Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 5PointOh on September 07, 2009, 03:39:27 AM
-
So...after reading a bunch of hipe in another thread about Targetware, I decided to check it out and make a personal comparison between it and AH.
WARNING: PEOPLE WITH WEAK STOMACH SHOULD SKIP TO THE NEXT THREAD
I venture over to the TW website, which is hardly user friendly, create an account and download the main version. Next, I prepare for what I am assuming is going to be an average game by looks of the screenshots I seen. This is where it gets ugly.
I click begin or start...and receive a message that I must download a mod to even play. Download the mod (2hrs on my 20mps connection) Ok now where can I fly and participate in aerial combat. Oh there’s nobody on. Hell it only 1am EST . Ok, I’ll try the offline mode. I pick a theater, and prepare to take a 51 up. Opps no 51, F4U, ect ect to take up. After 10 min of searching for a mod that will allow me to fly my pony, success.
Wow. DISAPPONTMENT. The graphics are utterly horrid! The scenery is bland and very Atari like, no detail, no trees. There were a couple of buildings but nothing spectacular. Lets check out the exterior of the 51. Wow. AH must have all the talented skinners and “coadrs”. This is poo!
TW P-51
(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z235/nathanyoung1980/006.jpg)
AH P-51
(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z235/nathanyoung1980/ahss1.jpg)
Ok, so now I’m off the ground, looking around, and I see water. I fly to the water and it looks like someone painted it with MSPaint. Disgusting.
TW Water
(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z235/nathanyoung1980/004.jpg)
AH Water
(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z235/nathanyoung1980/ahss13.jpg)
This is where I was super disappointed. Ok here is this engine management I’ve heard so much about. Supercharger position: Check, Mixture: Check, throttle: check. Ok start the engine. I’m rolling and up to speed to take off. WHAT IS THIS POO! There’s no feeling at all. This 51 seems so light and fluffy. 51s aren’t light and fluffy on takeoff. I pull back on my X-52p expecting some G effects. The pilot groaned. What no blacking out! Ok, how about an aileron roll? Whoa. Is this thing modeled like a FSX Extra 300. No feeling or character to the plane. This is the SIM that I’ve heard Stiglr talk so much about. So all of this “realistic” EM and the flight model is nerfed? Ok maybe it’s just the 51. So I look around and find a P-47D-40 (a heavy bird). What the hell. It feels the same as the P-51. Not very realistic.
So here is my conclusion, there’s no place like home. AH, AH Community, I salute you. TW…well let’s just say, you’ll be uninstalled after I post.
-
It good to venture across the fence once and a while. Lets you appreciate what we have here.
-
the TW 51 looks kinda ... stumpy :huh
-
To be fair to TW, it is majority user created and using an older version of OpenGL (at least it used to when I played TW: Rabual) but I agree, it's pretty craptastic in the graphics department and despite the cries of the TW community, the flight model is not all that great. The TW community thinks by being able to press another button it makes the game more 'realistic' and therefore a sim but how can it be realistic when the flight model is anything but?
ack-ack
-
sounds kinda like my little field trip to Fighter Ace one day.
-
From the looks of it that game has good graphics for the kind of game it is.
For one the 3D in that picture looks equal if not better then AH's 3D model. IMO all it is missing is a hires skin and it could give AH planes a run for their money. As for the ground clutter I don't really think that game needs it seeing that they don't have GVs like AH. (or do they?) Lest the ground detail in that game looks good. Better then the graphics then what some of us have to use. But at the end of the day those are two different games and saying which one is 'better' is a matter of opinion. Just like trying to compare AH and IL2. It all comes down to what feels better or right to you.
-
Sometime soon Stiglr will be along to grumble at us all.
-
Hmmmm... I wouldn't call that an objective comparison. In any case, your observation that there's no one to fight in TW is absolutely true. I remember DL'ing it and kept checking their servers during prime-time and half of a Saturday, with no luck. As for how a sim feels, after I fly Il-2, AH planes all feel pretty similar, just the way Il-2 planes feel similar when you go there from AH. Each sim has its own distinct feel, and the perception that "all the planes are the same," is an effect of being acclimated to an individual flight model.
Don't start crowing too much about AH graphics; Il-2 still has the rights to the "prettiest" title.
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/Il2/il2fb2008-07-2216-22-36-54-1.jpg)
-
Sometimes the grass ain't greener on the other side.
-
No way do the planes in Il2 not feel worse than AH. They're all the same. And there's the oddities (tac maneuvering without a vstab) and clues that the FM is just many flight envelopes stitched together. This isn't my acclimatization to AH.. It's my conclusion after almost a year playing only Il2.
-
Honestly, I don't understand this vague talk of "feel" at all myself. All I "feel" is the spring tensions of my joystick. Roll rate, stall speed, etc. they are different from plane to plane in both AHII and Il.
Hmmmm... I wouldn't call that an objective comparison. In any case, your observation that there's no one to fight in TW is absolutely true. I remember DL'ing it and kept checking their servers during prime-time and half of a Saturday, with no luck. As for how a sim feels, after I fly Il-2, AH planes all feel pretty similar, just the way Il-2 planes feel similar when you go there from AH. Each sim has its own distinct feel, and the perception that "all the planes are the same," is an effect of being acclimated to an individual flight model.
Don't start crowing too much about AH graphics; Il-2 still has the rights to the "prettiest" title.
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/Il2/il2fb2008-07-2216-22-36-54-1.jpg)
-
Vague - Flog Il2's planes around departure, you'll see what we mean :)
-
I got IL2 just after I started playing AH2, as I wanted to fly an offline campaign mode, despite the good graphics, and good damage model two of my biggest gripes was the noise the guns makes :noid and that every plane felt the same to fly to me, from a p38 to a 109, its a shame as I would have really liked to play it more. Its not a difference in flight model between the two as when I fly ROF, each plane feels different to me
-
Vague - Flog Il2's planes around departure, you'll see what we mean :)
I have and...what? Honk the all the way back in AHII, shudder and drop a wing, honk the stick all the way back in Il2, shudder and drop a wing...
