Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: BnZs on April 03, 2011, 02:47:53 AM
-
Okay, those who believe that the WWI combat is just inherently unpopular are dead wrong IMO.
Thought up a way to explain whats wrong here...
Imagine a WWII arena with exactly 4 planes. These planes will be the 109 F4, the 190 A-5, the P-40B, and the B-26. Think this arena would hold people's attention very long or be very fun? Yet this imagined limited WWII plane set and relative stack up of strengths almost exactly mirrors what the WWI arena is right now.
-
WWII arena would still have a bomber and destructable object, making it more popular, still...
-
WWI has no depth to the arena. Every sortie reminds me of "time to make the donuts". Its the same old same old every time...
-
When I think of a WWI flight 'sim' I think of 'wings' on Amiga. I loved that game, especially the background story which gave a deeper context on the battle that was going to be. Each battle was started with a 1 page story about the progress of the imaginary war, funny mentions about the squad pet dog etc.
I think HT was thinking something of similar fashion with the Combat Tour.
-
how about ww1 tanks and gun positions that could advance a front. give the fighters some bombs to drop on them. sounds like a start to me.
Also, rivers or gullies that need a destructable bridge to cross. :x:cheers:
-
QFT :aok With any luck, perhaps one day soon we'll embrace the flavor of four new birds for back then... And we will again see an increase in participation with a slow drop off again. But one thing we'll certainly see, is a subtle increase in the regulars. :salute
Okay, those who believe that the WWI combat is just inherently unpopular are dead wrong IMO.
Thought up a way to explain whats wrong here...
Imagine a WWII arena with exactly 4 planes. These planes will be the 109 F4, the 190 A-5, the P-40B, and the B-26. Think this arena would hold people's attention very long or be very fun? Yet this imagined limited WWII plane set and relative stack up of strengths almost exactly mirrors what the WWI arena is right now.
-
Here's what's wrong.
You like kites and turtles....
(http://i544.photobucket.com/albums/hh332/bl0khed/flying-kites.gif)
-
People play where they can find more action. More people in the LW arenas, they will log into them. Its that simple.
Also there are other factors (limited planeset, no destructable objetcs), but the most important factor is the numbers.
-
novelty and replayability are also factors though I agree numbers helps because people are lemmings.
ww1 is an awsome addition but its novelty wears out quickly with such a small 4 plane set that is dominated by one plane so the other 3 are rare or not seen often.
it is hands down the best place to find a pure dogfight and the planes are hard to master which is a plus.
I'm looking forward to whatever HTC has planned to expand the ww1 arena. I think it is worth developing in the long run even if the variety in planes and gameplay is limited at the moment.
nerfing the dr1 to lowest horsepower in the manner the origional spit5 was nerfed to an early model couldnt hurt either.
-
nerfing the dr1 to lowest horsepower in the manner the origional spit5 was nerfed to an early model couldnt hurt either.
Assuming the Dr1 is *not* currently modeled with 110hp Fester, making it so wouldn't be "nerfing", that would be following the standard for virtually all Dr1s that fought.
-
[snip]
Imagine a WWII arena with exactly 4 planes. These planes will be the 109 F4, the 190 A-5, the P-40B, and the B-26. Think this arena would hold people's attention very long or be very fun? Yet this imagined limited WWII plane set and relative stack up of strengths almost exactly mirrors what the WWI arena is right now.
Utterly false!
it would be 109f4, 190 A-5, Spitfire and Hurricane.
get a grip man! :neener:
-
Utterly false!
it would be 109f4, 190 A-5, Spitfire and Hurricane.
get a grip man! :neener:
Camel is nowhere near equal to what a Spit or a Hurri is to a 109.
Camel probably *ought* to be like a 109 F-4 to the Dr1's SpitV but alas, such is pretty far from the case.
-
warning repost from wishlist...
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,310230.0.html
my idea gadget in my brain is on fire.
(if you want to dedicate new coad. a moving front line that changes position based on destroyed trenches that also moves the gv/trench base spawn points then you might see my line of thought. but existing coad can work for this too.) just a line drawn on the map. Color coded for each country. new trenches can spawn along the line for each side. distance between each sides trench is constant. when it moves it rebuilds itself in the new position or it can just very very slowly actually move like a cv group.
think of the gv/trech bases as just floating spawn points. when their guns and observation balloon are destroyed they retreat back and respawn just a little bit behind their origional position. perhaps as small as 50 yards further back. give the player a carrot. a small one that influences the front. conversly if the opposing sides trench and balloon are also destroyed the front stalemates and does not retreat on either side.
see where im going with this?
the distance between opposing sides should remain constant. a trench theoretically could be pushed anywhere in the current no mans land graphic like a cv group on the open sea. but its movement is based on damage.
Brilliant!
as simple as possible I want a fluid front with 3-4 spawn points per side. floating gv/trench bases. each with 1 observation balloon, 1 player controlled flak gun, and 1 or 2 player controlled artillery pieces.
I want to see the front. the ghastly stalemate of it. it can be done with current in game gadgets. Funnel the Aircraft to the front. closest point of action. kill weather baloons etc. if arena population is empty till someone joins the fight. think tetris. somthing to do to keep you entertained while the arena population builds. a mini game within the game.
Imagine a ww1 tank town similar to the center isle of ozkansas but laid out line abreast in trench form with 3 sides converging and no depth to the bases.
minimal AI except ambiance ground fire between trenches till they are destroyed.
