Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: HABICHT on June 25, 2000, 11:14:00 AM
-
...HTC is really under pressure.
i dont fear WBIII.
but i fear the posibillity of WB3 to built
in new 3d modelles MUCH faster now.
they'll overun us AH fans with lot's of new
aircrafts/vehicles/ground objekts/ships.
that makes me worried.....
------------------
(http://saintaw.tripod.com/habichtnew.gif)
"Die Ta 152 war meine Überlebensversicherung in den letzten Tagen des Krieges" OFw Willi Reschke, Ritterkreuzträger, 38 Abschüsse
[This message has been edited by HABICHT (edited 06-25-2000).]
[This message has been edited by HABICHT (edited 06-25-2000).]
-
Sooo where is the link to check those pics?
-
Aces High latest 3d models are better
-
In looking at the pics, I don't see where they are better than what we have had all along.
The real kicker will be the ammount of customer support, and updating that goes on. I think we can look at the track record of HTC's frequent updates (2 major updates, with bug fixes following in very short order) against one change in the way damage is alocated with bugs that persist for months and even more than a year in at least one case (stuck bombs).
I don't think HTC has anything to 'fear' from IEN and WBIII. Even if WBIII is the wonder game of the future, able to cure cancer, end governmental oppression, feed the world's starving, and put an absolute end to warts. (After more than a year of hype, it just might. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) ) HTC's continued dedication to the customer, and not the customer's wallet will keep them on top.
------------------
Greg 'wmutt' Cook
332nd Flying Mongrels
-
but i fear the posibillity of WB3 to built
in new 3d modelles MUCH faster now.
they'll overun us AH fans with lot's of new
aircrafts/vehicles/ground objekts/ships.
What makes you think HTC are slower at making 3d models?
Besides, you still have to do the FM, DM and all that stuff too to make the pretty model fly.
-
Not to mention HS being publicly annoyed with iEN, whats to stop him packing up and leaving once the first version of WBIII is out the door because he's fed up with beurocracy. Whats happens to the update speed when another team hasto be brought in and then decifer his 'legacy' code the way he say's he had to with the ICI teams code which he has used as an excuse as to why development of WBII was so slow.
-
They link I found is off of Dogfighter.com. ( A webpage you should visit regular)
http://www.iencentral.com/warbirds/connews_wed.html (http://www.iencentral.com/warbirds/connews_wed.html)
Not sure if these are the same pictures your seeing, but I still missed your point.
The P51 looks, um, I don't know. Not real good.
Terrian looks nice.
-
?
I saw nothing there near as good as the post beta AH art. The 51D is not as good as our beta one. Do they have trouble with cam patterns....
Nothing there looks remotly like the "screen shots" that were circulated several months ago but seemed to be in tool model shots to me.
If I was them I would block access to this site so people cant compare.......
[This message has been edited by Pongo (edited 06-25-2000).]
-
Guys, from what I've read, WBIII is slated to be out late in 2000, maybe November/December.
By that time, I can only imagine how many planes and vehicles HTC will have added. By then, I doubt the larger planeset of WB will be an issue anymore. We got 4 planes in 1 week here, with another 2 supposed to be out soon. (88 and Lanc) I feel that by the time WBIII is out, AH will be superior in most ways to it. In November they'll have the same Warbirds....just with better graphics and effects. Thats what you see today...50-some planes with little strat, but it will have better graphics, and a 50-meg download to top it off. (guestimate here, people) With the recent release of the mission editor, and the soon-to-be-released terrain editor, AH will have moved another large step ahead of WB.
People think that now that screenshots with terrain are released of WBIII, it will be out soon, but I think that's an illusion. I guess only time will tell.
------------------
Mark VanZwoll
33rd Strike Group
-
AHHHHMMM!!
The pics you are seeing are most likely on a highend Apple G4. WHY you may ask is the important..SIMPLE In the IBM world it takes ALOOT more HORSEPOWER to match a G4. Read a article about G4 vs the Athelon. Had a 400Mhz G4 against a Athelon 1000....the G4 BLEW it away on every rating.
What does this all mean?? SImple, the IBM version wont be as impressive as the APple. AH fans DONT worry.
GOrf OUT
-
the IBM version wont be as impressive as the APple
====
Jeepers, I never thought of it that way.
After all these years WBs is going to be the premier MAC sim!
WBs3 will be a very interesting experience for me, but after all is said and done, it will take Jesus walking on water in 2000 to get me paying $200 a month when Im STILL trying to become even HALFWAY decent in AH for $30 a month.
