Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Citabria on December 10, 2013, 08:09:25 PM
-
the whos here since beta thread got me thinking about the biggest changes to AH FM/gunnery modeling since beta...
i think I'd say...
1. increased E retention change (original planes bled E very fast. this was changed years ago to more accurately model E retention rates I think. turn fighters benefited greatly from this change as they could fight longer and maneuver better vs bnzers)
2. gunnery in general... dispersion hit modeling lethality changes. (back in the day you could nail somebody at 1000 yards and down them with a few 50 cal. it is now much harder to land hits at range and takes more hits to do damage)
-
2. gunnery in general... dispersion hit modeling lethality changes. (back in the day you could nail somebody at 1000 yards and down them with a few 50 cal. it is now much harder to land hits at range and takes more hits to do damage)
This was one of the biggest improvements in AH v2.00. In earlier versions aircraft had a hit box shaped basically like the aircraft, but cruder, and that resulted in wings and tails hit detection areas being noticeably thicker than the graphic for the wing or tail and that enabled those long range shots. v2.00 introduced hit boxes that were the exact same polygon as the visible 3D model.
I concur with your rankings though. The change to E retention first, hit detection second and I'll nominate the changes to the flap modeling as third, the one where the Bf109s went from bad flaps to good flaps.
-
I recall the FM overhaul very well, there was the usual mashing of teeth by some members of the community but I felt like overall it was a big improvement in game play, and opened a lot more possibilities.
-
i remember lobbying hitech and pyro directly on usenet (comp.games.ibm.flight-sim?) to let 50 cal bullets get out to 1000 yds or more in 1995, during confirmed kill beta.
I think at the time you had to be within 500 yds to even get hits. :uhoh
-
1. increased E retention change (original planes bled E very fast. this was changed years ago to more accurately model E retention rates I think. turn fighters benefited greatly from this change as they could fight longer and maneuver better vs bnzers)
It brought lots of players from WarBirds into AH straight away. From this point of view it was good.
It is still not clear how did it make the game more realistic?
Just think about two planes: Spit1 and Hurri1. Both are good TnB planes. Spit1 is better in speed, climb acceleration and in real life was considered to be a better plane.
Now, if you make experiment and fly one month in Spit1 and another month in Hurri1 you'll get approx twice as better score in Hurri1 simply because Hurri1 TnBs better... Does it feel right ?
-
Just think about two planes: Spit1 and Hurri1. Both are good TnB planes. Spit1 is better in speed, climb acceleration and in real life was considered to be a better plane.
Now, if you make experiment and fly one month in Spit1 and another month in Hurri1 you'll get approx twice as better score in Hurri1 simply because Hurri1 TnBs better... Does it feel right ?
<Hijack>
In LW, the Spit I gives me more success than the Hurri I does.
All-Time K/D in Spit I is .44 better than in the Hurri I
Anecdotal evidence, but I think you are undervaluing speed, climb and acceleration vs. TnB in the MA environment.
-
It brought lots of players from WarBirds into AH straight away. From this point of view it was good.
It is still not clear how did it make the game more realistic?
Just think about two planes: Spit1 and Hurri1. Both are good TnB planes. Spit1 is better in speed, climb acceleration and in real life was considered to be a better plane.
Now, if you make experiment and fly one month in Spit1 and another month in Hurri1 you'll get approx twice as better score in Hurri1 simply because Hurri1 TnBs better... Does it feel right ?
There are other factors than turning ability going on there.
-
<Hijack>
In LW, the Spit I gives me more success than the Hurri I does.
All-Time K/D in Spit I is .44 better than in the Hurri I
Anecdotal evidence, but I think you are undervaluing speed, climb and acceleration vs. TnB in the MA environment.
Spit1 and Hurri1 are on the same scale in LW they both do not have a great armament and they both (their icons "SPIT","HURRI") do not attract abnormal amount of enemies to you. Shots from long distance and deflection shots are not effective. To get a fair kill you need to settle down well on enemy and place a good burst from 150 yards - job done. Now, the difference is that it takes less time to do it in Hurri and it means that in Spit you are much longer under danger to be picked by another plane while you getting the gun solution on enemy. Speed, climb and acceleration are not important at all.
I know it is simplified explanation and "there are other factors" but they are not that critical.
-
I know it is simplified explanation and "there are other factors" but they are not that critical.
I disagree. As modeled in AH the Spitfire is very fragile while the Hurricane is quite tough, moreso than I think is justified. That makes the Hurri I's survivability significantly higher than the Spitfire I.
Both aircraft handily out turn all aircraft they are likely to meet in the LWMA other than the A6M5.
-
Speed, climb and acceleration are not important at all.
In MA you mean because they're completely outclassed by late war birds.