Infantry positions generalized as destroyable trenches tied to each GV/trench base. possibly trenches with an inhabbited look that fires very small calibre sporadic ground/air pot shots until destroyed that gives a cratered burned out pulverized graphic. trenches laid out in conventional wwI style with no mans land in between.
3-4 gv/trench bases per side with only manned guns and maybe some very small caliber ai rifle calibre ground fire.
gv/trech bases each have an observation baloon with only player controlled small calibre guns.
gv/trench bases have 1-2 player controlled artillery that can fire on enemy trenches/tanks like our current 17lbr manned AT guns. and also 1 player manned flak gun per base.
a ww1 tank would be good but not immediately needed.
and after all that add in a big fat zeppelin also based on the cv mechanic but controlled by rank like the main arena carrier groups. 1 per side.
it should be at the actual height the zeppelins flew at... 7-10k?
player manned guns of course and the ability to drop bomblets on the front for fun.
-
Okay, those who believe that the WWI combat is just inherently unpopular are dead wrong IMO.
Thought up a way to explain whats wrong here...
Imagine a WWII arena with exactly 4 planes. These planes will be the 109 F4, the 190 A-5, the P-40B, and the B-26. Think this arena would hold people's attention very long or be very fun? Yet this imagined limited WWII plane set and relative stack up of strengths almost exactly mirrors what the WWI arena is right now.
Part of that is true, as it is the arena is pretty much an axis only arena - well, a Dr I arena since the D7 is pretty much in the same boat as the Camel when it comes to not being anywhere near as good as the Dr I. I could see it being fun even at that if it wasn't for the absolutely lame bellybutton people who play the game though... I just got finished trying the WW1 arena for the first time since I came back.
Initially there were 4 people in the arena, with 3 flying. I unfortunately ended up on the 'wrong' country so I couldn't tell who was outnumbered 2 to 1, and I ended up switching to the wrong country and having to wait 4 minutes. By the time I could switch, the 1 guy had logged. So I move over and take off in a Camel (mistake number 1). Two cons, one real high and one roughly co alt. Get into a short fight (maybe 3 turns) with the co-alt con before he did something to actually just stop in midair... I ended up ramming him. I'm thinking that guy wasn't very good, because the next 'fight' consisted of me re-upping, the high con dropping onto my tail and basically parking there, and me dying after a few missed shots. By the way, the Camel is absolutely helpless against the Dr I, in my opinion (and everyone else too, apparently). The next fight was the same as the first fight, except they were both high and the 'good' pilot (I think anyway, although with the plane match-up it is hard to tell) camped out on my tail while the other one made relatively ineffective passes.
After that I just said upliftit and left... No reason at all to play as far as I am concerned. Even the Dr I (well, with me at the helm anyway) isn't good enough to take on two other TIE fi... erm, Dr I's at the same time. I guess I could switch to their country and we could all practice formation flying or something, but I just went over to the LW arena instead.
-
Camel is nowhere near equal to what a Spit or a Hurri is to a 109.
Camel probably *ought* to be like a 109 F-4 to the Dr1's SpitV but alas, such is pretty far from the case.
That is besides the point. The point is it would be outrageous to make a 4-plane WWII air combat game with American planes in. :bolt:
-
That is besides the point. The point is it would be outrageous to make a 4-plane WWII air combat game with American planes in. :bolt:
LOL, ah, but that was another part of my point Bat. Leaving France out of WWI makes just as much sense as leaving Britain out of WWII.... :D
-
The problem with WWI is there's just not enough to do there. The fighters are entertaining for a while and early on when it was heavily populated it was a blast but it needs some GV's, bombers and some sort of "war" mechanism to draw more people in. All those who do those things in the MA have no reason to go there. I have no idea how much of the population that is but it's significant. It doesn't have to be just like the MA but it needs something.
If that were to happen even the current fighters could be fun as it would seperate the furballs and allow some one on one and one on two action possibly against non Dr I aircraft. BTW French planes are really needed too.
-
Aces High beta only had the P-51D.
-
Camel is nowhere near equal to what a Spit or a Hurri is to a 109.
Camel probably *ought* to be like a 109 F-4 to the Dr1's SpitV but alas, such is pretty far from the case.
i think he mostly meant that there is no twin engine/bomber plane in WWI.
-
No, he meant that the Camel literally does nothing better than the Dr I. The 109F has some advantages over the Spit V, which is what makes the fight interesting. The Camel has no advantages over the Dr I.
-
Aces High beta only had the P-51D.
For how long?
-
No, he meant that the Camel literally does nothing better than the Dr I. The 109F has some advantages over the Spit V, which is what makes the fight interesting. The Camel has no advantages over the Dr I.
The Camel has enough gyro to literally make it fly sideways during the slow part of a loop...but somehow this gyro doesn't manage to translate into rotating over in a hammerhead quickly. DVIII hammers just as well. Would be an interesting combat maneuver to have in the bag if the Camel *would* rotate.
Camel is maybe marginally better than the Dr1 in the vertical, but the Dr1s ability to hang there and shoot with no airspeed, recover maneuverability after a stall near instantly, dive to high speed and pull black out Gs, and simply absorb a ton of ammo negate most of the meaning of this.
-
Aces High beta only had the P-51D.
We're paying to fly in WWI Arena.
-
We're paying to fly in WWI Arena.
not everybody, but their paying to keep it open/running. am i wrong?
-
not everybody, but their paying to keep it open/running. am i wrong?
