading ~1500m instead. Unless he KNEW we meant feet he'd be confused. In a situation where people on the same country may be flying aircraft from different sides of the conflict it only makes things more difficult if each aircraft displayed different units of measure. It's NOT so much transitioning from one aircraft to another. As has been said, the math isn't TOO hard (multiply meters by 3 and you more or less have the same in feet. Multiply airspeed in mph by ~1.5 to get km/h) that it would prevent someone from flying a sortie in a 109 then jumping into a P-38 and being totally confused when looking at the gauges. The problem is that if you're in a 109 and are winging with a P-38 uniform measurements are needed to facilitate communications between you.
sparow,
Good post. However part of the problem is that what Stiggie and others are asking for is no more realistic than what we have now. The notion that engines run at full power would overheat and then lose performance in the manner they're asking over the course of ONE sortie is ludicrous. As multiple experienced pilots in this thread have pointed out: IT DOES NOT HAPPEN (funny that Stiggie is so proud of his book smarts he ignores what people who actually fly for a living have to tell him). What WOULD happen is that the ground crew would need to tear down the engine, check for damage and run tests to determine if anything needed to be adjusted before the aircraft could be signed off to return to flight, taking the aircraft out of action for however many hours or days it took to complete the check-out. When you consider that in some theaters or engagements pilots were flying 2, 3, even FOUR sorties a day (during some attacks on the Tokyo Express and Japanese shipping during Guadalcanal, Cactus Air Force pilots often took off, dropped their bombs, returned to the base and never even climbed out of their cockpits as they were gassed and armed to go out and do it again another four or five times before they finally shut down) having an aircraft down for maintenance was a big deal. But maintenance does NOT come into play in Aces High.
What you're talking about regarding the air filters is a different matter. This is the result of something actually PHYSICALLY clogging up the engine. Foreign objects are bad for precision moving parts.
-
Adink writes:
I'll call BS on that, Dale.
For one thing, you're discrediting the ability of people to be able to think. Expressing 10,000 feet as about 3km is describing the same distance. Why this "need" to have to use same units? I'm extremely math challenged IRL, and yet I can keep them straight in my head, after flying virtually for several years.
Also, because of your 'murrican mindset, don't you think your Euro flyers might be much more used to km/h, or km alt than feet and inches (In fact most of the world is at odds with feet & inches)? Oh, and by the way, I did quote (or rather paraphrase) you correctly on the communication between us way back when when I requested accurate gauges in the various types. You actually did basically say that "this is an American audience game" and basically say no other viewpoint was relevant.
As for your comments about Targetware, don't forget that popularity doesn't mean superiority. I'll wager a lot of AH's popularity has do to with the fact that it is, by you and your players' own admission a GAME first and a sim a distant second. The above discussion on units attests to that. You'd rather leave out the detail of accurate gauges in favor of some perceived gameplay benefit.
And, the problems over at TW have much more to do with the core coding cabal than anything I may have done or said. I will say I wish they were as dedicated as you and your team in terms of producing product and supporting it. :salute to you for that, at least.
And, as a final note, don't bother with the ban threats, please. For one, I don't really care. For two, I would ask you to apply the same yardstick to your fans, and the way some of them reply in this same post (and actually, I don't think any of them have crossed any lines, either, unlike on some other boards). I haven't done anything even remotely out of bounds as far as your rules go. So for you to pull out the ban-stick on this would simply be because you want to stifle debate.
GScholz? Because you come out of nowhere and now rip into Dale over this "aspect" of the game? You seem to have had an agenda from your first post and took 9 pages to see it through.
I'm an American and enjoy being one. I treat others, the same as they treat me. My nationality has ZERO bearing on my gameplay, etc. For you to even mention nationalities at all is selfish at best.
-
What you're talking about regarding the air filters is a different matter. This is the result of something actually PHYSICALLY clogging up the engine. Foreign objects are bad for precision moving parts.
Thank you for your comment, Saxman. Should we ask HTC to model dust? :D LOL!
I believe that at this point, this is demonstrating that the reasons behind Stiglr insistence are deeper than the simple porsuit of a personal wish...
<Salute>
-
Stiglr,
No comments about your request as being revealed to be the unrealistic, gamey crap you rail against?
Don't understand the charge... I stand by the evidence I've posted. Done properly (and IL-2 isn't "properly"), engine management does add more detail, more realism, AND more fun to a sim.
As for the relative "gaminess" of it, even a poor attempt at EM is less gamey than simply plugging one's ears, intoning "la-la-la-la-la....I can't hear you... la-la-la" and pretending it doesn't exist or wasn't a factor in flying these aircraft.
-
Honestly, why would it be so good to have different airplanes reading in different units of measure..other than to cause confusion. Because if you done that, you would also have to change your units of weight in the EB6, gun convergence distances, aircraft distances etc... At which point the game would start to fade away from being fun. As they say.."Becareful of what you wish for"
my views on not having engine over heating has already been expressed a number of times.
-
Suck my vertical climb rate. :D
HiTech
Do keep this post in mind when/if you start looking for a basis to swing the "ban stick" my way.
That's fairly "vulgar and obscene", what you wrote there....
-
What we have here is a discussion about if Aces High should be a flight simulator or a game. If you try to assume it is a simulator then this wish - that, apparently, is beeing presented as a major flaw and, therefore, a mandatory fix - is valid. If it is a game, makes no sense at all.
There's no need to assume anything.. HT and others (mostly HT) comment on it on the forums and during conventions, so that there's plenty of evidence for exactly what they mean AH to be.
The game/simulator thing is semantics and it's straighter to the point to consider the explicit design intent straight from the game designers.Simmers want 100% historical and technical accuracy, they enjoy immersion above all else. Gamers play for points and ranking. Simmers wish the impossible.
Inaccurate... This is the kind of nonsense (litterally, with all due respect) that you get when you do the semantics thing.
-
jdbecks wrote:
Honestly, why would it be so good to have different airplanes reading in different units of measure..other than to cause confusion. Because if you done that, you would also have to change your units of weight in the EB6, gun convergence distances, aircraft distances etc...
1) Because there WERE two units of measure systems in use in WWII aircraft. That's just FACT.
2) Your units of measure in the code don't change an iota, it's all in how they're PRESENTED to the player. As an example, the code in Targetware references metric, imperial and english ... oh, yes, and KNOTS, too, for the Navy pukes. The calculations in the code are most often metric behind the scenes. But, a US gauge still shows either knots or feet/gallons/etc. on the respective gauges. Simply because you just do basic math to tell a needle how far to rotate or move on a piece of 3D art to read the proper units.
This really comes down to how much detail you're willing to put into production. Yes, it does take a bit of effort to create the artwork for proper gauges... but a person who prefers a SIM sees value in it. A gamer, probably, does not.
-
Stiglr: I did not threaten you , I very simply told you the rules that are listed at the top of every forum.
'murrican mindset, don't you think your Euro flyers might be much more used to km/h, or km alt than feet and inches
Anyone else see the rule breaking in this post.
Stiglr you have used derogatory term in your reference to me as an American. You did previously also. Clean it up or be gone. I posted in a respectful way to you, if you are not willing to do the same.
For one thing, you're discrediting the ability of people to be able to think. Expressing 10,000 feet as about 3km is describing the same distance. Why this "need" to have to use same units? I'm extremely math challenged IRL, and yet I can keep them straight in my head, after flying virtually for several years.
Unlike you I am extremely not math challenged. Very few people can keep up with me in quick approximate math in your head, I also have my BS in math. I have also flown aerobatics in yaks in Ukraine using metric gauges. First loop I did I estimated speed conversion wrong and stalled before loop completion. Evey manaver entry I had to think 3 times to be sure my minimum altitude was correct Even though it can be done, anyone who has done it knows it is a pain in the попа. So like normal you speak from what you think is true while those of us have done it for real know what is true.
HiTech
-
I am going to respond one last time about engine reliability, and after this post, I will NEVER again respond in a discussion about it, on this board.
I agree with the uber reliability folks on the following points;
- A pilot (in real life) will do what ever it takes to get back, regardless of some numbers in a book or on a placard on the instrument panel
- There are many anecdotal stories of engines pushed well past their design limits, for extraordinary times and distances
- That during World War 2 most combat aircraft (of all country's) were pushed well past the manufacture's recommendations
But to read over and over that these engines were faultless and or could never fail in one flight, is completely baseless and inaccurate. I suggest that many of you really go look at the history much more closely. I suggest you start with a book titled Sigh for a Merlin by Alex Henshaw from Arrow Books. He was a factory test pilot for Supermarine and tested Spitfires through out the war. He does a very good job explaining what it was like testing all these aircraft and many of the issues they faced.
But as a point if you look to the last page (pg 205) he provides "Summary of flying from Castle Bromwich Works from June 1940 to January 1946"
He states that;
"During this period 11,694 Spitfire aircraft and 305 Lancaster bombers were produced at Castle Bromwich and the dispersal factories of Cosford and Desford. In the course of the production and performance trials completed on these aircraft, 8210 hours were flown on Spitfire aircraft and 344 hours on Lancasters, involving 900 Lancaster test flights and 33,918 for Spitfires. During five years of flying, 25 pilots were engaged for six months or longer, the majority of these comprising RAF officers who had completed various tours of active service. 127 forced landings were made, largely due to engine failures of one sort or another. Out of this number, in spite of often appalling weather and the critical nature f the failure, 76 aircraft were landed with the wheels down and no further damage."
These are his words, not mine and they relate to testing aircraft before they were delivered to the RAF or other armed forces. And just to be clear this is not about testing new prototype Spitfires but standard production models.
I strongly suggest reading the book, and appreciate the tremendous technological advancements that were made in manufacturing during this time. Prior to WW2 Aircraft safety and reliability ranged from mediocre to abysmal, the amazing growth of aviation after the war is due to the huge strides in reliability that were achieved during this time. But to keep perpetuating the notion that reliability was not a daily concern of the pilots and crews, dose a disservice to their sacrifice, both in the air in battle, and in the factory's making things better.
And with that I am done with this topic,
<S>
-
jdbecks wrote:
1) Because there WERE two units of measure systems in use in WWII aircraft. That's just FACT.
2) Your units of measure in the code don't change an iota, it's all in how they're PRESENTED to the player. As an example, the code in Targetware references metric, imperial and english ... oh, yes, and KNOTS, too, for the Navy pukes. The calculations in the code are most often metric behind the scenes. But, a US gauge still shows either knots or feet/gallons/etc. on the respective gauges. Simply because you just do basic math to tell a needle how far to rotate or move on a piece of 3D art to read the proper units.
This really comes down to how much detail you're willing to put into production. Yes, it does take a bit of effort to create the artwork for proper gauges... but a person who prefers a SIM sees value in it. A gamer, probably, does not.
I was not disputing there are different units of measurement, just because WW2 aircrafts used different units of measure, deos not mean it would be good for the game. It would not improve immersion to the game when you are flying a spitfire and winging up with a 109 etc.
Which also draws onto my next point, this is a game, not a simulator, this has also been stated by HTC.
-
jdbecks wrote:
1) Because there WERE two units of measure systems in use in WWII aircraft. That's just FACT.
2) Your units of measure in the code don't change an iota, it's all in how they're PRESENTED to the player. As an example, the code in Targetware references metric, imperial and english ... oh, yes, and KNOTS, too, for the Navy pukes. The calculations in the code are most often metric behind the scenes. But, a US gauge still shows either knots or feet/gallons/etc. on the respective gauges. Simply because you just do basic math to tell a needle how far to rotate or move on a piece of 3D art to read the proper units.
This really comes down to how much detail you're willing to put into production. Yes, it does take a bit of effort to create the artwork for proper gauges... but a person who prefers a SIM sees value in it. A gamer, probably, does not.