Still, I dont discount that as a possibility (Jesus, that is).
Yeager
-
The pics you are seeing are most likely on a highend Apple G4.........
What does this all mean?? SImple, the IBM version wont be as impressive as the APple. AH fans DONT worry.
No, thats not correct. Whether one runs WB III on a PC or an Apple certainly won't make a whit of difference in terms of how the planes look and fly. The particular video card one uses will make some difference, but many of them run on both types of boxes. The particular horsepower of the box you are using, of course, will make a difference in terms of fps. By the way, the G4/400 that was used at that con ran the demo noticeably slower than the boxes running win or linux. The code was not optimized yet, so they say, but I wouldn't look for real big differences in framerates on comparable machines (whatever that means) unless they specifically code an altivec-enhanced version for the mac. I sort of doubt they will do this (although I hoep for it, as I'm on a mac) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
edog
-
I must say, those pics are nowhere near as nice as what we have here, and what terrain is that... Mars?
T
-
what terrain is that... Mars?
Lets look for water (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Apparently its Grand Canyon terrain, without any objects (trees, etc)
edog
-
Sure are a defensive bunch
------------------
Jumpin Jesus on a pogo stick! Everybody knows a burrow owl... lives... in a hole... in the ground!
-
I've seen the pic's, and the film from the con. I didn't see anything spectacular myself. Didn't look any better or any worse compared to Aces, IMO. Will they model prop drag, ground effect, different weights from fuel load out and usage, just to name some of the current differences from Aces? I doubt it, not anytime soon. From what they have been saying, it's just eye candy with the same ol' FM's and gameplay to start out. YUUUUK, the same ol' WB. Not for me.........who knows, in the future maybe.....
ts
-
It never ceases to amaze me that folks will post opinions based on so little fact. I was at CON2K and actually saw WBIII for myself. Of course, that makes my opinion suspect i guess. So i will not bore you with the details here.
In regards to WB's and AH: can you say "same thing only different"???
Cabby
------------------
=44th FS "VAMPIRES"=
"The Jungle Air Force"
Welcome To The Jungle!!!"
-
It never ceases to amaze me how opinienated some people can be (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif).
Cabby, people looked at the pictures available and said what they thought about them. Whether they had a chance to be present at the con or not is irrelevant. If they base their opinion about WBIII on incomplete infornmation - isn't that the job of iEN to provide this info? I don't think it's forthcoming though. Why don't you share what you know about WBIII?
IMHO, the only really groundbreaking graphics were the first 3D planes of WB done by FT. They looked real, they felt real. I remember actually flying off-line in o/s view mode just to see how light was reflected on the surfaces - it was really different quality 3D artwork from anything else available... Nowadays most sims look very similar.
------------------
-lynx-
13 Sqn RAF
-
Gotta agree with -Lynx- on this, cabby. People can only judge by what they see, and when they preface their opinion by stating the information its based on, such as Tshred did, I don't see the problem.....
Chisel, i assume you were referring to me, when you said "sure is a defensive bunch", since your post came right after mine. If you werent, my apologies in advance. If you were, I disagree with your assessment. My posts in this thread weren't the slightest bit defensive, IMO. Hell, I'm no iEN shill, I'll admit I was disappointed with the state of WB III, at least as judging it's status based on the demo. I hoped it would be further along, and it would really knock my socks off. My impression from the newsgroups and personal discussions with others is that my view is pretty reflective of the community in general.
edog
[This message has been edited by edog (edited 06-26-2000).]
-
Man I can't believe I'm agreeing with Cabby (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I agree that WBIII and AH will be very similar with requard to graphics. I think the things that will set them apart is content.
Aces High has a huge leg up compared to Warbirds 3.0 at this point. A lot of "to be added after WBIII releases" was given in answer to "does it have?" As of now there aren't even cockpits for the new artwork let alone any of the other features mentioned.
I am now convinced that a lot of the "you can't handle it" talk from iEN was simply because things were not done and so could not be shown. Judging from the state of development of WBIII compared to AH at the start of open beta, it is clear that most of what we saw of WBIII was a product of work done only in the last few months, or that the amount of resourses iEN is allocating to the development of WBIII is at a bare minimum.