Unless you are on your 2-week trial, you must have a paid account to access the WWI arena.
What I was trying to say is that a players expectations of quality and completeness are different between a free beta and a pay-for-play arena.
Wab
-
We're paying to fly in WWI Arena.
My point was that AH started with one aircraft. I'm sure it had at least 4 when it went to pay.
Hitech said he was looking at the WW1 arena. Is somebody asking if we're there yet? :D
The Camel has enough gyro to literally make it fly sideways during the slow part of a loop...but somehow this gyro doesn't manage to translate into rotating over in a hammerhead quickly. DVIII hammers just as well. Would be an interesting combat maneuver to have in the bag if the Camel *would* rotate.
Camel is maybe marginally better than the Dr1 in the vertical, but the Dr1s ability to hang there and shoot with no airspeed, recover maneuverability after a stall near instantly, dive to high speed and pull black out Gs, and simply absorb a ton of ammo negate most of the meaning of this.
As I pointed out in another thread, the gyro precession requires a pitch rotation for the yaw response. We have that.
-
My point was that AH started with one aircraft. I'm sure it had at least 4 when it went to pay.
AH was an order of magnitude more full featured at the time it went pay than WWI Arena was.
Hitech said he was looking at the WW1 arena. Is somebody asking if we're there yet? :D
1. Hitech has admitted they think there actually are modelling problems with the DR.I....hmmmm....nevermind.
2. He said he is thinking about "something" to add more variety. No one has been given any clue on what that might be.
AH was continually supported and improved with a system of regular incremental updates on an agile time frame like clock work from the day it opened its doors. It was easy to wait because you could see regular, visible improvements every month. It was obvious things were going to improve. You could watch it happening.
The WWI Arena has sat moldering, untouched for a year.
I look forward to seeing what improvments are on the way, but don't give me that "are we there yet" BS.
Wab
-
As I pointed out in another thread, the gyro precession requires a pitch rotation for the yaw response. We have that.
I'm aware of how gyro precession works. I'm also aware that the massive amount of yaw force you can generate doesn't seem to help the plane actually get rotating, either in a hammerhead or a spin. Remember, this airplane was supposed to be so likely to enter a spin due to gyro forces that new pilots were advised to not attempt turns to the right at low altitudes.
Planes do not seem to rotate about their yaw axis easily in AH. The Camel would potentially be massively more maneuverable (and dangerous to fly!) if this were not the case.
But mostly what I was saying with that thread, is that people who say WWI air combat just is not fertile ground to draw dedicated fans based on the current WWI arena population are wrong.
-
The camel has better fuel duration than the DR1 ....that IS the only advantage it holds. I can out turn most DR1s sticks in an F1 against the top DR1 sticks I can manage about 45 odd turns on the deck before the DR1's ludicrous FM overwhelms me or the camel's stinky FM screws me depending on your pov.
I don't want to fall victim to the ancedotal FM but this thing is about as stable as you get the controls are spongy and tar like in their response, engine torque makes little or no effect.
Yes you can win against a DR1 in it, but you better pray the guy your up against is a lemon otherwise you've had it! And even at that one slip up and literally I mean one will let said lemon rape you :ahand
Even most of the 'top' DR1 sticks you can force down to a on the deck circle contest which is how every fight ends without E or alt but even if they are screwing that up royally nearly augering every other turn they will still get you in the end :lol
in fact why even bother with the other aircraft? this arena should have been simply called..
"DR1.... FIGHT!!!"
-
Planes do not seem to rotate about their yaw axis easily in AH. The Camel would potentially be massively more maneuverable (and dangerous to fly!) if this were not the case.
I wonder if this ties up with the notion that AH has some sort of Yaw Damper running in the background: thoughts about need for rudder usage? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,309734.msg4004257.html#msg4004257)
-
I wonder if this ties up with the notion that AH has some sort of Yaw Damper running in the background.
Sid AH just has a flight model. I expect you've noticed that the Camel requires left rudder for coordinating both left and right turns which indicates that yaw and torque are properly modeled.
BnZ if you're aware of how precession works then why do you expect it to increase a spin? If a pitch rotation gives you yaw then what do you expect to see from a yaw rotation?
-
Okay, those who believe that the WWI combat is just inherently unpopular are dead wrong IMO.
Thought up a way to explain whats wrong here...
Imagine a WWII arena with exactly 4 planes. These planes will be the 109 F4, the 190 A-5, the P-40B, and the B-26. Think this arena would hold people's attention very long or be very fun? Yet this imagined limited WWII plane set and relative stack up of strengths almost exactly mirrors what the WWI arena is right now.
Maybe the problem is that WWI combat, while not worse, isn't BETTER. Is it worth investing all that time and money in re-creating the WWII arena depth and complexity in WWI format? It seems to me you'd end up right back where you already are in WWII.
-
... It seems to me you'd end up right back where you already are in WWII.
That's a reason not to do it? Maybe the Rise of Flight crowd would like a decent flight model and a server that can accommodate hundreds of people.
-
havent tried RoF. is it not well modelled in the flght modelling department?
it sure looks pretty.
-
Sid AH just has a flight model. I expect you've noticed that the Camel requires left rudder for coordinating both left and right turns which indicates that yaw and torque are properly modeled.
BnZ if you're aware of how precession works then why do you expect it to increase a spin? If a pitch rotation gives you yaw then what do you expect to see from a yaw rotation?