-
Having been a long time AH player since late in the beta and very small time contributor to the TW mod side when the TW: Hanoi mod was trying to get off the ground and flying around in TW: Rabaul...the two games AH and TW are VASTLY DIFFERENT and are only meant to be considered in the same genre because they are "desktop flight simulation GAMES"!
#1 No one short of building a several thousand dollar sim cockpit in ANY flight sim can get a "feel" for how a cartoon plane should perform.
#2 Every game is different and done slightly different to reach someone else.
#3 Finally this b($^&^(@ that one community does against another is just another reason that the flight sim genre is dying or dead but just doesn't realize it yet.
My $.02 here is that TW is an open development engine for a group of players to get together and put something specific into the flight sim community as a whole. Eventually they are going to go pay for play...maybe...but I doubt they will ever have more than a passing fancy as a place to go and scratch a specific itch like the WW1, Korea and hopefully Viet Nam planesets without having to buy 3 or more games.
-
"soon Stiglr will be along"
lol. My thought too. He'll berate you for liking brand xxxxx over Target:Where? because
the P-fifteen_ooopety_doop in Target:Where? has the exact number of rivets modelle in
the wing filet where as the P-fifteen_ooopety_doop in brand xxxxx does not.
Anyway. The five people who "fly" Target:Where? are fine where they are and kudos for
them in prefering it over AH or WBs or whatever. TRUST me. Leave them be! :)
-
I have and...what? Honk the all the way back in AHII, shudder and drop a wing, honk the stick all the way back in Il2, shudder and drop a wing...
Are you saying that a comprehensive assessment of comparative envelopes boils down to honking the stick like that?
-
Are you saying that a comprehensive assessment of comparative envelopes boils down to honking the stick like that?
I thought we had already established in both games you run into different rates and radii of turn, different control forces at high speeds, different roll rates, etc...and in both games planes seem to do what you'd expect out of single-engine prop planes with very powerful powerplants when you stall them.
I think in Il2 F-22-esque post-stall maneuvers aren't nearly as do-able. This is one of the few favorable things I have to say about Il2.
-
The five people who "fly" Target:Where? are fine where they are and kudos for
them in prefering it over AH or WBs or whatever. TRUST me. Leave them be!
No truer words have ever been spoken. A few would love nothing more than to make our lives as miserable as theirs.
-
No way do the planes in Il2 not feel worse than AH. They're all the same. And there's the oddities (tac maneuvering without a vstab) and clues that the FM is just many flight envelopes stitched together. This isn't my acclimatization to AH.. It's my conclusion after almost a year playing only Il2.
Kind of like being able to fly just fine with half a wing in AH? ;) I don't know what you mean by "feel worse." Each plane has a unique roll rate, a unique turn rate, elevator response, AoA limit, etc. To me the main difference between the two fm's is at the onset of a stall. In AH you can perceive the oncoming stall well in advance. There's also the stall horn, or whatever sound you use, to give you warning. In Il-2, many aircraft buffet a little bit and then stall without warning. Some are much more predictable, like the Bf 109, but others can be a real pain, e.g. P-51D.
I think in Il2 F-22-esque post-stall maneuvers aren't nearly as do-able. This is one of the few favorable things I have to say about Il2.
Very true. It's much more difficult to get fancy at departure speeds in Il-2. Things get mushy, and then you drop a wing if you don't get your airspeed up.
-------------------
P.S. My biggest criticism of the Il-2 FM is the TAS of many planes at high altitude. When you get to 9km, some of the TAS are just wacky. 6km and below things seem much more accurate.
-
Bnz we were saying Il2 feels vague, literally and in terms of differences between planes. At departure they're almost no different.
I actually forgot what post departure was like, in terms of usefulness, so I can't comment..
Anax - Damaged is a different story. We don't have gradual damage, so the comparison isn't there. Feel worse? Well, they feel like vague poop. :) Like you said yourself, mushy. There's performance differences but again, I was and am talking about near departure. In a knife fight near departure they barely feel different. I'm not talking about departure predictability or depth, but their behavior at the stall. Just different amplitudes of the same character.
And then you add those oddities like altitude flight and flying with no vstab, and everything else.. The rock&rollin of planes firing 50cal..
-
Bnz we were saying Il2 feels vague, literally and in terms of differences between planes. At departure they're almost no different.
I actually forgot what post departure was like, in terms of usefulness, so I can't comment..
Anax - Damaged is a different story. We don't have gradual damage, so the comparison isn't there. Feel worse? Well, they feel like vague poop. :) Like you said yourself, mushy. There's performance differences but again, I was and am talking about near departure. In a knife fight near departure they barely feel different. I'm not talking about departure predictability or depth, but their behavior at the stall. Just different amplitudes of the same character.
And then you add those oddities like altitude flight and flying with no vstab, and everything else.. The rock&rollin of planes firing 50cal..
Yeah, I agree the FM gets very mushy at stall speed. The .50 cal rockin' thing has been fixed, I don't know when, but it's no longer an issue in 4.08m.
-
Bnz we were saying Il2 feels vague, literally and in terms of differences between planes. At departure they're almost no different.
Well, that is where we disagree. Il2's P-51D will flip over on its back in a heartbeat. You almost can't make a 109 do the same thing without try hard.
-
Agree to disagree.. One exception doesnt change the rule.
Anax - What kinda physics modeling are they doing to have such a flaw in the first place?
-
Anax - What kinda physics modeling are they doing to have such a flaw in the first place?
You mean the .50 cal rocking thing? From what I understand, it was a flaw in how the guns fired from each wing. Left wing guns fire, right wing guns fire, left wing guns fire, etc. You could create the same effect in AH if the guns fired that way.
-
I think it was less a synch issue than it was they overmodeled the recoil. It happened (albeit to a lesser extent) with aircraft mounting Brownings in the center.
And I agree with moot. Maybe not all, but many aircraft are modeled in such a way as I really don't feel much difference in handling. A LARGE number of aircraft even have the exact same flap positions: Up, "combat," takeoff and landing, regardless of what the historical aircraft actually had (the F4U is missing about half its flap positions, and some aircraft that only had full up or full down now have too many). And of course, there's the overmodeled engine overheats (irrespective over how long in the game you have to run at full power before the thing fails, the point is that it WOULDN'T in a single sortie to begin with).
-
It's a dumb comparison to begin with. Completely different development models, different starting points, different goals, etc.
