Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Citabria on July 27, 2011, 03:14:07 PM
-
if your one of these flight model question of accuracy guys that posts every 5 seconds I have news for you.
Aces High has the most accurate ww2 warbird flight model I have experienced.
what is modelled is modelled very well and does not need any major adjustments.
what is not modelled is what separates anyone who plays aces high and wants to fly an entry level warbird or warbird trainer designed to behave like a ww2 fighter like the Texan in real life from being able to climb in and go flying in one without the normal training everyone with normal flying experience has to go through is this...
- wind/ turbulence crosswind takeoffs and landings, wheel and three point landings. eyeballs sitting 8-10 feet in the air with wheels on the ground is a different sight picture that you must become familiar with as well. Realistic wind and rough air is the single biggest item that AH should invest some coad time in to improve realism. if your waiting for a calm windless day to go flying your not going to be flying very often.
- aircraft systems... even cranking up a radial engine is a feat unto itself. then you have the gear and flap systems which on some variants of this particular plane you have to energize before you actually use them. getting familiarized with the actual airplane is ussually a good idea. this is beyond the scope of the game and is ommited deliberately but it is somthing that is a big deal when flying a real warbird. ask a p51 pilot how many seconds go by before they check the temperature gauges.
- Being There... there is no substitute for the full sensory perception of flying the actual aircraft in even friendly sky. Flying in actual hostile territory even after playing pretend fighter pilot in the real machinery I still can not imagine. However regardless of wartime conditions and the actual date on the calendar some aspects remain the same.
The noise is extreme. The vibration is constant. The sound of the wind in a dive or the sensations and visual delight of not just watching but also feeling the physical forces in flight as the horizon wheels around during combinations of rolls loops and max rate turns is very addictive.
Looking directly behind you involves a lot of neck craining and headset pressed against the canopy action. its not only uncomfortable but also disorienting and difficult to actually get a good look at the guy on your six in this position with anything more than your peripheral vision. the 45 degree rear view is more akin to a six view I could do with aircraft and parachute harness on even semi loose. Sighting other aircraft at longer distances is a challenge especially on a hazy summer day. no icons out here. again a game concession by design in Aces High.
I will conclude this lecture on the high fidelity of the Aces High flight model by restating this:
What is modelled is well done. stop bickering about this aspect. trust me its good stuff.
What is not modelled is not modelled either by design or by the constraints and limits of our current desktop technology. You could lobby for realism enhancing additions like wind weather and turbulence or more systems modelling if you feel the desire for your online experience to factor in more real world difficulties. But stop and think which one or any of these factors are fun or just difficult. I will say I like flying at sunrise more than the middle of the day and being bounced all over in any real world airplane I have flown.
Someone said pictures or it didnt happen... so here my ugly goofball mug flying this t-6 Texan. Don't worry I only have about 8 hours in it so far and I am still a noob learning the ropes.
But it is a delight to fly and do aerobatics in. Control forces are feather light and it has a wonderfully vicious accelerated stall like many of the ww2 fighters it was designed to mimic. dont be low and slow and pull back on the stick and expect good things to happen.
(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x205/p38fester/056.jpg)
(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x205/p38fester/SNJT-6Texansinformation042.jpg)
-
cool! very
-
I think most of us agree it's the best flight model in any game out there. I, personally, won't shy from bringing up the exceptions to this quality of work (i.e. the bugs, the stand-outs like the feather-leaf drop for spits, etc...), but that shouldn't detract from the quality of the total package.
It's why I still play this game, and have tried others and return here. I'm an equal-opportunity-gamer, but AH has all others beat for flight performance.
-
I had 6 hours in a T6, many years ago when I was single and wealthy, and I concur with Fester. I can't speak for the modeling on some aircraft due to lack of experience, however.
If you need pictures 'or it didn't happen', give me a couple days as I need to dig them out.
-
I've played other games where a B25 could out turn a Zeke.
Yeah.
Aces High may not be perfect but it's the best by a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG shot.
-
I had 6 hours in a T6, many years ago when I was single and wealthy, and I concur with Fester. I can't speak for the modeling on some aircraft due to lack of experience, however.
If you need pictures 'or it didn't happen', give me a couple days as I need to dig them out.
Prove it!
-
Fester is entirely correct, that IS one ugly mug!
I confess though, I didn't know Fester worked at the kebab place down the road.
-
I agree, nothing like the real thing, I have a lot of war bird time. I worked on occasion for a company that was based out of KBLM that had 16 birds that would be flown to different airshows and put on display . The company used airline and military pilots to make the ferry runs. It was pretty good money and hell I would have paid them. Over a 20 year period I got hundreds of hours in P40, F4U and B25 just flying them out, parking and flying them home after the weekend. One thing that I did learn is that the different birds flew at very different airspeeds, takeoff speeds, stall speed were very different in each of the aircraft I flew. That is not really modeled well within the game. I’d say that all the aircraft in the game can be flown, and landed with the same reference speeds.