Spinning to the right should put the nose down, but you are missing the point. It does not want to begin rotating in the first place. Are the cautions about new pilots turning to the right wrong? I can't get this sucker to spin *trying*.
-
havent tried RoF. is it not well modelled in the flght modelling department?
it sure looks pretty.
Very well modelled. Even to the point where starting the camel's engine on the ground produces a vibrating and shaking of the whole airframe due to the gyro.
RoF is by far the best modelled WWI game on the market, imo.
-
I can spin it but yawing right puts the nose down and putting the nose down is generally how you stop a spin.
Any new AH pilots turning the Camel hard to the right are going to have problems and should be cautioned.
Bat you wouldn't notice precession standing still, you see it in response to pitch and yaw rotations.
-
I flew the camel once in tour 13, and smoked 3 Dr1's in a row, I dont know what the problem with it is in here
-
I can spin it but yawing right puts the nose down and putting the nose down is generally how you stop a spin.
Any new AH pilots turning the Camel hard to the right are going to have problems and should be cautioned.
Bat you wouldn't notice precession standing still, you see it in response to pitch and yaw rotations.
I don't see torque as a factor in the F1's turns tbh nor do I have to use rudder to correct or co ordinate a turn.
-
The WWI arena was a test bed for the Advancement of the WWII damage model. It's not that they left the WWI arena stagnate just that it's not a priority. Players had requested a WWI arena but after the thrill wore off the population dwindled. Should HTC invest a lot of resources with a chance of no return?
I Vote for a full time Arena 51. Talk about leveling the playing field!
(http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e315/Macysboots/claw.jpg)
-
Perhaps off topic one thing I've always wondered is how fuel affects the centre of gravity when maneuvering or not in level flight? How is this modelled? Should it de stabilise an aircraft? Would a full tank provide more stability? How did they deal with this in RL?
-
you know pervert, I have never even thought of what the effects of fuel sloshing around in the tank could have on a plane in game, I am interested to hear an answer to this aswell
-
Any new AH pilots turning the Camel hard to the right are going to have problems and should be cautioned.
Uh, no. There are no problems at all in that regard. And its not some vague "have problems" new pilots were warned about, its entering a spin.
Post a video of the Camel spinning. The closest I can get is a slo-mo rotation to the left while the bird does its odd flat fall.
You will defend all flight models in AH to the death as accurate, until they are changed, at which point you will defend the new improved FM to the death, won't you?
-
Actually, I tried the LW MA after spending alot of time in the WWI and it made me realize something-WWII air combat is fundamentally boring.
Sure, there are alot of plane types to fly. But basically, they are all running around at ridiculous speed picking. Having enough firepower to damage/kill from a split second opportunity at whatever angle makes the whole thing abit arbitrary and stupid. In WWI, even someone "picking" you has to generally "fight" you abit (maneuver with you and lay in a good burst). If the guns had more dispersion in WWI so closing to 50-100 yards was really nessecary to have a prayer of a kill, would be even better.
The WWI arena was a test bed for the Advancement of the WWII damage model. It's not that they left the WWI arena stagnate just that it's not a priority. Players had requested a WWI arena but after the thrill wore off the population dwindled. Should HTC invest a lot of resources with a chance of no return?
I Vote for a full time Arena 51. Talk about leveling the playing field!
-
you know pervert, I have never even thought of what the effects of fuel sloshing around in the tank could have on a plane in game, I am interested to hear an answer to this aswell
I'm stabbing in the dark here tbh but I'd say if it was a big issue there would be some form of baffles to restrict how much fluid could move at the same time? I do know that in WW1 it was simply a tank though and wondered if the movement of a large amount of liquid as a whole would destabilise a plane like the camel
from wiki
"The Camel owed both its extreme manoeuvrability and its difficult handling characteristics to the placement of the engine, pilot, guns and fuel tank (some 90% of the weight of the craft) within the front seven feet of the aircraft"
(http://xb7.xanga.com/98ad001708130101942734/m71882730.jpg)
As you can see it is pretty much a big tank or 2 tanks to be precise, the same would probably hold true for the oil tank, thats a lot of liquid moving around.
Another thing I thought the other night was that for a plane with so much weight in the nose the F1 really wants to do bugger all with it, a lot of slow nose over attempts amount to squat the d7 on the other hand will have the nose drop over quite readily on vertical moves.
Yet another quote from wiki
"The Camel soon gained an unfortunate reputation with student pilots. The Clerget engine was particularly sensitive to fuel mixture control, and incorrect settings often caused the engine to choke and cut out during take-off. Many crashed due to mishandling on take-off when a full fuel tank affected the centre of gravity."
-
Uh, no. There are no problems at all in that regard. And its not some vague "have problems" new pilots were warned about, its entering a spin.
Post a video of the Camel spinning. The closest I can get is a slo-mo rotation to the left while the bird does its odd flat fall.
You will defend all flight models in AH to the death as accurate, until they are changed, at which point you will defend the new improved FM to the death, won't you?
I'll post a spin video when I get home.
You know that you can turn right and skid into the turn, lose your airspeed and fall until you start flying again or hit the ground. Most pilots would consider that a problem.
I'm not defending the flight model, I'm just criticizing the criticism.
-
I'll post a spin video when I get home.
You know that you can turn right and skid into the turn, lose your airspeed and fall until you start flying again or hit the ground. Most pilots would consider that a problem.
I'm not defending the flight model, I'm just criticizing the criticism.