As for my own opinion, I found that the "target: Korea" aircraft feel was nearly spot-on for reproducing the performance and handling of a Korean war era jet. For flying combat in jets with guns, TK was superb. I didnt' fly the WWII targetware planes very much but frankly they didn't "suck" and grumpy comparisons between two flight models is kind of silly. Every sim will have its own character and development goals, period.
As for the quality of the terrain and other eye candy in targetware... The business model is if you don't like the way it looks, get off your fat donut and generate some content yourself. If you just complain and don't contribute, then STFU/GTFO. That's the main reason why I tried to be really active in the alpha and beta testing when AH first started... I had some preferences and wanted to contribute instead of just whining about things I didn't like or didn't think were realistic. It's pretty clear when the whine/contribution ratio gets below 1, and both targetware and HTC have ways for people to contribute if they don't like something.
-
sounds kinda like my little field trip to Fighter Ace one day.
I did that, and it was crap. blah :rolleyes:
-
Eagl the comparison started (tho I'll agree the OP isn't thoroughly impartial) with "Stiglr" in the AC forum. Apparently he's been at it for 10 years.
-
It's a dumb comparison to begin with. Completely different development models, different starting points, different goals, etc.
As for my own opinion, I found that the "target: Korea" aircraft feel was nearly spot-on for reproducing the performance and handling of a Korean war era jet. For flying combat in jets with guns, TK was superb. I didnt' fly the WWII targetware planes very much but frankly they didn't "suck" and grumpy comparisons between two flight models is kind of silly. Every sim will have its own character and development goals, period.
As for the quality of the terrain and other eye candy in targetware... The business model is if you don't like the way it looks, get off your fat donut and generate some content yourself. If you just complain and don't contribute, then STFU/GTFO. That's the main reason why I tried to be really active in the alpha and beta testing when AH first started... I had some preferences and wanted to contribute instead of just whining about things I didn't like or didn't think were realistic. It's pretty clear when the whine/contribution ratio gets below 1, and both targetware and HTC have ways for people to contribute if they don't like something.
Eagl, It was my opinion. Nothing more. If you dont agree with it fine. Perhaps I think your opinion is off. I didnt request you to like it, and by no means was I grumpy, like your are sir. But thanks for your input. Have a great day.
-
Eagl the comparison started (tho I'll agree the OP isn't thoroughly impartial) with "Stiglr" in the AC forum. Apparently he's been at it for 10 years.
It's still silly. Stiglr didn't post here, so...?
-
Just so you knew the context. This was in GD originally.
-
Eagl, It was my opinion. Nothing more. If you dont agree with it fine. Perhaps I think your opinion is off. I didnt request you to like it, and by no means was I grumpy, like your are sir. But thanks for your input. Have a great day.
What did you expect, starting a thread trashing a player-created game that isn't making anyone any money?
If you had a real opinion in there, other than just talking crap about a game you haven't contributed to, it's well hidden. Your post was in pretty poor taste. If you wanted to do a real comparison, you could have easily done so. But you acted the boor and now you're complaining that someone called you on your poor behavior. At least you're consistent.
-
Just so you knew the context. This was in GD originally.
Sure. It was still a pretty boorish post.
-
I won't argue that one..
-
There were a couple of buildings but nothing spectacular. Lets check out the exterior of the 51. Wow. AH must have all the talented skinners and “coadrs”. This is poo!
I have to disagree.... among the AHII 3D models the AH P51 looks particularly poor, worse than the one pictured at least.... and especially considering that that skin looks to be pretty low resolution, it looks superb.
-
What a nice thread filled with... people... who think they know how and what these simulated planes actually should behave like. It would be amusing if it wasn't so pathetic.
-
Yeah. Planes don't need vertical stabs.
-
Some planes can fly with much or all of the vert stab gone. It depends on how much yaw stability the fuselage itself provides. And if I'm not mistaken the Il-2 damage model doesn't show the whole stab gone, just most of it.
This B-25 made it home with most of its vert stabs gone.
(http://www.warwingsart.com/12thAirForce/TailDamage2.jpg)
Even if the entire vert stab is blown off control can be maintained if the damaged structure creates additional drag. Added drag on the tail is a stabilizing force.
This one made it too.
(http://www.talkingproud.us/ImagesHistory/B52LostTail/B52NoTail.jpg)
-
Take off the vstab on the C205, 202, and Ta 152H. See for yourself. I had a P63 maneuver with my 109K4 (flat and rolling scissors) after I took off its vert stab (and put another tater mid fuselage too).
-
I don't think you did "take off" the vert stab since I don't think Il-2 models the vert stab as completely gone, just some of it (reducing stability). You have to shoot the entire tail section off to get all of the vert stab. AH is very uncompromising in their damage model; it's there or it's gone. Il2, not so much.
-
Time code 2:24
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqiXvUsLYwg
As you can see on this Dora the vert stab is not completely gone.
-
Time code 3:56 too.
-
While we're on the subject of other sims, I was wondering:
How does WW2OL compare to AH? From what I've gathered reading about it, WW2OL seems to be more historically accurate/themed, revolves around teamwork more (as a pre-requisite, rather than AH where you can have extraordinary teamwork, but it is ad hoc), but the ACM seems more boring (more noobs upping in planes).
I may check it out - seems like the primary competitor to AH, if you can call it that.
-
While we're on the subject of other sims, I was wondering:
How does WW2OL compare to AH? From what I've gathered reading about it, WW2OL seems to be more historically accurate/themed, revolves around teamwork more (as a pre-requisite, rather than AH where you can have extraordinary teamwork, but it is ad hoc), but the ACM seems more boring (more noobs upping in planes).
I may check it out - seems like the primary competitor to AH, if you can call it that.
From what I understand, the air war in WW2OL is like the ground war in Aces High.
-
From what I understand, the air war in WW2OL is like the ground war in Aces High.
Care to elaborate? I haven't been around the ground war in AH much - all I know is that it's not the emphasis.
-
all I know is that it's not the emphasis.
The pretty much says it right there.
-
Care to elaborate? I haven't been around the ground war in AH much - all I know is that it's not the emphasis.