The question remains is can WBIII catch up with Aces High and WWIIonline (assuming that sim is released with everything the builders say it will) before both of them leave WB so far behind that it will be impossible to make up the gap. Also it remains to be seen if iEN can or will alot the necessary resourses for WBIII to fulfil it's promise. So of the things I've heard lead me to believe that iEN may be more leaning toward things like Fighter Ops and it's internet games like bingo and advertising as it's major focus.
All in all I think that as far as "cutting edge" Aces High is producing and WBIII has the ability to produce given the opportunity.
But what do I know?
Sharky
-
I think Edog has it right. Many of us were hoping to see WB3 further along then it was. However, what we did see was nice. You could fly the demo and the terrain has the potential to be the best in any online Sim to date. It was on both PCs and Macs so Gorfs comment is not accurate.
There was no cockpit art but the flight models were the same and you could shoot down opposing planes. Right now its all eye candy and more of a teaser but its probably enough to keep the core base of players waiting for the final product.
Ram1
-
I think it looks great, as I said, competition is a good thing for end users.
WB's isn't going to roll over and die, neither is AH, there's plenty of room for 3 quality online flightsims in the market.(AH, WB3, WW2Online) Has anyone seen the sales of PC's the last 2 years? How many of those millions of sales are potential victims...er, flight sim jocks looking for online enjoyment?
Looking forward to WB3, may even have duel accounts once again once the price goes flatrate.
------------------
Ripsnort(-rip1-)
~GeschwaderKommodore~I./JG2~Richthofen~[/i]
CLICK>> JG2 INFORMATION (http://Ripsnort60.tripod.com/JG2inquirer.html)
Panzer Group Afrika~15th Panzer Division~[/i]
(http://saintaw.tripod.com/ripsnort.jpg)
I spare no class or cult or creed,
My course is endless through the year.
I bow all heads and break all hearts,
All owe homage-I am Fear.
-------------General Patton
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 06-26-2000).]
-
Hi all,
From what I see I might guess that they use more poligons in their models, I guess in case of f4u twice as many, so the game will not work good even with tnt2. Considering time when it will be issued I am sure tnt2 and accels of the same class will not be so popular, but thy will still be installed in about 15-25% of the total "game" PCs. I think when the situation with video accelerators will change HTC will rework their model toward more "smooth", though what I think already is ok.
Also, I am sure, that graphix do not make a game. Even fms and prop drags and etc. don't. AH was extremely interesting even in the first days of beta. There is thing people tend to forget, it is named "gameplay", and I think that HTC has very good game designers (even if I am not agree with some design decisions).
Fariz
XII Legion.
-
This is neither praise nor a flame - but I've not seen anything released about WB III that takes my breath away - at all. I have had that happen to me here at AH several times since the beta was opened up.
-Westy
-
Westy,
I agree with you, WBIII I see nothiing impressive. Plus ever since the breakup of the original WB team.. well WB went to pot. Too many disappointments and promises that fell through our took forever to show up.
As for Cabby(fellow Mac owner) I would LOVE to know what vid card they were using.. Vodoo5?? GeForce Plus.. Ether way, I am staying with AH. HTC team have been wonderful and I may play WBIII but will see.
Gorf
-
From what I see I might guess that they use more poligons in their models, I guess in case of f4u twice as many, so the game will not work good even with tnt2.
I don't know how many AH uses, so I'll only speculate that you are correct about "more polygons". However, reports from the con indicate that framerates were smooth on the boxes running at 1920 X resolution, so perhaps previous reports of the efficiency of their graphics engine may be correct. The mac was running with stock ATI video.........Time will tell.
edog
PS. Just saw a post from Matt "Target" Davis (not a handle I would want, BTW (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif), editor of Furball mag, who had this to say:
After a few long talks with DIVINE, and HOTSEAT, I've got a little better understanding of how this program is coming together. I must say that all the folks who keep asking about polygon count and fps are missing the point. With the new systems coming out and the programming that the Warbirds III engine is based on, those things are truly unimportant. They just don't matter.
[This message has been edited by edog (edited 06-26-2000).]
-
Off topic material here but,
I've lost respect for iEN. First there was the fiasco of the buyout, then connection foul-ups, then a year of not a single new plane or other major change. All the while, raking in $1.50-2.00 an hour, and representing 3D renderings as ingame WB3 screenshots. I didn't believe there was a WB3 engine after all the crap they've slung.
I was wrong. Eye candy or not, guys -flew- a demo. The terrain sports a revolutionary contour style reminescent of Delta Force, but without the blurry voxels. Here's hoping they succeed without framerate problems. Less stright lines would be killer.