Exactly how big is the player base in TW? And what is the max they have ever had online at one time? And how much money have they made with there game? How important is it to TW to please the biggest audience because they like to eat every night?
And like always you ignore the important points and just keep on spouting your own view point.
HiTech
-
Masherbrum writes:
My nationality has ZERO bearing on my gameplay, etc. For you to even mention nationalities at all is selfish at best.
It shows how little you understand what I wrote. I'm not saying that being American is a bad thing. I'm American and proud of it. But, I'm also proud to say that I do have a bit of a world view, too, and the two are not mutually-exclusive as the Rush Limbaugh/Glen Becks of the world might have you believe.
I mention the "American viewpoint" because that's what Dale expressed to me as his reason for not having accurate gauges in the aircraft pits. Either that or the so-called "confusion" explanation are both paper-thin.
@ Dale: 'murrian is derogatory? A slur? Really? According to exactly whom? If you can show that it is, I'll amend every post I've used the term in to read "American".
-
Exactly how big is the player base in TW? And what is the max they have ever had online at one time? And how much money have they made with there game? How important is it to TW to please the biggest audience because they like to eat every night?
And like always you ignore the important points and just keep on spouting your own view point.
HiTech
1) The player base. It's small. But it's been a lot larger in the past, when Mk9 actually supported the product and actually communicated with its audience. The fact that they don't is a big factor in its small appeal. But I'll tell you this: the people who still ARE there, are there because they see value in a better sim. And the fact that we can create something, something of BETTER quality (in terms of a sim, definitely not as a game or popular, money-making venture, where you beat us all day long) than you and your paid team can produce while making $0 at it... I think that says something about what WE value.
2) Don't know the max online figure, as I don't run the metaserver or keep stats. But, I'm pretty sure it can reliably host hundreds, just like WB or AH can. It doesn't have the same limitations as say, IL-2 run over HyperLobby.
3) Don't know about money either, as I'm not in the "collections" end of it. But we hear loud and clear that you certainly ARE. Yeah, I know it's your business to make money, but I happen to think you could draw a line between "a good sim" and a "popular money making venture" in a different place. "Because the customer whines to get it their way, and will stamp their feet, take their ball and go home" isn't as good a reason to model (or not to model) something as historical fact.
4) Targetware certainly doesn't aim to please the biggest audience: simply because the "biggest audience" (and one that dwarfs AH's by a quantum leap) would be your Nintendo/Wii playing console folks who are even a step below AH in discerning anything like quality.
At the end of the day, the one FACT that puts this whole discussion to bed is the admission that "AH is just a game". Doesn't aspire to anything more accurate or of higher historical or simulation value than that.
That was my biggest mistake, assuming that some people here might actually see value in a highly accurate survey sim. I stand corrected. I can now be more certain that it wouldn't be worth my while to pay for a monthly subscription at AH.
-
jdbecks wrote:
It would not improve immersion to the game when you are flying a spitfire and winging up with a 109 etc.
:O
Hooo boy, where do I start with THAT one?
For one, accuracy in the cockpit can't do anything but INCREASE immersion. Have you ever looked into the cockpit of a REAL aircraft in a museum and had a deja vu experience because that's almost exactly how it looks in the sim you play? If you fly AH, probably not. I've had the pleasure of that experience, because in my sim, most of the aircraft ARE faithfully recreated... and I make sure to put that kind of detail in any cockpit I produce myself.
For two, how much "immersion" is there in the unheard of scenario of a "Spitfire winging up with a 109"???? That only happens in a silly arena game, it wouldn't happen in a SIM.
And finally, for three, I could "wing with" either of those planes and keep the units straight in my head. Only because I've done so for quite some time. It's really not that hard... :rolleyes:
-
Baumer wrote:
I agree with the uber reliability folks on the following points;
* A pilot (in real life) will do what ever it takes to get back, regardless of some numbers in a book or on a placard on the instrument panel
* There are many anecdotal stories of engines pushed well past their design limits, for extraordinary times and distances
* That during World War 2 most combat aircraft (of all country's) were pushed well past the manufacture's recommendations
I'm with you 100% on that. Still...
1) Of course anyone will do whatever it takes to survive... but that doesn't mean your aircraft will cooperate, does it?
2) Some people are forgetting that my hypothesis on engine management agrees with their idea of "balls to the wall, and beyond" handling of engines during combat. It's the expectation that you can do that for the other 50 minutes out of the 1-hour sortie (in AH) that's the problem. Most of the "management" happens OUTSIDE of combat, so that you CAN go full out during those few seconds of terror. And it's a factor as well, that when you start combat, you might not do so from a standpoint of having good fighting trim.
Hope you won't make good on your threat not to EVER post again on the subject. It's a sign of a lack of conviction in your post to make an edict like that, and claim to have the "last word" when you have nothing of the sort.
-
because in my sim,
Something fishy :eek:
-
Stiglr you are correct AH is a game, but so is every other piece of software you listed. You just like to fool yourself into thinking they are not a game because they are YOUR favorite. The sim/game argument is truly idiotic. Simulators are not an end result, they are a tool to used for some other goal, such as training (many different task in training) to testing a design before going to real production , to teach the mechanics of aerodynamics and also to compete against other people in a game simply to have fun. Even in a game there are different choices made to simulate different things, you are trying to say that trying to reproduce the gauges of an airplane is an important part of simulation. Well if your goal was to teach someone to fly a real version of that plane, and that was the only plane they needed to learn, then yes it is important. It also becomes important to place each gauge where the real one is, and have multiple screens so the field of view and perphial vision match the real plane, also there is no way you would want to have a key board because you need switches so that you know where they are when you are in flight. Oh btw you would also force each person to stay on the ground idealing for 15 mins on most days to warm up the engine oil.
But if your goal is to give a person the feel of flying that plane, and being able to quickly switch from 1 plane to another then putting in gauges like the original plane had is just plane stupid. It is equivalent to saying a game sucks because every person is not flying with an exact replication made of real switches of the cockpit and a replication of all switches that also must not work on occasion.
And the reality is that when it comes to performance and flight dynamics AH beets every product on the market. Go do some climb rate/turn rates/speed test/fuel burn rates at all altitudes ,rpm & manifold pressure settings and then compare them to real world charts. See how we stack up vs all the others "SIMS" you speak of. You will very quickly find the others only have the illusion of realism like pushing a key on a key board to open a cowl flap. You may think that is fun, but most people do not. Puting the plane on edge and seat of the pance flight is what AH excels at.
HiTech
-
Dale writes:
Well if your goal was to teach someone to fly a real version of that plane, and that was the only plane they needed to learn, then yes it is important. It also becomes important to place each gauge where the real one is, and have multiple screens so the field of view and perphial vision match the real plane, also there is no way you would want to have a key board because you need switches so that you know where they are when you are in flight.
What's your point? In Targetware, in most planes, each gauge IS where the real one is, and it LOOKS like the real one. The peripheral vision is remarkably similar to the real thing (we have a distinct lack of the Linda Blair view that you've kept popular). The various switches and levers are animated to move when you type the command or whatever it is you do to invoke the control. It ends up being about the same "effort" to do so in game as a "checked out" pilot would expend to physically manipulate the button in the real pit. You can "look at the control" and it will likely give you the right information. As I've said before, it's not the EFFORT of manipulating a switch so much as the consequences of remembering or forgetting to do the task.
Is it "100% accurate"? Of course not. And we all know the same old saws about "you don't really die, and you don't really feel Gs, pain and cold"... But saying that the choice is only between "ignoring FACTS and REALITIES because you think they're 'no fun' " and making it "100% ironclad" is a pretty naive view. You CAN have a detailed sim, and a historically relevant teaching tool, and involving gameplay, and it CAN be fun, too. All in one package.
Then Dale writes:
And the reality is that when it comes to performance and flight dynamics AH beets every product on the market. Go do some climb rate/turn rates/speed test/fuel burn rates at all altitudes ,rpm & manifold pressure settings and then compare them to real world charts.
How is accurate fuel burn possible with 2/3 horizontal scale maps and 100% scale vertical altitudes? And how would you test that, in say, a Me109 when the manifold pressures are expressed in atmospheres? And how do you explain the laser gunnery model which lets you be highly accurate at 600+ yards while pulling Gs (this seen from a YouTube video posted just today)?
-
How is accurate fuel burn possible with 2/3 horizontal scale maps and 100% scale vertical altitudes? And how would you test that, in say, a Me109 when the manifold pressures are expressed in atmospheres? And how do you explain the laser gunnery model which lets you be highly accurate at 600+ yards while pulling Gs (this seen from a YouTube video posted just today)?
Your the one who can convert units in your head so it should be easy for you. Since you do it all the time when switch planes.
Go test them, get the books, chart the speeds, test the dispersion patterns, test the gun ranges, test the drop of each bullet. As I said our goal is to duplicate flight dynamics.
And your switches are not real in any way shape or form, can you reach out and grab the switch and raise it? If not how can you call your game a sim. You should have to buy a real panel, not a simple computer screen to call that simple "GAME" a sim.
Linda BLAIR :) How many times have you been pulling 6 g's looking around in an air plane, do you have a clue how much you can see, and how easy it is to track a real plane once engaged vs how difficult it is in a game with a hat switch and computer screen. I have many hours in real planes dog fighting,I have no idea how much time I have spent over 4 g's but it is a lot. Turning my head to see directly behind me. Once again you wish to believe what you think but have never experienced.
I am now done disusing with you , because you are becoming a moving target. Every time you are put in a corner and shown to be incorrect you choose a new topic to throw some more stones. Then simply make stuff up because your arguments do not stand up to any form of logic. And what is truly amazing you choose to criticize a game I doubt you have spent more than 2 hours in your life playing.
HiTech
HiTech
-
I give this thread 2 more pages.
-
I'm surprised we HAVEN'T gotten to this yet:
(http://thorgolucky.com/images/Banstick_Hyah.jpg)
-
Dale wrote:
And your switches are not real in any way shape or form, can you reach out and grab the switch and raise it? If not how can you call your game a sim.
This truly shows how little you understand about simulation. You don't need to be able to "grab a physical switch" to simulate doing it, nor to simulate the importance of doing that task in the real plane. That's why it's a simulation instead of a "virtual reality". I don't also need to tell you that even though you can't feel Gs and you don't really black out, having your screen go tunnel vision and having the simulator start ignoring stick input is a pretty good simulation of G-LOC effects (which, yes, I have felt in real life; it's one reason I usually don't complain about having it happen to me in a sim or a game...! :) ) C'mon, Dale, you can do better than that... that's a true GAMER dodge argument.
On viewing and simulating viewing: we see things completely differently in this regard. While I don't claim to have as much flight time as you, when I did fly a WWII-era trainer, one of the first things I noticed was, strapped in with a parachute pack, your viewing is highly restricted. And that's in a cockpit with a big, long, Dauntless-style canopy. You don't have a lot of range of movement in a cramped fighter canopy, and the majority of pilots did strap in. That "dog with his head outside the car window" capability, that I first saw in the first iterations of AH, is laughable. WWII planes were infamous for their lack of ability to see behind the wingline; that's why they developed bubble canopies and why today's jets have the pilot in a perspex bubble on top of the fuselage for the most part. And it was also the main reason why you tended to fly with a wingman: part of his job was to watch your 4-8:00 arc, because you yourself couldn't very well. Dealing with that reality is part of the challenge of flying... and as such, part of the challenge of a sim.