Posted a comparison about this in a recent thread here for WW2OL or whatever it is called these days. In almost the entire beta testing for the game the air war was great. Then about the time it went live/retail they patched the aircraft and made them ridiculous to try and fly/fight in. It became very arcadish when compared to other flight simulation games. The ground war in WW2OL is where they make their money and the air war is where they hope that someone flys a bomber mission occasionally. Unlike AH which is the polar opposite of WW2OL with the air war versus the ground.
-
Vert stabs and yaw stability:
I have seen a single-engine prop driven flying wing. Guy brought one to Reklaw one year. Flew, landed, and took off without uncontrollable spinning. How this should be applied to WWII birds is something I frankly can't say.
I will tell you one thing though: The fact that players can get a ditch or landing after their airplane has been set on fire and is spouting gouts of flaming avgas is *alot* seems alot more annoying and gamey than someone landing with a shot-away stab would be. :devil
-
This guy made it, so why shouldn't we? ;)
(http://vf2.org/images/history/vf2_crash_enterprise.jpg)
-
Btw. incredible display of bravery from catapult officer Lt. Walter Chewning. Should have won him a medal or two.
-
What did you expect, starting a thread trashing a player-created game that isn't making anyone any money?
If you had a real opinion in there, other than just talking crap about a game you haven't contributed to, it's well hidden. Your post was in pretty poor taste. If you wanted to do a real comparison, you could have easily done so. But you acted the boor and now you're complaining that someone called you on your poor behavior. At least you're consistent.
I am far from complaining. Wouldn't you say that AH has player created features? Yes I may have been harsh, so in light of that I have made an all out honest opinion based comparison. <<S>> Take care Eagl
-User Interface-
AH seems to be more user friendly compared to TW. In TW you must download many different mods to play in a certain area or fly a particular plane. Some of these may be a quite lengthy download. On my internet connection (20mps) it took approximately 2hrs to download one mod. Other mods were quicker, but the wait time was not what I had hoped for.
Inside the TW mod there are many different mini scenarios to choose from. Some had descriptions others did not. This made it a troublesome time to decide where I’d like to participate at. As I was wanting to fly the P-51 it took some time to find a mini mod that had the P-51 in it.
In my attempts to set up my X52P, I found it very difficult to map the controller buttons (as there are numerous on an X52P). TW does have nice info with the press of the ESC on flight tips, or key strokes to operate specific controls.
While in the “seat” of the aircraft, the panel layout is close to accurate, but the view around the cockpit was control by my mouse. I was not very comfortable with this as I typically have my mouse pushed off to the side while I’m in flight. If I bumped the mouse my “eyes on position” move causing me to have to adjust.
Overall, I feel that AH is much more user friendly as far as starting a sortie and getting your personal controls setup.
-Graphics-
On my PC the graphics looked to be a bit blurred and fuzzy. Even without the AH hi res pack I feel that the AH graphics are more crisp and clear. I did enjoy the vapor streams off the wing tips from a hard maneuver. I cannot comment on the effect of having multiple people in the same area and the effects on the graphics due to a lack of other players.
The water in TW is medium blue with little white specks, and I assume it to give you the impression of real water. Even with the advanced water of AH V2.14 off or the previous V2.13 of AH (prior to the new reflective water), AH’s water seemed to have a real presence.
In the TW cockpits, the gauges seemed difficult to read, as they were slightly blurred. The gauge needles also seem slightly blurred, and difficult to read exact airspeeds.
TW does have somewhat realist flaps graphics compared to AH, although this is minor. But you could seem that the flaps have a rounded inner wing edge to them as compared to AHs squared design.
Ground clutter in AH is far superior verse TW in my eyes. AH has a more lifelike appearance when at altitude. The TW ground textures seemed to be rather bland, and for me this took away from the flying experience.
I did enjoy the fact that the runways looked like dirt strips, verse the AH community airport, a sense of “being on the front” in my eyes. Also when starting the big Merlin engine there was a cloud of dust from the prop blast, another nice little touch.
Overall, the base graphics of TW verse AH base graphics is debatable. In my opinion though the AH graphics have a more crisp and clear look to them right out of the “box”.
-Flight-
Once in flight I felt that the TW planes felt the same. Between the P-51 and a P-47 they felt equal in terms of pitch, roll, and yaw. Meaning I expected to the P-47 to feel heavy when compare to the smaller P-51. And in my opinion they didn’t.
I felt it was difficult to judge speed while in flight in TW. In AH the controls of the plane become lighter and heavier depending on the plane and speed. I could not acquire this same sense of feeling in the TW product, and had to constantly check my gauges to determine my speed.
I cannot comment on feel during combat verse other players, as I could not find any logged into the servers.
The lack of ammo counters would take a little time to get accustom to, as I do not have the precise duration of fire verse ammo left on plane tucked away in my head.
Engine management controls are used in TW, which is somewhat of a neat feature. Although, not having my 51 flight manual in front of me made it difficult to gauge when to engage different levels of blower speeds. Cowl flaps, oil cooler shutters, prop pitch, mixture are controllable features in TW. But for me it’s not something that would pull me to TW vs. AH . Although lifelike, without the mutli levered and switch setup for control, it was not as fancy as I would have thought. Perhaps with actual levers to control these features, I would have been able to emerge myself into this feature.
Flaps on the 51 were also different compared to AH. There were no set degree points. I compare it to the power window function of my car. Depending on the position of the flaps when you let off is where the flap stops. So you basically have anywhere to 1o to full flaps.
Overall, I wish there had been some players on to engage in combat with. I do feel that AH does portray a better “perceived feeling of flight” than TW.
-Community-
Although there was no one on when I made my attempt to play, I did take a gander at their forums. There seemed to be a few core players. Most of them spoke about many of the same issues that we discuss on our forums. I did notice that the lack of players does come up often. This leads me to believe that the overall fan base and player core is rather small. For me this is a direct turn off to TW. I enjoy the fact that AH allows one to log in anytime, anywhere around the world and find a battle.
Much of TW is player created, and I give them “props” for what they have done, but at the same time AH is also player driven. Perhaps not in the types and models of planes in the game, but with skins, maps, scenarios, snaps shots, and other event content.
Overall, the communities are much the same, there just happens to be many more AHers than TWers.