That said, I'm an AH fan. To see what HTC did in a year tells me all I need to know. They know and love sims. HTC never stops updating new planes, terrain and other new toys. But they also get the fun, no restrictive rolling plane set, late war hot rods, etc. Soon, terrain editors will give us historical scenario arenas that we build ourselves. Then come the carriers and trapping through a heavy wind! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) I just have confidence in the HTC crew to build more fun air combat arenas.
Cya up...Braz
-
Brazo,
When AW folks went to Warbirds, not many went back, I'd guess probably .5 % did. Most stayed.
I think you'll find that with software, once someone finds something they like , they stick to it.
I doubt there will be many going back to WB3 from AH except to take a look, unless they come up with something AH doesn't give them.
I will go back to 'check it out', but doubt I will stay, except for the Historical or Scenario lites, but by that time, AH will have something better judging by the looks of their recent accomplishments.
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 06-26-2000).]
-
"When AW folks went to Warbirds, not many went back...."
Not to go off on a tangent with AW but I think that the Kesmai crew were a herd of Ostriche with thier heads stuck in the sand. They actually allowed themselves to believe they could remain competative without changing the core program. Graphics and a few extra
planes (with screwed up flight models to boot) just doesn't cut it on code written in 1988 . And with AW withering on the vine (even with a 10/mo "all you can be an idiot" price plan) they have ALOT of catching up to do. But since thier core audience is the $10/mo "all you can bleat" customer base I don't see AW(4) as being a competitor to AH, WB3 or WWII Online. FA-II yes. But a threat to sims with a learning curve and a complicated flight model, no.
-Westy
-
A demo vs a full pay/play product? Where's the comparison? iEN will be extremely lucky to see pay/play in six months to a year.
That's a long time in the flight sim business by today's staandards. Look at what HTC has done in a year. Care to project six months, a year?
And what about cost? How WB players justify $100 or $200 a month is mystifying. For what?
-
Let's let the end user be the judge with his wallet and prevent this from becoming a flame fest as AGW has apparently became.
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After a few long talks with DIVINE, and HOTSEAT, I've got a little better understanding of how this program is coming together. I must say that all the folks who keep asking about polygon count and fps are missing the point. With the new systems coming out and the programming that the Warbirds III engine is based on, those things are truly unimportant. They just don't matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL. What a bull. Contact this person and ask him to add the model with 100000 poligons to his game. Will be funny to see it.
You can make the best algorithms, with the lowest level optimization, but you still can not get more 3d rendering power than your cpu, accelerator and memory lets you. Or prevents you, whatever.
Do not believe such a replics.
Well, back to the point I would like WBIII to be perfect game with perfect graphix and perfect gameplay. And also I want 10 other perfect fly syms. Competition is good, in russian there is a proverb, that people "vote by their legs". Also that makes all competitors to provide a best products in the shortest time.
Fariz
-
I must say that all the folks who keep asking about polygon count and fps are missing the point. With the new systems coming out and the programming that the Warbirds III engine is based on, those things are truly unimportant. They just don't matter.
I'm sorry but I'm not buying it. With vastly improved graphic comes a cost in processing power. Wether that power comes from the cpu or the video processor is mute, the need for processing power is there.
From what I could tell the demo was only run on the machines from iEN. While the specs didn't look all that high, (PIII 500s) I did notice that all the PCs had the new GForce video cards. I'm not sure what the Macs were using but I'm sure it was something simular. That kind of graphics at those resolutions are going to require those generation of video cards. No your Viper 770 ain't gonna cut it.
With several hundred player's computers available not a single one was allowed to load the program and see how it performs on Joe Flight Sim's computer. Or that iEN didn't show it on a PII 400 with a TNT2 so as to say "Look how good our engine is, even on a middle of the road graphics card performance is outstanding". Well it's because it would have taken a significant performance hit.
Aces High has very good graphics, I won't say better or worse that WBIII because I didn't see WBIII personally. However Aces High is starting to really strain my Viper 550 and Celron 300@450. While for the most part my frame rates run 30-45, there are times when it drops well into the teens and lower.
I'm going to have to upgrade my system here soon WBIII or not. If we want all the bells and whistles and eye candy, we're going to have to pay the piper. For those of us that think we can continue to get along with 233 and 4 meg video cards are going to be very disapointed. And those that tell us we will are well....lets just say good salesman (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Pyro, what was the minimum requirements for WB when it hit? As I remember it was 486 with a math coprocessor.