-
Prove it!
Dont make me tell him where you live:)
-
Ive moved actually, odd and even thousands only :neener:
-
I'm scheduled to put together a car that is apart for my dad (mitsubishi 3000gt vr4) in a month or two and will see if I can get his opinons on some of the flight and gunnery modeling as he flew two tours of combat missions in a recip. warplane equipped with 4x20mm.
-
I'm scheduled to put together a car that is apart for my dad (mitsubishi 3000gt vr4) in a month or two and will see if I can get his opinons on some of the flight and gunnery modeling as he flew two tours of combat missions in a recip. warplane equipped with 4x20mm.
We already have at least one Skyraider pilot among the fighter pilots in the game. Your dad might enjoy the P-47.
-
Great post.... THANKS!
-
the different birds flew at very different airspeeds, takeoff speeds, stall speed were very different in each of the aircraft I flew. That is not really modeled well within the game. I’d say that all the aircraft in the game can be flown, and landed with the same reference speeds.
I don't think that's fair, per se. They do a good job of modeling individual stall speeds, flaps stalls, power off stalls, etc. I think people in AH just don't bother to finesse a plane down as one would in real life. Heck, many/most claim that they ditch on a runway gear up to get to the tower faster. I try to land every time, personally. I notice and feel the different landings for each plane. I think they are modeled.
I think it's a matter of folks simply coming in hot because they're lazy and their lives/jobs/airframes don't depend on a textbook landing.
EDIT: P.S. You CAN land a T-6 texan hot. You CAN land a P-40 too slow... You can land any plane from WW2 at about 150mph as long as you do it right. Doesn't mean they did this in practice. I think what you see in AH is technically POSSIBLE, just wasn't done through practice/safety.
-
I agree, nothing like the real thing, I have a lot of war bird time. I worked on occasion for a company that was based out of KBLM that had 16 birds that would be flown to different airshows and put on display . The company used airline and military pilots to make the ferry runs. It was pretty good money and hell I would have paid them. Over a 20 year period I got hundreds of hours in P40, F4U and B25 just flying them out, parking and flying them home after the weekend. One thing that I did learn is that the different birds flew at very different airspeeds, takeoff speeds, stall speed were very different in each of the aircraft I flew. That is not really modeled well within the game. I’d say that all the aircraft in the game can be flown, and landed with the same reference speeds.
There's merit in this.... Just consider that with the absence of cross winds, and very docile torque characteristics, landing is relatively easy. Dial in just 10 mph of cross wind and you'll see carnage. However, to extend your point further, getting aboard a carrier is far too easy. I can have a noob doing it consistently after little more than a couple of hours of training. Then again, I'm sure that is intentional.... If it were as challenging as it was in RL, damn few would be flying from CVs in the game. I think that HTC has to balance realism with playability to have a mass marketable product.
-
Our ability to have multiple fatal crashes is a big advantage. If we could only die once I think we'd all find AH very challenging.
-
[EDIT: was typing when FLS was. Responding to same topic]
How hard should it be? How realistic does it have to be?
I've flown dozens of flight sims from WW1 to jet age and beyond (space, etc) and whenever it comes to carrier landings they are always hard at first. You need to learn where to look, where to aim, descent rates, flare, hooks, etc. I remember I had a lot of trouble initially with Jane's USNF '97 and landing F14s on the carrier. However, even in my untrained state with a lot of practice (which, I might add had no threat to life or limb, being only a computer game) I was able to master carrier landings in almost every game that has them.
Being computer games, these aren't the same as real life, but many of them tried to make it hard to reflect the real thing. Perhaps not 100% fidelity to the real world physics, but still hard.
Let's not discount that with a million times practicing, things start looking easier. Especially when the reset button is as easy as hitting "fly" once more.
I think it's easier than in real life, but I'd guess it's not an intentional nerfing for newbies as much as HTC focusing on air physics rather than ground interaction. We see this with GV behavior as well. We see it with pogo stick landings and such. I think their priorities just lie elsewhere.
-
Great post.... THANKS!
+1
-
wow. all these years and we finally have verification. thanks fester. you :rock
-
Our ability to have multiple fatal crashes is a big advantage. If we could only die once I think we'd all find AH very challenging.
:aok
-
wow. all these years and we finally have verification. thanks fester. you :rock
:D :aok
-
However, even in my untrained state with a lot of practice (which, I might add had no threat to life or limb, being only a computer game) I was able to master carrier landings in almost every game that has them.