In closing, I feel that AH is a better structured environment, and has a large player base that will keep AH going and growing long into the future. As for the player base at TW, I offer them to come join us in the skies of AH, enjoy a scenario, or snapshot. But if you enjoy being able to “control” the functions of the aircraft, check out TW. As for me, I’m quite happy where I’m at, and plan on staying with the AH community.
-
This guy made it, so why shouldn't we? ;)
(http://vf2.org/images/history/vf2_crash_enterprise.jpg)
The plane is probably still a write-off though. Anyone showing hits followed by the kind of flames you see in AHII on their gun footage would be awarded a kill.
-
I am far from complaining. Wouldn't you say that AH has player created features? Yes I may have been harsh, so in light of that I have made an all out honest opinion based comparison. <<S>> Take care Eagl
snip
Good feature comparison. <<S>>
The only thing you left out, and in all fairness you might have to do a little research, was a comparison of the people who are doing the design work behind the games. Targetware started out with one guy doing almost everything :)
Also, when I quit playing Target Korea, you could fairly easily change the control configuration to almost exactly mirror AH. You could map views to your joystick hat for example. I seem to recall some sort of easy engine mode that automated the engine controls at a slight power and fuel efficiency handicap. I dunno if they have something like that now, plus I spent most of my time flying the F-86 or Mig-15...
Finally, if the flight models are still made by the user community, you might find some variance in quality. One thing that makes AH good is that Pyro rules the flight modeling with an iron fist - He is dedicated to ensuring consistency across all flight models based wherever possible on actual flight test data, not anecdotal evidence about what one plane should be able to do compared to another.
-
This guy made it, so why shouldn't we? ;)
(http://vf2.org/images/history/vf2_crash_enterprise.jpg)
There's film of that incident, or one very similar. Guy hops on to burning gas tank like it's a matter of course.
Sweet cheezus, :salute
-
I don't think you did "take off" the vert stab since I don't think Il-2 models the vert stab as completely gone, just some of it (reducing stability). You have to shoot the entire tail section off to get all of the vert stab. AH is very uncompromising in their damage model; it's there or it's gone. Il2, not so much.
Combat barrel rolls and scissors with two structural stubs for a vstab. Even the guy in the P63 said it wasnt right, after it happened.
-
Wow. AH must have all the talented skinners and “coadrs”. This is poo!
You need a good pair of glasses.
Take a ride in the AH2' C.202/C.205 and tell me if the graphics and the cockpits are better than those of TW.
Some AH2 aircraft are good. Some, like the Macchi's, are butt ugly even with 6-8 years old standards.
Generally speaking, they all need a restyling.
I hate to say it after 7-8 years of AH2 flying .... Heck, even aircraft from BoB2 are better (how old is it?):
(http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/2555/shot449.jpg)
-
In regards to pro' and con's of these game's one essential element missing from all of them is the scratch and sniff element. This I believe is a valid element to incorporate into all of these games.
I must make it known that I am testing various models at present. :x
-
BoB2 was released mid '05. 1 year before FSX. Not a really good comparison.
-
whatever stiggler says, i think to myself:
"never argue with idiots, they drag you down on their level and beat you with experience"
so let these 10 guy fly their super simulator, let them follow their mission crap, let them stay happy with 5 guys online. Believe me, i flown 7 year WB, 2 years IL2, and i tried TW too, there was no other like tw i went away from it after some hours.......
-
The plane is probably still a write-off though. Anyone showing hits followed by the kind of flames you see in AHII on their gun footage would be awarded a kill.
True, but as long as you walk away from the wreck you wouldn't be "awarded" a death.
-
Hmm.
I run the Targetware Korea server. I run it because I like to fly the Korean war sets of aircraft (not all of them of course). Since I have been working with Target Korea, I have had a blast. For me it has been learning a different type of programming that I have been used to. As with any programmer it is “lots of mistakes, lots of fun!”.
I still fly Aces High, well because I like it. Some of the people here I have been flying with for over 5 years and they are good friends. I like flying the WWII aircraft in Aces High more than Targetware. That being said “I” love flying the F-86, the B-29 where it is not the best flight model, it is fun and the helicopter is…. Well…different.
As for the flight models, I can look into them and change some setting if it needs to be changed. For instance, some changes were Jet engine idle thrust settings, Weapons load outs on F9f panther and Mig-15 were off. No I don’t put afterburners on the F-86 just for fun (but I can).
www.targetkorea.net
And just to push some of you over the edge…
I STILL PLAY MICTOSOFT FLIGHT SIM!!!!! HHAHAHAHAHAH
Peace
-
Hmm.
I run the Targetware Korea server. I run it because I like to fly the Korean war sets of aircraft (not all of them of course). Since I have been working with Target Korea, I have had a blast. For me it has been learning a different type of programming that I have been used to. As with any programmer it is “lots of mistakes, lots of fun!”.
I still fly Aces High, well because I like it. Some of the people here I have been flying with for over 5 years and they are good friends. I like flying the WWII aircraft in Aces High more than Targetware. That being said “I” love flying the F-86, the B-29 where it is not the best flight model, it is fun and the helicopter is…. Well…different.
As for the flight models, I can look into them and change some setting if it needs to be changed. For instance, some changes were Jet engine idle thrust settings, Weapons load outs on F9f panther and Mig-15 were off. No I don’t put afterburners on the F-86 just for fun (but I can).
www.targetkorea.net
And just to push some of you over the edge…
I STILL PLAY MICTOSOFT FLIGHT SIM!!!!! HHAHAHAHAHAH
Peace
That doesn't change the fact that your buddy Stigler came in here and embarrassed himself and the "Targetware Community". Even funnier are the "experts" on that site who leave the Finnish in the mentioning of the Brewster. But Stigler crossed the line when he tried ripping on Dale's game.
FWIW, the link titled "Sceranios" should be Scenarios.
-
That doesn't change the fact that your buddy Stigler came in here and embarrassed himself and the "Targetware Community". Even funnier are the "experts" on that site who leave the Finnish in the mentioning of the Brewster. But Stigler crossed the line when he tried ripping on Dale's game.
FWIW, the link titled "Sceranios" should be Scenarios.