Sharky
[This message has been edited by Sharky (edited 06-26-2000).]
-
IEN... oh yeah them:
They were they people with the toejam servers and the internet connection that screwed my gameplay last year, and sat back and still took my $$$.
They were the people that did not respond to ANY of my emails about connectivity problems.
They are the people that are a subject of a complaint I made to my credit card company because they kept charging my account even after many emails requesting it be closed.
WB III Demo? good luck - I can't even be stuffed downloading it.
Pyro, Hitech, and the gang could have the crappy graphics and I'd still be here. These guys are actually interested in their customers. All IEN want is your credit card number.
-vlkn- in.
-
No edog, it was directed at this whole thread.
I think I see denial in some of the posts or maybe its just optimisim on my part.
The way some AH guys view WB's is the way I view AH.... 'been there done that nothin new'
Sooo... some will get schmoosed some wont.
I was once enthralled with AH and frustrated by WB's. Cancelled my WB account, No problemo. Then 2 months later the dream ended. Some statments from the HTC design team left me cold, went back to WB's, and having a ton 'o' fun ever since. Aces wasnt the sim I was looking for. Too each his own (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I still check out every new release
Any post I make here will be in Jest (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
--------------------------
HEY RIP, how come you keep finding your link to AGW, thought you were gonna lose that sucker?
.....Be more like ninja. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
GentleMen You are more than welcome to discuss pros and con's on games. But be carfull with the IEN bashing please.
HiTech
-
If you guys want answers to your questions just ask.
I was there, I saw, I played for many hours.
What do you want to know in detail?
WB III was there for the public to see, so ask away
-
Brendo, will it have a guncam?
-Westy
-
Chisel, don't know who Ninja is...you asked:
"HEY RIP, how come you keep finding your link to AGW, thought you were gonna lose that sucker?"
It started with an email, a WB friend sent me the thread to something over there...he thought I'd be interested in looking at the display of disparity over there...then I noticed that 1 of the 14 workstations I have here for beta testing still had it bookmarked...I cruise it occasionally when I need something to 'pick me up'... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Brendo, Will WBs3 have:
A flat rate subscription fee?
A mission planner?
Option to turn tracers off?
Any new strat to speak of?
A direct line to the WBs servers?
(no ikernal stuff, dependable connect???)
A terrain editor?
Any useful CM options?
A design group that plays the game daily and communicates directly with the people online
on a daily basis.
These are just a few questions off the top of my head. More later.
Yeager
[This message has been edited by Yeager (edited 06-27-2000).]
-
WBIII Launches September 2000?
Where can I download a playable demo?
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum4/HTML/000311.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum4/HTML/000311.html)
Regards,
Badger
Looking for a different kind of environment to discuss your favorite on-line flight simulator?
http://www.egroups.com/group/flightsimsonline (http://www.egroups.com/group/flightsimsonline)
-
Hi Brendo,
If you guys want answers to your questions just ask. I was there, I saw, I played for many hours. What do you want to know in detail? WB III was there for the public to see, so ask away.
Ok I'll bite.
1. How did it play on an "average computer" say with a voodoo II or TNT 2 chip, with say a 300 Mhz processor?
2. I saw that the 3D cockpits were only place holders, but did they have any functionality? ie could views be customized, what view changing options were there, like panning, padlock, etc.
3. Other than the best job of modeling dirt I've ever seen it seemed that the demo stayed away from the traditional FPS killers like big fluffy clouds, smoke collums, big stands of trees etc. Was there anything in the terrain that normally would spell disaster for FPS that the demo handled well?
4. What kind of new features did the aircraft exibit? ie The drop tanks we've been begging WB for, configurable ammo load outs. What does WBIII do in this area that WBII doesn't other than moveable control surfaces?
5. I understand that the flight models used were the exact same as what WBII is currently using. As you're a big Hog fan, and they had the Corsair available in the demo, did it exibit the same flaws in the flight model as the current WB?
6. Of what I saw of the demo, it seemed to have done nothing other than update graphics. Now concedering the current WB graphics engine, thats a big step, but I guess I was hopeing for more. Did I miss something?
Thanks for you time Brendo,
Sharky
-
Where can I download a playable demo?
Badger - I thought you were above posting what is an obvious troll, since you already know the answer to your question....
edog
-
Edog, Editted, but link supplied with Edogs unappropiate witch hunt: http://agw.dogfighter.com/agw/Forum3/HTML/012735.html (http://agw.dogfighter.com/agw/Forum3/HTML/012735.html)
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 06-27-2000).]