Being computer games, these aren't the same as real life, but many of them tried to make it hard to reflect the real thing. Perhaps not 100% fidelity to the real world physics, but still hard.
Let's not discount that with a million times practicing, things start looking easier. Especially when the reset button is as easy as hitting "fly" once more.
Practice makes perfect as they say. But "perfection" is much easier to achieve for us cartoon pilots in a virtual world devoid of nature's unpredictability starting with the nice, predictable, uniform, virtual standard atmosphere we fly in.
-
I simply want to make the distinction that while we don't have all the tiny little things the real world does, that we can still learn very difficult tasks through repetition of epic proportions.
So a real pilot makes 10 traps and is good, but we can do 10,000 traps and fail miserably for half of them but still become good. The failure rate is higher, but it doesn't make us less skilled per se. We can still trap a plane on a deck safely without wrecking it because we've done it far far more times than the real world pilot needs to.
Just to make myself clear: I'm saying don't blame the game's lack of details and say "just because we can do it, it's too easy compared to the real world." There are many reasons we could be able to do it, and the game being too easy is only one of those options. Another option is "We can do it because we try way more than real world pilots and through trial and error that would kill a real person have learned how to do it."
[Edited to try to avoid confusion]
-
I don't think that's fair, per se. They do a good job of modeling individual stall speeds, flaps stalls, power off stalls, etc. I think people in AH just don't bother to finesse a plane down as one would in real life. Heck, many/most claim that they ditch on a runway gear up to get to the tower faster. I try to land every time, personally. I notice and feel the different landings for each plane. I think they are modeled.
I think it's a matter of folks simply coming in hot because they're lazy and their lives/jobs/airframes don't depend on a textbook landing.
EDIT: P.S. You CAN land a T-6 texan hot. You CAN land a P-40 too slow... You can land any plane from WW2 at about 150mph as long as you do it right. Doesn't mean they did this in practice. I think what you see in AH is technically POSSIBLE, just wasn't done through practice/safety.
Here's what's really funny... If they were somehow modeled exactly how they performed, no one would be able to land them or fly them...lol.
I remember my first day. F4U-1A....ground rolled it 23 times in a row. My son said, "Dad, you aren't very good at this are you?". It is modeled exactly enough to allow non-rated people to get up in the air...and that is all anyone can ask for...IMHO
-
Changeup, you imply they nerf things intentionally to dumb it down. HTCs own responses on the matter in the past don't support your accusation there.
I, too, recall my first attempts to take off a fully loaded and bombed up corsair. It was pretty ugly (I did get my gear off the ground ... for a while). I remember when you could spin a P-51 in a tight level turn, but not a P-51B as much. However you imply they have specifically dumbed it down when all other indicators suggest that's not their objective.
I think they have made certain concessions (wind, CV speed, etc), but I don't think they have INTENTIONALLY pulled punches or G forces or torque on any plane in the game. I think that UNintentionally a few things have happened*, but you seem to have some strange thoughts.
Even the most complicated most realistic flight sims in the world can be landed. Even the most complicated commercial games (the ones like FSX or fill-in-the-blank) with the most details you can put in any game are still quite landable. Any plane in any game can be landed simply because they reflect the reality that any plane can land. I don't think any learning curve would be too high to stop people from getting it right in short order. This goes back to the "try it 10 million times before you figure out how it works without being killed" capabilities of any sim/game.
Keep in mind the US military and commercial airlines and even the Space Shuttle itself all have simulators that some games today rival in complexity. Before you object, I say complexity, not graphics. Obviously sitting in a full Shuttle simulator is different than sitting at a PC with 1 tiny monitor, but the code behind the scenes can be just as good.
* = (the torque kinda disappeared there around the time AH2 came out... but HTC says its still there so I don't think they realize it's different)
-
I simply want to make the distinction that while we don't have all the tiny little things the real world does, that we can still learn very difficult tasks through repetition of epic proportions.
Point taken Krusty. I wasn't trying to debate with ya. I was pointing out a tangent point from your point ;).
-
Here's what's really funny... If they were somehow modeled exactly how they performed, no one would be able to land them or fly them...lol.
Sorry, but that is roadkill. The guys who flew these in reality were young men, sometimes just teens, not supermen who's abilities are unmatchable for us mere mortals.
Would it be harder to do some tasks with full realism? Of course it would. However, hyperbole such as "no one would be able to land them or fly them" is just that, hyperbole.
-
Sorry, but that is bulltoejam. The guys who flew these in reality were young men, sometimes just teens, not supermen who's abilities are unmatchable for us mere mortals.
