Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: TheRhino on November 08, 2011, 03:25:50 PM
-
I would like to see the original internal defult view brought back on tanks. It was much more realistic (and realism is why I love Aces High), the new defult view with the aiming circle is too 'gamey'.
-
The only reason they are pumping out tons of new tanks is because they don't have to model the internals. Be careful what you wish for. It would reduce a lot of the progress we've gained.
-
The only reason they are pumping out tons of new tanks is because they don't have to model the internals. Be careful what you wish for. It would reduce a lot of the progress we've gained.
In that case i would be nice if they brought the tanks out, then maybe added internal view to them later on.
-
In that case i would be nice if they brought the tanks out, then maybe added internal view to them later on.
So we're going to have half the tank with internal views and half without?
-1
-
In that case i would be nice if they brought the tanks out, then maybe added internal view to them later on.
(http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i336/igotafro/facepalm.jpg)
youe kidding, right?
-
A big NO, Tanking is what it is right now and its quite fine. Much as I'd like see 2 inches out of a Drivers view, and a bunch of dials that don't work, the commanders view works just fine giving me the information I need.
-
Gamey? Nah, not quite. The biggest thing about gv's being "gamey" is the ability to absolutely turn your own sound off and be able to turn the enemy noise up.
The current view offers the player to be in the role of "tank commander", unbuttoned of course. The old way was far too restrictive with no continuity between the different positions within the tank. As it is now, only the TC and gunner really swap positions.
Leave it as is, imo.
-
the new position is just as if you were on your mg the whole time. which most of us used while moving around anyway. I see no difference.
semp
-
the new position is just as if you were on your mg the whole time. which most of us used while moving around anyway. I see no difference.
semp
A couple of things regarding that:
First, the TC and the AA gunner are not always the same position. Secondly, the AA gunner under the old system did not make the turret traverse wherever he looked. Having the TC concept is far more representative of the real deal than the prior system which was like having 1 guy bounce around from position to position. The TC has total control over the driver, partial control over the gunner (turret traverse), partial control over the loader (co-axial MG), and full control over the radio man/bow machine gunner (bow and co-axial MG's are linked). Only when the main gun or AA gun need aiming does the TC need to be abandoned.
The TC system is superior in all ways when compared to the old system, imo.
-
yeah but we talking about where in rl the tc would give directions to the gunner/driver and the tank would adjust accordingly. so if you really think that you moving the stick is kindda like the tc giving orders to the crew then it is not that different.
we can go back and forth if it is realistic or not and you will get 100 hundreds of opinions either way and not be wrong either way.
semp
-
yeah but we talking about where in rl the tc would give directions to the gunner/driver and the tank would adjust accordingly. so if you really think that you moving the stick is kindda like the tc giving orders to the crew then it is not that different.
we can go back and forth if it is realistic or not and you will get 100 hundreds of opinions either way and not be wrong either way.
semp
I agree on the opinions thing. However, with that being said when a squaddie who was a tanker in the First Gulf War and also Iraqi Freedom says the TC interface act far more like the real thing vs having each individual position represented, to me that means something. :aok
I think that HTC did it right. Your assumption of me believing that from the TC's position he is giving commands to the crewmen to do X, is correct. When the swings his view left and the turret follows, the TC is telling the gunner to move turret to X position. When the tank goes Y speed and turns to Z position, the same happens. To me, it is all so much more fluid.
-
If the only complaint is that you want to look around without aiming the gun, use your VIEW keys. Remember those? I believe they still work! Leave your aim point where it is and look around!
-
If the only complaint is that you want to look around without aiming the gun, use your VIEW keys. Remember those? I believe they still work! Leave your aim point where it is and look around!
You can still look around the the machine gun, right?
-
I was thinking from the tank commander position, but that's what I recall. I was using a joystick instead of mouse and I recall my hat keys still worked. I think if you use a mouse your keypad should still work.
I haven't tanked in ages. Can somebody verify this in-game?
-
When at the TC's position, my hat switch with allow me to look in the 8 directions. No need to hop in to the AA gunner's position to swing your view around.
-
I would like to use my throttle as a tank throttle instead of asdw keys..
-
I would like to use my throttle as a tank throttle instead of asdw keys..
would like a man trany if the tank had a man tranny and a auto if the tank had auto. selectable 4WD for the jeep and those tat had select able drive (M3) and old view back, atleast make it slect able
-
would like a man trany if the tank had a man tranny and a auto if the tank had auto. selectable 4WD for the jeep and those tat had select able drive (M3) and old view back, atleast make it slect able
you just want the mega zoom function and the ability to drive up steep hills...admit it.