Calling someone his buddy because they play the same game doesn't make sense to me. Or can I call anyone who plays AH your buddy and say that they represent the AH community? :P
As HT pointed out, even the other TW users seem to think Stiglr is a little "off."
-
Calling someone his buddy because they play the same game doesn't make sense to me. Or can I call anyone who plays AH your buddy and say that they represent the AH community? :P
As HT pointed out, even the other TW users seem to think Stiglr is a little "off."
Just Blame Karaya. :rock
-
the TW 51 looks kinda ... stumpy :huh
It's the smaller version,the P50.5 :D
-
Kind of like being able to fly just fine with half a wing in AH? ;)
I used to think that seemed odd, until I ran across this picture:
(http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/misc/aces_high/tbmHalfWing.jpg)
-
I used to think that seemed odd, until I ran across this picture:
(http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/misc/aces_high/tbmHalfWing.jpg)
or
(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/Masherbrum/BrazilianP-47hitschimney.jpg)
That made it home too.
-
Nice photographs of the lucky few.
-
FWIW, the link titled "Sceranios" should be Scenarios.
Thanks! I try not to drink and work on the web, but sometimes it's just beer. Ya know?
-
or
(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/Masherbrum/BrazilianP-47hitschimney.jpg)
That made it home too.
You're supporting Brooke supporting DH's reply to my original argument that Il2's FM is bunk when it has a stabilizer (unique vstab, not one of two/four hstab) completely removed but for two stubs, and the plane still maneuvering at combat performance.
-
Looking at the environmental graphics, I think a comparison with Aces High I would be more even.
For those of you that missed it, I've got a RapidShare ZIP of the final AHI here (http://rapidshare.com/files/255691336/Aces_High_I.zip). I think it has Mitsu's sounds installed too. Unzip and run.
-
Nice photographs of the lucky few.
As if it happens all of the time in Aces High? :)
Not saying it's 'near impossibly difficult', if you've got much more flying experience in that state than any real pilot would, it's not even that difficult depending on the situation and plane, however it takes a lot of effort and experience to do...
-
I Aces High, we cannot land a plane with as much wing missing as the picture Karaya posted. We can fight it and keep from spinning out of control maybe but the end result is it's going down. However we can keep it flying when the wing tips have been removed. There is a picture of a P38 somewhere on this board flying with even more wingtip missing than the TBM posted above.
-
You're supporting Brooke supporting DH's reply to my original argument that Il2's FM is bunk when it has a stabilizer (unique vstab, not one of two/four hstab) completely removed but for two stubs, and the plane still maneuvering at combat performance.
I've never played IL2. It's tempting to buy, but it'd be just for the eye candy, other than that I'd have no interest. I'm told by many it's flight model "is unrealistic" in comparison with Aces High, which keeps me a loyal HTC customer.
I just posted a picture of the Brazilian P-47 that hit a Factory's Chimney in Italy in a low level Ground Attack mission(I know they were based in Italy, but don't know exactly where that raid went to). It's a cool picture, because even after the impact stresses and damage, three guys are able to climb onto it. I'm sure it wasn't easy to nurse home. I don't know about the Stabilizers on that Jug, my guess is that they were unaffected, judging by the damage distance from the wing spar.
I have no inclination to go to the lengths that CoprHead did and install TW, because Dale's Company is top notch. Not only does Dale constantly improves this game, no matter how many folks whine. But, he listens to our bug reports and promptly enacts them, which larger companies won't do and will not hesitate to flip the consumer off. Thank God Dale and HTC care enough a lot their product and customers.
EDIT: Found a somewhat clearer picture and some more info.
(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/Masherbrum/Aces%20High/BrazilianP-47.jpg)
On January 27, 1945 the P-47D, A-6, piloted by Lt. Raymundo Canario (50 combat missions) lost 128cm (roughly 4.1 feet) of his right wing after hit a chimney during an attack, but was able to return safely.
Although, looking at other angles, I'm guessing at least 5 feet are missing from the wing. I'll leave that up to you guys.
-
I Aces High, we cannot land a plane with as much wing missing as the picture Karaya posted. We can fight it and keep from spinning out of control maybe but the end result is it's going down. However we can keep it flying when the wing tips have been removed. There is a picture of a P38 somewhere on this board flying with even more wingtip missing than the TBM posted above.
Only speaking from experience flying a P-38 missing that much of a wing in the game, as long as you still have your flap for that damaged wing and can deploy it, you can nurse it back to base and land. Sure, the landing will be rough but it is possible. There have been a couple of times where I've had both wings shot off and was able to deploy flaps enough to provide some lift and with a lot of rudder and throttle control managed to make it home but it's not a walk in the park by any stretch of the imagination. But if the flap is also gone on the damaged wing, you're pretty much toast.
You can also use a technique called "Knife Edge Flight". To do this, roll the airplane 90 degrees, with the wingtips perpendicular to the ground. While rolling into this position, apply opposite rudder to keep the nose high and the plane flying level. You may need to add power, depending on the type of airplane. You may also find that you need to add more rudder throw to your setup and/or use high rudder rate. Use the elevator for steering to keep the aircraft flying straight.
I know this isn't possible in a real life plane but it's a common maneuver in RC planes and it does work in game, though for short distances only (if you're low enough, it's enough to let you land pretty hard and you'll probably end crashing on landing but sometimes you can get lucky and tower out safely). Just an example of something possible in game that isn't possible with a real world aircraft. At least, I've never seen or heard of a real plane pulling it off, only RC planes.
ack-ack
-
In AH, when we lose a wingtip, it looks worse from thje cockpit than it does from the outside. From the cockpit, it looks like 1/2 or more of the wing is missing, when from a better outside view you'll see that only about 1/4-1/3 of the wing is missing.
In RL, I wouldn't want to try it, although from the photos it was obviously possible to RTB if everything worked out. As long as the stabilizers are ok, and especially if the flaps are functional, I don't find it terribly "abnormal" that with skill, luck, and lack of fear, we're able to get it home in that condition, especially since we're only talking about keeping it airborne for a few minutes...
I didn't make it home, but would have had I not been shot again after this SS... I could have nursed it home, but I couldn't maneuver. And no moot, I don't support the plane flying with little stubs from the missing stabilizer.