Would it be harder to do some tasks with full realism? Of course it would. However, hyperbole such as "no one would be able to land them or fly them" is just that, hyperbole.
While I agree with most of that Karnak, there is a difference between sitting down at a pc, having no real world connection to aviation and trying to fly a tail dragger for the first few times.
The young men that flew them in real life, started off, like all pilots, in trainers like Tiger Moths (sorry I dont know the US equivalent) operating from grass airfields that enabled them always to take off and land into wind. Gradually building up the skill to fly the combat planes, in more testing conditions.
I think that is what he meant.
-
While I agree with most of that Karnak, there is a difference between sitting down at a pc, having no real world connection to aviation and trying to fly a tail dragger for the first few times.
The young men that flew them in real life, started off, like all pilots, in trainers like Tiger Moths (sorry I dont know the US equivalent) operating from grass airfields that enabled them always to take off and land into wind. Gradually building up the skill to fly the combat planes, in more testing conditions.
I think that is what he meant.
I agree that there would be lots of simulated dying involved, but I will bet you that if you gave me a sim that did the best my PC possibly could for full simulation of the Mossie, P-51, Spitfire or such that within a week I would be able to take off, fly and land it. As Citabria noted in the OP there are still many things that will be missing, some of which make the computer easier and some of which make it harder than the real deal. The "none of us could possibly be good enough to every fly these" meme is just wrong, and it is even, to my mind, harmfully self hating.
An example. Flying them would be relatively easy, yet he hyperbolically claims none of us would be able to do so as though they required hyper fast reflexes or they'd throw you off like a bull. Robert Stanford Tuck almost washed out of flight training because he was doing just that, only on the last flight before being washed out when he had pretty much given up did he snap to it that rigid muscles trying to force the aircraft to fly the line he wanted was actually producing the uncoordinated and choppy flight. In pretty much giving up he was looser and let the stick jump around a bit and when he did that he said he realized flying was easy, not hard.
The only parts of the full realism sim that I think would be hard for most players of AH would be the preflight check, complex engine starting sequence, take off and landings. I doubt any of the "flying part" would present much more challenge that AH already offers.
-
wow. all these years and we finally have verification. thanks fester. you :rock
Lol
-
I've flown dozens of flight sims from WW1 to jet age and beyond (space, etc) and whenever it comes to carrier landings they are always hard at first.
How many had the decks pitching?
-
Sorry, but that is bulltoejam. The guys who flew these in reality were young men, sometimes just teens, not supermen who's abilities are unmatchable for us mere mortals.
Would it be harder to do some tasks with full realism? Of course it would. However, hyperbole such as "no one would be able to land them or fly them" is just that, hyperbole.
Karnak and Krusty:
My point was this and this alone..the total level of proficient flight difficulty is lower in-game than in RL. That maybe because of wind speed, CV speed etc so I was agreeing with all of you. I have no issues with the flight models whatsoever. Now, that is just my opinion and its worth what you paid for it. I do have one hour in a Texan (not flight instruction, just the ride)...it was obtained at Addison Airport at the Cavanaugh Flight Museum's Texan and about 30 hours in pittly little Cessna's...152's and 172's but nothing high performance or certainly not centerline thrust.
I believe this: In RL, I think it stands to reason that most of the population can't handle a HIGH TORQUE, HIGH PERFORMANCE aircraft in one hour...with no instruction. I am fairly certain that isn't an unreasonable assessment...regardless of who you think may have "strange" thoughts. I have always wondered if some folks believe their flight proficiency in this game would have translated into the same skill level in combat during WW II....based on what I read on 200 sometimes, I think they do. I certainly don't want to ruin anyone's fantasy...lol
Changeup
-
We actually get more opportunity to familiarize ourselves with the flight models than someone flying in a real plane.
We can shoot 200 carrier landings a day.
-
Changeup,
Have you ever watched somebody who has no real or simulated flight experience sit down in front of AH and try to fly something? It isn't pretty and there is no way they are getting a Spit XIV off the runway inside an hour, unless you count a brief hop before it rolls to the side and crashes.
I will grant you they will get a P-38 off, having a good chance to do so on their first try. They won't be able to land it again for a bit, but get off and fly a bit, sure. AH does not model the preflight procedures or complex engine management.
In flight in AH, people with no flight experience stall and crash the aircraft with abandon and don't know why it is happening.
-
The young men that flew them in real life, started off, like all pilots, in trainers like Tiger Moths (sorry I dont know the US equivalent) operating from grass airfields that enabled them always to take off and land into wind. I think that is what he meant.
My Father flew P47's & P51's in WWII. He's primary training was loged in a J2 in 1942, built by Piper aircraft company. In 1964 he taught me to fly in a J3.