I'll have to take your word for your accuracy vs. charts. But then, Oleg Maddox says the same thing about IL-2, and you don't even need a chart to see how full of crap his evaluation is. Then there's the little matter of how he is adamant about how the position of the gunsight is in his Focke Wulf... accurate according to the blueprints, he says. Unfortunately, he won't listen when you tell him that because his sim doesn't model the visual effects of refraction through very thick armored glass, the effect in-game is that a good portion of that gunsight is obscured from the player's view, especially if he's pulling any kind of G. Now, I'm not saying he should model refraction... but I am saying he shouldn't saddle the FW pilots in his sim with an obscured view through the gunsight. The most equitable solution, of course, is to "artificially" raise the sight a smidge on his model to give the player the actual view the pilots of the 190 saw... but no, Oleg just goes to his, "Is correct, be sure" argument-ender, ignoring inconvenient facts in both reality AND in game design.
So, as you can see, there are lies, damned lies and then there's statistics. In Oleg's case, he's right from a physical standpoint, and totally wrong from a game design (as in, the effect on the players) viewpoint.
We both probably agree that there's a mix of gameplay decisions and practical performance decisions and some desire to get the facts right, and all three are at play, whether your goal is a game or a sim. But, from all the policies you're defending here, and the rea$on$ behind mo$t of them, I can't possibly agree that anything can be accurate in Aces High.
-
Stiglr, why don't you just go away?
-
As I said,Im done, you again just throw more darts. Completely change the topic, and can not form any logical argument. You are now complaining about a different game company and trying to use there views to do I do not know. And then you throw the dart
"I can't possibly agree that anything can be accurate in Aces High" With hyperbole like that you do not believe anyone can take you serious do you?
HiTech
-
Stiglr, honest question, do you have any real flight experiance? Coding experiance? If you answered no on either, please, shut up...
In flight things are different than from your nice little armchair. You see, there you're actually at risk, combat or not. There, you can physically feel the effects of what you do, you feel the strain of what you do, you feel. In here, you don't. The gauges, no, they're not realistic, but nor do they need to be. They relay the same information, do the same job, and do it just as well. In real planes, the gauges may be different, they may be positioned differently, you may have a VFR panel, or you may have a glass cockpit, but it all does the same.exact.thing. The thing is COMMUNICATION, which was MUCH more important in WWII than ANY panel you had, plain and simple.
So, again I ask, do you have any REAL flight experiance? Coding experiance? If no, shut up.
-
Stiglr, why don't you develop your own game...oh wait, you don't know what it takes to develop a game. My mistake.
ack-ack
-
Masherbrum writes:
It shows how little you understand what I wrote. I'm not saying that being American is a bad thing. I'm American and proud of it. But, I'm also proud to say that I do have a bit of a world view, too, and the two are not mutually-exclusive as the Rush Limbaugh/Glen Becks of the world might have you believe.
I mention the "American viewpoint" because that's what Dale expressed to me as his reason for not having accurate gauges in the aircraft pits. Either that or the so-called "confusion" explanation are both paper-thin.
@ Dale: 'murrian is derogatory? A slur? Really? According to exactly whom? If you can show that it is, I'll amend every post I've used the term in to read "American".
You were being condescending in your use of "Murrican" and in every post so far.
-
As I said,Im done, you again just throw more darts. Completely change the topic, and can not form any logical argument. You are now complaining about a different game company and trying to use there views to do I do not know. And then you throw the dart
"I can't possibly agree that anything can be accurate in Aces High" With hyperbole like that you do not believe anyone can take you serious do you?
HiTech
Thanks for the hard work Dale.
-
1) Yes, just a very little. I had a flight in a T6 Texan trainer (some time ago...!) I actually did take control and fly the thing. The "real" pilot in the back seat was amazed that, even though I had no experience prior to that, that I could move the plane through the air as well as I did. But then, I underestimated the amount of G I'd pull recovering at the bottom of a loop and had a nice G-LOC experience (didn't think I'd need to "crap the football" for 'just' a loop...) But, it gave me an appreciation for the subject, I will tell you that.
2) Coding. Well... define "coding". I've had to get into the nuts and bolts of the Targetware code, although I don't (and have no desire) to write the CORE code. I do know quite a bit about 3D modeling, 2D artwork (steadily improving to 'yeoman' quality in that arena, although i don't yet hold a candle to the talented individuals who can actually say they're "good"). I am now creating a mod at Targetware called Target:Corregidor, and in that process, I've created and populated an entire full scale terrain of the Philippines and Dutch East Indies, created some 15 planes and variants from scratch, textured those planes, modelled the cockpits and textured those, created some new objects that didn't exist before, written scenarios, and written tutorials to show others how to do some of these things.
How about YOU?
-
Stiglr,
There were three units of measurement used by fighters in WWII, not two. The IJN used knots for speed.
As to your comment about engines out of combat, you are still wrong. The only reason in a one off aircraft to limit engine power is for fuel endurance, the very reason AH has increased fuel consumption.
-
Stiglr, why don't you develop your own game...oh wait, you don't know what it takes to develop a game. My mistake.
ack-ack
No your mistake is that I already AM doing exactly that. Oops.... didn't count on that one, did you?
-
jdbecks wrote:
:O
Hooo boy, where do I start with THAT one?
For one, accuracy in the cockpit can't do anything but INCREASE immersion. Have you ever looked into the cockpit of a REAL aircraft in a museum and had a deja vu experience because that's almost exactly how it looks in the sim you play? If you fly AH, probably not. I've had the pleasure of that experience, because in my sim, most of the aircraft ARE faithfully recreated... and I make sure to put that kind of detail in any cockpit I produce myself.
For two, how much "immersion" is there in the unheard of scenario of a "Spitfire winging up with a 109"???? That only happens in a silly arena game, it wouldn't happen in a SIM.
And finally, for three, I could "wing with" either of those planes and keep the units straight in my head. Only because I've done so for quite some time. It's really not that hard... :rolleyes:
Out of curiosity, have you ever heard of "Vaporware" or Paul Hinds? Because you're now slamming Dale, Roy, Doug, Dan and every HTC worker.
-
Stiglr,
There were three units of measurement used by fighters in WWII, not two. The IJN used knots for speed.
As to your comment about engines out of combat, you are still wrong. The only reason in a one off aircraft to limit engine power is for fuel endurance, the very reason AH has increased fuel consumption.
Incorrect. History and fact show that pilots leaned out AND throttled back, both for fuel economy and to avoid needlessly taxing the engine. As I said before, REAL pilots have said that they saved the 100% setting for combat, when they really needed it.
-
Stiglr,
There were three units of measurement used by fighters in WWII, not two. The IJN used knots for speed.
As to your comment about engines out of combat, you are still wrong. The only reason in a one off aircraft to limit engine power is for fuel endurance, the very reason AH has increased fuel consumption.
Correct
-
Stiglr you like that one wierd kid that HAS to sit with you and your friends at the lunch table. GO AWAY!
-
Out of curiosity, have you ever heard of "Vaporware" or Paul Hinds? Because you're now slamming Dale, Roy, Doug, Dan and every HTC worker.
Not the vaguest idea of who or what you're talking about there... sorry...
-
Now I know why the TW servers are always empty: their pilots spend too much time arguing on internet bulletin boards. :devil
-
How about YOU?
Yup, as I stated before, Cessna 172 and 182, the 182 a glass. When I was learning, my instructor on my first flight had informed me that, "I was better than most of his certified students."
Coding, I'm a C# guy, I've had experience coding for multiple things, mostly small businesses looking for something in specific (from auto-mailing lists to simple multiplayer games). I also do FLASH, although I'd say I'm still just learning it.
-
No your mistake is that I already AM doing exactly that. Oops.... didn't count on that one, did you?
Let me guess, TAS II? :D
ack-ack
-
2) Coding. Well... define "coding". I've had to get into the nuts and bolts of the Targetware code, although I don't (and have no desire) to write the CORE code. I do know quite a bit about 3D modeling, 2D artwork (steadily improving to 'yeoman' quality in that arena, although i don't yet hold a candle to the talented individuals who can actually say they're "good"). I am now creating a mod at Targetware called Target:Corregidor, and in that process, I've created and populated an entire full scale terrain of the Philippines and Dutch East Indies, created some 15 planes and variants from scratch, textured those planes, modelled the cockpits and textured those, created some new objects that didn't exist before, written scenarios, and written tutorials to show others how to do some of these things.
How about YOU?
I personally stopped counting how many games my name appears in the credits after 10.
ack-ack
-
2) Coding. Well... define "coding". I've had to get into the nuts and bolts of the Targetware code, although I don't (and have no desire) to write the CORE code. I do know quite a bit about 3D modeling, 2D artwork (steadily improving to 'yeoman' quality in that arena, although i don't yet hold a candle to the talented individuals who can actually say they're "good"). I am now creating a mod at Targetware called Target:Corregidor, and in that process, I've created and populated an entire full scale terrain of the Philippines and Dutch East Indies, created some 15 planes and variants from scratch, textured those planes, modelled the cockpits and textured those, created some new objects that didn't exist before, written scenarios, and written tutorials to show others how to do some of these things.
Explain to me again why you're here squeaking and moaning about someone else's work, then?
I'm wondering if hitech hasn't put the hammer down out of some perverse amusement he's taking from watching Stiggie hang himself on his own cluelessness. It's like watching a cat toying with a mouse before finishing it off. :D
-
Somewhow he can't get this dead simple thing thru his TW goggles..
[AH's] goal is to duplicate flight dynamics.
Ya know.. Maybe TW is this starved for players. Whaddaya bet this is TW fans scraping the bottom by trying to discredit competitors - AH & co? :lol Woulda worked better by not holding something against AH, that AH is fundamentally, purposedly made to be.
-
Incorrect. History and fact show that pilots leaned out AND throttled back, both for fuel economy and to avoid needlessly taxing the engine. As I said before, REAL pilots have said that they saved the 100% setting for combat, when they really needed it.
You don't go to auto-lean for any other purpose but to cut fuel consumption. Rich mixture lowers combustion chamber temps, enhancing engine life. Back in the 1940s, running lean for long periods could lead-foul the spark plugs. This was especially problematic when 150 octane fuels were introduced in 1944. Thus, it was essential that you bring the mixture, prop and throttle up to Normal Power periodically to clear the plugs, or you could find yourself way down on power at a critical moment. Wait too long and loaded plugs will start to misfire, and then the plugs may not clear regardless of power setting.
My regards,
Widewing
-
You don't go to auto-lean for any other purpose but to cut fuel consumption. Rich mixture lowers combustion chamber temps, enhancing engine life. Back in the 1940s, running lean for long periods could lead-foul the spark plugs. This was especially problematic when 150 octane fuels were introduced in 1944. Thus, it was essential that you bring the mixture, prop and throttle up to Normal Power periodically to clear the plugs, or you could find yourself way down on power at a critical moment. Wait too long and loaded plugs will start to misfire, and then the plugs may not clear regardless of power setting.
My regards,
Widewing
Maybe it's just me, but that sounds a lot like THE OPPOSITE of what Stiggie wants.
-
1) Yes, just a very little. I had a flight in a T6 Texan trainer (some time ago...!) I actually did take control and fly the thing. The "real" pilot in the back seat was amazed that, even though I had no experience prior to that, that I could move the plane through the air as well as I did. But then, I underestimated the amount of G I'd pull recovering at the bottom of a loop and had a nice G-LOC experience (didn't think I'd need to "crap the football" for 'just' a loop...) But, it gave me an appreciation for the subject, I will tell you that.
2) Coding. Well... define "coding". I've had to get into the nuts and bolts of the Targetware code, although I don't (and have no desire) to write the CORE code. I do know quite a bit about 3D modeling, 2D artwork (steadily improving to 'yeoman' quality in that arena, although i don't yet hold a candle to the talented individuals who can actually say they're "good"). I am now creating a mod at Targetware called Target:Corregidor, and in that process, I've created and populated an entire full scale terrain of the Philippines and Dutch East Indies, created some 15 planes and variants from scratch, textured those planes, modelled the cockpits and textured those, created some new objects that didn't exist before, written scenarios, and written tutorials to show others how to do some of these things.
How about YOU?