-
Well...ok edog...<Salute>
You're right....as usual.. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
But you have to wonder sometimes who's on the bridge.....I've seen no corrections anywhere to the article....so, maybe it's not a troll and we're going to get a product?
What you think?
-
Hi ripsnort....<Salute>
hehe...I didn't take edog's comments personally or badly. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I know him from another venue and sarcasm is a tool of his academic style, but only used to make some good points.
He was correct about the "bait and switch" message I left here that linked into an OT thread that answered my own question. Indeed, it was a good natured troll and I took his ribbing as good natured as well. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Anyway, if I've been naive about that, it's often the story of my life ......
Regards,
Badger
-
Ok, Sharky:
"1. How did it play on an "average computer" say with a voodoo II or TNT 2 chip, with say a 300 Mhz processor?"
Dunno. But i don't think the machine you use as an example can be considered "average" anymore, at least as far as computer gaming is concerned. In any case, WBIII supposedly will only show graphic detail comensurate with your machine's ability to maintain a certain FPS. I assume this will be "user-configurable". How this will actually work i have no idea. I saw WBIII running at extremely high resolutions and it was absolutely stunning on PIII 550/Geforce machines.
"2. I saw that the 3D cockpits were only place holders, but did they have any functionality? ie could views be customized, what view changing options were there, like panning, padlock, etc."
AFAIK, 3D Cockpits are relatively easy to implement compared to 2D. 3D Cockpits are pannable. "Padlock" has not been discussed, but i doubt such a lame feature will be introduced. As far as "customizable" views go, i dunno either. IMO, "customizable" views such as in AH are pretty lame and i hope WBIII doesn't have them.
"3. Other than the best job of modeling dirt I've ever seen it seemed that the demo stayed away from the traditional FPS killers like big fluffy clouds, smoke collums, big stands of trees etc. Was there anything in the terrain that normally would spell disaster for FPS that the demo handled well?"
I saw weather effects, other than that, see #1 above.
"4. What kind of new features did the aircraft exibit? ie The drop tanks we've been begging WB for, configurable ammo load outs. What does WBIII do in this area that WBII doesn't other than moveable control surfaces?"
AFAIK, WBIII will be WBII with a new engine. So drop tanks(i don't miss them, tho they would be nice for Scenarios and such)and configurable ammo loadouts will most likely come later.
"5. I understand that the flight models used were the exact same as what WBII is currently using. As you're a big Hog fan, and they had the Corsair available in the demo, did it exibit the same flaws in the flight model as the current WB?"
The are "holes" in the Flight Model of any sim. Some prefer WB's FM and others prefer AH's. I like WB's FM and "feeling -of-flight". To say which is more "realistic"("realistic" and Online games used together is kinda funny) is highly subjective and really a matter of "taste". I find F4U's in WB's to be extremely effective when flown in their "historical" theaters. They are overwhelmingly superior to Japanese aircraft. Of course, in Main Arena Furball gameplay, that's another story. Furball/a-historical fantasy matchups entertain some, and eventually bore, most players.
"6. Of what I saw of the demo, it seemed to have done nothing other than update graphics. Now concedering the current WB graphics engine, thats a big step, but I guess I was hopeing for more. Did I miss something?"
You missed seeing it up-close??? WBIII will be WBII with a brand-new engine. This supposedly will make it easier to quickly add features such as Improved FM's, Strat, CM Tools, etc., etc. Who knows. The new WBIII engine will be enough for 90% of the online multi-player customer-base, assuming that iEN goes to a new pricing model as is expected. And, AFAIK, the iLZ thingy will be dropped.
The remaining 10% will be disappointed if they expect "ground-breaking" Strat, etc. upon WBIII's release. These players will more than likely go to AH or WWIIOL if they haven't already.
Cabby
------------------
=44th FS "VAMPIRES"=
"The Jungle Air Force"
Welcome To The Jungle!!!"
[This message has been edited by cabby (edited 06-27-2000).]
-
Rip-
The post of mine that you linked was "harsh", admittedly, but wasn't a troll. As we all can see from his response, your post was misguided and inappropriate. He doesn't need you to defend him. I honestly don't think you could begin to defend anything he says as well as he could.
I tried not to make my comments about what Badger said "personal" in nature, and am happy to see he didn't take them that way......
edog
[This message has been edited by edog (edited 06-27-2000).]