-
The biggest thing about gv's being "gamey" is the ability to absolutely turn your
own sound off and be able to turn the enemy noise up.
I did not know you could do that. That explains allot. :O :O
BTW.....I vote we keep the tanks the way they are. I like the view from position 1
much better than the previous version.
:salute
Mano
-
A couple of things regarding that:
First, the TC and the AA gunner are not always the same position. Secondly, the AA gunner under the old system did not make the turret traverse wherever he looked. Having the TC concept is far more representative of the real deal than the prior system which was like having 1 guy bounce around from position to position.
And it is not like this in most multiple-position aircraft?
-
The ground vehicle mechanics and the air vehicle mechanics ought not be compared, for they are not even remotely the same. They are, quite literally, worlds apart in how they play out in real life.
-
And it is not like this in most multiple-position aircraft?
Seeing as how each individual gunner in a bomber acts on their own accord, trying to draw a comparison between aircraft and tank crews and how they work their station might not be too fruitful. As Krusty already said, they are worlds apart in how they operated in the real world. The pilot didnt have to tell a gunner to engage the oncoming enemy fighter. ;)
-
you just want the mega zoom function and the ability to drive up steep hills...admit it.
i want our gvs to have the detail our plains do.
-
Seeing as how each individual gunner in a bomber acts on their own accord, trying to draw a comparison between aircraft and tank crews and how they work their station might not be too fruitful. As Krusty already said, they are worlds apart in how they operated in the real world. The pilot didnt have to tell a gunner to engage the oncoming enemy fighter. ;)
some people forget that most bombers in ww2 flew in formations so you had hundreds of eyes looking everywhere. even with f3 view we dont even match how it was really in ww2 as they could see in all directions at all times and shoot in all directions at all times.
semp
-
i want our gvs to have the detail our plains do.
Up a Tiger-2 or a Panzer, or even a LVT. those tanks are pretty well detailed.
-
Up a Tiger-2 or a Panzer, or even a LVT. those tanks are pretty well detailed.
no. i mean the way planes are. like we can control throttle and rpm in planes they are not linked like they are in GV,s if a plane had fixed landing gear then when give it fixed gear if it had alieron flaps (I16) we give it alerion flaps. but if a tank has a manual tranny we give it a auto. if it had a 4wd drive option (jeep,m3/m16) we just give it 2wd drive. see what i mean. they put more thought in planes than gvs.
-
no. i mean the way planes are. like we can control throttle and rpm in planes they are not linked like they are in GV,s if a plane had fixed landing gear then when give it fixed gear if it had alieron flaps (I16) we give it alerion flaps. but if a tank has a manual tranny we give it a auto. if it had a 4wd drive option (jeep,m3/m16) we just give it 2wd drive. see what i mean. they put more thought in planes than gvs.
tanks dont have throttle and rpm. and they took some of that out to pump out more GV's for us to use.
-
tanks dont have throttle and rpm. and they took some of that out to pump out more GV's for us to use.
they have throttle. and they have a RPM gauge.
-
they have throttle. and they have a RPM gauge.
please give me a picture of both of those.
-
Gamey? Nah, not quite. The biggest thing about gv's being "gamey" is the ability to absolutely turn your own sound off and be able to turn the enemy noise up.
The current view offers the player to be in the role of "tank commander", unbuttoned of course. The old way was far too restrictive with no continuity between the different positions within the tank. As it is now, only the TC and gunner really swap positions.
Leave it as is, imo.
this is exactly why it is the way it should be. the old way was like having one person in the tank going from position to position to position. restrictive and overall unrealistic in comparison.
-
please give me a picture of both of those.
(http://i44.tinypic.com/z1ieo.jpg)
(http://i40.tinypic.com/1eatr8.jpg)
PS: TINYPIC IS AWESOME.
-
(http://i44.tinypic.com/z1ieo.jpg)
(http://i40.tinypic.com/1eatr8.jpg)
PS: TINYPIC IS AWESOME.
i meant in game...
-
The ground vehicle mechanics and the air vehicle mechanics ought not be compared, for they are not even remotely the same. They are, quite literally, worlds apart in how they play out in real life.
That's why I'm not comparing the mechanics. I was using it as an example to compare views.
-
i meant in game...
THATS WHAT IM ASKING FOR!