WOW !!! you flew in a real plane once !!! You stud you !!
I think someones mad because nobody is playing "his" game any more, because they are all playing Aces High instead. While a "big man" over there, he can't even rise to dweeb here. What do you kids say ...... FAIL ! :D
-
But, I'm also proud to say that I do have a bit of a world view, too, and the two are not mutually-exclusive as the Rush Limbaugh/Glen Becks of the world might have you believe.
This is almost laughable how arrogant it is. In one fell swoop stiglr is trying to say that using metric in a game is because he has more of a "WORLD" view. And then some how thinks this world view is more justified than different views because his circular logic makes his thinking correct. It really is a very classic attitude of some people.
He is trying to say in that statement I do not have a world view. And it is only because I am a "Arogent American" that I do not implement what he desires. Hmm I read and speak some Russian, have spent a fair amount of time in the Former Soviet Union and my Wife is also Russian.I have instigated economics, health care,political systems, how corruptions can become systemic in a political system to the extent bribes are simply a different way of paying a tax. Created a sim that is played in many different counties of the world. What do you think I may just possibly have a little bit of a world view? But a worldly view makes absolute no difference to this discussion.
And wow to reach so deep as to pull Politics into this debate with his "Rush Limbaugh/Glen Becks".
And what in the end is really funny is that I have spent more than 15 years coding, learning,creating ,making real world choices about flight sims, working, risking my money,implanting other peoples GOOD ideas, to create the most realistic representation of flying and dog fighting in a WWII fighter that I can do. I have twice stared into the abyss of a completely 100% blank computer screen and come out with a marketable flight sim. I started creating sims slimply because I did not like the accuracy of another flight sim, I created a new one and brought it to market striving to create the most accuracy possible. And stiglr is arrogant enough to not even pay me the respect that my view may be valid but different from what he wants out of a game.
For stiglr to even dare list his credential of one flight in a T6 as any form of knowledge as compared to other people in this forum shows how self severing and narcissistic stiglr really is. I have more time flying straight up in a plane then stiglr has time IN a small plane. And as compared to others I am involved with and with other people who are a part of this community I consider myself just out of the beginner stage off flying.
HiTech
-
Let see we have people who actual military aviation experience commenting here. We have people with actual multiple hours of flight experience here. We have those who are citing actual combat reports and pilot experience of world war II.
Then we have stiglr who has said a pilot allowed him to fly a texan for a while.
As pointed out by people with experience actually flying military aircraft and other aircraft. Abuse of an engine from running at military level will not lead to a castarophic failure in minutes. The damage done to the engine accumulates over time and is dealt with by the ground crew. AH does not cover this aspect. Simply put spawn a plane and it is in best condition. Therefore unlike say the SW Pacific where you had maintence issues where you did not have spare parts or engines had to keep using the engine as long as you could basically you have a fresh engine here every time.
Therefore failure do to accumulate abuse or wear and tear on a engine does not happen in 15 minute to 30 minute window.
As people pointed out failure does not even occur normally in several hour window with a brand new engine or well maintained engine. The percentage change of failure increases over accumulated time do to wear and tear and pushing an engine past its limits. Or do to poor maintence, a difficult environment, etc. in combination with engine life conditions / usuage.
Aircraft in several theaters had plane performance degraded by maintence issues, environmental issues, lack of parts issues, etc. ... the Aleutians, Libya/Egypt, Greece, Malaya, Southwest Pacific, etc. are only a few areas where various aircraft did not perform to publish specs do to these issues affecting aircraft.
You also had production quality issues that some planes suffered .. most notable in late war Japanese planes. On paper their performance was impressive. In real life a few performed up to spec, many didn't because of poor production quality.
All of these issues are not modelled in AH. Instead you take up a plane and it performs like it just came from the factory. When you land you don't respawn in the same plane but respawn in a new plane. If you die you respawn in a new plane.
So in the MA most combat hops last what, 30 mins? Not hour. Not weeks. Not months.
Per those with actual hands on experience this issue will not cause instaneous degradation or degradation during a historical combat mission of a new plane or one that has been well maintained with not tons of performance hours on but could result in the ground crew cursing you out and having to rebuild your engine once you got home. Also pointed out by others the attitude was that planes can be replaced but an experience pilot can't be replaced quickly.
So actually what you would need for engine maintence to play a factor is:
1) Model production quality
2) Model the quality of how the crews that put planes together in the field. Malaya, Crete, Burma, China, etc. all had issues with receiving planes but then assembling them.
3) Modeling quality of the ground crew maintaining planes
4) Modeling the availability of spare parts
5) Modeling the affect of the environment (humidity in Pacific, cold in the Aleutians, sand in the dessert, etc.)
6) Modeling the actual operational life of an engine from first delivery to the point it is shot down. Meaning you would have to track how many hours your put into a specific plane.
At this point you can start talking about engine wear and tear since you factor in issues 1 - 5 then you can factor in engine performance hours.
But you would also then need to factor in other things logically. Such as if your engine needs to be overhauled then you can't fly for X time.
If you lose your plane you don't have to worry about the engine of that plane. If you die then you shouldn't be able to fly for X specific period of time.
But to some up the accumulated affects of engine wear and tear by running it full blast simple does not come into affect in the time period of a half hour. The longest missions we see are not in the MA but in special events where a person might being flying a plane for 1 hour to 2 hours.
So the arguement is silly since we don't model the issues I stated above.
-
This thread isn't locked yet?
-
Oh, and to carry the argument to extremes I guess we should also model lack of sleep for pilots (this played a part at least for the pilots of Guadalcanal) and Malnutrition or lingering affects of illness to since this affect pilot performance on several fronts which impacted plane effectiveness.
-
Incorrect. History and fact show that pilots leaned out AND throttled back, both for fuel economy and to avoid needlessly taxing the engine. As I said before, REAL pilots have said that they saved the 100% setting for combat, when they really needed it.
AHHHHHHHH!!!!
You still don't understand. The engines could be run at full power with no ill effect. Any talk of adding an effect to reduce engine performance or break the engine in this context means you are trying to simulate WWII operational orders by implementing a gamey mechanic rather than simulating the hardware.
Yes, there needs to be some control to stop people from just using WEP endlessly, but what you are suggesting is more gamey than the solution HTC uses.
Further, why would you want to make the time to reach combat longer in a game that is focused on simulating combat?
-
The funniest thing about this thread is that it's not because of TW's engine modelling that people don't fly there. It's because it's buggy as hell and their devoted fans are never online for you to fight them. :uhoh
-
Good point Karnak.
As HTC pointed out stiglr sim would also need to:
1) Force a person to wait for the oil to heat up in a plane before take off. So sit on runway for 15 minutes.
2) Then fly true to scale distances before encountering the enemy. Resulting possibly up to several hours before even having a chance of encountering an enemy.
-
1) Yes, just a very little. I had a flight in a T6 Texan trainer (some time ago...!) I actually did take control and fly the thing. The "real" pilot in the back seat was amazed that, even though I had no experience prior to that, that I could move the plane through the air as well as I did. But then, I underestimated the amount of G I'd pull recovering at the bottom of a loop and had a nice G-LOC experience (didn't think I'd need to "crap the football" for 'just' a loop...) But, it gave me an appreciation for the subject, I will tell you that.
2) Coding. Well... define "coding". I've had to get into the nuts and bolts of the Targetware code, although I don't (and have no desire) to write the CORE code. I do know quite a bit about 3D modeling, 2D artwork (steadily improving to 'yeoman' quality in that arena, although i don't yet hold a candle to the talented individuals who can actually say they're "good"). I am now creating a mod at Targetware called Target:Corregidor, and in that process, I've created and populated an entire full scale terrain of the Philippines and Dutch East Indies, created some 15 planes and variants from scratch, textured those planes, modelled the cockpits and textured those, created some new objects that didn't exist before, written scenarios, and written tutorials to show others how to do some of these things.
How about YOU?
Ahh so you stayed in a Holiday in Express last night. Your using the word CODE in any since of what you have been doing is almost laughable.
1. How many hours of AH have you played, have you played 1 hour of AH?
2. You do know Me109 does use ATA as its manifold pressure in AH? Of course you may not because you have never flown one.
HiTech
-
Ghost,
I and others have tried pointing out the maintenance issue to Stiggie several times. He's so entrenched on the idea that engines should start failing during a sortie that he's just not listening to it. I'd say he's like a two year old screaming "NONONONONONONONONONONONO!" at the top of his lungs, but at least a two year old would EVENTUALLY GET IT.
-
So I've read every word of this thread.
Just a couple points
-Dale, you've accomplished much! I am envious of you in many ways. I for one am not a "COADr" never will I claim to be, and you have created something that has given so many people great happiness. You are one of the few people in the world I gladly send 14.95 per month to as well :D. This game has brought me many headaches, joys, entertainment, and most importantly friendships. You've allowed me to "live" in a period of time that before I started AH, could have only dreamed or read about. You've given me a chance to pretend I'm behind the stick of a P-51, or being in a Sherman as my grandfather was in WWII. Thank you for what you have given meYou're also a lot nicer that I apparently. I'd smack Stigly with the super ban stick back around page 3 or 4.
-Stigma, I'm glad you've got to fly a T-6, glad your instructor thought you were great behind the stick. I once had to stitch up an open wound, my brother (a family doctor) said I did a real nice job. Perhaps I should go to the hospital and start telling the doctors there what they are doing wrong. I'm sure they'd be happy with my suggestions.
While your ideas of "engine management" seem wonder (at least in your eyes), they are none the less absurd. Many real pilots of the AH community have logged more hours in military aircraft than you or I. I tend to go with their experience vs. your hr or so in a T-6. I've looked at wartime design specs, blueprints, mfg docs, and pilot accounts in regards to performance of many planes in AH. The shocker is...AH is nearly spot on in every instance. People have TRIED to explain to you the operations of a WWII combat fighter, but you fail to see the point. You want it your way and that’s it. For some reason I picture you jumping up and down yelling at the PC for us not listening to you. While in reality you are the one not listening. This so called realism that you claim AH is missing is BS. Airplanes are mechanical devices built by man. Whenever man is involved problems arise. Whether its limitations due spec, manufacturing, or design. Should AH model these factors into AH as well? When you create your “SIM” will you model in these items? This could be thousands of things, metal fatigue on a rod bearing, a loose clamp for a coolant hose, faulty electrical connection, and the list could go on for days. Also check out zenos warbird drive in, get training films will give you an incite of what pilots had to do just to start some of our favorite birds. They are complex machines that require hundreds of hours of train to even leave the tarmac. The pilots of WWII weren’t there for the enjoyment of it, but there to fight. We do this as a hobby.
-The rest of the AH community, thank you all for the large amounts of information you pass on to me, it just reminds me again why I come back to AH month after month, year after year. And finally what the hell is targetware? I’m guessing its nothing I should be too concerned about.
Have a great weekend
Nathan
-
Good point Karnak.
As HTC pointed out stiglr sim would also need to:
1) Force a person to wait for the oil to heat up in a plane before take off. So sit on runway for 15 minutes.
2) Then fly true to scale distances before encountering the enemy. Resulting possibly up to several hours before even having a chance of encountering an enemy.
Nope....
Because ground crew stuff certainly is out of the scope of a combat sim, I certainly wouldn't want players to have to sit and warm up on the tarmac. Nor would they need to go through a more complex engine start-up than to hit "E" (which simulates in one button press the magnetos, perhaps having ground crew rotate the prop, wobbling the fuel pump, turning on generators, etc.) That's a perfect example of making some gameplay decisions based on how relevant they are to the real reason we play... the combat.
Which takes us tangentially back to the EM argument. Somebody up above talked about some of the mitigating conditions of engines; how real world conditions (maintenance before and after the virtual pilot takes the seat of the cockpit, etc.) have an effect on the condition of the plane you fly. Doesn't it stand to reason that a simulation would not simulate a "ideal world" where an aircraft is "fresh from the factory" but more like standard wartime conditions at the front?