-
The gunnery model really took a toll on my shooting when it first changed. I was a very good shot in most situations, which accounted for my stats, as I was and still am no wizard when it comes to advanced ACM, but good SA and good accuracy in the MA will carry you a long ways. What I found changed the most was long distance chase shots. Many times with the earlier gunnery model, at d800 or even d1000, I recall constantly blasting people from the sky at that range with ease. Now, while it can be done, it takes a lot more ammo, patience, and an opponent that is somewhat asleep at the wheel. Prior to the change, once you knew where to hold your sight at certain ranges, it was easy to use 20mm or even 50's to hit guys in those long range tail chase shots. Much easier than it is now, which is likely a lot closer to reality.
So, we got an "easier" flight model, but a harder gunnery model, at least that's my opinion compared to the original game. I have no complaints either way.
-
Anecdotal evidence, but I think you are undervaluing speed, climb and acceleration vs. TnB in the MA environment.
They can easily outturn anything what comes across, it doesnt really matter against any late war ride, but the spit 1 is a lot faster (or a lot less slooooooooow), this might cause the difference.
Or, check the stats of the winner of the october tour. All he was flying is a very fast brick. He must be a pick tard :uhoh
-
2. gunnery in general... dispersion hit modeling lethality changes. (back in the day you could nail somebody at 1000 yards and down them with a few 50 cal. it is now much harder to land hits at range and takes more hits to do damage)
Agree 100% and I swear, the FM2 50's were more lethal than other American iron, IMHO
-
Biggest ones I can remember, is they changed the spit 5 flight model as the old flew like a UFO. And the day they quit showing kill messages in the text buffer every time was an improvement as you didn't have so many things going on in the text buffer. The introduction of in-game VOX was awesome, no longer had to use Roger Wilco. I've only seen in-game vox in a few games and it seems like it's always awful.
-
I disagree. As modeled in AH the Spitfire is very fragile while the Hurricane is quite tough, moreso than I think is justified. That makes the Hurri I's survivability significantly higher than the Spitfire I.
So, you see that something is not correct. Take a closer look at Hurricane. In real life this plane was diving very poor due to big air drag. In AH it dives pretty well. Is something wrong with air drag/E-burning calculations?
If you've read the books written by russian pilots who were unlucky enough to fly Hurricanes (all rearmed with cannons btw) in 1942 and early 1943 they all were dreaming about getting Yak-7 or P-39 instead.
Now check the stats of HurriIIC vs Yak7 or P39s - you can see straight away Hurri IIC owns Yak7B, P39D and P39Q all together(!) in total number of kills and much more effective in K/D . Does it sound right ?
-
So, you see that something is not correct. Take a closer look at Hurricane. In real life this plane was diving very poor due to big air drag. In AH it dives pretty well. Is something wrong with air drag/E-burning calculations?
If you've read the books written by russian pilots who were unlucky enough to fly Hurricanes (all rearmed with cannons btw) in 1942 and early 1943 they all were dreaming about getting Yak-7 or P-39 instead.
Now check the stats of HurriIIC vs Yak7 or P39s - you can see straight away Hurri IIC owns Yak7B, P39D and P39Q all together(!) in total number of kills and much more effective in K/D . Does it sound right ?
I am pretty sure that is 95-100% due to its quad Hispano armament.
-
I am pretty sure that is 95-100% due to its quad Hispano armament.
So what is wrong if it makes it good in AH (better than Yak-7 and P-39s), but did not make it good enough in real life?
-
So what is wrong if it makes it good in AH (better than Yak-7 and P-39s), but did not make it good enough in real life?
I have long held that the Hurricane (and Bf110) are more agile in AH than they were historically. My posting history on the subject backs that up (search for the phrase "Hurricane Mk XIV" or "Bf110K-4"), but that said in an actual organized event I suspect that the P-39 and Yak-7 would prove to be the better fighters due to speed and climb.
-
I have long held that the Hurricane (and Bf110) are more agile in AH than they were historically. My posting history on the subject backs that up (search for the phrase "Hurricane Mk XIV" or "Bf110K-4"), but that said in an actual organized event I suspect that the P-39 and Yak-7 would prove to be the better fighters due to speed and climb.
I have posted this before but here goes: The FAF aces who flew against soviet hurricanes gave out a war time training manual which described the hurricane as 'extremely clumsy and slow with tendency to burn the pilot on first hit, best advised to engage immediately in turn fight with it and aim the fuselage fuel tank'.
The FAF also flew several captured hurricanes themselves so they had first hand knowledge.
Doesn't sound much like the hurri here.
-
I do love the coulda/woulda/shoulda arguments here on X vs Y aircraft.