Why skid? An F1's best chance in a turn fight (and lets face it when a DR1 cannot win by other methods it always goes into a straight turn fight) is to take a higher line than the DR1 and let him yank away all his E using rudder and elevator. The only way an F1 can win is by maintaining his E while pressuring the DR1 to burn all his, this means no rudder in the turn and minimal use of elevators to build an advantage.
-
Why skid? An F1's best chance in a turn fight (and lets face it when a DR1 cannot win by other methods it always goes into a straight turn fight) is to take a higher line than the DR1 and let him yank away all his E using rudder and elevator. The only way an F1 can win is by maintaining his E while pressuring the DR1 to burn all his, this means no rudder in the turn and minimal use of elevators to build an advantage.
I wasn't recommending a skid per se. We were talking about the pilot manual cautioning pilots on right turns.
You can use precession to skid around to the right but you lose your airspeed so you want to be pretty vertical with enough altitude.
-
That's a reason not to do it? Maybe the Rise of Flight crowd would like a decent flight model and a server that can accommodate hundreds of people.
You skip the first part. The reason not to do it is because it wouldn't generate a payback for the investor, because WWI isn't MORE fun than WWII. I think Your premise is that WWI is a different customer base, which would be additive to the WWII croud. That's the questionable part. IMO there is largely one flight-combat-sim croud and they are going to do one or the other. The WWII model and arena is a much bigger success with a much bigger fan base. Investing in that is a better bet.
I think this is generational too. Not too many airshows featuring WWI bi planes and pilots anymore. As time moves on, the older stuff gets left behind. WWII is kept alive because of all the shows on the various channels [We just never seem to get tired of watching Nazis apparently], and planes and pilots at Airshows.
The Korean campaing, and vietnam may be worth looking into because that generation of folks that were kids when it was happening, are getting into there 40s, which seems to be the age of many of the folks playing AH. Don't know if they would like the combat when they try it, but they will be interested in trying it.
respectfully,
Vinkman
-
Vinkman I think you're saying that it wouldn't be more fun for you.
-
BnZ here's the film.
http://www.mediafire.com/file/wqhdaqjtd3c4aaw/CamelSpin%20%282%29.ahf
-
Sid AH just has a flight model. I expect you've noticed that the Camel requires left rudder for coordinating both left and right turns which indicates that yaw and torque are properly modeled.
It indicates it's modeled, not that it's necessarily "properly modeled". I don't know the answer, that's why I'm asking.
Honest question for Hitech, is the rudder and the forces associated with it fully modeled in AH, or dumbed down to allow for player without rudders?
Post a video of the Camel spinning. The closest I can get is a slo-mo rotation to the left while the bird does its odd flat fall.
Are you using into spin aileron sir?
Without it, as you say the Camel likes to "slo-mo rotation to the left while the bird does its odd flat fall".
Camel-Flat-Spin.ahf (http://www.swift72.co.uk/forum_pics/Films/Camel-Flat-Spin.ahf)
Best recovery: Full Right Rudder, Full Right Aileron, Full Forward Stick and Hold until it comes out (blipping the throttle sometimes helps).
If you use aileron in the direction of the spin, it spins fairly well.
Camel-Right-Spin.ahf (http://www.swift72.co.uk/forum_pics/Films/Camel-Right-Spin.ahf)
Although to the left it tends to take a bit longer to recover as the spin goes flat during the recovery.
Camel-Left-Spin.ahf (http://www.swift72.co.uk/forum_pics/Films/Camel-Left-Spin.ahf)
-
Sid have you ever seen a reference to anything in the flight model being dumbed down or reduced for game play reasons? We have auto take off and combat trim for players without rudder pedals. Why would we need more than that?
Has anyone ever posted that the slip angle didn't match the ball deflection or is it just that pushing spring loaded game controllers seated in a chair doesn't feel like pushing rudder pedals in a flying aircraft?
I don't know either, maybe Hitech will answer you. :D
-
I'll post a spin video when I get home.
You know that you can turn right and skid into the turn, lose your airspeed and fall until you start flying again or hit the ground. Most pilots would consider that a problem.
I'm not defending the flight model, I'm just criticizing the criticism.
I can bank right, pull back on the stick, and its just fine. Nose wants to go below horizon
Now to the LEFT, yes, the nose rising above the horizon can cause it to loose speed quick if you don't stamp it out.
-
Has anyone ever posted that the slip angle didn't match the ball deflection
yes, someone did, a little while ago, like about 1 week ago. i think
-
Sid have you ever seen a reference to anything in the flight model being dumbed down or reduced for game play reasons?
It was Fester's post that got me thinking about it in the first place: thoughts about need for rudder usage? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,309734.msg4004257.html#msg4004257), but specifically this post linked from another tread:
I have actual time, hundreds of hours in P40, Corsair F4U and B25. I used to spend my time in the summer flying these birds to AirShows for an outfit on the East Coast here. I think the models are pretty close in the game except for one area and that's the rudder. It almost appears in the game as if there is an autorubber and the ball is seldom out of center. That may be because if the planes in the game took as much work with stick and rudder as they do in real life, no one would ever complete a flight or be able land without groundlooping
We have auto take off and combat trim for players without rudder pedals. Why would we need more than that?
These were "stick and rudder" aeroplanes, auto take off gets you airborne, combat trim keeps you trimmed out for straight and level flight. How do you fly a "stick and rudder" aeroplane through tight turns, loops, and spins with just the stick (or sometimes just a mouse)?