As for transit, well, I know AH doesn't have anything like it, but for very long transit times, we at TW have a cool little device called an engagement circle, which, combined with airstarts, can bring forces together while STILL factoring in fuel usage getting to and from combat. It's a neat little idea... and it keeps TW mods from ever having to use "postage stamp" partial scale maps.
So, we should be expected to have to fly correct distances... but that doesn't mean that if you're doing "B-17s to Berlin" you need to sit in a chilly virtual cockpit for 3 hours each way. ;)
-
Nope....
Because ground crew stuff certainly is out of the scope of a combat sim, I certainly wouldn't want players to have to sit and warm up on the tarmac. Nor would they need to go through a more complex engine start-up than to hit "E" (which simulates in one button press the magnetos, perhaps having ground crew rotate the prop, wobbling the fuel pump, turning on generators, etc.) That's a perfect example of making some gameplay decisions based on how relevant they are to the real reason we play... the combat.
As for transit, well, I know AH doesn't have anything like it, but for very long transit times, we have a cool little device called an engagement circle, which, combined with airstarts, can bring forces together while STILL factoring in fuel usage getting to and from combat. It's a neat little idea... and it keeps TW mods from ever having to use "postage stamp" partial scale maps.
So, we should be expected to have to fly correct distances... but that doesn't mean that if you're doing "B-17s to Berlin" you need to sit in a chilly virtual cockpit for 3 hours each way. ;)
I tell you what. You design a "better" game/sim/whatever the hell you want to call it and we'll still send our money to a stand up Company. You're trying to trash Dale Addink and his Company. Grow up already. You're wrong on your "stance/argument/point/etc" and are now just throwing stones to throw them.
Why don't you crawl back into your hole and work on your "game"? Because "sims" ARE "games". But this game called "Aces High" is something all of us (except yourself) enjoy.
-
Stiglr,
Ok, now you've lost me. You are ok with air starts, taking player decisions as to what altitude to be at out of the player's hands, yet want to artificially enforce maintainance based engine rules that have no effect on the player now that you have magically teleported the player instantly into the combat theater.
-
Stiglr:
Something you may not have noticed...AHII pilots are already limited to "by the book" WEP times. IOW, for all intents and purposes they are more limited in WEP usage than real pilots were.
You STILL have not given ONE data point on how long engine X in plane Y should run before Z happens to it. In fact, all the evidence presented thus to far seems to point to a conclusion diametrically opposite your diatribes, that the airplanes we have in AHII could probably be flown at military power settings until they ran out of fuel without incident 90% of the time or better.
-
steps for a fix -
1 Find stiglr's in game tag
2 add a /. command such as /.*tag* engineout
3 hey presto,there's your malfunction
4 also add /.*tag* blackout
5 there's you sleep deprivation
FIXED :salute
-
Basically you are all for added this or that unless you decide you don't like. As stated previously in this thread by people who have experience with engines, aircraft, maintenance, etc. the factors you want aren't a consideration unless:
1) Poor maintenance
2) Environmental conditions
3) Poor production quality
4) Equipment wearing out and no supply parts handy (which is why battle damaged planes were cannibalized)
All of these are factors that actually are the root cause of engine failure or equipment failure. Running an engine at military power, for a 30 minute window is not.
You say you don't want to simulate it since it is a combat sim. However, to be a true combat sim you would have to factor in those things. You would also have to factor in sleep deprivation, malnourished, effects of illness, etc. on pilots to actually simulate the environment you want.
Instead you have stated you made a game play decision to ignore these factors. Well at least the oil engine heat up factor and the flight time to target factor because you don't want to deal with that but just deal with combat. Yet those factors effect the machine and pilot during combat so by your quest for a simulation you must factor those and not skip them.
The real world conditions are the rub that everybody actually are discussing. How do you deal with them? Can you deal with them?
You could right code that randomly causes a engine or mechanical issue. But it would be random since you can't actually track and say player Y has flown plane X for 1000 hours. Even if you did track that would be realistic since in that time player Y might have died or loss his plane 500 times. So it makes it very difficult to track plane usage and applied variable for wear and tear.
Next different theaters had different rates of maintenance quality, supply resources, and environmental factors. For example the Aleutians had I believe the highest loss rate of aircraft. But this was do to the environment and maintenance issues.
So we are back to having a code randomly throw mechanical failure at your. Again EM doesn't come in since you have to write code that randomly throws things at you to simulate the effects of poor maintenance or not overhauling an engine that has been flown at military power for X hours.
As for factory fresh or no production issues. Many people have brought that up in the past. The Ki-84 performs as it was design to. Not as it actually did in combat because production quality is not factored in. Same goes for other planes such as the Brewster. The B-239 Finnish model performs well because it is a different variant than what the British used in Malaya or the Americans at Midway. Other threads deal with the exact differences. Another difference is that the Finns had very few planes, had excellent pilots, and concentrated their resources on keep the planes they had flying. While in Malaya the British pilots were not experienced, the ground crews were not experienced or familiar with the Brewster model they had, and they definitely did not have an adequate supply of parts. All of these factors (as Widewing, Squire, and others in different threads) impacted the performance of the Brewster model used there.
So again you come down to simulating combat but without the parts you don't like. Supply, maintenance, sleep, food, illness. All of these effected pilot and plane performance. Also you state to skip over the things you don't like such as sitting on the runway waiting for the oil to heat up or the flight time to target. Those also effect the combat because you have to factor in pilot fatigue which was a real issue.
The effects if engine management are dealt with over the operational life of an aircraft not in short combat hop.
As stated you could write code that randomizes mechanical issues (degradation of engine do to abuse and poor maintenance, gun games, ordinance not working .. torps and bombs failed to work early one, etc.) but Dale has made a decision that this would not actually benefit game play. Simply put you up, you fly 15 minutes or more to a fight in the MA, you line up on an enemy plane and press the trigger get a few rounds off then nada. How much do you think the player will like this? Same goes for almost any mechanical failure. Say you are in Ki-84 and go into and maneuvering hard but within normal limits while chasing and enemy plane. Then the randomize decides your plane has been of poor production quality and you have a structural failure in one of your flight surfaces and bam kiss dirt because of it. I would hazard to say you would very quickly kill off your clientèle because they can't predict when it will happen. Who wants to spend time online only to have a random event take you out to simulate environmental degradation of your plane, or production quality, or lack of spare parts, or the fact that the plane is simulating being shot up and repaired X many times, or lack of ground crew, or poor maintenance, etc.
Those are the things that affect the aircraft and whether there are mechanical issues or not. As stated by those such as Widewing, who have many hours of real world experience, a well maintained plane would not have the issues you are discussing. Those issues come about because of an accumulaton of various factors over an extended time period.
Running the engine at military power would not cause what you think it would unless those other factors came into play before the virtual pilot even got into the cockpit. Without a way of modelling that it becomes just a random occurrence that would produce more negative consequences than positive since the player would not have any advance warning they were flying in worn out plane. If they did what stops them from not taking off and spawning until they get a plane in better condition.
You have what an hour in a Texan where the pilot let you fly it? Yet you are trying to tell several people who have 100s if not more hours of flight time that your experience is as valid as yours. You also have people who have direct knowledge and experience with maintenance issues but again you insist you who have no experience in this area are right and they are not. You have MODed an existing game and are trying to equate that with the experience of a person who coded not one but two flight sims from scratch. Not modified somebody else code, or skinned something, or used existing flight models to create new flight models. A person who design the whole kit .. damage model, energy, physics, etc., etc. not once but twice.
However, I'm out since it is like debating somebody in a different language. You are presented evidence and opinion from several people who have direct real world experience. Yet refuse the acknowledge this or the possibility they might know what they are talking about. You are asked to actually site examples and you don't. At this point I think you are just trolling and stirring up things up to get a kick out of it. So I am out.
-
Ghostdancer,
You are wrong on many counts. For example, the Ki-84 does not perform as it was designed to, it performs as it did when operable. If it performed as it was designed it would top out at about 425mph and not shed control surfaces.
-
No duh, he's wrong on many counts. And so are a lot of the others.
If you'll recall WAYYY further up, I presented more evidence about EM from a person who was THERE.
All you Cessna fliers and peacetime fliers have exactly the same "stick time" in real, shootin'-war combat in WWII fighters as I have: NONE.
Franz Stigler flew the whole war... and when I asked him specific questions about EM, he answered them. No, he didn't quote exact times you can expect an engine to give out... but he did say, categorically, that one did NOT fly around at 100% throttle all sortie. He DID say that this was mostly to save the engine for that 15 minute time period during a one hour flight when you really needed the power.
So, forgive me if I take his word for it. And also forgive me if I also factor in first person written account from other men who were there. No, I can't refute your real life, peacetime piloting experience.
But, I'm not all wet when I assert that engines DID have to be managed, and managed correctly.
I suppose we'll have to be at an impasse on this.
-
This game isn't TW.
-
He's making a game, but he's telling HTC that they suck? And his game is going to be so much better apparently? So why go on here and bash HTC?
Oh, and I've played Targetware, not fun at all.
-
So all of this talk about TW got me curious...so I took a trip over there, stumbled on their forums. Guess who I found beating his drum...Stiglatta
Quote from Stigla @ http://www.targetware.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=15867&highlight=aces+high (http://www.targetware.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=15867&highlight=aces+high)
I just had about a week-long argument with those folks on their board about the subject of engine management... they're so stuck in their "gamer entitlement" mentality that they won't even admit that no, you couldn't roar around at 100% throttle without any ramifications.
It's hilarious. They challenge me to provide written proof and stats that tell them exactly how long you can expect to abuse an engine before it will, with 100% certainty, explode... and then ignore the fact that every pilot manual/maintenance manual gives parameters by which to run the engine... and they ignore the fact that, if they didn't really NEED to put things like mixture controls, cooling flap levers, prop pitch controls, etc., into aircraft they wouldn't have. There was no automatic operation of much in those days.
It was kind of fun, kind of frustrating. But, now I know why those people probably aren't our "low-hanging fruit": it didn't take very long for the "it's just a GAME" explanation to come out. And that, really, is the long and short of it. They can't be bothered to want realism, simply because it gets in the way of their "fun game
Its now clear to me, your just a troll, nothing more. I doubt you've ever played AH. If so what was your screen name? Im sure in TW you have a manual for everyplane and operate it according to the manual.
-
"But, now I know why those people probably aren't our "low-hanging fruit""
Just like I said :lol
-
So all of this talk about TW got me curious...so I took a trip over there, stumbled on their forums. Guess who I found beating his drum...Stiglatta
Quote from Stigla @ http://www.targetware.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=15867&highlight=aces+high (http://www.targetware.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=15867&highlight=aces+high)
I just had about a week-long argument with those folks on their board about the subject of engine management... they're so stuck in their "gamer entitlement" mentality that they won't even admit that no, you couldn't roar around at 100% throttle without any ramifications.
It's hilarious. They challenge me to provide written proof and stats that tell them exactly how long you can expect to abuse an engine before it will, with 100% certainty, explode... and then ignore the fact that every pilot manual/maintenance manual gives parameters by which to run the engine... and they ignore the fact that, if they didn't really NEED to put things like mixture controls, cooling flap levers, prop pitch controls, etc., into aircraft they wouldn't have. There was no automatic operation of much in those days.
It was kind of fun, kind of frustrating. But, now I know why those people probably aren't our "low-hanging fruit": it didn't take very long for the "it's just a GAME" explanation to come out. And that, really, is the long and short of it. They can't be bothered to want realism, simply because it gets in the way of their "fun game
Its now clear to me, your just a troll, nothing more. I doubt you've ever played AH. If so what was your screen name? Im sure in TW you have a manual for everyplane and operate it according to the manual.