Just to toss some gas on the fire, http://www.aviationclassics.co.uk/news/issue-6-battle-of-britain-spitfire-or-hurricane
Enjoy. The writer is a Brit fighter pilot that flew both the Spit and Hurri while a former Officer Commanding the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight.
A good read in any event.
-
I have long held that the Hurricane (and Bf110) are more agile in AH than they were historically. My posting history on the subject backs that up (search for the phrase "Hurricane Mk XIV" or "Bf110K-4"), but that said in an actual organized event I suspect that the P-39 and Yak-7 would prove to be the better fighters due to speed and climb.
It's good that we came to the same conclusion about Hurricane's performance completely independently.
There is a very detailed report based on the speed/stall/dive tests of HurricaneIIC made in 1943 in NII VVS (Russia).
http://www.airpages.ru/book/hurricane_00.shtml (http://www.airpages.ru/book/hurricane_00.shtml)
To sum it up:
The max speed reached in dive at full throttle (at 70-80 degree angle) was 640 km/h ias. It was in good accordance with manufacturer data (390mph)
(In AH the plane quickly reaches 500+ mph ias starting to disintegrate.)
Stall/spin tests showed that the plane falls into left spin quickly and without warning and it takes additional time/alt to recover from spin due to delay in response on controls while spinning.
(In AH Hurricane always gives a long stall warning and it is possible to recover control of the plane immediately if stall happened.)
It is obvious that Hurricane is modeled way too wrong in AH.
-
It baffles the mind how some FMs have changed since beta. 190A8 still bleeds E like its AH1. Brewster holds E over high G turns like it has 2x the power to weight ratio.
-
I think the changes to flight modeling that diverged from reality were done for player retention but I also believe that they should be reviewed from time to time concerning which players they are trying to retain.........new or old players and strike a balance.
Sounds like a very difficult tightrope to walk for HTC but they seem to have done a great job.
-
I think the changes to flight modeling that diverged from reality were done for player retention but I also believe that they should be reviewed from time to time concerning which players they are trying to retain.........new or old players and strike a balance.
Sounds like a very difficult tightrope to walk for HTC but they seem to have done a great job.
Would you care to support that?
Which flight models were changed to intentionally diverge from reality?
-
I think the changes to flight modeling that diverged from reality were done for player retention but I also believe that they should be reviewed from time to time concerning which players they are trying to retain.........new or old players and strike a balance.
Sounds like a very difficult tightrope to walk for HTC but they seem to have done a great job.
We have never intentionally diverged any flight models from reality.
HiTech
-
We have never intentionally diverged any flight models from reality.
HiTech
I call BS!!! I think the Claw is 10 mph faster than it should be!
-
Excuse me guys but I sorta have to laugh when I read this stuff.
I have a very good friend that works at a high level for the company that operates the world’s largest fleet of advanced full flight simulators. These are, for example, the latest corporate jets from well known manufacturers. This company may spend $20 million on a single simulator and the software. They have access to the test data from and co-operate with the corporations that build the actual aircraft in order to program the simulators for maximum reality.
You know what the typical comment is from the customers that fly these simulators? It's that they "don't fly like the airplane".
Yet here we are, pointing out that our AH airplanes "don't fly like the airplane" when
1. There's not really much available data on these aircraft
2. The companies that built them are either out of business or have no interest in helping build a fully realistic flight model
3. It would take a HUGE multi-million dollar company to build such flight models for the number of aircraft in here if the data were available
For myself, I am simply amazed that HTC can get as close as it does considering for the mere pittance we spend on a computer and $15/month.
-
since you asked......
spins
In real life, pulling hard G's in uncoordinated flight will snap you into a pretty instantaneous spin and even a cessna 150 with rudder full deflection in a power on stall will snap you into a spin vicious enough that the first half turn is usually upside down.
It all got more gentle with warbirds 3 as WB2.77 still had a pretty vicious snap into spin thing going on and it seems "soft" here as well.
My spin observation probably doesn't fit the topic as I never flew any version other than the current version of aces high but I believe what I said about spins being harder to induce here.
-
Fifteen years in and people are still contemplating step one. HTC, you have succeeded.
-
For myself, I am simply amazed that HTC can get as close as it does considering for the mere pittance we spend on a computer and $15/month.
The REAL problem is that AFAIK 99,9% of AH players have never flown a centimeter in the planes that we're talking about here. Everyone is talking about their own opinion on how plane (x) should fly according to the stuff they've read.
-
Even if they did fly in the real a/c, it would take hundreds of hours in order to have enough info and "feel" to be able to make judgements. I know when I flew in a P51, it was only 1.5 hours flight time, and I was so bamboozled over everything going on that even really trying to pay attention to airspeeds and such things, there was no hope of making accurate comparisons from that little amount of time. I would say that the game makes things very easy for us virtual pilots compared to the real thing - just pushing the throttle on your hotas to go faster, pulling on the stick to turn tighter, etc....there is SO much more to do in the real thing. That, and we constantly push our planes to the limit in AH, something you simply couldn't do in real life, at least, not for as long as we do it here. That's why I find performance complaints sort of pointless.