-
It was Fester's post that got me thinking about it in the first place: thoughts about need for rudder usage? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,309734.msg4004257.html#msg4004257), but specifically this post linked from another tread:
These were "stick and rudder" aeroplanes, auto take off gets you airborne, combat trim keeps you trimmed out for straight and level flight. How do you fly a "stick and rudder" aeroplane through tight turns, loops, and spins with just the stick (or sometimes just a mouse)?
I saw those posts Sid. I didn't see anything substantive in them. Do you think you can't loop with your feet off the pedals? I'm not saying the model is perfect I'd just like to see somebody post what the error is. What degree of slip should show what ball position in a real warbird and what is it in AH? And let's not compare real Cessnas to AH Corsairs. Post your data.
-
When I think of a WWI flight 'sim' I think of 'wings' on Amiga. I loved that game, especially the background story which gave a deeper context on the battle that was going to be. Each battle was started with a 1 page story about the progress of the imaginary war, funny mentions about the squad pet dog etc.
I think HT was thinking something of similar fashion with the Combat Tour.
:aok :aok
-
The problem with WWI is there's just not enough to do there. The fighters are entertaining for a while and early on when it was heavily populated it was a blast but it needs some GV's, bombers and some sort of "war" mechanism to draw more people in.
In a nutshell thats it. WWI arena has no depth. And from an eyecandy standpoint its only mediocre. Sorry, but eycandy does count or we'd still be satisfied with stick figure planes and pyramid mountains.
And for WWI aircraft where things arent moving at 300 MPH its even more important
I think bombing tanks is a rather poor idea because they didnt do it in WWI that I have been able to find. Not to mention tanks themselves were a rather late arrival
-
What degree of slip should show what ball position in a real warbird and what is it in AH?
I've never mentioned "Ball Position" and I don't know which post this has come from. As far as I'm aware it's just a black glass ball sealed inside a curved glass tube that is partially filled with a liquid. It indicates "slip" or "skid", but I'm not sure what the calibration/relationship between slip angle and ball position/deflection is or should be.
What I did say about Side Slip was:
Certainly the amount of side slip I can generate with the rudder seems quite small to me (a very subjective comment I know, I freely admit to having never flown any of the aircraft currently modeled in Aces High).
By that I meant, the amount of Forward-Slip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slip_(aerodynamic)#Forward-slip) I can generate for a cross-controlled approach (http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/fxd_wing/slip.htm) seems small to me in AH, but I also I freely admit to never having flown any of the aircraft currently modeled in Aces High
I'd just like to see somebody post what the error is.
I don’t know sir.
I read this post:
I have actual time, hundreds of hours in P40, Corsair F4U and B25. I used to spend my time in the summer flying these birds to AirShows for an outfit on the East Coast here. I think the models are pretty close in the game except for one area and that's the rudder. It almost appears in the game as if there is an autorubber and the ball is seldom out of center. That may be because if the planes in the game took as much work with stick and rudder as they do in real life, no one would ever complete a flight or be able land without groundlooping
and then this post
Planes do not seem to rotate about their yaw axis easily in AH.
put two and two together and probably made five.
Post your data.
I don't have any data sir, that's why I'm trying to politely ask?
-
Sorry Sid if it seemed I was jumping on you, that was a general response to the posts you referenced. They seem mostly to point out that we don't have air currents in AH so we don't need to correct for them.
-
Not enough diversity...an uber plane...a steep learning curve with some exceptional pilots in the arena = new pilots rapid demise and quick discouragement...little to do that will give someone a chance to experience some "success" while learning to compete with experienced pilots...
This is all stuff an evolving game could cure. And, all stuff that will hasten the demise of a stagnant (no development) sim. There could be more planes, loons to destroy, arty to spot, zeps and gothas to fly, mts and hills to give a fight more texture than flat ground, bridges to fly under or destroy, etc, etc...Suspect we all understand that.
Hard for wwii guys to imagine, but there is a wwi audience out there. They pretty much jump from sim to sim looking for something that will keep them occupied. Fls, has been a long time, but you certainly remember an older sim - filled at one point with relatively ruthless Musketeers, when it was full of pilots and exciting. Then it changed hands and actually digressed, less diversity and no development. Now that arena is largely empty. Seems a common thread...
ROF is beautiful, but with no large server and etc...
I know there are still a number of us around who subscribed to AH only because of the "new" wwi arena. I suspect most of us are not flying much, at least here, for all the reasons stated in this thread. But, we are still paying each month and remaining optimistic that "two weeks" will someday occur and, who knows.
Regardless of the fm's, the planes are fun to fly. The fights are often long and excting, particularly if there are a bunch of people fighting. A camel flown with several wing mates can deal with dr's. Everyone talks about one on one fights, but as in wwii...consider flying with a few folks. That can change things dramatically.
Anyway, hope something happens to make the arena more interesting...will probably keep paying for some time simply because of that hope. In that we seem pretty stubborn.
One
-
Nice to see you here Onerka. :cheers:
I know people get frustrated but the WW1 arena wasn't presented as anything other than 4 aircraft in a dogfight arena. There was no schedule of development to make it comparable to the WW2 arenas. I think we will see development but people need to enjoy what we have now.
As to the FMs, I haven't seen any criticisms of the FM that can't be fairly characterized as simply "not what I expected". They aren't the same as Red Baron, Dawn of Aces, or Rise of Flight. They match published data, or at least some sets of published official data. Whether they match anecdotal evidence is open to interpretation.