This is in his sig, I'm guessing he hasn't for quite some time, if at all:
Windows XP Professional
Athlon 1700+ 1.4GHz
Mobo: FIC AU13 TFA42 BIOS
Allegro sound card
2GB of 2700 DDR memory
Video Card: EVGA 6200 512MB with 6.14.11.8208 drivers
Cougar HOTAS
CH Pedals
I won't miss him and will never visit his site, or whoever he is leeching off of. He's already been "corrected" numerous times by people who have a lot more Airframe Hours then his "token Texan ride". But, he's bound and determined to be "right", even when the "debunked book" has long fallen on his head.
-
Stiglr,
Let's forget all about engines and the proof and evidence for a second.
You are bashing AH because the programmers decided to make a few compromises in realism (not huge ones mind you - reasonable ones which make a lot of sense given the context).
Guess what? Any simulation must have compromises simply because the simulation is NOT the real thing.
Now, you bash AH because compromises the designers have made are to make a better GAME while sacrificing some degree of realism, right? To you TargetWare is "better" because it makes less compromises as to realism.
Guess what? What is an "Engagement Circle" but a COMPROMISE designed to benefit GAMEPLAY while sacrificing realism? Maybe TargetWare is more realistic, but your whole point is that AH is bad because it makes compromises AT ALL.
I don't care whether you like your sim super realistic or not - it's your choice to fly whatever you want, I can see both sides. But at the end of the day, your preferred sim TargetWare is just as guilty of sacrificing realism for gameplay, making you no more than a hypocrite.
If you want to argue for something, at least be self consistent. Case closed.
-
If anyone need any further proof that Stiglr really has no clue about what he is talking about, just read this post from the thread he started in the TW forums. He doesn't even know what kind of Brewster we have and insists it's a different kind than the export model the Finnish flew in the Winter/Continuation War.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More on this...
I went back to that thread, or another like it and the jawdropping misinformation just kept coming.
One guy said, "The Brewster could climb with a Zero". What???? I did a cursory check on Wikipedia, and found that, with the right rose-colored glasses on, he was actually right... in a slanted, misleading way.
Problem was... it's the early, F3A1 version that had a 3060 fpm climb rate (compared to the Zero A6M2's 3100 fpm). That version was NOT used for anything but flight testing and only 11 were built. Now, let's go check the version the US Navy was using, the F2A3... ah, there y'go: 2440 fpm.
So, it appears, Dale Addink and his crew are taking only the best stats for their Buffalo and eschewing others that do point out that a Buffalo was never anything approaching a world-beating aircraft. Or, they're "hypothesizing" that the Finnish export Buffalo, the one stripped of the added armor, radios and stuff the US Navy used to transform Buffalos from what Pappy Boyington called a "sweet little ship" to the dog of legend that the Buffalo actually is... is a more "representative" Buffalo.
I suppose you could make a case for that, as the Finns relied on their version heavily and had some success with it... but it's the (mis)representation in the arcade arena format that slants things so much.
In AH arenas, you're just as likely to find a Finnish Buffalo going up against a Japanese Zero as you are to find a Spit engaging a F4F, or any other ridiculous matchup. Utterly silly... but I can see now how it makes for self-appointed experts there talking about how effective a fighting platform the Buffalo was.
ack-ack
-
I doubt you've ever played AH. If so what was your screen name?
I'm pretty sure this is the same stiglr from Warbirds (when it was $2/hour).
-
Isn't TW still in beta?....for 3 years?
-
Karnak you are right and I stand corrected. "As designed" needs to be clarified, as you pointed out, since there are several states of that.
There is as originally designed on paper before production. Then there is flight testing where it was seen if the plane performed up to specs or not. Ultimately leading to operational release with defined specs for use in various arenas. And I am sure I am leaving somethings out.
So yes, you are right AH models its plane on operational specs. However, AH does not model its plane differently depending on theater, environmental conditions, uneven production quality, uneven material quality, level of maintenance, quality of maintenance, availability of spare parts, accumulate flight hours. It also doesn't model the pilot fatigue or pilot state of health and affects on plane performance in combat (well besides wounds .. a fatigued or pilot who doesn't feel well will generally not perform as well as that one who is rested and healthy irregardless of the machine he is flying) which was a factor in several arenas which suffered from a lack of pilots and replacement pilots.
-
And still there is no acknowledging the fact that AHII does NOT let you run "100%" all the time.
And still I have not been presented with any data for any plane modeled in AHII demonstrating any reasonable likelihood of them encountering engine problems from being run at military power settings for 30-60 minutes.
Actually from all the evidence it seems, it looks like AHII is being conservative when it forces you to limit your *WEP* usage to by-the-book time periods.
I move that the WEP time limits on P&W R-2800s be extended to 2 days! :devil
-
It seems he likes our CM team :lol
http://www.targetware.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=15764
-
Targetware is a constantly evolving user driven/developed (via user modules) sim that at one time offered great graphics. It is now behind Aces High in that category. I tried it several times over the years and found the user interface to be ugly and unfriendly. The flight dynamics are poor relative to Aces High. In short, I found it unremarkable and not entertaining. It had potential, but their business model is seemingly dedicated to zero growth. I'm sure they have a dedicated core of enthusiasts, but their number is small.
Our friend Stiglr is quite ignorant of aviation history, clearly not realizing the the Brewster B-239 was substantially different from the B-339. I can't fix that, I can only marvel at self-appointed expert who, it turns out, doesn't know his arse from a doorknob.
My regards,
Widewing
-
It seems he likes our CM team :lol
http://www.targetware.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=15764
When reading that thread some of bombers post cracked me up. It seams people at target ware see stiglr in the same light most of us do. What I never have figured out is why for about 10 years stiglr has made an effort to malign me.
HiTech
-
Your on the other side of some proverbial fence I guess Hitech...
-
Aces high has a big player base not just because it's a fun game, but because of the flight / physics model. I play AH for an accurate flight model including: fuel burn times, ammo ballistics, engine settings at diff. alts, and a feel of how a plane hypothetically would fly are the most important. The HTC team's data that they use to make such decisions is generally the same info that would be available by contacting the aircraft manufacturer, or a trip to the google machine. It's hard being wrong when you have the data/charts on your side.
I know that AH is not a perfect flight sim, but that's what it is first, a flight sim. They have chosen to perfect the core element of any good sim. I'm not saying that having the ability to controll engine cowl flaps wouldn't be welcomed, but cowl flaps do no good if the FM is wrong. I have played all of the 4 main WW2 flight sims and i can tell you each one has it's flaws, but a bad FM is where i draw the line. You probaly play this game for diff. than i play AH. That dosnt mean one sim is better than the other, but two diff sims.
+1 :D
Stiglr, if you weren't such an egotistical hypocrite, I'd invite you down from portland to KSLE...
-
When reading that thread some of bombers post cracked me up. It seams people at target ware see stiglr in the same light most of us do. What I never have figured out is why for about 10 years stiglr has made an effort to malign me.
HiTech
You must have really nice ankles HiTech!
-
When reading that thread some of bombers post cracked me up. It seams people at target ware see stiglr in the same light most of us do. What I never have figured out is why for about 10 years stiglr has made an effort to malign me.
HiTech
I'll bet that boy bleeds green........................ ........ with envy :D
-
I just had about a week-long argument with those folks on their board about the subject of engine management... they're so stuck in their "gamer entitlement" mentality that they won't even admit that no, you couldn't roar around at 100% throttle without any ramifications.
Stiglr,
You realize that Widewing, who directly countered your claims, has thousands of real life hours on engines like these, and at least some hours on some of these engines? We're not talking "gamer entitlement" here, we're talking about reality.
-
Well, this excerpted comment from the TW forum speaks volumes:
The point isn't so much, "would I prefer to play AH?"...It's more like, "Why do THEY all play it?"..."they" consistently get "tantalizing numbers", with a clearly inferior product.
As long as he holds this opinion of TW versus AH2, there will be no reasoning with him. Apparently their perception of us all as a part of the "Masses are asses" colloquialism will forever occlude their perception of Aces High and Targetware. Its ultimately ironic, that in a thread within which they are discussing trying to increase the numbers of TW players, they malign Aces High for the quality of its "simulation" while noting that very large numbers of people are playing Aces High. Pretty much every toothpaste commercial you see says something like "recommended by 8 out of 10 dentists..." or something like that.
Let's face it, if he can't put two and two together, how can we ever expect a reasonable response?
-
Stiglr,
You realize that Widewing, who directly countered your claims, has thousands of real life hours on engines like these, and at least some hours on some of these engines? We're not talking "gamer entitlement" here, we're talking about reality.
Hardcore entitlement: The entitlement which hardcore geeks feel to berate all other players who they feel are inferior to them if they'd rather play a game that, if you tilt your head and squint, looks less "realistic".
Well, this excerpted comment from the TW forum speaks volumes:
As long as he holds this opinion of TW versus AH2, there will be no reasoning with him. Apparently their perception of us all as a part of the "Masses are asses" colloquialism will forever occlude their perception of Aces High and Targetware. Its ultimately ironic, that in a thread within which they are discussing trying to increase the numbers of TW players, they malign Aces High for the quality of its "simulation" while noting that very large numbers of people are playing Aces High. Pretty much every toothpaste commercial you see says something like "recommended by 8 out of 10 dentists..." or something like that.
Let's face it, if he can't put two and two together, how can we ever expect a reasonable response?
I reckon that he (they) privately know that's bogus.
-
The thing is, and I mentioned this before, I'm sure that MANY of us here wouldn't mind an option for manual superchargers and being able to manually set mixture, etc, in aircraft that had it. IF HTC also provided some sort of "auto" function akin to Combat Trim: It manages enough to keep things about where they should be that you can fly the plane without too much work, but for those who can handle it allowing them to fine-tune their aircraft's performance in the same way as combat vs. manual trim.
Or maybe there should be a delay in each aircraft between hitting a keyboard or joystick button and the actual function occurring to represent the pilot having to reach for and move the appropriate switch or lever, especially when under high-G maneuvers.
In fact, I'm sure all of us have details that they'd like to see to tweak the realism, like the auto flaps on the N1K2-J. Hell, I'd still like to be able to "set and forget" the first two flap stages in my F4U as in the historical aircraft (the springs were weak enough that at sufficient speeds the first two notches would blow back up, then deployed again as airspeed decreased. The F6F did the same).
-
Saxman,
Yes, I can point out much larger realism issues than the engine settings that Stiglr is obsessed with.
-
The thing is, and I mentioned this before, I'm sure that MANY of us here wouldn't mind an option for manual superchargers and being able to manually set mixture, etc, in aircraft that had it. IF HTC also provided some sort of "auto" function akin to Combat Trim: It manages enough to keep things about where they should be that you can fly the plane without too much work, but for those who can handle it allowing them to fine-tune their aircraft's performance in the same way as combat vs. manual trim.
I support this 100%. I suppose the actual question would be, as previously mentioned, what would the ROI be for the software development time?
-
Stoney wrote:
"Masses are asses" colloquialism
Oooooh, GOOD one!!! So true... Mind if I use that? Do I need to attribute that to you?
:D
-
Stiglr,
You realize that Widewing, who directly countered your claims, has thousands of real life hours on engines like these, and at least some hours on some of these engines? We're not talking "gamer entitlement" here, we're talking about reality.
And you realize that Franz Stigler, who actually flew the types we're talking about in the actual war, says exactly the opposite?
-
The thing is, and I mentioned this before, I'm sure that MANY of us here wouldn't mind an option for manual superchargers and being able to manually set mixture, etc, in aircraft that had it. IF HTC also provided some sort of "auto" function akin to Combat Trim: It manages enough to keep things about where they should be that you can fly the plane without too much work, but for those who can handle it allowing them to fine-tune their aircraft's performance in the same way as combat vs. manual trim.