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/untitled.jpg)
-
Many times I have limped a half winged 51 home, 1 to 2 notchs of flap and then I manual trim and adjust throttle. It actually flies well at 350mph. It the landing that the rough part. Lots of rudder and a little bit of luck!
-
The AH planes still weigh the same when there's a missing major sections, but a couple of aero heads said that'd make no difference in the case of missing wingtips. Seems strange to me, but I don't know the math.
-
You can also use a technique called "Knife Edge Flight".
it's a common maneuver in RC planes and it does work in game, though for short distances only
I've seen Pitts specials do this at airshows, but as you say, only for a short distance (like length of runway). They need higher airspeed to pull it off (as the lift from the fuselage is so low, at lower airspeeds it won't work).
-
There have been a couple of times where I've had both wings shot off and was able to deploy flaps enough to provide some lift and with a lot of rudder and throttle control managed to make it home but it's not a walk in the park by any stretch of the imagination. But if the flap is also gone on the damaged wing, you're pretty much toast.
That is what I was referring to. Now that Karaya has posted a better picture, I can see that the P47 is not missing as much wing as I initially thought.
-
I've seen Pitts specials do this at airshows, but as you say, only for a short distance (like length of runway). They need higher airspeed to pull it off (as the lift from the fuselage is so low, at lower airspeeds it won't work).
On those aerobatic planes a lot of care goes into designing them so that the rudder gives a more "pure" yaw effect (without as much, if any, roll and/or pitch effect) which makes the knife-edge-type maneuvers much more controllable and sustainable. CG and power/weight ratio also play a pretty significant role.
I'd be real surprised if any WW2 planes could fly a true, sustained, knife-edge for more than a few seconds, although I've seen aerobatic R/C planes transition from knife-edge to vertical by increasing rudder deflection.
-
And no moot, I don't support the plane flying with little stubs from the missing stabilizer.
Why not?
-
More accurately, support for combat performance maneuvering with two stubs as vstab.
-
As long as you keep the speed up you only need a fraction of the vert stab surface to create the same stability as at stall speed with an undamaged one. In addition, if the damage causes more drag (it invariably does) that acts as a stabilizing force as well. As long as you limit your "combat performance maneuvering" to the pitch and roll axis it should not matter at all.
-
I wasn't that fast. Not over 200mph for sure, and down near the deck. One or two flat scissors followed by three or four rolling scissors with the last probably below 150 mph. Two stubs are enough to stabilize that.. I doubt it.
-
Why not?
Because I see a difference between being able to "make it back", and "maneuver effectively in combat" with a missing vertical stabilizer.
If the "stub" is enough to create a weather-vane effect, I could see the possibility with careful use of throttle and a gentle hand on the stick to limp back home, and possibly even get it on the runway.
Active maneuvering, like moot describes? Nope, I don't see it...
The vertical stab isn't optional, and it isn't designed to be big enough to do its job as long as a small portion of it is still there. It's designed to do its job with a minimum of materials, weight. Once part of it is gone, it's below that "minimum" and shouldn't be able to still perform like it was there. It isn't like the designer says "well, he's gonna need this much, but we'd better triple the size of it so if he has 2/3 of it shot away he can still finish the fight".
In active maneuvering, at relatively high AoA and slow speeds, I'd expect adverse yaw effect to be more than enough to wreck your day. Throw some torque in, and well, no, I don't see it...
The damage in that film was neat, and in some of those instances I could see "possibly getting home, but not fighting. It's not like they didn't ignore some effects either. That F4U on fire for example, has fabric elevators and rudder, but they withstand the flames just fine... Obviously, AH still doesn't model the full burning effects either. But at the end of the day it's just another "artists interpretation", and I personally don't see the end result being any better than what we have in AH. Graphically, maybe more impressive. But then, that may be what I'm seeing too. A "more impressive looking" amount of damage, who's effects aren't modeled in the FM as intensly as they're modeled in the graphics.
-
As long as you keep the speed up you only need a fraction of the vert stab surface to create the same stability as at stall speed with an undamaged one. In addition, if the damage causes more drag (it invariably does) that acts as a stabilizing force as well. As long as you limit your "combat performance maneuvering" to the pitch and roll axis it should not matter at all.
But see, you can't do that. If you input only aileron, you're also infuencing the yaw axis, and the pitch axis will need to be adjusted for the effect of the yaw and roll axis being altered.
We control the axi independently, but they don't act independently.
-
I checked and the two-stubs graphic is definitely representing a missing part, not just partial damage.
http://allaircraftarcade.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3198
-
Obviously not in the flight model, or we wouldn't have this conversation.
-
How do you know that it's the flight model not matching the graphics as opposed to being broken in this specific situation?
-
How do you know that it's the flight model not matching the graphics as opposed to being broken in this specific situation?
I guess I'd hesitate to fault the FM for that, especially since AH shows damaged/missing control surfaces that still effect flight control as if they were still there (missing flap). The "other" version may have the same effect (a frozen surface), with a different graphic.
I guess I'd fault the DM or the graphic rendering of it, before I'd claim the FM was nerfed. I've never had the desire to try the other one, so I'm speculating.
-
How do you know that it's the flight model not matching the graphics as opposed to being broken in this specific situation?
Why do you think the FM of a what... 8 year old game being continuously updated... is wrong in such a fundamental way? Oleg and gang made "real" flight simulators for the Russian air force before turning to games in the 1990s. I don't think they would have made such an error. You may think differently of course.
-
Same reason they screwed other stuff up. Some stuff that's wrong with theirs or others' FMs could be (is probably) simply because of consumer hardware constraints. I think differently inasmuch as I think both are plausible till some way is found to figure out which is right. I'm just curious if you know that an absent vstab can e.g. mean it's past a certain surface area threshold, or if it really does mean the vstab area is truly gone but for those little beams.
Simplest way for you to see what I mean is to try for yourself. The ones I experienced myself were C205 and 152H. I didn't get to test the 152H, but did stay in flight with the 205 for a while and could do some rudimentary maneuvering. It appeared to have enough stability to pull off some useful maneuvering, with enough practice. And then there's the P-63 occurence which I described.
-
The P-63 is a bit of an anomaly. It seems to take a lot more punishment than many medium bombers. I've also had the experience of multiple 30mm hits on P-63s without downing the target.