From what I've read the Dr1 and Camel had similar speeds and climb rate but the Dr1 could climb at a steeper angle. I haven't read anything about one dominating the other in WW1, just that both dominated contemporary enemies.
I've wanted to fly an HTC Camel since I quit DoA and started flying Aces High. I would have been happy to have one just in the training arena and as it turns out that's where I usually fly it. :lol That's not an indictment of the WW1 arena, I just have limited flying time and I'm usually in the TA or WW2 these days. I don't see the WW1 arena a failure and waste of resources like some people do, I see it as a gift to the community.
Hitech said he's considering how to improve the WW1 arena and Pyro posted they are looking at an issue with the Dr1 they haven't been happy with. It will be interesting to see the changes. I expect we'll see something in the near future.
-
As to the FMs, I haven't seen any criticisms of the FM that can't be fairly characterized as simply "not what I expected". They aren't the same as Red Baron, Dawn of Aces, or Rise of Flight. They match published data, or at least some sets of published official data. Whether they match anecdotal evidence is open to interpretation.
There are some traits of these these planes that are fairly important for combat that basically can only be guessed at through anecdotes and logic. Dive speeds, G-loads, toughness, handling at the "ragged edge" of stall and beyond, all these tend to be more critical for the WWI birds than the WWII.
That's not an indictment of the WW1 arena, I just have limited flying time and I'm usually in the TA or WW2 these days. I don't see the WW1 arena a failure and waste of resources like some people do, I see it as a gift to the community.
I don't know about the rest of the people posting on this thread, but I put my hours in in the WWI. The *most* frustrating thing to we fans is probably not being able to find someone fight to 24/7, so naturally we look for "what's wrong with it" that makes it less popular than I know it can potentially be. Which was the whole point of the thread really...I want people commenting on whether or not further devotion of resources to WWI based on the current arena's popularity to keep in mind you can't fairly judge the size of a potential WWI audience from the current format.
-
I don't see the WW1 arena a failure and waste of resources like some people do, I see it as a gift to the community.
Last I checked they were charging money for it. In my mind, that doesn't make it a gift; That makes it a product. We are customers purchasing a product.
If they want to open it up as a free-2-play arena, then I'll get on the BBS and gush about what a wonderful "gift" it is.
Personally, I'd rather pay them money and see them improve it instead. But if I'm paying my hard earned money, you can bet I will be expressing certain expectations about quality and completeness. Just like any other product I would purchase.
Regards,
Wab
-
FYI besides the Ardennes Eastern France is mostly flat.
Also one word: SPAD !!! :aok
-
Last I checked they were charging money for it. In my mind, that doesn't make it a gift; That makes it a product. We are customers purchasing a product.
If they want to open it up as a free-2-play arena, then I'll get on the BBS and gush about what a wonderful "gift" it is.
Personally, I'd rather pay them money and see them improve it instead. But if I'm paying my hard earned money, you can bet I will be expressing certain expectations about quality and completeness. Just like any other product I would purchase.
Regards,
Wab
You've been paying $15 a month since 1999 for the WW1 arena? No wonder you're complaining all the time. :D
-
I was just thinking about the Dr I vs the camel after playing last night... you know it reminds me of the spit v vs 190a5 arguments that come up every so often. Historically the 190 dominated the spit v while in AH they have the exact opposite relationship. Why? Because the strengths of the spit are more relevant to the game than the strengths of the 190.
Maybe the dr I isn't 'overmodelled' and it is just the same sort of thing as the spit v vs 190a5. If you want to be successful, bring friends and fly carefully. Or fly a dr I.
It definitely doesn't seem to have a whole lot going for it in the looping department. Right now I have no idea if the camel can exploit that or not but I will try it when I play next.
-
Maybe the dr I isn't 'overmodelled' and it is just the same sort of thing as the spit v vs 190a5.
The DrI should be the best turner. What is doubtful is whether or not it should be the best diver, the best bullet sponge, the most stable gun platform at near 0mph IAS, etc.
It definitely doesn't seem to have a whole lot going for it in the looping department. Right now I have no idea if the camel can exploit that or not but I will try it when I play next.
Exploiting the vertical with even a slight E lead is possible in the Camel, the real problem is the extent to which the Dr1 simply swaps ends and flies right back at you head-on. It is so tough that it is unlikely to take critical damage on a few firing passes, and the Camel is so wonky as a guns platform one is far less likely to be able to score hits, the Dr1 is so stable as a gun platform at ridiculously low airspeeds it can just "hang" there and land critical hits before being "roped", and after a few dozen nose to nose passes, the Dr1's better sustained turn takes over. Another thing is the Dr1's seemingly better acceleration, even though it doesn't have a better power/weight than the Camel at typical AH weights. (Assuming 110hp for the Dr1 and 130hp for the Camel).
-
You've been paying $15 a month since 1999 for the WW1 arena? No wonder you're complaining all the time. :D
I'm not a groveling arse-kisser like some. If you're not careful, you're going to rub a sore spot on HiTech's ankle, poodle.
I have the same expectations of quality and completeness the first day I pay for something as the last.
If true improvements are FINALLY on the drawingboard, I am willing show are reasonable amount of patience as they are developed.
As a customer purchasing a product, I will always let the company know when I feel the product is deficient.