You do realize, in part, that's exactly what I'm saying here. Not sure I agree with "EZ auto trim" so much, but for superchargers... certainly. So why is your assessment so different for engine heat and mixture management? Why the resistance for putting the responsibility for "fine-tuning performance" in the players' hands?
-
And does anyone else notice that the only name he's willing to cite as a source is the same guy he gets his board handle from?
:noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid
-
You do realize, in part, that's exactly what I'm saying here. Not sure I agree with "EZ auto trim" so much, but for superchargers... certainly. So why is your assessment so different for engine heat and mixture management? Why the resistance for putting the responsibility for "fine-tuning performance" in the players' hands?
Because as you've been told again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again by pilots with hundreds of hours flight time and experience AND with access to records and accounts from hundreds of pilots who fought in all theaters of the war that ENGINE HEAT WOULD NOT AFFECT THE AIRCRAFT IN THE MANNER YOU INSIST and you want to USE that artificial means of enforcing how YOU think pilots should fly, rather than the ACTUAL considerations of fuel endurance (which FYI, I do on my own anyway, even though my primary ride is the very long-legged F4U-1A). Get the wax out of your ears and knock off the hero worship. You've been using ONE pilot's account for your position in spite of the dozens of contrary reports from both contemporaries of Stiegler AND people who work with the same engines today.
-
And you realize that Franz Stigler, who actually flew the types we're talking about in the actual war, says exactly the opposite?
What makes Franz Stigler a more valid source than all of the other sources we have referenced?
Then again, I am not a Bf109 expert, perhaps the Bf109 had a special weakness with engine cooling?
-
Stiglr,
Let's forget all about engines and the proof and evidence for a second.
You are bashing AH because the programmers decided to make a few compromises in realism (not huge ones mind you - reasonable ones which make a lot of sense given the context).
Guess what? Any simulation must have compromises simply because the simulation is NOT the real thing.
Now, you bash AH because compromises the designers have made are to make a better GAME while sacrificing some degree of realism, right? To you TargetWare is "better" because it makes less compromises as to realism.
Guess what? What is an "Engagement Circle" but a COMPROMISE designed to benefit GAMEPLAY while sacrificing realism? Maybe TargetWare is more realistic, but your whole point is that AH is bad because it makes compromises AT ALL.
I don't care whether you like your sim super realistic or not - it's your choice to fly whatever you want, I can see both sides. But at the end of the day, your preferred sim TargetWare is just as guilty of sacrificing realism for gameplay, making you no more than a hypocrite.
If you want to argue for something, at least be self consistent. Case closed.
This is a good observation. Let me explain.
1) We all know, no matter on what side of the realism fence we're on, that even a detailed sim can't be 100% right. Nor can it model ALL of the variables or be 100% accurate.
With that out of the way, it becomes a judgment call on how much effort to put into "getting right what you CAN" and creating a playable/enjoyable sim OR game.
If we can agree that far...?
Then, we look at the reasons why I say a more realistic approach is warranted, and the reasons you folks and Dale give for minimizing that realism... that's where you see the REAL schism.
Let's put aside for a moment IF you did or didn't have to manage your engine...
Even after that, we have the gauges... I think (actually, I know, as I've used and produced gauges for in-game aircraft) that you CAN make them accurate to type and nationality, and players WON'T get so confused they won't play :rolleyes: Dale says otherwise. He's voting with his cash register, I'm voting with reality.
Now, there are other areas where the decisions become grayer. There are even times when I'll probably side with Dale on "gameplay" decisions. :O
I don't feel it's necessary to "go to the nines", realism-wise when it comes to engine STARTING procedures. "E" is enough for both you and me. Why? Because faithfully recreating the "magneto + battery + fuel pump wobble + engage clutch or have ground crew turn the prop + hit start switch" sequence adds nothing to the raison d'etre for both AH and Targetware, that is "combat simulation". that's "detail for detail's sake" much like the MS Civilian Flight Simulator does, since their goal is to make the detail of flying and navigating interesting, because there is no combat in Cessnas. Two different sims, two different sets of gameplay decisions.
Now, going back to the engine management disagreement, I do think that managing cooling flaps, mixture, supercharger, prop pitch (when not automatic), even AWAY from combat and during flight to and from combat IS necessary, because what you DO or FAIL TO DO during the flight to combat affects what kind of performance you'll get out of your engine while you ARE in combat.
Now, I know we disagree to what extent this is true... but can you at least see the difference in simulation and its link to a "gameplay decision"?
We could try and simulate the relief tube... is it necessary? No. I notice that Targetware doesn't actually model hydraulic fluid or oil, at least not directly. The fuel pressure gauges and oil pressure gauges don't "work" in play as systems on their own. Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing that modeled... but, the other abstractions that create the engine operation/failure model, taken as a whole are, IMO, a good compromise between realism and gameplay. And, they place the responsibility/challenge in the hands of the players, where I think it belongs.
Getting back to the engagement circle idea: classic mix of gameplay vs. realism. If you're attempting to simulate the Battle for Guadalcanal, the Japanese have to fly to and from Rabaul.... 300 miles away :O to contest the airspace over Savo Island and Henderson Field. Do you really want players to have to lean out and fly over 2 hours to and from that part of the Slot? No: even I wouldn't sign up for that. But do you set it up so that Zeros appear over Guadalcanal with full fuel tanks, no need for drop tanks, or can they actually make it home if during combat they take a hit to a fuel tank? That wouldn't be very realistic. Fact was, if they took a fuel leak to a tank that was mostly full, provided they didn't catch fire from the hit, chances are they wouldn't make it back to Rabaul, because they needed quite a fuel reserve to get back.
Now: one way to create more realism, without needlessly saddling players with 4 hours of "commute time" in Zeros and Betties... is to give them an airstart NW of Savo Island... far enough away to change course or altitude... but no so far that they have to fly hours of eventless flight just to try and find a fight. With Targetware airstarts, fuel consumption to that point is calculated. So, when you "spawn" in the air, your drop tanks are near empty, and the wing and fuse tanks are full. And, when you hit the edge of the disengage circle on the way home, the calculation is made as to whether you have enough fuel to make it home. If not, you're adjudged to have lost the aircraft. If so, you're "gifted" a landing.... and yes, even if you have other battle damage that might make it a bit harder than if you had to do the landing yourself. *shrug* I can't think of a better way to do that other than "randomization" of the result or some teleport device where you "respawn" in mid air near Rabaul and have to make the landing yourself to get credit for the RTB. Now notice, this doesn't sacrifice much realism, even though it definitely IS a "gameplay" device. This rather UPHOLDS more realism while IMPROVING the gameplay and the player's ability to enjoy the sim.
Here's another example of bowing to gameplay and player considerations: auto level. Now, some planes actually had auto leveling (like Sperry autopilots, etc.)... but we allow players to level their wings automatically (actually it's a server setting which can be turned on or off at the server host's discretion). One reason is, during long missions, real players might have to go to the real bathroom.... or deal with REAL wives and kids and dogs and such for a couple minutes... so the autopilot allows them to "fly" for a minute or three, hands off, while they deal with real life and then come back. Or they can even set a course and leave for quite some time.... the risk being, they're pretty likely dead if enemy encounter them unexpectedly during their break. I personally don't have a problem with this arrangement provided auto level can't be abused as a "get out of a spin free" device.
So, anyway, I hope you see I do realize that there are many, many gameplay vs. simulation decisions that have to be made.
-
Allen Dickerson wrote,
Oooooh, GOOD one!!! So true... Mind if I use that? Do I need to attribute that to you?
Wow such a witty come back from a professional writer. Is that why you have never been able to hold a job longer than 1 year?
Why is it Allen that you can not hold a job, possibly because of the same attitude towards logic and discussion you display here?
HiTech
-
Allen Dickerson Writes A wall of text to say 1 thing.
Allen's form of realism is correct (as he admits all is a choice) and people should listen to him and him only.
Ill tell you what Allen take a few million of your own money and go create a Flight Sim as you see it should be made. Then come back and talk.
HiTech
-
Allen Dickerson wrote,
Wow such a witty come back from a professional writer. Is that why you have never been able to hold a job longer than 1 year?
Why is it Allen that you can not hold a job, possibly because of the same attitude towards logic and discussion you display here?
HiTech
LMFAO. :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Even after that, we have the gauges... I think (actually, I know, as I've used and produced gauges for in-game aircraft) that you CAN make them accurate to type and nationality, and players WON'T get so confused they won't play :rolleyes: Dale says otherwise. He's voting with his cash register, I'm voting with reality.
Actually he is voting for realism too, not his cash register. It is unrealistic for pilots flying alongside each other to be using different units of measurement. It adds a confusion element that should not be there.
You are focusing entirely in fidelity to the aircraft. HiTech is focusing on fidelity to air-to-air combat. You are getting confused by that or intentionally misunderstanding what has been explained to you.
-
LMFAO. :rofl :rofl :rofl
I agree :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Having played flight-sims with the airstart/teleport/engagement circle/accelerated time concept, I can honestly say I've found it to be a huge detriment to my enjoyment. I'd much prefer the smaller map scale, and be required to fly to where I want to go, even with the concessions of auto-level, etc.
I don't want to fly several hours to a target, but I sure don't want to be magically blipped over to it either. Talk about a massive anti-immersion, anti-realistic "feel". Ick!
Finding out that a game/sim had that would be enough for me to skip past it, regardless of the other "realistic" aspects. Concessions to reality will be required in certain areas, as you mention. That's just a poor way to handle that particular aspect, IMO.
Another "killer" concession would be AI vehicles. AI ground/ship guns are one thing, because I doubt we'd ever get enough volunteers to man them effectively. I'm ok with those being AI. AI planes or GV's? Nope. Again, a massive "realism" breaker... Been there, done that. It was interesting for a week or two, then BORING.
I'm also of the opinion that some concessions are important to make the average "new" player successful enough to hang around. The game is as fun as it is, mainly due to the swarms of people that play it.
Stiglr, if you didn't buy into that, you'd be busy enough to not feel the need to come over and sway the AH folks to come help populate your stagnant arenas. Busy enough, or you simply wouldn't care whether more people flew your sim or not. The fact that you were "bored" enough to swing in here speaks volumes! How could you be so bored with your product that you'd have the time/desire to do that, if your product was so good?
You accuse Dale of making concessions based on his checkbook. Bravo to him for that! He needs to balance desire for realism with reality, and I think he's doing a pretty good job of it. He's smart enough to realize the importance of a loyal, paying, customer base to keep his sim/game interesting, and keep development moving. I'd much prefer that over a great idea that goes nowhere, because it's no more than a part-time hobby for the developers...
Do you even have time for this? Wouldn't your time be better spent working on your own project? And getting it beyond the Beta phase?
Would I welcome EM? Yup, I'd love to see it. I think it would be best to have it as an option like we do for Auto/manual trim, so newer/less experienced folk could transition to it as they desired. Or else have it set up in a "hyper-realistic" arena, where we could also incorporate wind, night, etc. Airplane specific units of measure? Sure, under the same conditions. I'd hate to see the game suffer or stagnate due to going too realistic for the average Joe, though.
-
Stiggie,
Maybe you might want to try FSO and that would be more to your liking. Assuming a squadron would be willing to take you on after this. Hell, I might be willing to just to show you what you're missing out on by going off on the us.
VMF-251 flew two sorties during Bougainville escorting bombers in our Corsairs (B-24s once, B-25s another) that were over 400-mile round-trips ;an hour out and an hour back again from takeoff, form-up, to landing. And yes, we reduced our power levels both for range (we flew both trips on internal only with plenty to spare) and to keep position with our bombers. We've also flown very long-range strikes on several occaisions.