-
I'm afraid I don't play that game anymore, though I didn't notice the problem you're describing when I did play.
-
Anax I dunno if it's just the P-63. Like I said, the C205 will fly straight without it too. You reach a really slippery departure but can bring it back from pretty significant sideslip if you control it just right with power on.
-
Why do you think the FM of a what... 8 year old game being continuously updated... is wrong in such a fundamental way? Oleg and gang made "real" flight simulators for the Russian air force before turning to games in the 1990s. I don't think they would have made such an error. You may think differently of course.
deos not mean they know everything and that its perfect, people are still human and will still make mistakes. Also you do not know if they tweek the FM to please the fan base etc..I dont know :)
as far as the FM geos for IL2, all the planes feel exactly the same to me..be it a 190 or P38, its a shame as I did enjoy the graphics and damage model, It was the FM that was my biggest gripe, as it just felt like I was flying the same plane just a different skin. I dont know why or what gives it that impression. But what I like about AH2 is that there is a very clear difference when flying different aircrafts. Its not that I was use to playing AH2, as when I purchased IL2 I was still in my Trial period..and when I got ROF a little while back..that too gave me the feeling I was flying a different plane.
-
On those aerobatic planes a lot of care goes into designing them so that the rudder gives a more "pure" yaw effect (without as much, if any, roll and/or pitch effect) which makes the knife-edge-type maneuvers much more controllable and sustainable. CG and power/weight ratio also play a pretty significant role.
I'd be real surprised if any WW2 planes could fly a true, sustained, knife-edge for more than a few seconds, although I've seen aerobatic R/C planes transition from knife-edge to vertical by increasing rudder deflection.
I also believe aerobatic planes also have a pretty good power to weight ratio which is a key component to knife-edge flight, which is why its easy to do in a RC plane.
ack-ack
-
Because I see a difference between being able to "make it back", and "maneuver effectively in combat" with a missing vertical stabilizer.
If the "stub" is enough to create a weather-vane effect, I could see the possibility with careful use of throttle and a gentle hand on the stick to limp back home, and possibly even get it on the runway.
Active maneuvering, like moot describes? Nope, I don't see it...
The vertical stab isn't optional, and it isn't designed to be big enough to do its job as long as a small portion of it is still there. It's designed to do its job with a minimum of materials, weight. Once part of it is gone, it's below that "minimum" and shouldn't be able to still perform like it was there. It isn't like the designer says "well, he's gonna need this much, but we'd better triple the size of it so if he has 2/3 of it shot away he can still finish the fight".
In active maneuvering, at relatively high AoA and slow speeds, I'd expect adverse yaw effect to be more than enough to wreck your day. Throw some torque in, and well, no, I don't see it...
The damage in that film was neat, and in some of those instances I could see "possibly getting home, but not fighting. It's not like they didn't ignore some effects either. That F4U on fire for example, has fabric elevators and rudder, but they withstand the flames just fine... Obviously, AH still doesn't model the full burning effects either. But at the end of the day it's just another "artists interpretation", and I personally don't see the end result being any better than what we have in AH. Graphically, maybe more impressive. But then, that may be what I'm seeing too. A "more impressive looking" amount of damage, who's effects aren't modeled in the FM as intensly as they're modeled in the graphics.
In game, if the P-38 losses both of its vertical stabilizers it can still fly and fight, although at a serious disadvantage because the rudders are gone but then just transition to BnZ/Energy fighting and all is well. Even with only 1 vertical stabilizer its still able to fly and fight without any serious handicap. Losing the horizontal stabilizer in the P-38 is an entirely different matter and no one in game has been able to recover from that kind of loss.
I've never seen a single engine plane in the game being able to fly missing their vertical stabilizer which is one of the main reasons why I regularly aim for the tail section. Just remove the vertical stabilizer and the fight is over.
ack-ack
-
AKAK any idea how that compares with non-contra-propped twins?
-
AKAK any idea how that compares with non-contra-propped twins?
Not really. The only other twin engine/twin vertical stabilizer planes I have experience in is the B-25H and I've never lost both stabilizers in that aircraft. I've lost one of the stablizers and still managed to keep the plane in the fight, just needed to input a little bit more rudder to compensate for the missing one.
I have shot off both stabilizers on a B-25 and seen them go into a flat counter-clockwise spin and never recover. Seen this happen to the Bf 110s as well after removing both vertical stabilizers. I've always contributed the flat counter-clockwise spin to their engine torque. Maybe the lack of engine torque on the P-38 is was enables to to remain flyable after losing both of the vertical stabilizers and the relative ease of flying one after losing just one vertical stabilizer.
ack-ack
-
I have never ever seen both vertical stabs gone on my 38.
-
In game, if the P-38 losses both of its vertical stabilizers it can still fly and fight, although at a serious disadvantage because the rudders are gone but then just transition to BnZ/Energy fighting and all is well.
I haven't had the same experience with this. Most of the time when the P38's tail is hit, I lose my horizontal stabilizer if not more, then go nose up.
However there have been a couple times I have lost both of my vertical stabilizers, maybe it is one of those things where it doesn't happen frequently enough for me to get use to the handling of it, but I had difficulty controlling the plane. I was able to maintain level flight by adjusting individual engine throttle (I was putting all of my attention into flying the plane at this point) as well as aileron input. But I would not fly for long because at this point I was a sitting duck for whoever shot them off to begin with.
-
I have never ever seen both vertical stabs gone on my 38.
I've gotten it a few times while doing vertical reversals on a bogie when I was a tad slow starting the attempt and gave a fleeting snap shot on the tail.
ack-ack
-
To get back on track. I have flown Targetware and Aces High for some time now. Aces High more than Targetware. I, like Phaser11, fly Targetware for the unique experience of the Korea Mod so I can fly F86s against Mig-15s. I rarely flew the WWII craft in Targetware, I stayed with Aces HIgh for that. Phaser11 I am glad to see you have kickstarted the Korea Mod of Targetware and started a new website for it. It looks like I am going to have to make some trips back to Targetware to fly some Jets! I do remember that HiTech said they might have a Korea arena for Aces High though. When they do I will be one of the first to give it a try.
Regards,
BSB