Wab
-
I can understand why you're so upset. You were told you'd get a dogfight arena with 4 aircraft and all you got was a dogfight arena with 4 aircraft. :rofl
-
He's quite hostile most of the time. :(
I can understand why you're so upset. You were told you'd get a dogfight arena with 4 aircraft and all you got was a dogfight arena with 4 aircraft. :rofl
-
I can understand why you're so upset. You were told you'd get a dogfight arena with 4 aircraft and all you got was a dogfight arena with 4 aircraft. :rofl
Dear poodle,
If you would take the time and pull Hitech's joystick out of your mouth and read the posts above as well on many other threads, you'd see that the vast majority of players had completely different expectations of what HTC meant when they asked if the community would like to see a "WWI Arena" than what was actually delivered. They never asked if the community wanted to see a 4 plane stratless H2H map with a couple of fields tossed on. I suspect (based on my own feeling and what I have seen others post) is most players interested were expecting a much more full featured arena of the standard set by their WWII MA. They expected HTC to top their old DOA the way they topped their old Warbirds.
Wab
-
Could I ask for abit more civility on my thread? We all like the WWI here...
Anyway, I think the fact that the WWI continues to draw any interest at all with the way it is set up is a testament to the possible popularity of that era in flight simming! :cheers:
-
See what I mean...... This one is a Rule#4 just waiting to happen.
Dear poodle,
If you would take the time and pull Hitech's joystick out of your mouth
Would you like it if FLS started saying "Dear FatBoy" ?
-
Truer words may have never been typed! :cheers:
Anyway, I think the fact that the WWI continues to draw any interest at all with the way it is set up is a testament to the possible popularity of that era in flight simming! :cheers:
-
LLogan thanks for the support but if something merits notice I'll take care of it or a moderator will. If wab can't abide people disagreeing with him and feels clever posting adolescent insults I'll just assume it's the issues he claims not to have. It doesn't bother me.
-
It was a bit of a troll wasn't it......... :uhoh Sorry Brother!
-
Would you like it if FLS started saying "Dear FatBoy" ?
LoL. Hey, I am fat; and FLS is a poodle. Technically both desigations are accurate. :lol
On the other hand, most of my weight is already dropped and I'll be done by May. When do you get off the needle?
(Sorry BnZs. I'm done with these 2 tools now. :rofl)
Wab
-
You know I'm just trying to be a nut buster. I hope one day you can forgive my bad attitude Sir! :cheers: Perhaps even have a drink!
LoL. Hey, I am fat; and FLS is a poodle. Technically both desigations are accurate. :lol
On the other hand, most of my weight is already dropped and I'll be done by May. When do you get off the needle?
(Sorry BnZs. I'm done with these 2 tools now. :rofl)
Wab
-
WWI arena would be popular if the WWII arenas were closed.
-
WWI arena would be popular if the WWII arenas were closed.
Now you're thinking outside the box. :lol
-
WWI arena would be popular if the WWII arenas were closed.
The suble (and not so subtle) hostility some players have towards WWI developments is pathological, mean-spirited in the utmost, and has not he slightest reason behind it as far as I can tell.
-
The suble (and not so subtle) hostility some players have towards WWI developments is pathological, mean-spirited in the utmost, and has not he slightest reason behind it as far as I can tell.
Well, the thought process for some seems to be simply that since there is not unlimited development capability, the man hours spent doing stuff with WWI could be (in their minds) better spent on stuff for the WWII portion of the game.
I'm personally excited at the modifications made to the damage model for the WWI planes, and can't wait to see that make it into the WWII portion of the game. For that capability alone, it was worth them doing the WWI stuff, IMO.
Wiley.
-
One thing that I have yet to see mentioned in reference to the DR1 vs Camel is that the Camel fly's considerably different at 10k.
Now I'd strongly agree with anything that would get players interested enough to climb to that alt.
(hint big silvery gas bag with cabin hung below) Ideally it would have waypoints like a task group, user mannable guns like a task group, and waypoints like a task group.
Like Task Groups in WWII arena's it would be a fight starter, and if it cruised at 10 or 12k, well the planes would come up to meet it, defenders would hang out around it, and you'd have your 10k furball where the camel has a chance to beat the DR1.
And of course adding more depth to the current setup would keep players in the arena longer, increasing numbers, increasing fights, etc etc.
It doesn't take a lot. Last year at AH con 6 of us logged into the WWI arena to kill an hour before the evil Claw Mission. By the time we left the WWI arena had over 50 people in it.
-
One thing that I have yet to see mentioned in reference to the DR1 vs Camel is that the Camel fly's considerably different at 10k.
Like Task Groups in WWII arena's it would be a fight starter, and if it cruised at 10 or 12k, well the planes would come up to meet it, defenders would hang out around it, and you'd have your 10k furball where the camel has a chance to beat the DR1.
I see no evidence this "altitude optimism" has any substance to it. The Dr1 is much tougher and more stable. Alt would not change this. The Dr1 apparently has more lift in relation to weight. Higher alt would not change this. The only thing that would change is *if* the Camel's rotary retains performance at alt alot better than the Dr1's, and I don't see that happening.
In general the plane that handles and turns better at low alt is even better at high alt, because the low IAS does't bother it as much, unless it is at a power disadvantage. Since both engines are normally aspirated, I don't see the Dr1 ending up at a large disadvantage over 10K.
-
You don't need to speculate BnZ, you could just have a 10k fight with somebody. Use the TA air spawn to save climbing time.