The point is that there's SEVERAL aspects of this game. The focus of the Mains is on short transit times and quick action. If that's not your thing, or you don't like fighting Spitfires from a P-38, then try the Axis vs. Allies arena, Scenarios, Snapshots, and FSO, all of which promote much of what you think the game should be.
-
Nope....
Because ground crew stuff certainly is out of the scope of a combat sim, I certainly wouldn't want players to have to sit and warm up on the tarmac. Nor would they need to go through a more complex engine start-up than to hit "E" (which simulates in one button press the magnetos, perhaps having ground crew rotate the prop, wobbling the fuel pump, turning on generators, etc.) That's a perfect example of making some gameplay decisions based on how relevant they are to the real reason we play... the combat.
Which takes us tangentially back to the EM argument. Somebody up above talked about some of the mitigating conditions of engines; how real world conditions (maintenance before and after the virtual pilot takes the seat of the cockpit, etc.) have an effect on the condition of the plane you fly. Doesn't it stand to reason that a simulation would not simulate a "ideal world" where an aircraft is "fresh from the factory" but more like standard wartime conditions at the front?
As for transit, well, I know AH doesn't have anything like it, but for very long transit times, we at TW have a cool little device called an engagement circle, which, combined with airstarts, can bring forces together while STILL factoring in fuel usage getting to and from combat. It's a neat little idea... and it keeps TW mods from ever having to use "postage stamp" partial scale maps.
So, we should be expected to have to fly correct distances... but that doesn't mean that if you're doing "B-17s to Berlin" you need to sit in a chilly virtual cockpit for 3 hours each way. ;)
Now, I'm confused... He considers the fine art of starting up a huge piston engine an unnecessary thing? What about the flame outs? Now it's all about what "matters", combat? :rofl And then, he wants to model "standard wartime conditions on the front"? :D And the last nail in this man's totally demented vision is the old - I mean oooollldddd - "Scotty beam me up"-warp-speed-jump-to-action used 20 years ago in Microprose's 1942 series???????!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :x Pleaaaaaaaase! That's so gamey! Aren't you a "Hard-Core Simmer", a guy willing to pump-up manually a landing gear, that wears a flight suit, gloves, helmets and goggles and puts a fan over the monitor to make the white silk scarf fly? :huh
OMG...
-
Allen Dickerson Writes A wall of text to say 1 thing.
Allen's form of realism is correct (as he admits all is a choice) and people should listen to him and him only.
Ill tell you what Allen take a few million of your own money and go create a Flight Sim as you see it should be made. Then come back and talk.
HiTech
Well thats kinda what I was saying....your options are to buy a real plane or make your own game. Either option will leave poor allen all alone.
I hope you also know that the fact that this thread has reached epic proportions to regular posts, that this guy has found a new calling and a new job. :rofl
by the bye is that your real address? :confused: :uhoh
-
Allen Dickerson wrote,
Wow such a witty come back from a professional writer. Is that why you have never been able to hold a job longer than 1 year?
Why is it Allen that you can not hold a job, possibly because of the same attitude towards logic and discussion you display here?
HiTech
That's really low, Dale, even from YOU.
For one, I don't "hide" behind a handle on the internet. I also don't have anything to hide.
Secondly, my 'real name' and what you posted there is totally irrelevant to the discussion. I don't need to discuss my career path with you, nor do I say anything about yours other than my opinion on the decisions you make on behalf of the sim or game we're discussing (which certainly IS relevant).
I'll request an apology for this... not that I'm expecting one, considering the source.
Maybe I'll settle for just staying on topic. Debate the merits of the topic... you should be able to win with those, if you're correct...
-
That's really low, Dale, even from YOU.
For one, I don't "hide" behind a handle on the internet. I also don't have anything to hide.
Secondly, my 'real name' and what you posted there is totally irrelevant to the discussion. I don't need to discuss my career path with you, nor do I say anything about yours other than my opinion on the decisions you make on behalf of the sim or game we're discussing (which certainly IS relevant).
I'll request an apology for this... not that I'm expecting one, considering the source.
Maybe I'll settle for just staying on topic. Debate the merits of the topic... you should be able to win with those, if you're correct...
Be gone. You took cheap shots at HTC from your first post. If you would have shown "more tact", maybe some would have some sympathy for you. Instead, you DID hide behind your monitor and even took this discussion back to your band of TW nerds. But you only tell them all that is needed to make yourself look good.
Widewing has over 3,200 Logged hours and you have 1% of that, if that? You have no "topic", you've been grasping at straws from the get go.
-
That's really low, Dale, even from YOU.
For one, I don't "hide" behind a handle on the internet. I also don't have anything to hide.
Secondly, my 'real name' and what you posted there is totally irrelevant to the discussion. I don't need to discuss my career path with you, nor do I say anything about yours other than my opinion on the decisions you make on behalf of the sim or game we're discussing (which certainly IS relevant).
I'll request an apology for this... not that I'm expecting one, considering the source.
Maybe I'll settle for just staying on topic. Debate the merits of the topic... you should be able to win with those, if you're correct...
I think know who you are and your background is very relevant in this discussion. The more info that comes out about you, the less your "story" seems to stand up. Of course HT's views and background are well known, and seem to support his points far better than yours.
I think its time for you to crawl back into your little hole. You've lost this battle. From reading your posts on the other board, you don't have much of a leg left to stand on there, and may want to rethink your approach to how you deal with other people, some of whom you may be trying to entice to that other "game".
-
That's really low, Dale, even from YOU.
For one, I don't "hide" behind a handle on the internet. I also don't have anything to hide.
Secondly, my 'real name' and what you posted there is totally irrelevant to the discussion. I don't need to discuss my career path with you, nor do I say anything about yours other than my opinion on the decisions you make on behalf of the sim or game we're discussing (which certainly IS relevant).
I'll request an apology for this... not that I'm expecting one, considering the source.
Maybe I'll settle for just staying on topic. Debate the merits of the topic... you should be able to win with those, if you're correct...
When you sincerely apologize for 10 years of spouting misinformation and maligning my name I will consider an apology.
When you cease to continually throw little barbs in your post I will consider an apology.
When you realize you are in my house, playing with my life and my living and my company ,my employees , my wife, I will consider an apology.
For you this is a hobby, for me it has been my life's work. When you begin to show even a hint of respect I have show you in this entire thread I will consider an apology.
And what does having to post your real name have anything to do with, you continue to use my real name every time you wish to put another dig at me and AH.
Allen , you reap what you sow.
HiTech
-
I know I am going to eagerly await Allen's new ultimate realistic flight sim, TAS II. I wonder if he can get VOSS to help make it, between the both of them they can create the most realistic simulator ever created.
ack-ack
-
All's I can say, "hitech," is that any 'barbs' I put in my posts are on topic and relevant.
And IIRC, I have at times given you a lot of credit for at least creating a popular and successful product. As for your name, you put it out there on your own website, which is really the only reason I happen to know what it is.
If you have to take that personally, that's just a reflection on your character, not mine.
I must say, though, that my remarks can't be that far off the mark to make you resort to this kind of "lower-than-dirt" tactic. You should have been satisfied with the points you've made and how most of your customers are closing ranks behind you.
Apology? To you? You must be kidding.
-
I think your an idiot
-
I think its time to lock the thread, so the troll can go back to his bridge..............
-
Stiglr,
Your barbs have been gratuitous and without purpose. Many of them have required you to either specifically misunderstand what has been said to you or for you to accuse HiTech of being an outright lier.
I do not normally explicitly defend a company and there are many things that I would do differently than HTC has, but you have been very disrespectful in this whole thread to HTC and to other posters. You have not credited us for any knowledge, integrity or intelligence. You have insulted everybody here repeatedly.
-
What gives you the right to critize Hitech? YOU were the one who insulted AH's "inferior flight model" to start with. Nobody forced you to post on this forum. I guess you have that "My game/simulation is superior to your game/simulation" mentality. No game/simulation is perfect, but both has unique features that make them what they are. Even people from YOUR game/simulation agree with this.
We have huge issues here too Stig, I wouldn't be pointing accuracy fingers just yet.
I know Dale well enough (from 12 years ago in WBs), he has to supply a game for a larger market, this means taking the middle ground, and that is the right choice for AH.
Targetware thread (Source of quote) (http://www.targetware.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=15867&highlight=aces+high)
He(Peril) can understand it, why can't you?
P.S. I also find it pathetic how you manipulate the truth. I see that you told everyone that AH uses Manifold pressure. That is not the case. RAF planes (Spitfires, Hurricanes, Typhoons, etc.) use boost. And, as Hitech stated, the 109s are in ATA. However, you probably are to ignorant to realize this.
-
Just read that thread. Complete nonsense from casual WWII aircraft fans who think they know it all.
Our Brewster's performance is done specifically to the Finnish test data as it is specifically the Finnish version in AH. All that blather in the TW thread is wrong as they don't know the first thing about what they are talking about. They think the version we have is supposed to be the version used by the Dutch or RAF or RAAF, which themselves are different from eachother.
-
Anyone want to place bets on how much longer before hitech tires of this and breaks the banstick off in Stiggie's ass?
-
Just read that thread. Complete nonsense from casual WWII aircraft fans who think they know it all.
Our Brewster's performance is done specifically to the Finnish test data as it is specifically the Finnish version in AH. All that blather in the TW thread is wrong as they don't know the first thing about what they are talking about. They think the version we have is supposed to be the version used by the Dutch or RAF or RAAF, which themselves are different from eachother.
Karnak: Please do not make this a target ware fans are idiots vs Ah fans are cool, this has nothing to do with a we v them. They are free to enjoy their hobby just like you. I see people in TW who enjoy trying to learn and make parts of game, more power to them. Please feel free to point out any inaccuracies they say that you see, but keep it civil. Words like "All that blather" are not exactly helpful in portraying knowledge.
HiTech
-
Just read that thread. Complete nonsense from casual WWII aircraft fans who think they know it all.
Our Brewster's performance is done specifically to the Finnish test data as it is specifically the Finnish version in AH. All that blather in the TW thread is wrong as they don't know the first thing about what they are talking about. They think the version we have is supposed to be the version used by the Dutch or RAF or RAAF, which themselves are different from eachother.
Its not their fault they don't know the situation. They only know what Stiglr has been telling them. They think that he is referring that our Brewster is the heavy B-339 Buffalo. Not once does he mention that our brewster is the stripped-down B-239. After all, that forum seems to be dealing with the CBI theater where the B-339 served, which performed poorly, but not the B-239 that served with the Finns, which had a very good service record. Basically, our Buffalo IS NOT THE SAME ONE USED IN MALAYA.
I don't blame the fans at TW. Saying they don't know their aircraft is unfair. They only know about this game what they are told, and if its coming from Stiglr, it won't be good.
-
geez
I thought this was going to be another engine management thread and decided to ignore it, until I saw it was 17 pages long. I miss all the fun.
-
geez
I thought this was going to be another engine management thread and decided to ignore it, until I saw it was 17 pages long. I miss all the fun.
:D
-
Its not their fault they don't know the situation. They only know what Stiglr has been telling them. They think that he is referring that our Brewster is the heavy B-339 Buffalo. Not once does he mention that our brewster is the stripped-down B-239. After all, that forum seems to be dealing with the CBI theater where the B-339 served, which performed poorly, but not the B-239 that served with the Finns, which had a very good service record. Basically, our Buffalo IS NOT THE SAME ONE USED IN MALAYA.
I don't blame the fans at TW. Saying they don't know their aircraft is unfair. They only know about this game what they are told, and if its coming from Stiglr, it won't be good.
Points taken.
He is the one portraying it incorrectly and the other poster was running with that.
-
Well the title "engines running fullblast" is appropriate. There are quite a few here running at fullblast.
:x Quick throttle back and adjust prop for cruise or sombody is going to blow a head gasket! :rofl