-
So what is wrong if it makes it good in AH (better than Yak-7 and P-39s), but did not make it good enough in real life?
The main reason is that we are not fighting like they did in real life. The only reason that planes like the Brewster, KI43 etc. can even get into combat with something like a P-51 or a 190D9 is because we fly cartoon planes as if they were cartoon planes. The 1940-41 hurricanes did not fly alongside an La-7 that caught a 190, forces it into a low alt turning fight and allowed the Hurricane to jump in with its 4 hispanos to finish the job. Or alternatively, some 109K4 pilot feels cocky enough to try and beat a Hurri2C in its own game - that will never happen if the 109K4 pilot was really risking his life. If he did, at the first sign of trouble he'll leave the Hurri in a hurry.
Less significant reasons include gunnery and spin/stalls. Gunnery was much more difficult in real life. 400 yards shots were considered long range. 800 yards shots on a fighter were virtually unheard of. Firing at high G was likely to get your guns jammed. Spins and deep stalls were feared. Very few pilots would attempt to hang on the prop, WEP engaged, firing at a plane 600 yards straight up until their speed drops to 0 and they fall tail-forward. AH backward-flying model seem to be quite forgiving (except a handful of planes) and most planes will simply drop the nose and continue flying without any control input (like reducing the throttle to less than max..).
Finally, no matter how hard you pull on your stick, YOU suffer 1G acceleration. Heck, I pull 6G without spilling the bear in my other hand. This gives a big advantage to planes whose only strength requires them to pull lots of G. Pulling 6G repeatedly with out a G suite is exhausting and if you do that while looking backwards you'll probably be looking at your butt for the next two weeks. I pulled 6+G with a G-suit - you are not incapacitated, but every little action becomes difficult and clumsy - like say, keeping your head straight... Pulling such a turn into a snap shot while still in high G was probably some feat that I doubt happened very often, unlike with the Hurri2C in a computer game. Unfortunately HTC decided not to apply G forces on us players.
4 hispanos on an obsolete plane did not do so well in real life. You need to be able to bring your guns into a firing position, otherwise their type and number does not matter.
-
since you asked......
spins
My understanding is that departure from normal flight is the hardest thing to model in a flight simulator. I doubt HTC intentionally dumbed it down.
-
All great points Gents... Truth is... Reality is certainly different than Virtual... and Egos tend to be an even more inflated reality in the virtual world. :devil
Several of these planes have better dive capibilities and 'e' retention than they probably should have in the game... Brewsters and Hurricanes come to mind... but my experience is limited to the game and what I've read (to include many of these very knowledgeable Forum posts). I don't know that these planes had a better dive potential than the A6Ms. At the same time, 190s do seem to lose 'e' faster than I would postulate. There are so many factors to consider in each virtual plane... keep up the great work HT! The likes and loves in this game certainly out weigh any of my grievance. Thanks for keeping the evolution of the game in motion.
:airplane:-----Cheers from REDDEYE
-
The B-239's E retention isn't as big of a puzzlement as it's fire resistance, despite the lack of self-sealing fuel tanks.
-
We have never intentionally diverged any flight models from reality.
Not even reduce rollrate to minimize warping? Like it was in WarBirds.
-
Not even reduce rollrate to minimize warping? Like it was in WarBirds.
I hardly ever see warping. what do you mean by this?
semp
-
I hardly ever see warping. what do you mean by this?
semp
In the old days due to poor connections they had smoothing code and some say adjusted flight models. So when you were in trouble you could yank and flip your plane about and with out the code it looked like your plane was doing mini warps and was very hard to hit because the game couldn't keep up with your moves.
I don't think that is a problem now with the high speed internet we have today. Nor the way why HTC runs their game.
-
4 hispanos on an obsolete plane did not do so well in real life. You need to be able to bring your guns into a firing position, otherwise their type and number does not matter.
You are right about real life. But we are talking about how the plane is modeled here in AH. If it was properly modeled with poor diving speed, stall/spin without warning and spin recovery for at least 5-6 seconds and 670m of alt required it would drop down the efficiency of the plane to much more reasonable value - much closer to what it was in real life.
-
You are right about real life. But we are talking about how the plane is modeled here in AH. If it was properly modeled with poor diving speed, stall/spin without warning and spin recovery for at least 5-6 seconds and 670m of alt required it would drop down the efficiency of the plane to much more reasonable value - much closer to what it was in real life.
Not to mention that hispanos were notorious for jamming when fired under G-load so that would make the situation even worse for the hurri.